Bullies with way through on this, and the information i have, its going to be just a a train wreck upon a train wreck at election or after election time. How do you count the votes, how do you make sure that there is a fair and square election . Were were heading into another chapter, chapter 73 of trump world and were just going to have to watch it day by day, hour by hour. You spoke with the president , i believe, 19 times, for this book. How did it come about . And how did he agree to talk with you . Well, i did a book in 2018 fear, on his first two years, and he did not cooperate. I tried to talk to him. He regretted that he, of course, denounced the book. Said i was a democratic operative. Some people close to him said, oh, by the way, the book is true, and so the president , when i wanted to do the second book, said he would cooperate. I went into the oval office, put my little tape recorder down op the resolute desk and said its all on the record. Im going to record it all, and the book will come out in september or october before the election, and so he i talked to him for 9 hours and 41 minutes. He would call me at home at 10 00 or on the weekends, or i could call. I had a number where i could contact him. So its i guess what i would call a total universe portrait of his thinking about his job, the central issue of the virus, race relations, the economy, the supreme court. We were able to go down every avenue of america. I mean, its really a look at him and he allowed me to push him and come back to questions, and i suspect hes not very happy now, but thats what he said, and thats what i was able to find out from my other reporting. What role did senator Lindsey Graham have in the president speaking to you . Apparently, he told the president , look, he wont put words in your mouth. Youll get a straight shot. Last week the president said, hey, i said some great things in those interviews, and on the book, in the book, i let him have his say entirely. So its its as close, i believe, having done this now for 50 years, that you can ever come to, as an outsider, what was really going on in the white house and the administration on every matter of importance. This is your 20th book, mr. Woodward. How do you know when these former officials are ready to talk . Well, you just keep the old way used to be, go to their homes and knock on the door at night, with the virus you cant do it. So you use the telephone as your entree, and people are home at night, and you can get them on the phone sometimes. Sometimes for extended periods of time. Sometimes for a very, very long interview. Central lesson for me is, people like to talk. Thank god. I think that people are out there no matter what their politics, they are secret sharers in believer, as believers in the first amendment. We want to invite viewers to join in on the conversation. If youre supporting joe biden, and senator harris dial in 2027488000. Supporting President Trump and Vice President pence, 2022488001. Undecided, 2027488002. Mr. Woodward you write in the book in your authors note that evelyn duffy insisted everyone in this book get the fairest truth possible including President Trump and kept her eyes on that prize and worked tirelessly to see it fulfilled. Steve riley insists or verification. Tell us about this process. Theyre my two assistants too, and they were willing to come to my house and work in their offices on my third floor. I have an office on that floor. My wife elsa walsh has an office in the tower. We were a team working together, wearing masks, being as careful as we could, exchanging drafts. Doing transcripts of all of the interviews with trump and with everyone else. Elsa, we didnt have to wear a mask with each other, and we lived our lives, but we lived in that bubble of trump world for ten weeks, for both elsa and myself, and extraordinary time, because we could get not only to trump but we could get to other people in the white house, cabinet officers, people close to the president. Sofia up first in the bronx supporting the former Vice President. Youre on the air with mr. Woodward. Caller thank you. Thank you, mr. Woodward. Are you there . Yes. I am. Caller okay. Hello . Caller first i want to say this 50 years the job youve done. This one, you must get a nobel prize, because if you did not record him, he would have denied. Sir, i voted for him. Im one of the deplorable. I see now the last three weeks, he had all the people, my peo e people he dont feel anything for them. He dont feel anything for us. Even though he admitted to you, sir, in the interview that this is going to be bad. You understand, sir . And i hope you get the nobel prize, because somebody has to make it clear that you are brilliant. If you did not record him, he would have denied. It would have been chaos, and thank you for listening, and i hope he stops the rallies hes going to kill us. Hes going to kill us, sir, and i supported him. Im the deplorabldeplorable, si so pfaokay sofia. Mr. Woodward . First of all i recorded him with his permission. Frankly, when the book came out i wasnt sure i would put out the audios. My wife elsa walsh, jamie gangel at cnn who got the book early, they said, you need to put out audios, and ive done that a couple of times on books, but only in a small way, and they said, no. It was kind of a pincher movement between elsa and jamie to say, no, youve got to do this. The context was, which we know, people dont trust the media. People dont trust much, and so being able to hear it in, with their own ears, hear President Trump say these things, say to me that, hey, look, hes trying to downplay the virus. He doesnt want to cause a panic. The key to all of this, and i start my book with this meeting on january 28th in the oval office when the National Security team, adviser Robert Obrien told President Trump about the virus, said this virus is going to be the biggest, not maybe, will be, is going to be the biggest National Security threat to your presidency. His Deputy Matt Pottinger who had worked in china as a wall street journal reporter during the 2003 pandemic knew that the Chinese Government lied all the time. He had sources in china, and he was able to explain to President Trump, not that, just trouble was coming, but a major pandemic was coming, because he had those contacts, those sources in china in the medical community who would stand up to the Chinese Communist party and the Chinese Government and he said, this is going to be like the 1918 1918 spanish flu pandemic that killed 675,000 people in this country. Carol, royal oak, michigan. Supporting the president. Good morning, carol. Caller hi. Good morning. Hi. Caller im curious, mr. Woodward. Do you like the president as a person . And you know, that hold on. Mr. Woodward hold on. Carol, go ahead and okay. No. Caller allow you to do what you did . You know . The president said, go ahead. Turn the machine on. Do you think youd ever get a democrat to do that . All right, carol. Yes. I have many, many times, president obama. President clinton. So its its a nonpartisan tape recorder, if i may say that, and my approach is aggressively nonpartisan. You asked a very good question at the beginning. Do i like the president . He has, as you know, he can be very charming. He would let me push him. We would sometimes even joke about things, but he knew and i knew this is not a, a joking matter. Everything, particularly the virus and so he has an appeal. My wife also elsa walsh says, well, you know, she listened in on some of these calls, because i would put it on a speaker phone. I told President Trump that. There were some foul language, and at one point President Trump said, i dont want your wife to hear this, or her pretty ears, i think was his term. So i was i was open and listening to him. We started these interviews before the virus. We talked a great deal about his relationship with north korea, and kim jongun and the north korean leader, and i got the letters, the Letter Exchange between them, and President Trump told me, he said, look, weve not had a war, and there was an expectation, maybe we were going to have a nuclear war with north korea, and i i think, and i indeed give him credit on this. Not having a war. I, back in the 1960s, after i got out of college, i served five years in the u. S. Navy, as communications officer, and this was during vietnam. I saw vietnam up close. And the lies of vietnam. And the horror of that war, and so, i give President Trump credit for avoiding a war with north korea. At the same time, relations between trump and kim jongun had broken down now. We dont know where its going. Lots of experts say they dont think trump handled it right. Im agnostic on that. I say, this is what he did. And hes very emphatic with me, in these interviews, that it was a no war strategy. And if you look over all, at the trump administration, weve not had a new war. A lot of people expected we would have one. At the same time, the relations with some countries, trump likes autocratic leaders. He talked to me about that quite openly. And so hes picked leaders like putin to have a Good Relationship with him. With mbs, the crown prince of saudi arabia and his association with kim jongun. Anyway, the positives and the negatives are laid out in the book the best i could. You write about the letters between the leader kim jongun and the president which will he calls love letters. The cia never figured out conclusively who wrote and crafted kims letters to trump. They were masterpieces. The analysts marvelled at the skill someone brought to finding the exact mixture of flattery while pelling it to trumps sense of grandiosity and being center stage. The letters, reaching out for trump, saying we know each other, we can trust each other, were going to be friends for each other. At one point, he talks about, i remember, standing, meeting with you, holding your excellencys hand, and they pledged to each other. As i say in the book, its almost like the knights of the round table. And at the same time, when kim jongun would not deliver on his agreement to get rid of his nuclear weapons, trump pushed him and said, now, look, you gave your word on this. Youre not ready to make a deal. And so, the second meeting which was in hanoi, vietnam, kind of fell apart. We dont know where all of this is going. Its a very dicey situation. Because as i report, kim jongun has dozens, several dozens of nuclear weapons. Theyre probably not, you know, big big busters like some of the missile some of the weapons that we have on our Ballistic Missile submarine. But theyre nuclear weapons. And theyre well concealed and well hidden. And so it is a very real threat that we face from them. Now, historys going to determine, because as carol rowe who is one of george w. Bushs political adviser, and rove said, were talking about the iraq war and the afghan war and other issues, and rove said, look, everything depends on outcomes in politics. And i think thats true. The outcome of the relationship with north korea, we dont know where its going to end. Lets go to carl who is in oxford, massachusetts, and undecided in this election. Go ahead, carl. Caller good morning, thank you for cspan. Mr. Woodward, ive seen you many times on television interviews. I read one of your books a long time ago. I forget the title of it, but im sorry to say, i lost a lot of respect for you after when the iraq war started. Right after it started, many people realized it was based on a lie. And you kind of came out like a couple of years later with a book about that. I think you were on msnbc, if i remember correctly. And to me, you were just a johnny come lately. You know, correct me if im wrong, but thats how i feel. Well, look, i wrote a story for the Washington Post before the iraq war started. In which i quoted a cia official saying they do not have smoking gun intelligence that iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The government, and the cia, believed that they did. But this official told me, we dont have smoking gun intelligence. And i have faulted myself mightily, for not understanding what i wrote in my own newspaper. Because when somebody says we dont have smoking gun intelligence, that means they dont have verifiable information. Theyre not sure, and i, quite frankly, should have realized what i wrote. But i wrote a number of books about the iraq war. The third one was called state of denial in which i reported with documentation and all kinds of interviews that president bush, george w. Bush at the time, was not telling the truth to the American People about how bad the situation was in iraq. It had deteriorated in the years after the 2003 invasion. Christopher. So, youre go ahead, mr. Woodward, finish up. No, i was just going to say the iraq war was really an important turning point. Ive always said i should have been more aggressive about it. But i did report what happened internally. And significantly, the cia director george tenaet went to make a presentation to president bush about whether there were weapons of mass destruction. And the president doubted whether the intelligence was that solid. And george tenet stood up in the oval office and said its a slam dunk, mr. President. It is a slam dunk. And so that was the view at the highest level in the cia, as you may recall, colin powell, then secretary of state, gave that famous speech at the United Nations in which he held up a little bottle. And said, you know, this contains a chemical weapon, and this is what iraq has. Powell has since said it is his most embarrassing his worst moment in his tenure, not only as a military officer, but as secretary of state. So, i should have been more aggressive. I should have been, quite frankly, if that story i cited in the Washington Post, i should have understood when you dont have smoking gun intelligence, you dont youre not sure. And youre going to go to war on that basis anyway. All right. Well go on to christopher in oklahoma supporting the biden harris ticket. Go ahead, christopher. Caller okay. Good morning to you both. And massive respect for just the washington journal in and of itself for us to be able to do it. The last thing i thought id be doing this morning is asking bob woodward a question, okay . Theres been, as we know, over 200,000 deaths to covid19. I want to know personally, do you feel like any responsibility for publicly recalling the information that donald trump initially disclosed to you early on about the virus, like even later on, after it got time for your book to come out . But also in those initial periods, when he was telling you one thing. And then turning right around a week or two later on tv telling all of us the exact opposite. Mr. Woodward. Okay. Its a fair question. And when trump told me on february 7th that he knew the virus was airborne and that it could be transmitted from somebody who has, or didnt have symptoms, and that it was deadly, in fact, more deadly than the flu, we were talking about china. And he had just the evening before had a talk with president xi. And i brought a tack of this paper clipping from my newspaper, the Washington Post and the New York Times. And all through the period of january through february, they were talking about china. I thought trump was talking about china. And it was not until may that i learned that trump had been briefed. And that the centerpiece of this is january 28th, when trump was told by his National Security adviser that the virus, as Robert Obrien put it to the president , is going to be not, as i say may be, but is going to be the biggest National Security threat to your presidency. And his deputy, matt pottinger, laid out information that pottinger had from doctors in china. And i did not know about that meeting until may. And whats interesting about journalism, obviously, reporters like you, sir, we live our lives in chronological order. But you dont report in chronological order. And if i had known what i learned in may, i obviously would have gone and published a story. But i did not know where that was coming from. In the context of my discussion with President Trump its china. When i learned, ah, hes talking what about he was presented on january 28th. And ive learned that by asking in may, President Trump, do you remember that january 28th meeting . And President Trump said, no, he didnt. But then he said, twice, he said, im sure it was said. I am sure it was said. By the that he got that warning from obrien and pottinger. So, by may, even by march, the virus was out of control. Everyone knew it was deadly. My god, in march, all of a sudden, it just came to this country in a way exactly that the president was told. But came to this country, there were 30,000 new cases a day. I was traveling around in early march, going to california, going to florida. I had no idea. Tony fauci who was the leading Infectious Disease official in this country, wellknown on television, was saying on february 29th, oh, go ahead, theres no worry. Go to the mall. Go to the movies, go to the gym. So, there was no way for me i had no information that thats what trump was talking about when i you walk the cat back, and after i learned in may, i realized and i asked the president was that where you got that information . And he said, yes. He knows it was said but obrien. Sounds like a convoluted explanation, but thats exactly what happened. And i still work at the Washington Post as an associate editor. I have access to the editor marty barren, to walk into his office or call him or email him and say, i have information that needs to go in the paper. Over the decades ive done that, dozens and dozens of times, and i would have done it in this case. But i did not understand what trump was talking about. And if you go back and you look, look at these clips. Every one of them in january and february is about china. Because thats where and at one point, there was a front page story in the New York Times saying china, because of the virus, locked down wuhan where it started. But many other cities in china, locked down. And when the Chinese Government locks down, you go to your apartment and youre locked in it. 768 Million People. Thats twice the population of the United States. And all the discussion, all of the focus, was on china. Including by me, of course, trump had participated in that critical january 28th meeting. And that is the day the Trump Presidency should have changed. He should have realized what was coming. Actually, he did. And when he gave his state of the Union Address a couple of days later, you know, this is to the congress. Its about whats going on in the world, as he sees it, whats important, whats the future going to be like. Im sorry, 40 Million People watched that speech. He devoted 15 seconds to the virus, saying were doing everything we can. He was not doing everything he could. He could have told the country the truth about what he had learned on january 28th. He could have protected the people. He could have fulfilled his duty as president. Unfortunately, he didnt. We now have over 200,000 deaths from that virus in this country. And a year ago, if we were talking and i said, oh, were going to have a pandemic that will kill 200,000 people, you would think i was on some drug of some sort. But thats exactly what has happened. He could have mitigated that. He could have used his knowledge. And as he told me, and weve played this audience he says, oh, i always like to play it down, i like to play it down, because he didnt want to create a panic. The sad element in all of this is that President Trump did not understand the people he leads. People in this country, democrats, republicans, independents, undecided, people who dont vote, have one thing in common. And that is when theyre told the truth, they rally around, they step up, they do what is necessary to deal with the problem. Americans dont panic. Maybe some people will, but by and large, and i if i may bore you a little bit with history because history can tell us a lot in this case. My wife elsa walsh, we would go through all of the information we were getting from trump and other people, as i was writing this book, as she was editing it six times. And we sat at dinner one night, and she said, well, what should trump have done . Whats the remedy . And she looked into history, and Franklin Roosevelts favors fireside chats after one crisis or another. And go back and listen i mean, they will it will bring tears to your eyes if you listen to roosevelt talking two days after pearl harbor, after the japanese sneak attack on pearl harbor. And two days later, president roosevelt comes on in this fireside chat, and says, its all bad news. The most serious undertaking of our American History is before us. The very survival of our country in the world is at stake. It is going to be for ever american citizen grueling work, day, night, every hour. Every minute. And then he said, government, our government, his government has confidence in your ability to hear the worst without losing heart. President trump instead approached this and said, well, i better not tell the truth. Pie better play it down. Because people might panic. I know one thing from doing this for 50 years, people in this country dont panic. Okay. People in this country are strong. Sorry to go so long, but its relevant. Well go to carolyn who is in austel supporting the president. Hi, carolyn. Caller good morning, President Trump is doing a very good job. And we can make a whole list of all of the good things that hes done. And i know we have a lot of books coming out and that President Trump seems to attract a lot of his back stabbers with information coming out. Now, i have well, i have a minute to finish up, biden seems to have a poor sense of wellbeing. And i just want to know if after two years, and maybe this is something that we need to know, after two years, will harris become our first woman president . And the last question i have is for cspan. The plague always killed people which we hate. But cspan would be good if they were to have something on the death rate in this country. My understanding from reading is that we lose about 7,000 people daily, you know, them just die daily. Okay. All right. Understood, karen. Mr. Woodward, we talked about the president s handling of the coronavirus. You also talked to him about the impeachment proceedings. And at one point, you are questioning him about whether or not he should apologize. And you asked him who in the world is the person that he trusts the most. Explain his answer. Well, i did. But this was in the context this was down at maralago. Before the impeachment became an issuement. I think the 30th of december. Trumps impeachment trial was going on, and so i was able to ask him about this. Its very clear from the transcript of his discussion with the ukrainian president , that trump was asking the ukrainian president to talk to attorney general barr about the bidens and what the bidens were doing in ukraine. And i kept pressing the president , i said, do you think its a good policy for the president of the United States to be able, or to ask foreign leaders to investigate political opponents . The president kept insisting that it was all about corruption. And i said, well, hearin shgwel transcript. You released your own words. And we got it was pretty contentious because i kept going back to what was in the transcript he released. I said, you gave, like richard nixon, when nixon tape recorded his secret conversations, you gave the opposition the sword. And trump didnt believe this. And we started talking more about nixon. And i said look at nixon, a few months after watergate had come out and said, you know, this is illegal. People did things. Im responsible. I apologize to the country. I apologize to the Democratic National committee. And they had the office that the burglars broke into, and just kind of laid it out in a soulful way. Now, nixon was not that soulful, but if he had done this, if he apologized and trump agreed, oh, yeah, nixon apologized, watergate would have gone away. I said, okay, on this, if you apologize, and he said, oh, id never apologize. And i didnt do anything wrong. I said, well, we went back to is this a good policy . And i said, take ivanka, your daughter, walking on this beautiful property that you have down here in maralago, and have a father daughter talk and ask her if she would recommend that you apologize. And he said, im not going to do that. It wouldnt make any difference what she said. I think it wasnt going to make any difference what anyone said. And this is part of the problem with trump as president. He gets things in his head, and he will not get them out. He will not listen to others. They have no process. He as i go through in extensive detail in the book what his National Security team tim mattis the secretary. Tillerson, secretary of defense, dan coats, the director of national intelligence, that they cant get through to him, he wont listen. Its tragic. And its particularly tragic in the context of the virus. And the 200,000 people in this country who died. And by telling the truth, the president could have averted some of those deaths. Norman in amherst, massachusetts. The house is gaveling in at 9 00 a. M. , so i need a quick question. Caller thank you, i studied your work while in Journalism School in the late 70s. Im worried about the future of freedom in the press as in the Julian Assange case. What do you think will happen under trump, and will it be different under biden . Thank you. Well, im always worried about freedom of the press. As i write in the book, trump always accuses the press of being fake news and so forth. And attacks the media, but he hasnt sent the marshals or fbi agents to break into reporters homes or arrest them. So, my conclusion is, and is this on a happy note, that democracy has held. We still have a democracy in this country. Now, trump often threatens it. Its something to worry about deeply. But the problem is, and weve had a leadership failure. There is a breakdown in the leadership of this country. And it is on so many levels, just a practical level. A moral level. A president has so much authority, they have to jim mattis says trump does not have a moral compass. The president needs and has a responsibility to the citizens of this country. And unfortunately, on so many levels, hes let us down. Mr. Woodward, will you write another book . Well, im 77 years old. I dont know. You have to see. I didnt really think i was going to write a second trump book after doing the first one. So, you know, no plan. Im going to take a little time off with my wife, and were going to enjoy some other things. When we during this ten months of working on the trump book and she edited it six times and things. I remember one night, because we talk about these things so much we were living them. My god, the phone would ring at 10 00 and it would be trump calling unexpectedly. I remember her saying i need one hour away from trump. In trump world. All right. Mr. Woodward, we appreciate your time. The book is rage. Come back again. Thank you. Out of kentucky, the courier journal with the head line, grand jury indicts one of three officers for Breonna Taylors shooting but not her death. And the attorney general announcing the charges of one officer of Breonna Taylors death. After hearing the evidence from our team of prosecutor, the grand jury voted to return an indictment against detective hankison for wanton serious physical injury or death. The charge of wanton endangerment is a class d felony. And if sound guilty, the accused can serve up to five years for each count. Kentucky law states that a person is guilty of wanton endangerment in the first degree when other circumstances manifesting and create a difference to the value of human life, he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person. My office is prepared to prove these charges at trial. However, its important to note that he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Kentucky Attorney general yesterday, he also went on to talk about why the officers in the case, the other two officers, were not all of the officers were not indicted for homicide charges. Through the last six months, weve all heard mention of possible charges that could be brought in this case. Its important to understand that all of the charges that have been mentioned have specific meanings and ramifications. Criminal homicide encompasses the taking of a life by another. While there are six possible homicide charges under kentucky law, these charges are not applicable to the facts before us, because our investigation showed, and the grand jury agreed that mattingly and cosgrove were justified in their return of deadly fire, after having been fired upon by kenneth walker. Let me state that again. According to kentucky law, the use of force by mattingly and cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges in miss Breonna Taylors death. The attorney general from yesterday in the state of kentucky. The courier journal also reporting overnight, two officers shot in downtown louisville during the protests did. They say that the interim pd chief Robert Schroeder confirmed two officers were shot. One is in surgery, one is in stable condition. Heres the interim police chief. In a large crowd, shots were fired in the area. As they can deploying to investigate what was going on at first and broadway, shots rang out and two of our officers were shot. Both officers are currently undergoing treatment at university hospitals. One is alert and stable. The other officer is currently undergoing surgery and stable. We do have one suspect in custody. Can you talk about the degree of the injuries of the officers . To my knowledge, theyre both nonlifethreatening. From the last Night Protests there. Were getting reaction from the grand jurys decision. Well begin with mark in melbourne, florida. Mark, good morning to you. Caller hi, how are you . Good morning. Caller my the way i feel is the officers were fired upon and returned fire from this womans boyfriend and theyre justified in doing that. What about the amount of bullets that were shot by the police . Caller yeah, well, when youre in a firefight, you do what you have to do. So, to me, thats not an issue. Mark, how do you feel about Police Reform . Caller i feel that if Police Officers are out of line, that they should be you know, they should be fired from their jobs. And possibly prosecuted. But they have a tough job. They dont run away from trouble. They run towards it. Okay. Mark there in florida. Well go to joel in brownsville, texas. Joel, good morning. Caller good morning, greta. Good morning. Caller the justice for the American People this morning, with a lot of people not happy about it, because to start shooting, i mean, you have the right if im with my wife and someone is trying to come in, doesnt matter a cop or a thug, im going to start shooting. Why . Because im going to defend my house and have the right to shoot back. Thats why youre seeing a lot of protesting, i mean, you mentioned about reforms, yes, absolutely. We need to train better. You need to have like professionals like doctors, people that have mental issues. And not too long i just saw in the news some kid almost got killed. Her mom called, he had like a mental problem. And they shot him many time, luckily, he survived. He was a kid. And that happens a lot. They say not to call a cop if you want to get killed. Thats why im saying, youre seeing a lot of people protesting for justice. Theres two losses, one for the cops, you have to abolish that abolish that qualified immunity. That means cops with a camera, i mean, they need to serve time, too. Its not fair that theyre getting away with murder, thats why a lot of people are mad. Thats why you see a lot of people in the streets protesting. Joel mentioned no knock warrants. Politico reporting Police Reform stall around the country. They report congress and a majority of state legislatures have taken no action, even states with liberal leadership in governors mansions have failed to move aggressively. Activists tracking bills attribute the inaction to two factors, push back from unions. And at the time of George Floyds death sessions had adjourned for the year. And sessions in arizona and oklahoma wrapped up shortly thereafter. A handful of legislatures have since held special sessions. And politico is reporting stressing how restrained individual, minnesota, floyds home state, with legislation limiting choke holds and next restraints and banning warriorstyle officer training. As you know, there was an effort on capitol hill, in the wake of George Floyds death, to enact criminal justice reform. The house controlled by democrats passed in june 236 to 181. The justice and policing act of 2020. This would reform qualified immunity. Amend criminal statutes to prosecute misconduct. Create nationwide Police Misconduct registry. Mandate reporting of police use of force. And prohibit racial and religious profiling, ban choke holds. Limit transfer of military grade equipment. And over on the other side, restricts choke holds by state and local departments. Increases funding for police body cams. Requires reporting of uses of force that causes death or serious injury. Requires states to provide data on no knock search warrants. Devin, in philadelphia, good morning to you. Your reaction to the grand jurys decision in the Breonna Taylor case . Caller good morning, i think its a travesty. Being a Law Enforcement officer, or former Law Enforcement officer, and seeing outcomes, yes, we take certain abuses from the public which we sign up for. We know what our jobs are when we come in. And we take our oaths of office. But i just think thats a travesty to have to have an officer discharged for shooting into another persons apartment and no charges for someone illegally coming into your home. Im just shocked, i really am. And, you know, its its sad when in 2020 were having these same issues. And no one really is really addressing them to any solutions. But also i say this, i want to know where is the naacp . Where is the Congressional Black Caucus to spearhead . I looked at Different Things over many months with the president and also with both president ial candidates. And their campaigns. But you never see any input from the Congressional Black Caucus on anything. And i just dont understand why. Well, the Congressional Black Caucus, karen bass was leading the effort in the house on the legislation that they voted on. Caller right what im saying with this, with so many Different Things, like banning choke holds. When i was in the academy, they never told me it was illegal. State and federal training, any training weve ever had that we could choke suspects, never. So, for it to be a law to say to make it illegal, when was it legal . And devin, what do you think about the no knock warrants . Caller i think thats a danger. Not just for officers, but also for the public. If i come into a residence, and i dont yes, theyre good for surprises to capture suspects. But on the flip side, thats very harmful to us because if were going into a situation, you dont know were coming, if youre a law abiding citizen, we make a mistake by an address, you start opening fire, were at the wrong house, well, whos fault is that . So, devin, from the reports this morning, that the Police Officers said, according to the warrants, that they did not have the wrong address. That was the address that they had a warrant for. How could they have done it differently, though, do you think, as a former Police Officer . Caller well, you have in many departments, you have stakeout divisions to stakeout individuals. And to or sit on them to, you know, see if theyre there. You know, if theres any movement at a particular residence or property. So, you know, just to not have things planned properly, youll have things like this. We had the same thing happen here in philadelphia last year. And it was you know, thats currently in litigation. You know, it happens. And im glad that the medias putting a spotlight on different incidents thats happened. A lot of times you know, now, im not saying that, like i said, our jobs are not difficult because they are. But its a twoway street. We have to respect the public. And the public is supposed to respect us. Its not a oneway street here. And then you go into, like other countries, and how they do certain things with policing and militarization and things like that, you know. I just hope in 2020 we move forward, because this is a travesty. It just is. Okay. Washington post editorial board, miss taylors loss and legacy. Six months after Breonna Taylors death one of the officers will face charges. The city of louisville will implement Police Reforms to settle a lawful death lawsuit that was brought after the 26yearold technician was killed in her own home by police. Encouraging and noteworthy for a settlement like this to include institutional reforms. Still no sum of money, criminal charges or set of reforms should change the fact that miss taylor should be alive today. Tell goes on to say that louisville voted to ban no knock warrants after there was local outrage. Many jurisdictions around the country have followed suit by enacting what is sometimes called breonnas law. They write miss taylors death was specifically tied to a specific warrant. The department has agreed to more warrants. Commanding officers will approve all search warrants. And officers who repeatedly violate standards a system that might have flagged one of the officers involved in miss tay r taylors killing. The Police Officers will encourage officers to live in the community and take part in community service. They argue it cannot change the fact that black women too often have lethal brushes with the law simply because of the company theyve once kept. As miss taylors case could easily have been without the tireless efforts of advocates and cannot bring her back. Alan, good morning. Your reaction to the decision. Caller good morning. There is legislation, the refusal to indict is equivalent to saying in a civil case that youre granting Summary Judgment to a defendant. Generally, you dont grant Summary Judgment, unless you know there are no disputed facts that should be submitted to a jury. I seriously question the decision of the attorney general here. To say that reports that the officers did knock and announce themselves oaudibly was an stopped fact. Because other people have said these announcements could not be heard. Aside from that, by saying its a no knock warrant, theyre in fact admitting in advance that they presume the right to enter without announcing themselves. How can they on one hand, we had a warrant to do something without an announcement that would let the boyfriend know that these people were officers and not criminals. And ignore evidence that they in fact never did announce themselves. Once he believed they were intruder, he was entitled to defend his home and to fire. And they should have known that any fire that they returned was the result of theyre entering improperly. This should have been submitted to a jury. I find it very ironic as well, the heller decision a few years ago that turned the right to bear arms from something that is connected to a wellregulated militia to an individual right was founded primarily on the idea that individuals have a right to defend the integrity of their homes. Is this something that is written only to be enjoyed and exercised by white homeowners . If these were black officers entering a white home under the same circumstance . Does anyone believe that there would not be an indictment . For creating the impression that unlawful intruders were coming in that entitled the boyfriend to fire in defense of the home . I dont think anyone can say that. Both for these rank appearances of racial difference in the treatment of the right to bear and use arms and for the failure to give this question to the jury about whether there was an announcement, this is a very flawed decision. And i just hope theres a peaceful response to it. But i understand the anger. And the wall street journal notes today in their editorial, alan, that the police did knock and announce themselves. And they had a civilian with the tons corroborate it. Caller that they did not announce themselves . That they did announce themselves. That and that they had a civilian witness to corroborate that they announced themselves. Caller but i think that witness was disputed by others who did not hear an announcement. So once theres a disputed fact, that should have gone to a jury. And you say that because