tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN April 14, 2021 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
tension unfolding in two cases around the twin cities, the police officers who shot and killed daunte white has just been arrested and charged. her name is kim potter, and potter says she accidentally grabbed her handgun instead of her taser during this traffic spot. the 26-year veteran officer resigned from the brooklyn center police department, along with the police chief just yesterday. we'll talk about what is next,
but it cannot be ignored ten miles down the road another officer's trial is being conducted. experts being called this afternoon telling the jury that george floyd did not die from suffocation. also this hour, we expect to see the president of the united states making this huge announcement that he plans to end america's longe war and that u.s. troops will be withdrawn from afghanistan before the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks. as soon as we see the president, we'll take it live. but first to brooklyn center, minnesota. officer kim potter has been charged, arrested, booked into jail for the death of daunte wright. the charge of second-degree manslaughter. potter abruptly resigned yesterday, citing, quote, the interests of the community.
meantime protests continue for a third straight night, demonstrators chanting things like "stand up now" and "i believe we can win." there were violent clashes. police made more than 16 arrests. a adrienne broaddus is there for us. given the charge, what could kim potter face? >> brook. she could face up to ten years in prison, not more than ten years, under minnesota state statute, with the second-degree manslaughter charge, it also calls for a $20,000 fine or both. i want to be clear, she's not facing, if convicted, more than ten years behind bars. meanwhile, bca agents arrested her about an hour ago.
she'll be booked in jail about a police department where she spent the majority of her career, coming on the force here in 1995. she resigned yesterday, and on the day that deadly shot was fired that killed daunte wright, she was training a rookie officer. she also worked as a field training officer. when you work as a field training officer, and you train rookie officers, you're typically paired with the new beginning officer to teach them the ropes. nonetheless, members of the community, brooke, are reacting to this second-degree manslaughter charge, saying it's one step, but not enough. they want more serious charges. listen into what ben trumped had to saying? >> they just charged the please woman we continue to fight.
we continue to fight. >> reporter: and that sentiment was echoed here outside the brooklyn police department. many folks citing the case of mohammed knorr. he was a somali-american police officer, who was not only charged with second-degree manslaughter, but also a murder charge, and he was convicted. brooke? explain why hennepin county officials decided to turn it over to the washington county prosecutor? >> reporter: let me break it down for you. brooklyn center is in hennepin county. about a year ago, a new policy was implicated. anytime there's a case involve
deadly force, the case is referred to another jurisdiction. community activists had strong words for the prosecutor. those activists believe that county attorney mike freeman was unable to view the case fairly, because it happened in his jurisdiction. this case with daunte wright happened in mike freeman's jurisdiction, but he will not be the prosecutor plea siding over the case. it was referred out to washington county. that's kind of why it was -- >> perfectly explain. my last question is this -- i know tragedy is bringing together the daunte wright family and george floyd family.
tell me about that. >> reporter: we've heard stories from families here in who have had loved ones die at the hands of police, and those families are now united. they don't want any other family to go through what they have experienced. in their cases, the death of their loved one was documented. there are other families, other victims who died at the hands of police before cell phone cameras existed, before body cameras existed. now they families have each other, even the brother of george floyd. listen in. >> to the wright family, just letting you all know, from the floyd family, you all have our condolences. we will stand in support of you all. it's a shame. the world is traumatized. watching another african-american man being enslaved. police officers are killing us.
add we are being murdered at a rate i could never imagine. >> reporter: brooke? adrienne broaddus, thank you. the second-degree manslaughter charge that the former officer kim potter is facing, i know this is the exact same charge, the lowest of the three charges that derek chauvin is facing down the road in trial. what is your take on this charge for her? >> the key phrase here is culpable negligence. that means that the police officer created an unreasonable risk of gross risks. i'm interested to hear commissioner ramsey's take on that. this is the third charge, the
lowest charge against derek chauvin. prosecutors often start a case by charging the most readily provable, and then at times upgrading a charge from there. that actually happened with desk chauvin in the immediate aftermath. he was charged with this crime and a third-degree murder. a few days down the line, prosecutors upgraded the charges. chief. >> what is your take on this charge? >> well, i mean, one, i'm a little surprised it came so soon, but -- i mean, she did reach -- she says she reached for her taser and she got her firearm. so there's definitely negligence there, no question about that. not being an attorney, it sounds like a reasonable charge. it was unintentional as i can
see. when you hear her yelling, yelling taser, taser. >> yeah. i don't think they can upgrade it, but we'll so. >> does it speak -- because she was shouting taser, still, she killed the man, right? does that speak at all to the intent? does that even matter? >> it's relevant, for sure, but here's the thing that people need to understand. something can be accidental, but also negligent. in other words, as the commissioner said, perhaps she doesn't intend to shoot this person, but if her conduct was so reckless, if she created such as undue risk, that can be charged as a crime. i think that's reflected in the charge we have seen here. >> chief, the situation is you have this police officer, this veteran officer, you know, she's in the line of duty. she discharges her firearm, she accidentally, according to the police chief the other day, accidentally kills someone. how are police officers
protected if something awful like this happens? and since she resigned, would she get those protections from the police union, fraternal order of police? would she get the lawyers? do you know? >> i don't know for sure, but i imagine she will. she was past president of the union, so even if she weren't, i would imagine the union would provide an attorney for her, whether it's a union attorney or a criminal defense lawyer, which would make sense, they would pay for it more than likely. again i don't know what the benefit packages look like, but i wouldn't be at all surprised. as far as her resignation, her resignation alone wouldn't affect her pension, but if convicted, that could in fact affect her pension. >> she's now officially been booked in jail is what i've been told in my ear. ultimately here, black men, boys
and women continued to be killed at the hands of law enforcement in this country. how do we make this stop? >> i think it has to be done in a national level. you have 18 thew ploys departments. you'll never get standardization with 18,000 departments. this is a small department. 49 members, i believe, is the number. whether you're large, small, mid size, it doesn't matter. when you look at hiring, for example. when you look at training in education, when you look at use of force, when you look at having a database for people who are fired for serious misconduct so they can't leave one department and go to another. there are a lot of things that need to be put in place in order to be able to make sure that we're ability to reach all these departments and there's some level of accountability. it's a tough job. these things happen and happen
quickly. mistakes get made, but if a mistakes costs somebody a life, you have to be held accountable. it's a tragedy on a lot of different levels. >> elie, how quickly could this go to trial? >> it took the chauvin case just under a year. i think the prosecutors and judges will understand the need for this to be a top priority. ideally a few months. stand by with me, please. any moment now testimony is said to resume in the murder trial of derek chauvin. we are also watching the white house this afternoon, where president joe biden is set to make a major foreign policy announcement and publicly lay out his goal of withdrawing the last u.s. troops from afghanistan bif
afghanistan by september 11th this year. ♪ the things, you say ♪ ♪ your purple prose just gives you away ♪ ♪ the things, you say you're unbelievable. oh! ♪ applebee's irresist-a-bowls are back. dig in for just $8.99. obsession has many names. this is ours. the lexus is. all in on the sports sedan. lease the 2021 is 300 for $369 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. psoriatic arthritis, made my joints stiff,
swollen, painful. tremfya® is approved to help reduce joint symptoms in adults with active psoriatic arthritis. some patients even felt less fatigued. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tremfya®. emerge tremfyant™. janssen can help you explore cost support options. bipolar depression. it's a dark, lonely place. this is art inspired by real stories of people living with bipolar depression. emptiness. a hopeless struggle. the lows of bipolar depression can disrupt your life and be hard to manage. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms.
latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms, and in clinical studies, had no substantial impact on weight. now i'm feeling connected. empowered. latuda is not for everyone. call your doctor about unusual mood changes, behaviors or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. elderly dementia patients on latuda have an increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, and confusion, as these may be life-threatening, or uncontrollable muscle movements as these may be permanent. these are not all the serious side effects. this is where i want to be. talk to your doctor and ask if latuda could make the difference you've been looking for in your bipolar depression symptoms. - we're thrive cosmetics and our liquid lash you've been looking for extension mascara creates showstopping lashes that won't clump, flake or smudge. 100% vegan, cruelty-free and powered by our high-performance formula. there's a reason this mascara has over 275,000 five-star reviews. come discover why at thrivecosmetics.com
my name is austin james. as a musician living with diabetes, fingersticks can be a real challenge. that's why i use the freestyle libre 14 day system. with a painless, onesecond scan i can check my glucose without fingersticks. now i'm managing my diabetes better and i've lowered my a1c from 8.2 to 6.7. you can do it without fingersticks, too. ask your doctor for a prescription for the freestyle libre 14 day system. and visit freestyle libre.us to try it for free. [sfx: psst psst] for the freestyle libre 14 day system. allergies don't have to be scary. spraying flonase daily stops your body from overreacting to allergens all season long. psst! psst! all good
a sudden cardiac arrythmia, due to his hyper tensive heart disease. you can write that down multiple different ways. during his rye strained by the police. then his significant contribute tore conditions would be, since i've already put the hard disease in part one, he could have the toxicology, fentanyl and methamphetamine. there is exposure to a vehicle exhaust, so potential carb monoxide poison, or at least an effect from increased carbon monoxide in his bloodstream or the other natural process he has. all of those combined to
contribute to his death. >> josh campbell, just listening to this testimony, you know, you have to feel for the jury, right? hearing such different things from these various experts, what stood out to you today? >> reporter: well, it is that distinction from what we're hearing now and the series of witnesses we heard from the prosecution that offered that very damning testimony about the cause of death. of course, those medical experts that the prosecution brought up said it was the actions of the officer, restricting george floyd, having him down on the ground, that ultimately led to his death. this medical expert, a former medical examiner in maryland called by the defense, was saying no it was cardiac arrest, due to heart disease that george floyd had had. so trying to shift the responsibility in that cause of death, which is obviously key in this trial. that's been the focus so far this morning.
now, something else that this witness said which has raised eyebrows, he brought up a contributing factor no majority floyd's death was carbon monoxide from this police suv, where he was held down on the ground. this is just getting to the strategy that we have seen play out here. that is the defense is trying to shift blame away from chauvin onto anything else, onto george floyd's medical condition, onto george floyd as drug used, now foremotor company possibly responsible. interestingly enough, to give some color from inside the courtroom, i got a note from the pool reporter in there, who said when this discussion of carbon monoxide came up, some of the jurors started tapping their pens, one was playing with another water bottle cap. another juror was apparently peeling off fingernail polish. i can tell you, as someone who was on a jury, you take notes to
consult them later in deliberation, so ununclear how much of an effect all these different theories are having. we don't know what their decision will be, but just fascinating this is that strategy, trying to bring up a multitude of different reasons. they're certains going down that road. whether it works we'll have to wait and see. all those highlights and colors, thank you, josh. let's bring of that, eliehoenig, this former chief medical examiner, dr. fowler testified this morning. he has a history of working on
high-profile cases, but the defense is from deprivation of oxygen. out of the gate how would you rate the defense with this witness? >> shaky, i would say, for sure when the judge instructs the jury, he will tell them, it does not mean their testimony is entitled to any more or less credibility than you determine necessary. i think that's really different when it comes to just straight up common sense, chief to you, to that point, this former
medical examiner could have been drug your, could have been hard disease, next to where george floyd was laying prone. e he said floyd's test was apparently just happened to coincide with the exact same time that police were restraining him. what do you make of that? what are the odds of that happening, on may 25th, with his drug uses and large heart, that he would have died at the exact moment in time that he died on the pave. listen, this is going to come down to the jury and the battle of experts, and who they believe, who sounds like the most reasonable, where they're own common sense. they look at the video, and to try to prevent and played no role. it doesn't have to be the sole cause of death, just a
substantial cause of death. i don't know how you have any other concludes. granted he had fentanyl and methamphetamine, but he was foxed to lay on a pavement with a guy with his knee on his neck for 9 minutes, 29 seconds. to me that contributed substantially to his cause of death. >> listen, so many viewers are, i know, watching all of the twists and turns of this trial. elie, when you hear the notes, the color from our reporter in court about the pen tapping and the juror peeling nail polish off his or her finger, they could three they're bored, they're going to throw the book at them. but no. it reminds all of us just to take a little bit of doubt no one juror to say no. >> let's remember, the verdict must be unanimous. to conviction, unanimous to find
not guilty. canned diddley that's a setback for the prosecution, a hung jury. when i tried cases, i was trying to read every move. you don't necessarily know if they're paying attention. but one things building on commissioner ramsey's point, what i want to see the commissioner do is ask this question -- is it your testimony, doctor, if derek chauvin had never touched george floyd that day, george floyd still would have died on may 25th at 8:30 p.m. i want to see how heageses that. president biden will announce his plans to go all the u.s. troops out of afghanistan by this september 11th, 20 years after the terror attack that started, so we'll bring that to
-i'm down. -yes, please. [ chuckles ] don't get me wrong, i love my rv, but insuring it is such a hassle. same with my boat. the insurance bills are through the roof. -[ sighs ] -be cool. i wish i could group my insurance stuff. -[ coughs ] bundle. -the house, the car, the rv. like a cluster. an insurance cluster. -woosah. -[ chuckles ] -i doubt that exists. -it's a bundle! it's a bundle, and it saves you money! hi. i'm flo from progressive, and i couldn't help but overhear... super fun beach day, everybody.
more breaking news as we are standing by for a massive announcement out of this white house. we are about to see the president of the united states stand before the nation and really the world announcing he will be pulling our troops off afghanistan, and it will all happen on september 11th. take a listen. >> i'm speaking to you today from the roosevelt, the treaty room in the white house. the same spot where, on october of 2001, president george w. bush informed our nation that the united states military -- on terrorist trach camps in afghanistan. it was just weeks, just weeks after the terrorist attack on our nation that killed 2,977 innocent souls that turned lower
manhattan into a disaster area, destroyed parts of the pentagon, hallowed ground in shanksville, pennsylvania, and sparked an american promise that we would never forget. we we went to afghanistan in 2001 to root out al qaeda, and -- because it was just our nato allies and partners who rallied beside us. i supported that military action along with the overwhelming majority of the members of congress. more than seven years later, in 2008, weeks before we swore the oath of office, president obama asked me to travel to afghanistan and report back on the state of the war in afghanistan. . i flew to afghanistan to the
kunar valerie, a mountainous, rugged region. what i saw was -- only the afghans have a right. could not create a sustainable government. i believe our presence in afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place, to ensure afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack or homeland again. we did that. we accomplished that objective. i said, among with others, we would follow osama bin laden to the gates of hell, if need be. that's exactly what we did, and we got him. it took us close to ten years to put president obama's commitment into form, and that's exactly what happened. osama bin laden was gone. that was ten years ago. think about that.
we delivered justice to bin laden a decade ago, and we've stayed in afghanistan for a decade since. since then our reasons to remain in afghanistan become increasingly unclear, even as the terrorist threat that we went to fight evolved. over the past 20 years, the threat has become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe. el shabab, al qaeda, al nusra, isis establishing affiliates in multiple countries. with the terror threat now in many places, keeping thousands of troops concentrated in just one at a cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and to our leaders. we cannot continue this cycle of
extending or expanding our military presence in afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result. i'm now the fourth united states president to preside over american troop presence in afghanistan. two republicans, two democrats. i will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth. after consulting closely with our allies and partners, with our military leaders and intelligence personnel, with our diplomats and our development experts, with the congress and the vice president, as well as with mr. gani and many others around the world, i've concluded it's time to end america's longest war. it's time for american troops to come home. when i came to office, i inherited a diplomatic agreement duly negotiated between the government of the united states
and the taliban that all u.s. forces would be out of afghanistan by may 1, 2021. just three months after my inauguration. that's what we inherited. that commitment. it's perhaps not what why have negotiated myself, but it was an agreement made by the united states government. that means something. so, in keeping with that agreement and with our national interests, the united states will begin our final withdrawal, begin it on may 1 of this year. we will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit. we'll do it responsibly, deliberately and safely. we will do it in full coordination with our allies and partners, who now have more forces in afghanistan than we do. the taliban should know, that if they attack us as we draw down, we will defend ourselves and our
partners with all the tools at our disposal. the allies and partners have stood beside us for almost 20 years, and we are deeply grateful for the contributions they have made to our shared mission and for the sacrifices they have borne. the plan has long been in together, out together. u.s. troops as well as forces deployed by our nato allies and operational partners will be out of afghanistan before we mark the 20th anniversary of that heinous attack on september 11th. but we will not take our eye off the terrorist threat. we will reorganize our counter-terrorism capabilities and the substantially assets in the regions to prevent reemergence of terrorism. we'll hold the taliban accountable for its commitment to in and out allow any terrorist to threaten the united
states or its allies from afghan soil. the after gan government has made that commitment to us's well, and we'll focus our full attention on the threat we face today. in my direction, my team is refining our national strategy to disrupt threats anywhere where they may arise, whether in africa, europe, middle east and elsewhere. i spoke yesterday with president bush, to inform him of my decision. while he and i have had many disagreements over policy throughout the years, we're absolutely unite indeed our respect and support to the 1r58or, the courage and integrity of the women and men of the united states armed forces who have served. i'm immensely grateful for the bravery and backphone they have shown through nearly two decades of deployment. we are indebted to them and to
their families. you all know that less than 1% of americans serve in our armed forces. the remaining 99%, we owe them. we owe them. they have never backed down from a single mission we have asked of them. i have witnessed their bravery firsthand during my visits to afghanistan. they have never wavered in their resolve. they have paid a tremendous price on our behalf. and they have the thanks of a grateful nation. while we will not stay involved in afghanistan militarily, our diplomatic and humanitarian work will continue. we'll continue to support the government of afghanistan. we will keep providing assistance to the afghan national defenses and security forces. along with our partners, we have trained and equipped a standing force of over 300,000 afghan personnel today, and hundreds of thousands over the past two
decades. they will continue to fight valiantly on behalf of the afghans at great cost. they'll support peace talks, as we will, support peace talks between the government of afghanistan and the taliban, facilitated by the united nations, and we'll continue to support the rights of afghan women and girls by maintaining significant humanitarian and development assistance. we will ask other countries in the region do to do more to support afghanistan, especially pakistan, as well as russia, china, india and turkey. they always have a significant stake in the stable future for afghanistan. over the next few months, we will also determine what a continued u.s. diplomatic presence in afghanistan will look like, including how we'll ensure the security of our diplomats. i know there are many who will loudly insist that diplomacy cannot success without a robust
u.s. military presence to stand as leverage. we gave that argument a decade. it's never proved effective. not when we had 98,000 troops in afghanistan, not when we were down to a few thousand. our diplomacy does not hinge in having boots in harm's way, u.s. boots on the ground. we have to change that thinking. american troops shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip between warring parties in other countries. you know, that's nothing more than a recipe for keeping american troops in afghanistan indefinitely. i also know there are many who will argue we should stay fighting in afghanistan because withdrawal would damage america's credibility and weaking america's influence in the world. i believe the exact opposite is true. we went to afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. that cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021.
rather than return to war with the taliban, we have to focus on the challenges that are in front of us. we have to track and disrupt terrorist networks and operations that spread far beyond afghanistan since 9/11. we have to shore up american competitiveness to face the stiff competition from an increasingly assured china. we have to make sure the norms that govern cyberthreats and emerging technologies that will face our future you are grounded in our democratic values, not though of autocrats. we have to defeat in pandemic and strengthen global health coms to prepare for the next one, because there will be another pandemic. we will be much more formidable in the long term if we fight the battles for the next 20, not the last 20.
finally, the main argument for staying longer is what each of my three predecessors have grappled with. no one wants to say we should be in afghanistan forever, but they insist now is not the right moment to leave. in 2014, nato issued a declaration affirming that afghan security forces would from that point on have full responsibility for their country's security by the end of that year. that was seven years ago. so when will it be the right moment to leave? one more year? two more years? ten more years? ten, 20, 30 billion more than the trillion we have already spend? not now? that's how we got here. in this moment, there's significant downside risk to saying beyond may 1st without a clear timetable for departure.
if we instead pursue the approach where america -- we have to have clear answers to the following conditions. what conditions are required to allow us to depart this? by what means and how long would it take to achieve them? if they could be achieved at all? at what additional cost of lives and treasure? i've not heard any good answers to these questions. if you can't answer them, in my view, we should not stay. the fact is, later today, i'm going to visit arlington national cemetery section 60. that's a sacred memorial to americans' sacrifice, is where our recent war dead are buried including many of the women and men who died fighting in afghanistan and iraq.
there's no comforting distance in history than section 60. the grief is raw. it's a visceral reminder of a living cost of war. for the past 12 years, ever since i became vice president, i've carried with me a card that reminds me of the exact number of americans troops killed in iraq and afghanistan. that exact number, not an approximation or rounded-off number, because every one of those dead are sacred human beings who left behind entire families, an exact accounting of every single, solitary one needs to be had. as of today, there are 2,488 u.s. troops and personnel who have died in operation enduring freedom and operation freedom's sentinel are our afghanistan
conflicts. 20,722 have been wounded. i'm the first president in 40 years to have a child serving in a war zone. throughout this process, minority star has been remembering what it was like when my late son beau was deployed to iraq, how proud he was to serve his country, how insistent he was to deploy with his unit and the impact it had on him and all of us as home. we have service members doing their duty in afghanistan today whose parents served in the same war. we have service members who are not yet born when our nation was attacked on 9/11. war in afghanistan was never meant to be a multigenerational undertaking. we were attacked. we went to war with clear goals.
we achieved those objectives. bin laden is dead and al qaeda is degraded. it's time to end the forever war. thank you all for listens. may god protect our troops, and may god bless all those families who lost someone in this endid you ever. endeavor. it's time to end this forever war. let's just into analysis with spyder marks with me now. general, first to you on the president's announcement and what do you make of the timing? >> well, as expected, president biden's remarks are incredibly eloquent, personal. i think he does that exceptionally well. the timing clearly is -- if you kind of boar into the details, the timing is concerning in that the taliban has stated emphatically if foreign forces
are not out by may 1, we will attack them and anybody else who is in country. that's a challenge. we certainly have to keep an eye on that. as the president indicated, the departure of forces from afghanistan will not be immediate. it won't be a sudden about-face, let's get on the aircraft and go. there would be a drawdown. the ability to do that requires incredible intelligence exchange, making sure we can pick up the leading indicators of where any of those potential attacks may take place. the timing i think makes sense. i don't know that it's exactly a recommendation i would make. nobody was asking me, but on the anniversary of 9/11, 20 years ago. we now depart with our head rocked back, it was the first home game that the united states had lost since the civil war, in many cases, so i look at that
and realize, look, we cannot be there forever. really three things come to mind. if we're chasing conditions, we will chase to say conditions forever. there's a deep tie because of the numbers we have lost. the third thing that comes to mind is afghanistan remains ungoverned space. you have the taliban, al qaeda, isis. they don't necessarily agree in terms of what conditions need to look like, and clearly the government in kabul still needs to reach to the far corners in order to try to establish some degree of governance over that very ungovernsed space. it probably will remain ungovernsed for the nearest hid -- we still have to have incrediby
strong intelligence collection. and there will be military to military exchanges where we'll have temporary presence in country. so we'll be a presence, but it won't be this enduring long-term presence we've had for two decades. kaitlan, to you. you know, for people who were tuned into cnn, let's say, october of 2001, where this president currently stood in the treaty room, was exactly the same spot that president george w. bush -- here's the screen grab, from october of 2001, announcing those air strikes. we heard the president mention he did speak to president bush yesterday about his decision. can you tell me more about the thinking that went into all of this? >> reporter: well, i think one of the things he tried to highlight is this is not a decision he alone has grappled
with. it's something that multiple presidents have struggled with, and he didn't want to pass that responsibility on to someone else. this was obviously intentional. this isn't a room you obvious see the president speak from, but it seemed like the white house wanted this loop, have that bookend, this is where it started with president bush in 2001, and here is where we are announcing this forever war, the longest-running war from the same backdrop in the treaty room of the white house. he did say he spoke to president bush yesterday. i thought it was notable how he talked about the struggle that other presidents have had, his predecessors have had. even talked about the agreement extra president trump struck with the 258 ban to get troops out by may 1. and while he said he felt like it was important to honor it, that is something you often saw president trump criticized for, backing out of agreepts the u.s.
had signed onto. president biden said he did not want to be a part of that and continue that. but there was also a little veiled criticism of the way his predecessors ended up handling this ultimately. he said none of them wanted to be in afghanistan forever, but he said every time it came to them in the hot seat making the decision, they always decided now is not the right time to go. that seemed to be a hint at what some of his pentagon advisers have been telling him. he is overruling some of the national security advisers. >> what about the taliban, isis. he said, if isis attacks us we will defend ourselves with all the tools at our disposal. once the final troops are out, september of this year, nic, what condition is the u.s. leaving afghanistan in? >> reporter: yeah, it's not correct to call parts of afghanistan ungovernable, they
are being governed by the taliban, the insurgency. that's what's occurring in much of afghanistan already, except for kabul, and that will continue to worsen for afghans. a couple of interesting things, though, in the details of what joe biden said. he talked about how they're going to begin leaving on may 1st. the taliban have said very clearly the u.s. has 16 days for a full withdrawal and then they might think about joining peace talks. and biden was very clear to say if they are attacked or their allies or partners are attacked during that withdrawal, then they'll strike back. it potentially provides a month's long period where the u.s. could hit taliban targets under the premise of this particular scheme as well. kaitlan also pointed out the sort of way he threw a lot of decision-making back towards president trump saying he wouldn't necessarily have done it this way himself. but i have to say i was broadly
struck at a man who's lived this entire experience. he pointed out the salient fact so many people forget when they talk about u.s. troops serving here. the 1% of americans have been involved in these wars and the other 99% most often have opinions about what should occur next. he's seen himself the sacrifices, clearly feels deeply what americans have left behind here, lives, limbs, vast years of their lives. and those americans, they, too, listening to that speech will be feeling it heartfelt, quite what the sacrifice has left. you asked me about taliban, isis, al qaeda. the taliban is doing well. they may or may not go to peace talks. most think they probably do need some sort of negotiated settlement to keep international aid flooding in. isis has been degraded. the main reason we came here in the first place, the u.s. came here, al qaeda. the u.s. treasury assessment just in january said they were growing in strength because they were cooperating with the
taliban. they haven't been removed. they are still here. counterterrorism operations have massively changed. it is entirely possible that within the fine print of talking about the possibility of security for the u.s. diplomatic presence here, and just how counterterrorism works now with local partners and drones and surveillance, that the u.s. could continue to hunt them whilst not having 2,500 troops here. i genuinely felt listening to that speech it was courage brought from experience, from seeing this war over many, many years, and also possibly the courage to know when to say stop, almost went to quit, if you like, because there is some degree of correctness in what he was saying. that u.s. have tried, frankly, everything here. they've tried invading, they tried a surge, they tried drawing down the surge, sticking to counterterrorism, negotiation, and the only real thing left it seems is to leave and see what that does to this ongoing conflict here. it doesn't stop because america goes. it just develops a new chapter, brooke. that's important to remember for afghans. >> i appreciate all of that, all of the reporting, all of the
context. there you are, the evening, in kabul, in afghanistan. nick paton walsh, thank you. general, thank you, and kaitlan, thank you. we will look for the president to appear as he said, sacred memorial, section 60 of arlington national cemetery later this afternoon. i want to get everyone back to the trial of derek chauvin. the prosecution is now cross-examining this expert who claimed carbon monoxide contributed to george floyd's death. let's listen. >> he says, here, you see this. the street depths are much more different than controlled investigations. do you see that? >> yes. >> so does having seen this affidavit from dr. ray change your opinion as to whether he had retracted his opinion of concerns about positional -- the prone position as relates to positional asphyxia?
>> so, it appears he hasn't completely withdrawn his position. he does go into some additional description, which is the paragraph above, which you did not -- >> you answered my question. and if there are other things that ed they would like to bring up, they'll have an opportunity to. thank you. and to be clear for the jury as a forensic pathologist, you don't treat patients? >> correct.
>> we have heard from a pulmonologist, who is also a respiratory physiologist. you're not a pulmonologist or respiratory physiologist, true? >> that is true. >> so you never measured anybody's respiration, that is, their breathing, as a part of your work as a forensic pathologist? >> no, i have not. you're not a card oliologist, obviously? >> no. >> just by way of -- just a couple of background things. you told us a good bit about your background, but year was it that you arrived in the united states? >> i believe it was 1991. >> and what year did you retire? >> december 31, 2019.
>> you told us quite a bit about the forensic panel. and you're employed as a consultant by the forensic panel, is that a fair assessment? >> yes. >> to be clear for the jurors, so they're not confused, the forensic panel is not a nonprofit s it? >> no, it's not a nonprofit. at least to the best of my ability, i don't know what they're classified as, frankly. i do not know. >>, so through the forensic panel you earn a livelihood, so it's not volunteer time for you, is it? >> no. i get compensated by the hour. >> and the forensic panel is not a governmental body? >> correct. it's an independent organization. >> it's a business? >> it's a medical/forensic science practice, which it is a
business. >> it's a business. >> yeah. i want to talk with you a bit about asphyxiaal, death caused by low oxygen. do you agree, dr. fowler, that positional asphyxia is placing a person into a position that restricts their ability to ventilate their lungs or a position where the thaed may be in such a position that you can't keep the airways open? >> that is correct, yes. >> and then at the end of the day, in positional asphyxia, what gets restricted is a person's ability to oxygenate their blood because of the position they're in, is that correct? >> that is correct, yes.
one is to move your ribs and other is to be able to move your diapram, is that correct? >> yes. >> if you can't expand your chest, you can't breathe? >> that's correct. you need to expand the capacity of the chest cavity so the lungs draw air in as part of the process. >> i would like to focus with you for a moment on the first, roughly, five minutes that mr. floyd was under -- on the ground as part of the restraint under mr. chauvin. did you analyze where mr. chauvin's knees were relative to the positioning of mr. floyd's body in that first five minutes? >> i did review the positioning,
yes. >> would you agree with me that for over half of that time period, mr. chauvin's left knee was on the neck and his right knee is at times on the back and at other times on his left arm or pushed in against his left side? >> that is correct. those are all the positions that i observed the knee to be in, the right knee, during that period of time. >> and so mr. floyd then is sandwiched, in a way, between mr. chauvin on top and the asphalt pavement beneath him, right? >> yes. >> it's a yes or no question. >> yes.