attorney, top official chuck rosenberg. chuck, what is your take on how big a deal this is? it's a big deal, andrea, to put it into technical terms. it's a big deal when the justice department gets a search warrant based on probable cause to search any lawyer's office. but remember, mr. juli is not any lawyer. he was the president's personal lawyer. and so when they go to a federal judge and seek permission, they have to convince that judge, they have to convince her that they believe the crime has been committed and that they're going to find evidence of that crime in the place where they're looking. and that has to be reasonably fresh. that means probable cause. the standard has to be updated. and they have to believe the stuff is there now. that's all very compelling and very interesting. and somewhat unusual. >> so when you say reasonably fresh, are we talking about within the time frame of the biden administration or could this actually go back to when donald trump was president? >> that's a great question. the evidence could go back to when mr. trump was president. wha

and chuck rosenberg, i'm curious here.attorney general i think a lot of people were hoping that you want to have someone there who when he makes tough decisions like this he's seen as less of a political actor than preefrs attorneys general that we've had over the last few presidencies, no matter -- i think many of them have tried to act in the job first but having a former judge there i think wants to take even -- create even more space. so walk us through the process, chuck, if you will, of his involvement in basically giving the go-ahead for this search warrant. >> sure. so if a prosecutor in the field, an assistant u.s. attorney, in this case in the southern district of new york, wants to apply for a search warrant to get information related to a lawyer connected to the lawyer's practice of law, right? then that's a big deal. as it should be. because you might be impinging on an attorney-client relationship and privileged communications. so what do you do? in that case the u.s. attorney's office would not have the auth

but the judge is going to let the jury see it. >> chuck rosenberg, what did you think of the defense attorney's decision to try to help the witness hear what they may not have heard? >> right. so an interesting thing about cross-examination, chuck, it is absolutely appropriate to do something on cross-examination that you're not supposed to do on direct-examination. on direct-examination, you ask open ended questions. who, why, what, when, where? what did do you next? what did you see or hear? on cross-examination, to your question, chuck, absolutely appropriate for the defense attorney to lead the witness. did you hear him say x? do you agree with the following proposition? you can ask those leading questions and are perfectly admissible. so even if the witness didn't quite hear what the defense attorney thought mr. floyd said or that somebody said in that video clip, the leading nature of the questions are an appropriate tactic on cross-examination for a defense attorney. perfectly okay to try it. it doesn't mean the witness have to agree with you but perfectly okay to try it. >> sh

let's go first to chuck rosenberg. how did he do? how has the prosecution done as they are getting ready to finish their case today? >> i thought he did exceptionally well. he said there was, and i quote, absolutely no evidence of heart damage. one interesting thing for your viewers perhaps, andrea, when it comes to witnesses, the prosecution does not pick the witnesses who are bystanders. if a bank is robbed, the tellers are witnesses or the people on the street corner who see the getaway car are witnesses. the prosecution is stuck with them for lack of a better word. those are the people who saw the event. they are called to testify. when it comes to experts like dr. rich, the prosecution can go anywhere and find anyone. in this case, they went to northwestern medical in chicago. they found a cardiologist who is smart, credible, experienced and articulate. you saw all of that when he was on the-- expert witnesses like that can be important. they are hired, sometimes they work for free, but they are often hired by one side or the ot

stoddard, chuck rosenberg, much obliged. thank you all for starting us off tonight. >>> coming up, another highly emotional day inside the minneapolis courthouse where derek chauvin stands trial prosecutors play new video of george floyd moments before his death. >>> and later, will companies do what government can't? how two of georgia's biggest corporations, two of the best known brand names in the world are weighing in on voter suppression. "the 11th hour" is just getting under way on this wednesday night. see every delivery... every yikes... and even every awwwwwwww... wait, where was i? introducing self protection from xfinity. designed to put you in control. with real-time notifications and a week of uninterrupted recording. all powered by reliable, secure wifi from xfinity. gotta respect his determination. it's easy and affordable to get started. get self protection for $10 a month. >>> are you standing there with your hands on your head for a while, correct >> correct >> what was going through your head during that t

attorney chuck rosenberg. chuck is also an msnbc contributor.an, what's the feeling like in minneapolis right now as we await closing arguments and a verdict sometime after that? >> reporter: well, katy, i can tell you it's certainly a community on edge. obviously from the event we see saw in brooklyn center. but people are awaiting the verdict. and so next week is critically important for both the defense and the prosecution. on monday when they deliver these closing arguments, this is their last opportunity to plead their case, to try and sew together all the evidence they've presented over the last three weeks and to try one last time to convince the jury. when you think about it, there's only two times that the attorneys can actually have a conversation with the jury, of course, in opening statements and in closing arguments. then, of course, as you mentioned, today, as a matter of fact, obviously court is not in session, but the prosecution and the defense, they are submitting to the judge how they want the instructions to be read, the diff

joining me now is chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official and michael steele, former rnc chairman. and chuck, i want to go on this first. it's not as if rudy giuliani is completely, you know, untutor in these things. he used to be a federal prosecutor himself. so he knows good and well how you get a warrant to do a search, you know, how you get a search warrant. what do you make of his pretense that what the fbi should have done was allow him to tell them what they could take, leave his icloud alone, and he would say, this is the stuff you need to take. take these laptops that are hunter biden's or whatever? >> yeah, complete nonsense, joy. so let me tell your viewers how it actually works, in case they want to credit anything mr. giuliani says. by the way, they should not. you noted that a federal judge determines whether there's probable cause that a crime has been committed and whether you're going to find the stuff that you're looking for in the place that you're going to search. that's it. when mr. giulia

. >>> i want to turn toe chuck rosenberg, a former u.s.lso senior fbi official and he is also an msnbc contributor. always good to have your perspective. we have this judge now considering releasing this video of the shooting to the public. what do you expect from that? what issues is this judge going to be considering? >> i think about it in three ways, craig. first, the district attorney, the prosecutors are right that it makes more sense for investigators to talk to witnesses and to have their independent recollection before a video is released. i would rather, whether i'm talking to a witness, that i have her account of what happened but not her account influenced by anything that she may see from the release of a video. even if she was in it. i would rather talk to her first. second, i think about the family. the most important thing we do in law enforcement is work with victims and with their families. even if this is not released publically, i don't see any reason why the family can't see the entire video. even if it's blurry, even

we have with us chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney. this has been a difficult afternoon, as you heard. the community and members of the press questioning there the mayor of the town as well as the police chief. we have two things we want to underscore. at this press conference, they released body camera footage from the officer -- one of the officers involved in this incident. the police chief said it was his decision to release this body camera footage. we are going to show you a little bit of it. we want to warn you, it's quite graphic. we will show you this and we will show you how the police chief explained what you are able to see in the video. again, take a look at this. warning, it is graphic. >> i'll tase you. [ bleep ]. >> i just shot him. >> a very troubling scene there, daunte wright, in his car. here is how the police chief explained what you just saw on that video. watch. >> as i watched the video and listened to the officer's commands, it's my belief the officer had the attention to deploy their taser but instead shot mr.

. >> you know, alex, our friend and colleague chuck rosenberg made this parallel to michael cohen and it's a aptd one that michael cohen was known in 2016 for saying i'd take a bullet for the guy and cooperated in two federal investigations into him and now currently that we know of cooperating in two more in the state of new york and the manhattan district attorney. when one flips one tends to flip hard. >> yeah. that's a lesson of the trump era is henchmen don't always stay henchmen why if you learned anything from the trump era don't rely -- on the same sort of underworld mafia characters are not going to save your hide when the rubber meets the road and that is unfortunately a lesson that matt gaetz seemed not to have learned and allowed this man to procure potentially minors violating laws and then did so be impunity and no thought what if things go south is all you really need to know about the game at play here. we have witnessed what happens when one of the cronies flips and it is an ugly thing. and here you have a congress person who seems to have basically replicated some of

chuck rosenberg has been watching along with us. hrough what, in your view, is the most significant thing that the prosecution gained from his testimony. >> yeah, absolutely, nicole. look, this testimony was choppy, and it was stilted. this is not the chattiest witness i've ever seen in my life, but the prosecution got one thing that it needed, and the one thing it got that it needed is something you can also use in closing argument. that one thing is that at some point, the force that was applied by officer chauvin to george floyd was unreasonable. and here's how you use it later. it's really simple. everything else that you just saw was noise. it's really simple. in closing argument, you tell the jury, ladies and gentlemen, the one thing you do not need to surrender when you deliberate this case is your common sense. in fact, the judge will tell you to apply your common sense. so what does your common sense tell you? mr. floyd was on the ground. mr. floyd was in handcuffs. in fact, he wasn't just in handcuffs. he was handcuffed beh

. >> joined by paul butler andreychuk rosenberg. chuck, first you. there is a lot of talk about you today and what you are hearing about the jurors reaction to all of this. >> we are still waiting on the full report, but you can tell that witnesses are digging in on the use of force, trying to show that the use of force was not justified, trained or according to the policy. that's what you are hearing from the two officers who have taken the stand so far. what was key was when this lieutenant was asked if a subject is under control in handcuffs, would that neck restraint be authorized. he said no. one thing to know hearing from the two officers today, the judge has made clear he doesn't want these officers to give their opinion on what happened with george floyd, the exact instance with derek chauvin and his use of force. he wants this testimony to be restricted to exactly what is trained to officers and whether or not derek chauvin was in that training. so you will see less specificity with these two witnesses and that's intentional because the judg

attorney now an nbc news law enforcement analyst, chuck rosenberg is with us this morning.put the defendant on the stand? i mean -- and were you expecting this? was this a surprise or did you think this was the most prudent move for the defense? >> joe, the conventional wisdom was that this person would not take the stand precisely because it was great risk. jurors like to hear from the person who is on trial, but if chauvin had taken the stand, he risked being destroyed on cross-examination. prosecutors would have taken him through every second of that 9 minute and 29 second video and he might have opened the door to the juror hearing about the many complaints that citizens have filed against him in other cases. >> chuck, are juries more or less likely to convict a defendant because they refuse to testify? >> you know, i don't know that they're more or less likely. they're instructed, joe, by the judge that mr. chauvin, like all defendants, has a fifth amendment right, an absolute privilege not to testify. and they're told to ignore that. and so for what it's worth, i prob

. >> joining me now is shaq in minneapolis, "boston globe" opinion writer, kimberly atkins, chuck rosenberg and paul butler. welcome all. shaq, the reporters in the courtroom, the pool, about the testimony for tomorrow and how the jury is reacting to all of this? >> you got a sense from the two reporters allowed in the room as miss ross was testifying, she really connected with the jurors. she explained how floyd was a security guard and when he saw she was in distress, he came up and prayed with her. and she told about how the pain led to opioid addiction. she said that is a classic american story. she helped humanize george floyd but also opened the door for the defense to talk about their point, that drugs were a contributing factor to his death, he talked about what kind of pills he had and what they would do together and you heard cross-examination ask about that and dig down on the factor. we also learned that the prosecution expect to call the minneapolis police chief to the stand tomorrow. we knew that would be somebody testifying. they teased that in some of their opening statement

joining me now is nbc correspondent, gabe gutierrez, and former fbi official, chuck rosenberg, and retired seattle police chief, carmen best, and the president of the national action network and host at msnbc's "politics nation," reverend al sharpton. everybody, welcome. chuck, i would like to begin with you and those comments from the president. could the defense argue that they are as -- i guess, are they as intrusive for the jury as maxine waters comments, and can these be used against the results of this trial? >> yeah, let me tell you, katy, i think about this in a couple different ways. first as a former prosecutor, i don't want any noise happening while my jury is out deliberating, because anything that could possibly invade upon the province of the jury is a bad thing from a prosecutor's perspective. that said, i don't think that anything that congresswoman waters or president biden said gives rise to a meritorious issue. there's a huge gap between an issue they created and so the defense is free to raise this, but unless it can show it infected the jury, that the jury ignored the

. >> i am joined now by joyce vance and chuck rosenberg, all of the legals here. he was in the room when president biden called the family. he was taping an interview for "dateline." he heard the call and reaction. the president said he wasn't going to say anything about it because it was a private call, but since the jury is sequestered, he thought it was okay to comment about it. >> i want to play the sound of the brother of george floyd from this morning on the "today" show who shared a little bit of that call. it was a call president biden said he was not going to publicize. but listen to a little bit of what we heard from george floyd's brother. >> he called. he knows what it is like to lose a family member and knew the process we were going through. he was praying for us and hoping everything will come out to be okay. >> the president also said he waited to make that call until the jury was sequestered. we know the jury is now sequestered as they are in their deliberations. we know very little about what's happening behind the scenes. the court says they wil

police chief that i mentioned "new york times" as quoting, carmen best, one of the leads, and chuck rosenberg, former fbi official and prosecutor and civil rights attorney david henderson. welcome to all of you. chuck, what did you think of those often pivotal closing arguments? >> i thought the state did a nice job of synthesizing their evidence, telling the jurors that the single most important thing they can do here which is what i used to tell jurors is to apply their common sense, to take the facts that they saw in the courtroom and apply their common sense. look, this is not that hard a case in many ways because we all looked at the same video, we were all appalled. once you are convinced as i am that the cause of death was a knee on the neck, everything else falls into place. so i think this jury gets it. i found at some point all of the arguments today got a little tedious, maybe that's because i grew up in the eastern district of virginia, also known as the rocket docket where arguments are always strictly limited and cases move very, very quickly. that's simply the way i was trained

we have chuck rosenberg, a former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official and eddie glaud, both msnbc contributors. chuck, we will start with you. we know derek chauvin has decided to invoke his fifth amendment privilege. he will not testify. here is part of how that transpired this morning. we will talk about it on the other side. >> is this your decision not to testify? >> it is, your honor. >> all right. do you have any questions about your right to remain silent or to testify on your own behalf? >> not at this time i don't. >> did anyone promise anything or threatened you to keep you from testified? >> no promises or threats, your honor. >> do you feel your decision not to testify is a voluntary one on your behalf? >> yes, it is. >> what do you make of the choice? clearly, he doesn't want to open himself up to the prosecution. the jury undoubtedly wants what he left his knee on mr. floyd's knee. >> the jury does want to hear from him. former officer chauvin has a right not to testify. what you saw there -- you played an i

back with us tonight, carmen best, former police chief in the city of seattle, and chuck rosenberg, aartment veteran, former u.s. attorney, former senior fbi official who is better known around these parts as host of the msnbc podcast "the oath." chuck, i would like to begin with you. turns out it wasn't a tailpipe or fentanyl or heart disease that killed george floyd. turns out a police officer killed george floyd in just the manner we suspected over nine minutes and 29 seconds of gruesome video. i would love your thoughts on the outcome, and let's hear it, please, for the prosecution. public servants all. >> public servants all. derek chauvin murdered george floyd. that's what the prosecution said it would prove in its opening statement. it told the jury precisely what they would hear and what they would see, and then it delivered. its presentation -- and i'm biased to prosecutors because i spent a lot of time as one, brian. but its presentation was logical. it was linear. it was compelling, and it was thorough. and when the attorney general in the clip you just played turned around

floyd more responsibly than chauvin did. >> chuck rosenberg, the prosecution seemed to go out of their way to make clear that this was not a case against the police as a group or even more than one officer. simply against the conduct of derek chauvin. let me play some of that. we'll talk about it on the other side. >> it may be hard for any of you to imagine a police officer doing something like this. imagining a police officer committing a crime might be the most difficult thing you have to set aside, because that's just not the way we think of police officers. we trust the police. we trust the police to help us. we believe the police are going to respond to our call for help. we believe they're going to listen to us. this case is called the state of minnesota versus derek chauvin. this case is not called the state of minnesota vs. the police. he betrayed the badge and everything it stood for. it's not how they're trained. it's not following the rules. this is not an anti-police prosecution. it's a pro-police prosecution. >> he made those arguments today, but he showed that part of th

chuck rosenberg, thank you so much. >>> "the beat" with ari melber starts right now. >> i want to welcome everyone to "the beat." we have the latest on joe biden's very first cabinet meeting as president. and later tonight, if you watch "the beat," you know we have been working on this. our special civil rights panel 53 years after mlk's assassination. but we begin with breaking news. this was, as nicole was just reporting, the fourth day of the chauvin trial wrapping up. chauvin's police supervisor testifying just moments ago he should have stopped using restraint. the officers should have when floyd was no longer showing any resistance. >> when mr. floyd was no longer offering up any resistance to the officers, they could have ended their restraint. >> that is a significant, albeit simple moment in the trial. sometimes what's simple is important because the jury can understand it and remember it. you have the actual police supervisor for the murder defendant condemning the officer, the defendant, on the stand. this came after paramedics testified that floyd seemed to be dead when they a

chuck rosenberg said that's why you would prefer to issue search warrants as quickly as possible, because targets of investigations can delete records. but it's a lot harder to delete things from devices than most people realize. things are stored in the cloud, and it's possible the fbi already knows what they're seeking and they're just going for the devices to sort of confirm and get another copy of the documents. e-mails are sent to other recipients, they are backed up on the cloud. the fbi has the ability to gather up all that information. but it's absolutely a concern. there was a delay here. our colleague tom winter has reported that the fbi had been seeking the search warrant for a long time and it wasn't granted. i've seen things out there that they were concerned in the fall that it was too close to the election. they didn't want to take consequential action that could affect an election. but the bottom line here is a judge obviously approved this warrant, and the investigation is going forward in a new phase, katy. >> cynthia, the fact he used to be part of this office, how comp

chuck rosenberg, former nbc legal analyst and dodge official tells us these kinds of searches like giulianiproval from a main justice before they even went to the judge to ask. joining me now is nbc legal analyst joyce vance, former u.s. attorney herself with the northern district of alabama. joyce, let me start with this, as a former u.s. attorney, would you expect some deference if you were potentially under investigation from the justice department, meaning that you would assume justice isn't going to move on you as a former official unless they dotted every i and crossed every t? >> i think that's absolutely correct, chuck. even in not a politically involved case where you're seeking to search an attorney's office and there's an attorney/client relationship, these search warrants are reviewed in main justice. in a case like this, every effort would be made, particularly with a new administration where there's not a confirmed assistant attorney general for the criminal division. i wouldn't at all be surprised if the deputy attorney general had reviewed this application and affidavit to j

. >> chuck rosenberg, always great to have you and your expert analysis with us.l hill behind me, you have house speaker nancy pelosi ready to hit that microphone you see on your screen, speaking with reporters for first time since president biden's address to the nation. we're going to bring you any news from that live as it happens. on the hill, formal talks on police reform start today. we've got details, new details, on that bipartisan meeting happening in a matter of hours, next. ening in a matter of hours next th type 2 diabetes are waking up to what's possible with rybelsus®. ♪ you are my sunshine ♪ ♪ my only sunshine... ♪ rybelsus® works differently than any other diabetes pill to lower blood sugar in all 3 of these ways... increases insulin... decreases sugar... and slows food. the majority of people taking rybelsus® lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7. people taking rybelsus® lost up to 8 pounds. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary

i want to dig deeper into all of this and bring in chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official and ken vogel. he co-wrote the article for "the new york times." ken, people might not remember ambassador yovanovitch and why she was targeted by then president donald trump. can you explain how her investigation fits into the federal investigation? >> yes, stephanie, ambassador marie yovanovitch was a career diplomat stationed in the ukraine from the u.s., and she was prosecuting -- prosecuting in a colloquial way this anti-corruption agenda. ukraine is a country that is plagued by public corruption. as a result of that work, she came into the crosshairs of some of the ukrainians who came to work with rudy giuliani in his effort to collect dirt on the bidens and get them to announce, the ukraine government, investigations into biden. so the ukrainians saw her as an impediment to some of the things they wanted done. she was simultaneously an impediment to rudy giuliani, some of the things he wanted done to help president trump. so their interests alig

in their investigative efforts as suggested by former dea administrator and fbi chief of staff chuck rosenberg. attorney general barr said recently in reference to his role and lead prosecutor in the 1995 oklahoma city bombing case quote, i have a chance to lead a department that needs to fight against domestic violence extremists so that the tragedy we had in oklahoma doesn't occur unquote we on the sub 20 want to help the department of justice in this fight issue that we welcome executive assistant director jill sanborn leads the fbi and the national security branch and she is a veteran of the efforts to deal with terrorism at home and abroad and was the first woman to lead the fbi counterterrorism directorate. deputy assistant attorney general brad represents the national security division which was established in 2006 and consolidate the apartments primary national operation and to ensure that federal counter intelligence and counterterrorism activities do not violate the law. today, so that we are all on the same page in describing the musick terrorism we will use the definition the fbi p

threats and our new reality in their investigative efforts as suggested by fbi chief of staff chuck rosenberg. attorney general garland said recently in reference to his role as lead prosecutor in the 1995 oklahoma city bombing case, "i have a chance to lead a department that leads the fight against domestic violent extremists so that the kind of tragedy we had in oklahoma city does not occur." we on this subcommittee want to help the attorney general and department of justice in this fight. we welcome to senior leaders in the department of justice. executive assistant director jill leads the fbi national security branch and she is a veteran of the efforts to deal with terrorism at home and abroad and was the first woman to lead the fbi tech -- counterterrorism directory. deputy assistant attorney general brad wakeman represents the division to consolidate the departments primary national scaredy operations and assure counterintelligence and counterterrorism entity do not -- the law. we will use the definition the fbi provided in a july 2020 report to the subcommittee which describes domestic

. >>> let's bring in megan fitzgerald, live for us in minneapolis and chuck rosenberg. what does a jury think a person who doesn't call the top a top? >>. >> not much, nicolle. you don't need an expert to tell the jury what the top is. so mr. broad's failure to concede something obvious undermines his credibility. experts witnesses senior chosen because they have a point of view that agrees with that side of the case. you can lose your credibility if you refuse to concede obvious points. i don't think mr. broad helped himself or the defense's case by refusing to tell the jury that the top is the top. once you do that, it's a slippery slope. if i were a juror in that case, i'm not sure i would be inclined to listen to much else of what he had to say. moreover, in closing argument, the prosecution can show a bit of incredulity. this is a guy who didn't agree that officer chauvin was on top of mr. floyd. ignore him, look at the video and trust your common sense. >> megan, maybe i'm scarred from the politics i've covered for the last four years, but it seems a sign the desp

. >> joyce vance, i'm reminded of something that you and chuck rosenberg reminded us in many contexts but especially watching a jury trial that some point jurors will be asked not to abandon common sense and if you build on the testimony of the law enforcement official who was chauvin's supervision, you have the chief, there's no testimony that comes close to suggesting that anything chauvin did was within department policy. is that still what you think the defense will argue? >> we're still in the prosecution's case so it's important to remember that we haven't heard the defense really try to make headway yet. we heard a little bit in opening statements but not much. the argument that's going on here is a question about whether or not the homicide was justified under police policy and it also feeds into the prosecution's proof that at some point this officer went beyond doing his job and was reckless about the life of george floyd and ended up taking his life. one of the things the prosecution will have to prove to sustain some of the charges, what the defense really is going to do,

. >> rev, chuck rosenberg says this every time he joins us that what jurors are asked to do is to bring along with them their common sense and it seems that as i think shaq put so perfectly, this was ball game for the defense. this was where they were hoping to sow the seeds of doubt. this medical examiner made clear without a knee on the neck the other conditions likely would not have led to death that day. >> we were playing basketball and there i think the defense took three shot and missed the basket. because the prosecutor laid out a case that at the very end in the redirect the medical examiner said explicitly top line was homicide caused by compression. i said it then. i said it now. and i say it now. i think the reason that is important and the reason i'm saying they missed the basket to the three shooter in is because they needed him to say that the contributing factors were the factors that led to the death. you don't have to prove that it was the only factor. but it was the lead factor, if it was a factor had he not been there the contributing factors may not have caused the

. >> now, chuck rosenberg, i feel like these comments may land like body blows about the department youfacing behavior, who meddled in the stone and flynn cases in a manner that so repelled career justice department -- what was he doing behind the scenes? what questions do you have, based on today's report? >> yeah, one obvious question is whether prosecutors in the southern district of new york, nicolle, were really being interfered with at a political level in a political way from the leadership of the department of justice, right? you mentioned flynn and stone. i think those are really important analogs. when big barr interfered in those cases, we heard loud and clear from the men and women in the field about what was happening, and why it was unacceptable. we haven't quite heard that out of the southern district of new york. we know there was some, i guess, hostility between the former u.s. attorney jeffrey berman, who has a very good reputation and the political leadership of the department, but no recent ig nations, letters, filings that indicated that the southern district of new

. >> joined by paul butler andreychuk rosenberg. chuck, first you.y and what you are hearing about the jurors reaction to all of this. >> we are still waiting on the full report, but you can tell that witnesses are digging in on the use of force, trying to show that the use of force was not justified, trained or according to the policy. that's what you are hearing from the two officers who have taken