TAPE: EF01/0822 IN_TIME: 14:30:58 DURATION: 4:18 SOURCES: APTN/Capitol Films RESTRICTIONS: No re-use/re-sale of film/video/tv clips without clearance DATELINE: London SHOTLIST 1. Top shot set 2. Cu Michelle Williams 3. Cu Anna Friel 4. Cu Kyle MacLachlan 5. Ms camera with sound - 'Action' 6. Ws scene starting 7. Two shot Friel and Williams 8. vs people watching monitor - ( continuity & script ) 9. Sot Kyle MacLachlan: "At this particular time it's 1982 and we're in a student union bar, which we actually don't have in the United States, but I think is a very good idea and I'm just holding court, I've just finished a lecture in my class and they've attended. I've been quite impressed with the sassiness of Anna's character so I'm a bit torn right now. It's definitely the development or the beginnings of the development of friendship and ultimately affair that I have with each girl." 10.cut together scene of film. 11. sot Anna Friel: "They both for the first time fall in the love with the same person, well don't fall in love, she starts shagging him basically, but Holly has a bit of a deeper love for their tutor, Daniel, this amazing American man that's come over and they both don't know that he's seeing both of them at the same time but for Marina, it's just another man, because that's what she does all the way through the film, see lots and lots and lots of men." 12. Ws scene 13, sot Michelle Williams: "It's so exciting to be able to do a film because for nine months of the year you're playing the same character and the same circumstances and themes, so it's such a thrill to be here and to be immersed in something so different and interesting. I'm so interested in this film, I'm thrilled and very lucky." 14.vs on set of ' Me without You '- one scene 15. sot Kyle MacLachlan: "He does actually go through a lot of torment and torture over this. It's a very self-involved torment and torture but he's not a complete jerk in that he's just using them, students and having sex with them, then going on. He does have strong feelings for both of them and he's kind of in a bad place and unable to really make up his mind, or keep it in his pants quite frankly." 16. clip ' Me Without You ANNA FRIEL AND MICHELLE WILLIAMS COME OF AGE IN 'ME WITHOUT YOU' ANNA FRIEL ('The Land Girls', 'Rogue Trader', 'Mad Cows' ) and MICHELLE WILLIAMS ('Dawson's Creek', 'Prozac Nation') join together in the intense comedy drama 'ME WITHOUT YOU'. The story spans the 1970s and 1980s and is the bittersweet story of two best friends, Holly (Williams) and Marina (Friel). The story follows the girls growing up in suburban London between the ages of 16 to 27. As teenagers, they live next door to each other, unreservedly sharing intimacies and traumas. Having made a pact during the hot summer of 1973 to be friends forever, the duo inevitably fall in and out of kinship over the next two decades as they go through countless dramas. But their friendship is finally tested when Holly reveals her love for Nat, Marina's older brother. The British production was filmed last year in London and the Isle of Man. APTN caught up with the cast in Brockley, South London, as they filmed scenes set in the girls' college years. The story has reached 1982, and Holly and Marina are both beginning an affair with the same lecturer, Daniel, played by KYLE MACLACHLAN ('Perfume', 'Twin Peaks'). Friel explains it's the first time both girls have fallen for the same man - although the intensity of their feelings is widely different. In his turn Daniel is drawn to Holly for her brains, and Marina for her sassy nature. MacLachlan says his character is genuinely torn between the two girls, but can't make up his mind. His two- timing naturally causes friction between the friends, when they find out what's been going on. As Michelle Williams plays a Londoner, the film sees her speaking with a British accent for the first time in her career. The actress is best known for role as Jen in 'Dawson's Creek', a job which leaves little time for experimention with character. She says taking part in a movie such as this is an exciting change from spending 9 months of the year playing one character. The film's written and directed by Sandra Goldbacher, who wrote and directed her first feature film 'The Governess' in 1998 - starring Minnie Driver and Jonathan Rhys Meyers - for which she was nominated for a BAFTA for best newcomer. The film also stars Trudie Styler (Linda). 'Me Without You' opened in UK cinemas on Friday 23rd November. The film is due to come out in North America in the spring. FILM CLIP DETAILS Me Without You Capitol Films 44 (0) 20 7471 6000 CLEARANCE DETAILS Me Without You Capitol Films 44 (0) 20 7471 6000

INSERT INTERVIEW Robert Lipsyte 21:30 in the essay that we've just heard, and in the fair report, is that after the taxpayers pay for the hardware of PBS, its corporate sponsors who decide what's actually going on the air. Is that fair? Barry Chase 21:47 No, it's not fair. The and in fact, much of what is on the air is paid for by the public as well. Though there is in an underfunded system, the possibility and no doubt some reality to this, that that those who choose to support particular programs will pick and choose from among a full range of program options. And we'll pick those that they think make the most sense for whatever their own sensibilities are. So that I, there was a concern here, I think, Pat, there's some food for thought and what Pat has to say as there is in the in the fair report, because the we have known for a long time that with what she calls a jerry rigged system, we are more subject than we like to be to the picking and choosing a program funders, for pieces of the schedule. I don't I don't think that it's necessarily relevant to the to the MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour, which is, after all, a news program with an orientation toward the kind of decision making that Robin described. And by the way, Pat also left out some other very important things we've done such as the African series, which was the the first and only series on television done about Africa from an African perspective in which caused a certain amount of consternation among the power elite. But the point still is, there is something to the point, that if the public wishes to have a system of public television service that reflects the public's views fairly, then the public should pay for more of that system than it does at present. I think there's no question about it. And I think with a multicultural public, there will be an increasing tendency toward a multicultural Public Television. Robert Lipsyte 23:28 Carolyn Craven, is it more than a than Barry Chase's concern? I mean, is it systemic kind of either safe or conservative? Carolyn Craven 23:37 It is safe, I think it is conservative, and I think it is systemic on South Africa Now, the program of that, that I represent on public television has no corporate underwriting at all, and that we were considered corporate unfriendly, because that the show is considered to have an anti apartheid bias, and so therefore, was corporate unfriendly for corporations. I don't even know what that means. Does that mean they support apartheid? I've never even I've never even understood what that meant, in terms of a South African context. But it's more than that, Oh, you look at public television, and you can look at it hour after hour, day after day. And yes, the Africa series was wonderful. And yes, eyes on the prize is terrific. But they are really exceptions, rather than the rule of one just pays attention to the hours, a white male conservative. Influence is just clearly there. I think that and I know in news programs that when it comes to calling an expert on an issue, you call the people that, you know, well, when most of the people who run these shows are white males, they're going to call other white males whom they know and more. I don't think it's nonsense. And I think that it not only happens, but it's even more than that, even when women or minorities are called in. For example, blacks are called in to discuss issues that either predominantly affect blacks in this country or that effect Affrica, you know, as though we have no opinions on the environment or about China or about Central Europe or Central America, Eastern Europe. You know, I'd love to comment on all those subjects and can have, you know, and have informed opinions on all those subjects. But that, that even when we were called in, were called in to represent such a narrow focus as though you know, as the blacks only concern. Concerns are about what other blacks are doing, either in this country or abroad. And that's truly offensive. Robert Lipsyte 25:36 That's just the ghettoizing. Carolyn Craven 25:39 It's a real ghettoizing Robert MacNeil 25:42 Well, I'm, I'm offended by the implication, in those northern implication, it's a charge in the essay, because they have images from our program, that none of the issues that the woman Aufderheidi raises. none of the questions raised are discussed, I'm just defending our program. Now, PBS has a very wide range of programs, I'm discussing our program, all of the concerns and issues that she raised have been discussed and often discussed more than once, in our program, for instance, the question of worker safety and safety from pesticides and people in the field, the safety of people working on oil rigs have been have been featured on our program, you have to look at the program as a whole. And I, I'm not going to sit here and tolerate the implication that we only reflect a small corporate white American middle class Carolyn Craven 26:35 I think you do tend to try to reflect a consensus and You said so yourself earlier on, and that, that it seems to me that news programs also Robert MacNeil 26:44 reflect a consensus. I said that in the case of Nicaragua at a particular time, when the issue had changed in Washington, and after after there being no consensus for a long time. The as a result of the of the intervention by the five American presidents bitterly opposed by the Reagan administration, tolerated by the Bush administration. The the two parties on Capitol Hill had come together, our program reflected that during that, Jeff Cohen 27:11 why can't you have a critic of that consensus? What is so difficult Carolyn Craven 27:16 news programs are a part of the public debate and not just a reflection when Washington happens to have a consensus. And that what is it seems to me that, that what you fail to do is to is to be a part of the much broader debate. It's as though the spectrum is this wide, and you represent some kind of narrow or reflect some kind of narrow, Robert Lipsyte 27:35 Barry Chase in Washington is Is there some way that PBS, which we know is not a network, as we know, commercial networks are can get back to this diversity or wholeness? That was the original mandate? Barry Chase 27:51 Well, I think there were a lot of original mandates. I think there were about as many original mandates as there were people thinking about public television originally. One of them certainly, though, is the reflection of voices outside of the existing consensus that's in our program policies. We try hard to do that. I think that the jerry rigged nature of the of the funding for the system, the sort of each time being its own new creation, as far as funding programs, causes certain distortions. And I think that we try to be sensitive toward complementing those, those problems when we, when we fund things from within the system itself. I think that we, for example, we very much are aware of the multiculturalism of the country and have a sort of new opportunity to reflect that multiculturalism in our programs. I think that to do that in the most effective manner. We're going to have to have more control within public television itself, of the funding for new program ventures, etc. This is not not not with regard to the MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour, which has a particular news program mission, which is a journalistic mission, that's a bit different, I think, from what Ms. Craven and Mr. Cohen are talking about. I think, though, that there is an opportunity to become more multicultural. I think there's a lag time in these things. So you're likely to see more Eurocentric kinds of discussions than perhaps there ought to be given a walk down the streets of major American cities. But I do think we're conscious of it. I do think that there's a new sensibility in public television. And with some new resources for us, I think we can do something about it. Jeff Cohen 29:23 I've been hearing about, I've been hearing that kind of statement for so many years now, Carolyn Craven 29:27 most of these ethnic groups have existed in this country for a very long time, much longer than the existence of PBS. And yet PBS continually and conceptually refuses to reflect that. Let me just say that it's not only a racial and cultural bias, but it's also a class bias. I mean, there's virtually nothing on the air that reflects the fact that there's a large working class and underclass in our country Robert MacNeil 29:51 Not true in our program, and I'm not sure I'm not talking about that and PBS first thought he made the statement at the MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour, Good, you might almost think that workers don't exist. It's true. It is it is not true. Jeff Cohen 30:04 We have the statistics vary, and you had 6% of your guests represented either ethnic groups, public interest groups or labor unions Barry Chase 30:14 PBS has been criticized broadly, I'd like to get one more word. And if I could, I think that I think perhaps the most successful multicultural program on the air today is Sesame Street. And it's been there for about 20 years. Now you can, I suppose, sneer if you like at the faculty, Carolyn Craven 30:29 No body is sneering. Congratuations and it's Wonderful, Barry Chase 30:32 thank you very much. Hold on for a minute. I think that Sesame Street's success with a multicultural approach to children is terribly important. And the influence of that program is very difficult to put limits on since we're dealing with mines that are relatively open and relatively unformed. I do I wouldn't disagree for a moment that we want to make better efforts. I think, Carolyn, for you to say or for Jeff to say you've been hearing this for 100 years, and therefore you don't believe it? Well, you know, I don't know how to deal with that except to say that we are sensitive to it. I think there's a new sensibility to it. I think that there's there's a new sensibility to it in the in the country as a whole. You may say these groups have been here for a long time. And and certainly they have been in one form or another and one population segment or another. But I think that there has been a watershed in sense of sensitivity and sensibility in this country over the past five to 10 years, even as we're having terrible problems. racially, we know in some of the large cities, there's a new comfort with the multiculturalism. And I think you will see that reflected, Jeff Cohen 31:29 let me ask you a specific question, because it was one that I was invited to Washington to meet your programming board, when you had hearings in February 1987. And nothing has changed that I can see. We asked you back then fair petitioned you. And we said that you have every week, you have regular programs that give the corporate view of things. So they look at the corporate agenda. Louis Rukeyser is Wall Street week, the Nightly Business Report is on most PBS stations, Adam Smith's money world and we made a simple request. How hard is it to every week, have a program for the public interest constituencies those that sometimes conflict with big business, labor, consumer rights, environmentalism? And we asked you the second question about all the programs hosted by the McLaughlin and the Buckley's on the right, how hard is it to get a show hosted by a partisan journalist of the left? Barry Chase 32:24 Well, let me say first of all, we have tried and we have had one, in fact, the kwitny report, which was on for one season, I think, was generally regarded as a as a program that was hosted by a journalist of the left. And we'll continue to try that Robert Lipsyte 32:36 Barry, hold that thought. what happened to the kwitny report? Barry Chase 32:40 it was a combination of a loss of of comity between the station that was presenting it to us, which was another station in New York City, and kwitny On the one hand, and Robert Lipsyte 32:52 It wasn't a matter of loss of sponsorship and they kwitny never got a corporate sponsor. Barry Chase 32:58 That's correct. And that and that is that is the fact Robert Lipsyte 33:00 Let me ask I'd like to ask Robert McNeil something not about the MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour, but about PBS in general. Do you have any concern about the what seems to be the overwhelming corporate sponsorship in in PBS? And what might be the response to that Robert MacNeil 33:17 Barry Chase is absolutely right as more of the primetime are the regular programming, a larger proportion of the regular programming on the public system is supported by corporate underwriting, there will be fewer programs which corporate underwriters disapprove of. That's true. But there are lots of programs on the corporate underwriters don't choose to underwrite you remember, you mentioned South Africa now front line, which is the only program at the moment anywhere on any network where you get regular what used to be called in the business hard hitting documentaries, which certainly reflect the diversity of opinion everywhere, and which is a stellar program. Jeff Cohen 33:54 Why can't we get that day after day week after week Robert MacNeil 33:57 Well you get TV you and I just wanted to complete my point it is not does not attract corporate underwriting yet it is supported by the public television stations to hear you people talk and the essays from American University. You'd think that all public affairs programming get their support solely from underwriters. It is not true. The news our it is not true of most others. They get a combination of support and public television stations choose to support these programs by the money that they collect from their viewers and so on. Jeff Cohen 34:24 Well, my argument would be that the public TV programmers have got to do something to balance out the undue influence and weight that corporate funders have a good example is Bill Buckley show he's been on for decades. He's funded by big business Mobil Oil is one of his backers. And he wants according to reports in the LA Times, gave $30,000 to a politician he supported Jack Kemp to come on his program twice. Well, if Bill Buckley has got $30,000 to pay somebody to come on his program twice And Jonathan kwitny show a hard hitting show goes off the air for lack of funding. There's something happening at the top of PBS that Barry Chase isn't putting into order Robert MacNeil 35:08 It isn't only the top of PBS stead programs. All programs have to be approved once a year by the collectivity of public television stations who are independent it was not a network. However, some people might have wondered network perhaps I myself, one might have wondered network it was set up to make the individual stations autonomous, and they decide which programs they will buy by Jeff Cohen 35:29 now, it's a good point. And that's why John McLaughlin, who's had General Electric behind a Metropolitan Life, ADM, his programs are offered free to public TV stations across the country. And they take it. And so you have corporations Carolyn Craven 35:43 And they're charged more. Stations are charged for my Robert Lipsyte 35:47 Let me aks Barry Chase, with with less contributions now from state and the federal government and corporations in picking and choosing what kind of future is there for change in PBS. And especially since a lot of other places now are doing what PBS was charged to do? There's real competition Barry Chase 36:05 Yes well. That's a that's a broader question than the one raised I think, by the Fair report, but the there are things that that a market based broadcast programming source is never going to do that PBS is going to continue to do and public service education matters. Also innovation that I think is not going to be attempted by the the A and E's and the Bravo's and the Discovery Channels, no matter what happens, because they're market based and they need to have a bottom line driven kind of system. I think that the the best source of funding for us and we've known it for a long time, or the viewers have programs like this, the viewers of channel 13 In New York, are the viewers of all the other stations around the country. Without their support, we are going to be relatively less free to make the changes that Jeff Jeff feels that I should have already made. And I don't necessarily disagree, I think with with with more freedom at the center and with more resources and I think we will be getting that we're reorganizing our own work almost even as we speak here and should have a new system of program funding of at least program funding of a for about a third of the schedule in place by about a year from now. Once that happens, I think it will be more fair to hold me and Jennifer Lawson who's who's my boss accountable for the for the programs that come out the other. Robert Lipsyte 37:21 We're going to do it Barry but we're going to have to stop now and we will be back to hold you accountable. Barry chase in Washington, Carolyn Craven, Jeff Cohen, Robert MacNeil, thanks so very much for being with us. Keep watching and we'll see what changes in the future. That's the 11th hour I'm Robert Lipsyte

NAME: US JOBS 20090115Ixxxx TAPE: EF09/0059 IN_TIME: 10:29:02:06 DURATION: 00:02:28:10 SOURCES: AP TELEVISION DATELINE: Seattle - 14 Jan 2009/FILE RESTRICTIONS: SHOTLIST: FILE: Cupertino, California - 2008 1. Wide of Steve Jobs, Apple CEO on stage, UPSOUND: (English) "We're going to reduce the entry price today to 999, make them a little more affordable." 2. Close up of graphics chip 3. Screen showing video display of cars racing in demonstration of new graphics chip 4. Wide of UPSOUND: (English) Steve Jobs, Apple CEO: "What we've found in our tests is this delivers up to five times faster graphics than the integrated graphics we've been using." Los Angeles, California - 14 January 2009 5. SOUNDBITE: (English) Professor Gerard Tellis, University of Southern California, Marshall Business School: "People identify the success of the company with Steve Jobs and when he said that he was going to take a leave of absence it raised a lot of doubts about whether the company could keep up the level of success that it's had in the last four or five years and so you see a drop in the stock price." FILE: Cupertino, California - 2008 6. Various of people trying out a new Apple laptop model 7. Various of Apple worker showing the laptop's battery and hard drive Los Angeles, California - 14 January 2009 8. SOUNDBITE: (English) Professor Gerard Tellis, University of Southern California, Marshall Business School: "In his case I think what he's particularly good at is, he has a sense of what the market really wants and that's a rare talent and in the case of iPod, iTunes, the iPhone, and the iPhone apps, as well as the iMac he seems to have got it right. In each case, the company made a big decision based on his tastes and they seem to have got it right because those products have turned out very well." FILE: Cupertino, California - 2008 9. Screen showing video animation of new laptop 10. Jobs on stage in front of screen 11. People and media looking at new laptops 12. Jobs talking 13. Man holding laptop in hands STORYLINE: Just a week after reassuring investors and employees about his health, Apple Inc. Chief Executive Steve Jobs disclosed he has a "more complex" medical condition and would take a leave of absence until the end of June. Mr. Jobs's disclosure, in a letter to Apple employees, provided no details about what was ailing him and raised fresh questions about a company that is so closely identified with its co-founder. Apple shares fell 7 percent in late trading on the news. Mr. Jobs, 53 years old and a pancreatic-cancer survivor, said he was passing day-to-day management of the Cupertino, California, company to Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook. Mr. Cook filled in for Mr. Jobs in 2004 when the Apple chief took a leave to battle his cancer. "As CEO, I plan to remain involved in major strategic decisions while I am out. Our board of directors fully supports this plan," Mr. Jobs wrote in his letter. Last week, Mr. Jobs said he was suffering a "hormone imbalance" that had caused dramatic weight loss, but said he had begun "relatively simple and straightforward" treatment and would continue as CEO. His health has been closely scrutinised by Wall Street since his bout with cancer, which Mr. Jobs said has been treated successfully by surgery. Concerns about his health were reignited last year when he appeared on stage at an event looking gaunt and intensified last month when he said he would skip the Macworld trade show earlier this month. Mr. Jobs didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Apple board members declined to comment or couldn't immediately be reached. An Apple spokesman declined to provide more details about Mr. Jobs's health. Mr. Jobs's health is key to Apple. Mr. Jobs co-founded Apple in 1976, was dismissed in a boardroom coup in 1985 and began a second leadership stint at Apple in 1997. He is deeply involved in all aspects of the company's business and is widely credited for reviving the then-struggling computer maker in the late 1990s with hit products such as the iMac desktop computer. More recently, Apple has churned out the iPod digital music player and the iPhone and cemented a place as a leading consumer-electronics maker. While Mr. Jobs takes an unusual hands-on role in design decisions, people familiar with the company's inner workings say the company's design team should be able to keep churning out innovative products, barring an exodus of top talent. Mr. Jobs serves more like an "editor in chief" in refining and improving ideas for Apple gadgets, according to former Apple executives such as Bill Bull, a retired Apple engineer who worked for Mr. Jobs in the 1980s and again in the late 1990s. The hands-on work of Apple's innovations depends more directly on subordinates such as Jonathan Ive, an Apple senior vice president who oversees the company's industrial design team.

FTG REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES RICK PERRY AND NEWT GINGRICH ON WOLF BLITZER IN INTERPLAY: CAMPAIGN 2012 PERRY AND GINGRICH ON BLITZER PT2 CONTINUATION OF CAMAPIGN 2012 PERRY AND GINGRICH ON BLITZER 17:06:30: Blitzer: "I'm old enough too to remember Jimmy Carter in 1980 when his aides heard that Ronald Reagan was going to be the nominee they were doing some high fives so you've got to be careful what you wish for...but we've got some foreign policy questions from facebook, we asked our viewers to send them in, so let me go through them with you and get a few answers ' You've said on occasion that it is okay for politicians to change their view if new information is available. Can you recall the most important position you've changed and why you decided to make the change? - Richard Gauther" ***17:07:07: Gingrich: "Um that's a really good question and without getting hung up on the most important, I'll give an example that's a little awkward nowadays, Trent Lott and I used to kid that we were the last two decisive votes on the Department of Education, in retrospect it was a mistake. I think it is way too bureaucratic.*** Blitzer: "to create the department of education?" ***Gingrich: "Yeah, we voted in 1979 to create it and I think in retorspect it was an error. And it hasn't worked - so that would be an example"*** Blitzer: "what else?" Gingrich: "Um I think that..." Blitzer: "I'll give you an example, you've been criticized by the healt care mandates - " ***Gingrich: "Yeah okay, that would be a good example in the sense that when Heritage Foundation and virtually every conservative was trying to stop Hilary care we used the mandates as a way of blocking her because we thought they were less damaging, in retrospect we were wrong, because what happens - once you go to a mandate you have turned so much power over to the government that the politicians rather than the doctors end up defining healthcare, and so it was a mistake."*** 17:08:01: Blitzer: "Let me ask you a question I asked ron Paul at that debate I moderated in Tampa at the Tea Party Express, you're a 30 year old healthy young man, you're making a living, you've got a good job, you could buy health insurance but you decide not to, you'd rather go to ball games or whatever - but then you get critically ill - for whatever reason, you're in intensive care, you have no health insurance, who should take care of you?" 17:08:27: Gingrich: "John Goodman has probably come up with the best answer for that in a book called 'Patient Power' where he says: 'what we ought to do is have a refundable tax credit to have people buy the insurance, you don't want to buy the insurance - fine. Your share of the tax credit goes into a charity pool, something happens to you, you are taken care of by the money in that charity pool, uh so that you are taken care of." Blitzer: "the charity pool is tax payer money? or private?" Gingrich: "It would be the tax credit you would have used to buy the health insurance. And the result is - you may not get a private room, you may not get everything you want, but you are taken care of. And I think it's important to look at that and say 'are there practical ways we can help people who don't insure themselves?' without automatically making them eligible for everything everybody else gets whose paying the price, writing the check every month." 17:09:13: Blitzer: "But you know - you're 30 years old. You know, you know what - they're going to take care of me. I'm going to be in intensive care, it's going to cost a million dollars, and they'll take care of me. What's the incentive to go ahead and buy the insurance?" 17:09:22: gingrich: "But the fact is we do that." Blitzer: "But what I'm asking is - is that appropriate? Because you supported at one point mandates - " ***Gingrich: "No. Look I don't think its appropriate, I think it's frankly cheating all your friends and neighbors. But I also think that the price of getting to a mandate is too great and the constitutional liberty to do it."*** Blitzer: "And the state mandate is wrong and the federal government mandate is -" Gingrich: "I think it is wrong because it politicizes the system." ***17:09:46: Blitzer: "Mitt Romney stands by his decision in Massachusetts"*** ***Gingrich: "Yeah - and I think he was wrong. I think the difference between Mitt and I is that I think I was wrong and I changed, I think down deep he thinks he's been wrong but he's being stubborn."*** 17:15:56: Blitzer: "Here's another question from Facebook - 'do you believe that ethical or moral behavior should be a characteristic of a presidential candidate? If so, do you believe a candidate's moral past should be held in question when seeking political office?" ***17:16:08 Gingrich: "Sure. I think everything about a candidate has to be held into account"*** "and I think you have to look and render judgement, is this a person who has grown? Is this a person who has led a better life? I suspect every person who runs for office at this level has had some flaws at some point, I don't think other than Christ, anyone has been flawless. But you've gotta decide in my case I'm 68 years old, I have a very strong marriage to Callista, as you know, I'm very close to my two daughters, Callista and I have two wonderful grandchildren Maggie and Robert who are my debate coaches - and people have to look at all of that and decide, is he a person whose matured and who I am comfortable leading the country?" 17:16:49: Blitzer: "Mitt Romney has a new ad that's coming out and he takes some implied digs, at least by my assesement, he makes the point - 'I've been married for 42 years, I belong to the same church my whole life.' ***Gingrich: "Look I think Mitt Romney is a very admirable person and I'm not going to pick a fight over Mitt Romney.*** "He is, we like both Mitt and Ann, they're terrific people, they have a wonderful family. Callista recently signed to all the grandchildren her new children's history book 'sweet land of liberty', he's going to run on what he thinks his strengths are. I think my strengths are being a leader, being able to actually solve problems, and being able to actualyl change Washington." 17:17:26: Blitzer: "Can you see if you got the nomination asking him to be your running mate?" ***Gingrich: "I think there are circumstances where he would certainly be on the list, I don't know whether he would want to or not, but he's a very competent person. This is a serious man."*** ***"I could certainly support him if he became the Republican nominee."*** 17:17:40: Blitzer: "Okay let's talk a little bit about some of those sensitive issues - Barney Frank - at one point you said 'he should go to jail for supporting Freddie Mac' - tell us what you said Gingrich: "No, he was engaged in activities to get somebody very close to him a job in an institution he was supervising -" Blitzer: "Freddie Mac" Gingrich: "Yeah, remember the things that I attack both Chris Dodd who was getting all sorts of special deals on mortages while he was supervising mortgages and Barney Frank was their official business. ***"Everything that I have done that has been reported was as a private citizen in business, after I left government"*** ***17:18:18: Blitzer: "Did you make 1.6 to 1.8 million dollars for Freddie Mac"*** ***Gingrich: "I didn't - I think the gingrich group as a company may have. But we were a company with a good number of employees and offices in three different cities."*** Blitzer: "Because some members - Senator Sinnen(?) at the center, he said publicly that you encouraged him to support, take a different position on a Freddie Mac issue." gingrich: "I don't remember ever doing that, you're talking about Senator Sinnen(?)" Blitzer: "Yes not the father, the son" Gingrich: "I honestly don't remember ever doing that" Blitzer: "Well I'll get you the information, I'll show you the story that appeared." Gingrich: "Yeah, please" Blitzer: "The other hundred million dollar, have you and your companies made a hundred million dollars since leaving Congress?" Gingrich: "Well over 12 years, I mean we've had 4 companies and we've produced 7 movies, I have a total of 24 books, 13 of them NY Times Bestsellers, I gave 50-80 speeches a year, we were very busy." Blitzer: "50,000 a speech?" Gingrich: "Well it depends on whether it was on the road or here in Washington" ***Blitzer: "It's a hundred million dollars - so the argument is that newt gingrich cashed in upon leaving Congress"*** ***Gingrich: "Or the other thing you could say is that I was as good a businessman as Mitt Romney"*** ***Blitzer: "What do you say?"*** ***Gingrich: "I say that I work very hard, we have very good companies, our movies are very good,"*** "the one we made about Pope John Paul II '9 days that changed the world' was picked at the Vatican Film Festival as one of the 3 best films on John Paul the II. ***"Our books, I mean you know - even Callista, her very first book was a NY Times bestseller, that wasn't because we went out and had influence peddling, that's because lots of people went out and decided that they liked Ellis the Elephant."*** 17:27:58: Blitzer: "Alright let's talk about foreign policy issues - it's 3am - you're president of the united states, your national security adviser calls you (NEWT LAUGHS, 'WE'RE REPLAYING THE HILARY CLINTON AD') Blitzer: "And says Mr. President - the Israelis have just bombed Iran's nuclear facilities - what do you do?" Gingrich: "Well hopefully they would have told me earlier in the day - " Blitzer: "Whose they?" Gingrich: "The national security adviser" Blitzer: "They didn't know - the Israelis did it without notifying the United States" Gingrich: "I think if I were President, the Israelis would have told us" Blitzer: "why do you say that?" Gingrich: "Because I am a clear ally of Israel, I am very close to Netanyahu, I would and I've said publicly, I would rather plan a joint operation conventionally than push the Israelis to a point where they go nuclear. Because the Israelis are not going to tolerate an Iranian nuclear weapon. The world is - Blitzer: "If the Israelis told you in advance would you say go ahead and do it?" Gingrich: "If they told me in advance, I would say how can we help you?" Blitzer: "You would actually participate?" Gingrich: "I'd provide them intelligence, I'd provide them logistic support - look - and this is a line we have to draw, an Iranian nuclaer weapon is potentially a second Holocaust. ***"Israel is a very urban country, two or three nuclear weapons wipes out most of the Jews in Israel. I believe Ahmadinejad would do it in a heartbeat."*** "When you have people who put on bodysuits to walk into a crowded mall to blow themselves up, you better believe they'd put on a nuclear weapon." ***"So I think the world needs to understand, Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon, all the world can decide is if they help us peacefully stop it or if they're going to force us to use violence - but Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon."*** Blitzer: "I don't know if you've seen these most recent statements from Prince Turkey of Saudi Arabia, former Ambassador to Washington, former Intelligence Chief, he says that if the Saudis see the Iranians get a bomb, the Israelis already have a bomb, Saudi Arabia may decide to get a nuclear bomb." 17:29:30: Gingrich: "They will decide to get a bomb." ***"I mean we're at the edge of the nightmare, we frankly may have crossed over with Pakistan, my guess is Pakistan has well over 100 nuclear weapons and that the Pakistani military is so penetrated by extemist elements you have no idea if one morning they're going to lose three or four of them, I mean just have them stolen. I worry."*** 17:30:14: Blitzer: "Do you worry that the Pakistani government isn't capable of protecting - " ***Gingrich: "Well, the Pakistani military was capable of protecting Bin Laden for 6 years."*** Blitzer: "You believe the Pakistani military knew about it" Gingrich: "It is inconceivable that he could have been in - that is a national military city, their major military university is one mile from his compound. ***"Now do I think Bin Laden was sitting a mile away and no one in their intelligence service noticed? It's inconceivable."*** 17:30:40: Blitzer: "Republicans often, and this is what I've heard over the years and I've studied this, they talk very strongly about US-Israeli relations and you know this, you're a historian you've lived through a lot of it, but some of the most tense moments between US-Israeli relations have been when there's been a Republican President. For example, Ronald Reagan, a strong friend of Israel right?" Gingrich: "Right" Blitzer: "What did he do when the Israelis under the Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin bombed Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in 1981?" 17:31:13: Gingrich: "At the time they condemned it. Later they said that it was a mistake to have condemned it." Blitzer: "He ordered his US ambassador to the UN, Jean Kirkpatrick to raise her hand and condemn Israel. If you had been President what would you have done?" ***17:31:24: Gingrich: "Well it was a different world. I mean, I would frankly have applauded the Israelis which I did at the time, but it was a different world."*** Blitzer: "Why was it a different world?" ***Gingrich: "I think at the time you had a lot more worries about the Soviet Union. I mean Reagan was totally focused on defeating the Soviet empire and he didn't want anything which made that more complicated."*** "And he had just cut a deal with the Saudis to flood the world with oil to drive down the price of oil to break the Soviet economy by cutting off all their hard currency. And he also had the Saudis engaged in funding the mujhadeen in Afghanistan. So they were very cautious about getting the Arab world upset during that period and that's why he also, remember it was a very tense period when the Israelis occupied part of Lebanon." ***"And it's the same reason - Reagan had a hierarchical principle in his mind - his job was to finish off the Soviet empire, he wasn't prepared to deal with a post-Soviet world and he would have said so."*** ***"Frankly if you look at that 8 year campaign against the Soviets it's one of the great strategic achievements of all time."*** ***17:32:27: Blitzer: "Would you move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?"*** ***Gingrich: "The first day it would be an executive order I would sign the day I'm inaugurated."*** Blitzer: "And what would happen if the Arab countries sever relations with the United States, Muslim countries?" Gingrich: "The Saudis aren't going to sever relations with the United States. The Emirates are not going to sever relations with the United States, they're too afraid of Iran right now. But I would also say to them - fine, you want to prove to us how much you hate Israel, fine. This is nonsense. Countries are allowed to define their own capital. Remember these are countries that don't even admit they're allowed to exist. 17:33:06: Gingrich: "I mean, I'm frankly, and I'll talk about this today - ***"I am really fed up with this fiction that we should be grateful that the Obama administration has funded the Iron Dome to stop missiles from Gaza, we're not asking the question 'how come Hamas is firing missiles from Gaza?' I mean if people were firing missiles into the US you think we'd be talking about a peace process? You know better. We would be annihilating them."*** ***Blitzer: "Would you condemn Israel for building settlements in the West Bank?"*** ***Gingrich: "No."*** Blitzer: "Every US President since '67 has said those settlements are illegal." ***Gingrich: "Look - I have a totally different view. Israel is in a state of war with people who refuse to recognize her right to exist. If you're in a state of war, I'm not prepared to say to the only stable, Democratic ally in the region, that you have to hit a separate standard. You know, Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, as recently as a few days ago - said 'we do not recognize Israel's right to exist'."*** ***"In November, the PLA ambassador to India said 'anybody who thinks there's any gap between us and Hamas is kidding themselves, we do not recognize Israel's right to exist', and these are the so-called moderates. Now why should you say to the Israelis 'please don't offend people who openly say they want to wipe you out'."**** 17:34:26: Blitzer: "If the Prime Minister of Israel were to say to you as President - please free Jonathan Pollard, a convicted Israeli spy, what would you say?" Gingrich: "Uh, I will say as a candidate that I want a thorough review, because every Secretary of Defense in both parties I believe, have said no and I want to thoroughly undersatnd why they have said that." Blitzer: "You haven't thoroughly looked into it at this point?" Gingrich: "There are secrecy things involved here that I frankly don't want to have access to as a candidate and I don't think its necessarily appropriate to have access to, but ***"I'm very cautious about what position I would take on that, I am prepared to say my bias is toward clemency, I would like to review it, he's been in for a very long time. But we're pretty tough about being spying on the United States and I also have a study underway to compare his sentence to other comparable people who have been sentenced to very long sentences for comparable deeds."*** Blitzer: "Mr. Speaker thanks very much." Gingrich: "Good to be with you" Blitzer: "Good luck" Gingrich: "Always fun."

0700 TRUMP NATO PRESSER FULL REFEED FS23 73 July 12, 2018 President Trump delivers remarks at NATO Summit Press Conference AR: 16X9 07:19:35 THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate it. We've had a very amazing two-day period in Brussels. And we really accomplished a lot, with respect to NATO. For years, Presidents have been coming to these meetings and talked about the expense - the tremendous expense for the United States. And tremendous progress has been made; everyone has agreed to substantially up their commitment. They're going to up it at levels that they've never thought of before. Prior to last year, where I attended my first meeting, it was going down - the amount of money being spent by countries was going down and down very substantially. And now, it's going up very substantially. And commitments were made. Only 5 of 29 countries were making their commitment. And that's now changed. The commitment was at 2 percent. Ultimately, that'll be going up quite a bit higher than that. So we are - we made a tremendous amount of progress today. It's been about, at a minimum, they estimate - and they're going to be giving you exact numbers - but since last year, they've raise an additional $33 billion that's been put up by the various countries, not including the United States. And the United States' commitment to NATO is very strong, remains very strong, but primarily because everyone - the spirit they have, the amount of money they're willing to spend, the additional money that they will be putting up has been really, really amazing to see it. To see the level of spirit in that room is incredible. And I hope that we're going to be able to get along with Russia. I think that we probably will be able to. The people in the room think so, but they nevertheless - they really stepped up their commitment, and stepped it up like they never have before. 7:21:31 So took in an addition $33 [billion]. The number could actually be higher than $40 [billion] when they give you the final number. The Secretary General, Stoltenberg, will be giving those numbers sometime today, probably in his concluding press statement. But we are doing numbers like they've never done before or ever seen before. And you'll be seeing that, and I guess you'll be hearing that a little bit later. Okay. We have our Secretary of State, as you know, and we have - John is here. So if you have any questions for the three of us. Mike Pompeo just got back from a third trip, as you know, to North Korea. He's become a true expert on the trips to North Korea - the best way to get there, the best way to get out. And he gets along very well. And he's doing a great job over there. Yes, ma'am. Q I have a question. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q Mr. President, I'm Tara McKelvey with the BBC. Can you tell us whether or not you warned people that the U.S. would pull out of NATO if they weren't meeting their spending goals? THE PRESIDENT: I told people that I'd be very unhappy if they didn't up their commitments very substantially, because the United States has been paying a tremendous amount, probably 90 percent of the cost of NATO. And now, people are going to start and countries are going to start upping their commitments. So I let them know yesterday, actually. I was surprised that you didn't pick it up; it took until today. But yesterday, I let them know that I was extremely unhappy with what was happening, and they have substantially upped their commitment, yeah. And now we're very happy and have a very, very powerful, very, very strong NATO, much stronger than it was two days ago. Yes, ma'am. Q Hi, President Trump. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, hi. How are you? Q I'm the White House Correspondent for PBS - THE PRESIDENT: I know. You're very famous on television. Q I have a question, again, about - did you ever, at any point, say that the U.S., though, might stop engaging with NATO? And do you think that your rhetoric helps NATO cohesion, or are you worried that people might think that U.S. might not be as committed to NATO? There are a lot of people who say they were worried and stressed by what you did yesterday. THE PRESIDENT: Well, they were probably worried because the United States was not being treated fairly, but now we are, because the commitment has been upped so much. So now they are. And I was very firm yesterday. You have to understand, I know a lot of the people in the room. I was here last year. I let them know last year - in a less firm manner, but pretty firm - and they raised an additional $33 billion, I think going to $40 billion. But it's $33 billion as of today. And then today and yesterday, I was probably a little bit more firm. 7:24:07 But I believe in NATO. I think NATO is a very important - probably the greatest ever done. But the United States was paying for anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of it, depending on the way you calculate. That's not fair to the United States. In addition to that, as you know, we're in negotiations with the EU, and we're going to be meeting with them next week. We've been treated very unfairly on trade. Our farmers have been shut out of the European Union. Now, you could say they're different, but basically, to a large extent, they're the same countries. So I think we're going to be ultimately treated fairly on trade. We'll see what happens, but I can tell you that NATO now is really a fine-tuned machine. People are paying money that they never paid before. They're happy to do it. And the United States is being treated much more fairly. Yes, sir. Q President Trump, Ryan Chilcote, PBS NewsHour. Did you win concessions in your meetings and discussions with the German Chancellor when it comes to German defense spending and also with this issue of purchasing energy from Russia? And secondly, what would you say to your critics that say by creating this scene here at NATO you're only enabling President Putin and Russia to further disturb things in Ukraine and Georgia? THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you consider putting up tremendously - you know, the additional funds at a level that nobody has ever seen before, I don't think that's helping Russia. I think that NATO is much stronger now than it was two days ago. I think that NATO was not doing what they were supposed to be doing - a lot of the countries. And we were doing much more than we should have been doing. Frankly, we were carrying too much of a burden. That's why we call it "burden-sharing." I was using the term a lot today. "Burden-sharing." We had a fantastic meeting at the end - 29 countries. And they are putting up a lot. Germany has increased very substantially their time period, and Germany is coming along. And we still have to figure out what's going on with the pipeline, because the pipeline is coming in from Russia. So we're going to have to figure that out. I brought it up; nobody brought it up but me, and we all are talking about it now. And actually, I think the world is talking about it now maybe more than anything else. But we're going to figure that out. But - and, frankly, maybe everybody is going to have a good relationship with Russia so there will be a lot less problem with the pipeline. 07:26:28 But, to me, that was a very major point of contention. We discussed it at length today. Germany has agreed to do a lot better than they were doing, and we're very happy with that. We had a very good relationship with Angela Merkel. Yes. Q Mr. President - THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, go ahead. Q Hi. Thank you. Margaret Talev from Bloomberg. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. After all these years, I know, Margaret. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Maybe I'm being dense here, but could you just clarify: Are you still threatening to potentially pull the United States out of NATO for any reason? And do you believe you can do that without Congress's explicit support and approval? THE PRESIDENT: I think I probably can, but that's unnecessary. And the people have stepped up today like they've never stepped up before. And remember the word - $33 billion more, they're paying. And you'll hear that from the Secretary General in a little while. He thanked me actually. He actually thanked me. And everybody in the room thanked me. There's a great collegial spirit in that room that I don't think they've had in many years. They're very strong. So, yeah, very unified, very strong. No problem. Right? Yes, go ahead. Q We're in NATO. No - no - THE PRESIDENT: No problem. Go ahead. Q Mr. President, Jonathan Lemire with the Associated Press. You have said previously you wanted the countries to step up their spending to 2 percent. Yesterday there was a suggestion it might be 4 percent, or perhaps 2 percent at a much quicker timetable. Can you clarify, what did they commit to doing? Is that satisfactory to you? THE PRESIDENT: So what they're doing is spending at a much faster clip. They're going up to the 2 percent level. Now, you have to understand, some of them have parliaments, they have their own congresses, they have a lot of things they have to go through. So, you know, they're here as prime minister or a as a president, and they can't necessarily go in and say, this is what we're going to do. But they're going back for approvals. 07:28:21 Some are at 2 percent; others have agreed definitely to go to 2 percent. And some are going back to get the approval, and which they will get, to go to 2 percent. After the 2 percent, we'll start talking about going higher. But I said, ultimately we should be, in years - in advance - we should be at 4 percent. I think 4 percent, it's the right number. Now, the United States - depending on the way you calculate it - was at 4.2 percent. And I said, that's unfair. And we have the largest GDP by far, especially since we've increased it by so much since a thing called the election. Our GDP has gone way up. And so the fact that our GDP went way up, that means we're paying for even more, which is very unfair. So I explained that. We will go to much higher than 2 percent into the future, but right now we're getting people up to 2 percent, and that will take place over a fairly short period of time - a short number of years. Okay? Yeah, go ahead. Q Hi, Tomas LeCrass (ph) from (inaudible) journalist Croatia Daily Newspaper. We understand your message - THE PRESIDENT: Congratulations, by the way. Q Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: On soccer. Q Thank you. We understand your message, but some people ask themselves, will you be tweeting differently once you board the Air Force One? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: No, that's other people that do that. I don't. I'm very consistent. I'm a very stable genius. (Laughter.) Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Q Thank you, sir. Jeremy Diamond with CNN. How are you? THE PRESIDENT: Hi, Jeremy. Q Quick question with regards to Germany and the comments that you made yesterday. Do you feel like given the threats that you made about potentially leaving NATO, about insulting Germany's sovereignty, it appears, by suggesting that they're totally controlled by Russia - do you feel like that's an effective way to conduct diplomacy? And secondly, would you be able to be a little bit more specific about the commitments that you secured today with regards to increasing the financial commitment? Is there an updated timeline? Are there specific countries you could cite? Because a majority of them were already planning to meet that 2 percent threshold by 2024. 07:30:22 THE PRESIDENT: No, many of them - in fact, Germany was going to be in the year 2028 or '30. Yeah, I think it's a very effective way to deal, but I didn't deal exactly the way you said. I have great respect for Germany. My father is from Germany. Both of my parents are from the EU, despite the fact they don't treat us well on trade. But I think that will change also, and I think we'll see that - because on the 25th of July, they're coming in to start negotiations with me. We'll see. And if they don't negotiate in good faith, we'll do something having to do with all of the millions of cars that are coming into our country and being taxed at a virtually zero level, at a very low level. But, Jeremy, I think it's been a very effective way of negotiating. But I'm not negotiating; I just want fairness for the United States. We're paying for far too much of NATO. NATO is very important. But NATO is helping Europe more than it's helping us. At the same time, it's very good for us. So we have now got it to a point where people are paying a lot more money, and that's starting - really, last year. It really had - you were there last year. And last year we had a big impact. Again, we took in $33 billion more. And if you ask Secretary General Stoltenberg, he gives us total credit - meaning me, I guess, in this case, total credit - because I said it was unfair. Now, what has happened is, presidents over many years, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, they came in, they said, "Okay, hey, do the best you can," and they left. Nobody did anything about it. And it got to a point where the United States was paying for 90 percent of NATO. And that's not fair. So it's changed. We had a really good meeting today. We had a great meeting in terms of getting along. I know most of the people in the room because of last year, because of the year and a half that we've been in office - year and a half-plus. But we have a great relationship. Everybody in that room, by the time we left, got along. And they agreed to pay more, and they agreed to pay it more quickly. Yeah, go ahead, Phil. Q Thanks, Mr. President. Philip Rucker from the Washington Post. You tweeted yesterday, "What good is NATO?" And you've talked about NATO as an alliance that benefits Europe, that defends and protects Europe. Do you see any value of NATO to the United States vis-à-vis Russia? Does it help protect the United States from Russia, in your view? 07:32:47 THE PRESIDENT: I think it's another very strong ally, as together it's much stronger than, obviously, individual countries. I think it's - the way we have it now, I think it's a much - I think NATO got - you know what was happening with spending prior to my getting into office. The numbers were going down. Now the numbers have gone up like a rocket ship. The numbers have gone up a lot, and they've gone up rapidly. And they're now going up further. So I think NATO is going to be very, very effective. I'm very impressed with - and really know, and he's a friend mine - but Secretary General Stoltenberg has done a fantastic job and putting it all together. And we were the ones that really - we gave him an extension of his contract, as you know. I think he's done a really good job. I think that when I was saying that I am very concerned with the pipeline, I don't like the pipeline. And when I talk about NATO, I say, how do you have NATO? And then you have somebody paying the people that you're protecting against. But maybe we'll get along with the group that we're protecting against. I think that's a real possibility. As you know, I'm meeting with President Putin on Monday. And I think we go into that meeting not looking for so much. We want to find out about Syria. We will, of course, ask your favorite question about meddling. I will be asking that question again. But we'll also be talking about other things. We'll be talking about Ukraine. Ukraine was here today, by the way. And, you know, it was very interesting to hear what they had to say? Q (Inaudible.) THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me? Q What if he denies it? THE PRESIDENT: Well, he may. I mean, look, he may. You know, what am I going to do? He may deny it. I mean, it's one of those things. All I can do is say, "Did you" and "Don't do it again." But he may deny it. You'll be the first to know. Okay? Yes, go ahead. Q Mr. President, Robert Wall with the Wall Street Journal. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Hi, Robert. Q If the Germans and the Canadians and others don't come up to 2 percent, what is your fallback position? How will you up the pressure to make them actually? THE PRESIDENT: Well, they will. They will. I have no doubt about it. They all made commitments. And they will be up to 2 percent. It will be over a period - a relatively short period of years. Okay? Q Please. Thank you so much. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead. Q Georgian TV (inaudible). Mr. President, what do you think today, it needs - (inaudible) Georgia more support from NATO? And I wanted to ask about - 07:35:08 THE PRESIDENT: Georgia? They were here today, representing. Q Yes. And will you talk about Georgia in a meeting with President Putin? THE PRESIDENT: Well, they were here. They made a very favorable impression. And we listened to their plight. It's a tough situation with Georgia. But they made a very fair verbal impression in the room. Okay? Yeah, go ahead. Go. Go. Go ahead. Q She's already had one. THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, you really did. Come on. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Well, I had a question, as well. But nonetheless, I'll ask, sir. Will you recognize - THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead. Q Will you recognize Russia's annex - will you recognize Crimea as part of Russia when you meet President - THE PRESIDENT: Oh, that's an interesting question - because long before I got here, President Obama allowed that to happen. That was on his watch, not on my watch. You know, people like to say, "Oh, Crimea." But the fact is, they built bridges to Crimea. They just opened a big bridge that was started years ago. They built, I think, a submarine port; substantially added billions of dollars. So that was on Barack Obama's watch. That was not on Trump's watch. Would I have allowed it to happen? No, I would not have allowed it to happen. But he did allow it to happen, so that was his determination. What will happen with Crimea from this point on? That I can't tell you. But I'm not happy about Crimea. But again, that was on Barack Obama's watch, not Trump's watch. Yeah, go ahead. Sure. Q It's Jeff Mason from Reuters, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: Sure. I know, Jeff. Q Regarding your summit with President Putin, will you be raising arms control issues? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q Would you like to extend New START? And will you raise concerns about violations of the INF Treaty? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q And as a follow-up to the NATO meeting today, will you suggest to him, or would you consider stopping military exercises in the Baltic States, if that's something that he requests? 07:36:58 THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps we'll talk about that. But I will say that we are going to be talking about those three issues and many more. We'll be talking about it, Jeff. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q (Inaudible.) We are in the NATO, the quarters - the cost (inaudible) the double (inaudible) before. I would like to know if you are planning to guarantee the taxpayers that the new money that is flowing into NATO will be spent in the best possible way, especially the money coming from country that have several problem with the public finances. THE PRESIDENT: Well, the money will be spent properly. And one of the things that we have - we have many wealthy countries with us today, but we have some that aren't so wealthy. And they did ask if they could buy the military equipment and could I help them out. And we will help them out a little bit. We're not going to finance it for them, but we'll make sure that they're able to get payments and various other things so they can buy. Because the United States makes, by far, the best military equipment in the world. The best jets, the best missiles, the best guns. The best everything - we make, by far. I mean, that's one thing - I guess I assumed it prior to taking office, but I really learned, since being President, our equipment is so much better than anybody else's equipment when you look at our companies - Lockheed and Boeing and Grumman. The material - the equipment that we make is so far superior, everybody wants to buy our equipment. In fact, it's the question, can they make it? Because they are doing very well. Can they make it for so many people? So we are helping some of those countries get on line and buy the best equipment. Yeah, go ahead. Q Hi, I'm Kristin Brown with Fox News. On your upcoming summit with President Putin, did any of your allies here express any specific concerns or talk to you about any messages that they'd like you to take with you when you go to the summit? THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Just the opposite of concern. They actually - and they'll probably come out with a little bit of an edict - but they actually thanked me for meeting with President Putin. I look forward to the meeting. They thanked me. They thought it was a great thing that I was doing it. And they gave us our best wishes, or their best wishes. 07:39:14 Now, with that being said, we'll see that happens. Just a loose meeting. It's not going to be big schedule. I don't think it should take a very long period of time. And we'll see where it leads. But it could lead to productive - something very productive. And maybe it's not. But I think meeting with people is great. We had a great meeting with Chairman Kim. And I'll tell you, Mike Pompeo did a fantastic job. I might ask you to say a few words, Mike, while you're here. Just one second. Mike, go ahead. SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you, Mr. President. So, I did. I returned - I actually came straight from North Korea with a couple of stops here to Brussels. We had a productive conversation. There remains a great deal of work to do, but I think, most importantly, my counterpart, Kim Yong Chol, made a commitment consistent with what President Trump was able to achieve with Chairman Kim, which was: They intend to denuclearize. They're going to accomplish it. And now the task is to get it implemented. THE PRESIDENT: I think, just to finish on that, you know, it's so important. That was an amazing - really, an amazing meeting, I though. And I really think that we established a very good relationship. We'll see where it all ends. But there have been no missile tests. There have been no research. Where there has been - they have blown up a site; I hear they're blowing up another site, missile site. They've taken down all of the propaganda. In fact, somebody said there's no more music playing at the border line. You know, the music was going on for many years. They said recently that, "Wow, there's no more of the heavy music and the propaganda." They've done a lot of things. And we got back our three hostages. So it's a good process. But the main thing is there have been no rocket launches. There have been no missile tests. There's been no nuclear tests, no explosions, no nothing, for almost nine months. Okay. Yeah, please. Q Ewen MacAskill from The Guardian. Your trip to the UK, there are lots of protests planned in London and elsewhere. How do you feel about that? 07:41:19 THE PRESIDENT: I think it's fine. I mean, I think they like me a lot in the UK. I think they agree with me on immigration. I'm very strong on immigration. I made a point today - I said, you've got to stop. You're ruining your - you're going to have a lot of problems. You see what's going on throughout the world with immigration. I probably, at least partially, won an election because of immigration. If you look at Italy - Giuseppe, who I got to know quite well over the last month and a half, he won his election because of strong immigration policies on Italy. I think that a lot of the people in the UK - I think that's why Brexit happened. Now, I don't know what's going on with the negotiation. Who knows. But - and I guess that's become a very interesting point of contention. I said I'm going to a few hotspots. We have NATO, then we have the UK, and then we have Putin. And I said, Putin may be the easiest of them all. You never know. But I'm going to a pretty hotspot right now, right, with a lot of resignations. But I will say that immigration is a very important thing, and I told them today, the EU - the European Union - better be very careful, because immigration is taking over Europe, and they better be very, very careful. And I said that loud and clear. Yes, go ahead. Q President Trump, (inaudible) Romania. What will you tell President Putin about this summit and about NATO? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think he's going to see about this summit - this has turned out to be a very successful summit. This is - I think, really, that NATO is more put together right now, is more coordinated. And I think there's a better spirit for NATO right now than perhaps they've ever had. It's richer than it ever was. The commitments are made at a higher level than they've ever been made. And the money, it will be paid out faster - far faster. You know, the 2 percent was a range, a goal. It wasn't something that they were committed to. Now it's a commitment. There's a big difference - the 2 percent number. And that's why so many people weren't reaching it or hitting it. It was just sort of like this amorphous number out there. Now it's a commitment, a real commitment. 07:43:33 I think he's going to see that there's great unity, great spirit, great esprit de corps. And I think we're going to have a good meeting. Regardless of that, I think we're going to have a good meeting. But this was a fantastic two days. This was a really fantastic - it all came together at the end. And, yes, it was a little tough for a little while, but ultimately - you can ask anybody at that meeting - they're really liking what happened over the last two days. There's a great, great spirit leaving that room. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Please. Q Yeah. Jonathan Beale from BBC. I just wonder - you think you're going to get along with President Putin at that meeting. Could you just tell us, why do you think that? Is there something you admire about him? And the second question, because you're just about to go to the UK, sir - THE PRESIDENT: Well, he's a competitor. He's been very nice to me the times I've met him. I've been nice to him. He's a competitor. You know, somebody was saying, "Is he an enemy?" No, he's not my enemy. "Is he a friend?" No, I don't know him well enough. But the couple of times that I've gotten to meet him, we got along very well. You saw that. I hope we get along well. I think we get along well. But ultimately, he's a competitor. He's representing Russia. I'm representing the United States. So in a sense, we're competitors. Not a question of friend or enemy. He's not my enemy. And hopefully, someday, maybe he'll be a friend. It could happen. But I - I just don't know him very well. I've met him a couple of times. And when I did meet him, most of you people were there. Yes. Q And Brexit - sorry, sir, because you are going to the UK. What will be your message on Brexit? 07:45:06 THE PRESIDENT: Well, Brexit is a - you know, I've been reading a lot about Brexit over the last couple of days, and it seems to be turning a little bit differently where they're getting at least partially involved back with the European Union. I have no message. It's not for me to say. I own a lot of property there. I'm going to Scotland while I wait for the meeting. I have Turnberry in Scotland, which is a magical place - one of my favorite places. I'm going there for two days while I wait for the Monday meeting. But it's not for me to say what they should be doing in the UK. I have great friendships. My mother was born in Scotland. I have great friendships over there. We have a wonderful ambassador - Woody Johnson. And he's doing - by the way, Woody is doing a great job. But it's not for me to say. I'd like to see him be able to work it so it could go quickly, whatever they work out. Q Hard Brexit? THE PRESIDENT: Is it heartbreaking? Q Hard Brexit. THE PRESIDENT: Oh, hard Brexit. I see. (Laughter.) I thought you said it was heartbreaking. I said, that might be going a little bit too far, right? (Laughter.) Heartbreak. Is it heartbreaking? A lot of things are heartbreaking. No, I would say that Brexit is Brexit. It's not like - I guess we'll use the term "hard Brexit." I assume that's what you mean. The people voted to break it up, so I would imagine that's what they'll do. But maybe they're taking a little bit of a different route. So I don't know if that's what they voted for. I just want the people to be happy. They're great people. And I do think I have - I'm sure there will be protests, because there are always protests. But I think - there were protests the night of the election, both ways. But in the end, we got 206 electoral - 306 electoral votes. And one state said - you know, it was interesting, one of the states we won, Wisconsin - I didn't even realize this until fairly recently - that was the one state Ronald Reagan didn't win when he ran the board his second time. He didn't win Wisconsin, and we won Wisconsin. So, you know, we had a great night. 07:47:10 Protests? There might be protests. But I believe that the people in the UK - Scotland, Ireland. As you know, I have property in Ireland; I have property all over. I think that those people, they like me a lot, and they agree with me on immigration. And I think that's why you have Brexit in the first place, because of immigration. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, go ahead. Q (Inaudible) from Finland. What would be the best deal with Putin when you come to Helsinki? And don't you think that your hard diplomacy - that you are playing to the same goal that Putin, with your hard diplomacy towards EU and NATO? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can't tell you what would be the ultimate. What would be the ultimate? Well, let's see: No more nuclear weapons anywhere in the world would be the ultimate, okay? No more wars, no more problems, no more conflict. Let's find a cure to every disease known to mankind, or womankind. That would be my ultimate, okay? And we'll start from there. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Q (Inaudible) from Afghan Service and BBC World Service. So I would like to ask you, Mr. President, that Afghan President is going to be here - THE PRESIDENT: He's here right now. He's here right now. Q No, is here. And are you going to meet him? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q And what have you got to say to him? THE PRESIDENT: Ghani. Q And when the war is going to end in Afghanistan? Because people are fed up now and they want to know. THE PRESIDENT: I agree with that. I very much agree. It's been going on for a long time. We've made a lot of progress, but it's been going on for a long time. We've made a lot of progress in Afghanistan, I will say. Yes, your President is here right now. In fact, he's in the room. When I'm finished with this, I'm going right back into that room. Q One question, please. Please. Georgia Public Broadcasting. Mr. President, can you tell us what do you think about future membership of Georgia in NATO, please? 07:49:03 THE PRESIDENT: Well, at a certain point they'll have a chance. Not right now. They just left the room. But at a certain point, they'll have a chance. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Q (Inaudible) reporter for Kurdistan 24. Are you going to continue to support the Kurdish forces, Peshmerga, in Iraq? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: I think the Kurds are great people. They're incredible fighters. They're wonderful, warm, intelligent - allies, in many cases. As you know, it's different groups of people. But they're great people. I really do - I believe they're great people. Yes, go ahead, please. Q Mr. President, (inaudible) working with ARD German TV. You said Putin isn't an enemy, isn't a friend; he's just a competitor. THE PRESIDENT: He's a competitor. Q Do you consider him as a security threat for Europe or to the U.S.? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Hey, I don't want him to be. And that's, I guess, why we have NATO, and that's why we have a United States that just had the largest military budget ever - $700 billion approved; $716 billion next year. No, I hope that we'll be able to get along. I've said from day one, whether it's China or Russia - you know, we're working on trade with China right now, and I don't say that's an easy situation, because that's been years of abuse of the United States by presidents, frankly, that allowed that to happen. So I've taken over a lot of bad hands, and I'm fixing each one of them and I'm fixing them well. But China is going to be, I think, very successfully, ultimately, taken care of. I have a great respect for their President, as you know - President Xi. I spent two days there. It was among the most magical two days I've ever lived. And I think we're going to end up doing something very good with China. Right now, we're in a pretty nasty trade battle, but I think ultimately that will work out. I really think we have a big advantage. 07:51:01 You know, we've picked up $8 trillion in value, in worth, since I became President. And we're close to two times the size of China. A lot of people don't know that. And, you know, we're going to negotiate a fair deal, if that's possible. Okay. And Russia - I think getting along with Russia also would be a very good thing. Yes, go ahead. Q Jamal Mousavi from BCC Persian TV. We have seen escalation of tension between you and the Iranians. What is your exit plan, Mr. President? THE PRESIDENT: I would say there might be an escalation between us and the Iranians. I agree with that. Q But they are threatening to - THE PRESIDENT: By the way, they're treating us with much more respect right now than they did in the past. And I think - I know they're having a lot of problems and their economy is collapsing. But I will tell you this: At a certain point, they're going to call me and they're going to say, "Let's make a deal," and we'll make a deal. But they are - they're feeling a lot of pain right now. Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Mr. President, do we expect the rise of the Russian influence in Macedonia following the starting of the negotiation process, like we've seen in Montenegro with alleged coup? And what will NATO and United States do to counter that Russian influence in the Western Balkans? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: We never talk about our future plans. Yes, go ahead, ma'am. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you very much. My name is Alla Shali from Rudaw TV from Kurdistan Iraq. My question is about the government of Iraq. You know, after two months election, the government in Iraq has not been formed. What's the role from USA? And you want to talk about Syria with President Putin. Can I have any information about Quds in Syria? Thank you very much. THE PRESIDENT: So I hope we get along well with Iraq. We've certainly spent a great fortune in Iraq. And many, many lives - thousands and hundreds of thousands of lives, if you think on both sides, which I always think about both sides, not just our side. And they had an election, and I hope we're going to be able to get along, and we'll see how that goes. We've already been talking to the people that won the election. I was not in favor of that war. I was very much against that war. I never thought it was a good thing. But that's another deck of cards that I inherited, and we'll do the best we can with it. I think the election was pretty conclusive. And again, we've spoken to them. We'll see what happens. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q I'm Asea Atrouz (ph) from Assabah Newspaper in Tunisia. I come from a very far country, a small country in Northern Africa, Tunisia. My question, Mr. President - we really admire what you are doing in North Africa and we really wish and hope that something again will be done in the Middle East to avoid (inaudible) more wars and more blood and more killings in the Middle East, with a just peace process that gives everyone its (inaudible). THE PRESIDENT: We're looking for peace. And Africa, as you know, is on our very strong list. But we're looking for peace. We want peace all over. We want to solve problems. We're looking for peace. Africa, right now, has got problems like few people would even understand. They have things going on there that nobody could believe in this room. If you saw some of the things that I see through intelligence, what's going on in Africa, it is so sad and so vicious and violent. And we want peace. We want peace for Africa. We want peace all over the world. That's my number-one goal: peace all over the world. And we're building up a tremendous military, because I really believe, through strength, you get peace. But we're going to have a military like we've never had before. We've given out orders for the best fighter jets in the world, the best ships, the best everything. But hopefully we'll never have to use them. That would be a dream. To buy the best stuff, to have the best stuff, to have the best equipment in the world, and to never have to use it would be a really great part of my dream. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. I'm going to be going - leaving in about a half an hour. Thank you.

0545 WH BRUSSELS NATO PATH1 FS23 81 0700 TRUMP NATO PRESSER FULL REFEED FS24 74 July 12, 2018 President Trump delivers remarks at NATO Summit Press Conference AR: 16X9 07:19:35 THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate it. We've had a very amazing two-day period in Brussels. And we really accomplished a lot, with respect to NATO. For years, Presidents have been coming to these meetings and talked about the expense - the tremendous expense for the United States. And tremendous progress has been made; everyone has agreed to substantially up their commitment. They're going to up it at levels that they've never thought of before. Prior to last year, where I attended my first meeting, it was going down - the amount of money being spent by countries was going down and down very substantially. And now, it's going up very substantially. And commitments were made. Only 5 of 29 countries were making their commitment. And that's now changed. The commitment was at 2 percent. Ultimately, that'll be going up quite a bit higher than that. So we are - we made a tremendous amount of progress today. It's been about, at a minimum, they estimate - and they're going to be giving you exact numbers - but since last year, they've raise an additional $33 billion that's been put up by the various countries, not including the United States. And the United States' commitment to NATO is very strong, remains very strong, but primarily because everyone - the spirit they have, the amount of money they're willing to spend, the additional money that they will be putting up has been really, really amazing to see it. To see the level of spirit in that room is incredible. And I hope that we're going to be able to get along with Russia. I think that we probably will be able to. The people in the room think so, but they nevertheless - they really stepped up their commitment, and stepped it up like they never have before. 7:21:31 So took in an addition $33 [billion]. The number could actually be higher than $40 [billion] when they give you the final number. The Secretary General, Stoltenberg, will be giving those numbers sometime today, probably in his concluding press statement. But we are doing numbers like they've never done before or ever seen before. And you'll be seeing that, and I guess you'll be hearing that a little bit later. Okay. We have our Secretary of State, as you know, and we have - John is here. So if you have any questions for the three of us. Mike Pompeo just got back from a third trip, as you know, to North Korea. He's become a true expert on the trips to North Korea - the best way to get there, the best way to get out. And he gets along very well. And he's doing a great job over there. Yes, ma'am. Q I have a question. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q Mr. President, I'm Tara McKelvey with the BBC. Can you tell us whether or not you warned people that the U.S. would pull out of NATO if they weren't meeting their spending goals? THE PRESIDENT: I told people that I'd be very unhappy if they didn't up their commitments very substantially, because the United States has been paying a tremendous amount, probably 90 percent of the cost of NATO. And now, people are going to start and countries are going to start upping their commitments. So I let them know yesterday, actually. I was surprised that you didn't pick it up; it took until today. But yesterday, I let them know that I was extremely unhappy with what was happening, and they have substantially upped their commitment, yeah. And now we're very happy and have a very, very powerful, very, very strong NATO, much stronger than it was two days ago. Yes, ma'am. Q Hi, President Trump. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, hi. How are you? Q I'm the White House Correspondent for PBS - THE PRESIDENT: I know. You're very famous on television. Q I have a question, again, about - did you ever, at any point, say that the U.S., though, might stop engaging with NATO? And do you think that your rhetoric helps NATO cohesion, or are you worried that people might think that U.S. might not be as committed to NATO? There are a lot of people who say they were worried and stressed by what you did yesterday. THE PRESIDENT: Well, they were probably worried because the United States was not being treated fairly, but now we are, because the commitment has been upped so much. So now they are. And I was very firm yesterday. You have to understand, I know a lot of the people in the room. I was here last year. I let them know last year - in a less firm manner, but pretty firm - and they raised an additional $33 billion, I think going to $40 billion. But it's $33 billion as of today. And then today and yesterday, I was probably a little bit more firm. 7:24:07 But I believe in NATO. I think NATO is a very important - probably the greatest ever done. But the United States was paying for anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of it, depending on the way you calculate. That's not fair to the United States. In addition to that, as you know, we're in negotiations with the EU, and we're going to be meeting with them next week. We've been treated very unfairly on trade. Our farmers have been shut out of the European Union. Now, you could say they're different, but basically, to a large extent, they're the same countries. So I think we're going to be ultimately treated fairly on trade. We'll see what happens, but I can tell you that NATO now is really a fine-tuned machine. People are paying money that they never paid before. They're happy to do it. And the United States is being treated much more fairly. Yes, sir. Q President Trump, Ryan Chilcote, PBS NewsHour. Did you win concessions in your meetings and discussions with the German Chancellor when it comes to German defense spending and also with this issue of purchasing energy from Russia? And secondly, what would you say to your critics that say by creating this scene here at NATO you're only enabling President Putin and Russia to further disturb things in Ukraine and Georgia? THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you consider putting up tremendously - you know, the additional funds at a level that nobody has ever seen before, I don't think that's helping Russia. I think that NATO is much stronger now than it was two days ago. I think that NATO was not doing what they were supposed to be doing - a lot of the countries. And we were doing much more than we should have been doing. Frankly, we were carrying too much of a burden. That's why we call it "burden-sharing." I was using the term a lot today. "Burden-sharing." We had a fantastic meeting at the end - 29 countries. And they are putting up a lot. Germany has increased very substantially their time period, and Germany is coming along. And we still have to figure out what's going on with the pipeline, because the pipeline is coming in from Russia. So we're going to have to figure that out. I brought it up; nobody brought it up but me, and we all are talking about it now. And actually, I think the world is talking about it now maybe more than anything else. But we're going to figure that out. But - and, frankly, maybe everybody is going to have a good relationship with Russia so there will be a lot less problem with the pipeline. 07:26:28 But, to me, that was a very major point of contention. We discussed it at length today. Germany has agreed to do a lot better than they were doing, and we're very happy with that. We had a very good relationship with Angela Merkel. Yes. Q Mr. President - THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, go ahead. Q Hi. Thank you. Margaret Talev from Bloomberg. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. After all these years, I know, Margaret. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Maybe I'm being dense here, but could you just clarify: Are you still threatening to potentially pull the United States out of NATO for any reason? And do you believe you can do that without Congress's explicit support and approval? THE PRESIDENT: I think I probably can, but that's unnecessary. And the people have stepped up today like they've never stepped up before. And remember the word - $33 billion more, they're paying. And you'll hear that from the Secretary General in a little while. He thanked me actually. He actually thanked me. And everybody in the room thanked me. There's a great collegial spirit in that room that I don't think they've had in many years. They're very strong. So, yeah, very unified, very strong. No problem. Right? Yes, go ahead. Q We're in NATO. No - no - THE PRESIDENT: No problem. Go ahead. Q Mr. President, Jonathan Lemire with the Associated Press. You have said previously you wanted the countries to step up their spending to 2 percent. Yesterday there was a suggestion it might be 4 percent, or perhaps 2 percent at a much quicker timetable. Can you clarify, what did they commit to doing? Is that satisfactory to you? THE PRESIDENT: So what they're doing is spending at a much faster clip. They're going up to the 2 percent level. Now, you have to understand, some of them have parliaments, they have their own congresses, they have a lot of things they have to go through. So, you know, they're here as prime minister or a as a president, and they can't necessarily go in and say, this is what we're going to do. But they're going back for approvals. 07:28:21 Some are at 2 percent; others have agreed definitely to go to 2 percent. And some are going back to get the approval, and which they will get, to go to 2 percent. After the 2 percent, we'll start talking about going higher. But I said, ultimately we should be, in years - in advance - we should be at 4 percent. I think 4 percent, it's the right number. Now, the United States - depending on the way you calculate it - was at 4.2 percent. And I said, that's unfair. And we have the largest GDP by far, especially since we've increased it by so much since a thing called the election. Our GDP has gone way up. And so the fact that our GDP went way up, that means we're paying for even more, which is very unfair. So I explained that. We will go to much higher than 2 percent into the future, but right now we're getting people up to 2 percent, and that will take place over a fairly short period of time - a short number of years. Okay? Yeah, go ahead. Q Hi, Tomas LeCrass (ph) from (inaudible) journalist Croatia Daily Newspaper. We understand your message - THE PRESIDENT: Congratulations, by the way. Q Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: On soccer. Q Thank you. We understand your message, but some people ask themselves, will you be tweeting differently once you board the Air Force One? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: No, that's other people that do that. I don't. I'm very consistent. I'm a very stable genius. (Laughter.) Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Q Thank you, sir. Jeremy Diamond with CNN. How are you? THE PRESIDENT: Hi, Jeremy. Q Quick question with regards to Germany and the comments that you made yesterday. Do you feel like given the threats that you made about potentially leaving NATO, about insulting Germany's sovereignty, it appears, by suggesting that they're totally controlled by Russia - do you feel like that's an effective way to conduct diplomacy? And secondly, would you be able to be a little bit more specific about the commitments that you secured today with regards to increasing the financial commitment? Is there an updated timeline? Are there specific countries you could cite? Because a majority of them were already planning to meet that 2 percent threshold by 2024. 07:30:22 THE PRESIDENT: No, many of them - in fact, Germany was going to be in the year 2028 or '30. Yeah, I think it's a very effective way to deal, but I didn't deal exactly the way you said. I have great respect for Germany. My father is from Germany. Both of my parents are from the EU, despite the fact they don't treat us well on trade. But I think that will change also, and I think we'll see that - because on the 25th of July, they're coming in to start negotiations with me. We'll see. And if they don't negotiate in good faith, we'll do something having to do with all of the millions of cars that are coming into our country and being taxed at a virtually zero level, at a very low level. But, Jeremy, I think it's been a very effective way of negotiating. But I'm not negotiating; I just want fairness for the United States. We're paying for far too much of NATO. NATO is very important. But NATO is helping Europe more than it's helping us. At the same time, it's very good for us. So we have now got it to a point where people are paying a lot more money, and that's starting - really, last year. It really had - you were there last year. And last year we had a big impact. Again, we took in $33 billion more. And if you ask Secretary General Stoltenberg, he gives us total credit - meaning me, I guess, in this case, total credit - because I said it was unfair. Now, what has happened is, presidents over many years, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, they came in, they said, "Okay, hey, do the best you can," and they left. Nobody did anything about it. And it got to a point where the United States was paying for 90 percent of NATO. And that's not fair. So it's changed. We had a really good meeting today. We had a great meeting in terms of getting along. I know most of the people in the room because of last year, because of the year and a half that we've been in office - year and a half-plus. But we have a great relationship. Everybody in that room, by the time we left, got along. And they agreed to pay more, and they agreed to pay it more quickly. Yeah, go ahead, Phil. Q Thanks, Mr. President. Philip Rucker from the Washington Post. You tweeted yesterday, "What good is NATO?" And you've talked about NATO as an alliance that benefits Europe, that defends and protects Europe. Do you see any value of NATO to the United States vis-à-vis Russia? Does it help protect the United States from Russia, in your view? 07:32:47 THE PRESIDENT: I think it's another very strong ally, as together it's much stronger than, obviously, individual countries. I think it's - the way we have it now, I think it's a much - I think NATO got - you know what was happening with spending prior to my getting into office. The numbers were going down. Now the numbers have gone up like a rocket ship. The numbers have gone up a lot, and they've gone up rapidly. And they're now going up further. So I think NATO is going to be very, very effective. I'm very impressed with - and really know, and he's a friend mine - but Secretary General Stoltenberg has done a fantastic job and putting it all together. And we were the ones that really - we gave him an extension of his contract, as you know. I think he's done a really good job. I think that when I was saying that I am very concerned with the pipeline, I don't like the pipeline. And when I talk about NATO, I say, how do you have NATO? And then you have somebody paying the people that you're protecting against. But maybe we'll get along with the group that we're protecting against. I think that's a real possibility. As you know, I'm meeting with President Putin on Monday. And I think we go into that meeting not looking for so much. We want to find out about Syria. We will, of course, ask your favorite question about meddling. I will be asking that question again. But we'll also be talking about other things. We'll be talking about Ukraine. Ukraine was here today, by the way. And, you know, it was very interesting to hear what they had to say? Q (Inaudible.) THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me? Q What if he denies it? THE PRESIDENT: Well, he may. I mean, look, he may. You know, what am I going to do? He may deny it. I mean, it's one of those things. All I can do is say, "Did you" and "Don't do it again." But he may deny it. You'll be the first to know. Okay? Yes, go ahead. Q Mr. President, Robert Wall with the Wall Street Journal. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Hi, Robert. Q If the Germans and the Canadians and others don't come up to 2 percent, what is your fallback position? How will you up the pressure to make them actually? THE PRESIDENT: Well, they will. They will. I have no doubt about it. They all made commitments. And they will be up to 2 percent. It will be over a period - a relatively short period of years. Okay? Q Please. Thank you so much. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead. Q Georgian TV (inaudible). Mr. President, what do you think today, it needs - (inaudible) Georgia more support from NATO? And I wanted to ask about - 07:35:08 THE PRESIDENT: Georgia? They were here today, representing. Q Yes. And will you talk about Georgia in a meeting with President Putin? THE PRESIDENT: Well, they were here. They made a very favorable impression. And we listened to their plight. It's a tough situation with Georgia. But they made a very fair verbal impression in the room. Okay? Yeah, go ahead. Go. Go. Go ahead. Q She's already had one. THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, you really did. Come on. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Well, I had a question, as well. But nonetheless, I'll ask, sir. Will you recognize - THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead. Q Will you recognize Russia's annex - will you recognize Crimea as part of Russia when you meet President - THE PRESIDENT: Oh, that's an interesting question - because long before I got here, President Obama allowed that to happen. That was on his watch, not on my watch. You know, people like to say, "Oh, Crimea." But the fact is, they built bridges to Crimea. They just opened a big bridge that was started years ago. They built, I think, a submarine port; substantially added billions of dollars. So that was on Barack Obama's watch. That was not on Trump's watch. Would I have allowed it to happen? No, I would not have allowed it to happen. But he did allow it to happen, so that was his determination. What will happen with Crimea from this point on? That I can't tell you. But I'm not happy about Crimea. But again, that was on Barack Obama's watch, not Trump's watch. Yeah, go ahead. Sure. Q It's Jeff Mason from Reuters, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: Sure. I know, Jeff. Q Regarding your summit with President Putin, will you be raising arms control issues? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q Would you like to extend New START? And will you raise concerns about violations of the INF Treaty? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q And as a follow-up to the NATO meeting today, will you suggest to him, or would you consider stopping military exercises in the Baltic States, if that's something that he requests? 07:36:58 THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps we'll talk about that. But I will say that we are going to be talking about those three issues and many more. We'll be talking about it, Jeff. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q (Inaudible.) We are in the NATO, the quarters - the cost (inaudible) the double (inaudible) before. I would like to know if you are planning to guarantee the taxpayers that the new money that is flowing into NATO will be spent in the best possible way, especially the money coming from country that have several problem with the public finances. THE PRESIDENT: Well, the money will be spent properly. And one of the things that we have - we have many wealthy countries with us today, but we have some that aren't so wealthy. And they did ask if they could buy the military equipment and could I help them out. And we will help them out a little bit. We're not going to finance it for them, but we'll make sure that they're able to get payments and various other things so they can buy. Because the United States makes, by far, the best military equipment in the world. The best jets, the best missiles, the best guns. The best everything - we make, by far. I mean, that's one thing - I guess I assumed it prior to taking office, but I really learned, since being President, our equipment is so much better than anybody else's equipment when you look at our companies - Lockheed and Boeing and Grumman. The material - the equipment that we make is so far superior, everybody wants to buy our equipment. In fact, it's the question, can they make it? Because they are doing very well. Can they make it for so many people? So we are helping some of those countries get on line and buy the best equipment. Yeah, go ahead. Q Hi, I'm Kristin Brown with Fox News. On your upcoming summit with President Putin, did any of your allies here express any specific concerns or talk to you about any messages that they'd like you to take with you when you go to the summit? THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Just the opposite of concern. They actually - and they'll probably come out with a little bit of an edict - but they actually thanked me for meeting with President Putin. I look forward to the meeting. They thanked me. They thought it was a great thing that I was doing it. And they gave us our best wishes, or their best wishes. 07:39:14 Now, with that being said, we'll see that happens. Just a loose meeting. It's not going to be big schedule. I don't think it should take a very long period of time. And we'll see where it leads. But it could lead to productive - something very productive. And maybe it's not. But I think meeting with people is great. We had a great meeting with Chairman Kim. And I'll tell you, Mike Pompeo did a fantastic job. I might ask you to say a few words, Mike, while you're here. Just one second. Mike, go ahead. SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you, Mr. President. So, I did. I returned - I actually came straight from North Korea with a couple of stops here to Brussels. We had a productive conversation. There remains a great deal of work to do, but I think, most importantly, my counterpart, Kim Yong Chol, made a commitment consistent with what President Trump was able to achieve with Chairman Kim, which was: They intend to denuclearize. They're going to accomplish it. And now the task is to get it implemented. THE PRESIDENT: I think, just to finish on that, you know, it's so important. That was an amazing - really, an amazing meeting, I though. And I really think that we established a very good relationship. We'll see where it all ends. But there have been no missile tests. There have been no research. Where there has been - they have blown up a site; I hear they're blowing up another site, missile site. They've taken down all of the propaganda. In fact, somebody said there's no more music playing at the border line. You know, the music was going on for many years. They said recently that, "Wow, there's no more of the heavy music and the propaganda." They've done a lot of things. And we got back our three hostages. So it's a good process. But the main thing is there have been no rocket launches. There have been no missile tests. There's been no nuclear tests, no explosions, no nothing, for almost nine months. Okay. Yeah, please. Q Ewen MacAskill from The Guardian. Your trip to the UK, there are lots of protests planned in London and elsewhere. How do you feel about that? 07:41:19 THE PRESIDENT: I think it's fine. I mean, I think they like me a lot in the UK. I think they agree with me on immigration. I'm very strong on immigration. I made a point today - I said, you've got to stop. You're ruining your - you're going to have a lot of problems. You see what's going on throughout the world with immigration. I probably, at least partially, won an election because of immigration. If you look at Italy - Giuseppe, who I got to know quite well over the last month and a half, he won his election because of strong immigration policies on Italy. I think that a lot of the people in the UK - I think that's why Brexit happened. Now, I don't know what's going on with the negotiation. Who knows. But - and I guess that's become a very interesting point of contention. I said I'm going to a few hotspots. We have NATO, then we have the UK, and then we have Putin. And I said, Putin may be the easiest of them all. You never know. But I'm going to a pretty hotspot right now, right, with a lot of resignations. But I will say that immigration is a very important thing, and I told them today, the EU - the European Union - better be very careful, because immigration is taking over Europe, and they better be very, very careful. And I said that loud and clear. Yes, go ahead. Q President Trump, (inaudible) Romania. What will you tell President Putin about this summit and about NATO? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think he's going to see about this summit - this has turned out to be a very successful summit. This is - I think, really, that NATO is more put together right now, is more coordinated. And I think there's a better spirit for NATO right now than perhaps they've ever had. It's richer than it ever was. The commitments are made at a higher level than they've ever been made. And the money, it will be paid out faster - far faster. You know, the 2 percent was a range, a goal. It wasn't something that they were committed to. Now it's a commitment. There's a big difference - the 2 percent number. And that's why so many people weren't reaching it or hitting it. It was just sort of like this amorphous number out there. Now it's a commitment, a real commitment. 07:43:33 I think he's going to see that there's great unity, great spirit, great esprit de corps. And I think we're going to have a good meeting. Regardless of that, I think we're going to have a good meeting. But this was a fantastic two days. This was a really fantastic - it all came together at the end. And, yes, it was a little tough for a little while, but ultimately - you can ask anybody at that meeting - they're really liking what happened over the last two days. There's a great, great spirit leaving that room. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Please. Q Yeah. Jonathan Beale from BBC. I just wonder - you think you're going to get along with President Putin at that meeting. Could you just tell us, why do you think that? Is there something you admire about him? And the second question, because you're just about to go to the UK, sir - THE PRESIDENT: Well, he's a competitor. He's been very nice to me the times I've met him. I've been nice to him. He's a competitor. You know, somebody was saying, "Is he an enemy?" No, he's not my enemy. "Is he a friend?" No, I don't know him well enough. But the couple of times that I've gotten to meet him, we got along very well. You saw that. I hope we get along well. I think we get along well. But ultimately, he's a competitor. He's representing Russia. I'm representing the United States. So in a sense, we're competitors. Not a question of friend or enemy. He's not my enemy. And hopefully, someday, maybe he'll be a friend. It could happen. But I - I just don't know him very well. I've met him a couple of times. And when I did meet him, most of you people were there. Yes. Q And Brexit - sorry, sir, because you are going to the UK. What will be your message on Brexit? 07:45:06 THE PRESIDENT: Well, Brexit is a - you know, I've been reading a lot about Brexit over the last couple of days, and it seems to be turning a little bit differently where they're getting at least partially involved back with the European Union. I have no message. It's not for me to say. I own a lot of property there. I'm going to Scotland while I wait for the meeting. I have Turnberry in Scotland, which is a magical place - one of my favorite places. I'm going there for two days while I wait for the Monday meeting. But it's not for me to say what they should be doing in the UK. I have great friendships. My mother was born in Scotland. I have great friendships over there. We have a wonderful ambassador - Woody Johnson. And he's doing - by the way, Woody is doing a great job. But it's not for me to say. I'd like to see him be able to work it so it could go quickly, whatever they work out. Q Hard Brexit? THE PRESIDENT: Is it heartbreaking? Q Hard Brexit. THE PRESIDENT: Oh, hard Brexit. I see. (Laughter.) I thought you said it was heartbreaking. I said, that might be going a little bit too far, right? (Laughter.) Heartbreak. Is it heartbreaking? A lot of things are heartbreaking. No, I would say that Brexit is Brexit. It's not like - I guess we'll use the term "hard Brexit." I assume that's what you mean. The people voted to break it up, so I would imagine that's what they'll do. But maybe they're taking a little bit of a different route. So I don't know if that's what they voted for. I just want the people to be happy. They're great people. And I do think I have - I'm sure there will be protests, because there are always protests. But I think - there were protests the night of the election, both ways. But in the end, we got 206 electoral - 306 electoral votes. And one state said - you know, it was interesting, one of the states we won, Wisconsin - I didn't even realize this until fairly recently - that was the one state Ronald Reagan didn't win when he ran the board his second time. He didn't win Wisconsin, and we won Wisconsin. So, you know, we had a great night. 07:47:10 Protests? There might be protests. But I believe that the people in the UK - Scotland, Ireland. As you know, I have property in Ireland; I have property all over. I think that those people, they like me a lot, and they agree with me on immigration. And I think that's why you have Brexit in the first place, because of immigration. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, go ahead. Q (Inaudible) from Finland. What would be the best deal with Putin when you come to Helsinki? And don't you think that your hard diplomacy - that you are playing to the same goal that Putin, with your hard diplomacy towards EU and NATO? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can't tell you what would be the ultimate. What would be the ultimate? Well, let's see: No more nuclear weapons anywhere in the world would be the ultimate, okay? No more wars, no more problems, no more conflict. Let's find a cure to every disease known to mankind, or womankind. That would be my ultimate, okay? And we'll start from there. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Q (Inaudible) from Afghan Service and BBC World Service. So I would like to ask you, Mr. President, that Afghan President is going to be here - THE PRESIDENT: He's here right now. He's here right now. Q No, is here. And are you going to meet him? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q And what have you got to say to him? THE PRESIDENT: Ghani. Q And when the war is going to end in Afghanistan? Because people are fed up now and they want to know. THE PRESIDENT: I agree with that. I very much agree. It's been going on for a long time. We've made a lot of progress, but it's been going on for a long time. We've made a lot of progress in Afghanistan, I will say. Yes, your President is here right now. In fact, he's in the room. When I'm finished with this, I'm going right back into that room. Q One question, please. Please. Georgia Public Broadcasting. Mr. President, can you tell us what do you think about future membership of Georgia in NATO, please? 07:49:03 THE PRESIDENT: Well, at a certain point they'll have a chance. Not right now. They just left the room. But at a certain point, they'll have a chance. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Q (Inaudible) reporter for Kurdistan 24. Are you going to continue to support the Kurdish forces, Peshmerga, in Iraq? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: I think the Kurds are great people. They're incredible fighters. They're wonderful, warm, intelligent - allies, in many cases. As you know, it's different groups of people. But they're great people. I really do - I believe they're great people. Yes, go ahead, please. Q Mr. President, (inaudible) working with ARD German TV. You said Putin isn't an enemy, isn't a friend; he's just a competitor. THE PRESIDENT: He's a competitor. Q Do you consider him as a security threat for Europe or to the U.S.? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Hey, I don't want him to be. And that's, I guess, why we have NATO, and that's why we have a United States that just had the largest military budget ever - $700 billion approved; $716 billion next year. No, I hope that we'll be able to get along. I've said from day one, whether it's China or Russia - you know, we're working on trade with China right now, and I don't say that's an easy situation, because that's been years of abuse of the United States by presidents, frankly, that allowed that to happen. So I've taken over a lot of bad hands, and I'm fixing each one of them and I'm fixing them well. But China is going to be, I think, very successfully, ultimately, taken care of. I have a great respect for their President, as you know - President Xi. I spent two days there. It was among the most magical two days I've ever lived. And I think we're going to end up doing something very good with China. Right now, we're in a pretty nasty trade battle, but I think ultimately that will work out. I really think we have a big advantage. 07:51:01 You know, we've picked up $8 trillion in value, in worth, since I became President. And we're close to two times the size of China. A lot of people don't know that. And, you know, we're going to negotiate a fair deal, if that's possible. Okay. And Russia - I think getting along with Russia also would be a very good thing. Yes, go ahead. Q Jamal Mousavi from BCC Persian TV. We have seen escalation of tension between you and the Iranians. What is your exit plan, Mr. President? THE PRESIDENT: I would say there might be an escalation between us and the Iranians. I agree with that. Q But they are threatening to - THE PRESIDENT: By the way, they're treating us with much more respect right now than they did in the past. And I think - I know they're having a lot of problems and their economy is collapsing. But I will tell you this: At a certain point, they're going to call me and they're going to say, "Let's make a deal," and we'll make a deal. But they are - they're feeling a lot of pain right now. Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Mr. President, do we expect the rise of the Russian influence in Macedonia following the starting of the negotiation process, like we've seen in Montenegro with alleged coup? And what will NATO and United States do to counter that Russian influence in the Western Balkans? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: We never talk about our future plans. Yes, go ahead, ma'am. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you very much. My name is Alla Shali from Rudaw TV from Kurdistan Iraq. My question is about the government of Iraq. You know, after two months election, the government in Iraq has not been formed. What's the role from USA? And you want to talk about Syria with President Putin. Can I have any information about Quds in Syria? Thank you very much. THE PRESIDENT: So I hope we get along well with Iraq. We've certainly spent a great fortune in Iraq. And many, many lives - thousands and hundreds of thousands of lives, if you think on both sides, which I always think about both sides, not just our side. And they had an election, and I hope we're going to be able to get along, and we'll see how that goes. We've already been talking to the people that won the election. I was not in favor of that war. I was very much against that war. I never thought it was a good thing. But that's another deck of cards that I inherited, and we'll do the best we can with it. I think the election was pretty conclusive. And again, we've spoken to them. We'll see what happens. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q I'm Asea Atrouz (ph) from Assabah Newspaper in Tunisia. I come from a very far country, a small country in Northern Africa, Tunisia. My question, Mr. President - we really admire what you are doing in North Africa and we really wish and hope that something again will be done in the Middle East to avoid (inaudible) more wars and more blood and more killings in the Middle East, with a just peace process that gives everyone its (inaudible). THE PRESIDENT: We're looking for peace. And Africa, as you know, is on our very strong list. But we're looking for peace. We want peace all over. We want to solve problems. We're looking for peace. Africa, right now, has got problems like few people would even understand. They have things going on there that nobody could believe in this room. If you saw some of the things that I see through intelligence, what's going on in Africa, it is so sad and so vicious and violent. And we want peace. We want peace for Africa. We want peace all over the world. That's my number-one goal: peace all over the world. And we're building up a tremendous military, because I really believe, through strength, you get peace. But we're going to have a military like we've never had before. We've given out orders for the best fighter jets in the world, the best ships, the best everything. But hopefully we'll never have to use them. That would be a dream. To buy the best stuff, to have the best stuff, to have the best equipment in the world, and to never have to use it would be a really great part of my dream. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. I'm going to be going - leaving in about a half an hour. Thank you.

0545 WH BRUSSELS NATO PATH2 FS24 82 July 12, 2018 President Trump delivers remarks at NATO Summit Press Conference AR: 16X9 07:19:35 THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate it. We've had a very amazing two-day period in Brussels. And we really accomplished a lot, with respect to NATO. For years, Presidents have been coming to these meetings and talked about the expense - the tremendous expense for the United States. And tremendous progress has been made; everyone has agreed to substantially up their commitment. They're going to up it at levels that they've never thought of before. Prior to last year, where I attended my first meeting, it was going down - the amount of money being spent by countries was going down and down very substantially. And now, it's going up very substantially. And commitments were made. Only 5 of 29 countries were making their commitment. And that's now changed. The commitment was at 2 percent. Ultimately, that'll be going up quite a bit higher than that. So we are - we made a tremendous amount of progress today. It's been about, at a minimum, they estimate - and they're going to be giving you exact numbers - but since last year, they've raise an additional $33 billion that's been put up by the various countries, not including the United States. And the United States' commitment to NATO is very strong, remains very strong, but primarily because everyone - the spirit they have, the amount of money they're willing to spend, the additional money that they will be putting up has been really, really amazing to see it. To see the level of spirit in that room is incredible. And I hope that we're going to be able to get along with Russia. I think that we probably will be able to. The people in the room think so, but they nevertheless - they really stepped up their commitment, and stepped it up like they never have before. 7:21:31 So took in an addition $33 [billion]. The number could actually be higher than $40 [billion] when they give you the final number. The Secretary General, Stoltenberg, will be giving those numbers sometime today, probably in his concluding press statement. But we are doing numbers like they've never done before or ever seen before. And you'll be seeing that, and I guess you'll be hearing that a little bit later. Okay. We have our Secretary of State, as you know, and we have - John is here. So if you have any questions for the three of us. Mike Pompeo just got back from a third trip, as you know, to North Korea. He's become a true expert on the trips to North Korea - the best way to get there, the best way to get out. And he gets along very well. And he's doing a great job over there. Yes, ma'am. Q I have a question. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q Mr. President, I'm Tara McKelvey with the BBC. Can you tell us whether or not you warned people that the U.S. would pull out of NATO if they weren't meeting their spending goals? THE PRESIDENT: I told people that I'd be very unhappy if they didn't up their commitments very substantially, because the United States has been paying a tremendous amount, probably 90 percent of the cost of NATO. And now, people are going to start and countries are going to start upping their commitments. So I let them know yesterday, actually. I was surprised that you didn't pick it up; it took until today. But yesterday, I let them know that I was extremely unhappy with what was happening, and they have substantially upped their commitment, yeah. And now we're very happy and have a very, very powerful, very, very strong NATO, much stronger than it was two days ago. Yes, ma'am. Q Hi, President Trump. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, hi. How are you? Q I'm the White House Correspondent for PBS - THE PRESIDENT: I know. You're very famous on television. Q I have a question, again, about - did you ever, at any point, say that the U.S., though, might stop engaging with NATO? And do you think that your rhetoric helps NATO cohesion, or are you worried that people might think that U.S. might not be as committed to NATO? There are a lot of people who say they were worried and stressed by what you did yesterday. THE PRESIDENT: Well, they were probably worried because the United States was not being treated fairly, but now we are, because the commitment has been upped so much. So now they are. And I was very firm yesterday. You have to understand, I know a lot of the people in the room. I was here last year. I let them know last year - in a less firm manner, but pretty firm - and they raised an additional $33 billion, I think going to $40 billion. But it's $33 billion as of today. And then today and yesterday, I was probably a little bit more firm. 7:24:07 But I believe in NATO. I think NATO is a very important - probably the greatest ever done. But the United States was paying for anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of it, depending on the way you calculate. That's not fair to the United States. In addition to that, as you know, we're in negotiations with the EU, and we're going to be meeting with them next week. We've been treated very unfairly on trade. Our farmers have been shut out of the European Union. Now, you could say they're different, but basically, to a large extent, they're the same countries. So I think we're going to be ultimately treated fairly on trade. We'll see what happens, but I can tell you that NATO now is really a fine-tuned machine. People are paying money that they never paid before. They're happy to do it. And the United States is being treated much more fairly. Yes, sir. Q President Trump, Ryan Chilcote, PBS NewsHour. Did you win concessions in your meetings and discussions with the German Chancellor when it comes to German defense spending and also with this issue of purchasing energy from Russia? And secondly, what would you say to your critics that say by creating this scene here at NATO you're only enabling President Putin and Russia to further disturb things in Ukraine and Georgia? THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you consider putting up tremendously - you know, the additional funds at a level that nobody has ever seen before, I don't think that's helping Russia. I think that NATO is much stronger now than it was two days ago. I think that NATO was not doing what they were supposed to be doing - a lot of the countries. And we were doing much more than we should have been doing. Frankly, we were carrying too much of a burden. That's why we call it "burden-sharing." I was using the term a lot today. "Burden-sharing." We had a fantastic meeting at the end - 29 countries. And they are putting up a lot. Germany has increased very substantially their time period, and Germany is coming along. And we still have to figure out what's going on with the pipeline, because the pipeline is coming in from Russia. So we're going to have to figure that out. I brought it up; nobody brought it up but me, and we all are talking about it now. And actually, I think the world is talking about it now maybe more than anything else. But we're going to figure that out. But - and, frankly, maybe everybody is going to have a good relationship with Russia so there will be a lot less problem with the pipeline. 07:26:28 But, to me, that was a very major point of contention. We discussed it at length today. Germany has agreed to do a lot better than they were doing, and we're very happy with that. We had a very good relationship with Angela Merkel. Yes. Q Mr. President - THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, go ahead. Q Hi. Thank you. Margaret Talev from Bloomberg. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. After all these years, I know, Margaret. Go ahead. Q Thank you. Maybe I'm being dense here, but could you just clarify: Are you still threatening to potentially pull the United States out of NATO for any reason? And do you believe you can do that without Congress's explicit support and approval? THE PRESIDENT: I think I probably can, but that's unnecessary. And the people have stepped up today like they've never stepped up before. And remember the word - $33 billion more, they're paying. And you'll hear that from the Secretary General in a little while. He thanked me actually. He actually thanked me. And everybody in the room thanked me. There's a great collegial spirit in that room that I don't think they've had in many years. They're very strong. So, yeah, very unified, very strong. No problem. Right? Yes, go ahead. Q We're in NATO. No - no - THE PRESIDENT: No problem. Go ahead. Q Mr. President, Jonathan Lemire with the Associated Press. You have said previously you wanted the countries to step up their spending to 2 percent. Yesterday there was a suggestion it might be 4 percent, or perhaps 2 percent at a much quicker timetable. Can you clarify, what did they commit to doing? Is that satisfactory to you? THE PRESIDENT: So what they're doing is spending at a much faster clip. They're going up to the 2 percent level. Now, you have to understand, some of them have parliaments, they have their own congresses, they have a lot of things they have to go through. So, you know, they're here as prime minister or a as a president, and they can't necessarily go in and say, this is what we're going to do. But they're going back for approvals. 07:28:21 Some are at 2 percent; others have agreed definitely to go to 2 percent. And some are going back to get the approval, and which they will get, to go to 2 percent. After the 2 percent, we'll start talking about going higher. But I said, ultimately we should be, in years - in advance - we should be at 4 percent. I think 4 percent, it's the right number. Now, the United States - depending on the way you calculate it - was at 4.2 percent. And I said, that's unfair. And we have the largest GDP by far, especially since we've increased it by so much since a thing called the election. Our GDP has gone way up. And so the fact that our GDP went way up, that means we're paying for even more, which is very unfair. So I explained that. We will go to much higher than 2 percent into the future, but right now we're getting people up to 2 percent, and that will take place over a fairly short period of time - a short number of years. Okay? Yeah, go ahead. Q Hi, Tomas LeCrass (ph) from (inaudible) journalist Croatia Daily Newspaper. We understand your message - THE PRESIDENT: Congratulations, by the way. Q Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: On soccer. Q Thank you. We understand your message, but some people ask themselves, will you be tweeting differently once you board the Air Force One? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: No, that's other people that do that. I don't. I'm very consistent. I'm a very stable genius. (Laughter.) Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Q Thank you, sir. Jeremy Diamond with CNN. How are you? THE PRESIDENT: Hi, Jeremy. Q Quick question with regards to Germany and the comments that you made yesterday. Do you feel like given the threats that you made about potentially leaving NATO, about insulting Germany's sovereignty, it appears, by suggesting that they're totally controlled by Russia - do you feel like that's an effective way to conduct diplomacy? And secondly, would you be able to be a little bit more specific about the commitments that you secured today with regards to increasing the financial commitment? Is there an updated timeline? Are there specific countries you could cite? Because a majority of them were already planning to meet that 2 percent threshold by 2024. 07:30:22 THE PRESIDENT: No, many of them - in fact, Germany was going to be in the year 2028 or '30. Yeah, I think it's a very effective way to deal, but I didn't deal exactly the way you said. I have great respect for Germany. My father is from Germany. Both of my parents are from the EU, despite the fact they don't treat us well on trade. But I think that will change also, and I think we'll see that - because on the 25th of July, they're coming in to start negotiations with me. We'll see. And if they don't negotiate in good faith, we'll do something having to do with all of the millions of cars that are coming into our country and being taxed at a virtually zero level, at a very low level. But, Jeremy, I think it's been a very effective way of negotiating. But I'm not negotiating; I just want fairness for the United States. We're paying for far too much of NATO. NATO is very important. But NATO is helping Europe more than it's helping us. At the same time, it's very good for us. So we have now got it to a point where people are paying a lot more money, and that's starting - really, last year. It really had - you were there last year. And last year we had a big impact. Again, we took in $33 billion more. And if you ask Secretary General Stoltenberg, he gives us total credit - meaning me, I guess, in this case, total credit - because I said it was unfair. Now, what has happened is, presidents over many years, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, they came in, they said, "Okay, hey, do the best you can," and they left. Nobody did anything about it. And it got to a point where the United States was paying for 90 percent of NATO. And that's not fair. So it's changed. We had a really good meeting today. We had a great meeting in terms of getting along. I know most of the people in the room because of last year, because of the year and a half that we've been in office - year and a half-plus. But we have a great relationship. Everybody in that room, by the time we left, got along. And they agreed to pay more, and they agreed to pay it more quickly. Yeah, go ahead, Phil. Q Thanks, Mr. President. Philip Rucker from the Washington Post. You tweeted yesterday, "What good is NATO?" And you've talked about NATO as an alliance that benefits Europe, that defends and protects Europe. Do you see any value of NATO to the United States vis-à-vis Russia? Does it help protect the United States from Russia, in your view? 07:32:47 THE PRESIDENT: I think it's another very strong ally, as together it's much stronger than, obviously, individual countries. I think it's - the way we have it now, I think it's a much - I think NATO got - you know what was happening with spending prior to my getting into office. The numbers were going down. Now the numbers have gone up like a rocket ship. The numbers have gone up a lot, and they've gone up rapidly. And they're now going up further. So I think NATO is going to be very, very effective. I'm very impressed with - and really know, and he's a friend mine - but Secretary General Stoltenberg has done a fantastic job and putting it all together. And we were the ones that really - we gave him an extension of his contract, as you know. I think he's done a really good job. I think that when I was saying that I am very concerned with the pipeline, I don't like the pipeline. And when I talk about NATO, I say, how do you have NATO? And then you have somebody paying the people that you're protecting against. But maybe we'll get along with the group that we're protecting against. I think that's a real possibility. As you know, I'm meeting with President Putin on Monday. And I think we go into that meeting not looking for so much. We want to find out about Syria. We will, of course, ask your favorite question about meddling. I will be asking that question again. But we'll also be talking about other things. We'll be talking about Ukraine. Ukraine was here today, by the way. And, you know, it was very interesting to hear what they had to say? Q (Inaudible.) THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me? Q What if he denies it? THE PRESIDENT: Well, he may. I mean, look, he may. You know, what am I going to do? He may deny it. I mean, it's one of those things. All I can do is say, "Did you" and "Don't do it again." But he may deny it. You'll be the first to know. Okay? Yes, go ahead. Q Mr. President, Robert Wall with the Wall Street Journal. THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Hi, Robert. Q If the Germans and the Canadians and others don't come up to 2 percent, what is your fallback position? How will you up the pressure to make them actually? THE PRESIDENT: Well, they will. They will. I have no doubt about it. They all made commitments. And they will be up to 2 percent. It will be over a period - a relatively short period of years. Okay? Q Please. Thank you so much. THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead. Q Georgian TV (inaudible). Mr. President, what do you think today, it needs - (inaudible) Georgia more support from NATO? And I wanted to ask about - 07:35:08 THE PRESIDENT: Georgia? They were here today, representing. Q Yes. And will you talk about Georgia in a meeting with President Putin? THE PRESIDENT: Well, they were here. They made a very favorable impression. And we listened to their plight. It's a tough situation with Georgia. But they made a very fair verbal impression in the room. Okay? Yeah, go ahead. Go. Go. Go ahead. Q She's already had one. THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, you really did. Come on. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Well, I had a question, as well. But nonetheless, I'll ask, sir. Will you recognize - THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead. Q Will you recognize Russia's annex - will you recognize Crimea as part of Russia when you meet President - THE PRESIDENT: Oh, that's an interesting question - because long before I got here, President Obama allowed that to happen. That was on his watch, not on my watch. You know, people like to say, "Oh, Crimea." But the fact is, they built bridges to Crimea. They just opened a big bridge that was started years ago. They built, I think, a submarine port; substantially added billions of dollars. So that was on Barack Obama's watch. That was not on Trump's watch. Would I have allowed it to happen? No, I would not have allowed it to happen. But he did allow it to happen, so that was his determination. What will happen with Crimea from this point on? That I can't tell you. But I'm not happy about Crimea. But again, that was on Barack Obama's watch, not Trump's watch. Yeah, go ahead. Sure. Q It's Jeff Mason from Reuters, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT: Sure. I know, Jeff. Q Regarding your summit with President Putin, will you be raising arms control issues? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q Would you like to extend New START? And will you raise concerns about violations of the INF Treaty? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q And as a follow-up to the NATO meeting today, will you suggest to him, or would you consider stopping military exercises in the Baltic States, if that's something that he requests? 07:36:58 THE PRESIDENT: Well, perhaps we'll talk about that. But I will say that we are going to be talking about those three issues and many more. We'll be talking about it, Jeff. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q (Inaudible.) We are in the NATO, the quarters - the cost (inaudible) the double (inaudible) before. I would like to know if you are planning to guarantee the taxpayers that the new money that is flowing into NATO will be spent in the best possible way, especially the money coming from country that have several problem with the public finances. THE PRESIDENT: Well, the money will be spent properly. And one of the things that we have - we have many wealthy countries with us today, but we have some that aren't so wealthy. And they did ask if they could buy the military equipment and could I help them out. And we will help them out a little bit. We're not going to finance it for them, but we'll make sure that they're able to get payments and various other things so they can buy. Because the United States makes, by far, the best military equipment in the world. The best jets, the best missiles, the best guns. The best everything - we make, by far. I mean, that's one thing - I guess I assumed it prior to taking office, but I really learned, since being President, our equipment is so much better than anybody else's equipment when you look at our companies - Lockheed and Boeing and Grumman. The material - the equipment that we make is so far superior, everybody wants to buy our equipment. In fact, it's the question, can they make it? Because they are doing very well. Can they make it for so many people? So we are helping some of those countries get on line and buy the best equipment. Yeah, go ahead. Q Hi, I'm Kristin Brown with Fox News. On your upcoming summit with President Putin, did any of your allies here express any specific concerns or talk to you about any messages that they'd like you to take with you when you go to the summit? THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Just the opposite of concern. They actually - and they'll probably come out with a little bit of an edict - but they actually thanked me for meeting with President Putin. I look forward to the meeting. They thanked me. They thought it was a great thing that I was doing it. And they gave us our best wishes, or their best wishes. 07:39:14 Now, with that being said, we'll see that happens. Just a loose meeting. It's not going to be big schedule. I don't think it should take a very long period of time. And we'll see where it leads. But it could lead to productive - something very productive. And maybe it's not. But I think meeting with people is great. We had a great meeting with Chairman Kim. And I'll tell you, Mike Pompeo did a fantastic job. I might ask you to say a few words, Mike, while you're here. Just one second. Mike, go ahead. SECRETARY POMPEO: Thank you, Mr. President. So, I did. I returned - I actually came straight from North Korea with a couple of stops here to Brussels. We had a productive conversation. There remains a great deal of work to do, but I think, most importantly, my counterpart, Kim Yong Chol, made a commitment consistent with what President Trump was able to achieve with Chairman Kim, which was: They intend to denuclearize. They're going to accomplish it. And now the task is to get it implemented. THE PRESIDENT: I think, just to finish on that, you know, it's so important. That was an amazing - really, an amazing meeting, I though. And I really think that we established a very good relationship. We'll see where it all ends. But there have been no missile tests. There have been no research. Where there has been - they have blown up a site; I hear they're blowing up another site, missile site. They've taken down all of the propaganda. In fact, somebody said there's no more music playing at the border line. You know, the music was going on for many years. They said recently that, "Wow, there's no more of the heavy music and the propaganda." They've done a lot of things. And we got back our three hostages. So it's a good process. But the main thing is there have been no rocket launches. There have been no missile tests. There's been no nuclear tests, no explosions, no nothing, for almost nine months. Okay. Yeah, please. Q Ewen MacAskill from The Guardian. Your trip to the UK, there are lots of protests planned in London and elsewhere. How do you feel about that? 07:41:19 THE PRESIDENT: I think it's fine. I mean, I think they like me a lot in the UK. I think they agree with me on immigration. I'm very strong on immigration. I made a point today - I said, you've got to stop. You're ruining your - you're going to have a lot of problems. You see what's going on throughout the world with immigration. I probably, at least partially, won an election because of immigration. If you look at Italy - Giuseppe, who I got to know quite well over the last month and a half, he won his election because of strong immigration policies on Italy. I think that a lot of the people in the UK - I think that's why Brexit happened. Now, I don't know what's going on with the negotiation. Who knows. But - and I guess that's become a very interesting point of contention. I said I'm going to a few hotspots. We have NATO, then we have the UK, and then we have Putin. And I said, Putin may be the easiest of them all. You never know. But I'm going to a pretty hotspot right now, right, with a lot of resignations. But I will say that immigration is a very important thing, and I told them today, the EU - the European Union - better be very careful, because immigration is taking over Europe, and they better be very, very careful. And I said that loud and clear. Yes, go ahead. Q President Trump, (inaudible) Romania. What will you tell President Putin about this summit and about NATO? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think he's going to see about this summit - this has turned out to be a very successful summit. This is - I think, really, that NATO is more put together right now, is more coordinated. And I think there's a better spirit for NATO right now than perhaps they've ever had. It's richer than it ever was. The commitments are made at a higher level than they've ever been made. And the money, it will be paid out faster - far faster. You know, the 2 percent was a range, a goal. It wasn't something that they were committed to. Now it's a commitment. There's a big difference - the 2 percent number. And that's why so many people weren't reaching it or hitting it. It was just sort of like this amorphous number out there. Now it's a commitment, a real commitment. 07:43:33 I think he's going to see that there's great unity, great spirit, great esprit de corps. And I think we're going to have a good meeting. Regardless of that, I think we're going to have a good meeting. But this was a fantastic two days. This was a really fantastic - it all came together at the end. And, yes, it was a little tough for a little while, but ultimately - you can ask anybody at that meeting - they're really liking what happened over the last two days. There's a great, great spirit leaving that room. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Please. Q Yeah. Jonathan Beale from BBC. I just wonder - you think you're going to get along with President Putin at that meeting. Could you just tell us, why do you think that? Is there something you admire about him? And the second question, because you're just about to go to the UK, sir - THE PRESIDENT: Well, he's a competitor. He's been very nice to me the times I've met him. I've been nice to him. He's a competitor. You know, somebody was saying, "Is he an enemy?" No, he's not my enemy. "Is he a friend?" No, I don't know him well enough. But the couple of times that I've gotten to meet him, we got along very well. You saw that. I hope we get along well. I think we get along well. But ultimately, he's a competitor. He's representing Russia. I'm representing the United States. So in a sense, we're competitors. Not a question of friend or enemy. He's not my enemy. And hopefully, someday, maybe he'll be a friend. It could happen. But I - I just don't know him very well. I've met him a couple of times. And when I did meet him, most of you people were there. Yes. Q And Brexit - sorry, sir, because you are going to the UK. What will be your message on Brexit? 07:45:06 THE PRESIDENT: Well, Brexit is a - you know, I've been reading a lot about Brexit over the last couple of days, and it seems to be turning a little bit differently where they're getting at least partially involved back with the European Union. I have no message. It's not for me to say. I own a lot of property there. I'm going to Scotland while I wait for the meeting. I have Turnberry in Scotland, which is a magical place - one of my favorite places. I'm going there for two days while I wait for the Monday meeting. But it's not for me to say what they should be doing in the UK. I have great friendships. My mother was born in Scotland. I have great friendships over there. We have a wonderful ambassador - Woody Johnson. And he's doing - by the way, Woody is doing a great job. But it's not for me to say. I'd like to see him be able to work it so it could go quickly, whatever they work out. Q Hard Brexit? THE PRESIDENT: Is it heartbreaking? Q Hard Brexit. THE PRESIDENT: Oh, hard Brexit. I see. (Laughter.) I thought you said it was heartbreaking. I said, that might be going a little bit too far, right? (Laughter.) Heartbreak. Is it heartbreaking? A lot of things are heartbreaking. No, I would say that Brexit is Brexit. It's not like - I guess we'll use the term "hard Brexit." I assume that's what you mean. The people voted to break it up, so I would imagine that's what they'll do. But maybe they're taking a little bit of a different route. So I don't know if that's what they voted for. I just want the people to be happy. They're great people. And I do think I have - I'm sure there will be protests, because there are always protests. But I think - there were protests the night of the election, both ways. But in the end, we got 206 electoral - 306 electoral votes. And one state said - you know, it was interesting, one of the states we won, Wisconsin - I didn't even realize this until fairly recently - that was the one state Ronald Reagan didn't win when he ran the board his second time. He didn't win Wisconsin, and we won Wisconsin. So, you know, we had a great night. 07:47:10 Protests? There might be protests. But I believe that the people in the UK - Scotland, Ireland. As you know, I have property in Ireland; I have property all over. I think that those people, they like me a lot, and they agree with me on immigration. And I think that's why you have Brexit in the first place, because of immigration. Yes, ma'am. Yeah, go ahead. Q (Inaudible) from Finland. What would be the best deal with Putin when you come to Helsinki? And don't you think that your hard diplomacy - that you are playing to the same goal that Putin, with your hard diplomacy towards EU and NATO? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can't tell you what would be the ultimate. What would be the ultimate? Well, let's see: No more nuclear weapons anywhere in the world would be the ultimate, okay? No more wars, no more problems, no more conflict. Let's find a cure to every disease known to mankind, or womankind. That would be my ultimate, okay? And we'll start from there. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. Q (Inaudible) from Afghan Service and BBC World Service. So I would like to ask you, Mr. President, that Afghan President is going to be here - THE PRESIDENT: He's here right now. He's here right now. Q No, is here. And are you going to meet him? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q And what have you got to say to him? THE PRESIDENT: Ghani. Q And when the war is going to end in Afghanistan? Because people are fed up now and they want to know. THE PRESIDENT: I agree with that. I very much agree. It's been going on for a long time. We've made a lot of progress, but it's been going on for a long time. We've made a lot of progress in Afghanistan, I will say. Yes, your President is here right now. In fact, he's in the room. When I'm finished with this, I'm going right back into that room. Q One question, please. Please. Georgia Public Broadcasting. Mr. President, can you tell us what do you think about future membership of Georgia in NATO, please? 07:49:03 THE PRESIDENT: Well, at a certain point they'll have a chance. Not right now. They just left the room. But at a certain point, they'll have a chance. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Q (Inaudible) reporter for Kurdistan 24. Are you going to continue to support the Kurdish forces, Peshmerga, in Iraq? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: I think the Kurds are great people. They're incredible fighters. They're wonderful, warm, intelligent - allies, in many cases. As you know, it's different groups of people. But they're great people. I really do - I believe they're great people. Yes, go ahead, please. Q Mr. President, (inaudible) working with ARD German TV. You said Putin isn't an enemy, isn't a friend; he's just a competitor. THE PRESIDENT: He's a competitor. Q Do you consider him as a security threat for Europe or to the U.S.? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: Hey, I don't want him to be. And that's, I guess, why we have NATO, and that's why we have a United States that just had the largest military budget ever - $700 billion approved; $716 billion next year. No, I hope that we'll be able to get along. I've said from day one, whether it's China or Russia - you know, we're working on trade with China right now, and I don't say that's an easy situation, because that's been years of abuse of the United States by presidents, frankly, that allowed that to happen. So I've taken over a lot of bad hands, and I'm fixing each one of them and I'm fixing them well. But China is going to be, I think, very successfully, ultimately, taken care of. I have a great respect for their President, as you know - President Xi. I spent two days there. It was among the most magical two days I've ever lived. And I think we're going to end up doing something very good with China. Right now, we're in a pretty nasty trade battle, but I think ultimately that will work out. I really think we have a big advantage. 07:51:01 You know, we've picked up $8 trillion in value, in worth, since I became President. And we're close to two times the size of China. A lot of people don't know that. And, you know, we're going to negotiate a fair deal, if that's possible. Okay. And Russia - I think getting along with Russia also would be a very good thing. Yes, go ahead. Q Jamal Mousavi from BCC Persian TV. We have seen escalation of tension between you and the Iranians. What is your exit plan, Mr. President? THE PRESIDENT: I would say there might be an escalation between us and the Iranians. I agree with that. Q But they are threatening to - THE PRESIDENT: By the way, they're treating us with much more respect right now than they did in the past. And I think - I know they're having a lot of problems and their economy is collapsing. But I will tell you this: At a certain point, they're going to call me and they're going to say, "Let's make a deal," and we'll make a deal. But they are - they're feeling a lot of pain right now. Yes. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Mr. President, do we expect the rise of the Russian influence in Macedonia following the starting of the negotiation process, like we've seen in Montenegro with alleged coup? And what will NATO and United States do to counter that Russian influence in the Western Balkans? Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: We never talk about our future plans. Yes, go ahead, ma'am. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you very much. My name is Alla Shali from Rudaw TV from Kurdistan Iraq. My question is about the government of Iraq. You know, after two months election, the government in Iraq has not been formed. What's the role from USA? And you want to talk about Syria with President Putin. Can I have any information about Quds in Syria? Thank you very much. THE PRESIDENT: So I hope we get along well with Iraq. We've certainly spent a great fortune in Iraq. And many, many lives - thousands and hundreds of thousands of lives, if you think on both sides, which I always think about both sides, not just our side. And they had an election, and I hope we're going to be able to get along, and we'll see how that goes. We've already been talking to the people that won the election. I was not in favor of that war. I was very much against that war. I never thought it was a good thing. But that's another deck of cards that I inherited, and we'll do the best we can with it. I think the election was pretty conclusive. And again, we've spoken to them. We'll see what happens. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Go ahead. Q I'm Asea Atrouz (ph) from Assabah Newspaper in Tunisia. I come from a very far country, a small country in Northern Africa, Tunisia. My question, Mr. President - we really admire what you are doing in North Africa and we really wish and hope that something again will be done in the Middle East to avoid (inaudible) more wars and more blood and more killings in the Middle East, with a just peace process that gives everyone its (inaudible). THE PRESIDENT: We're looking for peace. And Africa, as you know, is on our very strong list. But we're looking for peace. We want peace all over. We want to solve problems. We're looking for peace. Africa, right now, has got problems like few people would even understand. They have things going on there that nobody could believe in this room. If you saw some of the things that I see through intelligence, what's going on in Africa, it is so sad and so vicious and violent. And we want peace. We want peace for Africa. We want peace all over the world. That's my number-one goal: peace all over the world. And we're building up a tremendous military, because I really believe, through strength, you get peace. But we're going to have a military like we've never had before. We've given out orders for the best fighter jets in the world, the best ships, the best everything. But hopefully we'll never have to use them. That would be a dream. To buy the best stuff, to have the best stuff, to have the best equipment in the world, and to never have to use it would be a really great part of my dream. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. I'm going to be going - leaving in about a half an hour. Thank you.

TAPE: EF03/0435 IN_TIME: 20:50:45 DURATION: 12:13 SOURCES: APTN RESTRICTIONS: No re-use/re-sale of film clips without clearance DATELINE: n/a SHOTLIST 1. Pan from Taxi to ext Sardi's 2. CU Sardi's sign 3. Pan papparazzi to Melanie Griffiths and John Lithgow posing at podium after the announcements 4. CU Melanie Griffiths and John Lithgow at podium 5. Pan from cameraman to WS John Lithgow and Melanie Griffiths announcing nominations 6. SOT John Lithgow announcing nominations: "Good morning Melanie. Let's make someone's day and break someone's heart here. The nominations for best performance...leading actress in a musical... 7. Zoom in Melanie Griffiths 8. SOT John Lithgow: "Best Performance by a leading actress in a play... 9. SOT Melanie : The nominations for Best Leading actor in a play...the nominations for Best Leading Actor in a musical...Antonio Banderas 10. clip 'Nine' 11. SOT John Lithgow: "nominations...for best play...nominations for best musical... 12. SOT Melanie: "nominations for a best revival of a play...revival of a musical...and 'Nine' the musical." 13. clip 'Gypsy' 14. clip La Boheme 15. CU Tony Award 16. SOT John Lithgow: "The nominations for best direction of a play...the nominations for best direction of a musical... 17. SOT Melanie: "The nominations for Best Performance by a featured actor in a play...featured actor in a musical...nominations for a featured actress in a play...nominations for a featured actor in a musical nine the musical..." 18. CU press 19. SOT John Lithgow: Four Tony Honors for Excellence in the Theatre will be given to the principal ensemble ...ten actors playing...revolving casts of La Boheme" 20. WS John Lithgow and Melanie at podium 21. Q reporter: So? Surprises? Excited about Antonio? SOT Melanie: I am so excited. I'm so happy for him, for all of them, for everybody who's nominated. Q reporter: This must mean a lot to him. Are you going to be talking to him soon? Yes! he is waiting for me in bed right now so I've gotta go back there." SOT Melanie: I have seen nine and I have seen nine...I'm working on seeing some more... Q Reporter: Are you excited about your debut on Broadway?" SOT Melanie: "Yes I am so excited. I am working very hard. I had no idea, movies are really easy compared to singing and dancing... SOT Melanie: "Well How could I not be. He's been working on this for a year....getting ready and I know it means everything to him to be accepted in America like this, by being nominated." Q Reporter: Here you are both on Broadway! SOT Melanie: "Not yet! Pray God I get there" 22. Q Reporter: How does it feel a year later? SOT John Lithgow: "It's nice...it's far less pressure...the only pressure is pronouncing the names right.. Q reporter: How do you feel about all the shows that have been nominated? SOT John Lithgow: "I haven't seen a lot of them. I most recently saw Long Day's Journey, which was a stunning evening, just fabulous. I have been trying to catch up but it looks like I will now rush out and try to see them all before each of them wins." Q Reporter: This seems to be a big year for revivals? SOT John Lithgow: "It's a dangerous world out there. Revivals are just that little bit safer than the new material. I myself am coming back to do new material - you'll just have to hold your breath. Q Reporter: What do this year's nominees have to look forward to? SOT John Lithgow: "It's a very exciting evening, it's one of the best award shows and the best awards to get. You know, this is hard stuff acting on broadway and the competition is ferocious this year. We rattled off a lot of tremendous names today." Q Reporter: (asks what advice he would give to the nominees about getting up to accept awards) SOT John Lithgow: "Yes...it's just, make sure you plan something." 23. SOT David Sheward (Managing Editor Backstage Newspaper and Contributing Correspondent New York 1): "No real surprises. There was relief that Bernadette Peters got nominated - there was some speculation that because she missed some of her performances recently of 'Gypsy' that she might be outruled but she wasn't, which is quite a relief It's very gratifying that the entire ensemble of La Boheme got a special award. A few oddities:nominating "Say Goodnight Gracie", the one-man show about George Burns for Best Play is a little strange and unusual a choice and a little bit of a disappointment...I think Hairspray got the most nominations with their team which is great but I think that they should have gotten even more. I think several of the performances in the supporting categories should have been nominated." 24. CA Cameraman 25. Q Reporter: (asking about Melanie Griffiths) SOT David Sheward (Managing Editor Backstage Newspaper and Contributing Correspondent New York 1): "She's married to Antonio Banderas who is starring in NINE so there'll be plenty across the street from each other so that'll be cute and she can pull it off I think . I thijnk she can really do it. She's got that sexy innocence and at the same time you believe she's capable of anything, so that's what Roxy needs - that combination that we saw Renee Zellweger do in the movie: That she's acapable of being cute and adorable and cuddly but at the same time she'll cut tyour throat if you cross her. So she can convey that. I think she has the skill to do that...and to sing and dance, I think she can do it." 26. WS Press Conference 27. clip 'Hairspray' HAIRSPRAY LEADS TONY NOMINATIONS "Hairspray," the buoyant, bouffant musical celebration of 1960s Baltimore, dominated the 2003 Tony Award nominations today (MAY12) with thirteen, while "Movin' Out", Twyla Tharp's all-dance tribute to Billy Joel set during the Vietnam War, received ten. The revival of "Nine," a 1982 Tony winner about a woman-obsessed Italian film director, earned eight nominations, including one for its star, Antonio Banderas, and three for its actresses in the feature category. "Long Day's Journey Into Night," a revival of Eugene O'Neill's epic family drama, got seven nominations, including nods for its stars Brian Dennehy, Vanessa Redgrave, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Robert Sean Leonard. Paul Newman picked up a nomination for his role as the avuncular stage manager in a revival of "Our Town," while Bernadette Peters received a nomination for playing Mama Rose, the ultimate stage mother, in "Gypsy." Vying with "Hairspray" and "Movin' Out" for best musical are the short-lived "Amour," a Gallic fantasy about a man who could walk through walls, and the charming children's show "A Year With Frog and Toad." Best play nominees include "Take Me Out," about a gay baseball player; "Enchanted April," the story of four Englishwomen on vacation in Italy; "Say Goodnight Gracie," a one-man show about George Burns; and "Vincent in Brixton," about artist Vincent van Gogh's brief stay in London. Banderas' main competition is Harvey Fierstein, who plays the housewife Edna Turnblad in "Hairspray." Brian Stokes Mitchell, Don Quixote in a revival of "Man of La Mancha," Malcolm Gets from "Amour" and John Selya, a troubled Vietnam War vet in "Movin' Out," fill out the category. Peters, who recently missed performances because of a respiratory ailment, faces Melissa Errico, "Amour"; Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, "Man of La Mancha"; Elizabeth Parkinson, "Movin' Out"; and Marissa Jaret Winokur, who plays Fierstein's daughter in "Hairspray." Besides Newman and Dennehy, leading actor nominations in a play include Brian Bedford for "Tartuffe," Eddie Izzard for "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg" and Stanley Tucci for "Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune." Leading actress nominees include Redgrave, Jayne Atkinson for "Enchanted April ," Victoria Hamilton for "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg," Clare Higgins for "Vincent in Brixton" and Fiona Shaw for "Medea." In an unusual move, special Tony Awards will be given to the principal ensemble performers in Baz Luhrmann's lavish retelling of Puccini's opera, "La Boheme." The 10 actors play Mimi, Rudolfo, Musetta and Marcello in the production's revolving casts. "La Boheme" will also compete in the musical revival category, going up against "Gypsy," "Nine" and "Man of La Mancha." In another strongly competitive category - play revival - "Long Day's Journey Into Night" faces "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg," "Medea" and Lincoln Center Theater's opulent production of Kaufman and Hart's comedy, "Dinner at Eight." Nominees were announced at Sardi's, the theater-district restaurant. John Lithgow and Melanie Griffith did the honors. Lithgow was a Tony winner last year for the musical "Sweet Smell of Success," while Griffith goes into the cast of "Chicago" in July to play Roxie Hart. Tony winners will be announced on 8th June at the Radio City Music Hall in New York. full list of nominations: Play: "Enchanted April," "Take Me Out," "Say Goodnight Gracie," "Vincent in Brixton." Musical: "Amour," "A Year With Frog and Toad," "Hairspray," "Movin' Out." Book of a Musical: "Amour," Didier van Cauwelaert with English adaptation by Jeremy Sams; "A Year With Frog and Toad," Willie Reale; "Flower Drum Song," David Henry Hwang; "Hairspray," Mark O'Donnell and Thomas Meehan. Original Score: "Amour," "A Year With Frog and Toad," "Hairspray," "Urban Cowboy," Revival-Play: "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg," "Dinner at Eight," "Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune," "Long Day's Journey Into Night." Revival-Musical: "Gypsy," "La Boheme," "Man of La Mancha," "Nine." Special Theatrical Event: "Bill Maher: Victory Begins at Home," "The Play What I Wrote," "Prune Danish," "Russell Simmons' Def Poetry Jam on Broadway." Actor-Play: Brian Bedford, "Tartuffe"; Brian Dennehy, "Long Day's Journey Into Night"; Eddie Izzard, "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg"; Paul Newman, "Our Town"; Stanley Tucci, "Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune." Actress-Play: Jayne Atkinson, "Enchanted April"; Victoria Hamilton, "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg"; Clare Higgins, "Vincent in Brixton"; Vanessa Redgrave, "Long Day's Journey Into Night"; Fiona Shaw, "Medea." Actor-Musical: Antonio Banderas, "Nine"; Harvey Fierstein, "Hairspray"; Malcolm Gets, "Amour"; Brian Stokes Mitchell, "Man of La Mancha"; John Selya, "Movin' Out." Actress-Musical: Melissa Errico, "Amour"; Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio, "Man of La Mancha"; Elizabeth Parkinson, "Movin' Out"; Bernadette Peters, "Gypsy"; Marissa Jaret Winokur, "Hairspray." Featured Actor-Play: Thomas Jefferson Byrd, "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom"; Philip Seymour Hoffman, "Long Day's Journey Into Night"; Robert Sean Leonard, "Long Day's Journey Into Night"; Denis O'Hare, "Take Me Out"; Daniel Sunjata, "Take Me Out." Featured Actress-Play: Christine Ebersole, "Dinner at Eight"; Linda Emond, "Life (x) 3"; Kathryn Meisle, "Tartuffe"; Michele Pawk, "Hollywood Arms"; Marian Seldes, "Dinner at Eight." Featured Actor-Musical: Michael Cavanaugh, "Movin' Out"; John Dossett, "Gypsy"; Dick Latessa, "Hairspray"; Corey Reynolds, "Hairspray"; Keith Roberts, "Movin' Out." Featured Actress-Musical: Tammy Blanchard, "Gypsy"; Jane Krakowski, "Nine"; Mary Stuart Masterson, "Nine"; Chita Rivera, "Nine"; Ashley Tuttle, "Movin' Out." Scenic Design: John Lee Beatty, "Dinner at Eight"; Santo Loquasto, "Long Day's Journey Into Night"; Catherine Martin, "La Boheme"; David Rockwell, "Hairspray." Costume Design: William Ivey Long, "Hairspray"; Catherine Martin and Angus Strathie, "La Boheme"; Catherine Zuber, "Dinner at Eight." Lighting Design: Donald Holder, "Movin' Out"; Nigel Levings, "La Boheme"; Brian MacDevitt, "Nine"; Kenneth Posner, "Hairspray." Direction of a Play: Laurence Boswell, "A Day in the Death of Joe Egg"; Robert Falls, "Long Day's Journey Into Night"; Joe Mantello, "Take Me Out"; Deborah Warner, "Medea." Direction of a Musical: David Leveaux, "Nine"; Baz Luhrmann, "La Boheme"; Jack O'Brien, "Hairspray"; Twyla Tharp, "Movin' Out." Choreography: Robert Longbottom, "Flower Drum Song"; Jerry Mitchell, "Hairspray"; Melinda Roy, "Urban Cowboy"; Twyla Tharp, "Movin' Out." Orchestrations: Billy Joel and Stuart Malina, "Movin' Out"; Nicholas Kitsopoulos, "La Boheme"; Jonathan Tunick, "Nine"; Harold Wheeler, "Hairspray." Special Awards: Cy Feuer, Paul Huntley, the principal ensemble of "La Boheme," Johnson-Liff Casting Associates, The Acting Company. Regional Theatre: The Children's Theatre Company of Minneapolis.

FTG OF THE 2ND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE HILLARY CLINTON AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE DONALD TRUMP AT WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY / MODERATORS: ANDERSON COOPER AND MARTHA RADDATZ / TRUMP ISO 22:37:56 - Shot of Ivanka and Jared Kushner and Donald and Melania talking after debate 21:03:32 RADDATZ>> Good evening. I'm Martha Raddatz from ABC news. COOPER>> I'm Anderson cooper from CNN, we want to welcome you Washington University in St. Louis for the second presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Tonight's debate is a town hall format which gives voters a chance to directly ask the candidates questions. Martha and I will ask follow up questions, but the night really belongs to the people in this room and the people across the country who submitted questions on line. 21:04:00 RADDATZ>> The people you see on this stage were chosen by the Gallup organization. They are all from the St. Louis area and told Gallup they have not committed to a candidate. Each of them came here with questions they wanted to ask and we saw those questions for the first time this morning. Anderson and I and our team from ABC and CNN are the only ones who have seen them..Both have two minutes to answer each audience and online question we hope to get to as many questions as we can. So we've asked the audience not to slow things down with any applause except for now. Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican nominee for president, Donald J trump and the democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. 21:04:49 [APPLAUSE] 21:04:57 NO HANDSHAKE 21:05:13 COOPER>> Thank you very much for being here. We are going to begin with a question from one of the members in our town hall. Each of you will have two minutes to respond to this question. Secretary Clinton won the coin toss you'll go first. Our first question comes from Patrice Brock. Patrice? 21:05:29 PATRICE>> Thank you and good evening. The last presidential debate could have rated as ma, mature audiences per TV parental guidelines. Knowing that educators assign viewing the presidential debate as student's homework, do you feel you are modelling appropriate and positive behavior for today's youth? 21:05:47 CLINTON>> Thank you. Are you a teacher? I think that's a very good question because I've heard from lots of teachers and parents about some of their concerns about some of the things that are being said and done in this campaign. I think it is very important for us to make clear to our children that our country really is great because we are good. And we are going to respect one another, lift each other up. 21:06:19 We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity and we are going to try to reach out to every boy and girl as well as every adult to bring them into working on behalf of our country. I have a positive and optimistic view about what we can do together. That's why the slogan of my campaign is stronger together. Because I think if we work together, if we overcome the divisiveness that sometimes sets Americans against one another and instead we make some big goals and I set forth big goals getting the economy to work for everyone and not just those at the top. 21:07:00 Making sure we that have the best education system from preschool through college and making it affordable and so much else. If we set those goals and we go together to try to achieve them, there's nothing in my opinion that America can't do. So that's why I hope that we will come together in this campaign. Obviously, I'm hoping to earn your vote, I'm hoping to be elected in November and I can promise you, I will work with every American. I want to be the president for all Americans. Regardless of your political beliefs, where you come from, what you look like, your religion. I want us heal our country and bring it together. Because that's, I think, the best way for us to get the future that our children and grandchildren deserve. 21:07:45 COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, thank you. Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. 21:07:48 TRUMP>> Well, I actually agree with that. I agree with everything she said. I began this campaign because I was so tired of seeing such foolish things happen to our country.This is a great country. This is a great land. I've gotten to know the people of the country over the last year and a half that I've been doing this as a politician. I cannot believe I'm saying that about myself, but I guess I have been a politician and my whole concept was to make America great again. When I watch the deals being made, when I watch what's happening with some horrible things like Obamacare, where your health insurance and health care is going up by numbers that are astronomical, 68%, 59%, 71%. 21:08:36 When I look at the Iran deal and how bad a deal it is for us. It's a one sided transaction where we're giving back $150 billion to a terrorist state really the number one terror state, we've made them a strong country from really a very weak country just three years ago. When I look at all of the things that I see in all of the potential that our country has, we have such tremendous potential. Whether it's in business and trade, where we're doing so badly. 21:09:04 Last year, we had almost $800 billion trade deficit. Other words, trading with other countries. We had an $800 billion deficit. It's hard to believe. Inconceivable. You say who's making these deals. We're going the make great trade deals. We're going to have a strong border we're going to bring back law and order. Just today. Policemen was shot.Two. Killed. And this is happening on a weekly basis. We have to bring back respect to law enforcement. At the the same time, we have to take care of people on all sides. We need justice. But I want to do things that haven't been done, including fixing and making inner cities better for African-American citizens that are so great and for the Latinos, hispanics and I look forward to doing make America great again. 21:09:56 COOPER>> Thank you, Mr. Trump. The question from Patrice was about are you both modeling positive and appropriate behaviors for today's youth. We received lot of questions online Mr. Trump about the tape released on Friday. You can imagine, you called what you said locker room banter, you described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that? 21:10:19 TRUMP>> No, I didn't say that at all. I don't think you understood what was said. This was locker room talk. I'm not proud of it. I apologized to my family. I apologized to the American people. Certainly I'm not proud of it. But this is locker room talk. You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads, where you have -- and frankly drowning people in steel cages, where you have wars and horrible, horrible sights all over, where you have so many bad things happening, this is like medieval times. We haven't seen anything like this. 21:10:50 The carnage all over the world. And they look and they see. Can you imagine the people that are frankly doing so well against us with ISIS and they look at our country and they see what is going on. Yes, I'm very embarrassed by it. I hate it. But, it's locker room talk and it is one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We're gonna defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you I will take care of ISIS. COOPER>> So Mr. Trump -- 21:11:22 TRUMP>> And we should get on to much more important things and much bigger things. COOPER>> Just for the record though, are you saying that what you said on that bus that you did not actually kiss women without consent or grope women? TRUMP>> I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do. COOPER>> So, for the record, you're saying you never did that? 21:11:42 TRUMP>> I said things, that frankly, you hear these things I said. And I was embarrassed by it. But I have tremendous respect for women. COOPER>> Have you ever done those things? TRUMP>> And women have tremendous respect for me. And I will tell you -- no I have not. And I will tell you that I'm going to make our country safe. We're gonna have borders in our country which we don't have now. People are pouring into our country and they're coming in from the Middle East and other places. 21:12:04 We're gonna make America safe again, we're gonna make America great again, but we're gonna make America safe again. And we're gonna make America wealthy again. Because if you don't do that it just sounds harsh to say but we have to build up the wealth of our nation. Now other nations are taking our jobs and they're wealth. COOPER>> Thank you Mr. Trump. Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond? 21:12:26 CLINTON >> Well, like everyone else I spent a lot of time thinking over the last 48 hours about what we heard and saw. You know, with prior Republican nominees, for president, I disagreed with them on politics, policies, principles. But I never questioned their fitness to serve. Donald Trump is different. I said starting back in June, that he was not fit to be president and commander in chief. And many Republicans and independents have said the same thing. 21:13:05 What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women. What he thinks about women. What he does to women. And he has said that the video doesn't represent who he is. But I think it's clear to anyone who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. Because we've seen this throughout the campaign. We have seen him insult women. We've seen him rate women. On their appearance. Ranking them from one to ten. We've seen him embarrass women on TV and on Twitter. We saw him after the first debate spend nearly a week denigrating a former miss universe in the harshest, most personal terms, so, yes, this is who Donald Trump is. 21:14:03 But it's not only women and it's not only this video that raises questions about his fitness to be our president. Because he has also targeted immigrants, African-Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, muslims and so many others, so, this is who Donald Trump is and the question for us, the question our country must answer is that this is not who we are. That's why to go back to your question, I want to send a message we all should. To every boy and girl and indeed to the entire world. 21:14:47 That America is great but we are great because we are good and we will respect one another. And we will work with one another and we will celebrate our diversity. These are very important values to me because this is the America that I know and love. And I can pledge to you tonight that this is the America that I will serve if I'm so fortunate enough to become your president. RADDATZ>> And we want to get to some questions -- TRUMP>> Am I allowed to respond to that? I assume I am. RADDATZ>> Yes you can respond to that. 21:15:22 TRUMP>> It's just words, folks. It's just words. Those words I've been hearing them for many years. I heard them when they were running for the senate. In New York. Where Hillary was going to bring back jobs to upstate New York and she failed. I've heard them where hillary is constantly talking about the inner cities of our country, which are a disaster. Education wise. Jobwise. Safety wise. In every way possible.l I'm going to help the African-Americans, I'm going to help the Latinos hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.She's done a terrible job for the African-Americans. She wants their vote, and she does nothing and then she comes back four years later. We saw that firsthand when she was the united states senator. She campaigned where the primary part of her campaign-- RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, I want to get to audience questions and online questions. 21:16:16 TRUMP>> So she's allowed to do that but I'm not allowed to respond. RADDATZ>> You're going to get to respond right now. This tape is generating intense interest, in just 48 hours it's become the single most talked-about story of the entire 2016 election on Facebook, with millions and millions of people discussing it on the social network. As we said a moment ago, we do want to bring in questions from voters around the country via social media. Our first stays on this topic. 21:16:45 Jeff from Ohio asks on Facebook Trump says the campaign has changed him. When did that happen. So Mr. Trump let me add to that when you walked off that bus at age 59 were you a different man or did that behavior continue until just recently? And you have 2 minutes for this. 21:17:06 TRUMP>> That was locker room talk. I'm not proud of it. I am a person who has great respect for people, for my family, for the people of this country, and certainly I'm not proud of it. But that was something that happened. If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse, mine are words, and his was action. His was, what he's done to women, there's never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that's been so abusive to women. So you can say anyway you want to say it but Bill Clinton was abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women. And attacked them viciously, four of them here tonight. 21:17:48 One of the women who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client, she represented, got him off, and she's seen laughing on two separate occasions laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman, is here with us tonight. So, don't tell me about words. I am -- Absolutely, I apologize for those words. But it is things that people say. But what president Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law, he had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the women, Paula Jones, who's also here tonight. And I will tell you, that when Hillary brings up a point like that, and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it's disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth. [ Applause ] 21:18:48 RADDATZ>> Can we please hold the applause? Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes. 21:18:54 CLINTON >> Well, first, let me start by saying, that so much of what he's just said is not right. But he gets to run his campaign any way he chooses, he gets to decide what he wants to talk about, instead of answering people's questions, talking about our agenda, laying out the plans that we have that we think can make a better life and a better country. That's his choice. When I hear something like that, I'm reminded of what my friend, Michelle Obama, advised us all. When they go low, you go high. [ Applause ] 21:19:33 And look, if this were just about one video maybe what he's saying tonight would be understandable. But everyone can draw their own conclusions at this point about whether or not the man in the video or the man on the stage respects women. But he never apologizes for anything to anyone. He never apologized to Mr. and Mrs. Khan, the gold star family, whose son Captain Khan died in the line of duty in Iraq. And Donald insulted and attacked them for weeks over their religion. He never apologized to the distinguished federal judge, who was born in Indiana. But Donald said he couldn't be trusted to be a judge because his parents were, quote "Mexican." 21:20:31 He never apologized to the reporter that he mimicked and mocked on national television and our children were watching. And he never apologized for the racist lie that president Obama was not born in the united States of America. He owes the president an apology, he owes our country an apology, and he needs to take responsibility for his actions and his words. 21:20:58 TRUMP>> Well, you owe the president an apology because as you know very well, your campaign's Sidney Blumenthal, he's another real winner that you have. And he's the one that got this started, along with your campaign manager and they were on television just two weeks ago she was, saying exactly that. So you really owe him an apology. You're the one that sent the pictures around your campaign, sent the pictures around with president Obama in a certain garb. That was long before I was ever involved. So, you actually owe an apology. 21:21:29 Number two, Michelle Obama. I've gotten to see the commercials that they did on you. And I've gotten to see some of the most vicious commercials I've ever seen, of Michelle Obama talking about you Hilary. So you talk about friend, go back and take a look at those commercials, a race where you lost, fair and square, unlike the Bernie Sanders race, where you won, but not fair and square, in my opinion. And all you have to do is take a look at wikileaks and just see what they said about Bernie Sanders and see what Debra Wasserman Schultz had in mind. Because Bernie Sanders between superdelegates and debra wasserman schultz he never had a chance. And I was so surprised to see him sign on with the devil. 21:22:15 But when you talk about apology, I think the one and the thing you should really be apologizing for and the thing that you should be apologizing for are the 33,000 e-mails that you deleted, and that you acid washed, and then the two boxes of e-mails and other things last week that were taken from an office and are now missing. And I'll tell you what, I didn't think I'd say this, but I'm going to say it, and I hate to say it, but if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception, there has never been anything like it, and we're going to have a special prosecutor. 21:23:02 When I speak, I go out and speak, the people of this country are furious. In my opinion, the people that are the long term workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this, where emails, and you get a subpoena, you get a subpoena and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 e-mails. And then you acid wash, or bleach them, as you would say, a very expensive process. So we're going to get a special prosecutor, and we're going to look into it, because you know what, people have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you've done, and it's a disgrace. And honestly, you oughta be ashamed of yourself. 21:23:42 RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton I want to follow up on that. I'm gonna let you talk about emails. CLINTON>> Everything he just said is absolutely false. But I'm not surprised. TRUMP>> Oh really? [boos] CLINTON>> In the first debate -- in the first debate -- RADDATZ>> The audience needs to calm down here. 21:23:50 CLINTON>> In the first debate I told people that t would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I'd never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we are going to really make lives better for people. So once again, go to hillaryclinton.com. We have literally trump, you can fact check him in real time. Last time, at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking. So, I expect we'll have millions more fact-checking. Because it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country. 21:24:30 TRUMP>> Because you'd be in jail. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton -- [ applause ] COOPER>> We want to remind the audience to please not talk out loud. Please do not applaud. You're just wasting time. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton, I do want to follow up on emails you've said your handling of e-mails was a mistake, you disagreed with FBI director James Comey calling your handling of classified information quote extremely careless the FBI said there were 110 classified emails that were exchanged 8 of which were top secret and that it was possible hostile actors did gain access to those emails. You don't call that extremely careless? 21:25:11 CLINTON>> Martha, first let me say, and I've said it before, but I'll repeat it because I want everyone to hear it. That was a mistake, and I take responsibility for using a personal email account. Obviously, if I were to do it over again, I would not. I'm not making any excuses. It was a mistake, and I'm very sorry about that. But I think it's also important to point out where there are some misleading accusations from critics and others. 21:25:43 After a yearlong investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using, and there is no evidence that anyone can point to at all, anyone who says otherwise has no basis, that any classified material ended up in the wrong hands. I take classified materials very seriously, and always have when I was on the senate armed services committee I was privy to a lot of classified material obviously as secretary of state, I had some of the most important secrets that we possess, such as going after bin laden. So, I'm very committed to taking classified information seriously, and as I said there's no evidence that any classified information ended up in the wrong hands. 21:26:33 RADDATZ>> Okay, we're gonna move on. TRUMP>> And yet, she didn't know the word, the letter "C" on a document, right? She didn't even know what that word, what that letter meant. You know, it's amazing, I'm watching Hillary go after facts. And she's going after fact after fact, and she's lying again, because she said she, you know, what she did with the e-mails was fine. You think it was fine to delete 33,000 e-mails? I don't think so. She said the 33 thousand emails had to do with her daughter's wedding, number one, and a yoga class. We'll maybe we'll give three or three or four or five or something. 33 thousand emails deleted and now she's saying there' wasn't anything wrong. And more importantly, that was after getting a subpoena. That wasn't before, that was after. She got it from the United States Congress. And I'll be honest, I am so disappointed in Congressmen, including republicans for allowing this to happen. 21:27:26 Our justice department, where her husband goes onto the back of an airplane for 39 minutes, talks to the attorney general days before a ruling is gonna be made in her case. But for you to say that there was nothing wrong with you deleting 39,000 e-mails, again, you should be ashamed of yourself. What you did, and this is after getting a subpoena from the United States congress. COOPER>> We have to move on. TRUMP>> -- You did that, wait a minute, one second. RADDATZ>> We want to give the audience -- TRUMP>> If you did that in the private sector, you'd be put in jail, let alone after getting a subpoena from the United States senate. 21:28:00 COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, you can respond but then we have to move on to an audience question. CLINTON>> Look, it's just not true. And so please, go to -- TRUMP>> Oh, you didn't delete them? COOPER>> Allow her to respond, please. CLINTON>> Those were personal e-mails, not official -- TRUMP>> Oh really, 33 thousand? 21:28:10 CLINTON>> Well, we turned over 35 thousand, so. TRUMP>> Oh really, what about the other 15,000. COOPER>> Please allow her to respond. She didn't talk while you talked. CLINTON>> Yes, that's true, I didn't. TRUMP>> Because you have nothing to say. CLINTON>> And I didn't in the first debate. And I'm gonna try not to in this debate. Because, I'd like to get to the questions that the people have brought here tonight to talk us about. TRUMP>> And get off this question. CLINTON>> Okay, Donald, I know you're into big diversion tonight, anything to avoid talking about your campaign and the way it's exploding and Republicans are leaving you. TRUMP>> Let's see what happens. CLINTON>> Let's at least focus on -- COOPER>> Allow her respond. CLINTON>> -- the issues that people care about tonight. Let's get to their questions. 21:28:50 COOPER>> We have a question here from Ken Karpowitz (sp.?). He has a question about health care. Ken. TRUMP>> I'd like to know, Anderson, why aren't you bringing up the e-mails? I'd like ot know. Why aren't you bringing up -- COOPER>> You brought up the e-mails. TRUMP>> Not it hasn't. It hasn't. And it hasn't been finished at all. COOPER>> Ken Karpowitz has a question. TRUMP>> Nice, it's one on three. 21:29:06 KEN>> Affordable care act, known as Obama care, is not affordable. Premiums have gone up, deductibles have gone up, copays have gone up prescriptions have gone up and the coverage has gone down. What will you do to bring the costs down and make coverage better? COOPER>> That first one goes to secretary Clinton, because you started out the last one to the audience. CLINTON>> He wants to start, he can start. Go ahead, Donald. TRUMP>> No, I'm a gentleman, Hillary, go ahead. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton? 21:29:41 CLINTON>> Well I think Donald was about to say, ++ it because I agree with you, premiums have gotten to high, copays, deductibles, prescription drug costs. And I have laid out a series of actions that we can take to try to get those costs down. But here's what I don't want people to forget when we're talking about reining in the cost which has to be the highest priority of the next president. When the affordable care act passed it wasn't just that 20 million people got insurance who didn't have it before. But that in it of itself was a good thing. I meet these people all the time and they tell me what a difference having that insurance meant to them and their families. 21:30:25 But everybody else the 170 million of us who get health insurance through our employers got big benefits. Number one insurance companies can't deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Number two no lifetime limits which is a big deal if you have serious health problems. Number three women can't be charged more than men for health insurance which is the way it used to be before the affordable care act. Number four, if you're under 26 and your parents have a policy, you can be on that policy until the age of 26 something that didn't happen before. So, I want very much to save what works and is good about the affordable care act. But we've got to get costs down, we've got to provide some additional help to small businesses, so they can afford to provide health insurance. But if we repeal it as Donald has proposed, and start over again all of those benefits I just mentioned are lost to everybody, not just people who get their health insurance on the exchange. And then we would have to start all over again. Right now, we're at 90% health insurance coverage. That's the highest we've ever been in our country. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, your time is up. 21:31:43 CLINTON>> So I want to get to 100%, but get costs down and keep quality up. COOPER>> Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. 21:31:50 TRUMP>> It's such a great question, and it's maybe the question I get almost more than anything else outside of defense. Obama care is a disaster. You know it, we all know it. It's going up at numbers that nobody has ever seen worldwide. Nobody has ever seen numbers like this for health care. It's only getting worse. In '17, it implodes by itself. Their method of fixing it is to go back and ask congress for more money. More and more money. We have right now almost 20 trillion dollars in debt. Obama care will never work, it's very bad very bad health insurance. Far too expensive and not only expensive for the person that has it unbelievably expensive for our country, it's gotta be one of the biggest line items very shortly. We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive, and something that works. Where your plan can actually be tailored. 21:32:50 We have to get rid of the lines around the state artificial lines where we stop insurance companies from coming in and competing. Because they wanted president obama and whoever was working on it they want to leave those lines because that gives insurance companies essentially monopolies. We want competition. You will have the finest health care plan there is. She wants to go to a single payer plan, which will be a disaster somewhat similar to Canada. And if you ever notice the Canadians, when they need a big operation, when something happens, they come to the United States in many cases, because their system is so slow, it's catastrophic in certain ways. But she wants to go to single payer, which means the government basically rules everything. Hillary Clinton has been after this for years. Obama care was the first step, obamacare is a total disaster. Not only are your rates by numbers that nobody has ever believed but your deductibles are going up. So unless you get hit by a truck you're never going to be able to use it. It's a disastrous plan, and it has to be repealed and replaced. COOPER>> And secretary Clinton let me follow up with you. Your husband called obamacare quote the craziest thing in the world saying that small business owners are getting killed premiums doubled, coverage is cut in half. Was he mistaken or was his mistake simply telling the truth? 21:34:11 CLINTON >> No, I mean, he clarified what he meant. And it's very clear. Look, we are in a situation in our country where if we were to start all over again, we might come up with a different system. But we have an employer based system.That's where the vast majority of people get their health care. And the affordable care act was meant to try to fill the gap between people who were too poor and couldn't put together any resources to afford healthcare, namely people on medicaid. Obviously medicare, which is a single payer system, which takes care of our elderly and does a great job doing it, by the way, and then all the people who were employed, but people who were working but didn't have the money to afford insurance. 21:34:56 And didn't have anybody, an employer, or anybody else, to help them. That was the slot that the Obama care approach was to take. And like I say, 20 million people now have health insurance. So, if we just rip it up and throw it away, what Donald's not telling you is, we just turn it back to the insurance companies, he way it used to be. And that means the insurance companies get to do pretty much whatever they want, including saying, look, I'm sorry, you got diabetes, you had cancer, your child has asthma -- COOPER>> Your time is up. 21:35:25 CLINTON>> You may not be able to have insurance because you can't afford it. So, let's fix what's broken about it, but let's not throw it away and give it all back to the insurance companies and drug companies, that's not gonna work COOPER>> mr. trump, let me follow up on this. TRUMP>> I just wanna, just one thing? First of all, Hillary, everything's broken about it. Everything. Number two, Bernie Sanders said that Hillary Clinton has very bad judgment. This is a perfect example of it -- COOPER>> Mr. Trump -- TRUMP>> --trying to save Obamacare, which is -- 21:35:52 COOPER>> --you've said you want to end Obama care. You've said you want to end Obama care. You've also said you want to make coverage accessible for people with pre-existing conditions. How do you force insurance companies to do that if you're no longer mandating that every -- 21:36:04 TRUMP>> We are going to be able to. You are going to have plans -- COOPER>> What does that mean? TRUMP>> Well, I'll tell you what it means. You're gonna have plans that are so good, because you're going to have so much competition in the insurance industry. Once we break out, once we break out the lines and allow the competition to come. COOPER>> Are you gonna have a mandate that Americans have to have health insurance? 21:36:21 TRUMP>> President Obama, by keeping those lines, the boundary lines around each state, and it was almost gone until just very toward the end of the passage of Obamacare. Which by the way was a fraud. You know that, because Jonathan Grouper, the architect of Obamacare was said, he said it was a great lie, it was a big lie. President Obama said, you keep your doctor, you keep your plan. The whole thing was a fraud, and it doesn't work. But when we get rid of those lines, you have competition, and we will be able to keep pre-existing, we'll also be able to help people that can't get, don't have money, cause we are going to have people protected. 21:36:58 And Republicans feel this way, believe it or not, and strongly this way, we're going to block grant into the states, we're going to block grant into medicaid into the states so that we will be able to take care of people without the necessary funds to take care of themselves. COOPER>> Thank you, Mr. Trump. 21:37:15 RADDATZ>> We now go to (?) Hamid with a question for both candidates. HAMID>> There are 3.3 million Muslims in the United States, and I'm one of them. You've mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over. RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, you're first. 21:37:39 TRUMP>> Well you're right about Islamophobia and that's a shame. But one thing we have to do is we have to make sure that, because there is a problem. I mean, whether we like it or not, and we can be very politically correct. But whether we like it or not, there is a problem. And we have to be sure that Muslims come in and report when they see something going on, when they see hatred going on, they have to report it. For as an example, in San Bernardino. Many people saw the bombs all over the apartment of the two people that killed 14 and wounded many, many, people. Horribly wounded, they'll never be the same. Muslims have to report the problems when they see them. 21:38:22 And, you know, there's always a reason for everything. If they don't do that, it's a very difficult situation for our country. Because you look at Orlando, and you look at San Bernardino, and you look the world trade center, go outside you look at Paris, that horrible -- these are radical Islamic terrorists. And she won't even mention the word, nor will president Obama. He won't use the term radical Islamic terrorism. Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is, or at least say the name. She won't say the name and President Obama won't say the name, but the name is there. It's radical Islamic terror. And before you solve it, you have to say the name. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton? 21:39:10 CLINTON >> Well, thank you for asking your question. And I've heard this question from a lot of Muslim Americans across our country. Because, unfortunately, there has been a lot of very divisive, dark things said about muslims. Even someone like captain khan, the young man who sacrificed himself defending our country in the united states army has been subject to attack by Donald. I want to say just a couple of things. First we've had muslims in America since George Washington. We had many successful muslims. We just lost a particularly well-known one with Muhammad Ali. My vision of America is an America where everyone has a place if you are willing to work hard and do your part and you contribute to the community. That's what America is. That's what we want America to be for our children and our grandchildren. 21:40:10 It's also very short sighted and even dangerous to be engaging in the kind of demagogic rhetoric that Donald has about Muslims. We need american muslims to be part of our eyes and ears on our front lines. I've worked with a lot of different muslim groups around america I've met with a lot of them and I've heard how important it is for them to feel that they are wanted and include and part of our country. Part of our homeland security. That's what I want to see. It's also important, I intend to defeat ISIS and to do so in a coalition with majority Muslim nations. Right now a lot of those nations are hearing what Donald says and wondering why should we cooperate with Americans. This is a gift to ISIS and the terrorists. Violent jihadist terrorists. We are not at war with Islam and it is a mistake and it plays into the hands of the terrorists to act as though we are. So I want a country where citizens like you and your family are just as welcome as anyone else. 21:41:20 RADDATZ>> Thank you, secretary Clinton. Mr. Trump, in December you said this. Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shut down of muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice. We have no choice. Your running mate said this week that the Muslim ban is no longer your position. Is that correct and if it is was it a mistake to have a religious test? 21:41:49 TRUMP>> First of all captain khan is an American hero and if I were president at that time he would be alive today because unlike her who voted for the war without knowing what she was doing I would not have had our people in Iraq. Iraq was a disaster. So he would have been alive today. The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into an extreme vetting from certain areas of the world. Hillary Clinton wants to allow -- RADDATZ>> Why did it morph into that. TRUMP>> Excuse me. RADDATZ>> No answer the question. DO you still believe-- TRUMP>> Why don't you interrupt her, you interrupt me all the time. RADDATZ>> I do. Would you please explain whether or not the muslim ban still stands. 21:42:34 TRUMP>> It's called extreme vetting. We are going to areas like Syria where they are coming in by the tens of thousands because of barack obama and Hillary Clinton wants to allow a 550% increase over Obama. People are coming into our country like we have no idea who they are and where they are from and what their feelings about our country is and she wants 550% more. This will be the great Trojan horse of all time. We have enough problems in this country. I believe in building safe Zones I believe in having other people pay for them as an example the gulf states who are not carrying their weight but they have nothing but money and take care of people. But I don't want to have with all the problems this country has and all of the problems you see going on, hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria where we know nothing about them we know nothing about their values and we know nothing about their love for our country. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton, let me ask you about that. Because you have asked for an increase from 10 to 65,000 Syrian refugees. We know you want tougher vetting. That's not a perfect system. Why take the risk of having those refugees come into the country. 21:43:53 CLINTON >> First of all, I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us. But there are a lot of refugees, women and children, think of that picture we all saw of that 4-year-old boy with the blood on his forehead because he had been bombed by the Russians and Syrian air forces. There are children suffering in this catastrophic war largely I believe because of Russian aggression. We need to do our part. We by no means are carrying anywhere near the low that Europe and others are. We will have vetting that is as tough as it needs to be from our professionals and intelligence experts and others. It is important for us as a policy not to say as Donald has said, we will ban people based on a religion. 21:44:54 How do do you that? We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty. How do we do what he has advocated without causing great distress within our own country. Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into our country and how do we expect to be able to implement those? So I thought that what he said was extremely unwise and even dangerous and indeed you can look at the propaganda on a lot of the terrorist sites and what Donald Trump says about muslims is used to recruit fighters. Because they want to create a war between us. The final thing I will say, this is the 10th or 12th time that he's denied being for the war in Iraq. We have it on tape and the entire press corps looked at it and it has been debunked but it never stops him from saying what he wants to say. TRUMP>> Has not been debunked. CLINTON>> So please. Go to Hillary clinton.com. 21:46:02 TRUMP>> I was against the war in Iraq. Has not been debunked. You voted for it and you shouldn't have. RADDATZ>> There's been a lot of fact checking on that. I would like to move on. TRUMP>> Excuse me. She just went 25 seconds over her time. Can I just respond? RADDATZ>> Very quickly. 21:46:18 TRUMP>> Hillary Clinton in terms of having people come into our country we have many criminal illegal aliens. When we want to send them back to their country their country says we don't want them, in some cases they are murderers and drug lords and drug problems and they don't want them. Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state said that's okay. We can't force them into their country. Let me tell you. I'm going to right back into their country. They are murderers and some very bad people. I will tell you very strongly, when Bernie Sanders said she has bad judgment, she has really bad judgment because we are letting people into this country that are going to cause problems and crime like you've never seen. We are also letting drugs pour through our southern border at a record clip. 21:47:02 It shouldn't be allowed to happen. ICE just endorse me. They never endorsed a presidential candidate. The border patrol agents, 16,500 just recently endorsed me. They endorsed me because I understand the border. She doesn't. She wants amnesty for everybody. Come right in and come right over. It's a horrible thing she is doing. She has bad judgment and honestly so bad that she should never be president of the United States. That I can tell you. 21:47:32 RADDATZ>> I want to move on. This next question comes from the public from the bipartisan debate coalition's online forum where Americans submitted questions that generated millions of votes. This question involves wikileaks release of purported experts of secretary clinton's paid speeches which she has refused to release and one line in particular in which you secretary clinton purportedly say you need both a public and private physician on certain issues. Two from Virginia asked is it okay for politicians to be two-faced. Is it acceptable for a politician to have a private stance? Secretary Clinton? 21:48:16 CLINTON >> As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven spielberg movie called Lincoln. It was a master class watching president Lincoln get the congress to approve the 13th amendment. It was principled and it was strategic and I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the congress to do what you want to do. You have to keep working at it and yes, president Lincoln was trying to convince some people he used some arguments, convincing other people he used other arguments. That was a great, I thought a great display of presidential leadership. You know, let's talk about what's really going on here, Martha. Because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. 21:49:30 Wikileaks is part of that as are other sites where the Russians hack information we don't even know if it's accurate information. Then they put it out. We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary of foreign power is working so hard to influence the outcome of the elections and believe me they are not doing it to get me elected. They are doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump. Maybe because he has praised Putin and maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow. I don't know the reasons. But we deserve answers and we should demand that Donald release all of his tax return so people can see what are the entanglements and financial relationships--. RADDATZ>> We will get to that later. We are out of time. 21:50:28 TRUMP>> Well I think I should respond. Because so ridiculous. Look now she is blaming -- she got caught in a total lie. Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks Goldman Sachs and everybody else. She said things, wikileaks, that just came out. She lied. Now she is blaming the lie on the late great Abraham Lincoln. That's one that I haven't heard. Honest Abe never lied. That's the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That's a big big difference. We're talking about some difference. 21:51:03 As far as other elements of what she was saying, I don't know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together as an example. But I don't know Putin. But I notice any time anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians, she doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia and the reason they blame Russia is because they think they are trying penceto tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia, I know about Russia but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia I don't deal there. I have no businesses there and I have no loans from Russia. I have a very very great balance sheet. So great that when I did the old post office, on pennsylvania avenue, the United States government because of my balance sheet which they know very well shows me to do the old post office between the white house and congress. They chose me to do the old post office, one of the primary things in fact perhaps the primary thing was balance sheet. But I have no loans with Russia. 21:52:02 You can go to the United States government and they would probably tell you that. Because they know my sheet very well in order to get that development I had to have. Now the taxes are a simple thing. As soon as I have -- first of all, I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her friends took bigger deductions. Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who's a friend of hers, took a massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money that she can do many more commercials than me gave her, took massive deductions. I pay hundreds of dollars in millions in taxes, but, but, as soon as my routine audit is finished, I'll release my returns. I'll be very proud to. 21:52:42 RADDATZ>> Thank you Mr. Trump. COOPER>> We're gonna turn actually to the topic of taxes. We have a question from Spencer Moss. Spencer? 21:52:53 SPENCER>> Good evening. My question is what specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes. 21:53:01 COOPER>> Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. TRUMP>> Well one thing I'd do is get rid of carried interest. The -- One of the greatest provisions for people like me, to be honest with you, I give up a lot when I run because I knockout the tax code. And she could have done this years ago, by the way. She's a -- she was a United States senator. She complains that Donald Trump took advantage of the tax code. Well, why didn't you change it when you were a senator? The reason you didn't is that all your friends take the same advantage that I took. And I do. You have provisions in the tax code that frankly we could change. 21:53:32 But you wouldn't change it because all of these people gave you the money so you can take negative ads on Donald Trump. But, and I say that about a lot of things. You know, I've heard Hillary complaining about so many different things over the years. Oh, we should have done this. But she's been there for 30 years, she's been doing this stuff. She never changed. And she never will change. She never will change. We're getting rid of carried interest provisions. I'm lower taxes, actually, because I think it's so important for corporations because we have cooperations leaving, massive corporations and little ones. Little ones can't form. We're getting rid of regulations, which goes hand and hand with the lowering of the taxes. 21:54:09 But we're bringing the tax rate down from 35% to 15%. We are cutting taxes for the middle class and I will tell you, we are cutting them big league for the middle class. And I will tell you, Hillary Clinton is raising your taxes, folks, you can look at me. She's raising your taxes really high. And what that's going to do is a disaster for the country. But she is raising the taxes and I'm lowering your taxes. That in itself is a big difference. We are going to be thriving again. We have no growth in this country. There is no growth. If China has a gdp of 7% it's like a national catastrophe. We're down at 1%. And, that's like no growth. And we're going lower in my opinion. And a lot of it has to do with the fact that our taxes are so high. Just about the highest in the world and I'm bringing them down to one of the lower in the world. And I think it's so important, one of the most important things we can do. But she is raising everybody's taxes massively. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton you have two minutes. The question is what specific provisions would you change to make sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes. 21:55:14 CLINTON>> Well everything you've heard just now from Donald is not true. I'm sorry I have to keep saying this, but he lives in an alternative reality. And it is sort of amusing to hear somebody who hasn't paid federal income taxes in many 20 years talking about what he's gonna do, but I'll tell you what he's going to do. His plan will give the wealthy and corporations the biggest tax cuts they've ever had. More than it is Bush tax cuts by at least a factor of two. Donald always takes care of Donald and people like Donald. And this would be a massive gift. And indeed the way that he talks about his tax cuts would end up raising taxes on middle class families. Millions of middle class families. Now here's what I want to do. I have said nobody who makes less than $250,000 a year and that's the vast majority of Americans as you know will have their taxes raised. 21:56:11 Because I think we have to go where the money is, and the money is with people who have taken advantage of every break in the tax code. And yes, when I was a senator, I did vote to close corporate loopholes. I voted to close, I think, one of the loopholes he took advantage of when he claimed a billion dollar loss that enabled him to avoid paying taxes. I want to have a tax on people who are making a million dollars, it's called the Buffett rule. Yes, Warren Buffett is the one who's gone out and somebody like him should not be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. I want to have a surcharge on incomes above 5 million. We have to make up for lost times, because I want to invest in you. I want to invest in hard working families. 21:56:55 And I think it has been unfortunate, but it's happened that since the great recession, the gains have all gone to the top. And we need to reverse that. People like Donald who pay zero in taxes, zero for our vets, zero for our military, zero for health and education. That is wrong. And we're going to make sure that nobody, no corporation and no individual can get away without paying his fair share to support our country. COOPER>> Mr. Trump,I want to give you the chance to respond. I just want to tell our viewers what she's referring to. In the last month, taxes were the number one issue on Facebook for the first time in the campaign. The new york times published three pages of your 1995 tax returns that showed you claimed a $916 million loss which means you could have avoided paying personal federal income taxes for years. You've said you paid state taxes, employee taxes, real estate taxes, property taxes. You have not answered though a simple question: did you use that $916 million loss to avoid paying personal federal income taxes? 21:57:55 TRUMP>> Of course I do. Of course I do. And so do all of her donors or most of her donors. I know many of her donors. Her donors took massive tax write offs. COOPER>> So have you paid personal federal income taxes? TRUMP>> A lot lot of my write off was depreciation and other things that Hillary as a senator allowed. And she'll always allow it, because the people that give her all this money, they want it. That's why. See, I understand the tax code better than anybody that's ever run for president. Hillary Clinton, and it's extremely complex, Hillary Clinton has friends that want all of these provisions, including they want the carried interest provision which is very important to Wall Street people, but they really want the carried interest provision. Which, I believe Hillary's leaving, very interesting why she's leaving carried interest. But I will tell you that number one, I pay tremendous numbers of taxes, I absolutely used it, and so did Warren Buffet, and so did George Soros, and so did many of the other people that Hillary is getting money from. 21:58:54 Now, I won't mention their names, because they're rich, but they're not famous. So we won't make them famous. COOPER>> Can you say how many years you have avoided paying personal federal taxes? 21:59:02 TRUMP>> No. But pay tax and I pay federal tax, too. But I have a write off, a lot of it's depreciation which is a wonderful charge. I love depreciation. You know, she's given it to us. Hey, if she had a problem, for 30 years she's been doing this, Anderson, I say it all the time, she talks about healthcare. Why didn't you do something about it. She talks about taxes. Why didn't she do something about it? She doesn't do anything about anything other than talk. With her, it's all talk and no action. And again, Bernie Sanders, it's really bad judgment. She made bad judgment not only on taxes, she's made bad judgements on Libya, on Syria, on Iraq. 21:59:42 I mean her and Obama whether you like it or not, the way they got out of Iraq, the vacuum they've left, that's why ISIS formed in the first place. They started from that little area and now they are in 32 different nations, Hillary. Congratulations. Great job. COOPER>> I want you to respond, Hillary Clinton. 22:00:03 CLINTON>> Well, here we go again. I have been in favor of getting rid of carried interest for years starting when I was a senator from New York. But that's not the point here. TRUMP>> Why didn't you do it? CLINTON>> Because I was a senator with a Republican president. TRUMP>> Oh really. You could have done it. If you were an effective senator, you could have done it. If you were an effective senator you could have done it but you were not an effective senator. COOPER>> Please let her respond, she didn't interrupt you. 22:00:29 CLINTON>> Under our constitution, presidents have something called veto power. Look he has now said repeatedly 30 years this and 30 years that. Let me talk about my 30 years in public service. I'm very glad to do so. Eight million kids every year have health insurance because when I was first lady I worked with Democrats and Republicans to create the children's health insurance program. Hundreds of thousands of kids now have a chance to be adopted because I worked to change our adoption and foster care system. After 9/11 went to work with republican mayor governor and president to rebuild New York and to get health care for the first responders who were suffering because they had run towards danger and gotten sickened by it. 22:01:16 Hundreds of thousands of national guard and reserve members have healthcare because of work that I did and children have safer medicines because I was able to pass a law that required the dosing to be more carefully done. When I was secretary of state, I went around the world advocating for our country but also advocating for women's rights to make sure that women had a decent chance to have a better life and negotiated a treaty with Russia to lower nuclear weapons. 400 pieces of legislation have my name on it as a sponsor or cosponsor when I was a senator for eight years. 22:01:59 I worked very hard and was very proud to be reelected in new york by an even bigger margin that I had been elected the first time. And as president I will take that work that bipartisan work that finding common ground. You have to get along with people to get things done in Washington. I have proven that I can and for thirty years I have produced results for the people. RADDATZ>> We will move on to Syria. Both of you have mentioned that. TRUMP>> I think we should -- 22:02:29 RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, we will go on. TRUMP>> She has been a disaster as a senator. RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, we are going to move on. The heart breaking video of a 5-year-old Syrian boy sitting in an ambulance after being pulled from the rubble after an airstrike in aleppo focused on the world's attention on the horrors of the war in Syria with 136 million views on Facebook alone. There are much worse images coming out of aleppo everyday now where in the past few weeks alone 400 people have been killed at least 100 are children. Just days ago the state department called for a war crimes investigation of the Syrian regime of assad and its ally, Russia for their bombardment of aleppo. This next question comes through Facebook. Diane from Pennsylvania asks if you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in aleppo? Isn't it a lot like the holocaust where the U.S. Waited too long before we helped? We will begin with your two minutes secretary Clinton. 21:03:36 CLINTON>> The situation in Syria is catastrophic and everyday that goes by we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground and the Russians in the air bombarding places in particular aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people probably 250,000 still left. There is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who were really holding out against the Assad regime. Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS. They are interested in keeping Assad in power. So I when I was secretary of state advocated and I advocate today a no-fly and safe zone. 22:04:30 We need some leverage with the Russians because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution unless there is some leverage over them. We have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground. But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it is all in in Syria and they've also decided who they want to see become president of the United States too and it's not me. 22:05:10 I've stood up to Russia and I have taken on Putin and others and I would do that as president. I think wherever we can cooperate with Russia, that's fine and I did as secretary of state and that's how we got a treaty reducing nuclear weapons and it's how we got the sanctions in Iran that put a lid on the nuclear program without firing a single shot. I would go to the negotiating table with more leverage than we have now. But I do support the effort to investigate for crimes, war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable. 22:05:45 TRUMP>> First of all she was there as secretary of state with the so called line in the sand. CLINTON>> I wasn't. I hate to interrupt you. At some point we need to do some fact checking here. 22:05:55 >> You were in total contact with the white house and perhaps sadly Obama probably still listened. I don't think he would listen very much anymore. Obama draws the line in the sand. It was laughed at all over the world what happened. With that being said, she talks tough against Russia, but our nuclear program has fallen way behind and they have gone wild with their nuclear program. Not good. Our government shouldn't have allowed that to happen. Russia is new in terms of nuclear and we are old and tired and exhausted in terms of nuclear. A very bad thing. She talks tough. She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn't know who the rebels are. Every time we take rebels whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else, we are arming people. You know what happens? 22:06:52 They end up being worse than the people. Look at what she did Libya with Gaddafi. Gadhafi is out and it's a mess. And by the way ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I'm sure you have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done in foreign policy has been a mistake and it has been a disaster. If you look at Russia, take a look at Russia and look at what they did this week where I agree she wasn't there, but possibly she's consulted. We sign a peace treaty and everyone is all excited, but what Russia did with Assad and by the way with Iran who you made very powerful with the dumbest deal perhaps I have seen in the history of deal making the iran deal with $150 billion with the $1.7 billion in cash, which is enough cash to fill up this room, but look at that deal. Iran now and Russia are now against us. She wants to fight. She wants to fight for rebels. There is one problem. You don't even know who the rebels are. RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, your two minutes is up. 22:07:53 TRUMP>> One thing I have to say. I don't like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS and Iran is killing ISIS and those three have lined up because of our weak foreign policy. RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump. Let me repeat the question. If you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in aleppo and I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and if Russia continues to be involved in airstrikes along with the Syrian forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime. 22:08:40 TRUMP>> He and I haven't spoken and I disagree. RADDATZ>> You disagree with your running mate. TRUMP>> I think we have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and Iran who she made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly. I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria they had a chance and that was the line. RADDATZ>> What do you think will happen if aleppo falls? 22:09:18 TRUMP>> I think Aleppo is a disaster humanitarian wise. RADDATZ>> What will happen if it falls? TRUMP>> I think that it basically has fallen. It basically has fallen. Let me tell you something you take a look at mosul and the biggest problem I have with the stupidity of our foreign policy, we have mosul they think a lot of the ISIS leaders are in mosul. So we have announcements coming out of Washington and coming out of Iraq. We will be attacking mosul in three weeks or four weeks. Well all of these bad leaders from ISIS are leaving mosul. Why can't they do it quietly why can't they do the attack make it a sneak attack and after the attack is made inform the American public that we have knocked out the leaders and we have a tremendous success. 22:10:00 People leave. Why do they have to say we are going to be attacking Mosul within the next four to six weeks which is what they're saying. How stupid is our country? RADDATZ>> There are sometimes reasons the military does that. Psychological warfare. TRUMP>> I can't think of any. RADDATZ>> It might be to help get civilians out. TRUMP>> I have 200 generals and admirals endorsing me. I have 21 congressional medal of honor recipients who endorse me. We talk about it all the time. They understand. Why can't they do something secretively where they go in and knockout the leadership. How -- Why would these people stay there? I've been reading now -- 22:10:40 RADDATZ>> Tell me what your strategy is it. TRUMP>> --about Mosul, that it's the harbor of where, you know between Iraq and Mosul, this is why where they think the ISIS leaders are. Why would they -- they're not staying there anymore. They're gone. Because everybody is talking about how Iraq which is us, with our leadership, goes into fight Mosul. Now, with the 200 admirals and generals, they can't believe it. All I say is this, General George Patton, General Douglas MacArthur are spinning in their grace at the stupidity of what we are doing in the Middle East.21:11:14 RADDATZ>> I'm going to go to Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton, you want Assad to go, you advocated arming rebels, but it looks like that may be too late for Aleppo. You talk about diplomatic efforts. Those have failed. Ceasefires have failed. Would you introduce the threat of U.S. Military force beyond a no-fly zone against the Assad regime to back up diplomacy? 22:11:36 CLINTON>> I would not use American ground forces in Syria. I think that would be a very serious mistake. I don't think American troops should be holding territory which is what they would have to do as an occupying force. I don't think that is a smart strategy. I do think the use of special forces, which we're using, the use of enablers and trainers in Iraq which has had some positive effects are very much in our interests. And so I do support what is happening. But, let me -- RADDATZ>> What would you do different than than president Obama is doing? 22:12:14 CLINTON>> Well, Martha, I hope that by the time I am -- TRUMP>> Everything. CLINTON>> -- president that we will have pushed ISIS out of Iraq. I do think that there is a good chance that we can take Mosul. And, you know, Donald said he knows more about ISIS than the generals. No, he doesn't. There are a lot of very important planning going on and some of it is to signal to the Sunnis in the area as well as Kurdish peshmerga fighters that we all need to be in this. And that takes a lot of planning and preparation. I would go after Baghdady. I would specifically target Baghdady. Because I think our targeting of Al Qaeda leaders and I was involved in a lot of those operations, highly classified ones, made a difference. So I think that could help. 22:13:06 I would also consider arming the Kurds. The Kurds have been our best partners in Syria as well as Iraq. And I know there is a lot of concern about that in some circles, but I think they should have the equipment they need so that kurdish and Arab fighters on the ground are the principal way that we taka Raka after pushing ISIS out of Iraq. 22:13:31 TRUMP>> You know, it's funny, she went over a minute over and you don't stop her. When I go one second over -- RADDATZ>> You had many answers. TRUMP>> It's very interesting. COOPER>> We have a question over here from James Carter. Mr Carter? 22:13:49 JAMES CARTER>> My question is, do you believe you can be a devoted president to all the people in the United States. COOPER>> That question begins for Mr. Trump. 22:14:04 TRUMP>> Absolutely. I mean, she calls our people deplorable. A large group. And irredeemable. I will be a president for all of our people. And I'll be a president that will turn our inner cities around. And will give strength to people and will give economics to people and will bring jobs back, because NAFTA, signed by her husband, is perhaps the greatest disaster trade deal in the history of the world. Not of this country. It stripped us of manufacturing jobs. We lost our jobs, we lost our money, we lost our plans. It is a disaster. And now she wants to sign tpp even though she says now she's for it. She called it the gold standard. And by the way, at the last debate, she lied. Because it turned out that she did say the gold standard, and she said she didn't say it. They actually said that she lied. 21:14:57 Okay? And she lied. She's lied about a lot of things. But she's lied about a lot of things. I will be a president for all of the people. African-Americans, the inner cities. Devastating what's happening to our inner cities. She's been talking about it for years. As usual she talks about it, nothing happens. She doesn't get it done. Same with the Latino Americans. The Hispanic Americans. The same exact thing. They talk, they don't get it done. You go into the inner cities, and you see, it's 45% poverty. African-Americans 45% poverty in the inner cities. The education is a disaster. Jobs are essentially nonexistent. I mean, it's, you know, and I've been saying it -- big speeches where I have 20 and 30,000 people. 22:15:44 What do you have to lose? It can't get worse. And she's been talking about the inner cities for 25 years. Nothing is going to happen. Let me tell you, if she is president of the United States, nothing's going to happen. It's just gonna be talk. And all of her friends, the taxes we were talking about, and I would just get it by osmosis. She's not doing me favors, but by doing all the others favors she is doing me favors. But, I will tell you, she is all talk, it doesn't get done. All you have to do is take a look at her senate run, take a look at upstate New York. COOPER>> Your two minutes is up. Secretary Clinton? TRUMP>> It turned out to be a disaster. COOPER>> You have two minutes, Secretary Clinton. 21:16:20 CLINTON>> Well, 67% of the people voted to reelect me when I ran for my second term and I was very proud and very humbled by that. Mr. Carter, I have tried my entire life to do what I can to support children and families. You know, right out of law school I went to work for the children's defense fund. And Donald talks a lot about , you know, the 30 years I have been in public service. I'm proud of that. You know, I started off as a young lawyer working against discrimination against African-American children in schools and in the criminal justice system. I worked to make sure that kids with disabilities could get a public education, something that I care very much about. I have worked with Latinos, one of my first jobs in politics was down in south Texas registering Latino citizens to be able to vote. 22:17:16 So I have a deep devotion to use your absolutely correct word. To making sure that every American feels like he or she has a place in our country. And I think when you look at the letters that I get, a lot of people are worried that maybe they wouldn't have a place in Donald Trump's America. They write me and one woman wrote me about her son, Felix. She adopted him from Ethiopia when he was a toddler. He is 10 years old and this is the only country he has ever known. And he listens to Donald on TV and he said to his mother one day, will he send me back to Ethiopia if he gets elected? You know, children listen to what is being said. To go back to the very, very first question. And there is a lot of fear. In fact teachers and parents are calling it the Trump effect. Bullying is up and a lot of people are feeling you know uneasy, a lot of kids are expressing their concerns. 22:18:17 So first and foremost, I will do everything I can to reach out to everybody. Democrats, Republicans, independents, and people across our country. If you don't vote for me, I still want to be your president. I still want to be the best president I can be for every American. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, your two minutes is up. I want to follow up on something that Donald Trump actually said to you, a comment you made last month. You said that half of Donald Trump's supporters are "deplorables. Racist, sexist, Islamophobic." You later said you regretted saying half. You didn't express regret for using the term deplorable. To Mr. Carter's question, how can you unite a country if you've written off tens of millions Americans? 22:18:54 CLINTON>> Well within hours I said that I was sorry about the way I talked about that, because my argument is not with his supporters, it's with him and with the hateful and divisive campaign that he has run and the inciting of violence at his rallies and the very kinds of brutal comments about not just women, but all Americans. All kinds of Americans. And what he said about African-Americans and Latinos, about Muslims, about POWs, about immigrants, about people with disabilities, he's never apologized for. And so, I do think that a lot of the tone and tenor that he has said. I'm proud of the campaigns that Bernie Sanders and I ran. We ran a campaign based on issues not insults, and he is supporting me 100% because we talked about what we wanted to do. We might have had some differences and we had a lot of debates, but we believed that we could make the country better and I was proud of that. COOPER>> I'm gonna give you a minute to -- 22:19:58 TRUMP>> We have a divided nation. We have a very divided nation. You look at Charlotte, you look at Baltimore, you look at the violence that's taking place in the inner cities. Chicago. You take a look at Washington, D.C. We have a increase in murder within our cities, the biggest in 45 years. We have a divided nation, because people like her. And believe me, she has tremendous hate in her heart. And when she said deplorables, she meant it. And when she said irredeemable, they're irredeemable.You didn't mention that, but when she said they're iredeemable, to me that might have been even worse. COOPER>> She said some of them are irredeemable. 22:20:40 TRUMP>> She's got tremendous hatred. And this country cannot take another four years of Barack Obama and that's what you are getting with her. 22:20:48 COOPER>> Let me follow-up with you. In 2008 you wrote in one of your books that the most important characteristic of a good leader is discipline. You said if a leader doesn't have it, quote he or she won't be one for very long. In the days after the first debate, you sent out a series of tweets from 3:00 A.M. To 5:00 AM including one that told people to check out a sex tape. Is that the discipline of a good leader? 22:21:08 TRUMP>> No it wasn't check out a sex tape. It was just take a look at the person that she built up to be this wonderful girl scout who was no girl scout. Just so you understand when she said 3:00 in the morning, take a look at Benghazi. She said who is going to answer the call at 3:00 in the morning. Guess what. She didn't answer. When ambassador Stevens -- COOPER>> The question is is that the discipline of a good leader. 22:21:30 TRUMP>> 600 times. Well she said she was awake at 3:00 in the morning. She also sent a tweet out at 3 o'clock in the morning but I won't even mention that. But she said she will be awake. The famous this, we will answer the call at 3:00 in the morning. Guess what happened, ambassador Stevens sent 600 requests for help and the only one she talked to was Sidney Blumenthal who is her friend and not a good guy, by the way. She shouldn't be talking about that. 22:21:58 Now Tweeting happens to be a modern day form of communication.You can like it or not like it. Between Facebook and Twitter I have almost 25 million people. It's a very effective way of communication. You can put it down, but it's a very effective form of communication. I'm not unproud of it to be honest with you. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, does Mr. Trump have the discipline to be a good leader. CLINTON>> No. 22:22:22 TRUMP>> I'm shocked to hear that. CLINTON>> Well it's not only my opinion, but the opinion of many others. National security experts, Republicans, former Republican members of congress. It's in part because those of us who have had the great privilege of seeing this job up close and know how difficult it is and it's not just because I watched my husband take a $300 billion deficit and turn it into a $200 billion surplus and 23 million new jobs were created and incomes went up for everybody. Everybody. African-American incomes went up 33%. And it's not just because I worked with George W. Bush after 9-11 and I was very proud that when I told them what the city needed and what we needed to recover and he said you got it and he never wavered he stuck with me. I have worked and I admire president Obama. He inherited the worst financial crisis since the great depression. That was a terrible time for our country. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton -- we are moving on. 22:23:30 CLINTON>> 9 million people lost their jobs. 5 million homes were lost and 13 trillion dollars in family wealth was wiped out. We are back on the right track. He would send us back into a recession with his tax plans that benefit wealthiest of americans. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton, we are almost out of time and we have another question. Mr. Trump, we are moving on. 22:23:52 TRUMP>>Our country has the slowest growth and jobs are a disaster. RADDATZ>> Thank you very much, both of you. We have another audience question. Beth Miller has a question for both candidates. 22:24:08 BETH>> Good evening. Perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the supreme court justice. What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a supreme court justice. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton. 22:24:22 CLINTON>> Thank you. You are right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint supreme court justices who understand the way the world really works who have real life experience who have not just been in a big law firm or clerk for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but maybe they tried some more cases and actually understand what people are up against. I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. I would want to see the supreme court reverse citizens united and get dark unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn't agree with that. I would like the supreme court to understand that voting rights are a big problem in many parts of the country. 22:25:09 That we don't always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a supreme supreme court that will stick with roe V wade and a woman's right to choose and I want a supreme court that will stick with marriage equality. Donald has put forth the names of people he would consider. Among the ones he has suggested are people who would reverse roe V wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards. I want a supreme court that doesn't always side with corporate interests. I want a supreme court that understands because you are wealthy you can give more money to something doesn't mean you have more rights or should have any more rights than anything else. 22:25:58 So I have very clear views about what I want to see to change the balance on the supreme court and I regret deeply that the senate has not done its job and not permitted a vote on the person that president Obama, a highly qualified person, they have not given him a vote to have the full complement of nine supreme court justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty. I hope they will see their way to doing it, but if I am so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move to make sure that we fill that we have 9 justices. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton. Thank you. You are out of time. 22:26:39 TRUMP>> Justice Scalia, great judge. He died recently and we have a vacancy. I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of justice Scalia. I am looking for judges and have actually picked 20 of them. So that people would say. Highly respected. Highly thought of and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody. People that will respect the constitution of the united States. And I think that this is so important. Also the second amendment which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton they will respect the second amendment and what it stands for and what it represents so important to me. Now hillary mentioned something about contributions. 22:27:34 Just so you understand, I will have in my race more than $100 million put in of my money. Meaning I am not taking all of this big money from all of these different corporations like she is doing. What I ask is this so I am putting in more--by the time it's finished, I'll have more than 100 million dollars invested. Pretty much self funding mine. We are raising money for the Republican party and we're doing tremendously on the small donations. $61 average or so. I ask hillary why doesn't she make $250 million by being in office? She used the power of office to make a lot of money. Why isn't she funding not for $100 million but why don't you put 10 or 20 or 30 million into your own campaign. It's $30 million less for special interest that will tell the you exactly what to do and I think it would really be a nice sign to the American public. Why aren't you putting some money in? You made a lot of it because of the fact that you have been in office. You made a lot while you were secretary of state actually so why aren't you putting money into your campaign. Just curious. RADDATZ>> We will get on to one more question. 22:28:42 CLINTON>> The question was about the supreme court. And I just want to quickly say I respect the second amendment and I believe there should be comprehensive background checks and we should close the gun show loophole and close the online loophole. RADDATZ>> We have many more questions. COOPER>> We have more question about energy policy. Ken? 22:29:05 KEN>> What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs while at the same time reminding environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers. 22:29:18 TRUMP>> I think it's such a great question because energy is under siege by the Obama administration. Under absolute siege. The EPA environmental protection agency is killing these energy companies. Foreign companies are now coming in buying so many of our different plants and then rejiggering the plant so that they can take care of their oil. We are killing, absolutely killing our energy business in this country. I am all for alternative forms of energy including wind including solar, etc. We need much more than wind and solar. You look at the minors. Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. 22:30:00 There is a thing called clean coal. Coal lasts for 1,000 years in this country. Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology. We have unbelievable we have found over the last seven years, we found Tremendous wealth right under our feet. So good. Especially when you have $20 trillion in debt. I will bring our energy companies back and they will be able to compete and they'll make money and pay off our national debt and they'll pay off our tremendous budget deficits which are tremendous. But we are putting our energy companies out of business. We have to bring back our workers. You take a look at what's happening to steel and the cost of steel and China dumping vast amounts steel all over the United States which essentially s killing our steelworkers and steel companies. We have to guard our energy companies we have to make it possible. The EPA is so restrictive that they are putting our energy companies out of business. All you have to do is go to west Virginia or places like Ohio which is phenomenal or places like Pennsylvania and you see what they are doing to the people. Miners and others in the energy business.It's a disgrace. Absolute disgrace. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, two minutes. 22:31:24 CLINTON>> That was very interesting. First of all, China is illegally dumping steel in the United States. And Donald Trump is buying it to build his buildings. Putting steelworkers and American steel plants out of business. That's something I fought against as a senator and I would have a trade prosecutor to make sure that we don't get taken advantage of by China on steel or anything else. You know because it sounds like you are in the business or aware of people in the business. You know that we are now for the first time energy independent. We are not dependent upon the mideast, but the middle east still controls a lot of prices. The price of oil has been way down and that has had a damaging effect on a lot of the oil companies. We are however producing a lot of natural gas that serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels and I think that's an important transition. We have got to remain energy independent. It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the mideast. 22:32:33 We have enough worried over there without having to worry about that. So I have a comprehensive energy policy, but it really does include fighting climate change because I think that is a serious problem. I support moving towards more clean renewable energy as quickly as we can. I think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses. I want to be sure that we don't leave people behind. That's why I'm the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country. Because those coal miners and their fathers and grandfathers they dug that coal out, a lot of them lost their lives. They were injured. But they turned the lights on and powered our factories. I don't want to walk away from them. We have to do something for them. The price of coal is down worldwide. We have to look at this comprehensively and that's exactly what I have proposed. I hope you will go to Hillary clinton.com and read my entire policy RADDATZ>> We sneak in one more question and it comes from Karl Becker. 22:33:47 KARL BECKER>> My question to both of you is, regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another? RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, would you like to go first? 22:34:12 CLINTON>> I certainly will. Because I think that's a very fair and important question. I respect his children. His children are incredibly able and devoted and I think that says a lot about Donald. I don't agree with nearly anything else he says or does, but I do respect that and I think that is something that as a mother and a grandmother is very important to me. So I believe that this election has become in part so conflict-oriented and so intense because there is a lot at stake. This is not an ordinary time and this is not an ordinary election. 22:35:03 We are going to be choosing a president who will set policy for not just four or eight years, but because of some of the important decisions we have to make here at home and around the world from the supreme court to energy and so much else. So there is a lot at stake. It's one of the most consequential elections that we've had. That's why I tried to put forth specific policies and plans. Try to get it off of the personal and put it on to what it is on I want to do as president. That's why I hope people will check on that for themselves.So they can see that yes, I spent 30 years, actually a little more, working to help kids and families and I want to take that experience to the white house and do that every single day. RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump? 22:35:53 TRUMP>> Well, I consider her statement about my children to be a very nice compliment. I don't know if it was meant to be a compliment, but it is a great -- I'm very proud of my children.They have done a wonderful job and they have been wonderful, wonderful kids. So I consider that a compliment. I will say this about Hillary. She doesn't quit, she doesn't give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She is a fighter. I disagree with much of what she's fighting for. I do disagree with her judgment in many cases, but she fights hard and she doesn't quit and she doesn't give up, and I consider that to be a very good trait. RADDATZ>> Thanks to both of you. 22:36:39 COOPER>> I want to thank both the candidates, I want to thank the university here. This concludes the town hall meeting. Our thanks to the candidates, the commission, Washington University, and to everybody who watched. RADDATZ>> Please tune in on October 19th for the final presidential debate that will take place at the university of Nevada Las Vegas. Good night, everyone. ---

FTG OF THE 2ND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE HILLARY CLINTON AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE DONALD TRUMP AT WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY / MODERATORS: ANDERSON COOPER AND MARTHA RADDATZ / CLINTON ISO TV3HDCLN 2ND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE SPECIAL AHX 21:03:32 RADDATZ>> Good evening. I'm Martha Raddatz from ABC news. COOPER>> I'm Anderson cooper from CNN, we want to welcome you Washington University in St. Louis for the second presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Tonight's debate is a town hall format which gives voters a chance to directly ask the candidates questions. Martha and I will ask follow up questions, but the night really belongs to the people in this room and the people across the country who submitted questions on line. 21:04:00 RADDATZ>> The people you see on this stage were chosen by the Gallup organization. They are all from the St. Louis area and told Gallup they have not committed to a candidate. Each of them came here with questions they wanted to ask and we saw those questions for the first time this morning. Anderson and I and our team from ABC and CNN are the only ones who have seen them..Both have two minutes to answer each audience and online question we hope to get to as many questions as we can. So we've asked the audience not to slow things down with any applause except for now. Ladies and gentlemen, the Republican nominee for president, Donald J trump and the democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. 21:04:49 [APPLAUSE] 21:04:57 NO HANDSHAKE 21:05:13 COOPER>> Thank you very much for being here. We are going to begin with a question from one of the members in our town hall. Each of you will have two minutes to respond to this question. Secretary Clinton won the coin toss you'll go first. Our first question comes from Patrice Brock. Patrice? 21:05:29 PATRICE>> Thank you and good evening. The last presidential debate could have rated as ma, mature audiences per TV parental guidelines. Knowing that educators assign viewing the presidential debate as student's homework, do you feel you are modelling appropriate and positive behavior for today's youth? 21:05:47 CLINTON>> Thank you. Are you a teacher? I think that's a very good question because I've heard from lots of teachers and parents about some of their concerns about some of the things that are being said and done in this campaign. I think it is very important for us to make clear to our children that our country really is great because we are good. And we are going to respect one another, lift each other up. 21:06:19 We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity and we are going to try to reach out to every boy and girl as well as every adult to bring them into working on behalf of our country. I have a positive and optimistic view about what we can do together. That's why the slogan of my campaign is stronger together. Because I think if we work together, if we overcome the divisiveness that sometimes sets Americans against one another and instead we make some big goals and I set forth big goals getting the economy to work for everyone and not just those at the top. 21:07:00 Making sure we that have the best education system from preschool through college and making it affordable and so much else. If we set those goals and we go together to try to achieve them, there's nothing in my opinion that America can't do. So that's why I hope that we will come together in this campaign. Obviously, I'm hoping to earn your vote, I'm hoping to be elected in November and I can promise you, I will work with every American. I want to be the president for all Americans. Regardless of your political beliefs, where you come from, what you look like, your religion. I want us heal our country and bring it together. Because that's, I think, the best way for us to get the future that our children and grandchildren deserve. 21:07:45 COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, thank you. Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. 21:07:48 TRUMP>> Well, I actually agree with that. I agree with everything she said. I began this campaign because I was so tired of seeing such foolish things happen to our country.This is a great country. This is a great land. I've gotten to know the people of the country over the last year and a half that I've been doing this as a politician. I cannot believe I'm saying that about myself, but I guess I have been a politician and my whole concept was to make America great again. When I watch the deals being made, when I watch what's happening with some horrible things like Obamacare, where your health insurance and health care is going up by numbers that are astronomical, 68%, 59%, 71%. 21:08:36 When I look at the Iran deal and how bad a deal it is for us. It's a one sided transaction where we're giving back $150 billion to a terrorist state really the number one terror state, we've made them a strong country from really a very weak country just three years ago. When I look at all of the things that I see in all of the potential that our country has, we have such tremendous potential. Whether it's in business and trade, where we're doing so badly. 21:09:04 Last year, we had almost $800 billion trade deficit. Other words, trading with other countries. We had an $800 billion deficit. It's hard to believe. Inconceivable. You say who's making these deals. We're going the make great trade deals. We're going to have a strong border we're going to bring back law and order. Just today. Policemen was shot.Two. Killed. And this is happening on a weekly basis. We have to bring back respect to law enforcement. At the the same time, we have to take care of people on all sides. We need justice. But I want to do things that haven't been done, including fixing and making inner cities better for African-American citizens that are so great and for the Latinos, hispanics and I look forward to doing make America great again. 21:09:56 COOPER>> Thank you, Mr. Trump. The question from Patrice was about are you both modeling positive and appropriate behaviors for today's youth. We received lot of questions online Mr. Trump about the tape released on Friday. You can imagine, you called what you said locker room banter, you described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that? 21:10:19 TRUMP>> No, I didn't say that at all. I don't think you understood what was said. This was locker room talk. I'm not proud of it. I apologized to my family. I apologized to the American people. Certainly I'm not proud of it. But this is locker room talk. You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads, where you have -- and frankly drowning people in steel cages, where you have wars and horrible, horrible sights all over, where you have so many bad things happening, this is like medieval times. We haven't seen anything like this. 21:10:50 The carnage all over the world. And they look and they see. Can you imagine the people that are frankly doing so well against us with ISIS and they look at our country and they see what is going on. Yes, I'm very embarrassed by it. I hate it. But, it's locker room talk and it is one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We're gonna defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you I will take care of ISIS. COOPER>> So Mr. Trump -- 21:11:22 TRUMP>> And we should get on to much more important things and much bigger things. COOPER>> Just for the record though, are you saying that what you said on that bus that you did not actually kiss women without consent or grope women? TRUMP>> I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do. COOPER>> So, for the record, you're saying you never did that? 21:11:42 TRUMP>> I said things, that frankly, you hear these things I said. And I was embarrassed by it. But I have tremendous respect for women. COOPER>> Have you ever done those things? TRUMP>> And women have tremendous respect for me. And I will tell you -- no I have not. And I will tell you that I'm going to make our country safe. We're gonna have borders in our country which we don't have now. People are pouring into our country and they're coming in from the Middle East and other places. 21:12:04 We're gonna make America safe again, we're gonna make America great again, but we're gonna make America safe again. And we're gonna make America wealthy again. Because if you don't do that it just sounds harsh to say but we have to build up the wealth of our nation. Now other nations are taking our jobs and they're wealth. COOPER>> Thank you Mr. Trump. Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond? 21:12:26 CLINTON >> Well, like everyone else I spent a lot of time thinking over the last 48 hours about what we heard and saw. You know, with prior Republican nominees, for president, I disagreed with them on politics, policies, principles. But I never questioned their fitness to serve. Donald Trump is different. I said starting back in June, that he was not fit to be president and commander in chief. And many Republicans and independents have said the same thing. 21:13:05 What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women. What he thinks about women. What he does to women. And he has said that the video doesn't represent who he is. But I think it's clear to anyone who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. Because we've seen this throughout the campaign. We have seen him insult women. We've seen him rate women. On their appearance. Ranking them from one to ten. We've seen him embarrass women on TV and on Twitter. We saw him after the first debate spend nearly a week denigrating a former miss universe in the harshest, most personal terms, so, yes, this is who Donald Trump is. 21:14:03 But it's not only women and it's not only this video that raises questions about his fitness to be our president. Because he has also targeted immigrants, African-Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, muslims and so many others, so, this is who Donald Trump is and the question for us, the question our country must answer is that this is not who we are. That's why to go back to your question, I want to send a message we all should. To every boy and girl and indeed to the entire world. 21:14:47 That America is great but we are great because we are good and we will respect one another. And we will work with one another and we will celebrate our diversity. These are very important values to me because this is the America that I know and love. And I can pledge to you tonight that this is the America that I will serve if I'm so fortunate enough to become your president. RADDATZ>> And we want to get to some questions -- TRUMP>> Am I allowed to respond to that? I assume I am. RADDATZ>> Yes you can respond to that. 21:15:22 TRUMP>> It's just words, folks. It's just words. Those words I've been hearing them for many years. I heard them when they were running for the senate. In New York. Where Hillary was going to bring back jobs to upstate New York and she failed. I've heard them where hillary is constantly talking about the inner cities of our country, which are a disaster. Education wise. Jobwise. Safety wise. In every way possible.l I'm going to help the African-Americans, I'm going to help the Latinos hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.She's done a terrible job for the African-Americans. She wants their vote, and she does nothing and then she comes back four years later. We saw that firsthand when she was the united states senator. She campaigned where the primary part of her campaign-- RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, I want to get to audience questions and online questions. 21:16:16 TRUMP>> So she's allowed to do that but I'm not allowed to respond. RADDATZ>> You're going to get to respond right now. This tape is generating intense interest, in just 48 hours it's become the single most talked-about story of the entire 2016 election on Facebook, with millions and millions of people discussing it on the social network. As we said a moment ago, we do want to bring in questions from voters around the country via social media. Our first stays on this topic. 21:16:45 Jeff from Ohio asks on Facebook Trump says the campaign has changed him. When did that happen. So Mr. Trump let me add to that when you walked off that bus at age 59 were you a different man or did that behavior continue until just recently? And you have 2 minutes for this. 21:17:06 TRUMP>> That was locker room talk. I'm not proud of it. I am a person who has great respect for people, for my family, for the people of this country, and certainly I'm not proud of it. But that was something that happened. If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse, mine are words, and his was action. His was, what he's done to women, there's never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that's been so abusive to women. So you can say anyway you want to say it but Bill Clinton was abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women. And attacked them viciously, four of them here tonight. 21:17:48 One of the women who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client, she represented, got him off, and she's seen laughing on two separate occasions laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman, is here with us tonight. So, don't tell me about words. I am -- Absolutely, I apologize for those words. But it is things that people say. But what president Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law, he had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the women, Paula Jones, who's also here tonight. And I will tell you, that when Hillary brings up a point like that, and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it's disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth. [ Applause ] 21:18:48 RADDATZ>> Can we please hold the applause? Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes. 21:18:54 CLINTON >> Well, first, let me start by saying, that so much of what he's just said is not right. But he gets to run his campaign any way he chooses, he gets to decide what he wants to talk about, instead of answering people's questions, talking about our agenda, laying out the plans that we have that we think can make a better life and a better country. That's his choice. When I hear something like that, I'm reminded of what my friend, Michelle Obama, advised us all. When they go low, you go high. [ Applause ] 21:19:33 And look, if this were just about one video maybe what he's saying tonight would be understandable. But everyone can draw their own conclusions at this point about whether or not the man in the video or the man on the stage respects women. But he never apologizes for anything to anyone. He never apologized to Mr. and Mrs. Khan, the gold star family, whose son Captain Khan died in the line of duty in Iraq. And Donald insulted and attacked them for weeks over their religion. He never apologized to the distinguished federal judge, who was born in Indiana. But Donald said he couldn't be trusted to be a judge because his parents were, quote "Mexican." 21:20:31 He never apologized to the reporter that he mimicked and mocked on national television and our children were watching. And he never apologized for the racist lie that president Obama was not born in the united States of America. He owes the president an apology, he owes our country an apology, and he needs to take responsibility for his actions and his words. 21:20:58 TRUMP>> Well, you owe the president an apology because as you know very well, your campaign's Sidney Blumenthal, he's another real winner that you have. And he's the one that got this started, along with your campaign manager and they were on television just two weeks ago she was, saying exactly that. So you really owe him an apology. You're the one that sent the pictures around your campaign, sent the pictures around with president Obama in a certain garb. That was long before I was ever involved. So, you actually owe an apology. 21:21:29 Number two, Michelle Obama. I've gotten to see the commercials that they did on you. And I've gotten to see some of the most vicious commercials I've ever seen, of Michelle Obama talking about you Hilary. So you talk about friend, go back and take a look at those commercials, a race where you lost, fair and square, unlike the Bernie Sanders race, where you won, but not fair and square, in my opinion. And all you have to do is take a look at wikileaks and just see what they said about Bernie Sanders and see what Debra Wasserman Schultz had in mind. Because Bernie Sanders between superdelegates and debra wasserman schultz he never had a chance. And I was so surprised to see him sign on with the devil. 21:22:15 But when you talk about apology, I think the one and the thing you should really be apologizing for and the thing that you should be apologizing for are the 33,000 e-mails that you deleted, and that you acid washed, and then the two boxes of e-mails and other things last week that were taken from an office and are now missing. And I'll tell you what, I didn't think I'd say this, but I'm going to say it, and I hate to say it, but if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception, there has never been anything like it, and we're going to have a special prosecutor. 21:23:02 When I speak, I go out and speak, the people of this country are furious. In my opinion, the people that are the long term workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this, where emails, and you get a subpoena, you get a subpoena and after getting the subpoena you delete 33,000 e-mails. And then you acid wash, or bleach them, as you would say, a very expensive process. So we're going to get a special prosecutor, and we're going to look into it, because you know what, people have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you've done, and it's a disgrace. And honestly, you oughta be ashamed of yourself. 21:23:42 RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton I want to follow up on that. I'm gonna let you talk about emails. CLINTON>> Everything he just said is absolutely false. But I'm not surprised. TRUMP>> Oh really? [boos] CLINTON>> In the first debate -- in the first debate -- RADDATZ>> The audience needs to calm down here. 21:23:50 CLINTON>> In the first debate I told people that t would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I'd never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we are going to really make lives better for people. So once again, go to hillaryclinton.com. We have literally trump, you can fact check him in real time. Last time, at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking. So, I expect we'll have millions more fact-checking. Because it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country. 21:24:30 TRUMP>> Because you'd be in jail. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton -- [ applause ] COOPER>> We want to remind the audience to please not talk out loud. Please do not applaud. You're just wasting time. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton, I do want to follow up on emails you've said your handling of e-mails was a mistake, you disagreed with FBI director James Comey calling your handling of classified information quote extremely careless the FBI said there were 110 classified emails that were exchanged 8 of which were top secret and that it was possible hostile actors did gain access to those emails. You don't call that extremely careless? 21:25:11 CLINTON>> Martha, first let me say, and I've said it before, but I'll repeat it because I want everyone to hear it. That was a mistake, and I take responsibility for using a personal email account. Obviously, if I were to do it over again, I would not. I'm not making any excuses. It was a mistake, and I'm very sorry about that. But I think it's also important to point out where there are some misleading accusations from critics and others. 21:25:43 After a yearlong investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using, and there is no evidence that anyone can point to at all, anyone who says otherwise has no basis, that any classified material ended up in the wrong hands. I take classified materials very seriously, and always have when I was on the senate armed services committee I was privy to a lot of classified material obviously as secretary of state, I had some of the most important secrets that we possess, such as going after bin laden. So, I'm very committed to taking classified information seriously, and as I said there's no evidence that any classified information ended up in the wrong hands. 21:26:33 RADDATZ>> Okay, we're gonna move on. TRUMP>> And yet, she didn't know the word, the letter "C" on a document, right? She didn't even know what that word, what that letter meant. You know, it's amazing, I'm watching Hillary go after facts. And she's going after fact after fact, and she's lying again, because she said she, you know, what she did with the e-mails was fine. You think it was fine to delete 33,000 e-mails? I don't think so. She said the 33 thousand emails had to do with her daughter's wedding, number one, and a yoga class. We'll maybe we'll give three or three or four or five or something. 33 thousand emails deleted and now she's saying there' wasn't anything wrong. And more importantly, that was after getting a subpoena. That wasn't before, that was after. She got it from the United States Congress. And I'll be honest, I am so disappointed in Congressmen, including republicans for allowing this to happen. 21:27:26 Our justice department, where her husband goes onto the back of an airplane for 39 minutes, talks to the attorney general days before a ruling is gonna be made in her case. But for you to say that there was nothing wrong with you deleting 39,000 e-mails, again, you should be ashamed of yourself. What you did, and this is after getting a subpoena from the United States congress. COOPER>> We have to move on. TRUMP>> -- You did that, wait a minute, one second. RADDATZ>> We want to give the audience -- TRUMP>> If you did that in the private sector, you'd be put in jail, let alone after getting a subpoena from the United States senate. 21:28:00 COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, you can respond but then we have to move on to an audience question. CLINTON>> Look, it's just not true. And so please, go to -- TRUMP>> Oh, you didn't delete them? COOPER>> Allow her to respond, please. CLINTON>> Those were personal e-mails, not official -- TRUMP>> Oh really, 33 thousand? 21:28:10 CLINTON>> Well, we turned over 35 thousand, so. TRUMP>> Oh really, what about the other 15,000. COOPER>> Please allow her to respond. She didn't talk while you talked. CLINTON>> Yes, that's true, I didn't. TRUMP>> Because you have nothing to say. CLINTON>> And I didn't in the first debate. And I'm gonna try not to in this debate. Because, I'd like to get to the questions that the people have brought here tonight to talk us about. TRUMP>> And get off this question. CLINTON>> Okay, Donald, I know you're into big diversion tonight, anything to avoid talking about your campaign and the way it's exploding and Republicans are leaving you. TRUMP>> Let's see what happens. CLINTON>> Let's at least focus on -- COOPER>> Allow her respond. CLINTON>> -- the issues that people care about tonight. Let's get to their questions. 21:28:50 COOPER>> We have a question here from Ken Karpowitz (sp.?). He has a question about health care. Ken. TRUMP>> I'd like to know, Anderson, why aren't you bringing up the e-mails? I'd like ot know. Why aren't you bringing up -- COOPER>> You brought up the e-mails. TRUMP>> Not it hasn't. It hasn't. And it hasn't been finished at all. COOPER>> Ken Karpowitz has a question. TRUMP>> Nice, it's one on three. 21:29:06 KEN>> Affordable care act, known as Obama care, is not affordable. Premiums have gone up, deductibles have gone up, copays have gone up prescriptions have gone up and the coverage has gone down. What will you do to bring the costs down and make coverage better? COOPER>> That first one goes to secretary Clinton, because you started out the last one to the audience. CLINTON>> He wants to start, he can start. Go ahead, Donald. TRUMP>> No, I'm a gentleman, Hillary, go ahead. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton? 21:29:41 CLINTON>> Well I think Donald was about to say, ++ it because I agree with you, premiums have gotten to high, copays, deductibles, prescription drug costs. And I have laid out a series of actions that we can take to try to get those costs down. But here's what I don't want people to forget when we're talking about reining in the cost which has to be the highest priority of the next president. When the affordable care act passed it wasn't just that 20 million people got insurance who didn't have it before. But that in it of itself was a good thing. I meet these people all the time and they tell me what a difference having that insurance meant to them and their families. 21:30:25 But everybody else the 170 million of us who get health insurance through our employers got big benefits. Number one insurance companies can't deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Number two no lifetime limits which is a big deal if you have serious health problems. Number three women can't be charged more than men for health insurance which is the way it used to be before the affordable care act. Number four, if you're under 26 and your parents have a policy, you can be on that policy until the age of 26 something that didn't happen before. So, I want very much to save what works and is good about the affordable care act. But we've got to get costs down, we've got to provide some additional help to small businesses, so they can afford to provide health insurance. But if we repeal it as Donald has proposed, and start over again all of those benefits I just mentioned are lost to everybody, not just people who get their health insurance on the exchange. And then we would have to start all over again. Right now, we're at 90% health insurance coverage. That's the highest we've ever been in our country. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, your time is up. 21:31:43 CLINTON>> So I want to get to 100%, but get costs down and keep quality up. COOPER>> Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. 21:31:50 TRUMP>> It's such a great question, and it's maybe the question I get almost more than anything else outside of defense. Obama care is a disaster. You know it, we all know it. It's going up at numbers that nobody has ever seen worldwide. Nobody has ever seen numbers like this for health care. It's only getting worse. In '17, it implodes by itself. Their method of fixing it is to go back and ask congress for more money. More and more money. We have right now almost 20 trillion dollars in debt. Obama care will never work, it's very bad very bad health insurance. Far too expensive and not only expensive for the person that has it unbelievably expensive for our country, it's gotta be one of the biggest line items very shortly. We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive, and something that works. Where your plan can actually be tailored. 21:32:50 We have to get rid of the lines around the state artificial lines where we stop insurance companies from coming in and competing. Because they wanted president obama and whoever was working on it they want to leave those lines because that gives insurance companies essentially monopolies. We want competition. You will have the finest health care plan there is. She wants to go to a single payer plan, which will be a disaster somewhat similar to Canada. And if you ever notice the Canadians, when they need a big operation, when something happens, they come to the United States in many cases, because their system is so slow, it's catastrophic in certain ways. But she wants to go to single payer, which means the government basically rules everything. Hillary Clinton has been after this for years. Obama care was the first step, obamacare is a total disaster. Not only are your rates by numbers that nobody has ever believed but your deductibles are going up. So unless you get hit by a truck you're never going to be able to use it. It's a disastrous plan, and it has to be repealed and replaced. COOPER>> And secretary Clinton let me follow up with you. Your husband called obamacare quote the craziest thing in the world saying that small business owners are getting killed premiums doubled, coverage is cut in half. Was he mistaken or was his mistake simply telling the truth? 21:34:11 CLINTON >> No, I mean, he clarified what he meant. And it's very clear. Look, we are in a situation in our country where if we were to start all over again, we might come up with a different system. But we have an employer based system.That's where the vast majority of people get their health care. And the affordable care act was meant to try to fill the gap between people who were too poor and couldn't put together any resources to afford healthcare, namely people on medicaid. Obviously medicare, which is a single payer system, which takes care of our elderly and does a great job doing it, by the way, and then all the people who were employed, but people who were working but didn't have the money to afford insurance. 21:34:56 And didn't have anybody, an employer, or anybody else, to help them. That was the slot that the Obama care approach was to take. And like I say, 20 million people now have health insurance. So, if we just rip it up and throw it away, what Donald's not telling you is, we just turn it back to the insurance companies, he way it used to be. And that means the insurance companies get to do pretty much whatever they want, including saying, look, I'm sorry, you got diabetes, you had cancer, your child has asthma -- COOPER>> Your time is up. 21:35:25 CLINTON>> You may not be able to have insurance because you can't afford it. So, let's fix what's broken about it, but let's not throw it away and give it all back to the insurance companies and drug companies, that's not gonna work COOPER>> mr. trump, let me follow up on this. TRUMP>> I just wanna, just one thing? First of all, Hillary, everything's broken about it. Everything. Number two, Bernie Sanders said that Hillary Clinton has very bad judgment. This is a perfect example of it -- COOPER>> Mr. Trump -- TRUMP>> --trying to save Obamacare, which is -- 21:35:52 COOPER>> --you've said you want to end Obama care. You've said you want to end Obama care. You've also said you want to make coverage accessible for people with pre-existing conditions. How do you force insurance companies to do that if you're no longer mandating that every -- 21:36:04 TRUMP>> We are going to be able to. You are going to have plans -- COOPER>> What does that mean? TRUMP>> Well, I'll tell you what it means. You're gonna have plans that are so good, because you're going to have so much competition in the insurance industry. Once we break out, once we break out the lines and allow the competition to come. COOPER>> Are you gonna have a mandate that Americans have to have health insurance? 21:36:21 TRUMP>> President Obama, by keeping those lines, the boundary lines around each state, and it was almost gone until just very toward the end of the passage of Obamacare. Which by the way was a fraud. You know that, because Jonathan Grouper, the architect of Obamacare was said, he said it was a great lie, it was a big lie. President Obama said, you keep your doctor, you keep your plan. The whole thing was a fraud, and it doesn't work. But when we get rid of those lines, you have competition, and we will be able to keep pre-existing, we'll also be able to help people that can't get, don't have money, cause we are going to have people protected. 21:36:58 And Republicans feel this way, believe it or not, and strongly this way, we're going to block grant into the states, we're going to block grant into medicaid into the states so that we will be able to take care of people without the necessary funds to take care of themselves. COOPER>> Thank you, Mr. Trump. 21:37:15 RADDATZ>> We now go to (?) Hamid with a question for both candidates. HAMID>> There are 3.3 million Muslims in the United States, and I'm one of them. You've mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over. RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, you're first. 21:37:39 TRUMP>> Well you're right about Islamophobia and that's a shame. But one thing we have to do is we have to make sure that, because there is a problem. I mean, whether we like it or not, and we can be very politically correct. But whether we like it or not, there is a problem. And we have to be sure that Muslims come in and report when they see something going on, when they see hatred going on, they have to report it. For as an example, in San Bernardino. Many people saw the bombs all over the apartment of the two people that killed 14 and wounded many, many, people. Horribly wounded, they'll never be the same. Muslims have to report the problems when they see them. 21:38:22 And, you know, there's always a reason for everything. If they don't do that, it's a very difficult situation for our country. Because you look at Orlando, and you look at San Bernardino, and you look the world trade center, go outside you look at Paris, that horrible -- these are radical Islamic terrorists. And she won't even mention the word, nor will president Obama. He won't use the term radical Islamic terrorism. Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is, or at least say the name. She won't say the name and President Obama won't say the name, but the name is there. It's radical Islamic terror. And before you solve it, you have to say the name. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton? 21:39:10 CLINTON >> Well, thank you for asking your question. And I've heard this question from a lot of Muslim Americans across our country. Because, unfortunately, there has been a lot of very divisive, dark things said about muslims. Even someone like captain khan, the young man who sacrificed himself defending our country in the united states army has been subject to attack by Donald. I want to say just a couple of things. First we've had muslims in America since George Washington. We had many successful muslims. We just lost a particularly well-known one with Muhammad Ali. My vision of America is an America where everyone has a place if you are willing to work hard and do your part and you contribute to the community. That's what America is. That's what we want America to be for our children and our grandchildren. 21:40:10 It's also very short sighted and even dangerous to be engaging in the kind of demagogic rhetoric that Donald has about Muslims. We need american muslims to be part of our eyes and ears on our front lines. I've worked with a lot of different muslim groups around america I've met with a lot of them and I've heard how important it is for them to feel that they are wanted and include and part of our country. Part of our homeland security. That's what I want to see. It's also important, I intend to defeat ISIS and to do so in a coalition with majority Muslim nations. Right now a lot of those nations are hearing what Donald says and wondering why should we cooperate with Americans. This is a gift to ISIS and the terrorists. Violent jihadist terrorists. We are not at war with Islam and it is a mistake and it plays into the hands of the terrorists to act as though we are. So I want a country where citizens like you and your family are just as welcome as anyone else. 21:41:20 RADDATZ>> Thank you, secretary Clinton. Mr. Trump, in December you said this. Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shut down of muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. We have no choice. We have no choice. Your running mate said this week that the Muslim ban is no longer your position. Is that correct and if it is was it a mistake to have a religious test? 21:41:49 TRUMP>> First of all captain khan is an American hero and if I were president at that time he would be alive today because unlike her who voted for the war without knowing what she was doing I would not have had our people in Iraq. Iraq was a disaster. So he would have been alive today. The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into an extreme vetting from certain areas of the world. Hillary Clinton wants to allow -- RADDATZ>> Why did it morph into that. TRUMP>> Excuse me. RADDATZ>> No answer the question. DO you still believe-- TRUMP>> Why don't you interrupt her, you interrupt me all the time. RADDATZ>> I do. Would you please explain whether or not the muslim ban still stands. 21:42:34 TRUMP>> It's called extreme vetting. We are going to areas like Syria where they are coming in by the tens of thousands because of barack obama and Hillary Clinton wants to allow a 550% increase over Obama. People are coming into our country like we have no idea who they are and where they are from and what their feelings about our country is and she wants 550% more. This will be the great Trojan horse of all time. We have enough problems in this country. I believe in building safe Zones I believe in having other people pay for them as an example the gulf states who are not carrying their weight but they have nothing but money and take care of people. But I don't want to have with all the problems this country has and all of the problems you see going on, hundreds of thousands of people coming in from Syria where we know nothing about them we know nothing about their values and we know nothing about their love for our country. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton, let me ask you about that. Because you have asked for an increase from 10 to 65,000 Syrian refugees. We know you want tougher vetting. That's not a perfect system. Why take the risk of having those refugees come into the country. 21:43:53 CLINTON >> First of all, I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us. But there are a lot of refugees, women and children, think of that picture we all saw of that 4-year-old boy with the blood on his forehead because he had been bombed by the Russians and Syrian air forces. There are children suffering in this catastrophic war largely I believe because of Russian aggression. We need to do our part. We by no means are carrying anywhere near the low that Europe and others are. We will have vetting that is as tough as it needs to be from our professionals and intelligence experts and others. It is important for us as a policy not to say as Donald has said, we will ban people based on a religion. 21:44:54 How do do you that? We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty. How do we do what he has advocated without causing great distress within our own country. Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into our country and how do we expect to be able to implement those? So I thought that what he said was extremely unwise and even dangerous and indeed you can look at the propaganda on a lot of the terrorist sites and what Donald Trump says about muslims is used to recruit fighters. Because they want to create a war between us. The final thing I will say, this is the 10th or 12th time that he's denied being for the war in Iraq. We have it on tape and the entire press corps looked at it and it has been debunked but it never stops him from saying what he wants to say. TRUMP>> Has not been debunked. CLINTON>> So please. Go to Hillary clinton.com. 21:46:02 TRUMP>> I was against the war in Iraq. Has not been debunked. You voted for it and you shouldn't have. RADDATZ>> There's been a lot of fact checking on that. I would like to move on. TRUMP>> Excuse me. She just went 25 seconds over her time. Can I just respond? RADDATZ>> Very quickly. 21:46:18 TRUMP>> Hillary Clinton in terms of having people come into our country we have many criminal illegal aliens. When we want to send them back to their country their country says we don't want them, in some cases they are murderers and drug lords and drug problems and they don't want them. Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state said that's okay. We can't force them into their country. Let me tell you. I'm going to right back into their country. They are murderers and some very bad people. I will tell you very strongly, when Bernie Sanders said she has bad judgment, she has really bad judgment because we are letting people into this country that are going to cause problems and crime like you've never seen. We are also letting drugs pour through our southern border at a record clip. 21:47:02 It shouldn't be allowed to happen. ICE just endorse me. They never endorsed a presidential candidate. The border patrol agents, 16,500 just recently endorsed me. They endorsed me because I understand the border. She doesn't. She wants amnesty for everybody. Come right in and come right over. It's a horrible thing she is doing. She has bad judgment and honestly so bad that she should never be president of the United States. That I can tell you. 21:47:32 RADDATZ>> I want to move on. This next question comes from the public from the bipartisan debate coalition's online forum where Americans submitted questions that generated millions of votes. This question involves wikileaks release of purported experts of secretary clinton's paid speeches which she has refused to release and one line in particular in which you secretary clinton purportedly say you need both a public and private physician on certain issues. Two from Virginia asked is it okay for politicians to be two-faced. Is it acceptable for a politician to have a private stance? Secretary Clinton? 21:48:16 CLINTON >> As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven spielberg movie called Lincoln. It was a master class watching president Lincoln get the congress to approve the 13th amendment. It was principled and it was strategic and I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the congress to do what you want to do. You have to keep working at it and yes, president Lincoln was trying to convince some people he used some arguments, convincing other people he used other arguments. That was a great, I thought a great display of presidential leadership. You know, let's talk about what's really going on here, Martha. Because our intelligence community just came out and said in the last few days that the Kremlin, meaning Putin and the Russian government are directing the attacks, the hacking on American accounts to influence our election. 21:49:30 Wikileaks is part of that as are other sites where the Russians hack information we don't even know if it's accurate information. Then they put it out. We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary of foreign power is working so hard to influence the outcome of the elections and believe me they are not doing it to get me elected. They are doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump. Maybe because he has praised Putin and maybe because he says he agrees with a lot of what Putin wants to do maybe because he wants to do business in Moscow. I don't know the reasons. But we deserve answers and we should demand that Donald release all of his tax return so people can see what are the entanglements and financial relationships--. RADDATZ>> We will get to that later. We are out of time. 21:50:28 TRUMP>> Well I think I should respond. Because so ridiculous. Look now she is blaming -- she got caught in a total lie. Her papers went out to all her friends at the banks Goldman Sachs and everybody else. She said things, wikileaks, that just came out. She lied. Now she is blaming the lie on the late great Abraham Lincoln. That's one that I haven't heard. Honest Abe never lied. That's the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That's a big big difference. We're talking about some difference. 21:51:03 As far as other elements of what she was saying, I don't know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together as an example. But I don't know Putin. But I notice any time anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians, she doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia and the reason they blame Russia is because they think they are trying penceto tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia, I know about Russia but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia I don't deal there. I have no businesses there and I have no loans from Russia. I have a very very great balance sheet. So great that when I did the old post office, on pennsylvania avenue, the United States government because of my balance sheet which they know very well shows me to do the old post office between the white house and congress. They chose me to do the old post office, one of the primary things in fact perhaps the primary thing was balance sheet. But I have no loans with Russia. 21:52:02 You can go to the United States government and they would probably tell you that. Because they know my sheet very well in order to get that development I had to have. Now the taxes are a simple thing. As soon as I have -- first of all, I pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes. Many of her friends took bigger deductions. Warren Buffett took a massive deduction. Soros, who's a friend of hers, took a massive deduction. Many of the people that are giving her all this money that she can do many more commercials than me gave her, took massive deductions. I pay hundreds of dollars in millions in taxes, but, but, as soon as my routine audit is finished, I'll release my returns. I'll be very proud to. 21:52:42 RADDATZ>> Thank you Mr. Trump. COOPER>> We're gonna turn actually to the topic of taxes. We have a question from Spencer Moss. Spencer? 21:52:53 SPENCER>> Good evening. My question is what specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes. 21:53:01 COOPER>> Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. TRUMP>> Well one thing I'd do is get rid of carried interest. The -- One of the greatest provisions for people like me, to be honest with you, I give up a lot when I run because I knockout the tax code. And she could have done this years ago, by the way. She's a -- she was a United States senator. She complains that Donald Trump took advantage of the tax code. Well, why didn't you change it when you were a senator? The reason you didn't is that all your friends take the same advantage that I took. And I do. You have provisions in the tax code that frankly we could change. 21:53:32 But you wouldn't change it because all of these people gave you the money so you can take negative ads on Donald Trump. But, and I say that about a lot of things. You know, I've heard Hillary complaining about so many different things over the years. Oh, we should have done this. But she's been there for 30 years, she's been doing this stuff. She never changed. And she never will change. She never will change. We're getting rid of carried interest provisions. I'm lower taxes, actually, because I think it's so important for corporations because we have cooperations leaving, massive corporations and little ones. Little ones can't form. We're getting rid of regulations, which goes hand and hand with the lowering of the taxes. 21:54:09 But we're bringing the tax rate down from 35% to 15%. We are cutting taxes for the middle class and I will tell you, we are cutting them big league for the middle class. And I will tell you, Hillary Clinton is raising your taxes, folks, you can look at me. She's raising your taxes really high. And what that's going to do is a disaster for the country. But she is raising the taxes and I'm lowering your taxes. That in itself is a big difference. We are going to be thriving again. We have no growth in this country. There is no growth. If China has a gdp of 7% it's like a national catastrophe. We're down at 1%. And, that's like no growth. And we're going lower in my opinion. And a lot of it has to do with the fact that our taxes are so high. Just about the highest in the world and I'm bringing them down to one of the lower in the world. And I think it's so important, one of the most important things we can do. But she is raising everybody's taxes massively. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton you have two minutes. The question is what specific provisions would you change to make sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share of taxes. 21:55:14 CLINTON>> Well everything you've heard just now from Donald is not true. I'm sorry I have to keep saying this, but he lives in an alternative reality. And it is sort of amusing to hear somebody who hasn't paid federal income taxes in many 20 years talking about what he's gonna do, but I'll tell you what he's going to do. His plan will give the wealthy and corporations the biggest tax cuts they've ever had. More than it is Bush tax cuts by at least a factor of two. Donald always takes care of Donald and people like Donald. And this would be a massive gift. And indeed the way that he talks about his tax cuts would end up raising taxes on middle class families. Millions of middle class families. Now here's what I want to do. I have said nobody who makes less than $250,000 a year and that's the vast majority of Americans as you know will have their taxes raised. 21:56:11 Because I think we have to go where the money is, and the money is with people who have taken advantage of every break in the tax code. And yes, when I was a senator, I did vote to close corporate loopholes. I voted to close, I think, one of the loopholes he took advantage of when he claimed a billion dollar loss that enabled him to avoid paying taxes. I want to have a tax on people who are making a million dollars, it's called the Buffett rule. Yes, Warren Buffett is the one who's gone out and somebody like him should not be paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. I want to have a surcharge on incomes above 5 million. We have to make up for lost times, because I want to invest in you. I want to invest in hard working families. 21:56:55 And I think it has been unfortunate, but it's happened that since the great recession, the gains have all gone to the top. And we need to reverse that. People like Donald who pay zero in taxes, zero for our vets, zero for our military, zero for health and education. That is wrong. And we're going to make sure that nobody, no corporation and no individual can get away without paying his fair share to support our country. COOPER>> Mr. Trump,I want to give you the chance to respond. I just want to tell our viewers what she's referring to. In the last month, taxes were the number one issue on Facebook for the first time in the campaign. The new york times published three pages of your 1995 tax returns that showed you claimed a $916 million loss which means you could have avoided paying personal federal income taxes for years. You've said you paid state taxes, employee taxes, real estate taxes, property taxes. You have not answered though a simple question: did you use that $916 million loss to avoid paying personal federal income taxes? 21:57:55 TRUMP>> Of course I do. Of course I do. And so do all of her donors or most of her donors. I know many of her donors. Her donors took massive tax write offs. COOPER>> So have you paid personal federal income taxes? TRUMP>> A lot lot of my write off was depreciation and other things that Hillary as a senator allowed. And she'll always allow it, because the people that give her all this money, they want it. That's why. See, I understand the tax code better than anybody that's ever run for president. Hillary Clinton, and it's extremely complex, Hillary Clinton has friends that want all of these provisions, including they want the carried interest provision which is very important to Wall Street people, but they really want the carried interest provision. Which, I believe Hillary's leaving, very interesting why she's leaving carried interest. But I will tell you that number one, I pay tremendous numbers of taxes, I absolutely used it, and so did Warren Buffet, and so did George Soros, and so did many of the other people that Hillary is getting money from. 21:58:54 Now, I won't mention their names, because they're rich, but they're not famous. So we won't make them famous. COOPER>> Can you say how many years you have avoided paying personal federal taxes? 21:59:02 TRUMP>> No. But pay tax and I pay federal tax, too. But I have a write off, a lot of it's depreciation which is a wonderful charge. I love depreciation. You know, she's given it to us. Hey, if she had a problem, for 30 years she's been doing this, Anderson, I say it all the time, she talks about healthcare. Why didn't you do something about it. She talks about taxes. Why didn't she do something about it? She doesn't do anything about anything other than talk. With her, it's all talk and no action. And again, Bernie Sanders, it's really bad judgment. She made bad judgment not only on taxes, she's made bad judgements on Libya, on Syria, on Iraq. 21:59:42 I mean her and Obama whether you like it or not, the way they got out of Iraq, the vacuum they've left, that's why ISIS formed in the first place. They started from that little area and now they are in 32 different nations, Hillary. Congratulations. Great job. COOPER>> I want you to respond, Hillary Clinton. 22:00:03 CLINTON>> Well, here we go again. I have been in favor of getting rid of carried interest for years starting when I was a senator from New York. But that's not the point here. TRUMP>> Why didn't you do it? CLINTON>> Because I was a senator with a Republican president. TRUMP>> Oh really. You could have done it. If you were an effective senator, you could have done it. If you were an effective senator you could have done it but you were not an effective senator. COOPER>> Please let her respond, she didn't interrupt you. 22:00:29 CLINTON>> Under our constitution, presidents have something called veto power. Look he has now said repeatedly 30 years this and 30 years that. Let me talk about my 30 years in public service. I'm very glad to do so. Eight million kids every year have health insurance because when I was first lady I worked with Democrats and Republicans to create the children's health insurance program. Hundreds of thousands of kids now have a chance to be adopted because I worked to change our adoption and foster care system. After 9/11 went to work with republican mayor governor and president to rebuild New York and to get health care for the first responders who were suffering because they had run towards danger and gotten sickened by it. 22:01:16 Hundreds of thousands of national guard and reserve members have healthcare because of work that I did and children have safer medicines because I was able to pass a law that required the dosing to be more carefully done. When I was secretary of state, I went around the world advocating for our country but also advocating for women's rights to make sure that women had a decent chance to have a better life and negotiated a treaty with Russia to lower nuclear weapons. 400 pieces of legislation have my name on it as a sponsor or cosponsor when I was a senator for eight years. 22:01:59 I worked very hard and was very proud to be reelected in new york by an even bigger margin that I had been elected the first time. And as president I will take that work that bipartisan work that finding common ground. You have to get along with people to get things done in Washington. I have proven that I can and for thirty years I have produced results for the people. RADDATZ>> We will move on to Syria. Both of you have mentioned that. TRUMP>> I think we should -- 22:02:29 RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, we will go on. TRUMP>> She has been a disaster as a senator. RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, we are going to move on. The heart breaking video of a 5-year-old Syrian boy sitting in an ambulance after being pulled from the rubble after an airstrike in aleppo focused on the world's attention on the horrors of the war in Syria with 136 million views on Facebook alone. There are much worse images coming out of aleppo everyday now where in the past few weeks alone 400 people have been killed at least 100 are children. Just days ago the state department called for a war crimes investigation of the Syrian regime of assad and its ally, Russia for their bombardment of aleppo. This next question comes through Facebook. Diane from Pennsylvania asks if you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in aleppo? Isn't it a lot like the holocaust where the U.S. Waited too long before we helped? We will begin with your two minutes secretary Clinton. 21:03:36 CLINTON>> The situation in Syria is catastrophic and everyday that goes by we see the results of the regime by Assad in partnership with the Iranians on the ground and the Russians in the air bombarding places in particular aleppo, where there are hundreds of thousands of people probably 250,000 still left. There is a determined effort by the Russian air force to destroy aleppo in order to eliminate the last of the Syrian rebels who were really holding out against the Assad regime. Russia hasn't paid any attention to ISIS. They are interested in keeping Assad in power. So I when I was secretary of state advocated and I advocate today a no-fly and safe zone. 22:04:30 We need some leverage with the Russians because they are not going to come to the negotiating table for a diplomatic resolution unless there is some leverage over them. We have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground. But I want to emphasize that what is at stake here is ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it is all in in Syria and they've also decided who they want to see become president of the United States too and it's not me. 22:05:10 I've stood up to Russia and I have taken on Putin and others and I would do that as president. I think wherever we can cooperate with Russia, that's fine and I did as secretary of state and that's how we got a treaty reducing nuclear weapons and it's how we got the sanctions in Iran that put a lid on the nuclear program without firing a single shot. I would go to the negotiating table with more leverage than we have now. But I do support the effort to investigate for crimes, war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable. 22:05:45 TRUMP>> First of all she was there as secretary of state with the so called line in the sand. CLINTON>> I wasn't. I hate to interrupt you. At some point we need to do some fact checking here. 22:05:55 >> You were in total contact with the white house and perhaps sadly Obama probably still listened. I don't think he would listen very much anymore. Obama draws the line in the sand. It was laughed at all over the world what happened. With that being said, she talks tough against Russia, but our nuclear program has fallen way behind and they have gone wild with their nuclear program. Not good. Our government shouldn't have allowed that to happen. Russia is new in terms of nuclear and we are old and tired and exhausted in terms of nuclear. A very bad thing. She talks tough. She talks really tough against Putin and against Assad. She talks in favor of the rebels. She doesn't know who the rebels are. Every time we take rebels whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else, we are arming people. You know what happens? 22:06:52 They end up being worse than the people. Look at what she did Libya with Gaddafi. Gadhafi is out and it's a mess. And by the way ISIS has a good chunk of their oil. I'm sure you have heard that. It was a disaster. The fact is almost everything she has done in foreign policy has been a mistake and it has been a disaster. If you look at Russia, take a look at Russia and look at what they did this week where I agree she wasn't there, but possibly she's consulted. We sign a peace treaty and everyone is all excited, but what Russia did with Assad and by the way with Iran who you made very powerful with the dumbest deal perhaps I have seen in the history of deal making the iran deal with $150 billion with the $1.7 billion in cash, which is enough cash to fill up this room, but look at that deal. Iran now and Russia are now against us. She wants to fight. She wants to fight for rebels. There is one problem. You don't even know who the rebels are. RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, your two minutes is up. 22:07:53 TRUMP>> One thing I have to say. I don't like Assad at all, but Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS and Iran is killing ISIS and those three have lined up because of our weak foreign policy. RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump. Let me repeat the question. If you were president, what would you do about Syria and the humanitarian crisis in aleppo and I want to remind you what your running mate said. He said provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength and if Russia continues to be involved in airstrikes along with the Syrian forces of Assad, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military targets of the Assad regime. 22:08:40 TRUMP>> He and I haven't spoken and I disagree. RADDATZ>> You disagree with your running mate. TRUMP>> I think we have to knock out ISIS. Right now, Syria is fighting ISIS. We have people that want to fight both at the same time. Syria is no longer Syria. Syria is Russia and Iran who she made strong and Kerry and Obama made into a powerful nation and a very rich nation, very, very quickly. I believe we have to get ISIS. We have to worry about ISIS before we can get too much more involved. She had a chance to do something with Syria they had a chance and that was the line. RADDATZ>> What do you think will happen if aleppo falls? 22:09:18 TRUMP>> I think Aleppo is a disaster humanitarian wise. RADDATZ>> What will happen if it falls? TRUMP>> I think that it basically has fallen. It basically has fallen. Let me tell you something you take a look at mosul and the biggest problem I have with the stupidity of our foreign policy, we have mosul they think a lot of the ISIS leaders are in mosul. So we have announcements coming out of Washington and coming out of Iraq. We will be attacking mosul in three weeks or four weeks. Well all of these bad leaders from ISIS are leaving mosul. Why can't they do it quietly why can't they do the attack make it a sneak attack and after the attack is made inform the American public that we have knocked out the leaders and we have a tremendous success. 22:10:00 People leave. Why do they have to say we are going to be attacking Mosul within the next four to six weeks which is what they're saying. How stupid is our country? RADDATZ>> There are sometimes reasons the military does that. Psychological warfare. TRUMP>> I can't think of any. RADDATZ>> It might be to help get civilians out. TRUMP>> I have 200 generals and admirals endorsing me. I have 21 congressional medal of honor recipients who endorse me. We talk about it all the time. They understand. Why can't they do something secretively where they go in and knockout the leadership. How -- Why would these people stay there? I've been reading now -- 22:10:40 RADDATZ>> Tell me what your strategy is it. TRUMP>> --about Mosul, that it's the harbor of where, you know between Iraq and Mosul, this is why where they think the ISIS leaders are. Why would they -- they're not staying there anymore. They're gone. Because everybody is talking about how Iraq which is us, with our leadership, goes into fight Mosul. Now, with the 200 admirals and generals, they can't believe it. All I say is this, General George Patton, General Douglas MacArthur are spinning in their grace at the stupidity of what we are doing in the Middle East.21:11:14 RADDATZ>> I'm going to go to Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton, you want Assad to go, you advocated arming rebels, but it looks like that may be too late for Aleppo. You talk about diplomatic efforts. Those have failed. Ceasefires have failed. Would you introduce the threat of U.S. Military force beyond a no-fly zone against the Assad regime to back up diplomacy? 22:11:36 CLINTON>> I would not use American ground forces in Syria. I think that would be a very serious mistake. I don't think American troops should be holding territory which is what they would have to do as an occupying force. I don't think that is a smart strategy. I do think the use of special forces, which we're using, the use of enablers and trainers in Iraq which has had some positive effects are very much in our interests. And so I do support what is happening. But, let me -- RADDATZ>> What would you do different than than president Obama is doing? 22:12:14 CLINTON>> Well, Martha, I hope that by the time I am -- TRUMP>> Everything. CLINTON>> -- president that we will have pushed ISIS out of Iraq. I do think that there is a good chance that we can take Mosul. And, you know, Donald said he knows more about ISIS than the generals. No, he doesn't. There are a lot of very important planning going on and some of it is to signal to the Sunnis in the area as well as Kurdish peshmerga fighters that we all need to be in this. And that takes a lot of planning and preparation. I would go after Baghdady. I would specifically target Baghdady. Because I think our targeting of Al Qaeda leaders and I was involved in a lot of those operations, highly classified ones, made a difference. So I think that could help. 22:13:06 I would also consider arming the Kurds. The Kurds have been our best partners in Syria as well as Iraq. And I know there is a lot of concern about that in some circles, but I think they should have the equipment they need so that kurdish and Arab fighters on the ground are the principal way that we taka Raka after pushing ISIS out of Iraq. 22:13:31 TRUMP>> You know, it's funny, she went over a minute over and you don't stop her. When I go one second over -- RADDATZ>> You had many answers. TRUMP>> It's very interesting. COOPER>> We have a question over here from James Carter. Mr Carter? 22:13:49 JAMES CARTER>> My question is, do you believe you can be a devoted president to all the people in the United States. COOPER>> That question begins for Mr. Trump. 22:14:04 TRUMP>> Absolutely. I mean, she calls our people deplorable. A large group. And irredeemable. I will be a president for all of our people. And I'll be a president that will turn our inner cities around. And will give strength to people and will give economics to people and will bring jobs back, because NAFTA, signed by her husband, is perhaps the greatest disaster trade deal in the history of the world. Not of this country. It stripped us of manufacturing jobs. We lost our jobs, we lost our money, we lost our plans. It is a disaster. And now she wants to sign tpp even though she says now she's for it. She called it the gold standard. And by the way, at the last debate, she lied. Because it turned out that she did say the gold standard, and she said she didn't say it. They actually said that she lied. 21:14:57 Okay? And she lied. She's lied about a lot of things. But she's lied about a lot of things. I will be a president for all of the people. African-Americans, the inner cities. Devastating what's happening to our inner cities. She's been talking about it for years. As usual she talks about it, nothing happens. She doesn't get it done. Same with the Latino Americans. The Hispanic Americans. The same exact thing. They talk, they don't get it done. You go into the inner cities, and you see, it's 45% poverty. African-Americans 45% poverty in the inner cities. The education is a disaster. Jobs are essentially nonexistent. I mean, it's, you know, and I've been saying it -- big speeches where I have 20 and 30,000 people. 22:15:44 What do you have to lose? It can't get worse. And she's been talking about the inner cities for 25 years. Nothing is going to happen. Let me tell you, if she is president of the United States, nothing's going to happen. It's just gonna be talk. And all of her friends, the taxes we were talking about, and I would just get it by osmosis. She's not doing me favors, but by doing all the others favors she is doing me favors. But, I will tell you, she is all talk, it doesn't get done. All you have to do is take a look at her senate run, take a look at upstate New York. COOPER>> Your two minutes is up. Secretary Clinton? TRUMP>> It turned out to be a disaster. COOPER>> You have two minutes, Secretary Clinton. 21:16:20 CLINTON>> Well, 67% of the people voted to reelect me when I ran for my second term and I was very proud and very humbled by that. Mr. Carter, I have tried my entire life to do what I can to support children and families. You know, right out of law school I went to work for the children's defense fund. And Donald talks a lot about , you know, the 30 years I have been in public service. I'm proud of that. You know, I started off as a young lawyer working against discrimination against African-American children in schools and in the criminal justice system. I worked to make sure that kids with disabilities could get a public education, something that I care very much about. I have worked with Latinos, one of my first jobs in politics was down in south Texas registering Latino citizens to be able to vote. 22:17:16 So I have a deep devotion to use your absolutely correct word. To making sure that every American feels like he or she has a place in our country. And I think when you look at the letters that I get, a lot of people are worried that maybe they wouldn't have a place in Donald Trump's America. They write me and one woman wrote me about her son, Felix. She adopted him from Ethiopia when he was a toddler. He is 10 years old and this is the only country he has ever known. And he listens to Donald on TV and he said to his mother one day, will he send me back to Ethiopia if he gets elected? You know, children listen to what is being said. To go back to the very, very first question. And there is a lot of fear. In fact teachers and parents are calling it the Trump effect. Bullying is up and a lot of people are feeling you know uneasy, a lot of kids are expressing their concerns. 22:18:17 So first and foremost, I will do everything I can to reach out to everybody. Democrats, Republicans, independents, and people across our country. If you don't vote for me, I still want to be your president. I still want to be the best president I can be for every American. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, your two minutes is up. I want to follow up on something that Donald Trump actually said to you, a comment you made last month. You said that half of Donald Trump's supporters are "deplorables. Racist, sexist, Islamophobic." You later said you regretted saying half. You didn't express regret for using the term deplorable. To Mr. Carter's question, how can you unite a country if you've written off tens of millions Americans? 22:18:54 CLINTON>> Well within hours I said that I was sorry about the way I talked about that, because my argument is not with his supporters, it's with him and with the hateful and divisive campaign that he has run and the inciting of violence at his rallies and the very kinds of brutal comments about not just women, but all Americans. All kinds of Americans. And what he said about African-Americans and Latinos, about Muslims, about POWs, about immigrants, about people with disabilities, he's never apologized for. And so, I do think that a lot of the tone and tenor that he has said. I'm proud of the campaigns that Bernie Sanders and I ran. We ran a campaign based on issues not insults, and he is supporting me 100% because we talked about what we wanted to do. We might have had some differences and we had a lot of debates, but we believed that we could make the country better and I was proud of that. COOPER>> I'm gonna give you a minute to -- 22:19:58 TRUMP>> We have a divided nation. We have a very divided nation. You look at Charlotte, you look at Baltimore, you look at the violence that's taking place in the inner cities. Chicago. You take a look at Washington, D.C. We have a increase in murder within our cities, the biggest in 45 years. We have a divided nation, because people like her. And believe me, she has tremendous hate in her heart. And when she said deplorables, she meant it. And when she said irredeemable, they're irredeemable.You didn't mention that, but when she said they're iredeemable, to me that might have been even worse. COOPER>> She said some of them are irredeemable. 22:20:40 TRUMP>> She's got tremendous hatred. And this country cannot take another four years of Barack Obama and that's what you are getting with her. 22:20:48 COOPER>> Let me follow-up with you. In 2008 you wrote in one of your books that the most important characteristic of a good leader is discipline. You said if a leader doesn't have it, quote he or she won't be one for very long. In the days after the first debate, you sent out a series of tweets from 3:00 A.M. To 5:00 AM including one that told people to check out a sex tape. Is that the discipline of a good leader? 22:21:08 TRUMP>> No it wasn't check out a sex tape. It was just take a look at the person that she built up to be this wonderful girl scout who was no girl scout. Just so you understand when she said 3:00 in the morning, take a look at Benghazi. She said who is going to answer the call at 3:00 in the morning. Guess what. She didn't answer. When ambassador Stevens -- COOPER>> The question is is that the discipline of a good leader. 22:21:30 TRUMP>> 600 times. Well she said she was awake at 3:00 in the morning. She also sent a tweet out at 3 o'clock in the morning but I won't even mention that. But she said she will be awake. The famous this, we will answer the call at 3:00 in the morning. Guess what happened, ambassador Stevens sent 600 requests for help and the only one she talked to was Sidney Blumenthal who is her friend and not a good guy, by the way. She shouldn't be talking about that. 22:21:58 Now Tweeting happens to be a modern day form of communication.You can like it or not like it. Between Facebook and Twitter I have almost 25 million people. It's a very effective way of communication. You can put it down, but it's a very effective form of communication. I'm not unproud of it to be honest with you. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, does Mr. Trump have the discipline to be a good leader. CLINTON>> No. 22:22:22 TRUMP>> I'm shocked to hear that. CLINTON>> Well it's not only my opinion, but the opinion of many others. National security experts, Republicans, former Republican members of congress. It's in part because those of us who have had the great privilege of seeing this job up close and know how difficult it is and it's not just because I watched my husband take a $300 billion deficit and turn it into a $200 billion surplus and 23 million new jobs were created and incomes went up for everybody. Everybody. African-American incomes went up 33%. And it's not just because I worked with George W. Bush after 9-11 and I was very proud that when I told them what the city needed and what we needed to recover and he said you got it and he never wavered he stuck with me. I have worked and I admire president Obama. He inherited the worst financial crisis since the great depression. That was a terrible time for our country. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton -- we are moving on. 22:23:30 CLINTON>> 9 million people lost their jobs. 5 million homes were lost and 13 trillion dollars in family wealth was wiped out. We are back on the right track. He would send us back into a recession with his tax plans that benefit wealthiest of americans. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton, we are almost out of time and we have another question. Mr. Trump, we are moving on. 22:23:52 TRUMP>>Our country has the slowest growth and jobs are a disaster. RADDATZ>> Thank you very much, both of you. We have another audience question. Beth Miller has a question for both candidates. 22:24:08 BETH>> Good evening. Perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the supreme court justice. What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a supreme court justice. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton. 22:24:22 CLINTON>> Thank you. You are right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint supreme court justices who understand the way the world really works who have real life experience who have not just been in a big law firm or clerk for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but maybe they tried some more cases and actually understand what people are up against. I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. I would want to see the supreme court reverse citizens united and get dark unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesn't agree with that. I would like the supreme court to understand that voting rights are a big problem in many parts of the country. 22:25:09 That we don't always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a supreme supreme court that will stick with roe V wade and a woman's right to choose and I want a supreme court that will stick with marriage equality. Donald has put forth the names of people he would consider. Among the ones he has suggested are people who would reverse roe V wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards. I want a supreme court that doesn't always side with corporate interests. I want a supreme court that understands because you are wealthy you can give more money to something doesn't mean you have more rights or should have any more rights than anything else. 22:25:58 So I have very clear views about what I want to see to change the balance on the supreme court and I regret deeply that the senate has not done its job and not permitted a vote on the person that president Obama, a highly qualified person, they have not given him a vote to have the full complement of nine supreme court justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty. I hope they will see their way to doing it, but if I am so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move to make sure that we fill that we have 9 justices. RADDATZ>> Secretary Clinton. Thank you. You are out of time. 22:26:39 TRUMP>> Justice Scalia, great judge. He died recently and we have a vacancy. I am looking to appoint judges very much in the mold of justice Scalia. I am looking for judges and have actually picked 20 of them. So that people would say. Highly respected. Highly thought of and actually very beautifully reviewed by just about everybody. People that will respect the constitution of the united States. And I think that this is so important. Also the second amendment which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton they will respect the second amendment and what it stands for and what it represents so important to me. Now hillary mentioned something about contributions. 22:27:34 Just so you understand, I will have in my race more than $100 million put in of my money. Meaning I am not taking all of this big money from all of these different corporations like she is doing. What I ask is this so I am putting in more--by the time it's finished, I'll have more than 100 million dollars invested. Pretty much self funding mine. We are raising money for the Republican party and we're doing tremendously on the small donations. $61 average or so. I ask hillary why doesn't she make $250 million by being in office? She used the power of office to make a lot of money. Why isn't she funding not for $100 million but why don't you put 10 or 20 or 30 million into your own campaign. It's $30 million less for special interest that will tell the you exactly what to do and I think it would really be a nice sign to the American public. Why aren't you putting some money in? You made a lot of it because of the fact that you have been in office. You made a lot while you were secretary of state actually so why aren't you putting money into your campaign. Just curious. RADDATZ>> We will get on to one more question. 22:28:42 CLINTON>> The question was about the supreme court. And I just want to quickly say I respect the second amendment and I believe there should be comprehensive background checks and we should close the gun show loophole and close the online loophole. RADDATZ>> We have many more questions. COOPER>> We have more question about energy policy. Ken? 22:29:05 KEN>> What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs while at the same time reminding environmentally friendly and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers. 22:29:18 TRUMP>> I think it's such a great question because energy is under siege by the Obama administration. Under absolute siege. The EPA environmental protection agency is killing these energy companies. Foreign companies are now coming in buying so many of our different plants and then rejiggering the plant so that they can take care of their oil. We are killing, absolutely killing our energy business in this country. I am all for alternative forms of energy including wind including solar, etc. We need much more than wind and solar. You look at the minors. Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. 22:30:00 There is a thing called clean coal. Coal lasts for 1,000 years in this country. Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology. We have unbelievable we have found over the last seven years, we found Tremendous wealth right under our feet. So good. Especially when you have $20 trillion in debt. I will bring our energy companies back and they will be able to compete and they'll make money and pay off our national debt and they'll pay off our tremendous budget deficits which are tremendous. But we are putting our energy companies out of business. We have to bring back our workers. You take a look at what's happening to steel and the cost of steel and China dumping vast amounts steel all over the United States which essentially s killing our steelworkers and steel companies. We have to guard our energy companies we have to make it possible. The EPA is so restrictive that they are putting our energy companies out of business. All you have to do is go to west Virginia or places like Ohio which is phenomenal or places like Pennsylvania and you see what they are doing to the people. Miners and others in the energy business.It's a disgrace. Absolute disgrace. COOPER>> Secretary Clinton, two minutes. 22:31:24 CLINTON>> That was very interesting. First of all, China is illegally dumping steel in the United States. And Donald Trump is buying it to build his buildings. Putting steelworkers and American steel plants out of business. That's something I fought against as a senator and I would have a trade prosecutor to make sure that we don't get taken advantage of by China on steel or anything else. You know because it sounds like you are in the business or aware of people in the business. You know that we are now for the first time energy independent. We are not dependent upon the mideast, but the middle east still controls a lot of prices. The price of oil has been way down and that has had a damaging effect on a lot of the oil companies. We are however producing a lot of natural gas that serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels and I think that's an important transition. We have got to remain energy independent. It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the mideast. 22:32:33 We have enough worried over there without having to worry about that. So I have a comprehensive energy policy, but it really does include fighting climate change because I think that is a serious problem. I support moving towards more clean renewable energy as quickly as we can. I think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses. I want to be sure that we don't leave people behind. That's why I'm the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country. Because those coal miners and their fathers and grandfathers they dug that coal out, a lot of them lost their lives. They were injured. But they turned the lights on and powered our factories. I don't want to walk away from them. We have to do something for them. The price of coal is down worldwide. We have to look at this comprehensively and that's exactly what I have proposed. I hope you will go to Hillary clinton.com and read my entire policy RADDATZ>> We sneak in one more question and it comes from Karl Becker. 22:33:47 KARL BECKER>> My question to both of you is, regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another? RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump, would you like to go first? 22:34:12 CLINTON>> I certainly will. Because I think that's a very fair and important question. I respect his children. His children are incredibly able and devoted and I think that says a lot about Donald. I don't agree with nearly anything else he says or does, but I do respect that and I think that is something that as a mother and a grandmother is very important to me. So I believe that this election has become in part so conflict-oriented and so intense because there is a lot at stake. This is not an ordinary time and this is not an ordinary election. 22:35:03 We are going to be choosing a president who will set policy for not just four or eight years, but because of some of the important decisions we have to make here at home and around the world from the supreme court to energy and so much else. So there is a lot at stake. It's one of the most consequential elections that we've had. That's why I tried to put forth specific policies and plans. Try to get it off of the personal and put it on to what it is on I want to do as president. That's why I hope people will check on that for themselves.So they can see that yes, I spent 30 years, actually a little more, working to help kids and families and I want to take that experience to the white house and do that every single day. RADDATZ>> Mr. Trump? 22:35:53 TRUMP>> Well, I consider her statement about my children to be a very nice compliment. I don't know if it was meant to be a compliment, but it is a great -- I'm very proud of my children.They have done a wonderful job and they have been wonderful, wonderful kids. So I consider that a compliment. I will say this about Hillary. She doesn't quit, she doesn't give up. I respect that. I tell it like it is. She is a fighter. I disagree with much of what she's fighting for. I do disagree with her judgment in many cases, but she fights hard and she doesn't quit and she doesn't give up, and I consider that to be a very good trait. RADDATZ>> Thanks to both of you. 22:36:39 COOPER>> I want to thank both the candidates, I want to thank the university here. This concludes the town hall meeting. Our thanks to the candidates, the commission, Washington University, and to everybody who watched. RADDATZ>> Please tune in on October 19th for the final presidential debate that will take place at the university of Nevada Las Vegas. Good night, everyone. ---

PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour presents a Town Hall Meeting with Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Bernanke. JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer from the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City, Mo., and I welcome you to this special PBS NewsHour forum: "On the Record with Bernanke" -- Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. His role in matters financial and economic, most particularly in the immediate past and future, is paramount, and that is what he will be talking about tonight with a group of people from and around Kansas City. The nonpartisan organization Kansas City Consensus helped us identify and select them. Those who will ask questions are sitting there in the center section directly in front of Chairman Bernanke and me. They have been pre-interviewed by NewsHour staff members about what they have on their mind to ask the chairman. I also have a few questions that have been emailed to us at our Online NewsHour site. And we'll get some perspective-setting help from NewsHour economics correspondent Paul Solman. Mr. Chairman, welcome, sir. BEN BERNANKE, chairman, Federal Reserve: Thank you. JIM LEHRER: Underlying many of the questions that these folks have are questions that are basic about the Federal Reserve itself. For instance, I'd like for Gwen Bailey to stand up. Ms. Bailey, tell the chairman - get your mike, please. Tell the chairman what you told our producer when she talked to you about your questions for the chairman. GWEN BAILEY: My name is Gwen Bailey. I'm a social worker with Visiting Nurse Association. And my particular interest is exactly what is the Federal Reserve? I don't have a clue what they do, how they impact our lives, and that is why I was very interested to be selected to participate in this forum. BEN BERNANKE: Gwen, you've got a good place to start there. The Federal Reserve is an independent government agency also called the central bank. It was founded about 100 years ago. It was founded actually in the beginning to try to address financial crises. There had been a panic in 1907 and that started the process by which Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve. So throughout our 100-year history, we have been very much involved in dealing with financial crises, trying to address situations just like we have now, when the financial markets are in disarray and they're affecting the economy. The Fed has some other important functions as well. The Fed makes monetary policy, and what that means is that we, including President Hoenig here from Kansas City, meet and set short-term interest rates. We set short-term interest rates in order to try to keep the economy on track. We have a mandate from the Congress to move interest rates up and down as needed to try to promote employment and to keep prices stable, keep inflation low. So monetary policy, moving interest rates around is very important. We have lots of other things we do as well. We work with other supervisors to try to make sure the banking system is stable. We've had a lot of work to do on that in the last couple of years. And many people don't know, we also do consumer protection. So if you look at your credit card bill, you'll see the periodic statement. The structure, the lines, and the way that's organized was determined by the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve sets a lot of the rules associated with how credit cards can be charged, the kinds of the penalties, fees and so on. So broadly speaking, financial stability, trying to keep the financial market stable; monetary policy, interest rates to move the economy into a higher pace or a lower pace; banking supervision; and consumer protection. And so a whole range of financial economic issues. JIM LEHRER: Thank you, Ms. Bailey. Just to follow up, Mr. Chairman, when you say independent agency, define independent. BEN BERNANKE: We are an agency of the government, but we're - within the government we need to have some independence from Congress and the administration, and the most important area is monetary policy. There's a lot of evidence that when politicians make monetary policy, you don't get good results. Politicians have a short-term horizon. When they want the central bank to print money to pay for the government deficit, either one of those things is going to create a lot of inflation. What we've learned over time, and there is a lot of evidence to support this, is that when the Central Bank is allowed to make monetary policy with the interest - the long-term interests of the economy in mind, without the interference of the administration or the Congress, you get much better results. You get low inflation and you get good growth. This has been seen all around the world. So we're very, very sensitive to this issue. We want to be very sure that when we make monetary policy that we're doing it in a non-partisan way, that we're going it based on what's good for the economy and that we're not being told what to do by the president or the Congress. JIM LEHRER: So when you get up in the morning, who do you go to work for? Who do you feel you're answerable to? BEN BERNANKE: I'm answerable to the American people. I was appointed by the president to a 14-year term as a governor but a four-year term as the chairman of the Fed, and I was approved - I was confirmed by the Senate. So I obviously go through a political process to be appointed, but again, the Federal Reserve governors, the Board of Governors, the seven people who are at the head of the Fed in Washington, are generally professionals, technical people, people who are not lifetime politicians, people who wanted to serve the country using their knowledge in one of these areas that I was talking about like banking or monetary policy. JIM LEHRER: When somebody says, oh, the Fed is the - essentially the fourth branch of government, how do you react to that? BEN BERNANKE: That's a tremendous exaggeration. As I said, the Fed needs independence in making monetary policy, and that's good for everybody because it helps keep inflation low. But we are very accountable. We have to report regularly and frequently to the Congress. I was - just this last week I had to testify - maybe you saw me on television - I had to testify before both the House and the Senate explaining our policies, what we're doing, and reporting to the Congress and the American people about our ideas, our decisions, and how they affect the economy. And again, we are subject to the appointment process, and Congress can change the rules as well. So it's not a constitutional type situation. It's one where our independence has to be won every day, if you will, in that we have to show that we are producing good results and doing so without intervention or interference from other political bodies. Understanding the Federal Reserve JIM LEHRER: OK. Got it. Now, to set the various stages for where we go from here, we a have a report by NewsHour economics correspondent Paul Solman. PAUL SOLMAN: In Missouri, with more Federal Reserve branches than any state in the country, Kansas City, with more fountains than any city outside Rome. Where better, we thought, to launch an explanation of the Fed's actions to supply liquidity so the economy can remain afloat. Economist Nick Perna. NICK PERNA: Just like that old metaphor about the Federal Reserve trying to steer a course between inflation and recession. I'm sure you did a segment 20 years ago with a couple of my great old professors from MIT. PAUL SOLMAN: Indeed, we did. Twenty years ago we went to sea with Nobel laureates Bob Solow and Franco Modigliani, who gave the image of Fed chairman as boat captain a classical twist. FRANCO MODIGLIANI: He reminds me of a famous passage in the Odyssey that describes Ulysses trying to negotiate a passage between the two rocks. PAUL SOLMAN: In Homer's epic poem "The Odyssey," one rock harbored six-headed Scylla. To the economic professors, Scylla symbolized the dangers of inflation which makes money worth less. Beneath the Odyssey's other rock, Charybdis, a ship-sucking whirlpool - to the economists, symbolic of the downward spiral of recession and unemployment. BOB SOLOW: A little bit of recession creates a little pressure for more recession. My business is bad, I buy fewer materials. I lay off workers. They can't spend incomes they don't have. PAUL SOLMAN: Thus the Fed's job - to steer a steady, sturdy middle course. No wonder the Fed is built to seem so Washington reassuring. DONALD KOHN, vice chairman, Federal Reserve: This is the boardroom where the Board of Governors meets. PAUL SOLMAN: Don Kohn is current vice chairman of the Fed. DONALD KOHN: This is also the room where the Federal Open Market Committee meets to discuss monetary policy. PAUL SOLMAN: And to make monetary policy, which is how the Fed steers, by deciding to draw money out of the economy if inflation threatens, pump money in, if - as now - recession is the monster. NICK PERNA: So when the Federal Open Market Committee makes policy decisions, it's the job of the desk at the market groups to actually go out and implement that. PAUL SOLMAN: The desk is at the stout New York Fed, famous for the five metric tons of gold - more than Fort Knox - tucked underground. 'Die Hard with a Vengeance' had to recreate the vault. Fourteen floors above the gold, Brian Sack runs the open market desk. BRIAN SACK, executive vice president, Federal Reserve Bank of New York: In open market operations the way we create money is by buying securities. PAUL SOLMAN: Amazingly, the Fed's usual job for almost a century is as simple as that. To add money to the economy the Fed buys U.S. government securities, on this date, $3 billion worth, and thereby creates new money - federal reserves. It's supplying, in Fed-speak, liquidity. BRIAN SACK: Financial firms will be giving us Treasury securities. In return, they'll be getting reserves or liquid assets that they can use for a variety of purposes. PAUL. SOLMAN: But they're not really anything. I mean they're just electronic entries somewhere on their books? BRIAN SACK: Right, right. Yeah. We don't send a truck out with $3 billion of bills. PAUL SOLMAN: But to financial firms, the reserves are like cash in the vault. The more reserves banks have, the more loans they can make, and in competing to make them the lower the interest rates they offer. The usual result, more money flows through the economy. Returning to the water metaphor, however, these were not usual times. That's because what everyone's been calling a perfect storm hit. The economy appeared to be going under. The Fed responded with what seemed like a radical laundry list. It pumped money into the system short term, lowering overnight interest rates dramatically; it loaned money longer term to financial firms in peril. Finally with Treasury, it gave money to fragile firms directly. Back in the watery city of fountains, economist Nick Perna. NICK PERNA: What they did was to provide financial liquidity, not the stuff we're standing in right now. They bought commercial paper, mortgage-backed securities. They bought preferred stock. They made direct loans. They injected hundreds of billions of dollars of funds, of liquidity, into the financial system. PAUL SOLMAN: So, 20 years after we first shot him explaining the Fed on Martha's Vineyard where he summers, we asked Bob Solow to return to his steering-the-course metaphor. And we're using this boat because we're not going out on the water in this kind of wind. Steering the course between inflation and recession. Fed drives interest rates down almost to zero and yet we're still headed into a whirlpool of recession. What happened? BOB SOLOW: Well, think of it this way. In normal winds the Fed can steer between inflation and recession by making small adjustments. But then a year or 18 months ago, there weren't normal winds. There was a perfect storm, a really dangerous blow, and a boat like this can't make headway against that. It'll get knocked down. So the Fed had to try something dramatically different, way outside of normal procedures, and it did. Building a new framework JIM LEHRER: Mr. Chairman, first, do you agree with the perfect storm analogy? BEN BERNANKE: A lot of things happened. A lot of things came together. It created I think probably the worst financial crisis certainly since the Great Depression, and possibly even including the Great Depression, so yes, I agree. JIM LEHRER: What were your worst moments, for you personally? BEN BERNANKE: Oh, the worst moments were back in September. The financial crisis began with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the large housing companies that were taken over by the government, and subsequent to that a number of very large financial firms came under enormous pressure. One of them, Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, failed. Others came close to failure, needed government support, not just in the United States, but around the world. And those were some very long nights I spent on the sofa in my office as we worked to try to keep the financial system running. JIM LEHRER: Let's go to a question here from Janelle Sjue about this very thing, the storm and what Chairman Bernanke and others at the Fed were doing. JANELLE SJUE: Hi, I'm Janelle Sjue, a Kansas City mother. I guess I have a couple short questions. First of all, we've given millions - hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money to these large corporations, these behemoths. Is that going to be enough to correct the situation? And secondly, you know, I'll use the analogy of nature. When a prairie fire burns through, it takes out all the big overgrowth and allows all the small stuff to pop up. Why don't we just let the behemoths lay down and then make room for the small businesses? Thank you. BEN BERNANKE: That's a great question. The problem we have is that in a financial crisis if you let the big firms collapse in a disorderly way, they'll bring down the whole system. When Lehman Brothers failed, the financial markets went into anaphylactic shock basically, and it was that shock to the financial system that led the global recession that began last fall, which is probably the worst one since World War II. So it wasn't to help the big firms that we intervened. It was to stabilize the financial system and protect the entire global economy. Now, you might ask, you know, what's the deal? Why are we doing that? It's a terrible problem. It's a problem called a too-big-to-fail problem. These companies have turned out to be too big to allow to collapse because, again, if they collapse the - when the elephant falls down, all the grass gets crushed as well. We really need - and this is critically important - we really need a new regulatory framework that will make sure that we do not have this problem in the future. And the present administration has proposed a system that would include - let me just mention two items. First, that the Federal Reserve would oversee all these major big firms that are, quote, "too big to fail," and would put extra tough requirements on their capital and their activities, what they can do, the risks they can take. That would be the first part. But the second part is very important. We would modify the bankruptcy code. The problem now is that the bankruptcy code is such that when one of these firms fails, it's a disorderly mess. What we need is a system where the government can say, this firm is about to fail, we can't let it just fail, but we've got to - we don't want - also we don't want to prop it up either. We need an alternative between bailout and bankruptcy, and that alternative is a system where the government can come in and seize the firm and then unwind it in an orderly way, sell off the assets, and do that in a way that does not cause chaos in the financial markets. We have a system like that already. Right now the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, whenever a small bank or medium-sized bank is about to fail, it can come in before it fails, grab it, sell off assets, pay off the depositors, and this all happens without causing a huge problem in the financial market. That's what we need. And I agree with everyone here, too big to fail is a terrible situation. We've got to fix that. And I think that's the top priority for policy going forward. JIM LEHRER: Bill Black here, staying on the storm question, has a short question on this. Bill Black. BILL BLACK: Bill Black, professor of economics, law, criminology and former financial regulator, UMKC. If this is a terrible situation and creates this kind of moral hazard, all theory says we need to remove the officers who put us in the situation. When will the Fed begin to remove those officers? BEN BERNANKE: Well, when we've gotten into situations where companies were actually failing and had to be supported, first, I should say that this was not a Fed operation. The Fed and the Treasury have worked closely together, so it's been a broader - and the FDIC has participated as well. In those cases where companies were prevented from failing, the shareholders typically lost virtually all their money and we did replace the officers. Take, for example, AIG. The AIG CEO was fired. The shareholders lost all their money. Bear Stearns. Bear Stearns' shareholders lost all their money and the company was taken over by another company. So, you know, in most cases we have replaced the leadership and we have made sure the shareholders have lost the greatest part of the value. JIM LEHRER: Got an e-mail, Mr. Chairman. This is from is Carl Deninger in Knoxville, Florida. The question is, "Since this crisis began with people unable to pay their bills and continues to be marked by this problem, how does expanding credit solve the problem? Isn't that going to be like giving a drunk a bottle of whiskey and calling him cured"? BEN BERNANKE: Well, we have a case here of overreaction. It's true to some extent that this crisis was caused by too much credit, credit that was too risky, too easy. That's all true. But the financial crisis has caused a huge reaction in the other direction. And if you're - if you have a small business and you've tried to get a loan, you know that credit is very, very tight right now. We need to have sort of a middle course between credit that is excessively risky, excessively easy, and credit which is so tight that legitimate borrowers can't get credit. The Federal Reserve has been working hard on this in a lot of ways. First, we've cut interest rates all the way to zero, the short-term interest rate, the one that we control. We've then worked with banks to try to increase their lending. And we have a whole set of programs. Let me just talk about one. We have a program that lends to investors who want to purchase consumer or small business loans from banks, and that puts more money into the system. And what we've found is that this program has brought down auto loan interest rates. We've helped finance 1.6 million auto loans. It's helped a lot in small business loans. We've financed about 600,000 small business loans. And so we have actually intervened in the market to try and get the credit markets working again. So we had too much credit. It was too risky. It was too excessive. Now we've got to bring things back to sort of a nice middle ground. JIM LEHRER: Jonathan Kempner, question. JONATHAN KEMPER: I'm Jonathan Kemper. I'm a fifth generation community banker here in Kansas City. My question is, you reacted to a perfect storm going in, but I think the judge is going to be how you come out of it. As you talk about these new programs, all these special programs, are they going to be part of the normal course of business for the Fed going forward? BEN BERNANKE: No, they won't. That's a good question. We have some programs we've had for a while, which are - as you would know, are short-term lending programs to banks when they need liquidity for short-term periods. And that's been around since the beginning of the Fed, and that would continue. But all the other programs, the special programs we put together to help in the commercial paper market, to help in the consumer loan market, to help in the mortgage market, all of those will eventually be unwound and be taken away as the normal market processes begin to function again. We need to do that because we want to make sure, first, that markets go back to normal, that credit is allocated through the market process, and secondly, because at some point when the economy begins to recover we want to make sure that we don't overstimulate the economy into an inflation. And so for both of those reasons we're going to have unwind essentially all of the programs that are being put out. JIM LEHRER: Dave Huston, you have a question in the same area? DAVID HUSTON: Hi. Welcome to Kansas City. JIM LEHRER: Thank you. DAVID HUSTON: My name is David Huston. I'm a third generation small business owner with offices here in Shawnee, Kansas, a suburb of Kansas City, Des Moines and Omaha. My question is partly a statement but also a question. I said I'm very, very frustrated during the past year when I see billions and billions of dollars sent to large financial institutions, and it's what we were alluding to before. I'm especially upset when I hear the phrase, and you used this, quote, "that company is too big to fail." As a small business person, that's very hard to swallow. I feel like a more accurate statement of policy would be too big to fail, too small to save. My business and thousands of others fall into that too small to save category. Small businesses employ more people than the Fortune 500 companies combined. Small businesses represent the blood - the lifeblood of small business - small cities, large cities and our American economy. Innovation and creativity is coming from small businesses. But I truly believe small business and the companies that support - JIM LEHRER: Question. Question. DAVID HUSTON: - small business are getting shortchanged by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and Congress. Am I wrong on that perception? BEN BERNANKE: Great question. Tough question, but a great question. Let me go first back to too big to fail, and let me just emphasize that nothing made me more frustrated, more angry, than having to intervene, particularly in a couple of cases where taking wild bets had forced these companies close to bankruptcy. There's nothing that made me angrier than having to do that. Why did we do it? Because if that company had collapsed in the middle of a crisis it could have brought everything down. In 1929 - people think the Depression was created by the stock market crash. It wasn't. From 1929 to 1931, it was a normal recession. Then in 1931 a huge bank in the middle of central Europe collapsed and that created a global financial crisis which then made the recession into a Great Depression. I was not going to be the Federal Reserve chairman who presided over the second Great Depression, and for that reason, I had to hold my nose and stop those firms from failing. I am as disgusted about it as you are, and I think it's absolutely critical as we go forward that we put in a new system that will make sure that when a firm does not succeed in the marketplace, that it fails. That is absolutely critical and I support that 100 percent. Now, on small business, I also agree with you. Small business is where the jobs come from, it's where the innovation comes from, it's where the creativity and entrepreneurship in America comes from. Every big company was once a small company, and so we really have to preserve and protect and strengthen small business, and I'm fully aware of those issues. We hear all the time about the credit issues for small business. We're doing what we can. As I mentioned, our program to get small business loans out. We're working with the banks, encouraging them to make loans. I understand your frustration. I absolutely understand your frustration, and we're working really hard to try to make it better. JIM LEHRER: Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure you know, there were competing pieces in the Sunday New York Times op-ed section on the question of whether you deserve another term as chairman, and the negative part was written by - piece was written by Anna Jacobson Schwartz. She's an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research. I'm aware that you know her. But let me just read you what she said, which relates to this particular question that we're talking about here as the storm and how the Fed reacted. Quote, "The Fed delivered plenty of rhetoric about the importance of transparency, yet failed to articulate its own goals. The market was thus bewildered when the Fed rescued certain firms and not others. Mr. Bernanke should have explained the principles behind these decisions. The market could not understand why the Fed rescued Bear Stearns and then permitted Lehman Brothers to die. As a consequence, there was volatility in the credit and equity markets and a general sense of turmoil that demonstrated that participants were at a loss to understand the functioning of the Fed." Your comment, sir? BEN BERNANKE: My comment is that we tried to save all these big companies because we knew the implications. We tried to save Lehman Brothers. The problem, as I was discussing before is that we don't have a system, we don't have a structure. All these problems that she was alluding to occurred before even the Congress passed this TARP legislation that created the $700 billion to support failing companies. So we didn't have any tools. In the case of Bear Stearns and in the case of AIG, by using the Fed's lending authority and other devices we jerry-rigged up a way of preventing the failure of those firms. In the case of Lehman Brothers, there was just a huge $40, $50 billion hole that we had no way to fill and no money, no authorization, no way to do it, so we had to let it fail. We had no choice. So I don't regret - I regret that it happened because it created a huge amount of difficulty. And in fact, it just confirms what I've been saying - that if you allow a big financial firm to collapse in the middle of a financial crisis, the consequences for the average person, for the global economy, are severe. What Ms. Schwartz wanted us to do was to state in advance what our strategy was for saving firms. We had no idea which firm was going to fail and we didn't have a system, we didn't have a structure. And what I'm saying is going forward we need to have what we now have for banks, but don't have for other kinds of financial firms. We need to have a law, a set of laws, that allows the government to come in and systematically and in a transparent way wind down a failing financial behemoth, to use the word that was used before, so that it doesn't create damage throughout the system. So her premise is that we made a conscious decision to let Lehman fail. We did not. We made - we spent the entire weekend with - basically 24 hours a day, trying to do everything we could to save that company, not again because we thought it was deserving, but because we knew what the implications were going to be. We didn't have the tools to do it. The other companies that were thinking about buying it decided not to buy it, and so we had no choice. JIM LEHRER: All right. Let's move on now to the recovery. And the first question to James Thomas. To the recovery itself now. To the present. JAMES THOMAS: James Thomas, recent economic graduate from UMKC. With the first phase of the stimulus bill in effect now - in my opinion, failed - what do you think worked and didn't work? BEN BERNANKE: Well, I would say that it might be a little bit early to make that judgment. First of all, let me say one other thing, which is the stimulus package is the administration and Congress. The Federal Reserve's got nothing to do with it. I mean that's - you know, it's a different part of the government. But having said that, I think we have to wait a bit longer. The stimulus package is a big $787 billion package, but something like a quarter of that is getting spent this year and not even all of that is actually going into the system this year. So most of the money that's in that package is in 2010. So it may or may not succeed, but I think we've got to give it a bit more time. JIM LEHRER: Bob Litan, you have a similar question, a follow-up question on that, I think. BOB LITAN: Well, I guess I do. I'm Bob Litan from the Kauffman Foundation. It's widely known among economists that the employment situation lags the general economy, that you really need the economy to grow at something like 2.5 percent a year in order to absorb the new workers and also to absorb productivity. So that means unemployment's going to continue rising even as the economy starts to recover. Can you give us any idea of when unemployment's going to peak out and then at what level? BEN BERNANKE: Well, nobody really knows for sure, of course. Economic forecasting makes weather forecasting look like physics. But you're absolutely right. It takes about 2.5 percent growth to absorb new workers, keep the unemployment rate about constant. Right now we're seeing growth in the second half of the year, but our best guess, and it's only a guess, is that growth in the second half of the year will be about 1 percent on an annual basis. So that's not enough to bring down the unemployment rate. So our projections - the Federal Reserve - the members of the Federal Open Market Committee, which is the committee that sets monetary policy, puts out forecasts or projections four times a year which are publicly available, and our projections suggest that the unemployment rate will probably keep rising, probably a bit above 10 percent, it'll peak early in 2010, and then begin gradually to come down. We could be wrong. It could be a stronger recovery than that. But you're absolutely right, that even after the economy starts to grow again, and we're hoping to see that in the next third and fourth quarters, it'll be a while before the labor market, the job market, is back to where we want it to be. JIM LEHRER: Sue Drakeford has a question that's also related to that. SUE DRAKEFORD: Hello. My name is Sue Drakeford. I'm a banker at Hillcrest Bank and a board member with the Asian American Chamber of Commerce. When is this going to end? That's my question. BEN BERNANKE: That's a great question also. Well, there's a healing process that has to take place. We've made a lot of progress. As I said, last September and October we were in the middle of the worst financial crisis at least since the Great Depression. We've seen a good bit of progress in the financial markets. Banks have largely stabilized. The stock market, you know, is up a good bit in the last few months. Credit markets are beginning to open up again. So we're seeing progress in the financial markets, which is very encouraging and suggests that we are going to start seeing some growth in the economy. We're going to expect to see growth in the economy in the second part of this year, then beginning to pick up in 2010, but as the previous questioner indicated, it probably will be longer than that before unemployment comes down to a level that we find acceptable. So the Federal Reserve has been - I'll be very clear. The Federal Reserve has been putting the pedal to the metal. We have the interest rate as low as it can go. We are putting everything we can into strengthening credit markets. We are buying up mortgage securities to bring mortgage rates down and get people into houses. So we're doing everything we can to support the economy, and we hope that that's going to, you know, get us going next year sometime. Now, I want to say one other thing, which is that recessions happen. They typically last one to two years. They're unpleasant. Financial crises can make them worse, and that's what we're seeing today. But I have tremendous confidence in this economy and in the American people. I think Americans are very hardworking. They're innovated and creative and they're very ambitious. And we have a market system that under normal circumstances rewards those valuable traits. On top of all of that, one of the small silver linings of all this is that people are starting to save more because they've seen what happened to their 401(k)s and to their credit positions. So I have a lot of confidence that within, you know, a few years, that we will be not only back on track, but that we will be growing strongly again. I think this economy cannot be kept down. We will try to get through this process. It's going to take some patience. But I think in the longer term this economy will go back to what it has been, which is the most successful economy in the world. JIM LEHRER: You have a follow-up to that, to what the chairman just said? SUE DRAKEFORD: I do. Actually, in specific terms of TARP. A couple of banks, you know, have received TARP. And I want to know from you, how effective do you feel like the TARP program was and is there future plans to bring another similar program like TARP? BEN BERNANKE: So the TARP stands for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. This was the $700 billion that the Congress approved for financial stabilization last October. It has been used for a whole bunch of different things. It was used initially to help stabilize the system, and that was critical, and it did help there. And it prevented some of the failures that we couldn't prevent before the TARP became available. It's also been used to give capital to healthy banks. And the evidence there I think is that it has helped them make more loans. The inspector general for the TARP has put out a report, which says that 80 percent of the banks who got the TARP money have used it to make more loans in communities around the country. So I hope that's helping, although obviously we still have a very tight credit situation. But the TARP is now being used for a whole bunch of other things, and these things are really outside the scope of the Federal Reserve. It's been used in the automobile rescue, the GM and Chrysler rescue. It's been used in some foreclosure mitigation programs which are valuable programs that are obviously different from banks. So a lot of the $700 billion is going to other purposes. And I would finally say that a number of banks have paid back the TARP. And remember, the TARP was supposed to be an investment. And just recently, ten large banks repaid the taxpayer $70 billion with dividends and interest so that, you know, the money came back. And not all the money will come back, but a lot of it will come back and, you know, I think that will be a good thing. I don't expect to see another TARP program because, again, at this point the money is not being used primarily for financial stabilization but for a variety of other purposes. JIM LEHRER: Amar Singh, you have a question about inflation, which of course is related to the recovery that's going on now. AMAR SINGH: Yes. I'm Amar Singh and I'm a small IT company specializing in business intelligence. My question relates to the market policy in terms of the mounting national debt, how you're going to protect the U.S. dollar against other major currencies so that depreciating dollar does not cause the inflation just when you need to keep the interest rate low. BEN BERNANKE: So the question is about debt and about the dollar, monetary policy? AMAR SINGH: The national - mounting national debt will probably cause the U.S. dollar to become weaker versus other major currencies. So what are you going to do to protect the dollar so that all of a sudden all the imports we consume don't become too expensive - the inflation? BEN BERNANKE: So different parts of the government have different responsibilities here. The federal debt, as I'm sure you know, the deficit this year is almost $2 trillion, the largest deficit probably since World War II. Next year it'll still be over a trillion. So these are enormous deficits that are adding to the national debt. Of course this is a responsibility of the administration and Congress, not - the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with the federal debt. But I think that, you know, as we look at that, we see - I think it's important to say that even though I don't think we could have avoided having a big deficit this year or next year given the weakness of the economy, given the financial problems and so on, it is very, very important for the Congress and administration to develop a plan and say here is how we're going to get back to fiscal sanity. Here is how we're going to bring down the deficit over time so that it gets to a low enough level that debt no longer keeps mushrooming the way it has been. So that part is the responsibility of the Congress and the administration. A very important part of that, by the way, is healthcare because a big part of the government spending is healthcare related. So that's very important. As far as the Fed and the dollar is concerned, the Fed supports the Treasury's strong dollar policy. We think the dollar should be strong. And the way we think - the best way we think to get a strong dollar is to have a strong economy. When the economy is strong, then there's a lot of good investment opportunities. Foreigners want to invest here, and that causes the dollar to rise. So our whole strategy right now is to get the economy out of the doldrums and back into a growth path that will attract foreign funds and will get the dollar and keep it strong. So that's our strategy, a strong economy for a strong dollar. JIM LEHRER: Barbara Stillman, you also have an inflation question. BARBARA STILLMAN: I'm Barbara Stillman and I've been retired for a number of years. I wonder what indicators you are considering in determining whether inflation is going to become a concern. BEN BERNANKE: We look at - the question is how do we tell what inflation's going to do. Well, first of all, we look at a lot of indicators. We look at commodity prices and - including energy prices, for example. We also look at the amount of slack in the economy. Right now with 9.5 percent unemployment and with markets as weak as they are, that is, the product markets, it's very hard for firms to raise their prices and for workers to raise their - ask for higher wages. And in fact, we're seeing prices and wages being very, very moderate. So our anticipation is that given the softness of the global economy, that except possibly for some fluctuations in energy prices, we expect for the next couple of years that inflation will be quite low. Now, coming out of this episode, as I've mentioned, the Federal Reserve has brought interest rates down close to zero. We have put a lot of money into the economy through our lending program. So we've had a lot of stimulus, which we're trying to use to make the economy grow. Once the economy starts to grow and begins to move ahead, then it will be very important for the Fed to unwind, raise interest rates, bring that credit back, bring the money back, so that we don't have an inflation problem down the road. We are very confident that we have all the tools we need to take those steps at the appropriate time so that we don't make the mistake of having inflation ultimately. But just like in the film, it's like between Scylla and Charybdis you've got to navigate between inflation, deflation, recession and too rapid expansion. And, you know, we have our tools. We're going to be watching very carefully to try to make sure that inflation stays low. JIM LEHRER: Now, Jared Campbell, you heard what the chairman said about the stimulus connection. But you have a concern about the stimulus. You have a question for the chairman about that. JARED CAMPBELL: I do. Good evening. My name is Jared Campbell. I was laid off at the end of last year. I'm happy to report that I've started working full-time last month. In regards to the stimulus, my question is: Has enough money been released this year for the impact to be what it needs to be to get the economy started again? BEN BERNANKE: Well, first, I'm glad you found work again. That's good to know. The Congress and administration, again, who put together the stimulus package, made a number of decisions which had to do with how quickly the money was going to get out versus other criteria. So for example, there's - there were a number of tax-rebate elements in that bill, and that money goes out really quickly and then people spend it over a few quarters, so that was pretty quick. But there were other parts of the stimulus, infrastructure construction, for example, building highways, that kind of thing takes longer and so if you're going to have that in your program it takes longer to get out into the economy. So Congress and the administration made the decision that they wanted to have a mixture of different kinds of elements in their stimulus program. They wanted to have some things like infrastructure that they knew were going to take some time to get out. And so the outcome and again, this was the decision that Congress made the outcome was a situation where about a quarter of all the stimulus goes out this year and about a half goes out next year. Now, given that the unemployment rate is still likely to be reasonably high next year, unfortunately, I think having that stimulus next year will actually be helpful and will create some more jobs. So those were the decisions that Congress made. We'll have to see how effective that program is. Consequences of foreclosures JIM LEHRER: Jack Craft has a question about foreclosures. JACK CRAFT: Given the significance of how - JIM LEHRER: Name and - JACK CRAFT: I'm Jack Craft. I'm a practicing lawyer in Kansas City. Given the significance of the housing crisis, is there any way for the Fed to involve itself in incentives for either the homeowners or the servicers of mortgage to prevent a deterioration of prices merely because of the foreclosures themselves? BEN BERNANKE: Foreclosures are a very big issue. We've put a lot of attention on that issue. Foreclosures are bad not only for the borrower, for the homeowner, but they're also bad for the community: When you have a lot of foreclosures in a neighborhood that brings down property values for others. It brings down tax collections for the town. As you pointed out in your question, lots of foreclosures, putting a lot of empty houses on the market, is also bringing down house prices, which is again hurting homeowners across the country. So there are a lot of bad effects of foreclosures over and above the problems that borrowers have. Now, at this point there are a number of different approaches to dealing with foreclosures and their consequences. The government -- not the Fed specifically -- but the administration and the Congress now have two anti-foreclosure programs. One is called Making Homes Affordable, which gives subsidies to servicers -- reduced interest rates -- to let them help people stay in their homes. The other one's called Help for Homeowners - or Hope for Homeowners, and that - what that does is bring down the principal balance on mortgages so that people aren't underwater having a principal balance that's greater than the value of their house. The Federal Reserve was very involved in developing those programs, and we have -- our economists helped to develop them. And in addition, we are encouraging very strongly the banks that we supervise to ramp up their staffs so they can take advantage of those programs and help reduce foreclosures. I would say also that the Kansas City Federal Reserve bank and the whole Federal Reserve System is very much involved in community activities, community work. The Federal Reserve Banks are working closely with NeighborWorks, which is a nonprofit, to help preserve communities and neighborhoods and stabilize them even though there may be a lot of foreclosures. So how do you do that, prevent the foreclosures from causing a lot of problems in a neighborhood or in a city. So we address things in a lot of different ways. Unfortunately, the foreclosure problem is still very large. We expect about 2.8 million Americans to receive foreclosure notices this year. We hope less next year. But it's one of the key things to getting the housing market to stabilize and getting our economy back on track. JIM LEHRER: Jason Wood has a related question. JASON WOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jason Wood. I work with United Way around our two-in-one system in getting homeowners to access housing counselors. I guess my question is more in light of the report from the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston in regards to some of the monies that have been released to help homeowners and more importantly, the money that's been given to servicers. The report stated that the money maybe would have been better used if it had been given to the actual homeowners rather than the servicers. I'd like to get your commentary and what your thoughts are in regards to that. BEN BERNANKE: Yes. First let me say that I'm glad to see you're doing counseling work. We found that having a counselor helps the borrower work with the bank, raises the probability of success quite considerably, so keep up the good work. The report you're referring to was a research paper done by some Federal Reserve economists. It doesn't represent an official position of the Federal Reserve. It's just a research paper. But it addresses the fact that we don't have much experience with dealing with a foreclosure wave like this, and we don't really know necessarily what the best way is to address it. And their proposal is, instead of trying to restructure the mortgage, instead help the homeowner for the short period of time that he or she needs help: if you've lost your job, if you're sick. Maybe you just need help for a few months and then maybe that you could go back to paying your regular mortgage. So that's the proposal they made. That's not the approach the government has taken. The government has taken, as I just described, a restructuring approach, bringing down the payment or bringing down the principal. We're just going to have to see which ones of these programs work and what kinds of modifications we have to make going forward. JIM LEHRER: Speaking of going forward, you've already touched on a lot of this already, some of the things that are in the works or are being debated about how we move from here to there, some reorganization, new legislation, et cetera. And let's start first with Elma Warrick because it relates exactly to what we've been just talking about in terms of foreclosures and housing. ELMA WARRICK: Good afternoon, Chairman Bernanke. I'm Elma Warrick. I'm the executive director for Home for USA, which is a housing counseling organization HUD-approved. You know, I've heard your responses and I think they're wonderfully clear and lucid. But my question has to do with how do we, having been through this in the midst of this perfect storm, how do we protect the consumers going forward? Because frankly, the heart of the mission of the Federal Reserve was to protect the consumer. And we find, unfortunately, in this foreclosure tsunami that the consumer has become the predator rather than the fact that they were preyed on. So what will we do going forward, Chairman, to protect the consumer and make sure the consumer is served as they ought to be? BEN BERNANKE: Good question. As I mentioned earlier, the Federal Reserve's -- one of the Federal Reserve's functions is consumer protection. And we have addressed a number of issues in mortgage area, credit card areas, a bunch of other areas. As I've said before, we were late in addressing the subprime lending problem. There were a lot of loans made that were done without documentation, for example, that were done without clarity about prepayment penalties, that were done without clarity about escrow accounts. The Federal Reserve a few years ago addressed those issues and we put together a set of rules which now apply to all lenders, not just banks but all lenders, that will, I hope, solve those problems going forward. But they weren't in place early enough, and that is a -- I think we have to take some heat for that, and I think that's appropriate. But going forward, we have set some rules. The administration, of course, as you may know, has yet a more ambitious plan. They want to create a separate consumer financial protection agency that will have its only mission protecting consumers. So whether the Federal Reserve does it or another agency does it, I hope that we'll learn some lessons from this episode and make sure the consumers can make good choices but that the choices they have are clear, transparent, so that they can shop and not be fooled or deceived in terms of the kinds of financial products that they use. ELMA WARRRICK: Thank you. JIM LEHRER: Erica Shackelford has a related question. ERICA SHACKELFORD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Erica Shackelford. I'm affiliated with the Urban League of Greater Kansas City and I'm also a full-time student. Thinking about the mortgage crisis, predatory lenders allowed people to get themselves into loans that they could not afford. What does the Federal Reserve plan to do to educate the public in the future so that this type of crisis does not reoccur? And also, would you support a mandatory education component as part of the mortgage-lending process? BEN BERNANKE: Well, you know, first, as I mentioned, we have done the regulations, but we also are very much in favor of financial education, financial literacy. The Federal Reserve, including the Kansas City Federal Reserve, have numerous financial literacy programs. We provide - on our Web sites we provide courses. We work with all kinds of groups that provide financial training. I think it's very, very important that people have that kind of experience now because everybody has to deal with complicated financial products in their everyday life. So I'd like to see more financial-literacy courses in schools. Our experience is -- and we have a number of people here who are counselors -- our experience is that the most effective time to teach people about financial products is when they're thinking about buying. If you're thinking about buying a house, that's the time people listen real carefully when you explain mortgages to them. In high school, we see less-effective results. But financial literacy, economic education, it's a big mission of the Federal Reserve. You mentioned predatory lending. We've also gotten to public education. We put out, for example, a public service announcement that's playing in movie houses. I don't know if you saw it or not. But there are a lot of scams out there now. There are people who are taking advantage of people who are afraid of losing their homes. And it's very important that if you are afraid of losing your home, if you have gotten a foreclosure notice and you're working with a bank, it's very careful - it's very important to be sure that if you have been approached by some counselor or someone who says they're going to help you to make sure they're legitimate because there are scams out there, and we have been working on those and trying to keep people alert to those. JIM LEHRER: But you used the word mandatory. You asked the chairman whether it should be mandatory to be counseled in a financial - in a homing - home owning - home buying situation, correct? ERICA SHACKELFORD: That's correct. The question was, would you support mandatory education - a mandatory education component as a part of the mortgage lending process going forward? BEN BERNANKE: I'd be open to that. I think a lot of people could use that. JIM LEHRER: In other words, somebody would sign something that they have to know - BEN BERNANKE: That they've had some - JIM LEHRER: - they had to know the rules - BEN BERNANKE: Yeah. JIM LEHRER: - before they - BEN BERNANKE: Yeah. That's not a Federal Reserve-specific issue in the sense of our authority, but I think it's worth looking at. ERICA SHACKELFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. JIM LEHRER: Rob Givens, you have a question on the consumer-protection issue that has come into public - ROB GIVENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rob Givens, president of Mazuma Credit Union here in - locally. A lot of financial institutions have been under compliance and regulatory control for a long time. There's some concern that creating a new federal agency separating some of those responsibilities and then adding perhaps some additional responsibilities from the Fed for consumer regulation would in fact put an additional burden on small institutions which would then cause them to fail and leave more too-big-to-fail people out there. What's your sense of how that - that new agency and where it's funded and - I mean there's a lot of issues with that, and how that plays with the Fed's responsibility. BEN BERNANKE: Right. So this is the proposal by the administration to create a consumer financial-protection agency. And, you know, I can understand the motivation for creating such an agency. It would be an agency that would be focused on consumer issues. But there are some drawbacks, and you mentioned one, which is that if the consumer protection agency has its own examination force, its own going out - examiners going out to banks and then the banks will have to see both the safety and soundness examiners from the Fed or from the office of the comptroller of the currency as well as the consumer-protection agency's examiner. So there would be a duplication of effort to some extent. And some of the knowledge and information that one group gathers would not necessarily go to the other group. Another possibility which has been discussed would be to leave the examination authorities with the banking agencies themselves where they are now, and just move the rule-writing authority to the consumer-protection agency, which is another possibility. That also has some issues, because then the rule-writers would not be together with the examiners. They wouldn't get the feedback, they wouldn't get the knowledge that the examiners get every day on the ground, in banks. So it's a tough issue, and I know Congress is going to be wrestling this for some time. JIM LEHRER: But you're opposed to it, right? BEN BERNANKE: I'm neither opposed to it or in favor of it. I just want to make the point - I think there's an important point to be made, which is I acknowledge that the Fed was late on subprime lending regulations. I acknowledge that. But for the last two-and-a-half, three years, the Fed has been very, very active in mortgage areas, in credit cards, in student loans, in all kinds of areas, and we've been very effective. And so I'm just saying that we've done a good job and we're an alternative if this agency doesn't work out. But again, I understand why people would say you need an agency that's focused on this area. JIM LEHRER: I've got an online question from Robert Dietrich in Towson, Md. "What do you see is the most significant current or potential threat to the Federal Reserve's independence?" BEN BERNANKE: Well, again, the independence of the Fed is extraordinarily important. If the Congress or the administration were to begin to interfere with our monetary policy decisions, then the markets would say, "Wait a minute, if there's going to be more inflation because of political reasons, more inflation because the government wants to the Fed to spend money in order to pay for the deficit." So it's incredibly important that the Fed maintain its independence. I think we will. I think we need just to be very vigilant and make sure that there isn't any bill or any other effort made by anyone to take away that independence. And we're going to do our best to maintain it because it is so critical for the stability of our economy. JIM LEHRER: As you know, there's an effort in Congress now, in the House in particular, to audit what the Federal Reserve does, particularly a monetary policy. How do you feel about that? BEN BERNANKE: So that bill - people don't fully understand what that bill is about. It sounds like audit the Fed, it sounds like let's look at the books. It's not what it sounds like. The Congress already looks at our books. We have many different layers of auditors. The GAO, the General Accountability Office, which is supposed to be doing this audit, already looks at virtually all of our activities, and the ones it doesn't - our financial books and our financial loans and so on, and the ones it's not looking at and where the taxpayer needs some assurance is we're willing to work with Congress to make sure that the GAO gets the information it needs. What people don't understand is that this bill would give the GAO the authority to audit monetary policy. And what does that mean? That means that if the Federal Reserve decided a year from now that because of incipient inflation it was time to raise interest rates, that the Congress would say, "Oh, the GAO's going to audit that decision. It's going to subpoena your materials. It's going to demand information from the members of the FOMC. It's going to evaluate your decision and report to Congress." I don't think that's consistent with independence. So we are completely open to providing any information that Congress wants to make sure we're using taxpayer money safely and soundly, that we are meeting all our responsibilities. I don't think the American people want Congress running monetary policy, and I think that's very, very critical for people to understand. JIM LEHRER: And do you think that's what -- would end up doing? BEN BERNANKE: Exactly. That's what it would do. There's a provision in that law which currently, current law, which carves out monetary policy, and it doesn't give Congress authority or GAO authority to audit it. That was put in in 1978, at a time when we had a lot of inflation, as you may remember. After that, the Fed became more independent, brought inflation down. But now that's exactly what it would do. If that carve-out is eliminated, the Congress would have the authority anytime to ask the GAO to come in and audit and look at and evaluate the monetary policy decisions made by the Fed. That's not consistent with independence. Lessons of the Great Depression JIM LEHRER: Crosby Kemper has a question about regulating. CROSBY KEMPER: Crosby Kemper, Mr. Chairman. I've also been a banker in Kansas City and now I'm a librarian. As a banker, I can tell you that the two banks who are represented here, my cousin and I, are two of the solvent banks left in the country. So welcome to Kansas City. You can relax. (Laughter.) And - but I'm also a librarian today. I'm the director of the Kansas City Public Library and an amateur historian. And I've read your book, "Essays on the Great Depression." Wonderful book. And you talk about two causes of the Great Depression. One is the failure to the Federal Reserve to provide an adequate monetary policy. It tightened too much during the days after the stock market crash. And you talked about the non-monetary problems, part of which was the failure, despite great liquidity of the banking system, to respond to the problems of production and unemployment. And I wonder if there isn't a similar problem going on today in regulation where you're going exactly the other direction, with too much monetary policy; I mean, too much money creation in your monetary policy, in an attempt to intervene to control prices through the mortgage programs and other things, if we aren't getting to the stage on the opposite end of too much regulation, too much government intervention, just at the moment when it looks like the economy may be turning around bottoming out. BEN BERNANKE: Well, thank you for reading my book. (Laughter.) I'd be glad to autograph it if you have it with you. (Laughter.) I learned -- I did spend a lot of my career studying the Great Depression and other financial crises. And I didn't expect it would be so helpful, so useful, as it has been. But I learned three lessons from my work on the Great Depression, and you identified two of them. The first one was monetary policy has to be supportive, not restrictive. In the 1930s, the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to collapse, allowed prices to fall, and that was a major force -- a major factor in the Depression. So this time the Fed was aggressive in cutting interest rates, providing supportive monetary policy, and getting, you know, that part going. The second thing I learned from looking at the Depression was, as I mentioned before, that allowing the financial system to collapse -- and we had several thousand bank failures here in the United States in the 1930s which the Fed could have stopped, or at least most of them. Letting the financial system collapse is also a very, very bad thing to do, and it contributed very considerably to the collapse in the credit markets and, again, to the Great Depression. And for that reason I have taken the approach that we want to make sure that the financial markets are as stabilized as possible, that we don't have a financial collapse because we know what the consequences of that can be for the broad economy. But the third thing I learned was this - that the Federal Reserve in the 1930s was completely orthodox. It did things today we think are wrong, but it was doing it based on what at the time were the standard policies, the standard approaches. They didn't use anything unusual. And I think what I learned from that is that when you're in a situation like this, a perfect storm, sometimes you've got to do something a little bit outside the box, a little bit more aggressive. And so when the Federal Reserve got interest rates down to zero, we couldn't cut it anymore and so we had tried to address a lot of the other problems, like fixing the credit markets in the ways that you described. Now, your point is absolutely right, and someone else mentioned this before. We can't do that forever. Eventually the credit markets have got to go back completely into private hands, the private sector needs to be allocating credit. We are trying to support the markets now, in a period when I think the economy still needs help and when I don't think inflation is a near-term problem. But you're absolutely right that as the economy begins to show strength, then we're going to have to gradually unwind, pull out those special programs, and let the economy do what it's supposed to do, which is allocate credit to the best uses. JIM LEHRER: And, Manuel Abarca, you have a question? MANUEL ABARCA: My name is Manny Abarca and I'm a current student in the University of Central Missouri. My question is, as a student and future professional, what would you recommend to my generation to handle this current situation, financial crisis, and prevent future crises from happening? BEN BERNANKE: Well, I've some kids out of college and we've had some discussions about this. I think this affects you both on a personal basis and on a broad national-policy basis. Personally, I just want to say that we recognize that there are a lot of people graduating from college or graduate school right now and see a very tough job market right now, and we know that, and it's not your fault. And it's part of the reason that we're so aggressive trying to get this economy moving again. But I would urge you in looking for jobs to not give up, because the way the job market works is -- job markets just don't - jobs just don't disappear. What happens is that some jobs are created and others disappear. So, for example, right here in Kansas City, there've been some pretty significant layoffs, but then also in the last year there's been some pretty big hires as well - not enough to offset the layoffs, but still some hires. So the labor market is always churning. There's new jobs being created, other jobs being destroyed. You need to look. You need to see what you can find. And when you look, you need to be flexible and you need to say, maybe this isn't my ideal, long-term job, but it's a job that I can learn something from, I can get some work experience, and when this economy improves, which it will, then I'll have the background and the experience I need to get the job I really wanted. So let me just give you that bit of encouragement. On keeping this from happening again, you know, we've had financial crises since the 1300 and 1400s. They happen all the time. This is a particularly bad one. So I don't think we're ever going to completely eliminate financial crises, but there's a lot we can do to make sure that one this severe and this damaging doesn't occur again in the United States. And there I haven't had much chance to talk about it, but the Federal Reserve and the administration have made proposals about how to change our financial-regulatory system. And let me just mention two parts of it. One part is we need to have a more system-wide approach. Instead of just looking at a silo at each individual institution, each individual market, we need to have a council or a group of regulators that looks at the financial system as a whole and looks for gaps and problems that can cause trouble. So that's one important element. The other important element -- and let me just reiterate this again -- too big to fail has got to go, and to get rid of too big to fail, we need a way to let big companies fail safely. And to do that, we need a new kind of bankruptcy process that's similar to what the FDIC already has for banks that will allow the government to come in and to take a failing company and to unwind it, sell it off, let it fail, but do it in a way that doesn't bring the whole financial system down. And so those two things I think would be a tremendous help in both stopping future financial crises, but if one occurs making sure it doesn't have as negative and adverse effect on the economy as this one has. JIM LEHRER: Peter Cabell has a question about the stock market. PETER CABELL: Chairman Bernanke, my name is Pete Cabell and, as was mentioned, my question is about investing. JIM LEHRER: Give us a line about you, sir. PETER CABELL: A line about me? I'm currently working at a nonprofit. Over the last 10, 11, 12 years, the market has - U.S. market, stock market has not delivered a sustained positive return. As we all get closer to retirement, that's a big problem. Despite the decade-long -- bounce off a decade-long low, the market still has a lot further to go to make portfolios whole. So as we go forward, is there a good engine to invest in as an alternative to the stock market that would be reasonable to look at? BEN BERNANKE: So I can't practice financial advising without a license over here. (Laughter.) I think the answer to your question, and it would depend very much on your individual circumstances -- you're a young man, you're not about to retire -- is diversification. The stock market is very volatile. It's risky and we've seen how it's gone up and down twice now in the last 10 years, but over long periods of time it tends to do somewhat better than bonds, for example. And so generally speaking unless you're very close to retirement you probably ought to have some stocks and equities in your portfolio, but you can diversify through a whole range of different things, including bonds or CDs, including even perhaps commodities and other types of investments. So I guess I'd give you two pieces of advice. One is to diversify your investments that you have a lot of different things so that if one thing goes up maybe something else, you know, will go down and just balance out. The other thing I would suggest to you is don't try to time the market. You can't. You know, people - it's very, very difficult to do it and there may be a couple people in the world who can do it, but if they are, they're not telling you. So pick an allocation of assets and stick with it. And over a long period of time, as long as the economy is healthy -- and that's the key thing -- as long as the economy is growing, which I believe it will, I believe we have a very good long term future here in this country - then that asset mix will do OK. So that's about as far as I can go, otherwise I think I would get malpractice suits going on. (Laughter.) JIM LEHRER: A question for Alicia Falcone - from Alicia Falcone. ALICIA FALCONE: Mr. Bernanke, I am a marketing consultant here in Kansas City and my question for you is, you've had a chance to oversee the Fed during a historic time in our country's history. What keeps you up at night relative to being the Fed chairman and looking at our economy over the near- and medium-term? BEN BERNANKE: Well, first, let me say that the Fed Reserve does not equal the chairman. One of the things I wanted to do when I became chairman was to try to sort of depersonalize the Federal Reserve at some extent. The Federal Reserve is an outstanding organization. We have terrific staff, terrific presidents around the country, Reserve banks and governors, so it's not all on my shoulders. I know there's a lot of people there who are watching 24/7. We have people who worked 100 hour a week through the financial crisis, for week after week so it's not just me. You know, there's plenty of people there who are doing good work and I can sleep at night knowing that they're on the job. More generally, I worry about the same stuff that you would think I worry about. I worry about the economy and the financial markets. I worry about how we're going to deal with these credit issues, but I try to do it during the daytime because if I do it at night, I might not be thinking so straight during the day. So that's kind of where I am. JIM LEHRER: But there's no overriding concern that you have right now that of all the things you've done, you and your colleagues and the financial - Congress, the administration whatever, there's no overriding concern that you have every day or right now? BEN BERNANKE: Well, I continue to look at the financial markets. I think they've improved quite noticeably. JIM LEHRER: Is that a criterion for testing? BEN BERNANKE: That's a very important one, the financial markets, because after all this has been a financial crisis, it was the financial crisis that caused the global recession. I follow the economy extremely closely. JIM LEHRER: How do you follow it? What are the measurements? BEN BERNANKE: I get reports and data and survey materials and everything all through the day. My inbox is always full. JIM LEHRER: Like on what is - like what? Like on housing, on - BEN BERNANKE: On housing, on the job market, on industrial production, on what's happening in the financial market. One thing is people sometimes ask me, do you have like a single indicator or a single variable? The answer is no, because it's a big, complicated economy and it's kind of like the elephant in the Indian folktale where everybody sees a different part of it. In order to get - JIM LEHRER: I'm not sure I heard that. I don't know about it. BEN BERNANKE: Yes. It was an elephant and you had six blind people feeling the elephant. And one feels the tail and says, an elephant is like a rope. And another feels the trunk and says, it's like a tree, and so on and so on. And the only person who can see the whole elephant, obviously, is somebody who has been all around and looked at all the different parts of the elephant. So we've got an elephant of an economy. It's got lots of different parts. You've got to look at everything. There's not a single one variable or another that is critical, there are a lot that are very interesting and we pay a lot of attention for example, to unemployment insurance claims, which is a weekly indicator what the legal market is doing. Lot of other variables, but generally speaking, we them all together and try to get sort of a holistic picture out of all the data and information that we get, including information that comes from the Federal Reserve banks, because each of the Federal Reserve banks has got a board and advisory councils and the president of the Federal Reserve banks, when they come to Washington for federal open market committee monetary policy meetings, they bring anecdotes, information about what people are seeing, kind of like this meeting here. And that's very helpful because the data we get is backward looking. We're going to get data this week on the second quarter GDP. Well, the second quarter is over already. If we want to know what's going to happen in the third quarter and the fourth quarter, it helps to know what business people are saying, what bankers are saying and we get that information from all our Reserve banks around the country and so not just numbers, but also anecdotes, personal information can be very helpful in forecasting the economy. JIM LEHRER: So to answer Ms. Falcone's question then, once you put all that together on this particular Sunday night, you're going to sleep well? BEN BERNANKE: I'm pretty tired. (Laughter.) JIM LEHRER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. BEN BERNANKE: Thank you. JIM LEHRER: It was a pleasure. I want to thank all of you in the audience, all of you who participated with questions and all of you who participated as the audience. I want to thank our online viewers. We didn't get to too many of them, but we got to a few. And I also want to thank our local television host, public station KCPT, and then the Kansas City Consensus organization that helped select the folks who are here. And I also definitely want to thank the folks here at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. And that ends it. And from Kansas City, Mo., I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.

PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour presents a Town Hall Meeting with Federal Reserve Chairman Benjamin Bernanke. JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer from the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City, Mo., and I welcome you to this special PBS NewsHour forum: "On the Record with Bernanke" -- Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve. His role in matters financial and economic, most particularly in the immediate past and future, is paramount, and that is what he will be talking about tonight with a group of people from and around Kansas City. The nonpartisan organization Kansas City Consensus helped us identify and select them. Those who will ask questions are sitting there in the center section directly in front of Chairman Bernanke and me. They have been pre-interviewed by NewsHour staff members about what they have on their mind to ask the chairman. I also have a few questions that have been emailed to us at our Online NewsHour site. And we'll get some perspective-setting help from NewsHour economics correspondent Paul Solman. Mr. Chairman, welcome, sir. BEN BERNANKE, chairman, Federal Reserve: Thank you. JIM LEHRER: Underlying many of the questions that these folks have are questions that are basic about the Federal Reserve itself. For instance, I'd like for Gwen Bailey to stand up. Ms. Bailey, tell the chairman - get your mike, please. Tell the chairman what you told our producer when she talked to you about your questions for the chairman. GWEN BAILEY: My name is Gwen Bailey. I'm a social worker with Visiting Nurse Association. And my particular interest is exactly what is the Federal Reserve? I don't have a clue what they do, how they impact our lives, and that is why I was very interested to be selected to participate in this forum. BEN BERNANKE: Gwen, you've got a good place to start there. The Federal Reserve is an independent government agency also called the central bank. It was founded about 100 years ago. It was founded actually in the beginning to try to address financial crises. There had been a panic in 1907 and that started the process by which Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Reserve. So throughout our 100-year history, we have been very much involved in dealing with financial crises, trying to address situations just like we have now, when the financial markets are in disarray and they're affecting the economy. The Fed has some other important functions as well. The Fed makes monetary policy, and what that means is that we, including President Hoenig here from Kansas City, meet and set short-term interest rates. We set short-term interest rates in order to try to keep the economy on track. We have a mandate from the Congress to move interest rates up and down as needed to try to promote employment and to keep prices stable, keep inflation low. So monetary policy, moving interest rates around is very important. We have lots of other things we do as well. We work with other supervisors to try to make sure the banking system is stable. We've had a lot of work to do on that in the last couple of years. And many people don't know, we also do consumer protection. So if you look at your credit card bill, you'll see the periodic statement. The structure, the lines, and the way that's organized was determined by the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve sets a lot of the rules associated with how credit cards can be charged, the kinds of the penalties, fees and so on. So broadly speaking, financial stability, trying to keep the financial market stable; monetary policy, interest rates to move the economy into a higher pace or a lower pace; banking supervision; and consumer protection. And so a whole range of financial economic issues. JIM LEHRER: Thank you, Ms. Bailey. Just to follow up, Mr. Chairman, when you say independent agency, define independent. BEN BERNANKE: We are an agency of the government, but we're - within the government we need to have some independence from Congress and the administration, and the most important area is monetary policy. There's a lot of evidence that when politicians make monetary policy, you don't get good results. Politicians have a short-term horizon. When they want the central bank to print money to pay for the government deficit, either one of those things is going to create a lot of inflation. What we've learned over time, and there is a lot of evidence to support this, is that when the Central Bank is allowed to make monetary policy with the interest - the long-term interests of the economy in mind, without the interference of the administration or the Congress, you get much better results. You get low inflation and you get good growth. This has been seen all around the world. So we're very, very sensitive to this issue. We want to be very sure that when we make monetary policy that we're doing it in a non-partisan way, that we're going it based on what's good for the economy and that we're not being told what to do by the president or the Congress. JIM LEHRER: So when you get up in the morning, who do you go to work for? Who do you feel you're answerable to? BEN BERNANKE: I'm answerable to the American people. I was appointed by the president to a 14-year term as a governor but a four-year term as the chairman of the Fed, and I was approved - I was confirmed by the Senate. So I obviously go through a political process to be appointed, but again, the Federal Reserve governors, the Board of Governors, the seven people who are at the head of the Fed in Washington, are generally professionals, technical people, people who are not lifetime politicians, people who wanted to serve the country using their knowledge in one of these areas that I was talking about like banking or monetary policy. JIM LEHRER: When somebody says, oh, the Fed is the - essentially the fourth branch of government, how do you react to that? BEN BERNANKE: That's a tremendous exaggeration. As I said, the Fed needs independence in making monetary policy, and that's good for everybody because it helps keep inflation low. But we are very accountable. We have to report regularly and frequently to the Congress. I was - just this last week I had to testify - maybe you saw me on television - I had to testify before both the House and the Senate explaining our policies, what we're doing, and reporting to the Congress and the American people about our ideas, our decisions, and how they affect the economy. And again, we are subject to the appointment process, and Congress can change the rules as well. So it's not a constitutional type situation. It's one where our independence has to be won every day, if you will, in that we have to show that we are producing good results and doing so without intervention or interference from other political bodies. Understanding the Federal Reserve JIM LEHRER: OK. Got it. Now, to set the various stages for where we go from here, we a have a report by NewsHour economics correspondent Paul Solman. PAUL SOLMAN: In Missouri, with more Federal Reserve branches than any state in the country, Kansas City, with more fountains than any city outside Rome. Where better, we thought, to launch an explanation of the Fed's actions to supply liquidity so the economy can remain afloat. Economist Nick Perna. NICK PERNA: Just like that old metaphor about the Federal Reserve trying to steer a course between inflation and recession. I'm sure you did a segment 20 years ago with a couple of my great old professors from MIT. PAUL SOLMAN: Indeed, we did. Twenty years ago we went to sea with Nobel laureates Bob Solow and Franco Modigliani, who gave the image of Fed chairman as boat captain a classical twist. FRANCO MODIGLIANI: He reminds me of a famous passage in the Odyssey that describes Ulysses trying to negotiate a passage between the two rocks. PAUL SOLMAN: In Homer's epic poem "The Odyssey," one rock harbored six-headed Scylla. To the economic professors, Scylla symbolized the dangers of inflation which makes money worth less. Beneath the Odyssey's other rock, Charybdis, a ship-sucking whirlpool - to the economists, symbolic of the downward spiral of recession and unemployment. BOB SOLOW: A little bit of recession creates a little pressure for more recession. My business is bad, I buy fewer materials. I lay off workers. They can't spend incomes they don't have. PAUL SOLMAN: Thus the Fed's job - to steer a steady, sturdy middle course. No wonder the Fed is built to seem so Washington reassuring. DONALD KOHN, vice chairman, Federal Reserve: This is the boardroom where the Board of Governors meets. PAUL SOLMAN: Don Kohn is current vice chairman of the Fed. DONALD KOHN: This is also the room where the Federal Open Market Committee meets to discuss monetary policy. PAUL SOLMAN: And to make monetary policy, which is how the Fed steers, by deciding to draw money out of the economy if inflation threatens, pump money in, if - as now - recession is the monster. NICK PERNA: So when the Federal Open Market Committee makes policy decisions, it's the job of the desk at the market groups to actually go out and implement that. PAUL SOLMAN: The desk is at the stout New York Fed, famous for the five metric tons of gold - more than Fort Knox - tucked underground. 'Die Hard with a Vengeance' had to recreate the vault. Fourteen floors above the gold, Brian Sack runs the open market desk. BRIAN SACK, executive vice president, Federal Reserve Bank of New York: In open market operations the way we create money is by buying securities. PAUL SOLMAN: Amazingly, the Fed's usual job for almost a century is as simple as that. To add money to the economy the Fed buys U.S. government securities, on this date, $3 billion worth, and thereby creates new money - federal reserves. It's supplying, in Fed-speak, liquidity. BRIAN SACK: Financial firms will be giving us Treasury securities. In return, they'll be getting reserves or liquid assets that they can use for a variety of purposes. PAUL. SOLMAN: But they're not really anything. I mean they're just electronic entries somewhere on their books? BRIAN SACK: Right, right. Yeah. We don't send a truck out with $3 billion of bills. PAUL SOLMAN: But to financial firms, the reserves are like cash in the vault. The more reserves banks have, the more loans they can make, and in competing to make them the lower the interest rates they offer. The usual result, more money flows through the economy. Returning to the water metaphor, however, these were not usual times. That's because what everyone's been calling a perfect storm hit. The economy appeared to be going under. The Fed responded with what seemed like a radical laundry list. It pumped money into the system short term, lowering overnight interest rates dramatically; it loaned money longer term to financial firms in peril. Finally with Treasury, it gave money to fragile firms directly. Back in the watery city of fountains, economist Nick Perna. NICK PERNA: What they did was to provide financial liquidity, not the stuff we're standing in right now. They bought commercial paper, mortgage-backed securities. They bought preferred stock. They made direct loans. They injected hundreds of billions of dollars of funds, of liquidity, into the financial system. PAUL SOLMAN: So, 20 years after we first shot him explaining the Fed on Martha's Vineyard where he summers, we asked Bob Solow to return to his steering-the-course metaphor. And we're using this boat because we're not going out on the water in this kind of wind. Steering the course between inflation and recession. Fed drives interest rates down almost to zero and yet we're still headed into a whirlpool of recession. What happened? BOB SOLOW: Well, think of it this way. In normal winds the Fed can steer between inflation and recession by making small adjustments. But then a year or 18 months ago, there weren't normal winds. There was a perfect storm, a really dangerous blow, and a boat like this can't make headway against that. It'll get knocked down. So the Fed had to try something dramatically different, way outside of normal procedures, and it did. Building a new framework JIM LEHRER: Mr. Chairman, first, do you agree with the perfect storm analogy? BEN BERNANKE: A lot of things happened. A lot of things came together. It created I think probably the worst financial crisis certainly since the Great Depression, and possibly even including the Great Depression, so yes, I agree. JIM LEHRER: What were your worst moments, for you personally? BEN BERNANKE: Oh, the worst moments were back in September. The financial crisis began with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the large housing companies that were taken over by the government, and subsequent to that a number of very large financial firms came under enormous pressure. One of them, Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, failed. Others came close to failure, needed government support, not just in the United States, but around the world. And those were some very long nights I spent on the sofa in my office as we worked to try to keep the financial system running. JIM LEHRER: Let's go to a question here from Janelle Sjue about this very thing, the storm and what Chairman Bernanke and others at the Fed were doing. JANELLE SJUE: Hi, I'm Janelle Sjue, a Kansas City mother. I guess I have a couple short questions. First of all, we've given millions - hundreds of millions of dollars of tax money to these large corporations, these behemoths. Is that going to be enough to correct the situation? And secondly, you know, I'll use the analogy of nature. When a prairie fire burns through, it takes out all the big overgrowth and allows all the small stuff to pop up. Why don't we just let the behemoths lay down and then make room for the small businesses? Thank you. BEN BERNANKE: That's a great question. The problem we have is that in a financial crisis if you let the big firms collapse in a disorderly way, they'll bring down the whole system. When Lehman Brothers failed, the financial markets went into anaphylactic shock basically, and it was that shock to the financial system that led the global recession that began last fall, which is probably the worst one since World War II. So it wasn't to help the big firms that we intervened. It was to stabilize the financial system and protect the entire global economy. Now, you might ask, you know, what's the deal? Why are we doing that? It's a terrible problem. It's a problem called a too-big-to-fail problem. These companies have turned out to be too big to allow to collapse because, again, if they collapse the - when the elephant falls down, all the grass gets crushed as well. We really need - and this is critically important - we really need a new regulatory framework that will make sure that we do not have this problem in the future. And the present administration has proposed a system that would include - let me just mention two items. First, that the Federal Reserve would oversee all these major big firms that are, quote, "too big to fail," and would put extra tough requirements on their capital and their activities, what they can do, the risks they can take. That would be the first part. But the second part is very important. We would modify the bankruptcy code. The problem now is that the bankruptcy code is such that when one of these firms fails, it's a disorderly mess. What we need is a system where the government can say, this firm is about to fail, we can't let it just fail, but we've got to - we don't want - also we don't want to prop it up either. We need an alternative between bailout and bankruptcy, and that alternative is a system where the government can come in and seize the firm and then unwind it in an orderly way, sell off the assets, and do that in a way that does not cause chaos in the financial markets. We have a system like that already. Right now the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, whenever a small bank or medium-sized bank is about to fail, it can come in before it fails, grab it, sell off assets, pay off the depositors, and this all happens without causing a huge problem in the financial market. That's what we need. And I agree with everyone here, too big to fail is a terrible situation. We've got to fix that. And I think that's the top priority for policy going forward. JIM LEHRER: Bill Black here, staying on the storm question, has a short question on this. Bill Black. BILL BLACK: Bill Black, professor of economics, law, criminology and former financial regulator, UMKC. If this is a terrible situation and creates this kind of moral hazard, all theory says we need to remove the officers who put us in the situation. When will the Fed begin to remove those officers? BEN BERNANKE: Well, when we've gotten into situations where companies were actually failing and had to be supported, first, I should say that this was not a Fed operation. The Fed and the Treasury have worked closely together, so it's been a broader - and the FDIC has participated as well. In those cases where companies were prevented from failing, the shareholders typically lost virtually all their money and we did replace the officers. Take, for example, AIG. The AIG CEO was fired. The shareholders lost all their money. Bear Stearns. Bear Stearns' shareholders lost all their money and the company was taken over by another company. So, you know, in most cases we have replaced the leadership and we have made sure the shareholders have lost the greatest part of the value. JIM LEHRER: Got an e-mail, Mr. Chairman. This is from is Carl Deninger in Knoxville, Florida. The question is, "Since this crisis began with people unable to pay their bills and continues to be marked by this problem, how does expanding credit solve the problem? Isn't that going to be like giving a drunk a bottle of whiskey and calling him cured"? BEN BERNANKE: Well, we have a case here of overreaction. It's true to some extent that this crisis was caused by too much credit, credit that was too risky, too easy. That's all true. But the financial crisis has caused a huge reaction in the other direction. And if you're - if you have a small business and you've tried to get a loan, you know that credit is very, very tight right now. We need to have sort of a middle course between credit that is excessively risky, excessively easy, and credit which is so tight that legitimate borrowers can't get credit. The Federal Reserve has been working hard on this in a lot of ways. First, we've cut interest rates all the way to zero, the short-term interest rate, the one that we control. We've then worked with banks to try to increase their lending. And we have a whole set of programs. Let me just talk about one. We have a program that lends to investors who want to purchase consumer or small business loans from banks, and that puts more money into the system. And what we've found is that this program has brought down auto loan interest rates. We've helped finance 1.6 million auto loans. It's helped a lot in small business loans. We've financed about 600,000 small business loans. And so we have actually intervened in the market to try and get the credit markets working again. So we had too much credit. It was too risky. It was too excessive. Now we've got to bring things back to sort of a nice middle ground. JIM LEHRER: Jonathan Kempner, question. JONATHAN KEMPER: I'm Jonathan Kemper. I'm a fifth generation community banker here in Kansas City. My question is, you reacted to a perfect storm going in, but I think the judge is going to be how you come out of it. As you talk about these new programs, all these special programs, are they going to be part of the normal course of business for the Fed going forward? BEN BERNANKE: No, they won't. That's a good question. We have some programs we've had for a while, which are - as you would know, are short-term lending programs to banks when they need liquidity for short-term periods. And that's been around since the beginning of the Fed, and that would continue. But all the other programs, the special programs we put together to help in the commercial paper market, to help in the consumer loan market, to help in the mortgage market, all of those will eventually be unwound and be taken away as the normal market processes begin to function again. We need to do that because we want to make sure, first, that markets go back to normal, that credit is allocated through the market process, and secondly, because at some point when the economy begins to recover we want to make sure that we don't overstimulate the economy into an inflation. And so for both of those reasons we're going to have unwind essentially all of the programs that are being put out. JIM LEHRER: Dave Huston, you have a question in the same area? DAVID HUSTON: Hi. Welcome to Kansas City. JIM LEHRER: Thank you. DAVID HUSTON: My name is David Huston. I'm a third generation small business owner with offices here in Shawnee, Kansas, a suburb of Kansas City, Des Moines and Omaha. My question is partly a statement but also a question. I said I'm very, very frustrated during the past year when I see billions and billions of dollars sent to large financial institutions, and it's what we were alluding to before. I'm especially upset when I hear the phrase, and you used this, quote, "that company is too big to fail." As a small business person, that's very hard to swallow. I feel like a more accurate statement of policy would be too big to fail, too small to save. My business and thousands of others fall into that too small to save category. Small businesses employ more people than the Fortune 500 companies combined. Small businesses represent the blood - the lifeblood of small business - small cities, large cities and our American economy. Innovation and creativity is coming from small businesses. But I truly believe small business and the companies that support - JIM LEHRER: Question. Question. DAVID HUSTON: - small business are getting shortchanged by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department and Congress. Am I wrong on that perception? BEN BERNANKE: Great question. Tough question, but a great question. Let me go first back to too big to fail, and let me just emphasize that nothing made me more frustrated, more angry, than having to intervene, particularly in a couple of cases where taking wild bets had forced these companies close to bankruptcy. There's nothing that made me angrier than having to do that. Why did we do it? Because if that company had collapsed in the middle of a crisis it could have brought everything down. In 1929 - people think the Depression was created by the stock market crash. It wasn't. From 1929 to 1931, it was a normal recession. Then in 1931 a huge bank in the middle of central Europe collapsed and that created a global financial crisis which then made the recession into a Great Depression. I was not going to be the Federal Reserve chairman who presided over the second Great Depression, and for that reason, I had to hold my nose and stop those firms from failing. I am as disgusted about it as you are, and I think it's absolutely critical as we go forward that we put in a new system that will make sure that when a firm does not succeed in the marketplace, that it fails. That is absolutely critical and I support that 100 percent. Now, on small business, I also agree with you. Small business is where the jobs come from, it's where the innovation comes from, it's where the creativity and entrepreneurship in America comes from. Every big company was once a small company, and so we really have to preserve and protect and strengthen small business, and I'm fully aware of those issues. We hear all the time about the credit issues for small business. We're doing what we can. As I mentioned, our program to get small business loans out. We're working with the banks, encouraging them to make loans. I understand your frustration. I absolutely understand your frustration, and we're working really hard to try to make it better. JIM LEHRER: Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure you know, there were competing pieces in the Sunday New York Times op-ed section on the question of whether you deserve another term as chairman, and the negative part was written by - piece was written by Anna Jacobson Schwartz. She's an economist from the National Bureau of Economic Research. I'm aware that you know her. But let me just read you what she said, which relates to this particular question that we're talking about here as the storm and how the Fed reacted. Quote, "The Fed delivered plenty of rhetoric about the importance of transparency, yet failed to articulate its own goals. The market was thus bewildered when the Fed rescued certain firms and not others. Mr. Bernanke should have explained the principles behind these decisions. The market could not understand why the Fed rescued Bear Stearns and then permitted Lehman Brothers to die. As a consequence, there was volatility in the credit and equity markets and a general sense of turmoil that demonstrated that participants were at a loss to understand the functioning of the Fed." Your comment, sir? BEN BERNANKE: My comment is that we tried to save all these big companies because we knew the implications. We tried to save Lehman Brothers. The problem, as I was discussing before is that we don't have a system, we don't have a structure. All these problems that she was alluding to occurred before even the Congress passed this TARP legislation that created the $700 billion to support failing companies. So we didn't have any tools. In the case of Bear Stearns and in the case of AIG, by using the Fed's lending authority and other devices we jerry-rigged up a way of preventing the failure of those firms. In the case of Lehman Brothers, there was just a huge $40, $50 billion hole that we had no way to fill and no money, no authorization, no way to do it, so we had to let it fail. We had no choice. So I don't regret - I regret that it happened because it created a huge amount of difficulty. And in fact, it just confirms what I've been saying - that if you allow a big financial firm to collapse in the middle of a financial crisis, the consequences for the average person, for the global economy, are severe. What Ms. Schwartz wanted us to do was to state in advance what our strategy was for saving firms. We had no idea which firm was going to fail and we didn't have a system, we didn't have a structure. And what I'm saying is going forward we need to have what we now have for banks, but don't have for other kinds of financial firms. We need to have a law, a set of laws, that allows the government to come in and systematically and in a transparent way wind down a failing financial behemoth, to use the word that was used before, so that it doesn't create damage throughout the system. So her premise is that we made a conscious decision to let Lehman fail. We did not. We made - we spent the entire weekend with - basically 24 hours a day, trying to do everything we could to save that company, not again because we thought it was deserving, but because we knew what the implications were going to be. We didn't have the tools to do it. The other companies that were thinking about buying it decided not to buy it, and so we had no choice. JIM LEHRER: All right. Let's move on now to the recovery. And the first question to James Thomas. To the recovery itself now. To the present. JAMES THOMAS: James Thomas, recent economic graduate from UMKC. With the first phase of the stimulus bill in effect now - in my opinion, failed - what do you think worked and didn't work? BEN BERNANKE: Well, I would say that it might be a little bit early to make that judgment. First of all, let me say one other thing, which is the stimulus package is the administration and Congress. The Federal Reserve's got nothing to do with it. I mean that's - you know, it's a different part of the government. But having said that, I think we have to wait a bit longer. The stimulus package is a big $787 billion package, but something like a quarter of that is getting spent this year and not even all of that is actually going into the system this year. So most of the money that's in that package is in 2010. So it may or may not succeed, but I think we've got to give it a bit more time. JIM LEHRER: Bob Litan, you have a similar question, a follow-up question on that, I think. BOB LITAN: Well, I guess I do. I'm Bob Litan from the Kauffman Foundation. It's widely known among economists that the employment situation lags the general economy, that you really need the economy to grow at something like 2.5 percent a year in order to absorb the new workers and also to absorb productivity. So that means unemployment's going to continue rising even as the economy starts to recover. Can you give us any idea of when unemployment's going to peak out and then at what level? BEN BERNANKE: Well, nobody really knows for sure, of course. Economic forecasting makes weather forecasting look like physics. But you're absolutely right. It takes about 2.5 percent growth to absorb new workers, keep the unemployment rate about constant. Right now we're seeing growth in the second half of the year, but our best guess, and it's only a guess, is that growth in the second half of the year will be about 1 percent on an annual basis. So that's not enough to bring down the unemployment rate. So our projections - the Federal Reserve - the members of the Federal Open Market Committee, which is the committee that sets monetary policy, puts out forecasts or projections four times a year which are publicly available, and our projections suggest that the unemployment rate will probably keep rising, probably a bit above 10 percent, it'll peak early in 2010, and then begin gradually to come down. We could be wrong. It could be a stronger recovery than that. But you're absolutely right, that even after the economy starts to grow again, and we're hoping to see that in the next third and fourth quarters, it'll be a while before the labor market, the job market, is back to where we want it to be. JIM LEHRER: Sue Drakeford has a question that's also related to that. SUE DRAKEFORD: Hello. My name is Sue Drakeford. I'm a banker at Hillcrest Bank and a board member with the Asian American Chamber of Commerce. When is this going to end? That's my question. BEN BERNANKE: That's a great question also. Well, there's a healing process that has to take place. We've made a lot of progress. As I said, last September and October we were in the middle of the worst financial crisis at least since the Great Depression. We've seen a good bit of progress in the financial markets. Banks have largely stabilized. The stock market, you know, is up a good bit in the last few months. Credit markets are beginning to open up again. So we're seeing progress in the financial markets, which is very encouraging and suggests that we are going to start seeing some growth in the economy. We're going to expect to see growth in the economy in the second part of this year, then beginning to pick up in 2010, but as the previous questioner indicated, it probably will be longer than that before unemployment comes down to a level that we find acceptable. So the Federal Reserve has been - I'll be very clear. The Federal Reserve has been putting the pedal to the metal. We have the interest rate as low as it can go. We are putting everything we can into strengthening credit markets. We are buying up mortgage securities to bring mortgage rates down and get people into houses. So we're doing everything we can to support the economy, and we hope that that's going to, you know, get us going next year sometime. Now, I want to say one other thing, which is that recessions happen. They typically last one to two years. They're unpleasant. Financial crises can make them worse, and that's what we're seeing today. But I have tremendous confidence in this economy and in the American people. I think Americans are very hardworking. They're innovated and creative and they're very ambitious. And we have a market system that under normal circumstances rewards those valuable traits. On top of all of that, one of the small silver linings of all this is that people are starting to save more because they've seen what happened to their 401(k)s and to their credit positions. So I have a lot of confidence that within, you know, a few years, that we will be not only back on track, but that we will be growing strongly again. I think this economy cannot be kept down. We will try to get through this process. It's going to take some patience. But I think in the longer term this economy will go back to what it has been, which is the most successful economy in the world. JIM LEHRER: You have a follow-up to that, to what the chairman just said? SUE DRAKEFORD: I do. Actually, in specific terms of TARP. A couple of banks, you know, have received TARP. And I want to know from you, how effective do you feel like the TARP program was and is there future plans to bring another similar program like TARP? BEN BERNANKE: So the TARP stands for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. This was the $700 billion that the Congress approved for financial stabilization last October. It has been used for a whole bunch of different things. It was used initially to help stabilize the system, and that was critical, and it did help there. And it prevented some of the failures that we couldn't prevent before the TARP became available. It's also been used to give capital to healthy banks. And the evidence there I think is that it has helped them make more loans. The inspector general for the TARP has put out a report, which says that 80 percent of the banks who got the TARP money have used it to make more loans in communities around the country. So I hope that's helping, although obviously we still have a very tight credit situation. But the TARP is now being used for a whole bunch of other things, and these things are really outside the scope of the Federal Reserve. It's been used in the automobile rescue, the GM and Chrysler rescue. It's been used in some foreclosure mitigation programs which are valuable programs that are obviously different from banks. So a lot of the $700 billion is going to other purposes. And I would finally say that a number of banks have paid back the TARP. And remember, the TARP was supposed to be an investment. And just recently, ten large banks repaid the taxpayer $70 billion with dividends and interest so that, you know, the money came back. And not all the money will come back, but a lot of it will come back and, you know, I think that will be a good thing. I don't expect to see another TARP program because, again, at this point the money is not being used primarily for financial stabilization but for a variety of other purposes. JIM LEHRER: Amar Singh, you have a question about inflation, which of course is related to the recovery that's going on now. AMAR SINGH: Yes. I'm Amar Singh and I'm a small IT company specializing in business intelligence. My question relates to the market policy in terms of the mounting national debt, how you're going to protect the U.S. dollar against other major currencies so that depreciating dollar does not cause the inflation just when you need to keep the interest rate low. BEN BERNANKE: So the question is about debt and about the dollar, monetary policy? AMAR SINGH: The national - mounting national debt will probably cause the U.S. dollar to become weaker versus other major currencies. So what are you going to do to protect the dollar so that all of a sudden all the imports we consume don't become too expensive - the inflation? BEN BERNANKE: So different parts of the government have different responsibilities here. The federal debt, as I'm sure you know, the deficit this year is almost $2 trillion, the largest deficit probably since World War II. Next year it'll still be over a trillion. So these are enormous deficits that are adding to the national debt. Of course this is a responsibility of the administration and Congress, not - the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with the federal debt. But I think that, you know, as we look at that, we see - I think it's important to say that even though I don't think we could have avoided having a big deficit this year or next year given the weakness of the economy, given the financial problems and so on, it is very, very important for the Congress and administration to develop a plan and say here is how we're going to get back to fiscal sanity. Here is how we're going to bring down the deficit over time so that it gets to a low enough level that debt no longer keeps mushrooming the way it has been. So that part is the responsibility of the Congress and the administration. A very important part of that, by the way, is healthcare because a big part of the government spending is healthcare related. So that's very important. As far as the Fed and the dollar is concerned, the Fed supports the Treasury's strong dollar policy. We think the dollar should be strong. And the way we think - the best way we think to get a strong dollar is to have a strong economy. When the economy is strong, then there's a lot of good investment opportunities. Foreigners want to invest here, and that causes the dollar to rise. So our whole strategy right now is to get the economy out of the doldrums and back into a growth path that will attract foreign funds and will get the dollar and keep it strong. So that's our strategy, a strong economy for a strong dollar. JIM LEHRER: Barbara Stillman, you also have an inflation question. BARBARA STILLMAN: I'm Barbara Stillman and I've been retired for a number of years. I wonder what indicators you are considering in determining whether inflation is going to become a concern. BEN BERNANKE: We look at - the question is how do we tell what inflation's going to do. Well, first of all, we look at a lot of indicators. We look at commodity prices and - including energy prices, for example. We also look at the amount of slack in the economy. Right now with 9.5 percent unemployment and with markets as weak as they are, that is, the product markets, it's very hard for firms to raise their prices and for workers to raise their - ask for higher wages. And in fact, we're seeing prices and wages being very, very moderate. So our anticipation is that given the softness of the global economy, that except possibly for some fluctuations in energy prices, we expect for the next couple of years that inflation will be quite low. Now, coming out of this episode, as I've mentioned, the Federal Reserve has brought interest rates down close to zero. We have put a lot of money into the economy through our lending program. So we've had a lot of stimulus, which we're trying to use to make the economy grow. Once the economy starts to grow and begins to move ahead, then it will be very important for the Fed to unwind, raise interest rates, bring that credit back, bring the money back, so that we don't have an inflation problem down the road. We are very confident that we have all the tools we need to take those steps at the appropriate time so that we don't make the mistake of having inflation ultimately. But just like in the film, it's like between Scylla and Charybdis you've got to navigate between inflation, deflation, recession and too rapid expansion. And, you know, we have our tools. We're going to be watching very carefully to try to make sure that inflation stays low. JIM LEHRER: Now, Jared Campbell, you heard what the chairman said about the stimulus connection. But you have a concern about the stimulus. You have a question for the chairman about that. JARED CAMPBELL: I do. Good evening. My name is Jared Campbell. I was laid off at the end of last year. I'm happy to report that I've started working full-time last month. In regards to the stimulus, my question is: Has enough money been released this year for the impact to be what it needs to be to get the economy started again? BEN BERNANKE: Well, first, I'm glad you found work again. That's good to know. The Congress and administration, again, who put together the stimulus package, made a number of decisions which had to do with how quickly the money was going to get out versus other criteria. So for example, there's - there were a number of tax-rebate elements in that bill, and that money goes out really quickly and then people spend it over a few quarters, so that was pretty quick. But there were other parts of the stimulus, infrastructure construction, for example, building highways, that kind of thing takes longer and so if you're going to have that in your program it takes longer to get out into the economy. So Congress and the administration made the decision that they wanted to have a mixture of different kinds of elements in their stimulus program. They wanted to have some things like infrastructure that they knew were going to take some time to get out. And so the outcome and again, this was the decision that Congress made the outcome was a situation where about a quarter of all the stimulus goes out this year and about a half goes out next year. Now, given that the unemployment rate is still likely to be reasonably high next year, unfortunately, I think having that stimulus next year will actually be helpful and will create some more jobs. So those were the decisions that Congress made. We'll have to see how effective that program is. Consequences of foreclosures JIM LEHRER: Jack Craft has a question about foreclosures. JACK CRAFT: Given the significance of how - JIM LEHRER: Name and - JACK CRAFT: I'm Jack Craft. I'm a practicing lawyer in Kansas City. Given the significance of the housing crisis, is there any way for the Fed to involve itself in incentives for either the homeowners or the servicers of mortgage to prevent a deterioration of prices merely because of the foreclosures themselves? BEN BERNANKE: Foreclosures are a very big issue. We've put a lot of attention on that issue. Foreclosures are bad not only for the borrower, for the homeowner, but they're also bad for the community: When you have a lot of foreclosures in a neighborhood that brings down property values for others. It brings down tax collections for the town. As you pointed out in your question, lots of foreclosures, putting a lot of empty houses on the market, is also bringing down house prices, which is again hurting homeowners across the country. So there are a lot of bad effects of foreclosures over and above the problems that borrowers have. Now, at this point there are a number of different approaches to dealing with foreclosures and their consequences. The government -- not the Fed specifically -- but the administration and the Congress now have two anti-foreclosure programs. One is called Making Homes Affordable, which gives subsidies to servicers -- reduced interest rates -- to let them help people stay in their homes. The other one's called Help for Homeowners - or Hope for Homeowners, and that - what that does is bring down the principal balance on mortgages so that people aren't underwater having a principal balance that's greater than the value of their house. The Federal Reserve was very involved in developing those programs, and we have -- our economists helped to develop them. And in addition, we are encouraging very strongly the banks that we supervise to ramp up their staffs so they can take advantage of those programs and help reduce foreclosures. I would say also that the Kansas City Federal Reserve bank and the whole Federal Reserve System is very much involved in community activities, community work. The Federal Reserve Banks are working closely with NeighborWorks, which is a nonprofit, to help preserve communities and neighborhoods and stabilize them even though there may be a lot of foreclosures. So how do you do that, prevent the foreclosures from causing a lot of problems in a neighborhood or in a city. So we address things in a lot of different ways. Unfortunately, the foreclosure problem is still very large. We expect about 2.8 million Americans to receive foreclosure notices this year. We hope less next year. But it's one of the key things to getting the housing market to stabilize and getting our economy back on track. JIM LEHRER: Jason Wood has a related question. JASON WOOD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jason Wood. I work with United Way around our two-in-one system in getting homeowners to access housing counselors. I guess my question is more in light of the report from the Federal Reserve Bank in Boston in regards to some of the monies that have been released to help homeowners and more importantly, the money that's been given to servicers. The report stated that the money maybe would have been better used if it had been given to the actual homeowners rather than the servicers. I'd like to get your commentary and what your thoughts are in regards to that. BEN BERNANKE: Yes. First let me say that I'm glad to see you're doing counseling work. We found that having a counselor helps the borrower work with the bank, raises the probability of success quite considerably, so keep up the good work. The report you're referring to was a research paper done by some Federal Reserve economists. It doesn't represent an official position of the Federal Reserve. It's just a research paper. But it addresses the fact that we don't have much experience with dealing with a foreclosure wave like this, and we don't really know necessarily what the best way is to address it. And their proposal is, instead of trying to restructure the mortgage, instead help the homeowner for the short period of time that he or she needs help: if you've lost your job, if you're sick. Maybe you just need help for a few months and then maybe that you could go back to paying your regular mortgage. So that's the proposal they made. That's not the approach the government has taken. The government has taken, as I just described, a restructuring approach, bringing down the payment or bringing down the principal. We're just going to have to see which ones of these programs work and what kinds of modifications we have to make going forward. JIM LEHRER: Speaking of going forward, you've already touched on a lot of this already, some of the things that are in the works or are being debated about how we move from here to there, some reorganization, new legislation, et cetera. And let's start first with Elma Warrick because it relates exactly to what we've been just talking about in terms of foreclosures and housing. ELMA WARRICK: Good afternoon, Chairman Bernanke. I'm Elma Warrick. I'm the executive director for Home for USA, which is a housing counseling organization HUD-approved. You know, I've heard your responses and I think they're wonderfully clear and lucid. But my question has to do with how do we, having been through this in the midst of this perfect storm, how do we protect the consumers going forward? Because frankly, the heart of the mission of the Federal Reserve was to protect the consumer. And we find, unfortunately, in this foreclosure tsunami that the consumer has become the predator rather than the fact that they were preyed on. So what will we do going forward, Chairman, to protect the consumer and make sure the consumer is served as they ought to be? BEN BERNANKE: Good question. As I mentioned earlier, the Federal Reserve's -- one of the Federal Reserve's functions is consumer protection. And we have addressed a number of issues in mortgage area, credit card areas, a bunch of other areas. As I've said before, we were late in addressing the subprime lending problem. There were a lot of loans made that were done without documentation, for example, that were done without clarity about prepayment penalties, that were done without clarity about escrow accounts. The Federal Reserve a few years ago addressed those issues and we put together a set of rules which now apply to all lenders, not just banks but all lenders, that will, I hope, solve those problems going forward. But they weren't in place early enough, and that is a -- I think we have to take some heat for that, and I think that's appropriate. But going forward, we have set some rules. The administration, of course, as you may know, has yet a more ambitious plan. They want to create a separate consumer financial protection agency that will have its only mission protecting consumers. So whether the Federal Reserve does it or another agency does it, I hope that we'll learn some lessons from this episode and make sure the consumers can make good choices but that the choices they have are clear, transparent, so that they can shop and not be fooled or deceived in terms of the kinds of financial products that they use. ELMA WARRRICK: Thank you. JIM LEHRER: Erica Shackelford has a related question. ERICA SHACKELFORD: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Erica Shackelford. I'm affiliated with the Urban League of Greater Kansas City and I'm also a full-time student. Thinking about the mortgage crisis, predatory lenders allowed people to get themselves into loans that they could not afford. What does the Federal Reserve plan to do to educate the public in the future so that this type of crisis does not reoccur? And also, would you support a mandatory education component as part of the mortgage-lending process? BEN BERNANKE: Well, you know, first, as I mentioned, we have done the regulations, but we also are very much in favor of financial education, financial literacy. The Federal Reserve, including the Kansas City Federal Reserve, have numerous financial literacy programs. We provide - on our Web sites we provide courses. We work with all kinds of groups that provide financial training. I think it's very, very important that people have that kind of experience now because everybody has to deal with complicated financial products in their everyday life. So I'd like to see more financial-literacy courses in schools. Our experience is -- and we have a number of people here who are counselors -- our experience is that the most effective time to teach people about financial products is when they're thinking about buying. If you're thinking about buying a house, that's the time people listen real carefully when you explain mortgages to them. In high school, we see less-effective results. But financial literacy, economic education, it's a big mission of the Federal Reserve. You mentioned predatory lending. We've also gotten to public education. We put out, for example, a public service announcement that's playing in movie houses. I don't know if you saw it or not. But there are a lot of scams out there now. There are people who are taking advantage of people who are afraid of losing their homes. And it's very important that if you are afraid of losing your home, if you have gotten a foreclosure notice and you're working with a bank, it's very careful - it's very important to be sure that if you have been approached by some counselor or someone who says they're going to help you to make sure they're legitimate because there are scams out there, and we have been working on those and trying to keep people alert to those. JIM LEHRER: But you used the word mandatory. You asked the chairman whether it should be mandatory to be counseled in a financial - in a homing - home owning - home buying situation, correct? ERICA SHACKELFORD: That's correct. The question was, would you support mandatory education - a mandatory education component as a part of the mortgage lending process going forward? BEN BERNANKE: I'd be open to that. I think a lot of people could use that. JIM LEHRER: In other words, somebody would sign something that they have to know - BEN BERNANKE: That they've had some - JIM LEHRER: - they had to know the rules - BEN BERNANKE: Yeah. JIM LEHRER: - before they - BEN BERNANKE: Yeah. That's not a Federal Reserve-specific issue in the sense of our authority, but I think it's worth looking at. ERICA SHACKELFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. JIM LEHRER: Rob Givens, you have a question on the consumer-protection issue that has come into public - ROB GIVENS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rob Givens, president of Mazuma Credit Union here in - locally. A lot of financial institutions have been under compliance and regulatory control for a long time. There's some concern that creating a new federal agency separating some of those responsibilities and then adding perhaps some additional responsibilities from the Fed for consumer regulation would in fact put an additional burden on small institutions which would then cause them to fail and leave more too-big-to-fail people out there. What's your sense of how that - that new agency and where it's funded and - I mean there's a lot of issues with that, and how that plays with the Fed's responsibility. BEN BERNANKE: Right. So this is the proposal by the administration to create a consumer financial-protection agency. And, you know, I can understand the motivation for creating such an agency. It would be an agency that would be focused on consumer issues. But there are some drawbacks, and you mentioned one, which is that if the consumer protection agency has its own examination force, its own going out - examiners going out to banks and then the banks will have to see both the safety and soundness examiners from the Fed or from the office of the comptroller of the currency as well as the consumer-protection agency's examiner. So there would be a duplication of effort to some extent. And some of the knowledge and information that one group gathers would not necessarily go to the other group. Another possibility which has been discussed would be to leave the examination authorities with the banking agencies themselves where they are now, and just move the rule-writing authority to the consumer-protection agency, which is another possibility. That also has some issues, because then the rule-writers would not be together with the examiners. They wouldn't get the feedback, they wouldn't get the knowledge that the examiners get every day on the ground, in banks. So it's a tough issue, and I know Congress is going to be wrestling this for some time. JIM LEHRER: But you're opposed to it, right? BEN BERNANKE: I'm neither opposed to it or in favor of it. I just want to make the point - I think there's an important point to be made, which is I acknowledge that the Fed was late on subprime lending regulations. I acknowledge that. But for the last two-and-a-half, three years, the Fed has been very, very active in mortgage areas, in credit cards, in student loans, in all kinds of areas, and we've been very effective. And so I'm just saying that we've done a good job and we're an alternative if this agency doesn't work out. But again, I understand why people would say you need an agency that's focused on this area. JIM LEHRER: I've got an online question from Robert Dietrich in Towson, Md. "What do you see is the most significant current or potential threat to the Federal Reserve's independence?" BEN BERNANKE: Well, again, the independence of the Fed is extraordinarily important. If the Congress or the administration were to begin to interfere with our monetary policy decisions, then the markets would say, "Wait a minute, if there's going to be more inflation because of political reasons, more inflation because the government wants to the Fed to spend money in order to pay for the deficit." So it's incredibly important that the Fed maintain its independence. I think we will. I think we need just to be very vigilant and make sure that there isn't any bill or any other effort made by anyone to take away that independence. And we're going to do our best to maintain it because it is so critical for the stability of our economy. JIM LEHRER: As you know, there's an effort in Congress now, in the House in particular, to audit what the Federal Reserve does, particularly a monetary policy. How do you feel about that? BEN BERNANKE: So that bill - people don't fully understand what that bill is about. It sounds like audit the Fed, it sounds like let's look at the books. It's not what it sounds like. The Congress already looks at our books. We have many different layers of auditors. The GAO, the General Accountability Office, which is supposed to be doing this audit, already looks at virtually all of our activities, and the ones it doesn't - our financial books and our financial loans and so on, and the ones it's not looking at and where the taxpayer needs some assurance is we're willing to work with Congress to make sure that the GAO gets the information it needs. What people don't understand is that this bill would give the GAO the authority to audit monetary policy. And what does that mean? That means that if the Federal Reserve decided a year from now that because of incipient inflation it was time to raise interest rates, that the Congress would say, "Oh, the GAO's going to audit that decision. It's going to subpoena your materials. It's going to demand information from the members of the FOMC. It's going to evaluate your decision and report to Congress." I don't think that's consistent with independence. So we are completely open to providing any information that Congress wants to make sure we're using taxpayer money safely and soundly, that we are meeting all our responsibilities. I don't think the American people want Congress running monetary policy, and I think that's very, very critical for people to understand. JIM LEHRER: And do you think that's what -- would end up doing? BEN BERNANKE: Exactly. That's what it would do. There's a provision in that law which currently, current law, which carves out monetary policy, and it doesn't give Congress authority or GAO authority to audit it. That was put in in 1978, at a time when we had a lot of inflation, as you may remember. After that, the Fed became more independent, brought inflation down. But now that's exactly what it would do. If that carve-out is eliminated, the Congress would have the authority anytime to ask the GAO to come in and audit and look at and evaluate the monetary policy decisions made by the Fed. That's not consistent with independence. Lessons of the Great Depression JIM LEHRER: Crosby Kemper has a question about regulating. CROSBY KEMPER: Crosby Kemper, Mr. Chairman. I've also been a banker in Kansas City and now I'm a librarian. As a banker, I can tell you that the two banks who are represented here, my cousin and I, are two of the solvent banks left in the country. So welcome to Kansas City. You can relax. (Laughter.) And - but I'm also a librarian today. I'm the director of the Kansas City Public Library and an amateur historian. And I've read your book, "Essays on the Great Depression." Wonderful book. And you talk about two causes of the Great Depression. One is the failure to the Federal Reserve to provide an adequate monetary policy. It tightened too much during the days after the stock market crash. And you talked about the non-monetary problems, part of which was the failure, despite great liquidity of the banking system, to respond to the problems of production and unemployment. And I wonder if there isn't a similar problem going on today in regulation where you're going exactly the other direction, with too much monetary policy; I mean, too much money creation in your monetary policy, in an attempt to intervene to control prices through the mortgage programs and other things, if we aren't getting to the stage on the opposite end of too much regulation, too much government intervention, just at the moment when it looks like the economy may be turning around bottoming out. BEN BERNANKE: Well, thank you for reading my book. (Laughter.) I'd be glad to autograph it if you have it with you. (Laughter.) I learned -- I did spend a lot of my career studying the Great Depression and other financial crises. And I didn't expect it would be so helpful, so useful, as it has been. But I learned three lessons from my work on the Great Depression, and you identified two of them. The first one was monetary policy has to be supportive, not restrictive. In the 1930s, the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to collapse, allowed prices to fall, and that was a major force -- a major factor in the Depression. So this time the Fed was aggressive in cutting interest rates, providing supportive monetary policy, and getting, you know, that part going. The second thing I learned from looking at the Depression was, as I mentioned before, that allowing the financial system to collapse -- and we had several thousand bank failures here in the United States in the 1930s which the Fed could have stopped, or at least most of them. Letting the financial system collapse is also a very, very bad thing to do, and it contributed very considerably to the collapse in the credit markets and, again, to the Great Depression. And for that reason I have taken the approach that we want to make sure that the financial markets are as stabilized as possible, that we don't have a financial collapse because we know what the consequences of that can be for the broad economy. But the third thing I learned was this - that the Federal Reserve in the 1930s was completely orthodox. It did things today we think are wrong, but it was doing it based on what at the time were the standard policies, the standard approaches. They didn't use anything unusual. And I think what I learned from that is that when you're in a situation like this, a perfect storm, sometimes you've got to do something a little bit outside the box, a little bit more aggressive. And so when the Federal Reserve got interest rates down to zero, we couldn't cut it anymore and so we had tried to address a lot of the other problems, like fixing the credit markets in the ways that you described. Now, your point is absolutely right, and someone else mentioned this before. We can't do that forever. Eventually the credit markets have got to go back completely into private hands, the private sector needs to be allocating credit. We are trying to support the markets now, in a period when I think the economy still needs help and when I don't think inflation is a near-term problem. But you're absolutely right that as the economy begins to show strength, then we're going to have to gradually unwind, pull out those special programs, and let the economy do what it's supposed to do, which is allocate credit to the best uses. JIM LEHRER: And, Manuel Abarca, you have a question? MANUEL ABARCA: My name is Manny Abarca and I'm a current student in the University of Central Missouri. My question is, as a student and future professional, what would you recommend to my generation to handle this current situation, financial crisis, and prevent future crises from happening? BEN BERNANKE: Well, I've some kids out of college and we've had some discussions about this. I think this affects you both on a personal basis and on a broad national-policy basis. Personally, I just want to say that we recognize that there are a lot of people graduating from college or graduate school right now and see a very tough job market right now, and we know that, and it's not your fault. And it's part of the reason that we're so aggressive trying to get this economy moving again. But I would urge you in looking for jobs to not give up, because the way the job market works is -- job markets just don't - jobs just don't disappear. What happens is that some jobs are created and others disappear. So, for example, right here in Kansas City, there've been some pretty significant layoffs, but then also in the last year there's been some pretty big hires as well - not enough to offset the layoffs, but still some hires. So the labor market is always churning. There's new jobs being created, other jobs being destroyed. You need to look. You need to see what you can find. And when you look, you need to be flexible and you need to say, maybe this isn't my ideal, long-term job, but it's a job that I can learn something from, I can get some work experience, and when this economy improves, which it will, then I'll have the background and the experience I need to get the job I really wanted. So let me just give you that bit of encouragement. On keeping this from happening again, you know, we've had financial crises since the 1300 and 1400s. They happen all the time. This is a particularly bad one. So I don't think we're ever going to completely eliminate financial crises, but there's a lot we can do to make sure that one this severe and this damaging doesn't occur again in the United States. And there I haven't had much chance to talk about it, but the Federal Reserve and the administration have made proposals about how to change our financial-regulatory system. And let me just mention two parts of it. One part is we need to have a more system-wide approach. Instead of just looking at a silo at each individual institution, each individual market, we need to have a council or a group of regulators that looks at the financial system as a whole and looks for gaps and problems that can cause trouble. So that's one important element. The other important element -- and let me just reiterate this again -- too big to fail has got to go, and to get rid of too big to fail, we need a way to let big companies fail safely. And to do that, we need a new kind of bankruptcy process that's similar to what the FDIC already has for banks that will allow the government to come in and to take a failing company and to unwind it, sell it off, let it fail, but do it in a way that doesn't bring the whole financial system down. And so those two things I think would be a tremendous help in both stopping future financial crises, but if one occurs making sure it doesn't have as negative and adverse effect on the economy as this one has. JIM LEHRER: Peter Cabell has a question about the stock market. PETER CABELL: Chairman Bernanke, my name is Pete Cabell and, as was mentioned, my question is about investing. JIM LEHRER: Give us a line about you, sir. PETER CABELL: A line about me? I'm currently working at a nonprofit. Over the last 10, 11, 12 years, the market has - U.S. market, stock market has not delivered a sustained positive return. As we all get closer to retirement, that's a big problem. Despite the decade-long -- bounce off a decade-long low, the market still has a lot further to go to make portfolios whole. So as we go forward, is there a good engine to invest in as an alternative to the stock market that would be reasonable to look at? BEN BERNANKE: So I can't practice financial advising without a license over here. (Laughter.) I think the answer to your question, and it would depend very much on your individual circumstances -- you're a young man, you're not about to retire -- is diversification. The stock market is very volatile. It's risky and we've seen how it's gone up and down twice now in the last 10 years, but over long periods of time it tends to do somewhat better than bonds, for example. And so generally speaking unless you're very close to retirement you probably ought to have some stocks and equities in your portfolio, but you can diversify through a whole range of different things, including bonds or CDs, including even perhaps commodities and other types of investments. So I guess I'd give you two pieces of advice. One is to diversify your investments that you have a lot of different things so that if one thing goes up maybe something else, you know, will go down and just balance out. The other thing I would suggest to you is don't try to time the market. You can't. You know, people - it's very, very difficult to do it and there may be a couple people in the world who can do it, but if they are, they're not telling you. So pick an allocation of assets and stick with it. And over a long period of time, as long as the economy is healthy -- and that's the key thing -- as long as the economy is growing, which I believe it will, I believe we have a very good long term future here in this country - then that asset mix will do OK. So that's about as far as I can go, otherwise I think I would get malpractice suits going on. (Laughter.) JIM LEHRER: A question for Alicia Falcone - from Alicia Falcone. ALICIA FALCONE: Mr. Bernanke, I am a marketing consultant here in Kansas City and my question for you is, you've had a chance to oversee the Fed during a historic time in our country's history. What keeps you up at night relative to being the Fed chairman and looking at our economy over the near- and medium-term? BEN BERNANKE: Well, first, let me say that the Fed Reserve does not equal the chairman. One of the things I wanted to do when I became chairman was to try to sort of depersonalize the Federal Reserve at some extent. The Federal Reserve is an outstanding organization. We have terrific staff, terrific presidents around the country, Reserve banks and governors, so it's not all on my shoulders. I know there's a lot of people there who are watching 24/7. We have people who worked 100 hour a week through the financial crisis, for week after week so it's not just me. You know, there's plenty of people there who are doing good work and I can sleep at night knowing that they're on the job. More generally, I worry about the same stuff that you would think I worry about. I worry about the economy and the financial markets. I worry about how we're going to deal with these credit issues, but I try to do it during the daytime because if I do it at night, I might not be thinking so straight during the day. So that's kind of where I am. JIM LEHRER: But there's no overriding concern that you have right now that of all the things you've done, you and your colleagues and the financial - Congress, the administration whatever, there's no overriding concern that you have every day or right now? BEN BERNANKE: Well, I continue to look at the financial markets. I think they've improved quite noticeably. JIM LEHRER: Is that a criterion for testing? BEN BERNANKE: That's a very important one, the financial markets, because after all this has been a financial crisis, it was the financial crisis that caused the global recession. I follow the economy extremely closely. JIM LEHRER: How do you follow it? What are the measurements? BEN BERNANKE: I get reports and data and survey materials and everything all through the day. My inbox is always full. JIM LEHRER: Like on what is - like what? Like on housing, on - BEN BERNANKE: On housing, on the job market, on industrial production, on what's happening in the financial market. One thing is people sometimes ask me, do you have like a single indicator or a single variable? The answer is no, because it's a big, complicated economy and it's kind of like the elephant in the Indian folktale where everybody sees a different part of it. In order to get - JIM LEHRER: I'm not sure I heard that. I don't know about it. BEN BERNANKE: Yes. It was an elephant and you had six blind people feeling the elephant. And one feels the tail and says, an elephant is like a rope. And another feels the trunk and says, it's like a tree, and so on and so on. And the only person who can see the whole elephant, obviously, is somebody who has been all around and looked at all the different parts of the elephant. So we've got an elephant of an economy. It's got lots of different parts. You've got to look at everything. There's not a single one variable or another that is critical, there are a lot that are very interesting and we pay a lot of attention for example, to unemployment insurance claims, which is a weekly indicator what the legal market is doing. Lot of other variables, but generally speaking, we them all together and try to get sort of a holistic picture out of all the data and information that we get, including information that comes from the Federal Reserve banks, because each of the Federal Reserve banks has got a board and advisory councils and the president of the Federal Reserve banks, when they come to Washington for federal open market committee monetary policy meetings, they bring anecdotes, information about what people are seeing, kind of like this meeting here. And that's very helpful because the data we get is backward looking. We're going to get data this week on the second quarter GDP. Well, the second quarter is over already. If we want to know what's going to happen in the third quarter and the fourth quarter, it helps to know what business people are saying, what bankers are saying and we get that information from all our Reserve banks around the country and so not just numbers, but also anecdotes, personal information can be very helpful in forecasting the economy. JIM LEHRER: So to answer Ms. Falcone's question then, once you put all that together on this particular Sunday night, you're going to sleep well? BEN BERNANKE: I'm pretty tired. (Laughter.) JIM LEHRER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. BEN BERNANKE: Thank you. JIM LEHRER: It was a pleasure. I want to thank all of you in the audience, all of you who participated with questions and all of you who participated as the audience. I want to thank our online viewers. We didn't get to too many of them, but we got to a few. And I also want to thank our local television host, public station KCPT, and then the Kansas City Consensus organization that helped select the folks who are here. And I also definitely want to thank the folks here at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. And that ends it. And from Kansas City, Mo., I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.

CORE 3943 AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA SWITCHED FEED POOL 11122021 130000 [09:03:00] Members this with. Good morning, everybody. Got all the things president represented by counsel and we are ready with states, witnesses, anything from the state forward to get on with state's witnesses who was told to be here at eight thirty is not familiar. We're sending our investigator out, but did in. So hopefully it will not be an issue. And he's just running late. And that's what I'm going to go with right now. I'm not going to assume the worst. So I just want the court to be aware, however, that now they go ahead and call Surace as opposed to calling this other witness who was not here so fast. And so we are ready to proceed with a witness, with a witness. Yes. It's a so. [09:04:03][62.2] [09:04:02] 090328 COUNSEL>> Your honor, Iâ?Tve been asked to address some comments the other day. The court hasn't asked me to do that. JUDGE>> (inaud.) -- whatever you've been asked to do has not been asked by the court. 090343 COUNSEL GOUGH>> Very well. I will let the court know that if my statements yesterday were overly broad, I will follow up with a more specific motion on Monday putting that -- that those concerns in the proper context. And my apologies to anyone who might have inadvertently been offended. [09:03:59] All right. Got series first witness. Yes. Yeah, I'm sorry. I was thinking three things. I was to get the panel's for one second. [09:05:12][69.6] [09:05:12] We've got to bring the panel with one. All right. [09:06:22][70.3] [09:06:22] The jury said good morning. Welcome back, everybody. Hopefully, everybody had a good night's sleep. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in this case. From the state. Thank you. The state call Officer Robert Sawtell truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I could have seen I please state your name and spell it for the court reporter Robert RATCH. That's Robert Caro, VRT. Gresh, ORATE, S.H.. All right. [09:08:08][105.9] [09:08:08] How are you currently employed with the Glynn County Sheriff's Department in Brunswick, Georgia? OK, how long have you been with the Glynn County Police Department? I first started in May of 2011. I left in 2016 for a year and came back in February of 2017. I tell the jury a little bit about your training and experience as a certified law enforcement officer. I attended the Georgia Post Academy in Savannah, the regional academy in Savannah. I got my basic these officers certificate from their. Since then I have taken several different classes beyond advanced classes and stuff. Right. [09:08:52][44.3] [09:08:52] And what are your current job duties? Responsibilities with the Glynn County Police Department? I'm a master patrol officer. Three, patrol the county area and assigned area of the county. I am primarily assigned to Baker nine. That is the area that I patrol on a daily basis and I answer calls for service and out there, traffic enforcement, anything that I see while I'm out on normal patrol. All right. So how long have you been assigned to Baker? Nine as a master patrol? I've been riding that area for probably five or six years. I can swap around. [09:09:34][42.2] [09:09:34] I have occasionally been swapped to other areas, but primarily back. The mine is where I run right now. You're in a suit today. How are you normally dressed when you are patrolling Baker nine or other areas? Normally at this time of our current uniform is green pants with a black polo shirt and I have an outer load bearing vest, black in color. That's my body armor and it carries some of my equipment. And we say some of your equipment is that body cam. [09:10:04][30.2] [09:10:04] That is my body camera. That is my taser, my handcuffs, tourniquets and various items that is carried on that vest to relieve the weight off of the belt. And what kind of car you drive? I drive a twenty eighteen Dodge Charger police car. How is it marked? It is marked with logos representing the Green County Police Department. Easy to read and identify. Yes, ma'am. All right. So now what kind of shifts are you working when you're working? Baker needs patrol person at this point in time. We work 12 hour shifts, ma'am, I so my take you back to twenty nineteen into the first part of twenty twenty. What kind of shifts were you working then. I believe we were we were also working the 12 hour shifts at that time. [09:10:52][48.0] [09:10:52] We've been switched back and forth between 12 and 10000 and back to close. All right. So what are the 12 hour shifts? What are the time frames of six a.m. to six p.m. and then 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.? How many days a week would you work at that time? In twenty nineteen. We were working a schedule where we worked. It's like two days on Tuesdays, all three days on it rotated around. It was three, two, two, three, two, three, three on something to that effect. OK, so there was a schedule. Yes. All right. So it wasn't four days in a row or five days or no man. And were you the six a.m. shift or the six p.m. shift on the 25th? Oh, I'm going to. How about this? Let's go out and talk about October 20th. What was your shift that day? Okay, well, four hour shifts rotate. We work days and then two months a days, two months a night on the 25th. I was even shift that day. Our night shift, the night shift. So starting at 6:00 p.m., six p.m.. All right. So are you familiar with the Sattell offshores neighborhood? Yes, ma'am. How are you familiar with that neighborhood? I grew up down the road from that area all during high school. Our bus went through there, picked up students for school, lived out in that area, not in that particular neighborhood, in that area since 1980. And then as being a patrol officer, riding that Baker nine, which encompasses sits on the shores of patrol that area on a daily basis and situations in which county, Glynn County I. And to tell a source that neighborhood public roadways. Yes, ma'am. Right. So tell us about the neighborhood composition based on your experience. And still a in twenty nineteen. It's the first two months of twenty. What kind of population lived in cities? 091209 >> I don't have hard number, but I would be willing to bet that it's primarily older, more retired people. You see very few children out playing in the yards and in the street. [09:12:23] as being if this was your baker and did you work it from January 1st, twenty nineteen through February. Twenty twenty, yes. All right. Violent crimes out there. Any violent violent crimes? Not that I'm aware of. Of property crimes. A couple. Somebody direct your attention now to twenty nineteen had you part October 25th of twenty nineteen. No, Larry. English. No. All right. So how did you encounter Larry English. I call came in to the 911 center and I'm not sure if that came in Vietnam. On one or the direct number, but a call came in in reference to a trespasser on his property. And I was dispatched out there to that call. And after arriving out there, I asked for the number in our system, our computer system. We can access the callers and phone number. I make contact with Mr. English and asked him to send me the video at this. At that time, the quickest way was him to text me the video or by email. It took a day or two to get it and get it, be able to see it. Even if I had a viewer on my work computer there, I could see it. So I contacted Mr. English and asked him to send me text me the video so I could see what who we were looking for. All right. So you get dispatched. What's the address you get dispatched to on October 25th? Twenty nineteen to twenty to tell George and describe that location. It's a at that point time it was a house under construction, no doors, no windows of partial siding on the house that you could see through the house all the way through, looking through the front window out through the back into the the river area. OK, and when you arrived on October 25th, twenty nineteen, did you encounter anyone at the open unsecured construction site? No, ma'am, I did not. Did you meet Larry English there? No, ma'am. So how did you contact Larry English via cell phone. Right. And you gave him your cell phone number? Yes. Well, he had it when I called him. So early detection. And did he in fact, text to some video? Yes, it did. And just describe generally what that video was of. It was video of his property of I remember correctly, it was on that two outdoor cameras, one on the dark, one on the front corner of the house showing a what appeared to be a light skinned black male walking around on the property, walking around on the side. And that night, did you ever see that light skinned black male again? [09:16:23][331.0] [09:16:23] I never saw him again at and at that point in time, was there a report of anything actually taken from Mr Englishes property? No, ma'am. And when you saw that video of the young man that you saw on the video, did he have a backpack or any sort of bag with him at that time? He had nothing in his hands. And did you recognize him? No, ma'am. I did not. So I'm going to take you forward now to November 17th, a white couple on very Bush's property. Did you respond to that or did they call you that night or anything? I don't recall. If he called me that night, he sent me the video from the 17th, but I received that video on a later date, not on the 17th. Do you know if you were working the night of the 17th? I do not recall. OK, so the next night, November 18th, twenty nineteen. Were you working that evening? I believe so, yes. OK, so on that evening, was that another trespassing call to the same location? I yes, there was another caller. OK, so this is about a month later you get a call. Did you respond to that location? Yes, ma'am. OK, and that's once again the open unsecured construction site at twenty two. What did you find when he got there? Same house in the same state. No, nobody in sight. And the the unidentified black male, same one from the previous October 25th incident was nowhere to be found. Right. [09:18:19][116.1] [09:18:18] And at that point in time, did you see the unknown black male have a bag or anything with him? No, ma'am. Nothing with him. Do you see the video? Yes, ma'am. Do you see him take anything? No, ma'am. I know at this point in time, October 25th and November 7th, November 18th, you're talking to Larry English over the phone? Yes, sir. And what is it that Mr English wanted you to do? Find out who he was and why he kept coming onto the property? And if you I'm going to rephrase that. I don't want you to speculate as to what you would have done. I'm not talking about speculation. [09:18:58][39.3] [09:18:57] I had talked to Larry English about trespassing him from the property. I explained to Larry English how we how we trespass someone from the property. But that was never, never done. We never made contact with. OK, so what did you tell their English about how you trespass somebody from a property? We do. We once we make contact with the person on the property, we explain to them the homeowner find out who they are. We identify the homeowner does not want them there. He has no legal reason to be there and be the property owner. Then we put them all the way I do it is I put them on speaker. If they're not there in person, I'll put him on speaker phone and I would say, Mr English, I'm here with whoever the person is. So you're saying they have no right to be here and you don't want them here on the property? And he would say that so they can be heard and we are documented in our computer system. So if that person was ever back on the property and I explained to that person, if you ever come back on this property for any reason whatsoever uninvited, you will automatically be arrested for trespassing. OK, and you told that to Mr English that that was your standard procedure. Yes. OK, And not speculation, but was that your intent if you encountered this young black male. 091938 RASH>> Yes. To find out who he is, identify him, why he was coming up there late at night and then ultimately it's Mr English's decision if he wanted him trespassed or not. [09:19:50] After you received the video from October 29th, it I think you said you received the November 18th video. Yes. OK, did you take any action to see about finding out who this person was? And I would ride around the area working night shift. It's hard to canvass. I mean, patrol the area on a normal basis, but it's hard to go up and find people at night. But not many people are moving around in the darkness. Once I came back the day shift, I switch from Nine's today as I rode around the neighborhood, patrolled the neighborhood, I would see people out walking. Any interaction I had with anybody in the neighborhood, I would stop, say, hey, have you seen have you seen this smell? I had a screenshot from that video and I would ask people had they didn't really know who that was. There were a couple residents that I saw on. I believe it's the address to ten cities, the shores. It has a ring doorbell camera. I could see when I did not make contact. [09:21:39][162.1] [09:21:39] There are a couple of places that I actually did go up and knock on the door and talk to people, something that I have dealt with in the past and kind of knew. And but nobody nobody had recognized me. So nobody knew who he was. Nobody knew that was quite so. And I want to kind of get a sense, was this a for this a methodical door to door to door to door. OK, so this is sort of hit Miss Random hit Mrs. So I'm going to go ahead and move forward now to December 1st of twenty twenty. Did Mr English make contact through December 1st of twenty twenty. About people under a bridge. Yes he did. OK, so now is this actually on December 1st or was it December 2nd. I don't remember. [09:22:33][53.5] [09:22:33] The exact date was that he called me about the people on the bridge and I was off duty the next day when I returned to work is when I went under the bridge and checked and that's when I texted him back without looking at the transcript of what date that was I sent him. 092217 COUNSEL>> Did you find any white couple in a car under the bridge? RASH>> No signs of life. There were some four wheeler tracks under there. There's nothing typical of a homeless camp or someone living under the bridge. There was no trash, debris, anything left behind that would indicate someone was living under there. [09:22:35] So I was went back up minutes. It did their English call you directly first about this rumored couple under the bridge? He yes. He saw a car. He saw a car parked in the area. And he felt like that car was associated to a car that he saw on his camera the night that the white couple was on his property. And he asked me to go check for him. I could drop duty this day. I was off duty. Would you tell him? I told him that I would check on it when I was back on duty. I did for me that he'd already called the non-emergency Glynn County police dispatch. I don't recall that clerk. And is that when he sent you the the the video of the White couple going in with the bag? Have to look at the date on the what the video was sent to me. But it was after the second time he made contact with Larry English. Yes. All right. So moving forward to December 20th of twenty nineteen. Did you encounter Greg and Michael that day? I believe so, yes. [09:24:17][104.3] [09:24:17] OK, now, had you known Greg McMichael previously as someone who worked at the district attorney's office as an investigator? Yes. OK, so where did you encounter Greg with Michael on December twenty nineteen? He was in his front yard of this property at two thirty. So which was his daytime or nighttime? It was daytime. What happened? I pulled up to him. I was in my patrol car. I stayed seated in my patrol car. We spoke through the window. He walked over. We spoke, talked to him in reference to the the unidentified black male down at two twenty two nineteen, asking if you have two twenty two children. We talked about him continually to come onto the property, not being able to figure out who he is. I told Mr Michael that I had somewhat canvased the neighborhood to talk to different people. Nobody knew who he was. And at that time Mr Michael asked me to pass on his phone number to Mr English and that he was lives right down the road. If he had, he needed in the car and that's when I sent the text to Mr English that Greg MacMichael was a retired, the police officer and an investigator from the District Attorney's Office. All right. So it's daytime. You encounter him outside his house and you're talking about what's happening at 220. [09:25:51][94.7] [09:25:51] This one, did he have any knowledge of what was going on at 220 prior to this? Any knowledge as in as in did he tell you? I've spoken with Larry English all about why he never told the. But you're telling him, hey, I've had these two encounters. Yes. At 220 and he asked you to forward his information to Larry Englishes. Now, I'm not talking about speculation, but I'm talking about what was your intention in making contact with Michael that day? Oh, when I rode around, I saw him. So that's when I stopped. Spoke to him and you meaning what was my intention forwarding the information or how well did you deputized with Michael Mann? [09:26:45][54.0] [09:26:45] Do you give him any authority to act as a police officer? No, ma'am. All right. 092619 RASH>> My goal with that, sending that text was Greg McMichael had, to my knowledge, about thirty plus years of law enforcement experience, who else to be an expert witness, call 911, and, you know, it's -- I've watched shows. I've seen things where you have ten people witness a crime, you get ten different stories on what they -- who the person was, what they looked like, what they were wearing. 092646 Greg has training and experience. He would be, in my opinion, would be an expert witness to be on the phone with 911, he's running north, south, he's wearing this. He would know the pertinent information that the officers would need to know once they arrived on scene to possibly catch the intruder, or the trespasser. [09:27:02] She wanted him to be a witness to get this guy identified. Yes, Was Travis McMichael there at that time? No, ma'am. Did you even know Travis? All right. Moving forward to February 11th. Twenty twenty. That's when were you on duty? That particular day? Yes. When what shift were you on? I was on our night shift. I what happened within Sitel shorts that day? We get the call of a believe that originally come out as a burglary in progress and so we ran what we call code lights and sirens. We were in just getting out of briefing. So I came from the area of our police headquarters and I was the first officer on scene. And upon my arrival, Travis met Michael and Greg. Michael were on scene and I stood by, waited for additional officers to get there before we proceeded to check the property for the unidentified male that they called about being on the property. OK, so when people call nine one, they're reporting what they think is going on. Yes, ma'am. OK, so have you ever had experiences where people call up and they say they've been robbed? Yes, ma'am. And it turns out it's something completely different? Yes, ma'am. OK, so in this case, you get burglary in progress, OK? What was it when you got there? It ultimately ended being the trespassing. And when you got there was the unidentified black male present? No, ma'am. It was not. And at this time, both Michael and Travis Michael were on scene just from where they are. I cannot say for sure if they were armed. I know there was I believe I believe they told dispatch something to dispatch about having guns, but I did not physically see them openly brandishing guns. I do call them telling you that they put their guns up. [09:30:12][207.7] [09:30:12] It may have a yes and the 911 call came in from Travis McMichael. Is that right? If you don't remember, it's a don't call. Did you eventually make contact with Mr Larry English while on scene? Yes, I did. I called him on the telephone. So. And did you speak to him about what was going on? Yes, I did. I at that point in time, did he send you video of what had happened inside the house? Yes, I asked him to send me the video to see if it is the same person that has been there numerous times are the times before. And while on scene, were you able to review that particular video that Larry English sent you that very night, February 11? Twenty twenty. Yes. He sent to me while I was you to show that to you showed it to almost certain. I showed it to both Greg and Travis. I and when you saw it was a young man, did he have a bag or backpack or anything on him? No. To see him take or steal anything, no matter what their English tell you, nothing and reject to hearsay unless it's impeaching Mr English or somehow responsible for this. It's a prior statement of a witness has already testified and he's been to extensive cross-examination yesterday. And it's prior statement saying that witness is not an exception to the rule. It's either consistent statement that he's been impeached or some prior inconsistent statements, Radio one, which is hearsay. So you're not asking him to explain why you're using the statement? Because it goes toward the defendant's knowledge of what was going on, because they told it to this officer in front of the two defendants. I maybe need to ask some better questions in place of foundation. Go ahead. All right. I'll listen. Foundation, were you talking to Mr Larry English on the phone? Do you have him on speakerphone? I have him on speakerphone. And who is standing right there with you while you have him on speakerphone? The McMichaels are standing there in close proximity along with other officers. Right. And is Larry English talking to you about what he can see on his video? Yes, he is. And what did he tell you about things being stolen inside the house? Nothing had been taken. [09:32:51][159.1] [09:32:51] An object, unless you can tie what Larry was told him to one of the McMichaels or somebody else's relevant it. But the assertion from opening statements that they had all this knowledge and what they're asserting, they knew and it goes to show exactly what they didn't. Now, look, I don't mind if if she can show the McMichaels heard it's on video. We have the video. But for this witness to testify, what he said with Larry English and somehow he knows what they heard, I think would be improper. So were you wearing your body cam search? If I was all right, you had the opportunity to review your body cam video prior to coming in to testify today. Yes, I have. All right. And was it fair and accurate? Yes, ma'am. Anything and added or deleted? [09:33:48][57.5] [09:33:48] None. That I'm aware of, no. OK, and in addition, did you have the opportunity to review the transcript from your body cam video? Yes, ma'am. And was it fair and accurate that you saw this film? All right, Your Honor, at this time, the state will enter into Evidence State's Exhibit 231, which is the body cam video, and two thirty one, which is the transcript of the body video. Objection, objection, objection. DROWNER At this time, we are going to publish State's Exhibit 231 and we have copies of the transcripts for the jurors. I did not want to give a similar admonition for myself. We usually try to say so. Yes, Finally, gentlemen, as with yesterday, we're going to provide you with transcripts. I gave you this, the charge yesterday on how those transcripts are to be used. The evidence in the case is the body cam footage itself. The transcript is simply being used to age you, as we explained yesterday. And we're going to collect these transcripts at the end. Please do not read ahead. Thank you. John. Field Officer Astaire's state's exhibit 231. All right. So unsuppressed. Take a look at your screen right there. You can see that. Oh, is this your body cam video? Yes. All right. So first, off, I'm going to ask you at the top, I don't know if you can explain to the jury how it says to twelve, twenty, twenty and the time looks like it's thirty four minutes after midnight. Do you know why that is that time and date as opposed to to eleven, you know, about seven hours earlier or five hours earlier. And I'm in London. OK, right. So when we first see this, do you know who this person is. I know, I know him as you presently with this. I would say I was in fleshlight. The state will the same publish the exhibit state's exhibit 231 donors house is called the Skull Video. I don't know about that. Yeah, he's called himself as president. [09:37:47][239.3] [09:37:47] Called me tonight. Yeah. Oh, they. Mediawatch And they said unless he jumped the fence and went over somewhere, they don't know if he's but he hasn't went on the road. So we just need to check everything. [09:38:41][53.5] [09:38:41] The county police, anybody here, clear here, they take they have no, it's just a party. They don't have it. There's a ladder here. But the access at Adiba, well, there's a ladder right here. We can stand up, but they don't have the attic right. Right here. Now, go. Going to stay room, maybe down on the dog in the boat or so we got up here. [09:41:00][139.5] [09:41:00] You already checked the door on this camper. You so he's got cameras out here and takthe guys called him on before out here messing around on the boat stuff. Fridge with Mogren and they got the in or out. They're trying to see if they can find it. So the missing person is the guy put him in the boat, flipped over on the river. Who for this? So this guy's got these cameras that he lives Douglas or somewhere, and he's always calling me, takes me video of the guy wandering through the house. Well, the night the neighbor come by and saw the flashlight, somebody in here. So. Oh, yeah, man, that's good quality stuff, too. He sends me the video of it. We don't see him back there unless he jumped the fence this way or to Travis. Just walk down there. He's going to our backyard. Back this way. OK, or by the way, I think all our guys are Wolfen. [09:43:39][159.2] [09:43:39] But he said he had nothing to say, no red shorts and a white shirt. So I wonder if it's the same guy he's got to sleep. So he Travis actually. So, yeah, he turned around right here, put the lights on him. You say that he likes it. He called inside the house. So, yeah. Before that, you know, I can let you out if your what did you do. You have a camera in your window, right? Yes. Have you got inside. Don't look through the glass. Oh, I don't have any news out here after dark. Oh good evening. I'm late. What are the rest of me to look at? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. OK, like I got this whole place up by daylight. Yeah, I'm obbligato. I'm a call Mr. English and get him to look back at his cameras and. Yeah, because he's got the opportunity. [09:44:28][48.6] [09:44:27] You this guy, he's always on foot. Nobody in the neighborhood knows who he is that we can have dinner. I've been about every house, door to door trying to be. He's been on their video. They have video over here. We've called him over this guy right there. He's got the idea. We've called him on several video cameras, but we just can't find where he's in. He usually goes this way on our way straight down that road, go right here. If he goes down that route, yeah, I'll get changed. OK, you can see, because that's usually the way he goes. OK, look at that. Neighborhood report. We call the owner to the access cameras at hotel was I now he's got. Yeah. The son saw him put the lie. He rigged it round and the guy ran inside. This is a mess. And the door down there, this is video from before they called him inside. So he's got kind of a twist here. If it's the same guy in his sleep, he's lighter skinned and he got sleep. He's so mysterious and the shirt on. So that's what they said he did. But he came with Travis, got down there. He ran in the house and told me and I ran out front. He was looking for a flashlight, that kind of shit as I was watching down here. Oh, damn. I see you to come across the street. He given back yards that or else he went with Travis, turned around. He could have come from behind him. The see he was behind me. No, no. This guy we we've I've tried and tried. I'm in door to door. Nobody knows him. Mr. Inglis. How are you doing, officer. Good. How are you doing sir. I guess you see a man hanging in there. I'm sorry if it's about moments in the video. I don't know. I was able to get it. OK, you sent it to me. I sent it to Diego, but I will send it to you. I didn't know if he was the one over there, but I'll send it to you, not to me. I'm on duty tonight and we. Well, there's five or six of us here, along with the neighbors, and we haven't seen it. We've searched everything. So thinking of nothing. Travis here said he went out, went and run into the house. So he went back. He's jumped the fence somewhere, went right or left. But we looked all over the dog and in the camper, under the camper, around the camper, we looked all up in the rafters and everything even got on the ladder, looked up there to see if he was on top with the air handler in and out of there. No signs of him here. They're they're canvasing the neighborhood right now, trying to find him. So we're actively looking in. [09:48:01][214.2] [09:48:01] Your neighbor across the street's going to look at his camera because he says his camera looks at whatever this road is, Jones Road. He's got a camera that looks at Jones Road. He's going to look at it and see if you see where he went that way. But as of now, that's what I was going to say to you. Assuming what video you have, does it look like it's the same guys always have. We've been talking to nobody until I lost their ability to try to connect. So does your camera does it look like the same guys always. Hello, Hello, sir. It's OK. Does it look like the same guys always say something like the guy Mr. MacMichael lives down the road, the retired law enforcement officer and the D.A. investigator his son saw him and said, you know, the black male had on red shorts or whatever. I had to go back out and get exactly what he had on. But he saw him and turned in the yard, put the headlights on him, and he run into how he saw him run through the house. So we just don't know who he is. But, you know. All right. All right. Thanks. He's saying it's the same guy. He's got the video. He sent it another officer. He didn't know who was on duty this first time. I've seen him in here, but we don't get anything. We from that. This is a this is video here and it is being built or that one. No, this is the video link. It's from one of the prior sinked. If this thing gets sleeve tattoos. He was wearing a red shirt, white pants. I didn't see his face, but he's got like twisty hair. Yeah, there's no national dress. Maybe my dreads or twist, whatever they call it. Yeah, I'll watch dance, you know, but that's just that's what it is. It's the same guy. I don't know where to crappies come from. He was coming, he's coming down this road straight up. Go with those results coming up. [09:50:28][147.7] [09:50:28] Seventeen going girls from that neighborhood. It's really up to people. Well, I mean, I've been up there, you know, down here to Corner Jones and so would you have the family there to have the baby adopted? Right. And all the foster kids? Yeah, I went and talked to them. They got one that kind of matches it. Besom the mayor, mayor. He's got something wrong with it. As a matter of fact, he just had a kidney transplant, but he just kind of show. Yeah. The old black lady right at the corner. Yeah. 095027 >>And then when you turn on Zelwood(?) down there, the house has got a dumpster out by the driveway. >>Yup, yup. >>There's some blacks right in there. >> Is that right? >>As a matter of fact, I don't -- come to think of it, I kept forgetting about them, they have some kids that age that hang around that house. 095046 Well, I've been there for an actual, a report of a alleged assault or whatever. And it's the kids they have are only females. Now, I don't know if it's one of them's boyfriend. They only have daughters there, so it could be unless somebodyâ?Ts moved in with them or whatever. 095101 But, yeah, nobody seems to know who this kid is, where he's coming from. But like, he's always -- and all the times on the video that Mr. English has sent me, sent me one now, it's always been just in there, plundered around. He hasn't seen him actually take anything. I said, so, you know, trespassing. [09:51:19] Yeah. Yeah. At least ordering a prowler I had reported stolen on the first run down the route. Now, we did have them. I took a report down the road here to a house on the corner. The guy where the juvenile is, he had some stuff stolen, some guns stolen. But we got on video the card and people that come in and stole them, they were from another neighborhood. Yeah, I know some good. Well, I'm saying. Do you need. I just called but you got go in the river tonight, sir. This is facing on the roof. Yes. Yes. Thank you. There he is. Yeah. [09:52:41][73.0] [09:52:41] It's on my black black boy. Kind of a lighter skinned black boy. The Wal-Mart girl says he's got like twist or dreads three, four inches long. Sleeve tattoos on his arms. You down or your nose right here? I can drive by. So I walk across the yard, you know, and I could do when I pulled around, although its original pockets first of all, I got I have got say, you know, either way, back the hell out anyway, you know, if I were had it, I would sit right here, Callejo, you know, I had to run back and give them a phone. So who knows where he went after that? Somebody will cross to my girlfriend there at some monitor down there, but I haven't seen her. She's right on the street. That's probably about I'm a back. OK, it's Friday around that van or just parked on the side. You. Yeah, good. Appreciate you all being here, man. So I've been lucky. Doc told me a couple weeks ago. About the week. Yeah, the house. Yeah. The house of the owner. Right, right. Yeah. [09:54:20][99.9] [09:54:20] I'll tell you, those might have been more needed for the Jones room. I'd come home early yesterday. We're going to have to sit and talk to anybody in the room and another call come up. I guarantee you that you've done rough streets and they they'll go down there and take pictures. They got all the way. We busted a house. Always play. We got Rob had a guy soon. He had a guy living with him. We got him on some outstanding warrants and he was got a bunch of dope out of it. But, you know, around here, what's the guy, Jean? You don't check. Yeah. Lives around there. You know where he lives. He's got a great story with one big crowd and she gets it all well for Baktash intangibly, which is genes, I guess Hestenes girlfriend's cute or something. Yeah. Girlfriend, I don't know if that's Gene's wife or girlfriend, but Herkie kid at this point, was forty eight point forty seven. No, no, this is you can stop. That's fine. But there's no agreement. You can do whatever you want with. Oh I'm sorry. I'm fine with you stopping it. OK, I mean the defense is fine with the state stopping this at eighteen, 14 seconds. All right. At this point, has Greg McMichael left? He's one policeman. All right. And the remainder of this is all I'll just characterize it as chatting and talking with the neighbors. It's OK. Who's Rodway? Strub Away was a resident that lived around and that would drive do not call them the numerics a few weeks earlier. I don't know the exact date or time I assisted the U.S. Marshals and serving a warm over there. Mr. Wadelived on the water and he had a, I guess what you call a roommate, someone who was renting a room from him. [09:56:18][117.6] [09:56:17] And the U.S. Marshals had warrants on that individual. And at the time of them serving that ward, they located some drugs on the property within the room of the individual that they arrested. Right. And was Mr. Robb way and potentially his roommate person or I think a potential suspect in what was going on in Satilla shores? No, ma'am. OK, why not? The did not fit the description. All right. And you mean the description of the the black male with the short dreads and the sleeve tattoos got out. But I guess I have some really, really bad question. Broadways white guy. Right, white guy. OK, so he's not going to match their English's description? No, ma'am, not at all. But I'm asking you, was he a suspect in any of the other theft property crimes that were going on within city shores? Not to my knowledge. All right. So I want to go back and ask you some questions about what we saw on the video. Did you ever interview Diego Perez out here? No, ma'am. Right. And at the beginning, when you and another officer were out by the docks, I think they were talking about a missing person and a motorcycle hit a guardrail and a bike. So, yes, that was Officer Smith. And he come up and he also works part time at a Darian Police Department that the area police department and he monitors their radio. So he was telling me about something that Mackintosh had been in a high speed chase with the motorcycle. The guy crashed and hit the side of the bridge and the bike and the guy both flipped over into the river. Didn't have anything to do with this? No, nothing related to this. Right. And I think you used the word blundering around in there. What do you mean by that? Just looking around. I know growing up, my grandma used to say quit clowning around in my kitchen, you know, and they're looking for something plundering as in pilfering, looking open and just being nosy. 095815 COUNSEL>> And you recall Greg McMichael telling you that Travis was now armed? RASH>> Yes. [09:58:25] All right. You indicated I think we've caught him on several video cameras, but we just can't find where he's he usually goes this way straight down that road. So what did you mean by that? A couple of times Mr. Aengus said that when he leaves the property, it looks like he runs down John's road, which is not directly across the street, but off to the right. If you're standing with your back to Mr. Englishes house and be off to your right a little bit, John's Road runs straight down and it appears from the camera that's the direction he would run. So when he leaves the property, he would take off running. Yes. According to Mr. and Mrs.. 095931 COUNSEL>> I just want to make sure that from what you can understand, Travis McMichael didn't have his cell phone on him at the time he saw Mr. Arbery in the yard, he also did not have a weapon on him. RASH>> No, maâ?Tam. COUNSEL>> So he left and went down to his house -- RASH>> Yes, maâ?Tam. COUNSEL>> -- and that's when he got his dad -- RASH>> Yes, maâ?Tam. COUNSEL>> -- and his gun. RASH>> Yes, maâ?Tam. 095949 COUNSEL>> Ok. And then, of course, the two of them came back. RASH>> Yes, maâ?Tam. [09:59:57] Mr. Now, when you all are talking about. So he went out the back, he jumped the fence somewhere, went right or left. Was that actually you saw him do that or was that suspect asked for page number? If your response on page nine lines two, three and four, that this I'm sorry for the fence post. Thank you. So when you were out there saying so, he went out back, he jumped the fence and went right up. Did you see? No, Is that speculation? No. Travis said that he did not see him come back out, that he ran through the house. So if he didn't come out the front, he had to go out the back. So gotcha. [10:01:45][327.5] [10:01:44] All right. So I'm going to go ahead and show you what's been marked and already admitted as state's exhibit 117. What do we got here from eleven twenty twenty five. Back it up. Once you take a look at this, what do we have here? This open walls. And that's the bleep. I can't remember if that's a window. There are open garage door there. OK, so looking out here, when I asked to see headlights from that's what we have here, headlights from a vehicle and they're turning which way appear to be coming off the Jones Road and turning left. And would that be towards McMichael House. Yes, ma'am. And then what do we have here? The man now identified as Mr. Arbrey walking in, is he running through the house? No, ma'am. This is the only video that was sent to that night. I do believe so. So English never sent you any video showing how Mr. Arbery actually left the location? I do not recall any motive. [10:04:01][137.0] [10:04:01] In addition to the. So while you were standing and talking about Mr. English, Mr. Gregory McMichael Entraps would like. We're both standing there. Yes, ma'am. And you indicated that Mr. English has sent me. He's sending me one now. It's always been just in their blundering around. He hasn't seen him actually take anything. Do you remember on page fourteen and we're looking at lines three, four, five and six saurus. 100426 COUNSEL>> He hasn't actually seen him take anything. You say this to Greg and Travis McMichael. RASH>> Yes, maâ?Tam. COUNSEL>> And what does Greg McMichael say? RASH>> His response was, it's criminal trespassing. 100437 COUNSEL>> And what do you say? RASH>> Yeah. Yeah, very least. [10:04:43] Or so. I don't know whether there's a lot of dots there. I mean, this morning I also mentioned possibly loitering and prowling. Now with regard to December 7th of twenty twenty, OK, I can keep looking at that page. Did you respond to an entering auto attorney and Bubba Herndon's. Yes. Yes, ma'am. OK, and so the next thing, when you talk about the house, the corner, the guy where the jeep, all that is that location. Yes, ma'am. OK, and did you respond December 7th to an entry or was it December seventh or eighth? I think that I respond on the 8th and it happened on the 7th. We'll go. This is in that time. In that time. OK, so let's go ahead and say it happened on 7th. We got your call in the eight. Did you respond? Yes, ma'am. Do you talk to both the Herndon's all right. And did they have some video from the father house? Yes, ma'am. They just. And did you watch that video? Yes, ma'am. And what was the person who went into their jeep and stole their guns? White, black, Hispanic or Asian? Appeared to be based on the video they provided. It was grainy, appear to be a white male. And was that image of a white male then posted to Facebook? I believe they misheard. Or Mr. or Mrs. Hernon once posted it to Facebook and after that, December 8th, entering auto, did you respond to the next hearing on January 1st? Twenty twenty at Travis McMichaels House in about. So do you have any idea when Larry English says he's been captured on video at other places, whether they're talking about heard Herndon's posting on Facebook or something else? The object speculation, unless you give me a better foundation, this option of what we may Herndon's talking about or anybody else is talking about, unless is a foundation for just refrozen. Do you have any idea did their English tell you that he had seen Rene Herndon's posting on Facebook? I don't recall him saying seen that specific posting was so high and I believe in your police report that's related to February 11th. Twenty twenty. I think you indicated that Mr. English had posted these videos to social media talking as I canvased the neighborhood, talking to people. People would say, I've seen video, I've seen stuff on Facebook about it. My understanding was that the videos were posted, but obviously I don't I don't know that they I'm yes, I'm learning now that they were not. So they must have seen the the video I have. Objection This is all lot of speculation, but they can testify to what he understands was posted, but things may have happened to what he learned now or from talking about, OK, at the time you have to report on February 11. Twenty twenty. Did you believe what you put in your report, that these videos, what we just saw had been posted on Facebook from I believe for that time. Yes. That they have been posted and you are a member of that Facebook group, right? Yes. All right. You guys, did you check to see if they were posted to see if people were posting comments and had knowledge? No, ma'am. I'm a member of that group, but I do not follow that group on a daily basis. Gotcha. All right. And so you don't have any idea what it was that anybody had seen on Facebook? No, ma'am, I do not tell you what has been marked as state's exhibit 327. However, I'm only going to show you pages three twenty seven eight three twenty seven beats. All right. So take a look at three. Twenty seven and three twenty seven. B, see if you're able to recognize those images. Those are the images from Rene Herndon. And those are let's see at the top there. That's from Facebook. All this time, the state retender into evidence states three twenty seven, eight and objection is a no man. Look at no objection, Michelle. No says exhibit three. Twenty three twenty seven a is this a still shot from the video you saw when you responded to the Herndon's on December? Twenty twenty feet is and is this also still shot from that video showing the car that was involved? [10:12:01][424.0] [10:12:01] Yes, So I want to be clear, when you put your report on February 11 twenty, that very English had you believe, Larry, which had posted to social media, did you ever verify that he'd actually done that? No, ma'am, I did. All right. Do you even have access to next door? No, ma'am, I do not. And you're directing your attention to February 23. Twenty twenty. Were you at work that day? No, ma'am, I was. Not only did you have anything to do with the investigation, to the death of a man, Aubrey? No, ma'am, I do not. And one last thing. Have you been named personally in a civil lawsuit in relationship to this case? I have. All right. Has that in any way impacted your testimony today? The amendment has gone. And direct your attention to May 19th. Twenty twenty. Did you actually speak with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation? That day in relationship to this case? Yes. And that was prior to any lawsuit? [10:13:39][97.8] [10:13:39] Yes, ma'am. At this time, you're gonna go ahead and pass the witness. Maybe a good time, so get set up. All right, ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and take a fifteen minute recess. We'll continue with the evidence in this case at ten thirty again to discuss this case yourselves during the break. Rosler, you're well, officer, you can go ahead and take a step down. If I could have you here are back here just before ten thirty. And I remind you during a break you're under oath. Do not discuss your testimony with anybody. [10:14:49][69.4] [10:14:49] Thank you. We recess tender. Thank you [10:14:49][0.0] [10:32:04] We are back on defense present represented by counsel. I was just heading off to this room and. You ready to go. Yes, sir. If you could just come forward. We've got the witness back. Officer Usher, you're under oath, so let's go get your all rights reserved. Juror number five. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Excuse me. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in the case. Mr. Good morning, Officer F. Serratia. I want to go back through your direct examination and some of the things you've described for the jury you talked about initially kind of said the shores as a neighborhood. If would you agree with me that still a is a nice middle class, scenic neighborhood on the little stilla river? It's and you described the folks who live there is primarily elderly, right? Yes. There are some people who have kids. It's a play outside. The adults walk the streets playing work in their yard and enjoy the river. Yes, sir. You've been patrolling that neighborhood for how long? Seven, eight years, maybe. OK, and you've gotten to know quite a few of the residents through your work, for instance, canvasing the neighborhood. Yes. You may not know them all by name, but you recognize faces. Yes. Right. And you've also gotten a chance because you're a member of the neighborhood. Facebook page to review some of the posts, some of the times on the page. Yes. And this Facebook page is actually a pretty good tool for you, isn't it? It can be, yes, because people on Facebook will post about crime in the neighborhood. Yes. They'll post about their fears about crime in the neighborhood. Yes. They'll post about their suspicions about crimes in the neighborhood. Yes. And how often would you say you review the Facebook page and photo shoots? Only when I knew that there was something going on, if I knew there was an incident today, then I would go today or tomorrow, start looking to see what people would post. OK, so we're talking about today, this time period between October, twenty fifth, twenty nineteen in February. Twenty third, twenty twenty during that time period, approximate for the approximate for the jury. How many times you looked at the Facebook page to see if this black male was seen, the one seen earlier. English's house was seen by other neighbors or talked about by neighbors in the neighborhood. I don't believe I could put a number on it. More than five. More than five, yes. OK, and in reviewing the Facebook page, did you learn about other crimes not committed by or suspected by the black male in the English house, but by other people who were missing lawnmowers and suspecting other intruders and things like that? No, I did not. OK, are you saying there were no other posts? You just don't recall them? I don't recall any other. OK, you would you're not saying they weren't caused by people like Brandon Gregory's father in law? You're not saying I'm the person you said you. Well, hearsay and the Facebook post serve nobody here to testify to those Facebook posts and putting it out there that, well, I've seen this and that at this point, the Facebook posts are hearsay is what any of this evidence which is of a named person have posted. So I'll rephrase, rephrase. Are you aware of posts by other people in Sattell, a source about crimes or suspected crimes in the neighborhood? I don't recall any specific. OK, in Seattle Shore's lives, one of your your peers, Sergeant Brandon Graycar. Yes. Know Sergeant Gregory. I know sort of. You know, Sergeant Gregory's father in law. I do not know his father well in canvasing the neighborhood. Did you ever speak to Sergeant Gregory, Sergeant Gregory? Yes. OK, and he gave you some information about his suspicions about the black male who was entering Larry Inglis's house? Yes, it is. In fact, we didn't see it, I don't think, on the video of February 11th. But he shows up on scene February 11th. Tells me he does. Yes. And he provides you with information about a black male that he suspects is committing crimes in the neighborhood. Yes. Did you follow up on that in any way? I did. And turned out the elderly couple at the house where he saw them, elderly, black, male and female that live there. And neither one of them, I spoke to the male. The female was in the residence, but she was out of sight. They claimed they did not have any kids, any grandkids, and they did not he did not. The male who answered the door did not recognize the male on the picture. The picture that you were showing, I was showing. And that picture, to be clear, was a still of the October 25th. Yes, it was. And that's the one that you used throughout. Yes. OK, well, let's go back then to let's go back to then what you knew about crime in the neighborhood. During this time period. You were aware that Travis MacMichael was a victim of a theft, correct? Yes. You are aware that Ronnie Olsen was a victim of a theft. Ronnie Olsen, a man who lived across the street. We see him saying, I can light that. I know that running and is but I don't recall. I don't recall any crime in his place. OK, were you aware that Diego Perez was a victim of that? I was not aware of Diego Prezzie. OK, so the only one you're aware of then is just in that little part of the neighborhood is Travis MacMichael. And Larry, that and I would say the Herndon residence, it's that general area of the neighborhood down and that's down Jones Road on Jones Road itself is live on that, not on Jones. I live on satellite drive, the same as corner of citizens. That would be the same as where Mr. Inglis's property is further up towards Highway Seventeen. Yes, sir. Towards the entrance. OK, so let's go back then to to the beginning, which is October 25th. Twenty nineteen. Yes sir. There's a call from Larry English to Glynn County Police and you get dispatched. Yes. And you get dispatched with other police officers as well, correct. Yes. An officer and I may pronounce it wrong. Forget this. But for guidance. For guidance and an officer. This Officer Dickson. Yes. OK. And if you don't recall, I can show you these to refresh your memory. You go out there, the property that you're you're going to this is your first time on the property. First time. Yes, it's ten o'clock at night. Yes, it's dark. Yes. You go on to this this construction site, but it's a house under construction. And tell the jury what you did when you arrived on scene. I went out going out to my camera. I arrived on scene and walked through check the property for the individual that was called upon. And you knew from the video this you this is a clip. And I'm looking at state's exhibit 121. Yes, you do. From looking at this photograph that you knew from looking at this clip that, um, that led. Well, this is a clip. Yes. And what you knew about the incident, he's complaining about it. There's a black male on his dock at ten o'clock at night. Yes. A guy who has no authority to be there. Yes and no. Legitimate reason that you know, of to be there. Second, and so to describe that Mr. Inglis is thundering around this house and that's where you've used in your dress image. You review the video and you review it when you got on scene or before you got on scene afterwards, after I had him send it to me afterwards. OK, when you get on scene, the house is dark. Now, you described the black male as a light skinned black male, but you understand that the color of his skin depends on the camera that's taking the picture. I'm not all into the technology of infrared based on what I see there. That looks like a light skinned black male, what his natural skin looks like in daylight hours. I have no knowledge of that until video at a later time on February twenty third, February 2013. You've looked that video. Yes. OK, so the males there on screen, I mean, in your video clip that you get out there on scene without the clip and you go to the dark. Yes. You have your flashlight. Yes. You have your revolver. Yes. Sit out. I don't believe it's out at that time because no one's described anybody being armed at that point. It's OK. Go through the house. Yes, with the flashlight. Because without that flashlight, it is pitch black. Yes. OK, look around. You don't see anything of note right there. So you don't see anybody of note, OK? And you leave me file a police report. Right. [10:44:23][738.9] [10:44:23] It's but then you get the video clip right. Yes, I get it before I leave the property that night. OK, so you had before you leave. So just in case, as you're driving around the neighborhood, you see someone who fits that description. Yes. OK, you understood also on October 25th that when he left Larry Englishes House, this unidentified black male, he went across the street to Supai Lawrence's house. Yes, annexion we have an issue we SUV to take up outside the presence of the jury. [10:45:10][46.8] [10:45:10] This gentleman, if you go ahead, retired the jury room for our first. I don't necessarily know that he needs to sit down with this. Your Honor, Mr. Morant's was not at home on October 25th, and she then tells Diego Perez something. And then Diego Perez tells this officer something. I asked Mr. Rubin, are you going to go into this because it's hearsay, within hearsay, within hearsay, because Diego Perez is telling him something that Supai Lawrence said and he said, no, I'm not going to go into that. And then it's you knew that he went for it to be Lawrence's house. So the only way this officer would know that is if Diego Perez had told him that and his supervisor told Diego Preston, now, we were to triple hearsay here. And I mean, so I didn't ask for any hearsay in that question. And the way he this is why I was asking the way he knows he went towards to Lawrence's house is because Larry English made a second nine one one call that's in evidence on October 25th, saying he's going across the street to a whitish yellow house and he went there. It's not hearsay. It's exactly what he did ask the question. So the question I thought was and and he ran to civil war in the direction of Suvi Awards house. Correct. And that's in the nine one one call isn't mentioned Superbikes by name. But if he describes the house and in fact, officers went there, where did you learn information? I could not recall if it was actually from dispatch or while I was on scene with Mr. Diego. Perez was out walking around that night. And until I did not know exactly. Did it come from dispatch for CB or from Diego Perez, one or the other? Let's just clarify that we can from that. And I'm not asking what Diego did or anything like that. OK, That's what I was going it could be one for the other. And that was my concern. It's like we're going down this path, a range of U.S. [10:47:48][158.3] [10:47:48] I just want to head off the forward center. I'm not going to address anything before the panel understand what the witnesses testify to. And there's a possibility of two different reasons for two different reasons for him having that knowledge. I'm not going to address anything before the panel understand what the witnesses testify to. And there's a possibility of two different reasons for two different reasons for him having that knowledge. You're welcome to follow up on directly. Let's go. [10:48:16][28.0] [10:48:16] Found detective dispatch to conspiracy to all let the state follow up on the. But that is in evidence. Yes. I'll call it from the dispatcher. Yes, we're we're resolved. We're moving forward. Mr. Roof, maybe you could just clear the whole thing up by asking him that question where he learned that Ms. Like, your answer is, I don't know if I heard it from this guy or heard it from here, but now he doesn't know which hearsay source what struck out. Let's not worry about let's move on to whatever your next question. Whatever he did, it becomes relevant. That's what I was. All right, sir. Juries lose. Welcome back. We resolve the matters. We need to resolve the evidence, Mr. Riddick. Thank you, Officer Rasche. After check me out Larry Englishes. How did you end up going over to Steube Lawrence? I did. And what do you have to tell the jury? I went over and knocked on the door. I noticed that she had a blink. I hate black square camera on her front porch, shining down towards the walkway leading up to the door. Did you look around the house or just go to the front door? I looked around. The rear of the property is fenced in, so I looked around the front yard and would be the left side, which faces Jones or Jones Road. OK, didn't see the blackmail note by that point. Did you already have this video clip? Do you know what I have to look at the time that was actually sent to my phone versus the time that I was over there when you went to see me Lawrence's house, were you aware of that? Larry English had called back to the county police department describing where this man in his perception was going to? Yes, OK, And so that so then you went to sibilant steps. Yes. [10:51:33][197.3] [10:51:33] OK, while you were out at Steube Lawrence's house, did you see a man named Diego Perez? Yes, I did. And without telling us anything, Diego Perez said, what was he doing out there? Checking our property. You know, he was armed. I do not take. Did you ask him? No, I did not. Did he get in your way in any way? No, he did not. OK, so he was looking around the property at about the same time you were looking around? Yes. Was he still in his boxer shorts? I do not recall him being a boxer shorts. OK, fully dressed. And I would suggest dressy as far as you know, as far as I was dressed. OK, if I understand correctly, you received the next call to go out to Larynxes House on November 18th. Is that correct? I [10:52:30][56.9] [10:52:30] believe so, yes. OK, OK. Um, and that would have been your second time out there. Did you at the time you went out there on that on November 18th, have Larry English send you the video clips again? Yes. [10:52:47][17.4] [10:52:47] OK, so when you went out there on the 18th, you knew you're looking for the same black male who's come back on this property. Yes. In this time, if you can play November eight, and this is state's exhibit is one twenty three you saw here you saw this video clip. Yes. OK, now you'll see in the video clip selling some video clip, the boat on the left hand side of the of the video, right? Yes. That's not the boat where Larry Englishes electronics were stolen from Nossa. That's a smaller just both for towing around the river. Yes. Or not as offshore. [10:53:38][50.9] [10:53:37] But it's but you understood by the 18th and correct me if I'm wrong, that he had had a theft from his boat that was parked the property. I was aware of a theft from the boat, but I do not know the date and time that he called me and told me and told me about that. OK, so it's possible that you went there on the 18th and still didn't know about items missing from Larry Englishes House. Yes. OK, you went there on the 18th and this time you're still with other officers. Yes. Dark. Yes. You go into the scene, you have your flashlight. Yes, sir. You have your gun? Yes. Is it drawn while we're checking? I don't recall, OK, because at this point, you still have no information that this man is possibly OK. No reason to worry about a threat at that point. No. OK, but it's now struck you that twice the same black male was entered larynxes house. Yes. And didn't catch him. He's gone by the time you get there. He's gone out twice. Yes, sir. How long does it take you and believe me, I'm not criticizing you at all. You get the call, you go, how long does it take you to get there on these occasions to thank you very, very well. I mean, am I on another call? I have to finish up there. It could be if I'm just out riding the from the central location of my area, five to four to eight minutes. OK, so within forty eight minutes at best, four minutes worse. Eight minutes. The guy is gone. Yes. [10:55:16][98.6] [10:55:15] OK, on the 18th when you check out the property and I assume you checked out the dock area, it's there's a camper on the property just like we saw on the 11th. Check out the camper area. They've got valuables stored at this property right? Yes. It's got construction valuables. Yes. Saws and other tools, right? Yes. It's got boats that are valuable. Yes. Equipment within boats that are valuable. Yes. He's got a camper that contains his belongings. Yes, it's his property. Right, sir. Even though it's an open construction site, it's his property. Yes. He has a right to keep people on or off as he sees fit. He does OK. You're now there twice. You miss him twice. Yes. Do you know how he gets away on the 18th other than walking away? That's it. OK, do you do any other steps that might take any other steps to find the black male? Just canvased the neighborhood. [10:56:13][57.8] [10:56:13] When you say canvass and this is on the eighteenth, are you just patrolling the neighborhood or are you actually knocking on doors, driving around, shining the spotlight? OK, doing doing what you can to find this elusive black male. Yes. OK, you get a call from Larry English on the 1st of December, but you're off duty. Yes, but he describes for you suspect someone he thinks may be involved in the theft of the stuff from his boat. Yes. So is it fair to say to the jury that by December 1st, you know, Larry, English has been burglarized? Objection to that characterization? That's not at all a very English setter testified to well, I'm asking this officer's perceptions at that time, relevancy as to this officer's perceptions. At that time, it was very obvious that Larry was testifying yesterday subject to speaking objections. What did you learn? English has testified to his testimony is in the record. You're asking this witness what his recollection is of what it's based, as I understand it. Go with that over by December 1st. Twenty nineteen. You understood that Larry English was missing, is that right? I knew he was missing a quarter. I didn't know it was a psychologist gave a plug to Eddie to do that. And he purp satellite system. Yes. And another piece of electronic having a microphone system. Yes. OK, and you understood that the items were taken from the offshore boat that had been parked out there in this house. Yes, right. In the same area. With this boat is now part in state's exhibit one. Twenty one twenty three. Yes. That are the garage. Mr because you're off duty. Last thing you need is to get these calls. So you say, you know, call somebody else or I'll be there. I can check it out tomorrow. Now, are you referring to the item stolen or the. Well, on December 1st is calling you got a suspect now of who might have done it in his mind? Yes. I told him I was off duty and I he called and refers to the people under the bridge. Right. And that told him I would check it out when I was by phone duty. And you were nice enough on the 2nd of December to go down to the fancy bluffs bridge and look under the bridge to see if there was any truth to this this notion that the person who was stealing the items and entering his house was down there under the bridge. Yes. You didn't see any evidence of that? Did not. And that was the end of that into that. [10:56:13][0.0] [10:58:57] OK, help us understand when you not just patrolled the neighborhood, but actually went around the neighborhood talking to everyone. I think it's the word you said on February 11th. When did you talk to people? Not every single one, but anybody that I encountered riding a golf cart, walking, I would stop. Hey, I'm off thrash. I introduced myself and asked them I would show them a steal from that video. Have you seen this guy? In around the neighborhood? Do you know where they live? We would patrol every day. I'm on shift. I ride that neighborhood, won't try to ride at once or sometimes twice per shift. OK, so it's not just one day you said I'm going to go knock on doors. It's it's throughout this whole time period. Yes. And you're patrolling the neighborhood. You're going down to tell a verver, sellwood, homes, Jones, all the streets you patrol in that subdivision. And when you see someone in the yard, you stop. When you see a house has a ring doorbell or some other camera system, you stop and inquire. Yes, because you're trying to find the guy who has entered larynxes house now twice and twice got in the way. [11:00:26][89.3] [11:00:26] It's you're asking people. But to your frustration, no one knows. This guy knows. No one can tell you where he lives. No one can tell you. No one even told you they saw him jogging in the neighborhood. That's right. Not a single person has seen him jogging that you talk. No, I did not specifically ask have you seen this guy jogging? But no one had seen him in the neighborhood, period. Tell us about how many people over the course of those months that you talk to about this. How many people did you talk to? A dozen. Twelve to ten to twenty people. You're showing people the stills not from the November 18th, but the stills from October 25th. [11:01:23][56.6] [11:01:23] Video for both, I believe, from the twenty fifth, still from the twenty four guy on the dock. Yes, OK. And you're letting them know that this is a guy seen up to twenty eight to tell the driver. Yes, some people might know their English, but I assume most did not know who he was. I've no idea on that. OK, when you did you, did you ask people to review their surveillance videos to see if he might have been captured on certain dates on those videos? I never encountered anybody that had video that so I didn't ask anybody to review. OK, the next time you go out, there is February one this February eleventh is now in Europe. Your third time responding to larynxes house. I believe it's obvious. You're aware, though, that that other officers have been to larynxes house, right? Yes. Are you talking to these other officers? I have interacted a couple of times just passing on the light at the end of our shift, the end of the beginning of next year. Let them know, hey, be on the lookout. You know, pass along to the next officer. I believe I called the officer powers on the phone and passed on some information. Those are briefings. We don't always see each other face to face. I would just call, hey, are you working? Baker nine tonight. Are you working? Baker nine today. Be on the lookout. And Officer Powers is one of those officers who did respond to larynxes house on the 17th of November. I believe so. That's right. When the white couple came to his house, you didn't respond to that call. Is it your understanding that Officer Powers responded, I'm trying to look at the catalog. He was on duty. If you don't have any knowledge, that's fine. February 11th, this time is not there. You should call. It's Travis McMichaels. Call. [11:03:55][152.0] [11:03:54] Yes. Were you aware when you got there or on your way there that the man who is now seen on the 11th of February is possibly armed? At one point, Travis says that he was appeared to reach for his pocket or his waistband. I do not recall if that was relayed to me via dispatch while I was in or out or once I arrived on scene. OK, so we saw the video. And this time you're not just going in with your flashlight. This time you got guns drawn. So does that help refresh your memory? Does of of when you heard that the man in the house is possibly armed? Yeah, that would I would say yes. And what is your memory now? Tell you is when you talk about when you learn that we talked about we went in with our guns drawn based on that, the dispatcher told us that he was possibly armed. That's why we would have went in there with our guns drawn while we searched the residence. So this is a different situation. You're now going in a house and you might encounter a man who has a gun. Yes. Heart pumping. Yes. Adrenaline flowing. Yes. Now you've got to be on you're really on your toes. Yes. And we saw another officer with you. I think his name is Trenton. But Trenton Sherman, Officer Sherman, he's there with you. Yes. [11:05:17][83.2] [11:05:17] At some point, did you hear Officer Trenton say, I'm just using the quote from, quote, Tell me where you at, motherfucker? I don't recall hearing a at this point, though. You're on heightened alert. Yes, you have. When you get on scene, you have neighbors out there. You have ties with my classmates. But you hadn't met up so you have Greg McMichael out there. And again, you have Diego Perez out there. Yes. You recognize Diego is the guy you saw on the 18th of November? Yes. You got Officer Sherman with you or you come later. Officer Sherman arrived after Exwife stood by the car out front waiting on him. He and Officer Smith, they arrived about the same time. And there you're there, your partner is there. Your back up as close as Bindi's. You're taking the lead on this? [11:06:26][69.6] [11:06:26] Yes. OK, and when you get there, essentially, Travis MacMichael, Diego Perez, engraving, Michael are keeping an eye on the house. Yes. OK, making sure that if this guy goes anywhere, this intruder that they keep eyes on. Objection. Overuse of the word intruder and judge. We would object to that. Use that word burglar. So listen to me, as I've already instructed you, the questions asked by lawyers and statements made by lawyers are not evidence in this case. Mr. Ruben chooses to use that word to describe the individual. Again, the testimony. [11:07:27][60.7] [11:07:31] In this case and what you may see as exhibits mistruth when you get there. Three neighbors have basically flat out front and back of the house to keep out for this guy. Right upon my arrival, they were all in the front yard on the front porch. At what point do they start going in the back? Uh, I don't recall them going in the back while we were clearing the residence where you're told Travis is in the back at some point. That's after we walked back to the front. After we cleared the residence. I believe I feel good. [11:08:13][42.1] [11:08:12] So, yeah, this is, uh, one of two things. Exhibit 231. Let's walk through this video a little bit. Yes. Actually, um, I suggest you mind, Jonathan, It's looking for a specific portion of the transcript just at this time. We're going to walk through that the the exhibit again. So listen to me, if we could, if you're going to get copies of the transcript, but don't start reading back over. Mr. Rubins going to be referring to apportions the transcript and those transcripts, transcripts are being given back to you to help you refer to that page line that's being addressed. [11:09:06][54.5] [11:09:06] So if you please use those in that way. Thank you. I'll try not to ask about what's being said versus what's been seen so we don't have them reading why they should be lost. If we can, stuff like that. And this is you testified earlier that Nancy, on the screen at this point is Diego Perez. She's got a flashlight. Yes. And he's heading towards the down the side of the house. Is that correct? Yes. To the side. [11:09:34][27.5] [11:09:34] OK, now the side of the house that that white vehicle for that line item, that's Mr. Englishes camper. Yes. OK, let's stop there. At that point, Officer Rash, had you authorized Diego Perez to do any investigation? I have not authorized you authorized him to do any search for Mr. English or for you? No, I have not. You had not deputized Diego Perez? No, I have not. But he's out there assisting. Yes. You're OK with that at that time? Yes. He didn't have a problem with that? No. And Greg McMichael and Travis McMichael are there as well. Oh, yes. You're OK with that? Yes. You even find out Travis is on file? Yes. You're OK with that? Yes. We didn't tell. Have to go put his gun. No. You didn't tell Travis to go home? No, I did not tell Greg to go home. No, I did not. You didn't tell Diego to go? No, I did not. There, out there keeping their eyes out. Assisting you. Yes. You're OK with that? Yes. OK, stuff. Do you see this flashlight back here? Yes, sir. Do you know who that is? That's Diego Perez standing along the fence, shining a light magnet. OK, so he's while you're in front with other officers, your body cameras now just turning on. He's out. [11:11:33][119.3] [11:11:33] He's back. He's heading back by the camper and back where the doc is correct. He's walking down the side of the house. Yes. OK, go to this house, call this guy video. I called him several hours prior to that. Call me tonight. Yeah, stop right there. Larry English didn't even call you that night until you called him proof. Is it your understanding that instead of calling Glynn County Police, he called Diego Perez? I did not know that. OK, that point on. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Say that at that point, I did not know that. When did you find that out? When he on the phone, he told me he had sent the video to Diego and that's when I responded. I'm the one on duty tonight. I understood him. He sent it to an officer. We have the notary, Diego Delaporte. [11:12:33][60.5] [11:12:33] I was thinking he sent that to another officer. That's why I on the phone with Mr. English, I said, I'm the one on duty tonight. Send it to me. Did you ever ask Diego Perez this night to see what their English had sent him? No, I did not. Because you didn't know he had it? I did not. OK, what do we see you getting out of your eye? Looks like that's a flashlight that's out of my front door. I have a and I have my standard police to issue flashlight. And then I have a larger it's a brighter flashlight in my police issue. Flashlight was going down, so I went and retrieved a second flashlight. And while you're retrieving your flashlight, we see two gentlemen on your body cam. I think you've identified the man in the blue shirt is Diego Perez. And you know who that is, Billy? That's Travis. Greg MacMichael, the man in what looks like a great short sleeve shirt. Yes, OK. And he's walking around the house as well there in the front yard of the house. Yes. OK, They don't watch him. They said, unless he jumped the fence and went over somewhere. They don't know if he has down the road. So we just need to check in with stop. OK, that's you. That is you got your flashlight in one hand and your police issued firearm the other. Yes. OK, guns drawn. [11:14:31][118.3] [11:14:31] Yes, OK, but the county police, anybody about here and stuff, 111359 COUNSEL>> You got your gun drawn, but it's a burglary, or trespassing. It's a property crime. So why is your gun drawn? RASH>> I believe at that point then that we were notified, that's, I guess dispatch had notified us that possibly armed. 111414 COUNSEL>> So it's for your protection. RASH>> My protection. COUNSEL>> Not to hurt anybody. It's to protect you -- RASH>> Absolutely. COUNSEL>> -- in case somebody jumps down from the rafters we're looking at -- 111425 RASH>> Yes, sir. COUNSEL>> --and surprises you. RASH>> Yes, sir. COUNSEL>> You need to protect yourself. RASH>> Yes, sir. COUNSEL>> You need to protect Officer Sherman. RASH>> Yes, sir. 111432 COUNSEL>> You need to protect Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael, and Diego Perez, because they're in danger, too. RASH>> Possibly. COUNSEL>> You don't know what's going to happen. RASH>> I do not. COUNSEL>> But you don't take any chances. RASH>> Not at all. COUNSEL>> OK, so it's standard procedure when you go into a possible armed situation to make sure you have your gun ready. RASH>> Yes. COUNSEL>> For your protection. RASH>> Yes, sir. [11:15:32] Yes, sir. Click here. Can you stop right there? I didn't hear you, officer. Say maybe I just missed it. Glynn County police come out like they do on TV. Did you did you say I missed it or you didn't say. I said don't come in, please, when we walked in. OK, so that's to announce your presence. Yes. And that's to make sure you're not surprising anybody is to make sure that that person knows that they that that they should come out because you're you're an officer. Did you use your presence to get compliance with orders? Yes. Your uniform. You want them to see your badge. Right. This see your see your vest if you're wearing a vest that night says county police, because presence is one way to gain compliance. Yes, sir. Shouts is another word shout meaning I'm here. Yes, sir. I want you to come out with your hands up. That's gaining compliance, right? Yes, sir. Are you familiar with the phrase shout shove show, shoot? I'm sure you're familiar with the use of force continuum. Yes. In the use force continuum, as you know from your training, is the levels of force that can be used by a police officer. Yes. Including just to present his use of force. Yes. When I'm here and I tell you to do something, you do it just because I'm here. There's another way to to to get compliance. Is shouting command. Yes. Do as I say. Because I'm telling you as a police officer what to do. Yes. Right. And I have the authority to do that. It's another another way to gain compliance is to show your weapon as you're doing here. Yes, I have a weapon. Don't do anything stupid here. You're not hiding it, right? Not it's not a concealed weapon. You want them to see it, right? Yes, sir. Because seeing a weapon will gain compliance from the person you're seeking to investigate. Yes, sir. OK, and then last course, the ultimate use of force is shooting someone. And that's deadly force. Yes. And you only do that when you yourself are in danger, when other people are in danger. [11:18:04][152.0] [11:18:04] Yes. I no, it's just happening there. There's a ladder here, I said, adding, but, well, there's a ladder right here. We stand up, but they don't have the added that Officer Sherman, that is Officer Sherman. Look, correct right here. They're still the dog in the bonus. We've got one example of a verbal command of presence. Yes. You already see the door on this camper. So you've got cameras out here. Guys, how on before? I'm here messing around on the boat stuff. Who are you talking to? Officer Sherman. OK, so you're getting him up to speed on the things that you know, that the guy's caught him, the guy being Larry English. Yes, caught him. I caught him long before I was here messing around on the boats and stuff. About the stuff in the back of the house. On the docks. Yes, on the docks. OK, great. They got the other promises. So the first the likelihood of a for this. So this guy's got these cameras and he lives in Douglas or somewhere he's always home and takes some video. The guy wanted to do the house. Well, the night neighbor saw the flashlight somewhere in here. So you use Mr. and Mrs. Word plundering kind of like you. Thank you very much. Ketchum's quandary means messed around with stuff. You shouldn't be messing around with buildings just like you and I should get out of our way. You're getting into my stuff. Yes. And that's how you use and you got that word from their English say word. He used the. Oh, yeah. That's good quality stuff, too, he says with a video of good quality stuff. What are you referring to? And the officer, I believe, is Officer Sherman was standing there looking up at the camera located on the front of the house. My body camera doesn't show it, but he's standing there with his life looking at the camera that Mr. English has mounted on the front for him. So the good quality stuff is the good quality surveillance system that allows you now to know what this guy looks like and to be able to identify. Yes, or most a lot of places we go to the cameras, look like they were from the 1950s, very, very poor quality. And those were some of the better quality cameras I have seen. Good. Are you back out front? Yes, sir. Welcome back up to our cars. We don't see him back there. Let's jump the fence this way or just walk down there. He saw it this way. OK, I'm going to stop it. So at this point, Greg McMichael is talking to you. Correct. And Greg, Miko's telling you that Travis just walked down there going in my backyard to check back this way. So Mr. MacMichael, Travis McMichael at this point is kind of expanding the search, going down to good as he's going down to his residence in the back yard. We're outside. Yeah, he's going in my backyard to go check back this way. Right. Because it's possible that the black male intruder is left that scene and is in somebody else's backyard possibility. And Travis is checking that out. Yes. And Travis is checking it out on February 11th. Twenty twenty with a gun. I don't know that he is checking out other people's backyards or in his backyard. He's going to check out his backyard. He's armed. Yes, he is. Just like he was armed when he was back in there. He was just out of. Yes, OK, he didn't go home, get the gun, come back out and go into his backyard. Right. Not that I'm aware. OK, you're OK with that? No right to carry a firearm. He does. And just like you're needing it for protection, he has the right to protect himself as well as he does on his property. Is on any property, right? Yes. OK, I think all our guys are in to watch all of this. The same cop is gone to sleep. [11:25:41][457.3] [11:25:41] So did Travis actually solve Yifei? Turn around here, put the lights on Tuesday. Why did he call this inside the house. So that you can talk about this stuff about video. Do you have a window? Right. Yes. We didn't identify think this guy's Ronnie Ronnie Olsen and he lives right across the street. Yes sir. During the procedure generally crossing to nineteen Seattle police, did you understand that he has a surveillance system? I knew he had a camera in his window and he mentioned then he had one on the corner the eve of the eve of his house. But it just wasn't very good at night. [11:25:41][0.0] [11:26:20] No, I have any music out here after dark and. All right. So they waited and waited. He said he was late. So I'm not I'm not. I'm again, I'm a columnist in English, just getting him to look back at his cameras. He's got this guy he's always off with. Nobody in the neighborhood knows who he is. And we can I've been about every house. We're trying to I know you said earlier it wasn't really every house door to door, but ten to twenty people. No one's seen him walking the neighborhood, running the neighborhood, jogging the neighborhood. Doing anything, even if no one's seen, no one had ever seen. OK, I mean, he's been on their video. They video over here. We've called him on this guy. He's got we called him on several media cameras, but we just can't find where he's and he usually goes this way straight down that road that again, you're saying he goes this way. You talk about Jones. Jones. Yes. OK, I could just just you and everybody, if they can see. If you can see until the drive is the entrance up here, can you see that officer around and still alive? This is Jones and that's Larry Englishes House right across from Jones. That Michael live further down. OK, so we're I'm standing in this picture. Jones Road would be right to the right where Mr. Olsen, you can see Mr. Olsen pointing down Jones Road. OK, so if you look right across the street, you look down JONES Well, yeah, but it ain't directly across. You see the house, but off to the right of Mr. Olsen. Jones Road. That's the telegraph. OK, and then Jones would be off to the right of him. Do you know Matt Albanese? I do know Matt. He lives down those. OK, I hear you go down that road. Yeah, back. That's that's usually the way he goes. How do you know the way he usually has been is certain based on mystery, which is the scene when he leaves the property. The first time he said he went over towards Jones Road, towards the house on the corner. And the second time, I believe Mr English and I remember him telling me that he left in the same direction. OK, do you know if if that black male had any business down that road? I do not. Doesn't know. There's no grandma down there. I don't know who he is. I have no knowledge that this camera's. Oh was it how it got there. Yeah. The son saw him looked like ribbon round and he got inside. It's another that's when the dog out there, this is the one before they called him inside. So he's got kind of a yes. Er if it's the same guy in his sleep, he's lighter skinned and he gets sleep, he's of at this point you hadn't gotten Inglis's videos yet for this night. No, I'm not showing Officer Sherman video because he is about to start driving around canvasing the neighborhood and you want him looking for that black male. Yes. OK, very sure. That's what is this stuff down here. [11:31:01][280.9] [11:31:01] He rented the house, told me and I right out front he was looking for a flashlight like I said, was watching that here. OK, now if I come across straight on that door, that realty, when we transfer, he could have able to see. No, no, we don't have we try and trap in door to door. Nobody knows he was, you know, good. I you know, sir, I guess to see I saw this, he was able to get it in. OK, send me to go. But I was going to be you did not even know he was there. The, you know, on duty tonight know we've there's five or six of us here along with the neighbors and we haven't seen it. We've searched everything so they can track five or six of you meeting Glynn County Police Department. Yes. And neighbors and neighbors are not only McMichaels and Diego Perez, but also Ronnie Olsen. Now, we're announcing this at some point we see Matt Albanese come into view in a red shirt, right? Yes. [11:32:13][71.7] [11:32:12] OK, this is he went out, went right to the house. So he went out. He jumped the fence somewhere and went right or left. But we looked all on the dog and in the camp, the camper round the camper, we all up in the rafters and everything. I never even got on a ladder. Look up there to see these on top of around the area where there are no signs of him here. They're they're canvasing the neighborhood right now. So we're actively looking at your neighbor across the street. Oh, look at this camera. Just this camera. Lozado, whatever. This road is John Road. He's got a camera that looks at Joan Road. He's going to look at it and see if you see where he went that way. But as of now, I swear I'll go see what video you have. Does it look like it's the same guys always will also be our own officer. They're going to so that the camera doesn't look like the same guys always. Elham Hello, sir. It's the little guy. The same guy as always. Same guy, right? That's what I'm telling you, sir. [11:33:39][87.2] [11:33:39] First time now, you've actually confirmed that the guy on February 11th is the guy on November 18th, the guy on October 25th. Yes. I still can't catch the. Oh, yeah. The guy that Mr. McMichael lives on the road, the retired law enforcement officer and the D.A. investigator, his son saw him and said, you know, the black male, I don't know, Ransdorf or whatever, if I heard get exactly what he had. But he saw me in turn in New York. But the headlights on him and he running into I saw him run through the house. We just don't know who he is. All right. All right. [11:34:30][50.5] [11:34:30] Thanks. They say it's the same guy. He's got to be house arrest. You're approaching Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael and somebody I can't I don't know who that is. I don't know Sherman or somebody else telling them English is just confirmed. It's the same guy who's been breaking into the house on multiple occasions. There's no breaking in. Trespassing on the property. Yes. Trespassing. But stuff's missing, not by this guy. Do you know that none of the video shows him take anything from the property? No one in the video shows anybody taking anything. That stuff's missing. There is stuff missing from the boat, from the boat on the property. Yes, right. Yes. Circumstantial evidence. Right. Objection. Calls for a legal position. It's with the jury. I think it's officers now explaining what he knows and and how he knows it and what significance it has to him. [11:35:36][66.1] [11:35:36] He should explain what he knows, understands those on the property. I know there's stuff missing from the boat on the property is at the same time. This blackmail has now entered three times. Yes. OK, but you're talking to Travis cigaret, right as you're walking down confirming that Larry English says it's the same guy. Yes. He said, I'll be this person in here, but we'll get this a this is video of this being done. This is the video link. [11:36:16][40.6] [11:36:16] It's from one of the prior cinches, obviously. Tatsumi Simao, Travis confirms for you that the guy he's looking at on February 11th, the guy he saw in person, is the same guy that's been there before. Yes. He was wearing a red shirt, white van. I didn't see his face, but he's got like twisty hair, three square. That's my dress. The twist, what I call it, that wasn't Einstein. But that's just that's what it is. The same guy. I don't know where he's coming from. He's still down this road. No, no, no. It's almost 17 year old girl from the when Travis tells you he's coming down this road, we're talking about satellite drive he is pointing to from the entrance down until the drop. So at least try the suspects is telling you it's coming from the entrance at seventeen into the neighborhood. That's what he's done. OK, go to where I've been. I've been up there, you know, be out here for Jones and somewhere. Do you have the family there to have the baby adopted right now? Possibly. As I went and talked to them, they got one that kind of matches it. But he's a little better player. He's got something wrong with it. I heard he just had a kidney transplant. He just got the old lady, right? Yeah. [11:37:54][98.1] [11:37:54] And when you Chernow's down the house has got a dumpster out there. There's some black trash there. Right. A matter of fact. No, I can forget they have some kids that age, you know. Well, I've been there for a couple of reports of an alleged assault or whatever. It's the kids that have her, the female now and this one's boyfriend they had over there. So it could be unless somebody moved in with him or whatever. But, you know, nobody seems to know who this kid is, where he's coming from. But like, he's always all the time on the video that Mr English said recently, it's always been just in there floating around. We haven't seen him actually taking that stuff. He hasn't seen him take anything. Right. That's what he said. Travis and Greg. But you don't say he hasn't taken anything that's true. Only that he hasn't been seen as a machine taking anything, just as no one's been seen taking it. No, I said so. Trespassing. Yeah. Yeah. Stop worrying. Worrying about criminal trespass. Yeah, yeah. At the very least. Is that you talking or someone else time I believe Greg said criminal trespass. And I said at the very least, At the very least. Because it could be. Look at the state. Oh it is, yes. It could be burglary. If, if he is taking something then yes he could be charged with murder. Well if he's not taking something but goes in with the intent to take something, you understand that's burglary. Right? Of course. But with the intent to take something. If he had. I know he had the intent. I don't know. I'm just saying that's the that's the law, as you understand it, as an officer. Right. With the intent. Yes, the law does so with the intent. OK, been reported stolen in the first. [11:39:55][121.8] [11:39:55] Now, we do have to go down the road here, the house for the guy, which is he has those stolen of some guns, all of but we got our video card and people are coming in and stole them. They were from another neighbor doing some. Oh, that's my job. Mr. Brady. I'm just calling for you. Go, go. In. The room is just tonight. Joe, this is fix it up, right? Oh, yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Yeah. [11:40:39][43.2] [11:40:39] Driza-Bone Black Hawk Down, a lighter skinned black woman over his own, got like twisted dreads three, four inches long. He has sleeve tattooed on his arms dealer live right here. I come from a bar, so I will go see your you know, I could do what I don't do. It's a rich person of a lot of money. And this is, again, we're trying to back is to scribing the man he saw on the property reaching into his pocket. Yes. [11:41:28][49.7] [11:41:28] He's talking to the master of this. You got to go out of your way. I'll be back anyway. If all had it on set right here. Call Joe. You know, I don't know that you're going for. So he doesn't really matter that. So I won't cross my vote no further. Down there. But House on the rocks on the street, that's probably wrong. I got right here in a van or just parked outside, right? Yeah. Good. Appreciate your being here. The I've been looking for me those weeks ago. Yeah. Yeah. The house. The house out there on the right. Right. Oh yeah. I think a bit half a million for to go through come home early as they work on Geophone. So important energy on the road and call up good at making deals down here. When they lost recently they'll go down here and take measures. They got all the way. We busted a house. All right, let's play. We got the wrong guy. When said he had a guy living with him, we got him on some outstanding warrants and he was got a bunch of about it. Yeah. But, you know, around here, what's the guy, Jean, you don't talk about. Yeah. That's real there. You know where he lives. He's got a great group of laughing crowd. He got to ask, you know. Well oh boy did they catch Buie which is genes. I guess that's genes on a girlfriend get a girlfriend. I don't know. That's Gene, wife or girlfriend. But her kid, he is in prison. He's fully had his face pass everything. He she totally tried to commit suicide in jail. There was no, no, no, no. He was I was down there last week. He called on the morning he was driven out. So the satellites were watching him. And this time he was he was out there. He was on something else like, no at this school for you being that morning, I said, where's your mom? Was Gene? Well, they're in hell. No, not at all. I think yeah. Maybe it was Al supposably. His grandma died of his grandmother and they were over there staying at her house for a little while. But the house looks like the gloominess, right? I'm wondering if they even knew I was. I said, if you have permission to be here, Tasch. Oh, they know I'm here. I tried to call mom. Mom, I couldn't get a hold over, son. I passed on a Monday show guy. I said, you may get a call today. My mom may come home and want to know why he was over there, because he had been trespassing on the property at one time. So. Right. But I guess the behavior was looking. Got to look for to find the I appreciate calling pretty well. Horrible stuff. And they can't see who's talking to you there. Someone telling you about a dark colored car. And Officer Chandler Smith, that's Chandler Smith. He and went out and drove around the neighborhood. And he's telling you on page 19, line twenty one. I'm pretty sure he got somebody that somebody pick him up. Yes. OK, and on page twenty from one say same guy, Officer Smith is telling you there was a little dark colored car that was stopped and stayed there. I watched it all the way until you noticed until a drive comes into view. Yes. What is he explaining to you? Whether you understand him to be explained? There was a dark colored car stopped down the road as he approached the car, took off. Is that suspicious to you or was that suspicious to you at the time that that car took off? Could be. Could we get somebody standing there in part to see what we're doing, watching us? Do you know where on satellite drive he's talking about? I do not know if it's closer to 17 or closer towards Furfur. [11:46:08][280.0] [11:46:08] I'm talking about up here or that said, I was coming up the wall and there was a little dark colored car that was stopped. It stayed there. Was he coming up? I don't know which way he was coming up, though. He was coming up from satellite or coming up from 17. I watched it all the way and they hit that video in here tonight. I mean, that video was good news. Cameras are good. He walks in, he just wanders around. And that guy like five different videos of him going in there. And, oh, no, no, he doesn't take anything. He's just goofing around. Now, the guy has had some stuff stolen out of his phone, but he has he didn't have any cause he had a fake a bigger boat. Corporate volcanoes in the Balkan block. And he got like to per cent of uranium, whatever that is in the bank, about two thousand dollars or so stolen. But he has no video of the people taken. So he's taken the air conditioner. People who have worked for the that have he only had cameras outside the house after that. He had the cameras to the inside to help you just sum up the whole thing. I come in the house pilfering real stuff stolen from the boat. Suspect air conditioning guys right. Same black male coming back now three times. Yes. To your knowledge, up fresh between February 11th and February. 2013. Never saw this black man never, never able to catch them despite being out there within minutes. Right. If and when seconds count, sometimes minutes don't work. True. Thank you, sir. [11:48:56][167.8] [11:48:56] So I have no Mr if you don't mind, we collect of the transcripts of the ulceration Franklin Hoague. And along with my wife and co counsel Laura, we represent Greg MacMichael Holiday. Everything Mr. Rubin just did with you on cross-examination and I won't repeat any of it. So I just want to talk to you about one other topic that has come up much here. OK, let's go to December, the twentieth of twenty nineteen. You're out patrolling Atila Shores, area oriented and with me. Yes, sir. And you see great Michael out in his yard in front of his house. Yes. At two thirty to a short drive, right. Yes. And you recognize him? Yes. You already knew who he was. Yes. You knew him from law enforcement years. You'd seen him around the DA's office or the Glynn County Police Department. Right. Yes, sir. In fact, you knew that he had once worked with your own dad who was in law enforcement. Yes. And he stopped that day to talk to him while you were patrolling cities with Shaw's because you were in, in effect, investigating this possible burglary at Larry Englishes house. [11:51:07][131.5] [11:51:05] Yes, And specifically, he stopped to show him videos or still shots or both that you had in your possession on yourself that you had gotten from Larry English, right? Yes. So did you get out of your car and stand in the yard to show him the. I stayed in my car, the seat of my heart. So he came over to your car door? Yes. And you were talking and you were telling him about your investing and showing him these videos? Yes. OK, so by that time you're showing him the video of October the twenty fifth twenty nineteen that we have already seen and I will replay that shows the young black male on the boat dock, right? Yes, sir. And you show him all the video you have of that. And I don't I don't believe we sat and watched every clip entirety. Then you move on to the November 17 twenty nineteen video that shows the white couple walking into looks like the boat garage. That's right. Showed him that video. I believe so, yes. And then you showed him the video from November 18. Twenty 19 of the same black male that had been there on October the twenty fifth. I don't recall if I showed the 18th but I when we had the discussion, he had been there multiple times. That's what you told him. Yes. This person on the screen shot and the video you had from October the twenty fifth had been there multiple times. Yes. There being the English house. Yes. And he told you, Mr. MacMichael, that he did not in this room. Michael Fulton, you're saying I'm not offering it for the truth of what he said, but for what this officer did with the information he acquired as he is conducting an investigation of a burglary, objection to the characterization of it as a burglary. It's not a burglary. It's sustained. You just ask him what he did. That's what he did. All right. Based on your showing the video of this person, the young black male or the white couple? To Greg McMichael, did you acquire information from Greg? Michael then helped you that day? Solve the crime? No, I do not know. And so he was of no help to you in solving the crime by telling you who these people were and where you can go find them. He was not you understood that he didn't even know who was on that house. My understanding is. But you did tell him that the person on the house didn't live there. He lived a couple of hours away. And Douglas George leave. And then you discussed with him that the owner of the house had indeed had expensive items stolen from the boat that was parked at that house sometime in October or November of twenty nineteen. Right. I don't remember the exact date, but I do recall telling him that there was items had been items missing from the boat and you let him know what you were doing. You were trying to identify the people in these videos so that you could get help from the neighbors to solve the crime. [11:55:01][236.2] [11:55:01] Yes, So you knew he was retired law enforcement, right? Yes. And he told you that day that he would give you his phone number and that you could give his phone number to the owner of that house? He did, Larry English. And in fact, he gave you his phone number, right? He did. And told you that you could convey that phone number to Larry English and that if Larry English got any more activity on his camera, he could call Greg McMichael day or night. Yes. And that he would do what he could to help. Yes. Now, in your experience, it's not uncommon in tight knit communities for there to be neighbors who will offer to help neighbors like that. Is it not uncommon that you've encountered that sort of neighborly helpfulness, rather people before other neighbors, other neighborhoods? Not uncommon that as a police officer that you will respond to businesses or residences when alarms go off and there's some other person who's not the owner who's looking out for the place. And that's you'll end up talking to. So you took this phone number and this message that Mr. McMichael gave you that day and you conveyed that to Mr. English, right? Yes, I did. One of Mark as an exhibit G and one of which was this to you, Officer Ramos, which still stays on. Before we read it, fellows, first you recognize it? I do. [11:57:48][167.2] [11:57:48] And you recognize it to be a screenshot of the text message I do from that is a screenshot of the text message from me to Larry English. All right. I tendered in evidence, Your Honor, objection to. And you say it's from your phone to Larry, but it is. And it starts at the top. Here's a clip from my Boink camera. That's from Larry King. That's you. Yes. OK, the part that's from you to him. I'm going to read it. You tell me if this is what you said to him. Your neighbor at two twenty nine satellite drive is Greg McMichael. You know, now that he lives to listen to the guy, right? Yes, sir. Greg is a retired law enforcement and also a retired investigator from the DA's office. Yes. He said please call him day or night when you get action on your camera. Yes, his number is. And then you gave his cell phone. That is correct. [11:59:06][78.1] [11:59:06] And this is dated to eleven twenty seven. Forty seven p.m. But the text of the top is 12. Twenty. So you have any idea when you actually sent that to him. Twelve. Twenty eight. Nine forty. That's when you said that to Larry English. Yes. The 211 is for the next clip. That's below the date. Pertinent to the text that you're sending to Greg MacMichael is the day that the top twelve twenty nineteen 940 a.m.. That's when you were talking to him in the yard. Yes. That's all I have. Officer Rash. Thank you, Mr. Monk. Get your. Good morning, Dormont. I'm Jessica Burton. I'm cocounsel. Ferrarotti Brian. I just have a couple of questions. The first one is you never spoke with Mr. Brian about any of the break ins or the deaths that were occurring at Mr. Englishes house. Is that correct? That is correct. OK, and you also never spoke with him in late twenty nineteen or early twenty twenty of all of the break ins. And that's going on in the neighborhood, is that correct? I don't called. OK, I don't think I have anything else but thank you Mrs. Sorcerous. There was no communication at all between you and Larry English between 12 twenty of nineteen and February 11th of twenty. Twenty. None that I recall. No text messages, no text messages. All right. And when you sent that text to very English, was it your intent to deputize Gregory Michael Jackson? Michael's never. Would you want them to be witnesses? Actually, the text was for Greg. My Michael, not for Travis, not Michael. For my Michael based his training and knowledge as a retired officer, retired investigator, to be a witness, to call 911, to tell us what he saw and direct us where we needed to. Because you had metrics at this point. I know. Well, no, ma'am. OK, and your intent the defense has characterized it as solving a crime. But if made contact with the now deceased homicide victim, your intent was to identify, you know, OK, then trespassing. And if that what Mr. Imus it's it's ultimately his decision. And it does happen. Some some homeowners, some business owners, they just say tell them to leave. I don't want to trespass and just tell him to leave and don't come back. And it's ultimately, Larry, Englishes decision, property owners decision, the property owners decision on this decision. OK, to say whether to actually give it formal trespass on this person. Correct. [12:02:34][208.4] [12:02:34] Or to just say, hey, officer, can you just tell me something about absolutely. You get knocked on Supai Lawrences door on October 25th. Twenty nineteen chancer. No, this review went over all the stuff inside the open unsecured construction site. It's OK. So there's that saw that. We see all that lumber, all that's just laying out totally unsecured. OK, the report, any of it stolen? No, ma'am. Not to my knowledge, ever reported his electronic stolen mail. To my knowledge, no one ever report any plumbing or fixtures stolen. Ever report the electrical or electronic stolen? No, ma'am, not to my knowledge. Ever report any tools stolen? No knowledge ever report that anybody's broken into that camper? No, ma'am. And a report that anything's been stolen off of that doc? No, ma'am. [12:03:52][78.2] [12:03:52] So. Well, for January 1st, twenty nineteen through February 23, twenty twenty where English never reported anything actually stolen at 220 children. Not to my knowledge. The you never even reported the cooler and the satellite system stoltmann didn't know me. OK, do you have any evidence about who stole that stuff? Never did any knowledge of where the boat was when the stuff was stolen. I do. What was about the boat was inside of the boat garage, RV, garage, whatever terminology he's calling comes in part. It's out of there. So you're understanding right now is that the stuff was stolen when it was parked there or that's how Mr. English discovered it when Mr. English called me, told me he discovered it, I was under the impression it was stolen from there. In no time did Mr. English ever tell me he takes a boat from that location anywhere else or had it been any other location. So I was under the impression it was stolen from that side based on the phone call where he called me. How many conversations you have about the stuff? Based on about one call, he called me on my off. They told me what he had. I said, if you need to, I'm not on duty. You need to call. Have the on duty officer come to the scene to report it. And he started talking about his insurance deductible. He didn't know if it was worth it. And he decided that there was never a report made. So I can only speculate he decided against it. All right. Do you remember when this off day was when he called to tell you he discovered his missing stuff? Don't remember the exact date. I like I said, my phone didn't keep record of the calls and only get record of the text. So you never had a follow up conversation with Larry English about what he thought had happened with the stuff and where the boat was at the time. He told me the boat was inside the garage. Now, that phone call we discussed the air conditioned HVAC contractors there. My theory was, if those two his theory, unless it's relevant something in the case, like we were talking about his understanding from Mr. English. So the state is going to go and ask you, what was your understanding about this? He had contractors there working. They were in and out of the house. He did not have video inside the house at that time. Contractors, air contractors carrying two boxes, boxes that have ductwork other items in and out very well possible. Those items could have been taken by the contractors, but nothing was ever seen. According to Mr. Inglis, there was no video footage of the contractors or anybody else taking any items from the house. He just. No, they were missing. All right. So is it fair to say that your understanding is that because these contractors can take big boxes in and out, they could hide these goods in it to take it? Absolutely. OK, you ever see Mr. Aubrey with any bags, backpacks or any way to steal anything out? I have never seen him do anything in his hands coming or going from the property on the videos that I have seen. So each time a story stops by to wander around inside the open unsecured construction site, he only stays for a few minutes that. All right. So when the defense characterizes this has gotten away, do you have any information that Mr. Aubrey has E.S.P and has some sort of ability to know the police are on the way? The name is called any police on him? [12:08:08][255.8] [12:08:02] OK, and how are you employed with the police department? Chief police officer? Yes. Well, yes, as a police officer, you get paid right? As a police officer, very little. But yes, So it's your job to respond to 911 calls, right? It is. That's why you get paid, right? Yes, ma'am. And they give you a uniform? Yes, ma'am. And equipment like the body cam, which is a patrol car. And so when the defense was asking you about use of force, you said something like, I am here, OK, as a law enforcement officer. Yes, as a law enforcement officer. Listen, the officer on the camera, is that how you were dressed as well? Yes. From green pants with a tan at that time. Our uniform was green blue pants, a khaki shirt, and I had an outer vest carrier at that point time. Was not a load bearing vest. It made it look like a more formal class looking uniform. But that outer carrier contained my body armor. Did you have identifiers showed that you you're a law enforcement officer? I had my badge. I had my name tag and no big words. I said police, but my uniform showed that I wore duty belt with all my good equipment in it. OK, so the first phase as the defense brought up to you saying I am here to law enforcement officers because you recognize as well as a law enforcement officer. That is correct. And then the next thing that Mr. Rubin brought up is do as I say, because I'm a law enforcement officer. Is that correct? Is OK easily identifiable as a law enforcement officer? And then I'm deployed as a law enforcement officer. I'm being paid for X. Yes. [12:10:08][126.6] [12:10:33] hat Mr. Overreduced never knew. He was walking slowly, walking to normal through the house. Now when there was talk to you about leaving in the same direction, like going down Jones Road, he described him as running, right? I believe so, yes. So when he leaves, this particular property is open, unsecured construction site, he leaves any direction, leaving. Describe what he does when he leaves the open unsecured construction site, Kolaric English. He leaves to the rooms, to the right towards the Jones. However, once again, to your knowledge, does he have any E.S.P or any way to know? Objection. [12:11:25][51.4] [12:11:25] Speculation's if there's no silly objections, I assistent. Do you have any information if this was Mr Armories routine, his routine routine, this is what he did. He went into this house, looked around for a few minutes, and then would continue his jog on Monday, objecting to mischaracterization. Such has no knowledge of him. John, stay. John, my personal knowledge, personal knowledge, don't you have any evidence whatsoever that a Montabaur ever saw anything from the open unsecured construction site? I do not that just out of order. I want to cross off probably kind of. Or that's my I. All right. I'm just a short recrossed to follow up on some question. Just ask to you on redirect. So you had to go to police school to become a police officer, right? I did. And in police school, you learn basic crimes, the elements of basic crimes, right? Yes. Including burglary. Yes. And you learn in police school that burglary al-fassi what he learned at school is relevant to their guilt or innocence. [12:13:46][141.3] [12:13:46] Absolutely no relevance. I need to defend that for you. We know what we're going to get into the law of burglary. It'll become completely clear if I have given some latitude to finish my question, have him answer it, concerns his investigation and it follows up on exactly what was just asked of him by the state about things he would have done had he been told, for example, by the owner to trespass out Mr Abbott if he caught, I'll give you some latitude, but I don't get into that. I don't mean much use latitude. But again, we're getting into definitions, so we have this many questions. [12:14:36][49.8] [12:14:35] So I just finished my statement. I'll give you a little bit of latitude here, but I think you understand that the court has already ruled a number of other times about defining crimes and all that. Yes, and I'm not getting into that area, I assure you. So you've been to police school. You learn you have to know some of the crimes. So you know what it is you're investigating and what you may be arresting someone for, right? Absolutely. And that's just basic police knowledge. Right? Yes. You don't need to know what a lawyer knows or what a judge knows. Do you know, sir? OK, you're out there in the field and you're trying to decide what do I charge this guy with if you catch somebody doing a thing? Right. Absolutely. OK, so you know that the basics of burglary, how to arrest for relevancy and outside the scope of redirect, that's the same objection. We just have not asked for a little latitude. And once we get past, this will be bench again. Give you some room here. I don't need much. So you understood burglary from police school to be the entering the dwelling with the intent to commit a felony they're in. Yeah. And you understood, Larry English it house to be a dwelling. Yes. You understood the items. Expensive items up to twenty five hundred dollars worth of stuff you've been told had been taken from that house, right. Yes. And the taker of that stuff didn't have permission from Mr English to take it right. That is correct. So you as a police officer, that would be the basis for a burglary, right. It was not stolen from the dwelling that was stolen out of a boat that was parked in the we in. And you would know that to be in there. Yeah, right. OK. [12:16:39][124.1] [12:16:39] And so as a state asked you if you had caught this robbery at some point and if I didn't ask that, that's speculation. And I simply did not. That speculation, if I may remind the court before ruling the state asked the officer if you had confronted Courteney's Starbury and then spoke to Mr English and he wanted to trespass out. It was the phrase he used. What would you have done? It was a hypothetical. I'm asking you the same thing. That's what I said. Not at all to ask indicated what he was going to do if he was able to identify the individual on the video. Yeah, he was going to do what the homeowner wanted him to do. That was the question of Mr English wanted you to trespass out this person. Have you been able to speak to him? He was asked by the state, what would you have done? And he he's the jury. I would have told you don't come back over here. He was explaining his regular practice. That's right. And that's where I'm headed. I've got one more question, but that's what they asked. I brought back to that. And now I want to ask my question, to ask the question and we'll see what the question is when I'm reorienting Mr. Officer Rajesh to what he'd been asked. We're past that. Just go and answer your question. You said you've got one more question. First of all, let's see what the question is. OK, well, are you with me, Officer Rash? So far, you know where we are in this cross-examination? I believe so. I'm a little lost here, but the back off. OK, well, I want to get him back to where I am so I can ask my final question if I can get it out. So when you were asked about trespassing out somebody, you use that phrase I heard that referred to that way before. That's where a homeowner would tell you, hey, if you catch the guy and the homeowner wants you to just tell and don't come back over here anymore, that's what you would do, right? Absolutely. Now, isn't it also true if you catch the guy and the homeowner says, well, he may be the burglar burglar, would you invest to get it further for me? You would do that, too, wouldn't you? At that point, I'm there not have been a crime reported. There was no report made by Mr English of a burglary as residents. So telling you that things have been stolen and I'd like you to investigate it, you would say, well, you got to file a formal report and then we'll investigate. Yes. And that means for you, if that had been done, get the person's name and address, right? Yes. [12:19:38][178.9] [12:19:38] And then either you or someone would then investigate to see if they could find the cooler, the per unit and the Lorraine Fish finder for Mr English. Right. I was not on duty today that he called had Mr English called the police department and made a formal report. F weeks later, I would have had come in contact with Mr Aubry and identified him. Then I would notify the whichever officer took that report and say I have identified this male. Here is his name that officered that himself. Or it may have been handed off to our side the criminal investigation division. One of them would have followed up and looked into that myself. That was not the being. I would not the officer who took that report, I would not be the one following doing that. And I'm not suggesting you would have been the one to go out and invest the burglary, but some investigator would have in the normal course of things. Right. An officer and or an investigator? [12:20:49][70.9] [12:20:49] Yes. And trying to find out what happened and where his stuff was. Oh, yes. Thank you, sir. You're really quite right, because I think you may step down. I believe you are released for the day, but still subject to recall. Thank you. So I'm all tied up in my court. Ladies, gentlemen, we're at the point. We're going to break for lunch during the lunch recess. Again, do not discuss the case among yourselves. Enjoy your lunch. It is. It's like twenty past. We'll plan on reconvening at one twenty. Enjoy lunch within an hour. [12:21:47][58.2] [12:21:47] All right. I think from the state for your recess for lunch. No, but our missing witness has appeared in a sacred trust. Trust me, no matter much you know, you are not an hour. We'll reconvene at 120. Thank you. [12:21:47][0.0] [13:23:07] We are back on Sundays present represented by Counsel Olivia Movement going on. But I think we're good. I'm said the state is ready to proceed with the next witness. It's ready to make sure we move in the Skinner body. They're supposed to get in. Yeah, it's good. [13:23:34][27.8] [13:23:34] It's good [13:24:50][76.0] [13:25:26] For the welcome back. Hopefully everybody did enjoy their lunch. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in the case for everybody's attention. Stay ready to proceed. Yes, it is time to say calls. [13:25:45][19.5] [13:25:45] Agent Adjacency Kresse Agent Jason Press to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will. Good afternoon and good afternoon. Go ahead and introduce yourself to the jury, tell them your name and spell it for the court. Reporter. My name is Jason Seacrest S.P.C.A.. S.R. I. S t. And how are you employed? I'm an assistant special agent in charge at the Georgia Bureau Investigation. OK, and what is the Georgia Bureau of Investigations? The GBI is a state law enforcement agency that's primarily tasked with assisting local law enforcement or other law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations. [13:26:55][69.7] [13:26:55] And as the GBI made up of like two different sections, the crime lab and the investigative division, that's correct. There are actually four divisions in the GBI, two of which are the investigative division and the partner division of forensic science. OK, so what's the difference between those two divisions? Just briefly, the investigative division is tasked with doing exactly what it sounds like, which is conduct the actual criminal investigation. Part of that would be conducting interviews or that would be collecting evidence. And once those those items are done, then they are turned over. Evidence is turned over to the division of forensic science for actual scientific testing. OK, and where is the headquarters located? In Atlanta, Georgia. OK, now, other than the headquarters, are there various regions with different offices? Yes, ma'am. The investigative division is divvied up into fifteen regional field offices that each cover. Generally speaking, about ten counties. OK, and which region are you assigned to? I'm assigned to the region for field office in Douglas, Georgia. [13:28:06][71.1] [13:28:06] We cover 11 counties. And how long have you been with the GBI? Approximately two years. Any previous law enforcement experience? No, ma'am. OK, now, what are your primary duties in your position? There was GBI currently. I'm a supervisor out of our office. Our office has five field agents to crime scene specialists. Office manager. I am again the assistant special agent in charge. And then the special agent in charge is the the top supervisor in the office. And our you certified. Yes, ma'am, I am. What does that mean? So post for the peace officer standards and Training Counsel. [13:28:44][38.4] [13:28:44] They're the ones that establish the credentials for becoming a police officer in the state of Georgia. Being certified means that you have completed the what's known as the police academy. And then every year after that, you've also completed additional training to maintain your certification. And as a post certified agent with the GBI, do you have arrest powers under Georgia law? Yes, I do. OK, now I want to turn your attention to the investigation into the death of someone by the name of Ahmad Arborio. Are you familiar with that investigation? Yes. When did you become involved in that investigation? At some point, yes, I did. How did you become involved on the morning of May six of twenty twenty? I received a phone call from one of our command staff. She advised that I was being tasked to assist the regional office in Queensland to end in the investigation into the death of the model are very OK now. Where are you being assigned the lead role in that investigation? [13:29:45][61.2] [13:29:45] OK, do you know who was assigned a lead role in that investigation? Assistant Special Agent in Charge Richard Doyle. OK, and you said you became involved on May six. Twenty twenty. That's correct. OK, so at the point where you got the call, what did you do? I pack my bags and I came over to Queensland and I got the call about nine o'clock in the morning. And I arrived at the king's office at about twelve thirty. OK, now what were your duties as it pertains to the investigation itself? Primarily was just to assist Asagai with whatever investigative leads were need to be followed. Eventually it culminated primarily the two tracks of the investigations, one being Mr Roddy Bryan and one being Mr Larry English. And then, of course, with other miscellaneous, I would say, interviews lead follow up as they occurred. [13:30:39][54.2] [13:30:39] OK, so when you essentially got to Agent Dial, where you briefed on the investigation thus far? Yes, ma'am, I was OK. And was that from Agent Dial. It was it was from Agent Dial. And as we were beginning to review the investigative work that had already occurred. OK, now, were you given the file of Glynn County Police Department? Yes, we were. OK, are you familiar with the term neighborhood, Kansas? Yes, ma'am. Can you tell us what that is? A neighborhood canvass is where you go to an area where a crime has occurred and you knock on every door that you can find in that area, trying to identify additional witnesses or people who had additional information regarding the incident. [13:31:25][46.0] [13:31:24] OK, and to your knowledge, the GBI agents in this case do neighborhood canvasses? That's correct. OK, are you familiar with the neighborhood by the name of Fancy Bloss? Yes, ma'am, I am. And what's that neighborhood? A part of the canvasing in this case. Where is fancy bluff located in proximity to satellite shores. It is directly across Highway Seventeen, probably within a mile or two of where the incident occurred. OK, now, did you participate particularly in any of that neighborhood canvass? Not in the blanket neighborhood canvass, but I participated as it came to specific residences nearby in those areas. Worried about identified that we needed to do interviews. OK, do you remember when you started doing interviews? Like what date it was on May seven? [13:31:24][0.0] [13:32:15] OK, now do you recall a couple by the name of Diego Perez and Brooke Perez? Yes, ma'am, I do. OK, how do you know that they were living in the neighborhood of Sutil assures? I believe they were a couple of residences away from Mr Englishes property. OK, and did you interview them in this case? Yes, ma'am. Do you remember when you interviewed them? It would have been when they said, OK, are you familiar with a couple by the name of Danielle Studdard? And her not stuttered, but Stoddard and her husband, James Stoddard? Yes. OK, how are you familiar with them? Again, there was an interview that was done at their residence. OK, when did you do that interview? It was also when they said, OK, and are you familiar with a person by the name of Matthew Albon? Say, Yes, ma'am. How are you familiar with him? Mr Elvin's I was the one who contacted the non-emergency line on the day of the incident and he lived to Jones right now. I interviewed him. They are participating in to be OK. And is that what neighborhood was that is located in the shorts and the Stoddard's. Do you recall where they lived. It was the fancy bluff area. OK, now did you you mentioned before that a part of your role in the in the investigation was that track of William Rodhe? Brian? That's correct. At some point, did you interview Mr Brian? Yes, pretty much. Do you remember how many times you interviewed him? There were two formal interviews when I would call for interviews. OK, and when was the first one? The first one was on May 11 of what year? 2001. Was that where was that interview? Where did that happen? Where did it occur? It occurred to the regional office and I believe its conservation way here in Brunswick. It's one in six. So was that interview recorded? Yes, ma'am. It was that video and audio that was on the audio recording. OK, all right. And did you receive that recording before coming to court today? Did you read the whole thing that you also review a transcript of that recording? Yes. OK, and was the transcript accurate as it pertains to what actually happened in the recording? It was at this time we went ten years states, one ninety six and one ninety six, eight six is the transcript. Yes, On this subject, we don't just thank you now agency press. If you were to see Mr Bryan in court, would you be able to recognize them. Yes. OK, you see him in court today. Can you please point them out and describe please, where he is sitting with the far right at the defense table in a blue jacket? Looks like a green shirt, Alexis. OK, let the record reflect that. He has identified William Bryan. May I approach? Thank you both. So agency Chris, I'm showing you what's been admitted as one ninety six a V recognize one ninety six. Yes, ma'am. OK, what is it. This is a transcript from on May 11, 2012, the interview with Mr Brown. OK, now it was Mr Bryan under arrest at the time of this interview. Say, was he detained in any way? No, he was Mr Ryan handcuffed at all? No. OK, do you recall how he got to the interview location? He drove himself. OK, and was anyone else present during the interview? During the interview, his attorney, Mr Kevin Gough present, and another guy by the name of Larry Kelly was present for a brief portion. [13:36:32][257.2] [13:36:32] OK, and do you remember what time it was when you interviewed him? I was middle of the afternoon, maybe two o'clock hour. OK, when looking at the transcript, help refresh, refresh your recollection. I'm sorry. Three forty. Feel OK now? Did you promise Mr Brian that he would get anything of benefit from talking to, you know, that? Did you promise him that he wouldn't be charged with a crime if he spoke with, you know, OK, did you promise him he would get some kind of lesser sentence or plea deal or anything like that if he spoke with you? Ma'am, did you make any promises to his attorney, Mr Goff, as it related to his client getting any kind of benefit from speaking to you? Did you threaten Mr Brian in any way to talk to you? I did not. Now, did you actually explain to Mr Brian, even as his attorney there, that he didn't have to talk to you? Yes, I did. OK, and did you ask him if he understood that? I did. And what was his response? Indicated that he did. What, if anything, did you tell Mr Brian about leaving after the interview? I advised Mr Brian that when the interview was completed, he would be able to go wherever he wanted to go. He would be free to leave, OK, and that he acknowledged that he understood that? Yes, ma'am, we did. Did Mr Brian appear to be under the influence of any drugs or alcohol during the interview? Did he appear to understand what was going on? Yes, he did. OK, and did you in fact, specifically ask him if he's under the influence of anything? And what did he say? He said he was not OK. Were there any limitations imposed on the May 11th interview? There was. And by whom? Mr Gill. OK, and what was that limitation? The limitation on this interview was that we would only discuss things pertaining to what happened from the time he left the police department on February. Twenty third up to the current time. OK, current day, me being May 11, the day of the interview. Yes. OK, so nothing about the incident or before that. That's correct. OK, now during the interview, how long was the interview, do you remember. Just like a ballpark. I would say probably about an hour and a half. OK, so during that time did a few questions come up that may have gone over those limitations? They did. OK, and did you receive permission to still delve into those areas? Yes, ma'am, I did. OK, so let's talk about the statements that Mr Brian made to OK. Did you ask Mr Brian whether he knew Greg MacMichael? Just me. OK, and what did he say? He indicated that he knew him from the neighborhood and from his work at the hardware store. OK, who was work at the hardware store? Mr Bryant. Work at a hardware store. OK, and did you ask him if he knew Travis Michael. Yes, ma'am. And what did he say? He said he did not. OK, now where did Mr Brian say he lived at three zero seven four four drawers in such a short space. And how long did he say he lived at that location prior to February? Twenty third. Twenty twenty. He lived there approximately three years. Three years. Did he at any time mention anything about purchasing that home? Yes. What did he say? He said he had just bought the house approximately two weeks before the incident. OK, so two weeks before February 2013. Twenty twenty. He had just purchased. That's correct. OK, now according to Mr Bryan's statement, did Mr Brian say that he could see the victim's hands as the victim was running during the chain reaction? Your Honor, we're going to be referring, we understood from the pretrial order to the man's name, not a and I make no specific ruling on it. I did ask the state was to use terminology that was not to just use terminology that didn't over and over again, over and over again. That's what I understood from. Yes. So, again, I didn't know the police state court could limit how many times I say it before. Yes, sir. I will do my best to sit here. So agency Chris, according to Mr Bryant's interview, did he talk about whether he was able to see Ahmad's hands during this case? Yes. OK, and what did he say about that? You could see his hands. They were out. He appeared to be to not be holding anything. OK, and I want to turn your attention to page seventy six of the transcript beginning at line 21. And if you can just read that to the jury, that would be great. Thank you. To which one. Seventy six line twenty one through twenty five. OK, words hands out like like normal running running like running arms like moving back and forth before. Were they in his pockets or do you remember Mr Ryan responded. No, no, no they were out. OK now did Mr Brian ever see a gun or other weapon in the victim's hands during the chase. That all he did not. OK, and did you speak with Mr Brian about any thefts in the neighborhood? Right before the incident happened? I did. OK, did you speak with him about thefts while he was living in Sattell assures me. OK, and did he say he had anything stolen from him while he was living? There he goes. OK, now I want to turn your attention to Page eighty four lines. Twenty three on to eighty five. Line ten. If you can just read that please. Mr Brown said, I mean the main thing was the trailer. It was six to eight by ten. Six by ten. I think trailer behind the truck that went missing. Then I'd have to clarify with some other well the brother law of what went missing out the back of his truck one night. But it was beer or something. I don't remember something petty. The trailer never did report thank. [13:43:15][403.3] [13:43:16] You. Have it locked up. And I was not sure when it went missing within a timeframe of about a month. But now we're talking last year I asked. Twenty nineteen, Mr Brown responded. Yeah, man, I'm talking. I mean, it's been almost a year now. OK, so he had a trailer stolen from his residence from the yard somewhere. That's correct. And that was in 2009. Yes. And he said he never reported it to the police. That's correct. OK, and he also mentioned about a brother in law. Yes. Who had some petty things stolen from how he characterized it. That's correct. OK, other than that, the Mr. Brian have any other specific thefts that occurred from his residence around that time? No more. Now, did Mr Brian mentioned about knowing about any kind of burglaries in the neighborhood, meaning breaking into houses? No. OK, did you speak with him about knowing a man before that day? Yes. What did he say? Did he know him? He did not know. OK, had he ever heard his name before? OK, so never met him. Nepotism? No. Did you speak with Mr Brian about knowing the owner of the two twenty satellite drives construction site? Yes. OK, and who was the owner of that site? Mr Larry English. And what did Mr Brian say about knowing Mr English? And I'm going to turn your attention to page ninety five lines. Twenty three twenty four. If you can read that. I asked Do you know Larry English. Mr Brian responded, No, not at all. And I said, the guy that owns the house that's under construction out there is you're going out. Mr Brian responded. No, I didn't know who owned it. OK, so he had never spoken with Mr English? That's correct. OK, now did you speak with Brian regarding hearing from other neighbors who lived in Seattle, a source about thefts? Yes. OK, and what did he say about hearing about thefts? And I'm going to point you to page ninety six lines eleven through thirteen and then sixteen through twenty three. So first eleven through thirteen. I said, OK, have you had any other neighbors talk to you about thefts in the area or issues? Mr Ron said, I mean, not neighbors talking to me. And then I went within the last year and a half, let's say a year and a half or two years. So let's say let's go back to the beginning of 2019. How about that? Mr Brian responded, not neighbors talking to me a couple of times that came into the shop and say, you know, man, something else went missing. They didn't say who it was, them or what. But, you know, stuff has been going missing in the neighborhood. OK, And that's why I'm twenty three. Right. OK, now, during the course of the interview that you come to find out that Mr Brian had surveillance cameras up at his property. Yes, ma'am. OK, and then those cameras face towards the front of the neighborhood meeting bought Burford Road just now. Did he say it was OK for you to come by his house and search those cameras and the footage? OK, and what did you do after he said it was OK to do that? I believe I got a chance. OK, now, was his attorney present for that discussion when when you asked him for consent? Yes. OK, so after he told you that you could do that, did you go by the house after the conclusion of the interview? We did. OK, and who was present for that meeting at the house? Of course, Mr Brian, Mr Gough, myself, Agent Kelly. And I believe also Mr Bryant's fiancee at the time was in the room. OK, and were you guys able to download anything on that day? Not that time. We were there, no. OK, why not? [13:47:32][255.9] [659.1] [13:47:32] I believe there was. There was from a writer's password issues and also Internet speed issues that were holding us back for me that we get the video. OK, so between you and Agent Kelly, who's the tech person? Agent Kelly. Agent Kelly. OK, so is that why Agent Kelly was there? Was he absolutely OK at some point later on, were you all able to download that surveillance footage? OK, now did you also follow up with Mr Brian about his cell phone and getting consent to search that cell phone? Yes, ma'am. OK, and did you get a form? Did you get him to sign like a consent form for that? I believe I did. Yes. Yes, yes. So agency press, I'm showing you what's been marked for identification purposes as state's Exhibit 197. If you can look at it and tell me if you recognize this man, OK, what is this? This is the waiver of constitutional rights to a search warrant of an electronic personal device. OK, and is it the form that you had Mr Brian signed on May 11th? It was cases it seemed to be altered in any way at this time. We tend to states that one nine eight one nine seven no case subject. Thank you. Permission to publish. Thank you. So agency press. I'm just going to have to you. Are you able to see what's protected enough to read. OK, try this. This is OK. If you can just start from the top that would be great. OK, so if you can just read from here on. Come on. The waiver of constitutional rights to a search warrant of an electronic cellular device, I, William Arthur, Brian Jr, having been informed of my constitutional right not to have a search and seizure made of my electronic cellular device without a search warrant and of my right to refuse to consent to such as search and seizure, I hereby authorize Jason Seacrest and Larry Kelly of the GBI to use an extraction device to obtain information from my electronic cellular device, including, but not limited to any and all information, data files, memory cards, photographs, videos, text messages, GPS locations, website information, emails, contact numbers, incoming and outgoing phone calls currently located on the below described device. IPhone eight Model M. Q six V two l l a. I'm giving this written permission to the above named investigator voluntarily and without threats or promises. Of any kind. I understand that any information derived from this evidence as a result of my consent to this search and seizure without a search warrant can and may be used as evidence against me in any court of law. I also have been provided contact information from the above stated investigator in order for me to withdraw my consent at any time. It is signed by Mr. Brian. His name is printed below that. The time and date is written is May 11, 2020 at three fifty four p.m. and his signature is that that is mine. I believe that Agent Kelly is OK and that you go over this form with Mr. Brian the he signed it and then he appeared to understand it. Yes, me. Now, after the May 11 interview, did Mr. Brian leave freely. Yes we we did. OK, and what did you do with this form? Did you contact another agent to get the phone extracted? Yes. You OK? And what's an extraction? Just briefly, we use a device that actually plugs into the phone and just downloads all the information from the phone. It can also include not just information currently on the phone, but if information has been deleted from the phone, we could sometimes get that information. So it gives us all the content off the phone. Now, during that May 11th interview with Mr. Brian, what, if anything, did you tell him about him? Being a witness? In my initial conversation with Mr. Brian, identified him as as a witness. As it goes, it starts off right now. I said that we had a lot of investigative work to do and that we had additional questions that we needed specifics on and that that would be the course of the investigation. OK, and then you proceeded to have two separate interviews with Mr. Brian to separate, sit down, interview, sit down interviews. OK, and did you also do like a reenactment video? Yes. At some point we did. OK, and was that around the city of source neighborhood? It was OK. Now, going to your second interview with him, what date was that? Or May 13th, 2001. OK, and where was that? Where was the location of that interview that was in the same location at the corner office conservation line in Brunswick. OK, and was that video was that interview also recorded? Yes, it was. Have you reviewed that recording in anticipation for your testimony today? So when you reviewed the recording agency Seacrest, was it fair and accurate copy of the recording of the video you did, the interview you did with Mr. Bryan? Yes, it was OK. And in conjunction with that, did you also review a transcript? I did OK. And did the transcript match up with the interview I did with them? Yes. OK, any alterations or deletions? OK, I'm gonna show you this one. Ninety A for identification purposes. Tell me if you recognize that. What is this. This is the transcript from the interview with Mr. Bryan on May 13, 2001. OK, Your Honor, at this time we tend to stay 198 and 198 subjects subject to objection to this whole. So same questions about this interview. Was he under arrest? Says Mr. Bryant, under arrest at that time when you interviewed him on a certain moment, was he in handcuffs in any way? He was not detained in any way. Who else was present? If anyone knew Mr. OK and how did he get to the location on his own? OK, now remember what time it was when you interviewed him on May 13th? I believe that was the two o'clock hour. It was two o'clock. OK, if I were to show you a copy of your report that you did to summarize that, would that refresh recollection? Would we have more for the record which which summary before is the I am showing you what's been marked just by this situation. As for twelve states to submit for twelve, look at it and tell me if you know what that is. Yes. What is it? This is my report that I wrote regarding my interview with Mr. Brian on May 13, 2020. OK, just look at it sound. At least here to yourself and tell me if that refreshes your recollection about the time of the story. It does. OK, what time was two? Thirty five p.m.. OK, thank you. I'll take that. OK, so did you promise him anything during that interview. Did you make any threats towards him or force him into any interview with you. OK, and did you make any promises to Mr. Goff, his attorney. No. OK, now did Mr. Brian appear to be under the influence of any drugs or alcohol? OK, did you explain to Mr. O'Brien that he didn't have to talk to you? I did. And did he appear to understand that? Yes. Maybe be case. And did he still go ahead and proceed with the interview? Yes. OK, so let's get into some of his statements. What did Mr. Brian say he was doing on the day of the incident when he noticed something was going on? He was doing some work on his front porch. OK, and what did he say? Caught his attention, someone running and the sound of a vehicle injured. OK, and did Mr. Brian say that he was listening to music or something like that? He did. He was listening to music in his garage, which was on the opposite end of the house from where he was working outside. OK, but he could still hear a vehicle engine coming by. That's correct. OK, and he said he saw somebody running as well. Yes. OK. Now, did he say he knew what was going on? At that time? You do know. OK, I'm going to direct your attention to page seven lines. Twenty four into page eight. Line six. And if you could just read that, please, Mr. Brunson. And for whatever reason, I don't. Well, I mean, at that point I was like, OK, well, he's chasing him in the truck, whoever's in the truck, you know? And I'm figuring I don't know. I don't know what's going on at that point, but I'm figuring something's wrong and I'm not really loud. But I said, you got him. You need help, something like that. Nobody could hear me, though. I'm sure. OK, and what if Mr. Brian do after that, he walked over and grabbed his keys. OK, and where were his keys? Or in his kitchen, which he accessed through his door in the garage. OK, did you ask Mr. Brian what made him grab his keys? I did. And what did he say? I'm going to direct you to page eight. Line twenty one into page nine, line to. I asked, and why were you going back to your trunk? Why were you grabbing your keys? Mr. Brian responded, I guess just to go see what was going on. If anything needed to be done, if I could help. But whatever, I mean, I. I didn't know. I mean, to be honest with you, I don't know what I was doing. OK, so he said he wanted to know if he could help. That's correct. OK, and I'm going to direct your attention to page thirteen lines eighteen through twenty five. I asked what was it that made you decide I need to go get my keys and get in my truck and see what's going on. Mr. Brian responded, I really don't know if I said OK. And then Mr. Brian said, I, I, I can't answer that. I just, I don't know. It just, you know, I'm thinking from my mind that maybe he's done something. The guy running and I just I don't know, OK, And when he left his house, did he have a cell phone on it? Yes, ma'am, we did. OK, and what, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about recognize send the truck in question if you can just read page nine, lines three, Morty's three, three forty three or four things I said. OK, now, real quick, just going to go back. You said you recognized the truck. Mr. Brian said, oh, I said, where did you recognize. How did you why did you recognize the. Mr. Brian responded, I mean I've seen it in the neighborhood. I mean at that time I didn't know exactly why really. I recognized it. I said, OK, Mr. Ryan said I didn't know from what house or if it had, you know, just being in the neighborhood, driving around. I didn't really put it together until afterwards. Did Mr. Brian ever say that he heard a mod say anything during the chase? He never heard Multiphasic. OK, and then Mr. Brian ever mentioned trying to slow down a mob during the chase. It's OK. I want to direct you to page thirty three. Line sixteen to page thirty. Four, line two. If you can just read that Mr. Ryan stated, I figured if I slowed him down and got a picture that maybe something would happen in the end other than just him getting away and cops not knowing who he was. I say I said so. So then that kind of makes me want to ask why did the cops need to know? Mr. Ryan replied, Because I figured he had done something wrong. I didn't know for sure. I stated, OK, what made you think he had done. He might have done something wrong, Mr. Brown responded. It was just instinct, man. I don't know. OK, so he figured the victim had done something wrong and it was just instinct that told him that. Yes, that that's what he said. Now, did did Mr. Brian say that he felt the victim needed to stop running? Yes, ma'am. I've lost track. How many times we've used the word victim here? That's the whole point. The jury's going to decide who the victim is here. I can rephrase that. The court has not banned the use of any words in this court. And what I had given the facts of this case and the positions of the parties, I've asked the lawyer simply to use various terms. The witness can use whatever term he wants and that's what's going on here. So if the state could refer to Mr. Aubrey as a strawberry and move on from there. Yes, Now, Agent Seacrest, did Mr. Brian say he felt Mr. Aubrey needed to stop running? Yes, ma'am. OK, and why did he feel that? Can you read page thirty seven, line five through 10? Mr. Ryan stated. Yeah, I just I figured he stole something I didn't know. Get shot. Somebody. I didn't I didn't know what was up. So I asked Mr. Brian, had you heard any gunshots or anything like that. Mr. Brian responded, No. OK, so Mr. Brian said that he figured a mob had shot somebody. Yes, ma'am. Again, for class and answer second, I object of characterization. Mr. Seacrest has already given his testimony about what was said word for word. And I object to the characterization after the fact by the prosecution says, yes, sir. I said again, listen, General, what the lawyer's asking questions is not testimony. Testimony comes from witness stand. It's just a good answer to this question. Did you ask Mr. Brian whether he ever said anything to a man when he was chasing? Yes. OK, did he say he said anything to a man? No, ma'am. OK, what, if anything, did Mr. Brian tell Ahmad regarding Koeneke he needed to stop running? He didn't say, OK, what, if anything, did Mr. Brian tell a mod about wanting to talk to him? Mr. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian tell the Mod about wanting to arrest him for anything? Mr. Braun didn't say anything. Now then, Mr. Brian, never say anything about Ahmad turning to look at him right before he was shot and killed. Yes, OK. And I want to turn your attention to page sixty three lines, two through eight. I'm sorry, line twelve, lines twelve 318. If you read this, Mr. Ryan stated, I think I remember seeing Ahmad turn around and look towards me, you know, pulling up or either almost hold. No, I can't quite stop yet. I'm still back in good ways I believe. Yeah, I'm still back a good ways. And then he runs around the right side, a right hand side of the truck. And I figured at this point he's going to cut the corner and go out on the drive. Is that what it's called? OK, and at the point where a mod is near the second truck, did Mr. Brian ever hear a mod say anything? You know, so he'd never heard him make any threats or anything like that. He did not. Did you ever ask Mr. Brian if he saw a mod drop anything from his hands during the chase? I did. OK, and what did he say? He said he didn't seem drop anything. Now, I want to talk to you about your conversation with Mr. Brian pertaining to Larry Englishes construction site. OK, did you ask him if he had seen any of the videos I did from that construction site? And what did he say? He said he had not seen any of the videos. OK, did you ask him if he even knew if the videos existed? And what did he say? He didn't know anything about videos. OK, now, during the course of your investigation, did you learn that Sutil assures that the neighbors would communicate with each other on like a Facebook page? I did. OK, did you ask Mr. Brian about his knowledge of that Facebook page? Yes. And what did he say? He was not a member who was not familiar with that Facebook page. OK, now, did you follow up with Mr. Brian about his knowledge of thefts in Seattle? Assures around that time a died? I do. OK, and I want to turn your attention to page eighty five lines twenty one into page eighty six. Line twenty one. I asked, OK, so just to get a clear picture, the only specific threat thefts at the time of this event that you knew about from what you told me or your trailer, Mr. Brian responded, Oh, no. I stated your your brother in law some stuff out of the bed of your brother in law's truck. Mr. Bryan responded of I stated. Anything else specific? Mr. Bryan said, specific? No, I had heard that there had been some. And I say I stated that's just in general. And Mr. Bryan said in general, I asked, but no real specific incidents. Mr. Bryan said nothing. You know what was stolen, what houseware. When I asked when it happened, Mr. Bryan said no. I said what was, you know, none. Nothing. Mr. Bryan said no. I said only that, hey, there's some folks doing some things when talk about break ins. What are you talking about? People going into houses, busting windows, Mr. Bryan responded, I think I heard a car. I said, car. OK, Mr. Bryan responded something about a car one time. OK, so you heard about a car one time? Yes, ma'am. OK, had he heard about any descriptions of the person who was allegedly responsible person or persons for any of this stuff? OK, so he didn't know if it was a black person, white person, Asian person, nothing you do not know. OK, now, did you find out during the course of your interview with him that Mr. Brian also had a Facebook account? I did. OK, and did you ask for his consent to look at that Facebook account? Yes, ma'am. And was that when his attorney was still present? Yes, ma'am. And did what it Mr. Brian, he was willing to allow me to download his Facebook account, but the account was deactivated at the time. So we've reactivated it so that we could. So you reactivate it so that you can download it? That's correct. OK, and did that download happen? Yes. OK, now, after the interview concluded, was that your last time talking to him? No. OK, when was the next time? Immediately after this interview was when we did the drive route. OK, and when you say the drive through where drive thru in which neighborhood. So we did a drive through reenactment of the February twenty third institutions. OK, and was that Mr. Bryant's route that pertained to his route. It was OK and do you remember about what time you all went out there like was it still light outside. It was OK. And who all was present in the vehicle at the time? Was it myself, Mr. Bryant, his attorney, Mr. Golf, and also another GBI agent, special agent in charge, James Steinberg. OK, and was that recording? Yes, ma'am. Manufacturer? Yes. Now, Agent Seacrest, were you able to review that recording prior to coming into court today? Yes. And was it fair and accurate? It was. OK. Did you also review a transcript of that recording? I did. Was that transcript fair and accurate? OK, I'm going to show you what's been marked for the purpose of identification as states one nine nine eight. Can you look at it and tell me what it is? Yes, ma'am. This is the transcript from the reenactment with Mr. Bryan on May 13, 2020. OK, when you reviewed it, was were there any alterations or anything like that? OK, at this time we would tender states one ninety nine and one ninety nine self-expression. No, hold on. Now, before, before you hit record there in that kind of reenactment, did anything happen in terms of any kind of preliminary Dreiser judgment? OK, tell us what happened. Mr. Ryan was having difficulty remembering the exact path of travel. So there was kind of a, I guess, a familiarization ride through to kind of get directly down to what the path of travel was before we actually recorded the reenactment. OK, but at any time, did you tell Mr. Brian what to say? Not at all. OK, now, during your interviews with Mr. Brian that you learn from him that the police found some smudge on his truck. Yes, ma'am. OK, and did you also learn that those smudges had been lifted from his truck? Yes, ma'am. OK, did you speak with Mr. Brian about getting fingerprints from him? Yes, ma'am. And why do you get fingerprints from people who are known to use whatever the item is that has the the the fingerprints on it to get what we call elimination prints so that we can compare those to see if they're the person that the property belongs to or not. OK, and that he agreed to give you fingerprints for that purpose. Yes, ma'am. OK, and did he consult with his attorney before agreeing with that assessment? Did you also speak with Amy Elrod about that? Yes, ma'am. And did she agree to give fingerprints as well? She did. OK, and was that for the same purpose? It was OK. So at some point, did you meet with both of them? Yes, ma'am. When was the day? Today. On May 14th. OK, and what happened when you met with them on that day? I met them at the hospital parking lot and we rode to the Lincoln jail where a jailer was able to take their fingerprints, and then I took them back to the vehicle. OK, so just to be clear, were they under arrest when they went to that jail and it was just for the purpose of fingerprinting them? That's correct. That was all preplanned as far as, you know, the logistics of how that would happen. OK, now, at some point during the course of your investigation, did you ask Mr. Ryan for consent to download the computer system in his truck? Yes, ma'am, I did. OK, and what happened? Did he give consent? He did OK. What, if anything, were you able to find nothing that was pertinent to this investigation? OK, and why was that? So the computers in your vehicles only store certain information for for a brief period of time. So most of the data that was relevant to February had already been overridden by May. Are you familiar with a person by the name of Larry English? Yes, ma'am. OK, and how are you familiar with Mr. English? He's the owner of the house that was under construction when Mr. Aubury received the videos. OK, during the course of this investigation, did you meet with Mr. English? Yes, ma'am. Do you remember where that meeting happened? Oh, that meeting happened at his residence in Michaele's, Georgia, which is in Coffee County. OK, and what was the purpose of that meeting? The purpose of the meeting was to get his statement regarding the investigation, what had occurred, especially to find additional videos that we had seen floating around and to give more context around his involvement in the and what led up to Mr. Brown's death. OK, I want to turn your attention to May 21st, 2020, OK? Was there anything noteworthy that happened on that day in terms of the investigation? Mr. Brown was arrested. OK, and any other warrants? We did a search warrant of his house and we also did a search warrant of his phone. OK, and where you present for that search warrant? Execution on his house. I was where other agents also processed at the time. You interviewed Mr. Brian on May 11th and May 13th. Had the video already surfaced, the video of this incident? Yes. OK, and had the McMichaels had warrants already been signed for their arrests? Yes. OK, now, during the course of the your investigation, did you learn that Mr. Brian had given previous statements to officers from Glynn County PD? Yes, ma'am. And in preparation for your interview on May 11th, May 13th, did you review those statements? I did. OK, and since those interviews may 20/20, have you reviewed those statements? Yes, ma'am. I have. 141822 COUNSEL>> What, if anything, did you notice in Mr. Bryan statements to the Glenn County Police Department as it compared to his statements to you? 141834 WITNESS>> His statements to the Glenn County Police Department were more direct in his involvement to corral and box in Mr. Arbery during the event. His statements to me minimized his involvement in that process that led to Mr. Arbery's death. [14:18:48] So we'll just talk about a few instances of that. OK, where you able to review the transcripts of those statements given to Officer Minshew and Detective Larry? Yes, ma'am. The action here, I'm not sure where the state is going. Is this prosecutor about to ask a witness for his opinions about what other witnesses were told she could be getting his opinions to the jury about whether he thinks one statement and another statement is that? Or is he testifying about what he knows? Because I'm trying to figure out how this final questioning is not to your honor those statements, to also mention an investigator, Larry, were tendered. So there in evidence. I'm not about to ask Agent Seacrest about his opinion on the statements. We're just going to go through a couple of the quotes from those statements in comparison to the statements agency press, but quotes no opinions again, except that sounds like a closing argument, which is perfectly fine. And it's time. But this witness can testify to what this witness knows in this line of questioning, seems designed to put us in a position where we're going to have to make a motion that none of us wants to make sure. I don't see how in the statements have come in already there in evidence. That was never the point. It doesn't matter whether there is not. The jury's already heard. The jury will decide whether they're consistent or not, whether Mr. Seacrest thinks you're consistent or not. That's something for the lawyers to argue. That's not for one witness. You can't call an expert witness to say whether they believe somebody or not. This is highly improper. That's all you do is comparing the two states to San Francisco. But they're both on the record. He's he still wants to prove that you took the other state. Yes, Your Honor. While Judge, I think it's it's completely irrelevant. I'm not going to go through both statements from front to back again, but I just wanted to pinpoint a couple areas where Mr. Bryan says something completely different to agency press versus what he said in here to Officer Minshew and Detective Larry, 30 years. I've never heard of any such thing. I think maybe we should take this take this up outside the presence of the jury, which could take stuff. Mr. Orascom, show your object. The prosecutors laid the foundation that Mr. Bryant is characterized is characterized as changing his statement. That's all well and good for a closing argument. But you can't call witnesses for the purpose of challenging the credibility of the defendants in that way. Anybody? I have never even heard of such a thing being done in the trial. A criminal case, much less a murder case. You can't have one witness testify as to whether what another witness has been doing or editorializing is what he thinks. That means he can testify to what he knows. This is highly improbable, highly improbable. And Judge, I'm not asking Seacrest to editorialize anything. I'm going to ask him about specific quotes, not a lot of them, a couple from each statement and then ask him what Mr. Bryant said specifically to him on the same subject. That says not to ask him how they differ or, you know, just testified. It was just it was interesting to to and argue differences in the statement. You're welcome to do so as part of the argument. But for him to comment on another of a statement given to another officer, of course, I concur with that. So let me also address that since we got a break here with the use of the term victim, let me be very clear, because you mentioned a pretty strong ruling. The court is not definitive word on this case. What I what I said and what I think was told to me at the time was that I generally don't implement word bans. And what I was told was that everybody was very cognizant of that and understand that that term in this particular case brings a number of issues. And what about the state? Was there was going to be an attempt to at least reduce the use of that? I sustain the objection because the court saw that as being the term that was being used with this witness. That word made is still not in place because I realized after I made my ruling, it sounded like I've changed that. That is not the case. [14:25:08][2255.5] [14:25:08] The court found under these circumstances, that was the term that you were using over over to describe Mr. Aubrey under these circumstances. So I just want to clear that up. So the court's ruling pretrial ruling has not changed. I just want everybody to be aware of the terminology we're using and under the circumstances and facts of this case. So, yes, let's go and get the from all rights reserved and say. All right, thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to proceed with the evidence from the state agency. What did Mr. Brian say to you in your interview with him on May 13 regarding the moments when he left his driveway? If you can turn to page 25 of the May 13 statement lines, 18 into page twenty six lines nine to Mr. Ryan stated, and, you know, for whatever stupid reason, again, I mean, there's going to be some reasons here that I don't understand why I did it. I jumped out in the road from my driveway at about the same time he got there. I asked, So you just did like straight out Mr. Rock brought Mr. Ryan responded. Yeah. So I asked. So you didn't go left or right. You just kind of went straight. Mr. Ryan responded straight for maybe a tad to the left. I asked. Angled a little bit, Mr. Ryan responded. Just a tad. I said, OK, now why did you pull out and angle it to the left like that? Mr. Brown responded. I guess so. I could see. I said, OK. And what did you see? Mr. Bryan responded. And I'm thinking at this point, you know, I mean, it's running through my mind at this point. Try to get a picture. I said, OK, Mr. Brian said, but I hadn't got my phone out. I don't believe at this point. I said, OK, Mr. Bryan responded by what did I see? I seen him run right straight in front of my truck. I asked around the hood, Mr. Bryan responded around the hood for the ditch. OK, so at any point, as he's describing going from his driveway to Burford Road, that Mr. Brian ever say that he tried to force the force, Mr. Arborists, into the ditch in front of his house? No, man. OK, did he at any point say he tried to block them? No, ma'am. Now, did you talk to Mr. Bryan about the circumstances surrounding his belief that Mr. Aubrey tried to get into his truck somehow? I did. OK, so I want to turn your attention to page twenty eight, line twenty, starting from the word he into page twenty nine line for if you can just read that. I'm sorry. Mr. Ryan said he was just down there low, not in the road. He comes up out of there at about the time we get around a tree and we got really close to each other. I pulled him past and this is another one where I'm really fuzzy at man, but the only one neighbor that and at the time, I don't remember if I knew his name or not, but there is a neighbor, Tommy, up there and I angled up into his drive with kind of like a mailbox there. Oh, I don't know what the hell I was doing there. Right. Because it's about that point I realized I'm in front of them. He's behind me. My windows are down. I said, Oh, Mr. Brian continued, All right. And he's coming. So I backed up to try and get straight in. At that point, he's on me. He's coming, he's on me. And I'm just like, man, I've got to get out of here. So, I mean, I think I put it in drive or whatever at that point. I'm trying to I'm trying to haul ass. And he's on my door with his hands at the door handle. I hit gas, you know, keeping in mind I'm not trying to swing the boards out the back, you know, so and him describing that incident at any point that Mr. Brian say he tried to corner a no man at any point, did he say he tried to cut him off or he had cut him off real good. Now, in your statements and your interview with him, did you confront Mr. Brian about using the words block in his previous statement to the police officers versus what he told you? Yes, ma'am. OK, and what did he say? And I'll turn your attention to page twenty six. I'm sorry, page thirty three. So it starts at line eleven nine. Eleven to line fifteen for now. I said, oh, were you trying to do. Because I think in your original statement and again I'm not trying to pin you down, I'm just going back because I, I have to listen to it all. You talk about trying to box him in and do different things. Are you OK? And go ahead and read from lines 16 through 19, Mr. Braun responded, I figured if I slowed him down and got a picture, then maybe something would happen in the end other than just him getting away because not knowing who he was. OK, can go ahead and read to lines twenty five. I responded. So. So that kind of makes me want to ask why did the cops need to know. Mr. Brian responded Because I figured he had done something wrong. I didn't know for sure. I said, OK, what made you think that he had done that. He might have done something wrong. And flipping the page, lying, lying to Mr. Brian responded. It was just instinct, man. I don't know, Your Honor, at this time. I would like to publish the reenactment video permission to publish that. It's been submitted on. Yes. I am not going to go just the way we agreed with the defense that this is on. Meet with Agent Seacrest narrating So that was my agreement to be in complete. That was not your agreement. Did you know what? You just go ahead. You go right ahead. I withdraw my objection. OK, I just looked at so Seacrest can see the screen. OK, I'm going to play. Where are you right now? We are sitting in the driveway of Mr. Ryan's residence. You go back, OK, and that's three of seven for growth. That's correct. OK, and who is seated in the driver's seat? I'm in the driver's seat. And who is seated in the front passenger seat? Mr. Brian. OK, and who is seated in the back on the back seat? We have Mr. Golf and we have Jenny Sanford. OK, so if you could just so this jury is telling us right now where, as you said, getting in his car and what he's fixing to do, he wants to drive out and he's angling to the left in the direction that they went. And he's seen a rope around here is where Mr. Aubrey pops pops up. So he's backing up because it surprises him, doesn't back in quite enough to where when he makes the turn, he's getting close. He says goodbye to his mailbox and Mr. Aubrey is down in the ditch and they're running he's running somewhat parallel to to the vehicle, to his vehicle. Right. See the ditch and. Yes, ma'am, I can step down. Thank you. And don't touch the screen because things will happen. OK, but if you can just point to the general direction, there's a point right there to your right foot. You can see the ditch right through here. That's almost like little. I think that's a little footbridge right there over it. And the data is running right. OK, Captain, I know when you read that he's explaining that Mr. Aubrey is down the ditch, maybe not quite in the water, but he's down that ditch that way. He's going to start coming up and still kind of running parallel. They're coming up to a tree right here where you can see a little sign. I think it's a maybe a real some. As they're coming up. He's expecting Mr. Aubrey to go maybe around the tree the other direction, but he ends up coming. So not this tree. This next tree is coming up. He's taking Mr. Riesman go to the left of the tree. But Mr. Berry actually goes to the right of the trees that they're right there close to each other at this tree right here. So Mr. Arbor's between the tree and tree on his left and his truck on the right. As they come up, he's plate pushes ahead. At this point, he gets ahead of Mr. Arborio as he comes into this driveway. He actually angles off and that's where he was trying to stop his movement. We've tried now in this actual reenactment. Did Mr. Brian ever say that at this point he tried to corner Mr. Avery? Did he say he tried to block them? He did not. OK, he is angling off in the middle of a direction in the middle of his path of trouble at this point, says his windows down, he realizes that he's put himself in a bad position and he starts to back up. And it's somewhere in that time frame where the contact is made between Mr. Aubrey and the vehicle. Whether or not Mr. Aubrey has reached for the door handle or whether he is he's just touching the truck. That's where the contact is made. And Mr. Brian said he was worried at this point. So he put the vehicle in drive and that's when he took off ahead of Mr. Aubury again. He's turning off over onto satellite shows or satellite drop. OK, so is that this robbery here? Yes, ma'am, it is. We've just passed Holmes Road and he at this point stops and backs up as Mr. Aubrey makes the turn down Holmes road. At this point, Mr. Aubrey is ahead and Mr. Brian is essentially chasing Mr. Mr. Aubrey down Holmes road. Is this Holmes road right here? Yes, ma'am. As we get down the road here, you're going to see a think. You'll be able to see a brightly colored mailbox. I believe the time it was blue. And that's that was an important marker because that was where the video that he took on February twenty third began. You could see the actual brightly colored mailbox. So it was a are we able to see the mailbox right now? Yes, ma'am. OK, is that this one right here? Through my dirty windshield? Yes. OK, so we paused. He confirms he's on the left side of the road at that time. When the video starts, you actually see at this point in the video, that's what we're talking about, is you see, Mr. Aubrey, that he was briefly running away and comes running back towards Mr. Brian in the video, Mr. Brian believe that Aubrey ran down his passenger side. I believe so. At this point, is Mr. Brian still driving on the wrong side of the road? Yes, ma'am. We're discussing just different angles and where things were coming and going and referencing back to the actual video that he took in February. He told me that somewhere around there at that point after Mr. Aubrey passed him, that he'd gone back over on to the right side of the road. Now, during this portion of the actual video on the day of the incident in February, he had dropped the phone. So or put it on his lap, I think was what it was. So he was what happened here, you say, and how he went down a little bit farther now, the the mailbox you see right there on the right side of the driveway, that's actually another marker that we can kind of identify from the actual video on the day of the incident, which was I'll get right there to the right, that black mailbox and driveway. So it looks like fresh or concrete. You just filled with the I guess, the landscaping. You can identify it in the video. He drives past that at some point he decides to turn around and basically does like a three point turn where he and he's talking about on the video, you can hear maybe his tire trying to catch some gravel. And he's showing me where he wanted to spots. He likely, you know, pull over to the left, back in and then pull back out to the to the left to go back to direction. And Mr. Aubrey came back to the intersection of Holmes Road and said, Telegraaf. So at this point, where is Mr. Harbury? Mr. Holmes is going to be what you're looking at from my truck. He's going to be to the left, which is close to the intersection of where the incident occurred, basically. So going back towards the intersection. That's correct. And here it was pause right here. This is where we know that the the video where he picked up that because of that driveway. And in the video we're talking about, you can see the curve of the road and trying to figure out where he was in the road. He says he's kind of center of the road we're going around. And at which point he actually sees Mr. Aubrey. [14:46:09][1261.8] [14:46:09] We're determining where it was that he stopped at when he actually when he actually finally stopped and finished taking the video, printing up to the spot where he thinks he was. If you see the stop sign there, you can see the intersection that that's the intersection of where the incident occurred. And that scene essentially stopped. Yes, right there. Yeah, 144641 COUNSEL>> Now, Agent Seacrest, throughout that entire reenactment video with Mr. Bryan, did he ever once say that he tried to angle at Mr. Arbery? WITNESS>> I donâ?Tt recall him saying angle at Mr Arbery, no. COUNSEL>> OK, did he ever say that he tried to block Mr. Arbery in? WITNESS> No, maâ?Tam. 144702 COUNSEL>>That he tried to corner him at any time? WITNESS>> No, maâ?Tam. COUNSEL>> OK, so none of that was said on that video. WITNESS>> Thatâ?Ts correct. [14:47:09] That's close now. So Agency Press, I'm going to show you what's been marked for the purposes of identification and state's exhibit three, 03. Go ahead and look at it and tell me if you recognize it. Yes, ma'am, I do. What is it? This is a, I guess, a map from Google Earth that was created based on the most recent statements of of his path of travel in the city which shores neighborhood when the incident occurred. OK, and was that created by the GBI? Yes, ma'am. OK, is it fair and accurate? Yes, ma'am. At this time, we tend are three or three to the police which killed three people in the world. In a world, this is it was like asking this, hey, agency. Clearly. Yes, ma'am. OK, and can you step down, please? OK, ok. So remember, don't touch the screen, so go ahead and describe to us what we're looking at. Three or four. What we have is in a source neighborhood you're looking at still a source still assures us until the job is right here. OK, this is dry right here, actually comes down here. I believe this is perfect right here. This is home and this is Elwood. OK, Highway Seventeen is going to be up here. Hey, what is this that we're seeing right here? That's Mr. Englishes residence. OK, and what is this one that's leaving Michael residence? And just go ahead and show us what is this one? That's Mr. Brian's house. OK, so go ahead and just explain the route. As you saw in the video, Mr. Brian's house is right here. He pulls out and turns initially, eventually turned right out of his residence. He comes down here towards Seattle, a drive. You see this little part that pulls up on satellite. That's where he pauses and then backs, backs up, down here before drugs forward on the homes. And when he's going down homes is when he's initially behind Mr. Aubrey. At some point in here, would be where Mr. Aubrey turns around and comes back towards the intersection while Mr. Brian continues down somewhere here before he then turns around back to the intersection where the incident occurred. OK, and that is based on the reenactment video. What Mr. Brian, just months after this actually happened? That's correct. OK, thank you, Nancy. So it's a Seacrest. Remember we talked about the surveillance system. Yes. Mr. Ryan's house. Now, you said Agent Kelly was there with you when you all were trying to download that. That's OK. And was he the one who actually did the form for that one? I believe he did, yes. OK, all right. That is all I have for you. Thank you. The defense might have some questions for you if it was any present. Just want to take a 15 minute recess or mid-afternoon and we'll get back into the office. Thank you, Roger Harris. Agent, you couldn't step down if you could please be back within about ten minutes. I'll be ready to go. I remind you. Please do not discuss your testimony with anybody. All right. We're in recess for 15 minutes. [14:46:09][0.0] [15:10:10] Right, got the defendants represented by counsel for the witness back on the stand. Scoffs Are you ready to proceed, as they say? All right, Paramount, you are under oath. Let's go and get that Orakpo directly with the. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to go ahead and proceed with the evidence, Mr. Carl. Good afternoon and good, if I recall correctly, that it was you who called Raddy Brian when initially you reached out to Mr. Roth. I did. I knocked on his door. It wasn't Mr. Brian looking for the spotlight. That's correct. And is it fair to say at this point that you needed his cooperation? Desire to cooperate? Yes, you wanted it. You wanted to make sure. And that's because under Georgia law, witnesses are not required to talk to you. No one is required to talk to because you are not a federal agent. I'm sorry. You're not a federal agent, your agent. That's correct. And you don't have the power to compel witnesses to speak to you. That's correct. So they do the monitoring? That's correct. Now, Mr. Brian had already given several statements to the Gwinnett County Police Department headed up. Yes, OK. And he'd already given the Glynn County Police Department his cell phone several times. Is that correct? Yes, sir. OK, but the first thing that you need to do is you need to secure his cell phone again. That's your first mission, is to secure his cell phone. My first mission? Yes, sir. There was a lot of controversy surrounding this now famous video, wasn't there? Controversy. I don't know about controversy as far as the video. There was. People do not like what the video showed for sure. For sure. And there was a lot of speculation out there about the video. And I'm going to test any speculation that I'm not asking him to provide details. I'm just asking whether he'll acknowledge that there was a need for the GBI to obtain that cell phone. Was there a need? There was. OK, in fact, as it turned out, there was another important video in this case or set of videos, whether or not if you're referring to the videos at his house. Yes. Or the night of it. Yes, that's correct. Somehow in their exhaustive investigation, going county police department, for whatever reason, did not obtain those videos. That's correct. And you were unaware of the existence of those videos until Mr. Raddy, Brian, brought them to your attention? Yes, sir. Directing your attention to May 11th. Did you tell Raddy, Brian, that the past week had probably been one of the worst of his life? Yes, And he agreed with you? That's correct. I believe you've testified that to McMichael, Michael. Defendants have been arrested. That's correct. The GBI director, Vic Reynolds, had given a press conference and to anything from the press conference. That's that's hearsay. I have no intention of going into the contents of the press conference. But your boss for Cobb County D.A., that frowns at that time. GBI director had actually given a press conference in this case. Yes, that's correct. You were physically present when he did so? Yes, sir, I was. And whether you were present, you were aware that there was a press release. I'm aware there were press releases going on. And when you were speaking with Mr. Brian, which you described as media and quote unquote, other entities were blowing the situation up even more objections around that, Your Honor, in terms of the relevance of what Seacrest thought about his media, based on the conversations we had yesterday outside the presence of the jury, I thought the importance of this line of questioning was clear. If you're asking the court that no. OK, so. Well, I'm at the court's direction, but the circumstances surrounding under which statements are made is relevant to their admissibility. So ask you question. Did you describe when you spoke with Mr. Brian, the media, quote unquote, other entities, quote unquote, blowing it up even more, directing your attention paid for the transcript as our review section would stick with us to go to page one every page for the future on which transcript the final OK at any point in time to. That's what I'm asking you about. Don't hesitate to let me know. Thank you. Yes, that's correct. A lot. And you noted that the media was already out front of Mr. Bryan's residence when you first attempted to make contact with Your Honor. Again, I wasn't doing his yes, the media was there. And that media craze only got worse in the days to follow the media was the media was present, OK. And again, on five, thirteen, two days later, when you speak to Mr. Brian again, you acknowledge that the past few days have been, quote, difficult for Mr. Brian, unquote. Yes, sir. Because there's even more media now is that, quote, I don't think that's a quote, but there were more media. I'm sorry you're asking me a question. I'm sure that you discussed with Mr. Brian the march through his neighborhood. Page one. Thirty nine on your flight thirteen transcript. I do recall that if you sympathize with unusual activity in the neighborhood. Yes. You've previously agreed that in the context of this interview in May of twenty, that this was a neighborhood on edge. That's correct. By this time, Mr. Brian feared for his own personal safety and that expanding the speculation, directing your attention to page 142 of what I believe is the transcript that was the transcript of his prior testimony in this trial. Did you give her a cigaret, everybody? A fair enough volume, one of the proceedings of May thirteen, twenty, twenty one. Do you have that transcript, sir? Not not here on the stand with me, Mr.. Have X your testimony. What page you on your page two to page 142. I'm sorry. Which statement? Which part of the page one. Forty two lines three through seven. Yes, sir. Do you recall being asked whether Mr. Bryan and his fiancee related multiple occasions incidents that gave them concern for their personal safety? Yes. Or do you recall Mr. Bryant's fiancee, Amy, giving you a threatening letter that she pulled out of my mailbox with your say? Yes. Anything in that letter is hearsay and relevance to Amy all. I'll rephrase it in this case, but I'll rephrase. In the presence of Roddy Bryant, did his fiancee, Amy L. Ron, give you a letter that she pulled out of her mailbox? Same objection, Your Honor. I don't know if there's it's certainly not hearsay. We have not it's not consistent. And what's the relevance of it? Is there any evidence that Mr. Ryan read the letter? I mean, what our office did, Mr. Bryan asked you to do something to help protect. I don't recall that directly. I know there were general concerns about his personal safety. Yes. There were multiple conversations about it. I is it fair to say that Mr. Bryan was very much concerned about speaking with you at this time? Objection. The speculation. I'll rephrase. Would you describe Mr. Bryan as scared? Not of me. I'm sorry. I didn't mean scared of you, but scared generally because the situation in the neighborhood. Yes. And you still need his help? I would like his assistance, yes. Can the last thing you want Mr. O'Brien to do, it's freak out. I don't want anybody to freak out. You certainly don't want to shut down because you want help. I'd like to get statements from anybody involved in an investigation at. Sir, I'm going to direct your attention to the bottom of page. The bottom half page. I'm the bottom two thirds of page three of the transcript, the five eleven transcript we which is, sir, I'm showing you the argument of three of that transcript. And no, this is not marked for this debate. The full transcript ready for. Do you recall that conversation? Yes, sir. I do think can you read that conversation from the ones you handicap or you can read the smaller print on the document? Either way, I stated, I. I do appreciate you. You said you would call me back and you did. And you said you wanted to talk and you are. I appreciate that. I want to tell you. Thank you. Like I told Mr. Golf, said Kevin, and I responded, Kevin. Yeah, it takes me a second sometimes, you know, at this point your your your a witness, you know, that's kind of what we've developed. I shouldn't say developed, but determined by listening to all the evidence and the statements and watching videos. There are there are things that we need to that we have questions on and that we'd like to to I guess, be a little more specific than what we've been able to see. You know, but I do appreciate you coming in and that if what said yes, sir, that is what I said [15:26:07][956.5] [15:26:07] At that point in time. Lf it was important for you to let Mr. Bryant know that he was a witness in this matter, it was important for him to know that I appreciated him calling me back like he said he would after my initial contact with him. It was important that he know what his role was at this point in time. And I wanted him to understand that I was looking at this objectively from a fresh set of eyes and not going strictly of what Glynn County Police Department relate. Now, when you told him that you had reviewed the previous statements to the Glynn County Police Department and the other evidence in the case, you weren't lying to him. I was not. You did actually. You had all that information available to you? Yes, sir. And you know that the Gwinnett County Police Department had referred to him as a witness. I don't recall that specifically. But if it's in there, it's in there. OK, well, you reviewed their case file. I did some pieces, I would say. And when you became involved in this case, the county police department listed him as a witness, asked and answered. I don't think so, but I'll defer to the court. The go ahead to do is go to the Glynn County Police Department and identified him as a witness in this matter. I don't recall. OK, fair enough. But you told him that he was a witness and told him at that point in time, which would be consistent as far as you know, with everything he had been led to believe. Objection. The speculation as far as what Mr. Brian was led to believe, I know that you executed a you had Mr. Brown execute a consent form. I believe it's of which show you what's been marked. State's Exhibit 197. I believe you read that to the jury earlier. Yes, sir, I did. Where in there does it tell Mr. Brian what he's under investigation for? It doesn't make. Thank you, sir. I would add that he knew what the investigation was about being as the whole case was around about Aubrey and his death. But we'll come back to that. Maybe I slept through it earlier, but where was the Miranda form that you used on this occasion? He was not under arrest. Miranda is only required when somebody is being questioned while they're in custody. At no time was Mr. Bryan in custody during this questioning. As a matter of fact, he was advised from the beginning that he was free to leave and that he was free to stop talking at any time to which Mr. Golfer's was present. During those conversations, Well, let's be clear here. You are under no legal obligation to give Mr. Bryan Miranda rights, but you could have there's no reason to. But you could have I could do a lot of things, but there's no reason to read him. Miranda, if he is not in custody or there's no chance of him being put into custody at that time, he'd never Mirandized somebody who wasn't in custody. I do a lot of different things depending on an investigation. The statutes and case law gives us parameters for which we have to work through. What I do in one case may be different than another based on the circumstances of that case. There's no straight cookie cutter approach to this. The point is to always get the information that's needed in the investigations that you can make a reasonable decision on charges should they be made or not. But in this case, there was a specific reason why you did not Mirandize Mr. Bryant. That's correct, because he was not in custody. When you fill out a Miranda form, are you not required to tell the subject what you're investigating them for? No, sir. No, you don't do that. Objection. Your relevance around the form. Josquin We've already established that a Miranda warning was not given. With all respect, the credibility of all witnesses is a matter for the jury. I'll say sort of said he didn't read. You never use the term citizen arrest in this conversation. Any of these interviews, either myself or Mr. Bryan, discusses the arrest that you discussed, other legal concepts. Did you not? Which ones such as self-defense don't recall that specifically. Do you have a reference? No. No, you don't recall that at all. If you have a reference to refresh my memory, but I don't recall that specifically circled back to that. You did discuss whether Mr. Bryan was scared on the side of the road. Do you have a specific reference? Did you discuss whether Mr. Bryan took defensive action to pull away from Mr. Aubury when he felt Mr. Aubrey was trying to get instructed, not testify that earlier today, not in relation to self defense, but in relation to these series of events that occurred prior to Mr. Berry's death? Yes, we discussed the now shortly into the interview, concern became apparent as to what your intentions were. But did it not concern for you? There was concern on the part of Mr. Bryan as to what your intentions were, objection to speculation about concerning Mr. Ryan. We don't have to speculate here. It's refresh breaking your attention to page twenty one of the transcript. Which which transcripts? The five eleven transcript. AC after this colloquy on page three, the defense review, page twenty one is a certain areas that you're. Yeah, the tell us that the part where the interview stops and I don't have line numbers on my copy, but from the part where it says, OK, I'll step outside a minute. In the beginning I guess to give some context, in the beginning of this interview, Mr. Golf had even reminded Mr. Bryan while I was telling him about the voluntariness of the interview, Mr. Golf reminded him that any point we could pause the interview so that Mr. Bryant could confer with his attorney on any questions he may have. And that's, I think, what is occurring right here. Mr. Bryan starts off from this page stating he asked me and I don't exactly remember right now what exactly he said then. He was just saying that, yes, if that wasn't me, well, he directed me to it. I directed him to the breaking the conversation. And then we approached Robert Speakman directing your attention line four. Well, it's the fourth line. I know there are no line numbers, but line four, how does this part of the conversation begin? I stated, OK, I'll step outside a minute. In the process. What next? Mr. Golf says, no, you step outside or I'm sorry, not you step outside, we'll step outside. And Mr. Brian said, Yeah, I was going to step outside. And I said, Yeah, that's fine, Roddy, have a seat. And then what do I say? Mr. Golf says, Right, you stay. We're stepping out. And Mr. Bryant says, OK. [15:36:20][613.2] [15:36:19] And then you say, no, you're good, you're good. And then I say, we're stepping out, OK? And then you and I step down. That's correct. And when we came back in, what did you tell Mr. Brian? I know not everybody talks to the police every day. And I know this is a very stressful situation, but, you know, we're going to be OK here. Mr. Ryan says, OK, OK. And then you say, all right, we're going to be OK. I mean, nothing has changed when we're done here. You're going home. OK, And Mr. Ryan said, OK, because he's just a witness. I believe that our our question or our conversation outside was to Braudis nervousness about talking to police and his trouble recalling events. And I believe you were speaking for your client as to his ability to recall events, because it's an issue. It's it's an issue when you're dealing with him that day, I don't remember being as much of an issue for him as it was for you. Really. OK, all right. Now, on the 11th, Mr. Ryan gave you an hour plus interview, did he not? Yes, sir, that's correct. Hour and fifteen something with that. May 13th, he comes back and gives you a two hour interview. That's correct. And he speaks with he was in his home. Bezzina, the May 13th interview for two hours. In addition to the two hour interview at the DNR headquarters, he invites you into his home. Meet with you is his. That's correct. After discussions with you, it was advised that we could go to his home. I believe that was to download the night our camera system. There was not an interview. It was a matter of gathering evidence. And you spoke with a man in the front yard, not about the facts of the case as much as it was the, again, the logistics of the video and everything else. And you're speaking with him down when you're getting his fingerprints. After you and I had already had a conversation where I promised I wouldn't ask any questions about the case during that time because you weren't present, because you had built a relationship of trust with Mr. Ryan, which I try to do with all of my witnesses and all of my people that I discuss with cases, whether it be subjects, whether it be witnesses, to the point where I've gotten text messages thanking me from people that I've arrested because I've treated them fairly. And in case it wasn't clear earlier, in all these interviews that transpired over several hours, you're discussing a lot of different subjects. Yes. Path of Travis. Only one of those I'm sorry, say the path of travel, the video, the now famous video. That's one of the subjects of those conversations, the recorded interview conversations. Yes. I mean, you're not really Mr. Ryan for four consecutive forty two hours at a time now. And half the time. That is one subject. No, these interviews are very conversational in nature about the events that that happened on that day before and after. And it was through no fault of yours that Mr. Ryan nevertheless had trouble articulate what was going on that day. No, sir. He didn't. You said it was no fault. It was no fault of yours. You were trying to work with him? I was working with him, yes. OK, now, on May 11th and May 13th, did Mr. Ryan appear at any time to be mentally unstable, sir, to appear to be influence under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants? No, sir. Was Mr. Ryan loud or boisterous? No, sir. Did he come across to you as gleeful or bragging or boastful? No, sir. Did he strikes you as someone seeking attention, seeking the spotlight? No, sir. To Mr. Bryan. Drop bombs or otherwise use profanity when you were talking to him? [15:40:36][256.9] [15:40:36] Yes, Was Mr. Brian in any way disrespectful to you? He was not. OK, now, there are times in the transcript where you and Mr. Brian or discussing the deceased in this case. That's hardly my first name. That's correct. In doing so, you didn't mean any disrespect? I don't see that as disrespectful. And certainly when Mr. Arborists said his name, you didn't take that as a disrespect towards Mr. Aubrey with Mr. Arborists, his name. When Mr. Brian said Mr. Arbor's first name, you didn't take that as a sign of disrespect? No, sir. Did you ask Mr. Brian how far I got in school on either May 11th or May 13th? Not to my recollection, but I think he did tell me that he graduated from Brunswick, if I remember correctly. Did you ask him whether he had any learning disabilities? Mr.. Did you ask him whether he could read and write in English language? I don't recall specifically if I asked that one at don't recall him replying. Most of it. I do recall that. Yes, sir. I now, Mr. Brian never denied following Mr. Obama every day. That's correct. And while he might not have used the word, Mr. Brian never denied angling his vehicle ahead of Mr.. He never denied angling his vehicle in that direction. His choice of words changed drastically from the point of the Glen County interview to the point of his interview with me. I'm sorry that I asked you whether he he changed his wording or did I ask you whether he denied angling his vehicle in front of Mr. Section? Your Honor, the witness is allowed to explain his answer, which I believe is what you just said. What a witness does is answer yes or no in any way. Which is state. Of course we do. Right. Brian never denied during his interview with you that he angled his vehicle ahead of Mr. Robert. That's correct. He never denied. He just changed the descriptive words that he used in his involvement in the incident that they did. You just tell the jury when the district attorney was playing this reenactment, did you just tell the jury as you pull the truck and where the where the driveway is in the ditch, didn't you just show them on the video of him angling and say that he did? You just didn't use the word? Yes, sir. He said he did that during the reenactment video with me. But the wording was different than his explanation when he was interviewed by the Oakland County Police Department. But based on your video, whether he used the same words or not, he conveyed the same meaning. He conveyed the same meaning with different intent. You know what's in Mr. Bryan's mind? I would still know. It's in his mind. But the use of the English language, in the words, can give some insight into a person's intent. Are you trying to specular? That's what was in Mr. Ryan's mind. I'm not speculating in what is in his mind. I guess I would be explaining what the meaning that I took to those words and what I would say as a general meaning to those words. Roddy Ryan never denied cutting in a head of Mr. Arbitrary Day, at which point at any point in your conversation with did he ever deny cutting in ahead of Mr. Orgo? No. He was factually correct in his movements that day during his interview with me. Now, beyond that, what you're really doing in this video and this narrative, you just get in the jury is you're largely speculating about what happened. I'm re I'm giving insight on what I was told was that had happened on the day of the incident. OK, was that Mr. Ryan's testimony, the words you were using when the video was playing or was that your spin on it? That would be me. Paraphrase what Mr. Bryan told me during that reenactment video, Mr. Bryan, that, you know, that he didn't think he could do this, do the reenactment video. Mr. Bryan. Let's you know, many times that he was struggling to remember events. Two and a half months later, which is not uncommon for anybody that has to recall events afterwards. But it doesn't stop me from being able to ask the questions. That's my job as an investigator, because you needed this reenactment video. Actually, you offered the video prior to the interview. You you referenced that Mr. Ryan had a hard time remembering the path of travel in a narrative format and that he was willing to take that path of travel after the interview. So you took that as the green light to put words in Mr. Bryant's mouth? I never put words in Mr. Bryan's mouth. Look, make sure we live in the same thing [15:47:06][389.2] [15:47:06] Yes. That's your job. And, sir, is it fair to say that what you did on May 13th in that car was that was a rehearsal before you recorded the. I'm sorry, repeat that question. You rehearsed this video with Mr. Ryan before you recorded it? Yes. There was a discussion as far as Mr. Braun's ability to recall exactly what happened. So we did refresh the hands prior to actually doing the recording. So it was practiced. He did address run a practice run before you turned the video. It was a run to refresh his memory because he was having a hard time with the path of travel. We assure you the investigators submarine prepared this. Thank you. Your investigative summary indicates that Jackson, if you're sitting around your house, at he's trying to refresh his recollection. That's one thing, but not very helpful documents. If you refresh your recollection that I don't believe the witness ever said that he couldn't remember anything. I'll rephrase. In your written summary, you acknowledge the difficulty Mr. Bryan had in determining his path of travel two and a half months later. Yes, just like I stated earlier, he needed an opportunity to refresh his memory. And it was only after you refreshed his memory that the video was turned off. I did not refresh his memory. It was impossible for me to refresh Mr. Brian's memory. I was not there on February twenty third. I could only go off the statements that Mr. Bryan provided that it was possible for you to refresh his memory. Wasn't that I Howard Chris. Mr. Bryan repeatedly said he's having trouble recalling the events of that day. And in all the times that you met with him and all the times he expressed difficulty, did you ever once offered to show him a copy of his own statement? No, sir. You had both of his statements from the police department at that time, right? You had the video and the transcript, I'm sorry, in the video, OK, you've indicated you reviewed them. Did you ever once give Mr. Brian an opportunity to review what he said two and a half months earlier? It wouldn't be standard to have somebody review their statement after the fact. The whole point of the GBI coming in to do another investigation. This incident was to try to start the investigative process from the beginning and basically get a fresh start. I wanted Mr. Brian statement from his recollection right then, and I could compare it to what he had said earlier and try to determine if there were discrepancies based off memory issues or if there discrepancies based off of I'll call it ill intent. Where in your five page written summary do you ever reference Roddie Brian attempting to run over Mr. Murray with his truck? I don't think it's in there. It's right here. Yeah, I don't believe it's OK. To be fair, you weren't investigating Roddy Ryan for an aggravated assault of a motor vehicle where he was investigating Roddy's involvement in the death of a model or very well, certainly if he had told you that he tried to run Mr. Aubry over with his truck, that would have changed the character of your investigation. Not necessarily. You certainly would have included in your five page summary, would you? That's correct, because other agents for the GBI and your supervisors are looking at these things as they come in, right? That's correct. And you previously testified about an incident where Mr. Aubrey, from Mr. Ryan's perspective, appears to be getting in the vehicle. That's correct. Or try. Yes. And in fact, he expressed a fear to you later that he that he was going to try again. That sounds familiar. Yes. Directing your attention to page fifty four of what I believe is the May 13th transcript show. Fifty four page fifty four. OK, directing your attention to the Middle where Mr. Brian begins with. Well at first he tells you he's trying to get out of the way. Ten find down. Yes. Now he's trying to get out of the way. He says, I mean for a split second he says, oh, my God, he's coming back at me. He saw that. Yes, that's that's right. Before he continued following Mr. Aubury towards the intersection of satellite and homes. And so he's telling you that I'm trying to stay back, stay as far back as I can from this. Do. Yes. But he had also turned around to he was already going away from Mr. Aubrey and he had turned around to come back and follow him. And when he turned so when he turned around and I got that video that split second and he's coming back at me and I'm like, oh, expletive, excuse me again. Do I use that word? I understand. Yes. Right before he continues following him. Yes, ma'am. So he says and started kind of evasive action. And I dropped the phone. He said, yes, your testimony today, you will be a key portion of his statement. Did you not even want to talk about directing your attention to page forty of May 13th? Yes, with me, May 13th, Do you recall Mr. Ryan specifically telling you that he never intended to strike Mr. Ahmed on page forty and saw the top page one? That's your question for Mr. Ryan. Up page forty one. I assume so. All right. So you never intentionally tried to run them off the road, Mr. Ryan says no. To think this is referring to the time when he was trying to cut them off in the driveway. And so he's saying that he wasn't trying to trying to actually run them over or hit him. And actually, you're following up on what he's told you on page thirty eight where he told you that he got over his path, but he was too far in front of Mr. Aubrey to be a threat. Page thirty eight. Yes, sir. To forward in front of him to be running him off the road. That's correct. Well, technically, if Mr. Aubrey didn't stop running, he would have run into Mr. Harper, Mr. Ryan's truck. Objection. Judge, is there a question? And there is speculation in the context Mr. Ryan's not denying the blocks at the trial. He's just pointing out to you that he was a good distance in front of you. Did that objection compound question, Your Honor, to break and enter the witness can trying to answer that, if he will. He will. If you won't, I'll rephrase. Can you repeat it? Mr. Ryan has acknowledged attempting to block Mr. Aubrey's path of travel, but he's told you at page thirty eight that when he does that, he's sufficiently far in front of him that he's not threatening Mr. Aubrey with his vehicle. That's correct. He's saying that he is trying to stop his movement, but that he's too far in front to make contact. That's correct. Now, we've discussed in generality Mr. Brian Struggle's reviewing the events of that day. Now, I've got some more specific questions. And I'm sorry I didn't mean to take you out there. You didn't need that. May 13th transcript again. OK, um, Mr. Brian told you that it had been two and a half months since this incident. That's page three. That's right. But he promises to do his best, doesn't he? He says, I'll give you what I can recall. Uh, as far as what took place in front of his house, he tells you it all happened pretty quick, does he not? Page six? I believe that's correct. Yes. But now you've already decided that you're going to direct the conversation, have you not, getting your attention? Back to page three. You agree to quote unquote, direct rotty, Brian three. What happened? Were you a page, page three factor of the five submission transcript? You use the words direct. Mr. Ryan, I'm trying to find a second. I thought I was looking at May 13th. OK, that's what you're asking? Yes. OK, I think that's in reference to conversations that you and I had. And I tried to ask open ended questions to get responses. And it was advised that I probably needed to be a little bit more direct in the questioning to give them guidance on what I was, what I was wanting to discuss. Well, let's be clear. You're not trying to trick Mr. Brian here. You're simply trying to get the information. That's correct. But you did do that. You have to Director. I have to ask direct questions. But again, a lot of that is based on conversations that Mr. in the Gulf and I had regarding what his ability to respond and understand open the questions as it related to the the things that I was looking to ask about. So I believe you even referenced being more direct with him, because as Mr. Brown explained to you at page twenty two, it is hard for him to explain what happened out there. You talk about the bottom of the page. I believe that well, it says what it actually says is what this is going to be hard to explain without kind of really showing you, Mr. Brian telling you he can't put in put it into words. Yes. Like I explained earlier, Mr. Ryan had a hard time describing things in a narrative format when it came to the path of travel. But he had. But that's why he was willing to go afterwards and actually do the drive through, because he could do it more. And that kind of setting versus just describing it narratively. Yes, sir. And at page twenty three, before I get there, when you read the Green County Police Department report, you did see that the map in the squiggles that Mr. Brian drew on it when he was interviewed by Detective Lowry. So I knew that there was a map that they were referencing when I was reviewing the video. I actually don't recall seeing the map initially. I know that we got it at some point, but I don't recall actually being able to find it when I was preparing for the interview. Well, it was fairly obvious at that point that Mr. Brian, Mr. Bryan's matchmaking skills would leave a lot to be desired. Yes, that's correct. 160233 COUNSEL>> Specifically, Mr. Bryan had trouble recalling details about the carjacking, directing your attention to page thirty one. WITNESS>> I don't -- I don't know of a carjacking. COUNSEL>> Attempted carjacking? WITNESS>> I don't know if -- COUNSEL>> Iâ?Tm sorry. What do you call it when someone tries -- >> Objection. COUNSEL>> -- to get in your motor vehicle. >> He just cut the witness off, your honor. COUNSEL>> Iâ?Tm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Explain. 160256 WITNESS>> I don't, I don't know of a carjacking. I know that if someone is being chased through a neighborhood that there may be different ways that they may deal with that. [16:03:07] Fair enough. Fair enough. But for example, Mr. Brian has difficulty. Recall whether it is Mr. Avery's right hand or left hand, which is closest to his door. That's correct. Now, you were asked previously whether the transcripts from May 11th and May 13th that you were referring to reflected the full conversation that took place in your car. There was a conversation in my car on May 11th. Directing your attention to page 148 of the motion transcript, page 148. [16:05:26][1101.0] [16:05:26] Do you recall being asked whether the transcript of the reenacts that goes with the reenactment video reflected the full conversation that took place in your car? I stated that it reflects the time that we started the reenactment at the time when you turned on the video, when we started the reenactment, basically, you had so much trouble with Mr. Brian the first time you went through this with him and start all over again. I wouldn't call it trouble. I would call it again. It's been two and a half months. We had difficulty relaying the exact version of the path to travel. It was better to do a refresh to allow him to refresh his memory before we actually recorded it. The flip side would have been if we would have started recording it, it was wrong. It would become more confusing. So the idea was to get the best recollection that Mr. Brian had on the video. And then so prior to that, we did the we did the the refresh drive around to make sure that he kind of knew where he was. And Mr. Golf and Mr. Ryan were on board with that during the whole time this occurred. So when the traffic begins go, that's not that wasn't really good, was it? Yes, sir. It was duo. No, sir, you don't. We would call it a mulligan. I would not. All right. Let's talk about the video transcript itself that you testified earlier that those were that's what Mr. Brian told you related to this jury earlier today. It true and accurate. Are you referring to my my paraphrasing of events on the video? Yeah. Yes. OK, directing your attention to page two, you tell Mr. Brian, let's start. We saw you saw them going through. That's you leading Mr. Brian, is it not? Sir? That's me. Just going back to information. And Mr. Brian had said to me as to how this started, but you're basically you're the director of the of this little movie. That's what I'm doing, is just going back after the refresh and the information to Mr. Brian had already given in just referencing it during the video. It's like a way of of recording it and getting it getting it on record that this is what this is what Mr. Brian had provided to me. And he's acknowledging it by saying, oh, and then again, on page two, you're telling him you kind of see him running. Yes, sir. Which is, again, goes back to the information that he had already relayed to me during the interview and during the refresh of the drive through the neighborhood. And again, on page two, you're telling him you already knew Todd? I was on page two. On page two, we're still on page two. You're telling us you're telling him that Mr. Aubrey is still in front of you. No, sir. No, no. That is a I'm telling him the direct quote here is you already knew and I use a a word to reference Mr. Berry was going down that way. In the direction that they were angling for that. Mr. Promisingly. All right. That can to the bottom of the page, to Mr. Bryan's expressing uncertainty about the sequence of events. Is he not, of a page two, he says, quote unquote, he was probably right beside me. Yes, that's correct. He does. Page three, about eight lines up. You're telling him you're still going? I'm not telling him. That's a question, not the actual line, says you're still going question mark. And let's be clear, who's operating a motor vehicle for this video? Is that Mr. Brian operating motor vehicle? No, sir. I'm operating my status. You got a truck and I am following the path of travel and the directions that Mr. Brian has given me. OK, I've been asking him about speeds and directions and angles and if I'm doing it correctly. Well, what Mr. Brian has told you that is that he can't explain. He needs to show you, right? That's correct. OK, and he's already brought other police officers into his truck, has he not? You're aware that Officer Minshew is actually sitting in Mr. Ryan's truck when he gets the the the first download of this idea or attempted download. OK, right. You could have let Mr. Brian operate the vehicle and show you himself. That would have been an option. So it's when you say in here on page three, something like this, that's not Mr. Brian telling you how to move the vehicle. That's you moving the vehicle for the camera at Mr. Ryan's direction. That's correct. So he told you to move that way? Yes, sir. And where did he tell you to drive that way? Directing your attention to page three, the transcript. Where is Mr. Ryan? They are directing you, telling you how to operate the vehicle. The whole page. It starts off over the top. Mr. Brian states. All right. I'm staying on this side of the road and I'm ahead of them, but I'm not going that fast. They're speed. You can come on down. And actually, if you go to ten, he says. So then I speed up. He talks about how they almost melted the tree, says we're real close to each other. And I ask a question, are you still going? He replies, Yep, straight on through. I sped up a little bit more good bit. I kind of left them. And then you say, oh, he's so he is directing this travel through the whole way. He's talking about speed and direction during this whole process. And then you're saying something like this. Yes, I'm asking for clarification. I'm asking Mr. Brian is what I'm doing with my vehicle the same as what he did on that day on February 2013. And after you've done it, you're getting him to agree with you. I'm asking him a question. I want him to respond. Yes. If it is correct and if it's not correct, I want him to respond. No and tell me what the correct way is. And this is all while people are walking through the neighborhood while all this media craziness is going on, is it not? We've seen the video there was no I don't recall seeing anybody on Burford at the point that we're talking about on page three. I don't believe we start seeing people in the video until we get to the intersection of homes and satellite. So at the point we're talking about here, there's not a whole bunch of people in the street. But the media circus, while it's not evident, the few minutes of your video, you've already testified about the media circus in this timeframe, about the march to the Navy Yard, testified about that. You know, I have the media circus is not just about what was happening in the neighborhood. There were times where there was media in the neighborhood. There were times that were there that there were other people milling about about the neighborhood that did not appear to live there. But Media Circus also referenced a lot of other things that were going on beyond just physical activity. The neighborhood, as you've already testified, Mr. Ryan, is in fear for himself and his family. Objection to this characterization and also speculation assisted. Mr. Ryan has expressed concern for his safety. Yes, he has. Mr. Ryan is trying to please you. Is objection speculation about Mr. Ryan and anyone that Mr. Right. Mr. Ryan, is you would describe this, Mr. Brian Brian telling you what you want to hear as a matter of fact, Mr. Brian, even through your cross-examination today, says several times that he's having a hard time remembering somebody who's trying to please me would generally just want to answer in whatever way I'm trying to get them to answer. But Mr. Brian is is not doing that. So he's trying to be he's trying to remember what he can recall from two and a half months before and when he's having trouble recalling you're helping the law. I can't help him along. I was not there that day. I can't provide those details. I'm not helping him alone. I am asking questions, which is my job. And why won't you simply show and statements? Objection. Asked and answered. It's sustained while you're sitting in the car and he's having trouble remembering details, why don't you just share that with him? Like I said earlier, my my goal here is to give his statement for that day of his recollection so that I can compare it as part of the investigative process. We actually have a team of investigators that are working this case. We're discussing it daily. We're going back and we're discussing differences. We want to see those differences so we can we can use that in the investigation to determine our path and what our decisions are going to be. But when you've reviewed his prior statements and he can't see them, then he's looking to you to fill in the gaps. That's human nature. Objection. Speculation, Judge, let's go to now. It's just it Baker at page four, you ask him, is this where Mr. Aubrey went for the door? Yes. And you're asking you're telling it as you were coming in reverse again. I'm not telling him the transcripts, both of those quotes of what I said or questions. The first one, OK, is this where he went for the door? Question? Mr. Brian says yes. And then I respond, OK, are you coming in reverse? It's a question. [16:17:10][703.8] [16:17:10] Again, it goes back to the information he's already provided. And I'm just helping the narration from what he's already told me. So I can be sure that I understand, which is also in the question format, giving him the opportunity to respond. If I misunderstood. And while Mr. Brian is talking to you, your phone rings during the video, does it not? I believe here my phone rang somewhere in there. I think of it unfortunately, interrupts Mr. Brian, an important part of your reenactment. When my phone rang, it did not rang continuously until it went to voicemail. My recollection is, is that I silenced it once it started ringing. But Mr. Brian, correction in the actual audio of this video, he says, I might have been in drive by then as opposed to being in reverse, as you testified to. You don't recall him saying that? I don't recall. Yes, I recall him unsure of the exact time that he believed Mr. Aubrey reached for the door. It was more of it happened quickly. And it either happened while I was already while I was in reverse or after I'd gone in to drive. It was more of just a difficulty in recalling the exact moment because of how quickly it occurred. And Mr. Brian added, which he did not mention today, I wasn't looking back there at him. That's right. But again, I was paraphrasing the the statement that Mr. Bryan gave me. He was trying to figure out where Mr. Aubrey was going and get out of here. That's what he told you. That's correct. Right before he continued to chase Mr. Aubrey down home road. Now, in the video, we see you pulling up by the ditch at a driveway where he's angled. You remember that? Yes, that was before next to. That's right. This same time frame. That's correct. Matt, when you're driving the car, when you back up, you're not backing up at the angle that Mr. Mr. Bryan reported pulling in. You're not backing up the angle that you pulled in. You're backing up at an angle more towards Mr. Harbury. I'm backing. But the direction of Mr. Braun. Where did Mr. Brian tell you that he backs straight up? Where in that transcript did he tell you that? He doesn't tell me that specifically, nor is he correct it the way that I'm doing it at that time, because maybe at that time, Mr. Aubrey doesn't understand that that might be important. Mr. Aubrey, Mr. Brian, objection to speculation about what Mr. Ryan understood at that time, because you still haven't explained, Mr. Bryant, that you're looking at whether there's an aggravated assault. To the question there is when you're going through this part of this with Mr. Bryan, you had not told him that you're looking at an aggravated assault at this point in time? I'm still looking at the case as a whole and what his involvement was. I wouldn't even say that specifically at this time. I was thinking about aggravated assault. OK, so neither you nor Mr. Bryan know that that angle has any actual importance at the time you're making this objection to speculation about what Mr. Bryan knew at that time. I'll rephrase. You weren't deliberately trying to mislead Mr. Bryan when you angle you when you reversed in the way that you were deliberately trying to mislead him. It didn't occur to you at that time that it mattered. I did not deliberately misleading mislead Mr. Bryan at any time of the angle, the exact angle of how Mr. Bryan backed up again. He did not correct what I did. And so that was the best representation of what I have as to what happened that day. Now, as in the video, you showed Mr. Ryan pulling up ahead after the backing up, you saw him going. But in your testimony this morning, you did talk about the speed at which Mr. Bryan was moving. OK, Mr. Bryan told you that that moment when he pulls away is the fastest that he's traveling during this entire incident, doesn't it? Yes. OK, but you didn't mention that again. I didn't mention that. It was a paraphrase of what Mr. Bryan told me during that reenactment. Now, I believe he testified about Mr. Ryan backing up again this time when he's given past holds. Correct. Yes, that's correct. But when he's backing up, he's not backing up at Mr. Arias. No, sir, not not to my knowledge, because Mr. Aubrey is going up the street. I don't know the exact time that Mr. Aubrey would have gone up the other street in relation to when Mr. Ryan was backing up. I'm going to get this right before this trial is over. Of this little squiggle here. You see that Mr. pretty important in this case, isn't objection just reiterated the relevance of that was ages six. In the entire interview that you conducted with Mr. Ryan, did you ever ask him about Matteo Renzi? Not to my recollection. As far as your entire interview with Mr. Ryan, Mr. Ryan has no idea what Mr Albanese is as far as I know. But Mr. Aubrey knows where Mr. Cleanseas objection to what Mr. are very honest. I'll rephrase it. In the course of your investigation, you discovered that Mr. Aubrey had run out of to twenty Sattell. That's correct. Yes, ma'am. And run down for Mr. Ryan. That's correct. Well, towards in that direction. And Mr. Ryan's got the music playing up front, right? Yes. So you can't see or hear he hasn't. So he has no idea. Mr Albanese. Daulaire objection to speculation. Mr. Ryan, do you have any reason to believe that Mr. Brian was aware of Mr. Advisees presence out there, whether Mr. Brian knew that Mr. But I don't know that Mr Bansi was still standing out there at that point in time, but he had in there only minutes before he had been there at the time that Mr Albanese made the phone call to the non-emergency line. That's correct. And that would explain why Mr. Aubrey turns up the other street objection to speculation about lies no matter what he did. Say hello to Mr. Mr. Ryan had no idea that that objection speculation about what Mr. Ryan was trying to tell you. He's aware that that's correct. He tells he surprised that Mr. Aubrey turns up Hultz. Is that in the transcript? I believe it is nothing to look for the reference. Now, if you can't know. Yes, let's just take a actually let's just make sure we that let's just go ahead and take a five minute recess. All right. Here. All right. I'm going to you just stepped out for lunch. You just wait up. Oh, yes. OK, we're going to take a short recess. Which golf? How long you planning to take with this witness? Because we seem to have spent a long time on one video. So I'm wondering where you're going with all this. Yes, I'm fine with speed up. [16:26:48][577.7] [16:26:48] I'm not asking you to speed it. Well, it'd be great if you could. Obviously, I want to give you the opportunity, but I'm just trying to figure out from a timing standpoint where we are. I thought when we started, we were in pretty good shape for the day during my flight. I plan on finishing this, which is what I'm trying to get some idea on where we are. Pretty close, thanks. I have no idea what that means, but let's go and take a short recess and come back. Maybe we can get a better idea when I get back. Thank y. [16:27:24][36.2] [16:27:24] Ou. I'll walk with say, Cottager. [16:35:24][480.4] [16:36:08] Astron from the state to my want to go. Let's check with the witness. Actually, you know I probably need to instruct the witness, [16:36:16][7.4] [523.9] [16:36:15] so let's bring the witness in at, say, All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We are at a point we're going to go ahead and break for the day. So we're going to be back here at nine o'clock Monday morning for a continuation of the evidence in this case. Now we're breaking for the weekend. OK, so let me just remind you the instructions that I've given you. Again, do not discuss this case with anyone. Do not go looking for any information about the case. And don't let anybody discuss this case with you or approach you about the case. Don't let anybody talk about it in your presence of here. Don't go picking up newspapers. Don't go looking at social media. If you're out and about over the weekend and you are around people that are talking about the case or want to talk about the case, you need to walk away. You need to make sure that that doesn't happen. And if it does, you need to go ahead and notify the court when you return on Monday. So everybody understand the court's instructions nods from everybody. All right. With that, thank you for the week. Thank you for participating in this case with us here in the Superior Court of Glynn County. I appreciate your time and I appreciate your attention. We'll see you Monday. [16:36:15][0.0]

CORE 3943 AHMAUD ARBERY MURDER TRIAL BRUNSWICK GA SWITCHED FEED POOL 11122021 150000 [09:03:00] Members this with. Good morning, everybody. Got all the things president represented by counsel and we are ready with states, witnesses, anything from the state forward to get on with state's witnesses who was told to be here at eight thirty is not familiar. We're sending our investigator out, but did in. So hopefully it will not be an issue. And he's just running late. And that's what I'm going to go with right now. I'm not going to assume the worst. So I just want the court to be aware, however, that now they go ahead and call Surace as opposed to calling this other witness who was not here so fast. And so we are ready to proceed with a witness, with a witness. Yes. It's a so. [09:04:03][62.2] [09:04:02] 090328 COUNSEL>> Your honor, Iâ?Tve been asked to address some comments the other day. The court hasn't asked me to do that. JUDGE>> (inaud.) -- whatever you've been asked to do has not been asked by the court. 090343 COUNSEL GOUGH>> Very well. I will let the court know that if my statements yesterday were overly broad, I will follow up with a more specific motion on Monday putting that -- that those concerns in the proper context. And my apologies to anyone who might have inadvertently been offended. [09:03:59] All right. Got series first witness. Yes. Yeah, I'm sorry. I was thinking three things. I was to get the panel's for one second. [09:05:12][69.6] [09:05:12] We've got to bring the panel with one. All right. [09:06:22][70.3] [09:06:22] The jury said good morning. Welcome back, everybody. Hopefully, everybody had a good night's sleep. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in this case. From the state. Thank you. The state call Officer Robert Sawtell truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I could have seen I please state your name and spell it for the court reporter Robert RATCH. That's Robert Caro, VRT. Gresh, ORATE, S.H.. All right. [09:08:08][105.9] [09:08:08] How are you currently employed with the Glynn County Sheriff's Department in Brunswick, Georgia? OK, how long have you been with the Glynn County Police Department? I first started in May of 2011. I left in 2016 for a year and came back in February of 2017. I tell the jury a little bit about your training and experience as a certified law enforcement officer. I attended the Georgia Post Academy in Savannah, the regional academy in Savannah. I got my basic these officers certificate from their. Since then I have taken several different classes beyond advanced classes and stuff. Right. [09:08:52][44.3] [09:08:52] And what are your current job duties? Responsibilities with the Glynn County Police Department? I'm a master patrol officer. Three, patrol the county area and assigned area of the county. I am primarily assigned to Baker nine. That is the area that I patrol on a daily basis and I answer calls for service and out there, traffic enforcement, anything that I see while I'm out on normal patrol. All right. So how long have you been assigned to Baker? Nine as a master patrol? I've been riding that area for probably five or six years. I can swap around. [09:09:34][42.2] [09:09:34] I have occasionally been swapped to other areas, but primarily back. The mine is where I run right now. You're in a suit today. How are you normally dressed when you are patrolling Baker nine or other areas? Normally at this time of our current uniform is green pants with a black polo shirt and I have an outer load bearing vest, black in color. That's my body armor and it carries some of my equipment. And we say some of your equipment is that body cam. [09:10:04][30.2] [09:10:04] That is my body camera. That is my taser, my handcuffs, tourniquets and various items that is carried on that vest to relieve the weight off of the belt. And what kind of car you drive? I drive a twenty eighteen Dodge Charger police car. How is it marked? It is marked with logos representing the Green County Police Department. Easy to read and identify. Yes, ma'am. All right. So now what kind of shifts are you working when you're working? Baker needs patrol person at this point in time. We work 12 hour shifts, ma'am, I so my take you back to twenty nineteen into the first part of twenty twenty. What kind of shifts were you working then. I believe we were we were also working the 12 hour shifts at that time. [09:10:52][48.0] [09:10:52] We've been switched back and forth between 12 and 10000 and back to close. All right. So what are the 12 hour shifts? What are the time frames of six a.m. to six p.m. and then 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.? How many days a week would you work at that time? In twenty nineteen. We were working a schedule where we worked. It's like two days on Tuesdays, all three days on it rotated around. It was three, two, two, three, two, three, three on something to that effect. OK, so there was a schedule. Yes. All right. So it wasn't four days in a row or five days or no man. And were you the six a.m. shift or the six p.m. shift on the 25th? Oh, I'm going to. How about this? Let's go out and talk about October 20th. What was your shift that day? Okay, well, four hour shifts rotate. We work days and then two months a days, two months a night on the 25th. I was even shift that day. Our night shift, the night shift. So starting at 6:00 p.m., six p.m.. All right. So are you familiar with the Sattell offshores neighborhood? Yes, ma'am. How are you familiar with that neighborhood? I grew up down the road from that area all during high school. Our bus went through there, picked up students for school, lived out in that area, not in that particular neighborhood, in that area since 1980. And then as being a patrol officer, riding that Baker nine, which encompasses sits on the shores of patrol that area on a daily basis and situations in which county, Glynn County I. And to tell a source that neighborhood public roadways. Yes, ma'am. Right. So tell us about the neighborhood composition based on your experience. And still a in twenty nineteen. It's the first two months of twenty. What kind of population lived in cities? 091209 >> I don't have hard number, but I would be willing to bet that it's primarily older, more retired people. You see very few children out playing in the yards and in the street. [09:12:23] as being if this was your baker and did you work it from January 1st, twenty nineteen through February. Twenty twenty, yes. All right. Violent crimes out there. Any violent violent crimes? Not that I'm aware of. Of property crimes. A couple. Somebody direct your attention now to twenty nineteen had you part October 25th of twenty nineteen. No, Larry. English. No. All right. So how did you encounter Larry English. I call came in to the 911 center and I'm not sure if that came in Vietnam. On one or the direct number, but a call came in in reference to a trespasser on his property. And I was dispatched out there to that call. And after arriving out there, I asked for the number in our system, our computer system. We can access the callers and phone number. I make contact with Mr. English and asked him to send me the video at this. At that time, the quickest way was him to text me the video or by email. It took a day or two to get it and get it, be able to see it. Even if I had a viewer on my work computer there, I could see it. So I contacted Mr. English and asked him to send me text me the video so I could see what who we were looking for. All right. So you get dispatched. What's the address you get dispatched to on October 25th? Twenty nineteen to twenty to tell George and describe that location. It's a at that point time it was a house under construction, no doors, no windows of partial siding on the house that you could see through the house all the way through, looking through the front window out through the back into the the river area. OK, and when you arrived on October 25th, twenty nineteen, did you encounter anyone at the open unsecured construction site? No, ma'am, I did not. Did you meet Larry English there? No, ma'am. So how did you contact Larry English via cell phone. Right. And you gave him your cell phone number? Yes. Well, he had it when I called him. So early detection. And did he in fact, text to some video? Yes, it did. And just describe generally what that video was of. It was video of his property of I remember correctly, it was on that two outdoor cameras, one on the dark, one on the front corner of the house showing a what appeared to be a light skinned black male walking around on the property, walking around on the side. And that night, did you ever see that light skinned black male again? [09:16:23][331.0] [09:16:23] I never saw him again at and at that point in time, was there a report of anything actually taken from Mr Englishes property? No, ma'am. And when you saw that video of the young man that you saw on the video, did he have a backpack or any sort of bag with him at that time? He had nothing in his hands. And did you recognize him? No, ma'am. I did not. So I'm going to take you forward now to November 17th, a white couple on very Bush's property. Did you respond to that or did they call you that night or anything? I don't recall. If he called me that night, he sent me the video from the 17th, but I received that video on a later date, not on the 17th. Do you know if you were working the night of the 17th? I do not recall. OK, so the next night, November 18th, twenty nineteen. Were you working that evening? I believe so, yes. OK, so on that evening, was that another trespassing call to the same location? I yes, there was another caller. OK, so this is about a month later you get a call. Did you respond to that location? Yes, ma'am. OK, and that's once again the open unsecured construction site at twenty two. What did you find when he got there? Same house in the same state. No, nobody in sight. And the the unidentified black male, same one from the previous October 25th incident was nowhere to be found. Right. [09:18:19][116.1] [09:18:18] And at that point in time, did you see the unknown black male have a bag or anything with him? No, ma'am. Nothing with him. Do you see the video? Yes, ma'am. Do you see him take anything? No, ma'am. I know at this point in time, October 25th and November 7th, November 18th, you're talking to Larry English over the phone? Yes, sir. And what is it that Mr English wanted you to do? Find out who he was and why he kept coming onto the property? And if you I'm going to rephrase that. I don't want you to speculate as to what you would have done. I'm not talking about speculation. [09:18:58][39.3] [09:18:57] I had talked to Larry English about trespassing him from the property. I explained to Larry English how we how we trespass someone from the property. But that was never, never done. We never made contact with. OK, so what did you tell their English about how you trespass somebody from a property? We do. We once we make contact with the person on the property, we explain to them the homeowner find out who they are. We identify the homeowner does not want them there. He has no legal reason to be there and be the property owner. Then we put them all the way I do it is I put them on speaker. If they're not there in person, I'll put him on speaker phone and I would say, Mr English, I'm here with whoever the person is. So you're saying they have no right to be here and you don't want them here on the property? And he would say that so they can be heard and we are documented in our computer system. So if that person was ever back on the property and I explained to that person, if you ever come back on this property for any reason whatsoever uninvited, you will automatically be arrested for trespassing. OK, and you told that to Mr English that that was your standard procedure. Yes. OK, And not speculation, but was that your intent if you encountered this young black male. 091938 RASH>> Yes. To find out who he is, identify him, why he was coming up there late at night and then ultimately it's Mr English's decision if he wanted him trespassed or not. [09:19:50] After you received the video from October 29th, it I think you said you received the November 18th video. Yes. OK, did you take any action to see about finding out who this person was? And I would ride around the area working night shift. It's hard to canvass. I mean, patrol the area on a normal basis, but it's hard to go up and find people at night. But not many people are moving around in the darkness. Once I came back the day shift, I switch from Nine's today as I rode around the neighborhood, patrolled the neighborhood, I would see people out walking. Any interaction I had with anybody in the neighborhood, I would stop, say, hey, have you seen have you seen this smell? I had a screenshot from that video and I would ask people had they didn't really know who that was. There were a couple residents that I saw on. I believe it's the address to ten cities, the shores. It has a ring doorbell camera. I could see when I did not make contact. [09:21:39][162.1] [09:21:39] There are a couple of places that I actually did go up and knock on the door and talk to people, something that I have dealt with in the past and kind of knew. And but nobody nobody had recognized me. So nobody knew who he was. Nobody knew that was quite so. And I want to kind of get a sense, was this a for this a methodical door to door to door to door. OK, so this is sort of hit Miss Random hit Mrs. So I'm going to go ahead and move forward now to December 1st of twenty twenty. Did Mr English make contact through December 1st of twenty twenty. About people under a bridge. Yes he did. OK, so now is this actually on December 1st or was it December 2nd. I don't remember. [09:22:33][53.5] [09:22:33] The exact date was that he called me about the people on the bridge and I was off duty the next day when I returned to work is when I went under the bridge and checked and that's when I texted him back without looking at the transcript of what date that was I sent him. 092217 COUNSEL>> Did you find any white couple in a car under the bridge? RASH>> No signs of life. There were some four wheeler tracks under there. There's nothing typical of a homeless camp or someone living under the bridge. There was no trash, debris, anything left behind that would indicate someone was living under there. [09:22:35] So I was went back up minutes. It did their English call you directly first about this rumored couple under the bridge? He yes. He saw a car. He saw a car parked in the area. And he felt like that car was associated to a car that he saw on his camera the night that the white couple was on his property. And he asked me to go check for him. I could drop duty this day. I was off duty. Would you tell him? I told him that I would check on it when I was back on duty. I did for me that he'd already called the non-emergency Glynn County police dispatch. I don't recall that clerk. And is that when he sent you the the the video of the White couple going in with the bag? Have to look at the date on the what the video was sent to me. But it was after the second time he made contact with Larry English. Yes. All right. So moving forward to December 20th of twenty nineteen. Did you encounter Greg and Michael that day? I believe so, yes. [09:24:17][104.3] [09:24:17] OK, now, had you known Greg McMichael previously as someone who worked at the district attorney's office as an investigator? Yes. OK, so where did you encounter Greg with Michael on December twenty nineteen? He was in his front yard of this property at two thirty. So which was his daytime or nighttime? It was daytime. What happened? I pulled up to him. I was in my patrol car. I stayed seated in my patrol car. We spoke through the window. He walked over. We spoke, talked to him in reference to the the unidentified black male down at two twenty two nineteen, asking if you have two twenty two children. We talked about him continually to come onto the property, not being able to figure out who he is. I told Mr Michael that I had somewhat canvased the neighborhood to talk to different people. Nobody knew who he was. And at that time Mr Michael asked me to pass on his phone number to Mr English and that he was lives right down the road. If he had, he needed in the car and that's when I sent the text to Mr English that Greg MacMichael was a retired, the police officer and an investigator from the District Attorney's Office. All right. So it's daytime. You encounter him outside his house and you're talking about what's happening at 220. [09:25:51][94.7] [09:25:51] This one, did he have any knowledge of what was going on at 220 prior to this? Any knowledge as in as in did he tell you? I've spoken with Larry English all about why he never told the. But you're telling him, hey, I've had these two encounters. Yes. At 220 and he asked you to forward his information to Larry Englishes. Now, I'm not talking about speculation, but I'm talking about what was your intention in making contact with Michael that day? Oh, when I rode around, I saw him. So that's when I stopped. Spoke to him and you meaning what was my intention forwarding the information or how well did you deputized with Michael Mann? [09:26:45][54.0] [09:26:45] Do you give him any authority to act as a police officer? No, ma'am. All right. 092619 RASH>> My goal with that, sending that text was Greg McMichael had, to my knowledge, about thirty plus years of law enforcement experience, who else to be an expert witness, call 911, and, you know, it's -- I've watched shows. I've seen things where you have ten people witness a crime, you get ten different stories on what they -- who the person was, what they looked like, what they were wearing. 092646 Greg has training and experience. He would be, in my opinion, would be an expert witness to be on the phone with 911, he's running north, south, he's wearing this. He would know the pertinent information that the officers would need to know once they arrived on scene to possibly catch the intruder, or the trespasser. [09:27:02] She wanted him to be a witness to get this guy identified. Yes, Was Travis McMichael there at that time? No, ma'am. Did you even know Travis? All right. Moving forward to February 11th. Twenty twenty. That's when were you on duty? That particular day? Yes. When what shift were you on? I was on our night shift. I what happened within Sitel shorts that day? We get the call of a believe that originally come out as a burglary in progress and so we ran what we call code lights and sirens. We were in just getting out of briefing. So I came from the area of our police headquarters and I was the first officer on scene. And upon my arrival, Travis met Michael and Greg. Michael were on scene and I stood by, waited for additional officers to get there before we proceeded to check the property for the unidentified male that they called about being on the property. OK, so when people call nine one, they're reporting what they think is going on. Yes, ma'am. OK, so have you ever had experiences where people call up and they say they've been robbed? Yes, ma'am. And it turns out it's something completely different? Yes, ma'am. OK, so in this case, you get burglary in progress, OK? What was it when you got there? It ultimately ended being the trespassing. And when you got there was the unidentified black male present? No, ma'am. It was not. And at this time, both Michael and Travis Michael were on scene just from where they are. I cannot say for sure if they were armed. I know there was I believe I believe they told dispatch something to dispatch about having guns, but I did not physically see them openly brandishing guns. I do call them telling you that they put their guns up. [09:30:12][207.7] [09:30:12] It may have a yes and the 911 call came in from Travis McMichael. Is that right? If you don't remember, it's a don't call. Did you eventually make contact with Mr Larry English while on scene? Yes, I did. I called him on the telephone. So. And did you speak to him about what was going on? Yes, I did. I at that point in time, did he send you video of what had happened inside the house? Yes, I asked him to send me the video to see if it is the same person that has been there numerous times are the times before. And while on scene, were you able to review that particular video that Larry English sent you that very night, February 11? Twenty twenty. Yes. He sent to me while I was you to show that to you showed it to almost certain. I showed it to both Greg and Travis. I and when you saw it was a young man, did he have a bag or backpack or anything on him? No. To see him take or steal anything, no matter what their English tell you, nothing and reject to hearsay unless it's impeaching Mr English or somehow responsible for this. It's a prior statement of a witness has already testified and he's been to extensive cross-examination yesterday. And it's prior statement saying that witness is not an exception to the rule. It's either consistent statement that he's been impeached or some prior inconsistent statements, Radio one, which is hearsay. So you're not asking him to explain why you're using the statement? Because it goes toward the defendant's knowledge of what was going on, because they told it to this officer in front of the two defendants. I maybe need to ask some better questions in place of foundation. Go ahead. All right. I'll listen. Foundation, were you talking to Mr Larry English on the phone? Do you have him on speakerphone? I have him on speakerphone. And who is standing right there with you while you have him on speakerphone? The McMichaels are standing there in close proximity along with other officers. Right. And is Larry English talking to you about what he can see on his video? Yes, he is. And what did he tell you about things being stolen inside the house? Nothing had been taken. [09:32:51][159.1] [09:32:51] An object, unless you can tie what Larry was told him to one of the McMichaels or somebody else's relevant it. But the assertion from opening statements that they had all this knowledge and what they're asserting, they knew and it goes to show exactly what they didn't. Now, look, I don't mind if if she can show the McMichaels heard it's on video. We have the video. But for this witness to testify, what he said with Larry English and somehow he knows what they heard, I think would be improper. So were you wearing your body cam search? If I was all right, you had the opportunity to review your body cam video prior to coming in to testify today. Yes, I have. All right. And was it fair and accurate? Yes, ma'am. Anything and added or deleted? [09:33:48][57.5] [09:33:48] None. That I'm aware of, no. OK, and in addition, did you have the opportunity to review the transcript from your body cam video? Yes, ma'am. And was it fair and accurate that you saw this film? All right, Your Honor, at this time, the state will enter into Evidence State's Exhibit 231, which is the body cam video, and two thirty one, which is the transcript of the body video. Objection, objection, objection. DROWNER At this time, we are going to publish State's Exhibit 231 and we have copies of the transcripts for the jurors. I did not want to give a similar admonition for myself. We usually try to say so. Yes, Finally, gentlemen, as with yesterday, we're going to provide you with transcripts. I gave you this, the charge yesterday on how those transcripts are to be used. The evidence in the case is the body cam footage itself. The transcript is simply being used to age you, as we explained yesterday. And we're going to collect these transcripts at the end. Please do not read ahead. Thank you. John. Field Officer Astaire's state's exhibit 231. All right. So unsuppressed. Take a look at your screen right there. You can see that. Oh, is this your body cam video? Yes. All right. So first, off, I'm going to ask you at the top, I don't know if you can explain to the jury how it says to twelve, twenty, twenty and the time looks like it's thirty four minutes after midnight. Do you know why that is that time and date as opposed to to eleven, you know, about seven hours earlier or five hours earlier. And I'm in London. OK, right. So when we first see this, do you know who this person is. I know, I know him as you presently with this. I would say I was in fleshlight. The state will the same publish the exhibit state's exhibit 231 donors house is called the Skull Video. I don't know about that. Yeah, he's called himself as president. [09:37:47][239.3] [09:37:47] Called me tonight. Yeah. Oh, they. Mediawatch And they said unless he jumped the fence and went over somewhere, they don't know if he's but he hasn't went on the road. So we just need to check everything. [09:38:41][53.5] [09:38:41] The county police, anybody here, clear here, they take they have no, it's just a party. They don't have it. There's a ladder here. But the access at Adiba, well, there's a ladder right here. We can stand up, but they don't have the attic right. Right here. Now, go. Going to stay room, maybe down on the dog in the boat or so we got up here. [09:41:00][139.5] [09:41:00] You already checked the door on this camper. You so he's got cameras out here and takthe guys called him on before out here messing around on the boat stuff. Fridge with Mogren and they got the in or out. They're trying to see if they can find it. So the missing person is the guy put him in the boat, flipped over on the river. Who for this? So this guy's got these cameras that he lives Douglas or somewhere, and he's always calling me, takes me video of the guy wandering through the house. Well, the night the neighbor come by and saw the flashlight, somebody in here. So. Oh, yeah, man, that's good quality stuff, too. He sends me the video of it. We don't see him back there unless he jumped the fence this way or to Travis. Just walk down there. He's going to our backyard. Back this way. OK, or by the way, I think all our guys are Wolfen. [09:43:39][159.2] [09:43:39] But he said he had nothing to say, no red shorts and a white shirt. So I wonder if it's the same guy he's got to sleep. So he Travis actually. So, yeah, he turned around right here, put the lights on him. You say that he likes it. He called inside the house. So, yeah. Before that, you know, I can let you out if your what did you do. You have a camera in your window, right? Yes. Have you got inside. Don't look through the glass. Oh, I don't have any news out here after dark. Oh good evening. I'm late. What are the rest of me to look at? Wait a minute. Wait a minute. OK, like I got this whole place up by daylight. Yeah, I'm obbligato. I'm a call Mr. English and get him to look back at his cameras and. Yeah, because he's got the opportunity. [09:44:28][48.6] [09:44:27] You this guy, he's always on foot. Nobody in the neighborhood knows who he is that we can have dinner. I've been about every house, door to door trying to be. He's been on their video. They have video over here. We've called him over this guy right there. He's got the idea. We've called him on several video cameras, but we just can't find where he's in. He usually goes this way on our way straight down that road, go right here. If he goes down that route, yeah, I'll get changed. OK, you can see, because that's usually the way he goes. OK, look at that. Neighborhood report. We call the owner to the access cameras at hotel was I now he's got. Yeah. The son saw him put the lie. He rigged it round and the guy ran inside. This is a mess. And the door down there, this is video from before they called him inside. So he's got kind of a twist here. If it's the same guy in his sleep, he's lighter skinned and he got sleep. He's so mysterious and the shirt on. So that's what they said he did. But he came with Travis, got down there. He ran in the house and told me and I ran out front. He was looking for a flashlight, that kind of shit as I was watching down here. Oh, damn. I see you to come across the street. He given back yards that or else he went with Travis, turned around. He could have come from behind him. The see he was behind me. No, no. This guy we we've I've tried and tried. I'm in door to door. Nobody knows him. Mr. Inglis. How are you doing, officer. Good. How are you doing sir. I guess you see a man hanging in there. I'm sorry if it's about moments in the video. I don't know. I was able to get it. OK, you sent it to me. I sent it to Diego, but I will send it to you. I didn't know if he was the one over there, but I'll send it to you, not to me. I'm on duty tonight and we. Well, there's five or six of us here, along with the neighbors, and we haven't seen it. We've searched everything. So thinking of nothing. Travis here said he went out, went and run into the house. So he went back. He's jumped the fence somewhere, went right or left. But we looked all over the dog and in the camper, under the camper, around the camper, we looked all up in the rafters and everything even got on the ladder, looked up there to see if he was on top with the air handler in and out of there. No signs of him here. They're they're canvasing the neighborhood right now, trying to find him. So we're actively looking in. [09:48:01][214.2] [09:48:01] Your neighbor across the street's going to look at his camera because he says his camera looks at whatever this road is, Jones Road. He's got a camera that looks at Jones Road. He's going to look at it and see if you see where he went that way. But as of now, that's what I was going to say to you. Assuming what video you have, does it look like it's the same guys always have. We've been talking to nobody until I lost their ability to try to connect. So does your camera does it look like the same guys always. Hello, Hello, sir. It's OK. Does it look like the same guys always say something like the guy Mr. MacMichael lives down the road, the retired law enforcement officer and the D.A. investigator his son saw him and said, you know, the black male had on red shorts or whatever. I had to go back out and get exactly what he had on. But he saw him and turned in the yard, put the headlights on him, and he run into how he saw him run through the house. So we just don't know who he is. But, you know. All right. All right. Thanks. He's saying it's the same guy. He's got the video. He sent it another officer. He didn't know who was on duty this first time. I've seen him in here, but we don't get anything. We from that. This is a this is video here and it is being built or that one. No, this is the video link. It's from one of the prior sinked. If this thing gets sleeve tattoos. He was wearing a red shirt, white pants. I didn't see his face, but he's got like twisty hair. Yeah, there's no national dress. Maybe my dreads or twist, whatever they call it. Yeah, I'll watch dance, you know, but that's just that's what it is. It's the same guy. I don't know where to crappies come from. He was coming, he's coming down this road straight up. Go with those results coming up. [09:50:28][147.7] [09:50:28] Seventeen going girls from that neighborhood. It's really up to people. Well, I mean, I've been up there, you know, down here to Corner Jones and so would you have the family there to have the baby adopted? Right. And all the foster kids? Yeah, I went and talked to them. They got one that kind of matches it. Besom the mayor, mayor. He's got something wrong with it. As a matter of fact, he just had a kidney transplant, but he just kind of show. Yeah. The old black lady right at the corner. Yeah. 095027 >>And then when you turn on Zelwood(?) down there, the house has got a dumpster out by the driveway. >>Yup, yup. >>There's some blacks right in there. >> Is that right? >>As a matter of fact, I don't -- come to think of it, I kept forgetting about them, they have some kids that age that hang around that house. 095046 Well, I've been there for an actual, a report of a alleged assault or whatever. And it's the kids they have are only females. Now, I don't know if it's one of them's boyfriend. They only have daughters there, so it could be unless somebodyâ?Ts moved in with them or whatever. 095101 But, yeah, nobody seems to know who this kid is, where he's coming from. But like, he's always -- and all the times on the video that Mr. English has sent me, sent me one now, it's always been just in there, plundered around. He hasn't seen him actually take anything. I said, so, you know, trespassing. [09:51:19] Yeah. Yeah. At least ordering a prowler I had reported stolen on the first run down the route. Now, we did have them. I took a report down the road here to a house on the corner. The guy where the juvenile is, he had some stuff stolen, some guns stolen. But we got on video the card and people that come in and stole them, they were from another neighborhood. Yeah, I know some good. Well, I'm saying. Do you need. I just called but you got go in the river tonight, sir. This is facing on the roof. Yes. Yes. Thank you. There he is. Yeah. [09:52:41][73.0] [09:52:41] It's on my black black boy. Kind of a lighter skinned black boy. The Wal-Mart girl says he's got like twist or dreads three, four inches long. Sleeve tattoos on his arms. You down or your nose right here? I can drive by. So I walk across the yard, you know, and I could do when I pulled around, although its original pockets first of all, I got I have got say, you know, either way, back the hell out anyway, you know, if I were had it, I would sit right here, Callejo, you know, I had to run back and give them a phone. So who knows where he went after that? Somebody will cross to my girlfriend there at some monitor down there, but I haven't seen her. She's right on the street. That's probably about I'm a back. OK, it's Friday around that van or just parked on the side. You. Yeah, good. Appreciate you all being here, man. So I've been lucky. Doc told me a couple weeks ago. About the week. Yeah, the house. Yeah. The house of the owner. Right, right. Yeah. [09:54:20][99.9] [09:54:20] I'll tell you, those might have been more needed for the Jones room. I'd come home early yesterday. We're going to have to sit and talk to anybody in the room and another call come up. I guarantee you that you've done rough streets and they they'll go down there and take pictures. They got all the way. We busted a house. Always play. We got Rob had a guy soon. He had a guy living with him. We got him on some outstanding warrants and he was got a bunch of dope out of it. But, you know, around here, what's the guy, Jean? You don't check. Yeah. Lives around there. You know where he lives. He's got a great story with one big crowd and she gets it all well for Baktash intangibly, which is genes, I guess Hestenes girlfriend's cute or something. Yeah. Girlfriend, I don't know if that's Gene's wife or girlfriend, but Herkie kid at this point, was forty eight point forty seven. No, no, this is you can stop. That's fine. But there's no agreement. You can do whatever you want with. Oh I'm sorry. I'm fine with you stopping it. OK, I mean the defense is fine with the state stopping this at eighteen, 14 seconds. All right. At this point, has Greg McMichael left? He's one policeman. All right. And the remainder of this is all I'll just characterize it as chatting and talking with the neighbors. It's OK. Who's Rodway? Strub Away was a resident that lived around and that would drive do not call them the numerics a few weeks earlier. I don't know the exact date or time I assisted the U.S. Marshals and serving a warm over there. Mr. Wadelived on the water and he had a, I guess what you call a roommate, someone who was renting a room from him. [09:56:18][117.6] [09:56:17] And the U.S. Marshals had warrants on that individual. And at the time of them serving that ward, they located some drugs on the property within the room of the individual that they arrested. Right. And was Mr. Robb way and potentially his roommate person or I think a potential suspect in what was going on in Satilla shores? No, ma'am. OK, why not? The did not fit the description. All right. And you mean the description of the the black male with the short dreads and the sleeve tattoos got out. But I guess I have some really, really bad question. Broadways white guy. Right, white guy. OK, so he's not going to match their English's description? No, ma'am, not at all. But I'm asking you, was he a suspect in any of the other theft property crimes that were going on within city shores? Not to my knowledge. All right. So I want to go back and ask you some questions about what we saw on the video. Did you ever interview Diego Perez out here? No, ma'am. Right. And at the beginning, when you and another officer were out by the docks, I think they were talking about a missing person and a motorcycle hit a guardrail and a bike. So, yes, that was Officer Smith. And he come up and he also works part time at a Darian Police Department that the area police department and he monitors their radio. So he was telling me about something that Mackintosh had been in a high speed chase with the motorcycle. The guy crashed and hit the side of the bridge and the bike and the guy both flipped over into the river. Didn't have anything to do with this? No, nothing related to this. Right. And I think you used the word blundering around in there. What do you mean by that? Just looking around. I know growing up, my grandma used to say quit clowning around in my kitchen, you know, and they're looking for something plundering as in pilfering, looking open and just being nosy. 095815 COUNSEL>> And you recall Greg McMichael telling you that Travis was now armed? RASH>> Yes. [09:58:25] All right. You indicated I think we've caught him on several video cameras, but we just can't find where he's he usually goes this way straight down that road. So what did you mean by that? A couple of times Mr. Aengus said that when he leaves the property, it looks like he runs down John's road, which is not directly across the street, but off to the right. If you're standing with your back to Mr. Englishes house and be off to your right a little bit, John's Road runs straight down and it appears from the camera that's the direction he would run. So when he leaves the property, he would take off running. Yes. According to Mr. and Mrs.. 095931 COUNSEL>> I just want to make sure that from what you can understand, Travis McMichael didn't have his cell phone on him at the time he saw Mr. Arbery in the yard, he also did not have a weapon on him. RASH>> No, maâ?Tam. COUNSEL>> So he left and went down to his house -- RASH>> Yes, maâ?Tam. COUNSEL>> -- and that's when he got his dad -- RASH>> Yes, maâ?Tam. COUNSEL>> -- and his gun. RASH>> Yes, maâ?Tam. 095949 COUNSEL>> Ok. And then, of course, the two of them came back. RASH>> Yes, maâ?Tam. [09:59:57] Mr. Now, when you all are talking about. So he went out the back, he jumped the fence somewhere, went right or left. Was that actually you saw him do that or was that suspect asked for page number? If your response on page nine lines two, three and four, that this I'm sorry for the fence post. Thank you. So when you were out there saying so, he went out back, he jumped the fence and went right up. Did you see? No, Is that speculation? No. Travis said that he did not see him come back out, that he ran through the house. So if he didn't come out the front, he had to go out the back. So gotcha. [10:01:45][327.5] [10:01:44] All right. So I'm going to go ahead and show you what's been marked and already admitted as state's exhibit 117. What do we got here from eleven twenty twenty five. Back it up. Once you take a look at this, what do we have here? This open walls. And that's the bleep. I can't remember if that's a window. There are open garage door there. OK, so looking out here, when I asked to see headlights from that's what we have here, headlights from a vehicle and they're turning which way appear to be coming off the Jones Road and turning left. And would that be towards McMichael House. Yes, ma'am. And then what do we have here? The man now identified as Mr. Arbrey walking in, is he running through the house? No, ma'am. This is the only video that was sent to that night. I do believe so. So English never sent you any video showing how Mr. Arbery actually left the location? I do not recall any motive. [10:04:01][137.0] [10:04:01] In addition to the. So while you were standing and talking about Mr. English, Mr. Gregory McMichael Entraps would like. We're both standing there. Yes, ma'am. And you indicated that Mr. English has sent me. He's sending me one now. It's always been just in their blundering around. He hasn't seen him actually take anything. Do you remember on page fourteen and we're looking at lines three, four, five and six saurus. 100426 COUNSEL>> He hasn't actually seen him take anything. You say this to Greg and Travis McMichael. RASH>> Yes, maâ?Tam. COUNSEL>> And what does Greg McMichael say? RASH>> His response was, it's criminal trespassing. 100437 COUNSEL>> And what do you say? RASH>> Yeah. Yeah, very least. [10:04:43] Or so. I don't know whether there's a lot of dots there. I mean, this morning I also mentioned possibly loitering and prowling. Now with regard to December 7th of twenty twenty, OK, I can keep looking at that page. Did you respond to an entering auto attorney and Bubba Herndon's. Yes. Yes, ma'am. OK, and so the next thing, when you talk about the house, the corner, the guy where the jeep, all that is that location. Yes, ma'am. OK, and did you respond December 7th to an entry or was it December seventh or eighth? I think that I respond on the 8th and it happened on the 7th. We'll go. This is in that time. In that time. OK, so let's go ahead and say it happened on 7th. We got your call in the eight. Did you respond? Yes, ma'am. Do you talk to both the Herndon's all right. And did they have some video from the father house? Yes, ma'am. They just. And did you watch that video? Yes, ma'am. And what was the person who went into their jeep and stole their guns? White, black, Hispanic or Asian? Appeared to be based on the video they provided. It was grainy, appear to be a white male. And was that image of a white male then posted to Facebook? I believe they misheard. Or Mr. or Mrs. Hernon once posted it to Facebook and after that, December 8th, entering auto, did you respond to the next hearing on January 1st? Twenty twenty at Travis McMichaels House in about. So do you have any idea when Larry English says he's been captured on video at other places, whether they're talking about heard Herndon's posting on Facebook or something else? The object speculation, unless you give me a better foundation, this option of what we may Herndon's talking about or anybody else is talking about, unless is a foundation for just refrozen. Do you have any idea did their English tell you that he had seen Rene Herndon's posting on Facebook? I don't recall him saying seen that specific posting was so high and I believe in your police report that's related to February 11th. Twenty twenty. I think you indicated that Mr. English had posted these videos to social media talking as I canvased the neighborhood, talking to people. People would say, I've seen video, I've seen stuff on Facebook about it. My understanding was that the videos were posted, but obviously I don't I don't know that they I'm yes, I'm learning now that they were not. So they must have seen the the video I have. Objection This is all lot of speculation, but they can testify to what he understands was posted, but things may have happened to what he learned now or from talking about, OK, at the time you have to report on February 11. Twenty twenty. Did you believe what you put in your report, that these videos, what we just saw had been posted on Facebook from I believe for that time. Yes. That they have been posted and you are a member of that Facebook group, right? Yes. All right. You guys, did you check to see if they were posted to see if people were posting comments and had knowledge? No, ma'am. I'm a member of that group, but I do not follow that group on a daily basis. Gotcha. All right. And so you don't have any idea what it was that anybody had seen on Facebook? No, ma'am, I do not tell you what has been marked as state's exhibit 327. However, I'm only going to show you pages three twenty seven eight three twenty seven beats. All right. So take a look at three. Twenty seven and three twenty seven. B, see if you're able to recognize those images. Those are the images from Rene Herndon. And those are let's see at the top there. That's from Facebook. All this time, the state retender into evidence states three twenty seven, eight and objection is a no man. Look at no objection, Michelle. No says exhibit three. Twenty three twenty seven a is this a still shot from the video you saw when you responded to the Herndon's on December? Twenty twenty feet is and is this also still shot from that video showing the car that was involved? [10:12:01][424.0] [10:12:01] Yes, So I want to be clear, when you put your report on February 11 twenty, that very English had you believe, Larry, which had posted to social media, did you ever verify that he'd actually done that? No, ma'am, I did. All right. Do you even have access to next door? No, ma'am, I do not. And you're directing your attention to February 23. Twenty twenty. Were you at work that day? No, ma'am, I was. Not only did you have anything to do with the investigation, to the death of a man, Aubrey? No, ma'am, I do not. And one last thing. Have you been named personally in a civil lawsuit in relationship to this case? I have. All right. Has that in any way impacted your testimony today? The amendment has gone. And direct your attention to May 19th. Twenty twenty. Did you actually speak with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation? That day in relationship to this case? Yes. And that was prior to any lawsuit? [10:13:39][97.8] [10:13:39] Yes, ma'am. At this time, you're gonna go ahead and pass the witness. Maybe a good time, so get set up. All right, ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and take a fifteen minute recess. We'll continue with the evidence in this case at ten thirty again to discuss this case yourselves during the break. Rosler, you're well, officer, you can go ahead and take a step down. If I could have you here are back here just before ten thirty. And I remind you during a break you're under oath. Do not discuss your testimony with anybody. [10:14:49][69.4] [10:14:49] Thank you. We recess tender. Thank you [10:14:49][0.0] [10:32:04] We are back on defense present represented by counsel. I was just heading off to this room and. You ready to go. Yes, sir. If you could just come forward. We've got the witness back. Officer Usher, you're under oath, so let's go get your all rights reserved. Juror number five. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Excuse me. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in the case. Mr. Good morning, Officer F. Serratia. I want to go back through your direct examination and some of the things you've described for the jury you talked about initially kind of said the shores as a neighborhood. If would you agree with me that still a is a nice middle class, scenic neighborhood on the little stilla river? It's and you described the folks who live there is primarily elderly, right? Yes. There are some people who have kids. It's a play outside. The adults walk the streets playing work in their yard and enjoy the river. Yes, sir. You've been patrolling that neighborhood for how long? Seven, eight years, maybe. OK, and you've gotten to know quite a few of the residents through your work, for instance, canvasing the neighborhood. Yes. You may not know them all by name, but you recognize faces. Yes. Right. And you've also gotten a chance because you're a member of the neighborhood. Facebook page to review some of the posts, some of the times on the page. Yes. And this Facebook page is actually a pretty good tool for you, isn't it? It can be, yes, because people on Facebook will post about crime in the neighborhood. Yes. They'll post about their fears about crime in the neighborhood. Yes. They'll post about their suspicions about crimes in the neighborhood. Yes. And how often would you say you review the Facebook page and photo shoots? Only when I knew that there was something going on, if I knew there was an incident today, then I would go today or tomorrow, start looking to see what people would post. OK, so we're talking about today, this time period between October, twenty fifth, twenty nineteen in February. Twenty third, twenty twenty during that time period, approximate for the approximate for the jury. How many times you looked at the Facebook page to see if this black male was seen, the one seen earlier. English's house was seen by other neighbors or talked about by neighbors in the neighborhood. I don't believe I could put a number on it. More than five. More than five, yes. OK, and in reviewing the Facebook page, did you learn about other crimes not committed by or suspected by the black male in the English house, but by other people who were missing lawnmowers and suspecting other intruders and things like that? No, I did not. OK, are you saying there were no other posts? You just don't recall them? I don't recall any other. OK, you would you're not saying they weren't caused by people like Brandon Gregory's father in law? You're not saying I'm the person you said you. Well, hearsay and the Facebook post serve nobody here to testify to those Facebook posts and putting it out there that, well, I've seen this and that at this point, the Facebook posts are hearsay is what any of this evidence which is of a named person have posted. So I'll rephrase, rephrase. Are you aware of posts by other people in Sattell, a source about crimes or suspected crimes in the neighborhood? I don't recall any specific. OK, in Seattle Shore's lives, one of your your peers, Sergeant Brandon Graycar. Yes. Know Sergeant Gregory. I know sort of. You know, Sergeant Gregory's father in law. I do not know his father well in canvasing the neighborhood. Did you ever speak to Sergeant Gregory, Sergeant Gregory? Yes. OK, and he gave you some information about his suspicions about the black male who was entering Larry Inglis's house? Yes, it is. In fact, we didn't see it, I don't think, on the video of February 11th. But he shows up on scene February 11th. Tells me he does. Yes. And he provides you with information about a black male that he suspects is committing crimes in the neighborhood. Yes. Did you follow up on that in any way? I did. And turned out the elderly couple at the house where he saw them, elderly, black, male and female that live there. And neither one of them, I spoke to the male. The female was in the residence, but she was out of sight. They claimed they did not have any kids, any grandkids, and they did not he did not. The male who answered the door did not recognize the male on the picture. The picture that you were showing, I was showing. And that picture, to be clear, was a still of the October 25th. Yes, it was. And that's the one that you used throughout. Yes. OK, well, let's go back then to let's go back to then what you knew about crime in the neighborhood. During this time period. You were aware that Travis MacMichael was a victim of a theft, correct? Yes. You are aware that Ronnie Olsen was a victim of a theft. Ronnie Olsen, a man who lived across the street. We see him saying, I can light that. I know that running and is but I don't recall. I don't recall any crime in his place. OK, were you aware that Diego Perez was a victim of that? I was not aware of Diego Prezzie. OK, so the only one you're aware of then is just in that little part of the neighborhood is Travis MacMichael. And Larry, that and I would say the Herndon residence, it's that general area of the neighborhood down and that's down Jones Road on Jones Road itself is live on that, not on Jones. I live on satellite drive, the same as corner of citizens. That would be the same as where Mr. Inglis's property is further up towards Highway Seventeen. Yes, sir. Towards the entrance. OK, so let's go back then to to the beginning, which is October 25th. Twenty nineteen. Yes sir. There's a call from Larry English to Glynn County Police and you get dispatched. Yes. And you get dispatched with other police officers as well, correct. Yes. An officer and I may pronounce it wrong. Forget this. But for guidance. For guidance and an officer. This Officer Dickson. Yes. OK. And if you don't recall, I can show you these to refresh your memory. You go out there, the property that you're you're going to this is your first time on the property. First time. Yes, it's ten o'clock at night. Yes, it's dark. Yes. You go on to this this construction site, but it's a house under construction. And tell the jury what you did when you arrived on scene. I went out going out to my camera. I arrived on scene and walked through check the property for the individual that was called upon. And you knew from the video this you this is a clip. And I'm looking at state's exhibit 121. Yes, you do. From looking at this photograph that you knew from looking at this clip that, um, that led. Well, this is a clip. Yes. And what you knew about the incident, he's complaining about it. There's a black male on his dock at ten o'clock at night. Yes. A guy who has no authority to be there. Yes and no. Legitimate reason that you know, of to be there. Second, and so to describe that Mr. Inglis is thundering around this house and that's where you've used in your dress image. You review the video and you review it when you got on scene or before you got on scene afterwards, after I had him send it to me afterwards. OK, when you get on scene, the house is dark. Now, you described the black male as a light skinned black male, but you understand that the color of his skin depends on the camera that's taking the picture. I'm not all into the technology of infrared based on what I see there. That looks like a light skinned black male, what his natural skin looks like in daylight hours. I have no knowledge of that until video at a later time on February twenty third, February 2013. You've looked that video. Yes. OK, so the males there on screen, I mean, in your video clip that you get out there on scene without the clip and you go to the dark. Yes. You have your flashlight. Yes. You have your revolver. Yes. Sit out. I don't believe it's out at that time because no one's described anybody being armed at that point. It's OK. Go through the house. Yes, with the flashlight. Because without that flashlight, it is pitch black. Yes. OK, look around. You don't see anything of note right there. So you don't see anybody of note, OK? And you leave me file a police report. Right. [10:44:23][738.9] [10:44:23] It's but then you get the video clip right. Yes, I get it before I leave the property that night. OK, so you had before you leave. So just in case, as you're driving around the neighborhood, you see someone who fits that description. Yes. OK, you understood also on October 25th that when he left Larry Englishes House, this unidentified black male, he went across the street to Supai Lawrence's house. Yes, annexion we have an issue we SUV to take up outside the presence of the jury. [10:45:10][46.8] [10:45:10] This gentleman, if you go ahead, retired the jury room for our first. I don't necessarily know that he needs to sit down with this. Your Honor, Mr. Morant's was not at home on October 25th, and she then tells Diego Perez something. And then Diego Perez tells this officer something. I asked Mr. Rubin, are you going to go into this because it's hearsay, within hearsay, within hearsay, because Diego Perez is telling him something that Supai Lawrence said and he said, no, I'm not going to go into that. And then it's you knew that he went for it to be Lawrence's house. So the only way this officer would know that is if Diego Perez had told him that and his supervisor told Diego Preston, now, we were to triple hearsay here. And I mean, so I didn't ask for any hearsay in that question. And the way he this is why I was asking the way he knows he went towards to Lawrence's house is because Larry English made a second nine one one call that's in evidence on October 25th, saying he's going across the street to a whitish yellow house and he went there. It's not hearsay. It's exactly what he did ask the question. So the question I thought was and and he ran to civil war in the direction of Suvi Awards house. Correct. And that's in the nine one one call isn't mentioned Superbikes by name. But if he describes the house and in fact, officers went there, where did you learn information? I could not recall if it was actually from dispatch or while I was on scene with Mr. Diego. Perez was out walking around that night. And until I did not know exactly. Did it come from dispatch for CB or from Diego Perez, one or the other? Let's just clarify that we can from that. And I'm not asking what Diego did or anything like that. OK, That's what I was going it could be one for the other. And that was my concern. It's like we're going down this path, a range of U.S. [10:47:48][158.3] [10:47:48] I just want to head off the forward center. I'm not going to address anything before the panel understand what the witnesses testify to. And there's a possibility of two different reasons for two different reasons for him having that knowledge. I'm not going to address anything before the panel understand what the witnesses testify to. And there's a possibility of two different reasons for two different reasons for him having that knowledge. You're welcome to follow up on directly. Let's go. [10:48:16][28.0] [10:48:16] Found detective dispatch to conspiracy to all let the state follow up on the. But that is in evidence. Yes. I'll call it from the dispatcher. Yes, we're we're resolved. We're moving forward. Mr. Roof, maybe you could just clear the whole thing up by asking him that question where he learned that Ms. Like, your answer is, I don't know if I heard it from this guy or heard it from here, but now he doesn't know which hearsay source what struck out. Let's not worry about let's move on to whatever your next question. Whatever he did, it becomes relevant. That's what I was. All right, sir. Juries lose. Welcome back. We resolve the matters. We need to resolve the evidence, Mr. Riddick. Thank you, Officer Rasche. After check me out Larry Englishes. How did you end up going over to Steube Lawrence? I did. And what do you have to tell the jury? I went over and knocked on the door. I noticed that she had a blink. I hate black square camera on her front porch, shining down towards the walkway leading up to the door. Did you look around the house or just go to the front door? I looked around. The rear of the property is fenced in, so I looked around the front yard and would be the left side, which faces Jones or Jones Road. OK, didn't see the blackmail note by that point. Did you already have this video clip? Do you know what I have to look at the time that was actually sent to my phone versus the time that I was over there when you went to see me Lawrence's house, were you aware of that? Larry English had called back to the county police department describing where this man in his perception was going to? Yes, OK, And so that so then you went to sibilant steps. Yes. [10:51:33][197.3] [10:51:33] OK, while you were out at Steube Lawrence's house, did you see a man named Diego Perez? Yes, I did. And without telling us anything, Diego Perez said, what was he doing out there? Checking our property. You know, he was armed. I do not take. Did you ask him? No, I did not. Did he get in your way in any way? No, he did not. OK, so he was looking around the property at about the same time you were looking around? Yes. Was he still in his boxer shorts? I do not recall him being a boxer shorts. OK, fully dressed. And I would suggest dressy as far as you know, as far as I was dressed. OK, if I understand correctly, you received the next call to go out to Larynxes House on November 18th. Is that correct? I [10:52:30][56.9] [10:52:30] believe so, yes. OK, OK. Um, and that would have been your second time out there. Did you at the time you went out there on that on November 18th, have Larry English send you the video clips again? Yes. [10:52:47][17.4] [10:52:47] OK, so when you went out there on the 18th, you knew you're looking for the same black male who's come back on this property. Yes. In this time, if you can play November eight, and this is state's exhibit is one twenty three you saw here you saw this video clip. Yes. OK, now you'll see in the video clip selling some video clip, the boat on the left hand side of the of the video, right? Yes. That's not the boat where Larry Englishes electronics were stolen from Nossa. That's a smaller just both for towing around the river. Yes. Or not as offshore. [10:53:38][50.9] [10:53:37] But it's but you understood by the 18th and correct me if I'm wrong, that he had had a theft from his boat that was parked the property. I was aware of a theft from the boat, but I do not know the date and time that he called me and told me and told me about that. OK, so it's possible that you went there on the 18th and still didn't know about items missing from Larry Englishes House. Yes. OK, you went there on the 18th and this time you're still with other officers. Yes. Dark. Yes. You go into the scene, you have your flashlight. Yes, sir. You have your gun? Yes. Is it drawn while we're checking? I don't recall, OK, because at this point, you still have no information that this man is possibly OK. No reason to worry about a threat at that point. No. OK, but it's now struck you that twice the same black male was entered larynxes house. Yes. And didn't catch him. He's gone by the time you get there. He's gone out twice. Yes, sir. How long does it take you and believe me, I'm not criticizing you at all. You get the call, you go, how long does it take you to get there on these occasions to thank you very, very well. I mean, am I on another call? I have to finish up there. It could be if I'm just out riding the from the central location of my area, five to four to eight minutes. OK, so within forty eight minutes at best, four minutes worse. Eight minutes. The guy is gone. Yes. [10:55:16][98.6] [10:55:15] OK, on the 18th when you check out the property and I assume you checked out the dock area, it's there's a camper on the property just like we saw on the 11th. Check out the camper area. They've got valuables stored at this property right? Yes. It's got construction valuables. Yes. Saws and other tools, right? Yes. It's got boats that are valuable. Yes. Equipment within boats that are valuable. Yes. He's got a camper that contains his belongings. Yes, it's his property. Right, sir. Even though it's an open construction site, it's his property. Yes. He has a right to keep people on or off as he sees fit. He does OK. You're now there twice. You miss him twice. Yes. Do you know how he gets away on the 18th other than walking away? That's it. OK, do you do any other steps that might take any other steps to find the black male? Just canvased the neighborhood. [10:56:13][57.8] [10:56:13] When you say canvass and this is on the eighteenth, are you just patrolling the neighborhood or are you actually knocking on doors, driving around, shining the spotlight? OK, doing doing what you can to find this elusive black male. Yes. OK, you get a call from Larry English on the 1st of December, but you're off duty. Yes, but he describes for you suspect someone he thinks may be involved in the theft of the stuff from his boat. Yes. So is it fair to say to the jury that by December 1st, you know, Larry, English has been burglarized? Objection to that characterization? That's not at all a very English setter testified to well, I'm asking this officer's perceptions at that time, relevancy as to this officer's perceptions. At that time, it was very obvious that Larry was testifying yesterday subject to speaking objections. What did you learn? English has testified to his testimony is in the record. You're asking this witness what his recollection is of what it's based, as I understand it. Go with that over by December 1st. Twenty nineteen. You understood that Larry English was missing, is that right? I knew he was missing a quarter. I didn't know it was a psychologist gave a plug to Eddie to do that. And he purp satellite system. Yes. And another piece of electronic having a microphone system. Yes. OK, and you understood that the items were taken from the offshore boat that had been parked out there in this house. Yes, right. In the same area. With this boat is now part in state's exhibit one. Twenty one twenty three. Yes. That are the garage. Mr because you're off duty. Last thing you need is to get these calls. So you say, you know, call somebody else or I'll be there. I can check it out tomorrow. Now, are you referring to the item stolen or the. Well, on December 1st is calling you got a suspect now of who might have done it in his mind? Yes. I told him I was off duty and I he called and refers to the people under the bridge. Right. And that told him I would check it out when I was by phone duty. And you were nice enough on the 2nd of December to go down to the fancy bluffs bridge and look under the bridge to see if there was any truth to this this notion that the person who was stealing the items and entering his house was down there under the bridge. Yes. You didn't see any evidence of that? Did not. And that was the end of that into that. [10:56:13][0.0] [10:58:57] OK, help us understand when you not just patrolled the neighborhood, but actually went around the neighborhood talking to everyone. I think it's the word you said on February 11th. When did you talk to people? Not every single one, but anybody that I encountered riding a golf cart, walking, I would stop. Hey, I'm off thrash. I introduced myself and asked them I would show them a steal from that video. Have you seen this guy? In around the neighborhood? Do you know where they live? We would patrol every day. I'm on shift. I ride that neighborhood, won't try to ride at once or sometimes twice per shift. OK, so it's not just one day you said I'm going to go knock on doors. It's it's throughout this whole time period. Yes. And you're patrolling the neighborhood. You're going down to tell a verver, sellwood, homes, Jones, all the streets you patrol in that subdivision. And when you see someone in the yard, you stop. When you see a house has a ring doorbell or some other camera system, you stop and inquire. Yes, because you're trying to find the guy who has entered larynxes house now twice and twice got in the way. [11:00:26][89.3] [11:00:26] It's you're asking people. But to your frustration, no one knows. This guy knows. No one can tell you where he lives. No one can tell you. No one even told you they saw him jogging in the neighborhood. That's right. Not a single person has seen him jogging that you talk. No, I did not specifically ask have you seen this guy jogging? But no one had seen him in the neighborhood, period. Tell us about how many people over the course of those months that you talk to about this. How many people did you talk to? A dozen. Twelve to ten to twenty people. You're showing people the stills not from the November 18th, but the stills from October 25th. [11:01:23][56.6] [11:01:23] Video for both, I believe, from the twenty fifth, still from the twenty four guy on the dock. Yes, OK. And you're letting them know that this is a guy seen up to twenty eight to tell the driver. Yes, some people might know their English, but I assume most did not know who he was. I've no idea on that. OK, when you did you, did you ask people to review their surveillance videos to see if he might have been captured on certain dates on those videos? I never encountered anybody that had video that so I didn't ask anybody to review. OK, the next time you go out, there is February one this February eleventh is now in Europe. Your third time responding to larynxes house. I believe it's obvious. You're aware, though, that that other officers have been to larynxes house, right? Yes. Are you talking to these other officers? I have interacted a couple of times just passing on the light at the end of our shift, the end of the beginning of next year. Let them know, hey, be on the lookout. You know, pass along to the next officer. I believe I called the officer powers on the phone and passed on some information. Those are briefings. We don't always see each other face to face. I would just call, hey, are you working? Baker nine tonight. Are you working? Baker nine today. Be on the lookout. And Officer Powers is one of those officers who did respond to larynxes house on the 17th of November. I believe so. That's right. When the white couple came to his house, you didn't respond to that call. Is it your understanding that Officer Powers responded, I'm trying to look at the catalog. He was on duty. If you don't have any knowledge, that's fine. February 11th, this time is not there. You should call. It's Travis McMichaels. Call. [11:03:55][152.0] [11:03:54] Yes. Were you aware when you got there or on your way there that the man who is now seen on the 11th of February is possibly armed? At one point, Travis says that he was appeared to reach for his pocket or his waistband. I do not recall if that was relayed to me via dispatch while I was in or out or once I arrived on scene. OK, so we saw the video. And this time you're not just going in with your flashlight. This time you got guns drawn. So does that help refresh your memory? Does of of when you heard that the man in the house is possibly armed? Yeah, that would I would say yes. And what is your memory now? Tell you is when you talk about when you learn that we talked about we went in with our guns drawn based on that, the dispatcher told us that he was possibly armed. That's why we would have went in there with our guns drawn while we searched the residence. So this is a different situation. You're now going in a house and you might encounter a man who has a gun. Yes. Heart pumping. Yes. Adrenaline flowing. Yes. Now you've got to be on you're really on your toes. Yes. And we saw another officer with you. I think his name is Trenton. But Trenton Sherman, Officer Sherman, he's there with you. Yes. [11:05:17][83.2] [11:05:17] At some point, did you hear Officer Trenton say, I'm just using the quote from, quote, Tell me where you at, motherfucker? I don't recall hearing a at this point, though. You're on heightened alert. Yes, you have. When you get on scene, you have neighbors out there. You have ties with my classmates. But you hadn't met up so you have Greg McMichael out there. And again, you have Diego Perez out there. Yes. You recognize Diego is the guy you saw on the 18th of November? Yes. You got Officer Sherman with you or you come later. Officer Sherman arrived after Exwife stood by the car out front waiting on him. He and Officer Smith, they arrived about the same time. And there you're there, your partner is there. Your back up as close as Bindi's. You're taking the lead on this? [11:06:26][69.6] [11:06:26] Yes. OK, and when you get there, essentially, Travis MacMichael, Diego Perez, engraving, Michael are keeping an eye on the house. Yes. OK, making sure that if this guy goes anywhere, this intruder that they keep eyes on. Objection. Overuse of the word intruder and judge. We would object to that. Use that word burglar. So listen to me, as I've already instructed you, the questions asked by lawyers and statements made by lawyers are not evidence in this case. Mr. Ruben chooses to use that word to describe the individual. Again, the testimony. [11:07:27][60.7] [11:07:31] In this case and what you may see as exhibits mistruth when you get there. Three neighbors have basically flat out front and back of the house to keep out for this guy. Right upon my arrival, they were all in the front yard on the front porch. At what point do they start going in the back? Uh, I don't recall them going in the back while we were clearing the residence where you're told Travis is in the back at some point. That's after we walked back to the front. After we cleared the residence. I believe I feel good. [11:08:13][42.1] [11:08:12] So, yeah, this is, uh, one of two things. Exhibit 231. Let's walk through this video a little bit. Yes. Actually, um, I suggest you mind, Jonathan, It's looking for a specific portion of the transcript just at this time. We're going to walk through that the the exhibit again. So listen to me, if we could, if you're going to get copies of the transcript, but don't start reading back over. Mr. Rubins going to be referring to apportions the transcript and those transcripts, transcripts are being given back to you to help you refer to that page line that's being addressed. [11:09:06][54.5] [11:09:06] So if you please use those in that way. Thank you. I'll try not to ask about what's being said versus what's been seen so we don't have them reading why they should be lost. If we can, stuff like that. And this is you testified earlier that Nancy, on the screen at this point is Diego Perez. She's got a flashlight. Yes. And he's heading towards the down the side of the house. Is that correct? Yes. To the side. [11:09:34][27.5] [11:09:34] OK, now the side of the house that that white vehicle for that line item, that's Mr. Englishes camper. Yes. OK, let's stop there. At that point, Officer Rash, had you authorized Diego Perez to do any investigation? I have not authorized you authorized him to do any search for Mr. English or for you? No, I have not. You had not deputized Diego Perez? No, I have not. But he's out there assisting. Yes. You're OK with that at that time? Yes. He didn't have a problem with that? No. And Greg McMichael and Travis McMichael are there as well. Oh, yes. You're OK with that? Yes. You even find out Travis is on file? Yes. You're OK with that? Yes. We didn't tell. Have to go put his gun. No. You didn't tell Travis to go home? No, I did not tell Greg to go home. No, I did not. You didn't tell Diego to go? No, I did not. There, out there keeping their eyes out. Assisting you. Yes. You're OK with that? Yes. OK, stuff. Do you see this flashlight back here? Yes, sir. Do you know who that is? That's Diego Perez standing along the fence, shining a light magnet. OK, so he's while you're in front with other officers, your body cameras now just turning on. He's out. [11:11:33][119.3] [11:11:33] He's back. He's heading back by the camper and back where the doc is correct. He's walking down the side of the house. Yes. OK, go to this house, call this guy video. I called him several hours prior to that. Call me tonight. Yeah, stop right there. Larry English didn't even call you that night until you called him proof. Is it your understanding that instead of calling Glynn County Police, he called Diego Perez? I did not know that. OK, that point on. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Say that at that point, I did not know that. When did you find that out? When he on the phone, he told me he had sent the video to Diego and that's when I responded. I'm the one on duty tonight. I understood him. He sent it to an officer. We have the notary, Diego Delaporte. [11:12:33][60.5] [11:12:33] I was thinking he sent that to another officer. That's why I on the phone with Mr. English, I said, I'm the one on duty tonight. Send it to me. Did you ever ask Diego Perez this night to see what their English had sent him? No, I did not. Because you didn't know he had it? I did not. OK, what do we see you getting out of your eye? Looks like that's a flashlight that's out of my front door. I have a and I have my standard police to issue flashlight. And then I have a larger it's a brighter flashlight in my police issue. Flashlight was going down, so I went and retrieved a second flashlight. And while you're retrieving your flashlight, we see two gentlemen on your body cam. I think you've identified the man in the blue shirt is Diego Perez. And you know who that is, Billy? That's Travis. Greg MacMichael, the man in what looks like a great short sleeve shirt. Yes, OK. And he's walking around the house as well there in the front yard of the house. Yes. OK, They don't watch him. They said, unless he jumped the fence and went over somewhere. They don't know if he has down the road. So we just need to check in with stop. OK, that's you. That is you got your flashlight in one hand and your police issued firearm the other. Yes. OK, guns drawn. [11:14:31][118.3] [11:14:31] Yes, OK, but the county police, anybody about here and stuff, 111359 COUNSEL>> You got your gun drawn, but it's a burglary, or trespassing. It's a property crime. So why is your gun drawn? RASH>> I believe at that point then that we were notified, that's, I guess dispatch had notified us that possibly armed. 111414 COUNSEL>> So it's for your protection. RASH>> My protection. COUNSEL>> Not to hurt anybody. It's to protect you -- RASH>> Absolutely. COUNSEL>> -- in case somebody jumps down from the rafters we're looking at -- 111425 RASH>> Yes, sir. COUNSEL>> --and surprises you. RASH>> Yes, sir. COUNSEL>> You need to protect yourself. RASH>> Yes, sir. COUNSEL>> You need to protect Officer Sherman. RASH>> Yes, sir. 111432 COUNSEL>> You need to protect Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael, and Diego Perez, because they're in danger, too. RASH>> Possibly. COUNSEL>> You don't know what's going to happen. RASH>> I do not. COUNSEL>> But you don't take any chances. RASH>> Not at all. COUNSEL>> OK, so it's standard procedure when you go into a possible armed situation to make sure you have your gun ready. RASH>> Yes. COUNSEL>> For your protection. RASH>> Yes, sir. [11:15:32] Yes, sir. Click here. Can you stop right there? I didn't hear you, officer. Say maybe I just missed it. Glynn County police come out like they do on TV. Did you did you say I missed it or you didn't say. I said don't come in, please, when we walked in. OK, so that's to announce your presence. Yes. And that's to make sure you're not surprising anybody is to make sure that that person knows that they that that they should come out because you're you're an officer. Did you use your presence to get compliance with orders? Yes. Your uniform. You want them to see your badge. Right. This see your see your vest if you're wearing a vest that night says county police, because presence is one way to gain compliance. Yes, sir. Shouts is another word shout meaning I'm here. Yes, sir. I want you to come out with your hands up. That's gaining compliance, right? Yes, sir. Are you familiar with the phrase shout shove show, shoot? I'm sure you're familiar with the use of force continuum. Yes. In the use force continuum, as you know from your training, is the levels of force that can be used by a police officer. Yes. Including just to present his use of force. Yes. When I'm here and I tell you to do something, you do it just because I'm here. There's another way to to to get compliance. Is shouting command. Yes. Do as I say. Because I'm telling you as a police officer what to do. Yes. Right. And I have the authority to do that. It's another another way to gain compliance is to show your weapon as you're doing here. Yes, I have a weapon. Don't do anything stupid here. You're not hiding it, right? Not it's not a concealed weapon. You want them to see it, right? Yes, sir. Because seeing a weapon will gain compliance from the person you're seeking to investigate. Yes, sir. OK, and then last course, the ultimate use of force is shooting someone. And that's deadly force. Yes. And you only do that when you yourself are in danger, when other people are in danger. [11:18:04][152.0] [11:18:04] Yes. I no, it's just happening there. There's a ladder here, I said, adding, but, well, there's a ladder right here. We stand up, but they don't have the added that Officer Sherman, that is Officer Sherman. Look, correct right here. They're still the dog in the bonus. We've got one example of a verbal command of presence. Yes. You already see the door on this camper. So you've got cameras out here. Guys, how on before? I'm here messing around on the boat stuff. Who are you talking to? Officer Sherman. OK, so you're getting him up to speed on the things that you know, that the guy's caught him, the guy being Larry English. Yes, caught him. I caught him long before I was here messing around on the boats and stuff. About the stuff in the back of the house. On the docks. Yes, on the docks. OK, great. They got the other promises. So the first the likelihood of a for this. So this guy's got these cameras and he lives in Douglas or somewhere he's always home and takes some video. The guy wanted to do the house. Well, the night neighbor saw the flashlight somewhere in here. So you use Mr. and Mrs. Word plundering kind of like you. Thank you very much. Ketchum's quandary means messed around with stuff. You shouldn't be messing around with buildings just like you and I should get out of our way. You're getting into my stuff. Yes. And that's how you use and you got that word from their English say word. He used the. Oh, yeah. That's good quality stuff, too, he says with a video of good quality stuff. What are you referring to? And the officer, I believe, is Officer Sherman was standing there looking up at the camera located on the front of the house. My body camera doesn't show it, but he's standing there with his life looking at the camera that Mr. English has mounted on the front for him. So the good quality stuff is the good quality surveillance system that allows you now to know what this guy looks like and to be able to identify. Yes, or most a lot of places we go to the cameras, look like they were from the 1950s, very, very poor quality. And those were some of the better quality cameras I have seen. Good. Are you back out front? Yes, sir. Welcome back up to our cars. We don't see him back there. Let's jump the fence this way or just walk down there. He saw it this way. OK, I'm going to stop it. So at this point, Greg McMichael is talking to you. Correct. And Greg, Miko's telling you that Travis just walked down there going in my backyard to check back this way. So Mr. MacMichael, Travis McMichael at this point is kind of expanding the search, going down to good as he's going down to his residence in the back yard. We're outside. Yeah, he's going in my backyard to go check back this way. Right. Because it's possible that the black male intruder is left that scene and is in somebody else's backyard possibility. And Travis is checking that out. Yes. And Travis is checking it out on February 11th. Twenty twenty with a gun. I don't know that he is checking out other people's backyards or in his backyard. He's going to check out his backyard. He's armed. Yes, he is. Just like he was armed when he was back in there. He was just out of. Yes, OK, he didn't go home, get the gun, come back out and go into his backyard. Right. Not that I'm aware. OK, you're OK with that? No right to carry a firearm. He does. And just like you're needing it for protection, he has the right to protect himself as well as he does on his property. Is on any property, right? Yes. OK, I think all our guys are in to watch all of this. The same cop is gone to sleep. [11:25:41][457.3] [11:25:41] So did Travis actually solve Yifei? Turn around here, put the lights on Tuesday. Why did he call this inside the house. So that you can talk about this stuff about video. Do you have a window? Right. Yes. We didn't identify think this guy's Ronnie Ronnie Olsen and he lives right across the street. Yes sir. During the procedure generally crossing to nineteen Seattle police, did you understand that he has a surveillance system? I knew he had a camera in his window and he mentioned then he had one on the corner the eve of the eve of his house. But it just wasn't very good at night. [11:25:41][0.0] [11:26:20] No, I have any music out here after dark and. All right. So they waited and waited. He said he was late. So I'm not I'm not. I'm again, I'm a columnist in English, just getting him to look back at his cameras. He's got this guy he's always off with. Nobody in the neighborhood knows who he is. And we can I've been about every house. We're trying to I know you said earlier it wasn't really every house door to door, but ten to twenty people. No one's seen him walking the neighborhood, running the neighborhood, jogging the neighborhood. Doing anything, even if no one's seen, no one had ever seen. OK, I mean, he's been on their video. They video over here. We've called him on this guy. He's got we called him on several media cameras, but we just can't find where he's and he usually goes this way straight down that road that again, you're saying he goes this way. You talk about Jones. Jones. Yes. OK, I could just just you and everybody, if they can see. If you can see until the drive is the entrance up here, can you see that officer around and still alive? This is Jones and that's Larry Englishes House right across from Jones. That Michael live further down. OK, so we're I'm standing in this picture. Jones Road would be right to the right where Mr. Olsen, you can see Mr. Olsen pointing down Jones Road. OK, so if you look right across the street, you look down JONES Well, yeah, but it ain't directly across. You see the house, but off to the right of Mr. Olsen. Jones Road. That's the telegraph. OK, and then Jones would be off to the right of him. Do you know Matt Albanese? I do know Matt. He lives down those. OK, I hear you go down that road. Yeah, back. That's that's usually the way he goes. How do you know the way he usually has been is certain based on mystery, which is the scene when he leaves the property. The first time he said he went over towards Jones Road, towards the house on the corner. And the second time, I believe Mr English and I remember him telling me that he left in the same direction. OK, do you know if if that black male had any business down that road? I do not. Doesn't know. There's no grandma down there. I don't know who he is. I have no knowledge that this camera's. Oh was it how it got there. Yeah. The son saw him looked like ribbon round and he got inside. It's another that's when the dog out there, this is the one before they called him inside. So he's got kind of a yes. Er if it's the same guy in his sleep, he's lighter skinned and he gets sleep, he's of at this point you hadn't gotten Inglis's videos yet for this night. No, I'm not showing Officer Sherman video because he is about to start driving around canvasing the neighborhood and you want him looking for that black male. Yes. OK, very sure. That's what is this stuff down here. [11:31:01][280.9] [11:31:01] He rented the house, told me and I right out front he was looking for a flashlight like I said, was watching that here. OK, now if I come across straight on that door, that realty, when we transfer, he could have able to see. No, no, we don't have we try and trap in door to door. Nobody knows he was, you know, good. I you know, sir, I guess to see I saw this, he was able to get it in. OK, send me to go. But I was going to be you did not even know he was there. The, you know, on duty tonight know we've there's five or six of us here along with the neighbors and we haven't seen it. We've searched everything so they can track five or six of you meeting Glynn County Police Department. Yes. And neighbors and neighbors are not only McMichaels and Diego Perez, but also Ronnie Olsen. Now, we're announcing this at some point we see Matt Albanese come into view in a red shirt, right? Yes. [11:32:13][71.7] [11:32:12] OK, this is he went out, went right to the house. So he went out. He jumped the fence somewhere and went right or left. But we looked all on the dog and in the camp, the camper round the camper, we all up in the rafters and everything. I never even got on a ladder. Look up there to see these on top of around the area where there are no signs of him here. They're they're canvasing the neighborhood right now. So we're actively looking at your neighbor across the street. Oh, look at this camera. Just this camera. Lozado, whatever. This road is John Road. He's got a camera that looks at Joan Road. He's going to look at it and see if you see where he went that way. But as of now, I swear I'll go see what video you have. Does it look like it's the same guys always will also be our own officer. They're going to so that the camera doesn't look like the same guys always. Elham Hello, sir. It's the little guy. The same guy as always. Same guy, right? That's what I'm telling you, sir. [11:33:39][87.2] [11:33:39] First time now, you've actually confirmed that the guy on February 11th is the guy on November 18th, the guy on October 25th. Yes. I still can't catch the. Oh, yeah. The guy that Mr. McMichael lives on the road, the retired law enforcement officer and the D.A. investigator, his son saw him and said, you know, the black male, I don't know, Ransdorf or whatever, if I heard get exactly what he had. But he saw me in turn in New York. But the headlights on him and he running into I saw him run through the house. We just don't know who he is. All right. All right. [11:34:30][50.5] [11:34:30] Thanks. They say it's the same guy. He's got to be house arrest. You're approaching Greg McMichael, Travis McMichael and somebody I can't I don't know who that is. I don't know Sherman or somebody else telling them English is just confirmed. It's the same guy who's been breaking into the house on multiple occasions. There's no breaking in. Trespassing on the property. Yes. Trespassing. But stuff's missing, not by this guy. Do you know that none of the video shows him take anything from the property? No one in the video shows anybody taking anything. That stuff's missing. There is stuff missing from the boat, from the boat on the property. Yes, right. Yes. Circumstantial evidence. Right. Objection. Calls for a legal position. It's with the jury. I think it's officers now explaining what he knows and and how he knows it and what significance it has to him. [11:35:36][66.1] [11:35:36] He should explain what he knows, understands those on the property. I know there's stuff missing from the boat on the property is at the same time. This blackmail has now entered three times. Yes. OK, but you're talking to Travis cigaret, right as you're walking down confirming that Larry English says it's the same guy. Yes. He said, I'll be this person in here, but we'll get this a this is video of this being done. This is the video link. [11:36:16][40.6] [11:36:16] It's from one of the prior cinches, obviously. Tatsumi Simao, Travis confirms for you that the guy he's looking at on February 11th, the guy he saw in person, is the same guy that's been there before. Yes. He was wearing a red shirt, white van. I didn't see his face, but he's got like twisty hair, three square. That's my dress. The twist, what I call it, that wasn't Einstein. But that's just that's what it is. The same guy. I don't know where he's coming from. He's still down this road. No, no, no. It's almost 17 year old girl from the when Travis tells you he's coming down this road, we're talking about satellite drive he is pointing to from the entrance down until the drop. So at least try the suspects is telling you it's coming from the entrance at seventeen into the neighborhood. That's what he's done. OK, go to where I've been. I've been up there, you know, be out here for Jones and somewhere. Do you have the family there to have the baby adopted right now? Possibly. As I went and talked to them, they got one that kind of matches it. But he's a little better player. He's got something wrong with it. I heard he just had a kidney transplant. He just got the old lady, right? Yeah. [11:37:54][98.1] [11:37:54] And when you Chernow's down the house has got a dumpster out there. There's some black trash there. Right. A matter of fact. No, I can forget they have some kids that age, you know. Well, I've been there for a couple of reports of an alleged assault or whatever. It's the kids that have her, the female now and this one's boyfriend they had over there. So it could be unless somebody moved in with him or whatever. But, you know, nobody seems to know who this kid is, where he's coming from. But like, he's always all the time on the video that Mr English said recently, it's always been just in there floating around. We haven't seen him actually taking that stuff. He hasn't seen him take anything. Right. That's what he said. Travis and Greg. But you don't say he hasn't taken anything that's true. Only that he hasn't been seen as a machine taking anything, just as no one's been seen taking it. No, I said so. Trespassing. Yeah. Yeah. Stop worrying. Worrying about criminal trespass. Yeah, yeah. At the very least. Is that you talking or someone else time I believe Greg said criminal trespass. And I said at the very least, At the very least. Because it could be. Look at the state. Oh it is, yes. It could be burglary. If, if he is taking something then yes he could be charged with murder. Well if he's not taking something but goes in with the intent to take something, you understand that's burglary. Right? Of course. But with the intent to take something. If he had. I know he had the intent. I don't know. I'm just saying that's the that's the law, as you understand it, as an officer. Right. With the intent. Yes, the law does so with the intent. OK, been reported stolen in the first. [11:39:55][121.8] [11:39:55] Now, we do have to go down the road here, the house for the guy, which is he has those stolen of some guns, all of but we got our video card and people are coming in and stole them. They were from another neighbor doing some. Oh, that's my job. Mr. Brady. I'm just calling for you. Go, go. In. The room is just tonight. Joe, this is fix it up, right? Oh, yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Yeah. [11:40:39][43.2] [11:40:39] Driza-Bone Black Hawk Down, a lighter skinned black woman over his own, got like twisted dreads three, four inches long. He has sleeve tattooed on his arms dealer live right here. I come from a bar, so I will go see your you know, I could do what I don't do. It's a rich person of a lot of money. And this is, again, we're trying to back is to scribing the man he saw on the property reaching into his pocket. Yes. [11:41:28][49.7] [11:41:28] He's talking to the master of this. You got to go out of your way. I'll be back anyway. If all had it on set right here. Call Joe. You know, I don't know that you're going for. So he doesn't really matter that. So I won't cross my vote no further. Down there. But House on the rocks on the street, that's probably wrong. I got right here in a van or just parked outside, right? Yeah. Good. Appreciate your being here. The I've been looking for me those weeks ago. Yeah. Yeah. The house. The house out there on the right. Right. Oh yeah. I think a bit half a million for to go through come home early as they work on Geophone. So important energy on the road and call up good at making deals down here. When they lost recently they'll go down here and take measures. They got all the way. We busted a house. All right, let's play. We got the wrong guy. When said he had a guy living with him, we got him on some outstanding warrants and he was got a bunch of about it. Yeah. But, you know, around here, what's the guy, Jean, you don't talk about. Yeah. That's real there. You know where he lives. He's got a great group of laughing crowd. He got to ask, you know. Well oh boy did they catch Buie which is genes. I guess that's genes on a girlfriend get a girlfriend. I don't know. That's Gene, wife or girlfriend. But her kid, he is in prison. He's fully had his face pass everything. He she totally tried to commit suicide in jail. There was no, no, no, no. He was I was down there last week. He called on the morning he was driven out. So the satellites were watching him. And this time he was he was out there. He was on something else like, no at this school for you being that morning, I said, where's your mom? Was Gene? Well, they're in hell. No, not at all. I think yeah. Maybe it was Al supposably. His grandma died of his grandmother and they were over there staying at her house for a little while. But the house looks like the gloominess, right? I'm wondering if they even knew I was. I said, if you have permission to be here, Tasch. Oh, they know I'm here. I tried to call mom. Mom, I couldn't get a hold over, son. I passed on a Monday show guy. I said, you may get a call today. My mom may come home and want to know why he was over there, because he had been trespassing on the property at one time. So. Right. But I guess the behavior was looking. Got to look for to find the I appreciate calling pretty well. Horrible stuff. And they can't see who's talking to you there. Someone telling you about a dark colored car. And Officer Chandler Smith, that's Chandler Smith. He and went out and drove around the neighborhood. And he's telling you on page 19, line twenty one. I'm pretty sure he got somebody that somebody pick him up. Yes. OK, and on page twenty from one say same guy, Officer Smith is telling you there was a little dark colored car that was stopped and stayed there. I watched it all the way until you noticed until a drive comes into view. Yes. What is he explaining to you? Whether you understand him to be explained? There was a dark colored car stopped down the road as he approached the car, took off. Is that suspicious to you or was that suspicious to you at the time that that car took off? Could be. Could we get somebody standing there in part to see what we're doing, watching us? Do you know where on satellite drive he's talking about? I do not know if it's closer to 17 or closer towards Furfur. [11:46:08][280.0] [11:46:08] I'm talking about up here or that said, I was coming up the wall and there was a little dark colored car that was stopped. It stayed there. Was he coming up? I don't know which way he was coming up, though. He was coming up from satellite or coming up from 17. I watched it all the way and they hit that video in here tonight. I mean, that video was good news. Cameras are good. He walks in, he just wanders around. And that guy like five different videos of him going in there. And, oh, no, no, he doesn't take anything. He's just goofing around. Now, the guy has had some stuff stolen out of his phone, but he has he didn't have any cause he had a fake a bigger boat. Corporate volcanoes in the Balkan block. And he got like to per cent of uranium, whatever that is in the bank, about two thousand dollars or so stolen. But he has no video of the people taken. So he's taken the air conditioner. People who have worked for the that have he only had cameras outside the house after that. He had the cameras to the inside to help you just sum up the whole thing. I come in the house pilfering real stuff stolen from the boat. Suspect air conditioning guys right. Same black male coming back now three times. Yes. To your knowledge, up fresh between February 11th and February. 2013. Never saw this black man never, never able to catch them despite being out there within minutes. Right. If and when seconds count, sometimes minutes don't work. True. Thank you, sir. [11:48:56][167.8] [11:48:56] So I have no Mr if you don't mind, we collect of the transcripts of the ulceration Franklin Hoague. And along with my wife and co counsel Laura, we represent Greg MacMichael Holiday. Everything Mr. Rubin just did with you on cross-examination and I won't repeat any of it. So I just want to talk to you about one other topic that has come up much here. OK, let's go to December, the twentieth of twenty nineteen. You're out patrolling Atila Shores, area oriented and with me. Yes, sir. And you see great Michael out in his yard in front of his house. Yes. At two thirty to a short drive, right. Yes. And you recognize him? Yes. You already knew who he was. Yes. You knew him from law enforcement years. You'd seen him around the DA's office or the Glynn County Police Department. Right. Yes, sir. In fact, you knew that he had once worked with your own dad who was in law enforcement. Yes. And he stopped that day to talk to him while you were patrolling cities with Shaw's because you were in, in effect, investigating this possible burglary at Larry Englishes house. [11:51:07][131.5] [11:51:05] Yes, And specifically, he stopped to show him videos or still shots or both that you had in your possession on yourself that you had gotten from Larry English, right? Yes. So did you get out of your car and stand in the yard to show him the. I stayed in my car, the seat of my heart. So he came over to your car door? Yes. And you were talking and you were telling him about your investing and showing him these videos? Yes. OK, so by that time you're showing him the video of October the twenty fifth twenty nineteen that we have already seen and I will replay that shows the young black male on the boat dock, right? Yes, sir. And you show him all the video you have of that. And I don't I don't believe we sat and watched every clip entirety. Then you move on to the November 17 twenty nineteen video that shows the white couple walking into looks like the boat garage. That's right. Showed him that video. I believe so, yes. And then you showed him the video from November 18. Twenty 19 of the same black male that had been there on October the twenty fifth. I don't recall if I showed the 18th but I when we had the discussion, he had been there multiple times. That's what you told him. Yes. This person on the screen shot and the video you had from October the twenty fifth had been there multiple times. Yes. There being the English house. Yes. And he told you, Mr. MacMichael, that he did not in this room. Michael Fulton, you're saying I'm not offering it for the truth of what he said, but for what this officer did with the information he acquired as he is conducting an investigation of a burglary, objection to the characterization of it as a burglary. It's not a burglary. It's sustained. You just ask him what he did. That's what he did. All right. Based on your showing the video of this person, the young black male or the white couple? To Greg McMichael, did you acquire information from Greg? Michael then helped you that day? Solve the crime? No, I do not know. And so he was of no help to you in solving the crime by telling you who these people were and where you can go find them. He was not you understood that he didn't even know who was on that house. My understanding is. But you did tell him that the person on the house didn't live there. He lived a couple of hours away. And Douglas George leave. And then you discussed with him that the owner of the house had indeed had expensive items stolen from the boat that was parked at that house sometime in October or November of twenty nineteen. Right. I don't remember the exact date, but I do recall telling him that there was items had been items missing from the boat and you let him know what you were doing. You were trying to identify the people in these videos so that you could get help from the neighbors to solve the crime. [11:55:01][236.2] [11:55:01] Yes, So you knew he was retired law enforcement, right? Yes. And he told you that day that he would give you his phone number and that you could give his phone number to the owner of that house? He did, Larry English. And in fact, he gave you his phone number, right? He did. And told you that you could convey that phone number to Larry English and that if Larry English got any more activity on his camera, he could call Greg McMichael day or night. Yes. And that he would do what he could to help. Yes. Now, in your experience, it's not uncommon in tight knit communities for there to be neighbors who will offer to help neighbors like that. Is it not uncommon that you've encountered that sort of neighborly helpfulness, rather people before other neighbors, other neighborhoods? Not uncommon that as a police officer that you will respond to businesses or residences when alarms go off and there's some other person who's not the owner who's looking out for the place. And that's you'll end up talking to. So you took this phone number and this message that Mr. McMichael gave you that day and you conveyed that to Mr. English, right? Yes, I did. One of Mark as an exhibit G and one of which was this to you, Officer Ramos, which still stays on. Before we read it, fellows, first you recognize it? I do. [11:57:48][167.2] [11:57:48] And you recognize it to be a screenshot of the text message I do from that is a screenshot of the text message from me to Larry English. All right. I tendered in evidence, Your Honor, objection to. And you say it's from your phone to Larry, but it is. And it starts at the top. Here's a clip from my Boink camera. That's from Larry King. That's you. Yes. OK, the part that's from you to him. I'm going to read it. You tell me if this is what you said to him. Your neighbor at two twenty nine satellite drive is Greg McMichael. You know, now that he lives to listen to the guy, right? Yes, sir. Greg is a retired law enforcement and also a retired investigator from the DA's office. Yes. He said please call him day or night when you get action on your camera. Yes, his number is. And then you gave his cell phone. That is correct. [11:59:06][78.1] [11:59:06] And this is dated to eleven twenty seven. Forty seven p.m. But the text of the top is 12. Twenty. So you have any idea when you actually sent that to him. Twelve. Twenty eight. Nine forty. That's when you said that to Larry English. Yes. The 211 is for the next clip. That's below the date. Pertinent to the text that you're sending to Greg MacMichael is the day that the top twelve twenty nineteen 940 a.m.. That's when you were talking to him in the yard. Yes. That's all I have. Officer Rash. Thank you, Mr. Monk. Get your. Good morning, Dormont. I'm Jessica Burton. I'm cocounsel. Ferrarotti Brian. I just have a couple of questions. The first one is you never spoke with Mr. Brian about any of the break ins or the deaths that were occurring at Mr. Englishes house. Is that correct? That is correct. OK, and you also never spoke with him in late twenty nineteen or early twenty twenty of all of the break ins. And that's going on in the neighborhood, is that correct? I don't called. OK, I don't think I have anything else but thank you Mrs. Sorcerous. There was no communication at all between you and Larry English between 12 twenty of nineteen and February 11th of twenty. Twenty. None that I recall. No text messages, no text messages. All right. And when you sent that text to very English, was it your intent to deputize Gregory Michael Jackson? Michael's never. Would you want them to be witnesses? Actually, the text was for Greg. My Michael, not for Travis, not Michael. For my Michael based his training and knowledge as a retired officer, retired investigator, to be a witness, to call 911, to tell us what he saw and direct us where we needed to. Because you had metrics at this point. I know. Well, no, ma'am. OK, and your intent the defense has characterized it as solving a crime. But if made contact with the now deceased homicide victim, your intent was to identify, you know, OK, then trespassing. And if that what Mr. Imus it's it's ultimately his decision. And it does happen. Some some homeowners, some business owners, they just say tell them to leave. I don't want to trespass and just tell him to leave and don't come back. And it's ultimately, Larry, Englishes decision, property owners decision, the property owners decision on this decision. OK, to say whether to actually give it formal trespass on this person. Correct. [12:02:34][208.4] [12:02:34] Or to just say, hey, officer, can you just tell me something about absolutely. You get knocked on Supai Lawrences door on October 25th. Twenty nineteen chancer. No, this review went over all the stuff inside the open unsecured construction site. It's OK. So there's that saw that. We see all that lumber, all that's just laying out totally unsecured. OK, the report, any of it stolen? No, ma'am. Not to my knowledge, ever reported his electronic stolen mail. To my knowledge, no one ever report any plumbing or fixtures stolen. Ever report the electrical or electronic stolen? No, ma'am, not to my knowledge. Ever report any tools stolen? No knowledge ever report that anybody's broken into that camper? No, ma'am. And a report that anything's been stolen off of that doc? No, ma'am. [12:03:52][78.2] [12:03:52] So. Well, for January 1st, twenty nineteen through February 23, twenty twenty where English never reported anything actually stolen at 220 children. Not to my knowledge. The you never even reported the cooler and the satellite system stoltmann didn't know me. OK, do you have any evidence about who stole that stuff? Never did any knowledge of where the boat was when the stuff was stolen. I do. What was about the boat was inside of the boat garage, RV, garage, whatever terminology he's calling comes in part. It's out of there. So you're understanding right now is that the stuff was stolen when it was parked there or that's how Mr. English discovered it when Mr. English called me, told me he discovered it, I was under the impression it was stolen from there. In no time did Mr. English ever tell me he takes a boat from that location anywhere else or had it been any other location. So I was under the impression it was stolen from that side based on the phone call where he called me. How many conversations you have about the stuff? Based on about one call, he called me on my off. They told me what he had. I said, if you need to, I'm not on duty. You need to call. Have the on duty officer come to the scene to report it. And he started talking about his insurance deductible. He didn't know if it was worth it. And he decided that there was never a report made. So I can only speculate he decided against it. All right. Do you remember when this off day was when he called to tell you he discovered his missing stuff? Don't remember the exact date. I like I said, my phone didn't keep record of the calls and only get record of the text. So you never had a follow up conversation with Larry English about what he thought had happened with the stuff and where the boat was at the time. He told me the boat was inside the garage. Now, that phone call we discussed the air conditioned HVAC contractors there. My theory was, if those two his theory, unless it's relevant something in the case, like we were talking about his understanding from Mr. English. So the state is going to go and ask you, what was your understanding about this? He had contractors there working. They were in and out of the house. He did not have video inside the house at that time. Contractors, air contractors carrying two boxes, boxes that have ductwork other items in and out very well possible. Those items could have been taken by the contractors, but nothing was ever seen. According to Mr. Inglis, there was no video footage of the contractors or anybody else taking any items from the house. He just. No, they were missing. All right. So is it fair to say that your understanding is that because these contractors can take big boxes in and out, they could hide these goods in it to take it? Absolutely. OK, you ever see Mr. Aubrey with any bags, backpacks or any way to steal anything out? I have never seen him do anything in his hands coming or going from the property on the videos that I have seen. So each time a story stops by to wander around inside the open unsecured construction site, he only stays for a few minutes that. All right. So when the defense characterizes this has gotten away, do you have any information that Mr. Aubrey has E.S.P and has some sort of ability to know the police are on the way? The name is called any police on him? [12:08:08][255.8] [12:08:02] OK, and how are you employed with the police department? Chief police officer? Yes. Well, yes, as a police officer, you get paid right? As a police officer, very little. But yes, So it's your job to respond to 911 calls, right? It is. That's why you get paid, right? Yes, ma'am. And they give you a uniform? Yes, ma'am. And equipment like the body cam, which is a patrol car. And so when the defense was asking you about use of force, you said something like, I am here, OK, as a law enforcement officer. Yes, as a law enforcement officer. Listen, the officer on the camera, is that how you were dressed as well? Yes. From green pants with a tan at that time. Our uniform was green blue pants, a khaki shirt, and I had an outer vest carrier at that point time. Was not a load bearing vest. It made it look like a more formal class looking uniform. But that outer carrier contained my body armor. Did you have identifiers showed that you you're a law enforcement officer? I had my badge. I had my name tag and no big words. I said police, but my uniform showed that I wore duty belt with all my good equipment in it. OK, so the first phase as the defense brought up to you saying I am here to law enforcement officers because you recognize as well as a law enforcement officer. That is correct. And then the next thing that Mr. Rubin brought up is do as I say, because I'm a law enforcement officer. Is that correct? Is OK easily identifiable as a law enforcement officer? And then I'm deployed as a law enforcement officer. I'm being paid for X. Yes. [12:10:08][126.6] [12:10:33] hat Mr. Overreduced never knew. He was walking slowly, walking to normal through the house. Now when there was talk to you about leaving in the same direction, like going down Jones Road, he described him as running, right? I believe so, yes. So when he leaves, this particular property is open, unsecured construction site, he leaves any direction, leaving. Describe what he does when he leaves the open unsecured construction site, Kolaric English. He leaves to the rooms, to the right towards the Jones. However, once again, to your knowledge, does he have any E.S.P or any way to know? Objection. [12:11:25][51.4] [12:11:25] Speculation's if there's no silly objections, I assistent. Do you have any information if this was Mr Armories routine, his routine routine, this is what he did. He went into this house, looked around for a few minutes, and then would continue his jog on Monday, objecting to mischaracterization. Such has no knowledge of him. John, stay. John, my personal knowledge, personal knowledge, don't you have any evidence whatsoever that a Montabaur ever saw anything from the open unsecured construction site? I do not that just out of order. I want to cross off probably kind of. Or that's my I. All right. I'm just a short recrossed to follow up on some question. Just ask to you on redirect. So you had to go to police school to become a police officer, right? I did. And in police school, you learn basic crimes, the elements of basic crimes, right? Yes. Including burglary. Yes. And you learn in police school that burglary al-fassi what he learned at school is relevant to their guilt or innocence. [12:13:46][141.3] [12:13:46] Absolutely no relevance. I need to defend that for you. We know what we're going to get into the law of burglary. It'll become completely clear if I have given some latitude to finish my question, have him answer it, concerns his investigation and it follows up on exactly what was just asked of him by the state about things he would have done had he been told, for example, by the owner to trespass out Mr Abbott if he caught, I'll give you some latitude, but I don't get into that. I don't mean much use latitude. But again, we're getting into definitions, so we have this many questions. [12:14:36][49.8] [12:14:35] So I just finished my statement. I'll give you a little bit of latitude here, but I think you understand that the court has already ruled a number of other times about defining crimes and all that. Yes, and I'm not getting into that area, I assure you. So you've been to police school. You learn you have to know some of the crimes. So you know what it is you're investigating and what you may be arresting someone for, right? Absolutely. And that's just basic police knowledge. Right? Yes. You don't need to know what a lawyer knows or what a judge knows. Do you know, sir? OK, you're out there in the field and you're trying to decide what do I charge this guy with if you catch somebody doing a thing? Right. Absolutely. OK, so you know that the basics of burglary, how to arrest for relevancy and outside the scope of redirect, that's the same objection. We just have not asked for a little latitude. And once we get past, this will be bench again. Give you some room here. I don't need much. So you understood burglary from police school to be the entering the dwelling with the intent to commit a felony they're in. Yeah. And you understood, Larry English it house to be a dwelling. Yes. You understood the items. Expensive items up to twenty five hundred dollars worth of stuff you've been told had been taken from that house, right. Yes. And the taker of that stuff didn't have permission from Mr English to take it right. That is correct. So you as a police officer, that would be the basis for a burglary, right. It was not stolen from the dwelling that was stolen out of a boat that was parked in the we in. And you would know that to be in there. Yeah, right. OK. [12:16:39][124.1] [12:16:39] And so as a state asked you if you had caught this robbery at some point and if I didn't ask that, that's speculation. And I simply did not. That speculation, if I may remind the court before ruling the state asked the officer if you had confronted Courteney's Starbury and then spoke to Mr English and he wanted to trespass out. It was the phrase he used. What would you have done? It was a hypothetical. I'm asking you the same thing. That's what I said. Not at all to ask indicated what he was going to do if he was able to identify the individual on the video. Yeah, he was going to do what the homeowner wanted him to do. That was the question of Mr English wanted you to trespass out this person. Have you been able to speak to him? He was asked by the state, what would you have done? And he he's the jury. I would have told you don't come back over here. He was explaining his regular practice. That's right. And that's where I'm headed. I've got one more question, but that's what they asked. I brought back to that. And now I want to ask my question, to ask the question and we'll see what the question is when I'm reorienting Mr. Officer Rajesh to what he'd been asked. We're past that. Just go and answer your question. You said you've got one more question. First of all, let's see what the question is. OK, well, are you with me, Officer Rash? So far, you know where we are in this cross-examination? I believe so. I'm a little lost here, but the back off. OK, well, I want to get him back to where I am so I can ask my final question if I can get it out. So when you were asked about trespassing out somebody, you use that phrase I heard that referred to that way before. That's where a homeowner would tell you, hey, if you catch the guy and the homeowner wants you to just tell and don't come back over here anymore, that's what you would do, right? Absolutely. Now, isn't it also true if you catch the guy and the homeowner says, well, he may be the burglar burglar, would you invest to get it further for me? You would do that, too, wouldn't you? At that point, I'm there not have been a crime reported. There was no report made by Mr English of a burglary as residents. So telling you that things have been stolen and I'd like you to investigate it, you would say, well, you got to file a formal report and then we'll investigate. Yes. And that means for you, if that had been done, get the person's name and address, right? Yes. [12:19:38][178.9] [12:19:38] And then either you or someone would then investigate to see if they could find the cooler, the per unit and the Lorraine Fish finder for Mr English. Right. I was not on duty today that he called had Mr English called the police department and made a formal report. F weeks later, I would have had come in contact with Mr Aubry and identified him. Then I would notify the whichever officer took that report and say I have identified this male. Here is his name that officered that himself. Or it may have been handed off to our side the criminal investigation division. One of them would have followed up and looked into that myself. That was not the being. I would not the officer who took that report, I would not be the one following doing that. And I'm not suggesting you would have been the one to go out and invest the burglary, but some investigator would have in the normal course of things. Right. An officer and or an investigator? [12:20:49][70.9] [12:20:49] Yes. And trying to find out what happened and where his stuff was. Oh, yes. Thank you, sir. You're really quite right, because I think you may step down. I believe you are released for the day, but still subject to recall. Thank you. So I'm all tied up in my court. Ladies, gentlemen, we're at the point. We're going to break for lunch during the lunch recess. Again, do not discuss the case among yourselves. Enjoy your lunch. It is. It's like twenty past. We'll plan on reconvening at one twenty. Enjoy lunch within an hour. [12:21:47][58.2] [12:21:47] All right. I think from the state for your recess for lunch. No, but our missing witness has appeared in a sacred trust. Trust me, no matter much you know, you are not an hour. We'll reconvene at 120. Thank you. [12:21:47][0.0] [13:23:07] We are back on Sundays present represented by Counsel Olivia Movement going on. But I think we're good. I'm said the state is ready to proceed with the next witness. It's ready to make sure we move in the Skinner body. They're supposed to get in. Yeah, it's good. [13:23:34][27.8] [13:23:34] It's good [13:24:50][76.0] [13:25:26] For the welcome back. Hopefully everybody did enjoy their lunch. We are ready to proceed with the evidence in the case for everybody's attention. Stay ready to proceed. Yes, it is time to say calls. [13:25:45][19.5] [13:25:45] Agent Adjacency Kresse Agent Jason Press to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will. Good afternoon and good afternoon. Go ahead and introduce yourself to the jury, tell them your name and spell it for the court. Reporter. My name is Jason Seacrest S.P.C.A.. S.R. I. S t. And how are you employed? I'm an assistant special agent in charge at the Georgia Bureau Investigation. OK, and what is the Georgia Bureau of Investigations? The GBI is a state law enforcement agency that's primarily tasked with assisting local law enforcement or other law enforcement agencies in criminal investigations. [13:26:55][69.7] [13:26:55] And as the GBI made up of like two different sections, the crime lab and the investigative division, that's correct. There are actually four divisions in the GBI, two of which are the investigative division and the partner division of forensic science. OK, so what's the difference between those two divisions? Just briefly, the investigative division is tasked with doing exactly what it sounds like, which is conduct the actual criminal investigation. Part of that would be conducting interviews or that would be collecting evidence. And once those those items are done, then they are turned over. Evidence is turned over to the division of forensic science for actual scientific testing. OK, and where is the headquarters located? In Atlanta, Georgia. OK, now, other than the headquarters, are there various regions with different offices? Yes, ma'am. The investigative division is divvied up into fifteen regional field offices that each cover. Generally speaking, about ten counties. OK, and which region are you assigned to? I'm assigned to the region for field office in Douglas, Georgia. [13:28:06][71.1] [13:28:06] We cover 11 counties. And how long have you been with the GBI? Approximately two years. Any previous law enforcement experience? No, ma'am. OK, now, what are your primary duties in your position? There was GBI currently. I'm a supervisor out of our office. Our office has five field agents to crime scene specialists. Office manager. I am again the assistant special agent in charge. And then the special agent in charge is the the top supervisor in the office. And our you certified. Yes, ma'am, I am. What does that mean? So post for the peace officer standards and Training Counsel. [13:28:44][38.4] [13:28:44] They're the ones that establish the credentials for becoming a police officer in the state of Georgia. Being certified means that you have completed the what's known as the police academy. And then every year after that, you've also completed additional training to maintain your certification. And as a post certified agent with the GBI, do you have arrest powers under Georgia law? Yes, I do. OK, now I want to turn your attention to the investigation into the death of someone by the name of Ahmad Arborio. Are you familiar with that investigation? Yes. When did you become involved in that investigation? At some point, yes, I did. How did you become involved on the morning of May six of twenty twenty? I received a phone call from one of our command staff. She advised that I was being tasked to assist the regional office in Queensland to end in the investigation into the death of the model are very OK now. Where are you being assigned the lead role in that investigation? [13:29:45][61.2] [13:29:45] OK, do you know who was assigned a lead role in that investigation? Assistant Special Agent in Charge Richard Doyle. OK, and you said you became involved on May six. Twenty twenty. That's correct. OK, so at the point where you got the call, what did you do? I pack my bags and I came over to Queensland and I got the call about nine o'clock in the morning. And I arrived at the king's office at about twelve thirty. OK, now what were your duties as it pertains to the investigation itself? Primarily was just to assist Asagai with whatever investigative leads were need to be followed. Eventually it culminated primarily the two tracks of the investigations, one being Mr Roddy Bryan and one being Mr Larry English. And then, of course, with other miscellaneous, I would say, interviews lead follow up as they occurred. [13:30:39][54.2] [13:30:39] OK, so when you essentially got to Agent Dial, where you briefed on the investigation thus far? Yes, ma'am, I was OK. And was that from Agent Dial. It was it was from Agent Dial. And as we were beginning to review the investigative work that had already occurred. OK, now, were you given the file of Glynn County Police Department? Yes, we were. OK, are you familiar with the term neighborhood, Kansas? Yes, ma'am. Can you tell us what that is? A neighborhood canvass is where you go to an area where a crime has occurred and you knock on every door that you can find in that area, trying to identify additional witnesses or people who had additional information regarding the incident. [13:31:25][46.0] [13:31:24] OK, and to your knowledge, the GBI agents in this case do neighborhood canvasses? That's correct. OK, are you familiar with the neighborhood by the name of Fancy Bloss? Yes, ma'am, I am. And what's that neighborhood? A part of the canvasing in this case. Where is fancy bluff located in proximity to satellite shores. It is directly across Highway Seventeen, probably within a mile or two of where the incident occurred. OK, now, did you participate particularly in any of that neighborhood canvass? Not in the blanket neighborhood canvass, but I participated as it came to specific residences nearby in those areas. Worried about identified that we needed to do interviews. OK, do you remember when you started doing interviews? Like what date it was on May seven? [13:31:24][0.0] [13:32:15] OK, now do you recall a couple by the name of Diego Perez and Brooke Perez? Yes, ma'am, I do. OK, how do you know that they were living in the neighborhood of Sutil assures? I believe they were a couple of residences away from Mr Englishes property. OK, and did you interview them in this case? Yes, ma'am. Do you remember when you interviewed them? It would have been when they said, OK, are you familiar with a couple by the name of Danielle Studdard? And her not stuttered, but Stoddard and her husband, James Stoddard? Yes. OK, how are you familiar with them? Again, there was an interview that was done at their residence. OK, when did you do that interview? It was also when they said, OK, and are you familiar with a person by the name of Matthew Albon? Say, Yes, ma'am. How are you familiar with him? Mr Elvin's I was the one who contacted the non-emergency line on the day of the incident and he lived to Jones right now. I interviewed him. They are participating in to be OK. And is that what neighborhood was that is located in the shorts and the Stoddard's. Do you recall where they lived. It was the fancy bluff area. OK, now did you you mentioned before that a part of your role in the in the investigation was that track of William Rodhe? Brian? That's correct. At some point, did you interview Mr Brian? Yes, pretty much. Do you remember how many times you interviewed him? There were two formal interviews when I would call for interviews. OK, and when was the first one? The first one was on May 11 of what year? 2001. Was that where was that interview? Where did that happen? Where did it occur? It occurred to the regional office and I believe its conservation way here in Brunswick. It's one in six. So was that interview recorded? Yes, ma'am. It was that video and audio that was on the audio recording. OK, all right. And did you receive that recording before coming to court today? Did you read the whole thing that you also review a transcript of that recording? Yes. OK, and was the transcript accurate as it pertains to what actually happened in the recording? It was at this time we went ten years states, one ninety six and one ninety six, eight six is the transcript. Yes, On this subject, we don't just thank you now agency press. If you were to see Mr Bryan in court, would you be able to recognize them. Yes. OK, you see him in court today. Can you please point them out and describe please, where he is sitting with the far right at the defense table in a blue jacket? Looks like a green shirt, Alexis. OK, let the record reflect that. He has identified William Bryan. May I approach? Thank you both. So agency Chris, I'm showing you what's been admitted as one ninety six a V recognize one ninety six. Yes, ma'am. OK, what is it. This is a transcript from on May 11, 2012, the interview with Mr Brown. OK, now it was Mr Bryan under arrest at the time of this interview. Say, was he detained in any way? No, he was Mr Ryan handcuffed at all? No. OK, do you recall how he got to the interview location? He drove himself. OK, and was anyone else present during the interview? During the interview, his attorney, Mr Kevin Gough present, and another guy by the name of Larry Kelly was present for a brief portion. [13:36:32][257.2] [13:36:32] OK, and do you remember what time it was when you interviewed him? I was middle of the afternoon, maybe two o'clock hour. OK, when looking at the transcript, help refresh, refresh your recollection. I'm sorry. Three forty. Feel OK now? Did you promise Mr Brian that he would get anything of benefit from talking to, you know, that? Did you promise him that he wouldn't be charged with a crime if he spoke with, you know, OK, did you promise him he would get some kind of lesser sentence or plea deal or anything like that if he spoke with you? Ma'am, did you make any promises to his attorney, Mr Goff, as it related to his client getting any kind of benefit from speaking to you? Did you threaten Mr Brian in any way to talk to you? I did not. Now, did you actually explain to Mr Brian, even as his attorney there, that he didn't have to talk to you? Yes, I did. OK, and did you ask him if he understood that? I did. And what was his response? Indicated that he did. What, if anything, did you tell Mr Brian about leaving after the interview? I advised Mr Brian that when the interview was completed, he would be able to go wherever he wanted to go. He would be free to leave, OK, and that he acknowledged that he understood that? Yes, ma'am, we did. Did Mr Brian appear to be under the influence of any drugs or alcohol during the interview? Did he appear to understand what was going on? Yes, he did. OK, and did you in fact, specifically ask him if he's under the influence of anything? And what did he say? He said he was not OK. Were there any limitations imposed on the May 11th interview? There was. And by whom? Mr Gill. OK, and what was that limitation? The limitation on this interview was that we would only discuss things pertaining to what happened from the time he left the police department on February. Twenty third up to the current time. OK, current day, me being May 11, the day of the interview. Yes. OK, so nothing about the incident or before that. That's correct. OK, now during the interview, how long was the interview, do you remember. Just like a ballpark. I would say probably about an hour and a half. OK, so during that time did a few questions come up that may have gone over those limitations? They did. OK, and did you receive permission to still delve into those areas? Yes, ma'am, I did. OK, so let's talk about the statements that Mr Brian made to OK. Did you ask Mr Brian whether he knew Greg MacMichael? Just me. OK, and what did he say? He indicated that he knew him from the neighborhood and from his work at the hardware store. OK, who was work at the hardware store? Mr Bryant. Work at a hardware store. OK, and did you ask him if he knew Travis Michael. Yes, ma'am. And what did he say? He said he did not. OK, now where did Mr Brian say he lived at three zero seven four four drawers in such a short space. And how long did he say he lived at that location prior to February? Twenty third. Twenty twenty. He lived there approximately three years. Three years. Did he at any time mention anything about purchasing that home? Yes. What did he say? He said he had just bought the house approximately two weeks before the incident. OK, so two weeks before February 2013. Twenty twenty. He had just purchased. That's correct. OK, now according to Mr Bryan's statement, did Mr Brian say that he could see the victim's hands as the victim was running during the chain reaction? Your Honor, we're going to be referring, we understood from the pretrial order to the man's name, not a and I make no specific ruling on it. I did ask the state was to use terminology that was not to just use terminology that didn't over and over again, over and over again. That's what I understood from. Yes. So, again, I didn't know the police state court could limit how many times I say it before. Yes, sir. I will do my best to sit here. So agency Chris, according to Mr Bryant's interview, did he talk about whether he was able to see Ahmad's hands during this case? Yes. OK, and what did he say about that? You could see his hands. They were out. He appeared to be to not be holding anything. OK, and I want to turn your attention to page seventy six of the transcript beginning at line 21. And if you can just read that to the jury, that would be great. Thank you. To which one. Seventy six line twenty one through twenty five. OK, words hands out like like normal running running like running arms like moving back and forth before. Were they in his pockets or do you remember Mr Ryan responded. No, no, no they were out. OK now did Mr Brian ever see a gun or other weapon in the victim's hands during the chase. That all he did not. OK, and did you speak with Mr Brian about any thefts in the neighborhood? Right before the incident happened? I did. OK, did you speak with him about thefts while he was living in Sattell assures me. OK, and did he say he had anything stolen from him while he was living? There he goes. OK, now I want to turn your attention to Page eighty four lines. Twenty three on to eighty five. Line ten. If you can just read that please. Mr Brown said, I mean the main thing was the trailer. It was six to eight by ten. Six by ten. I think trailer behind the truck that went missing. Then I'd have to clarify with some other well the brother law of what went missing out the back of his truck one night. But it was beer or something. I don't remember something petty. The trailer never did report thank. [13:43:15][403.3] [13:43:16] You. Have it locked up. And I was not sure when it went missing within a timeframe of about a month. But now we're talking last year I asked. Twenty nineteen, Mr Brown responded. Yeah, man, I'm talking. I mean, it's been almost a year now. OK, so he had a trailer stolen from his residence from the yard somewhere. That's correct. And that was in 2009. Yes. And he said he never reported it to the police. That's correct. OK, and he also mentioned about a brother in law. Yes. Who had some petty things stolen from how he characterized it. That's correct. OK, other than that, the Mr. Brian have any other specific thefts that occurred from his residence around that time? No more. Now, did Mr Brian mentioned about knowing about any kind of burglaries in the neighborhood, meaning breaking into houses? No. OK, did you speak with him about knowing a man before that day? Yes. What did he say? Did he know him? He did not know. OK, had he ever heard his name before? OK, so never met him. Nepotism? No. Did you speak with Mr Brian about knowing the owner of the two twenty satellite drives construction site? Yes. OK, and who was the owner of that site? Mr Larry English. And what did Mr Brian say about knowing Mr English? And I'm going to turn your attention to page ninety five lines. Twenty three twenty four. If you can read that. I asked Do you know Larry English. Mr Brian responded, No, not at all. And I said, the guy that owns the house that's under construction out there is you're going out. Mr Brian responded. No, I didn't know who owned it. OK, so he had never spoken with Mr English? That's correct. OK, now did you speak with Brian regarding hearing from other neighbors who lived in Seattle, a source about thefts? Yes. OK, and what did he say about hearing about thefts? And I'm going to point you to page ninety six lines eleven through thirteen and then sixteen through twenty three. So first eleven through thirteen. I said, OK, have you had any other neighbors talk to you about thefts in the area or issues? Mr Ron said, I mean, not neighbors talking to me. And then I went within the last year and a half, let's say a year and a half or two years. So let's say let's go back to the beginning of 2019. How about that? Mr Brian responded, not neighbors talking to me a couple of times that came into the shop and say, you know, man, something else went missing. They didn't say who it was, them or what. But, you know, stuff has been going missing in the neighborhood. OK, And that's why I'm twenty three. Right. OK, now, during the course of the interview that you come to find out that Mr Brian had surveillance cameras up at his property. Yes, ma'am. OK, and then those cameras face towards the front of the neighborhood meeting bought Burford Road just now. Did he say it was OK for you to come by his house and search those cameras and the footage? OK, and what did you do after he said it was OK to do that? I believe I got a chance. OK, now, was his attorney present for that discussion when when you asked him for consent? Yes. OK, so after he told you that you could do that, did you go by the house after the conclusion of the interview? We did. OK, and who was present for that meeting at the house? Of course, Mr Brian, Mr Gough, myself, Agent Kelly. And I believe also Mr Bryant's fiancee at the time was in the room. OK, and were you guys able to download anything on that day? Not that time. We were there, no. OK, why not? [13:47:32][255.9] [659.1] [13:47:32] I believe there was. There was from a writer's password issues and also Internet speed issues that were holding us back for me that we get the video. OK, so between you and Agent Kelly, who's the tech person? Agent Kelly. Agent Kelly. OK, so is that why Agent Kelly was there? Was he absolutely OK at some point later on, were you all able to download that surveillance footage? OK, now did you also follow up with Mr Brian about his cell phone and getting consent to search that cell phone? Yes, ma'am. OK, and did you get a form? Did you get him to sign like a consent form for that? I believe I did. Yes. Yes, yes. So agency press, I'm showing you what's been marked for identification purposes as state's Exhibit 197. If you can look at it and tell me if you recognize this man, OK, what is this? This is the waiver of constitutional rights to a search warrant of an electronic personal device. OK, and is it the form that you had Mr Brian signed on May 11th? It was cases it seemed to be altered in any way at this time. We tend to states that one nine eight one nine seven no case subject. Thank you. Permission to publish. Thank you. So agency press. I'm just going to have to you. Are you able to see what's protected enough to read. OK, try this. This is OK. If you can just start from the top that would be great. OK, so if you can just read from here on. Come on. The waiver of constitutional rights to a search warrant of an electronic cellular device, I, William Arthur, Brian Jr, having been informed of my constitutional right not to have a search and seizure made of my electronic cellular device without a search warrant and of my right to refuse to consent to such as search and seizure, I hereby authorize Jason Seacrest and Larry Kelly of the GBI to use an extraction device to obtain information from my electronic cellular device, including, but not limited to any and all information, data files, memory cards, photographs, videos, text messages, GPS locations, website information, emails, contact numbers, incoming and outgoing phone calls currently located on the below described device. IPhone eight Model M. Q six V two l l a. I'm giving this written permission to the above named investigator voluntarily and without threats or promises. Of any kind. I understand that any information derived from this evidence as a result of my consent to this search and seizure without a search warrant can and may be used as evidence against me in any court of law. I also have been provided contact information from the above stated investigator in order for me to withdraw my consent at any time. It is signed by Mr. Brian. His name is printed below that. The time and date is written is May 11, 2020 at three fifty four p.m. and his signature is that that is mine. I believe that Agent Kelly is OK and that you go over this form with Mr. Brian the he signed it and then he appeared to understand it. Yes, me. Now, after the May 11 interview, did Mr. Brian leave freely. Yes we we did. OK, and what did you do with this form? Did you contact another agent to get the phone extracted? Yes. You OK? And what's an extraction? Just briefly, we use a device that actually plugs into the phone and just downloads all the information from the phone. It can also include not just information currently on the phone, but if information has been deleted from the phone, we could sometimes get that information. So it gives us all the content off the phone. Now, during that May 11th interview with Mr. Brian, what, if anything, did you tell him about him? Being a witness? In my initial conversation with Mr. Brian, identified him as as a witness. As it goes, it starts off right now. I said that we had a lot of investigative work to do and that we had additional questions that we needed specifics on and that that would be the course of the investigation. OK, and then you proceeded to have two separate interviews with Mr. Brian to separate, sit down, interview, sit down interviews. OK, and did you also do like a reenactment video? Yes. At some point we did. OK, and was that around the city of source neighborhood? It was OK. Now, going to your second interview with him, what date was that? Or May 13th, 2001. OK, and where was that? Where was the location of that interview that was in the same location at the corner office conservation line in Brunswick. OK, and was that video was that interview also recorded? Yes, it was. Have you reviewed that recording in anticipation for your testimony today? So when you reviewed the recording agency Seacrest, was it fair and accurate copy of the recording of the video you did, the interview you did with Mr. Bryan? Yes, it was OK. And in conjunction with that, did you also review a transcript? I did OK. And did the transcript match up with the interview I did with them? Yes. OK, any alterations or deletions? OK, I'm gonna show you this one. Ninety A for identification purposes. Tell me if you recognize that. What is this. This is the transcript from the interview with Mr. Bryan on May 13, 2001. OK, Your Honor, at this time we tend to stay 198 and 198 subjects subject to objection to this whole. So same questions about this interview. Was he under arrest? Says Mr. Bryant, under arrest at that time when you interviewed him on a certain moment, was he in handcuffs in any way? He was not detained in any way. Who else was present? If anyone knew Mr. OK and how did he get to the location on his own? OK, now remember what time it was when you interviewed him on May 13th? I believe that was the two o'clock hour. It was two o'clock. OK, if I were to show you a copy of your report that you did to summarize that, would that refresh recollection? Would we have more for the record which which summary before is the I am showing you what's been marked just by this situation. As for twelve states to submit for twelve, look at it and tell me if you know what that is. Yes. What is it? This is my report that I wrote regarding my interview with Mr. Brian on May 13, 2020. OK, just look at it sound. At least here to yourself and tell me if that refreshes your recollection about the time of the story. It does. OK, what time was two? Thirty five p.m.. OK, thank you. I'll take that. OK, so did you promise him anything during that interview. Did you make any threats towards him or force him into any interview with you. OK, and did you make any promises to Mr. Goff, his attorney. No. OK, now did Mr. Brian appear to be under the influence of any drugs or alcohol? OK, did you explain to Mr. O'Brien that he didn't have to talk to you? I did. And did he appear to understand that? Yes. Maybe be case. And did he still go ahead and proceed with the interview? Yes. OK, so let's get into some of his statements. What did Mr. Brian say he was doing on the day of the incident when he noticed something was going on? He was doing some work on his front porch. OK, and what did he say? Caught his attention, someone running and the sound of a vehicle injured. OK, and did Mr. Brian say that he was listening to music or something like that? He did. He was listening to music in his garage, which was on the opposite end of the house from where he was working outside. OK, but he could still hear a vehicle engine coming by. That's correct. OK, and he said he saw somebody running as well. Yes. OK. Now, did he say he knew what was going on? At that time? You do know. OK, I'm going to direct your attention to page seven lines. Twenty four into page eight. Line six. And if you could just read that, please, Mr. Brunson. And for whatever reason, I don't. Well, I mean, at that point I was like, OK, well, he's chasing him in the truck, whoever's in the truck, you know? And I'm figuring I don't know. I don't know what's going on at that point, but I'm figuring something's wrong and I'm not really loud. But I said, you got him. You need help, something like that. Nobody could hear me, though. I'm sure. OK, and what if Mr. Brian do after that, he walked over and grabbed his keys. OK, and where were his keys? Or in his kitchen, which he accessed through his door in the garage. OK, did you ask Mr. Brian what made him grab his keys? I did. And what did he say? I'm going to direct you to page eight. Line twenty one into page nine, line to. I asked, and why were you going back to your trunk? Why were you grabbing your keys? Mr. Brian responded, I guess just to go see what was going on. If anything needed to be done, if I could help. But whatever, I mean, I. I didn't know. I mean, to be honest with you, I don't know what I was doing. OK, so he said he wanted to know if he could help. That's correct. OK, and I'm going to direct your attention to page thirteen lines eighteen through twenty five. I asked what was it that made you decide I need to go get my keys and get in my truck and see what's going on. Mr. Brian responded, I really don't know if I said OK. And then Mr. Brian said, I, I, I can't answer that. I just, I don't know. It just, you know, I'm thinking from my mind that maybe he's done something. The guy running and I just I don't know, OK, And when he left his house, did he have a cell phone on it? Yes, ma'am, we did. OK, and what, if anything, did Mr. Brian say about recognize send the truck in question if you can just read page nine, lines three, Morty's three, three forty three or four things I said. OK, now, real quick, just going to go back. You said you recognized the truck. Mr. Brian said, oh, I said, where did you recognize. How did you why did you recognize the. Mr. Brian responded, I mean I've seen it in the neighborhood. I mean at that time I didn't know exactly why really. I recognized it. I said, OK, Mr. Ryan said I didn't know from what house or if it had, you know, just being in the neighborhood, driving around. I didn't really put it together until afterwards. Did Mr. Brian ever say that he heard a mod say anything during the chase? He never heard Multiphasic. OK, and then Mr. Brian ever mentioned trying to slow down a mob during the chase. It's OK. I want to direct you to page thirty three. Line sixteen to page thirty. Four, line two. If you can just read that Mr. Ryan stated, I figured if I slowed him down and got a picture that maybe something would happen in the end other than just him getting away and cops not knowing who he was. I say I said so. So then that kind of makes me want to ask why did the cops need to know? Mr. Ryan replied, Because I figured he had done something wrong. I didn't know for sure. I stated, OK, what made you think he had done. He might have done something wrong, Mr. Brown responded. It was just instinct, man. I don't know. OK, so he figured the victim had done something wrong and it was just instinct that told him that. Yes, that that's what he said. Now, did did Mr. Brian say that he felt the victim needed to stop running? Yes, ma'am. I've lost track. How many times we've used the word victim here? That's the whole point. The jury's going to decide who the victim is here. I can rephrase that. The court has not banned the use of any words in this court. And what I had given the facts of this case and the positions of the parties, I've asked the lawyer simply to use various terms. The witness can use whatever term he wants and that's what's going on here. So if the state could refer to Mr. Aubrey as a strawberry and move on from there. Yes, Now, Agent Seacrest, did Mr. Brian say he felt Mr. Aubrey needed to stop running? Yes, ma'am. OK, and why did he feel that? Can you read page thirty seven, line five through 10? Mr. Ryan stated. Yeah, I just I figured he stole something I didn't know. Get shot. Somebody. I didn't I didn't know what was up. So I asked Mr. Brian, had you heard any gunshots or anything like that. Mr. Brian responded, No. OK, so Mr. Brian said that he figured a mob had shot somebody. Yes, ma'am. Again, for class and answer second, I object of characterization. Mr. Seacrest has already given his testimony about what was said word for word. And I object to the characterization after the fact by the prosecution says, yes, sir. I said again, listen, General, what the lawyer's asking questions is not testimony. Testimony comes from witness stand. It's just a good answer to this question. Did you ask Mr. Brian whether he ever said anything to a man when he was chasing? Yes. OK, did he say he said anything to a man? No, ma'am. OK, what, if anything, did Mr. Brian tell Ahmad regarding Koeneke he needed to stop running? He didn't say, OK, what, if anything, did Mr. Brian tell a mod about wanting to talk to him? Mr. What, if anything, did Mr. Brian tell the Mod about wanting to arrest him for anything? Mr. Braun didn't say anything. Now then, Mr. Brian, never say anything about Ahmad turning to look at him right before he was shot and killed. Yes, OK. And I want to turn your attention to page sixty three lines, two through eight. I'm sorry, line twelve, lines twelve 318. If you read this, Mr. Ryan stated, I think I remember seeing Ahmad turn around and look towards me, you know, pulling up or either almost hold. No, I can't quite stop yet. I'm still back in good ways I believe. Yeah, I'm still back a good ways. And then he runs around the right side, a right hand side of the truck. And I figured at this point he's going to cut the corner and go out on the drive. Is that what it's called? OK, and at the point where a mod is near the second truck, did Mr. Brian ever hear a mod say anything? You know, so he'd never heard him make any threats or anything like that. He did not. Did you ever ask Mr. Brian if he saw a mod drop anything from his hands during the chase? I did. OK, and what did he say? He said he didn't seem drop anything. Now, I want to talk to you about your conversation with Mr. Brian pertaining to Larry Englishes construction site. OK, did you ask him if he had seen any of the videos I did from that construction site? And what did he say? He said he had not seen any of the videos. OK, did you ask him if he even knew if the videos existed? And what did he say? He didn't know anything about videos. OK, now, during the course of your investigation, did you learn that Sutil assures that the neighbors would communicate with each other on like a Facebook page? I did. OK, did you ask Mr. Brian about his knowledge of that Facebook page? Yes. And what did he say? He was not a member who was not familiar with that Facebook page. OK, now, did you follow up with Mr. Brian about his knowledge of thefts in Seattle? Assures around that time a died? I do. OK, and I want to turn your attention to page eighty five lines twenty one into page eighty six. Line twenty one. I asked, OK, so just to get a clear picture, the only specific threat thefts at the time of this event that you knew about from what you told me or your trailer, Mr. Brian responded, Oh, no. I stated your your brother in law some stuff out of the bed of your brother in law's truck. Mr. Bryan responded of I stated. Anything else specific? Mr. Bryan said, specific? No, I had heard that there had been some. And I say I stated that's just in general. And Mr. Bryan said in general, I asked, but no real specific incidents. Mr. Bryan said nothing. You know what was stolen, what houseware. When I asked when it happened, Mr. Bryan said no. I said what was, you know, none. Nothing. Mr. Bryan said no. I said only that, hey, there's some folks doing some things when talk about break ins. What are you talking about? People going into houses, busting windows, Mr. Bryan responded, I think I heard a car. I said, car. OK, Mr. Bryan responded something about a car one time. OK, so you heard about a car one time? Yes, ma'am. OK, had he heard about any descriptions of the person who was allegedly responsible person or persons for any of this stuff? OK, so he didn't know if it was a black person, white person, Asian person, nothing you do not know. OK, now, did you find out during the course of your interview with him that Mr. Brian also had a Facebook account? I did. OK, and did you ask for his consent to look at that Facebook account? Yes, ma'am. And was that when his attorney was still present? Yes, ma'am. And did what it Mr. Brian, he was willing to allow me to download his Facebook account, but the account was deactivated at the time. So we've reactivated it so that we could. So you reactivate it so that you can download it? That's correct. OK, and did that download happen? Yes. OK, now, after the interview concluded, was that your last time talking to him? No. OK, when was the next time? Immediately after this interview was when we did the drive route. OK, and when you say the drive through where drive thru in which neighborhood. So we did a drive through reenactment of the February twenty third institutions. OK, and was that Mr. Bryant's route that pertained to his route. It was OK and do you remember about what time you all went out there like was it still light outside. It was OK. And who all was present in the vehicle at the time? Was it myself, Mr. Bryant, his attorney, Mr. Golf, and also another GBI agent, special agent in charge, James Steinberg. OK, and was that recording? Yes, ma'am. Manufacturer? Yes. Now, Agent Seacrest, were you able to review that recording prior to coming into court today? Yes. And was it fair and accurate? It was. OK. Did you also review a transcript of that recording? I did. Was that transcript fair and accurate? OK, I'm going to show you what's been marked for the purpose of identification as states one nine nine eight. Can you look at it and tell me what it is? Yes, ma'am. This is the transcript from the reenactment with Mr. Bryan on May 13, 2020. OK, when you reviewed it, was were there any alterations or anything like that? OK, at this time we would tender states one ninety nine and one ninety nine self-expression. No, hold on. Now, before, before you hit record there in that kind of reenactment, did anything happen in terms of any kind of preliminary Dreiser judgment? OK, tell us what happened. Mr. Ryan was having difficulty remembering the exact path of travel. So there was kind of a, I guess, a familiarization ride through to kind of get directly down to what the path of travel was before we actually recorded the reenactment. OK, but at any time, did you tell Mr. Brian what to say? Not at all. OK, now, during your interviews with Mr. Brian that you learn from him that the police found some smudge on his truck. Yes, ma'am. OK, and did you also learn that those smudges had been lifted from his truck? Yes, ma'am. OK, did you speak with Mr. Brian about getting fingerprints from him? Yes, ma'am. And why do you get fingerprints from people who are known to use whatever the item is that has the the the fingerprints on it to get what we call elimination prints so that we can compare those to see if they're the person that the property belongs to or not. OK, and that he agreed to give you fingerprints for that purpose. Yes, ma'am. OK, and did he consult with his attorney before agreeing with that assessment? Did you also speak with Amy Elrod about that? Yes, ma'am. And did she agree to give fingerprints as well? She did. OK, and was that for the same purpose? It was OK. So at some point, did you meet with both of them? Yes, ma'am. When was the day? Today. On May 14th. OK, and what happened when you met with them on that day? I met them at the hospital parking lot and we rode to the Lincoln jail where a jailer was able to take their fingerprints, and then I took them back to the vehicle. OK, so just to be clear, were they under arrest when they went to that jail and it was just for the purpose of fingerprinting them? That's correct. That was all preplanned as far as, you know, the logistics of how that would happen. OK, now, at some point during the course of your investigation, did you ask Mr. Ryan for consent to download the computer system in his truck? Yes, ma'am, I did. OK, and what happened? Did he give consent? He did OK. What, if anything, were you able to find nothing that was pertinent to this investigation? OK, and why was that? So the computers in your vehicles only store certain information for for a brief period of time. So most of the data that was relevant to February had already been overridden by May. Are you familiar with a person by the name of Larry English? Yes, ma'am. OK, and how are you familiar with Mr. English? He's the owner of the house that was under construction when Mr. Aubury received the videos. OK, during the course of this investigation, did you meet with Mr. English? Yes, ma'am. Do you remember where that meeting happened? Oh, that meeting happened at his residence in Michaele's, Georgia, which is in Coffee County. OK, and what was the purpose of that meeting? The purpose of the meeting was to get his statement regarding the investigation, what had occurred, especially to find additional videos that we had seen floating around and to give more context around his involvement in the and what led up to Mr. Brown's death. OK, I want to turn your attention to May 21st, 2020, OK? Was there anything noteworthy that happened on that day in terms of the investigation? Mr. Brown was arrested. OK, and any other warrants? We did a search warrant of his house and we also did a search warrant of his phone. OK, and where you present for that search warrant? Execution on his house. I was where other agents also processed at the time. You interviewed Mr. Brian on May 11th and May 13th. Had the video already surfaced, the video of this incident? Yes. OK, and had the McMichaels had warrants already been signed for their arrests? Yes. OK, now, during the course of the your investigation, did you learn that Mr. Brian had given previous statements to officers from Glynn County PD? Yes, ma'am. And in preparation for your interview on May 11th, May 13th, did you review those statements? I did. OK, and since those interviews may 20/20, have you reviewed those statements? Yes, ma'am. I have. 141822 COUNSEL>> What, if anything, did you notice in Mr. Bryan statements to the Glenn County Police Department as it compared to his statements to you? 141834 WITNESS>> His statements to the Glenn County Police Department were more direct in his involvement to corral and box in Mr. Arbery during the event. His statements to me minimized his involvement in that process that led to Mr. Arbery's death. [14:18:48] So we'll just talk about a few instances of that. OK, where you able to review the transcripts of those statements given to Officer Minshew and Detective Larry? Yes, ma'am. The action here, I'm not sure where the state is going. Is this prosecutor about to ask a witness for his opinions about what other witnesses were told she could be getting his opinions to the jury about whether he thinks one statement and another statement is that? Or is he testifying about what he knows? Because I'm trying to figure out how this final questioning is not to your honor those statements, to also mention an investigator, Larry, were tendered. So there in evidence. I'm not about to ask Agent Seacrest about his opinion on the statements. We're just going to go through a couple of the quotes from those statements in comparison to the statements agency press, but quotes no opinions again, except that sounds like a closing argument, which is perfectly fine. And it's time. But this witness can testify to what this witness knows in this line of questioning, seems designed to put us in a position where we're going to have to make a motion that none of us wants to make sure. I don't see how in the statements have come in already there in evidence. That was never the point. It doesn't matter whether there is not. The jury's already heard. The jury will decide whether they're consistent or not, whether Mr. Seacrest thinks you're consistent or not. That's something for the lawyers to argue. That's not for one witness. You can't call an expert witness to say whether they believe somebody or not. This is highly improper. That's all you do is comparing the two states to San Francisco. But they're both on the record. He's he still wants to prove that you took the other state. Yes, Your Honor. While Judge, I think it's it's completely irrelevant. I'm not going to go through both statements from front to back again, but I just wanted to pinpoint a couple areas where Mr. Bryan says something completely different to agency press versus what he said in here to Officer Minshew and Detective Larry, 30 years. I've never heard of any such thing. I think maybe we should take this take this up outside the presence of the jury, which could take stuff. Mr. Orascom, show your object. The prosecutors laid the foundation that Mr. Bryant is characterized is characterized as changing his statement. That's all well and good for a closing argument. But you can't call witnesses for the purpose of challenging the credibility of the defendants in that way. Anybody? I have never even heard of such a thing being done in the trial. A criminal case, much less a murder case. You can't have one witness testify as to whether what another witness has been doing or editorializing is what he thinks. That means he can testify to what he knows. This is highly improbable, highly improbable. And Judge, I'm not asking Seacrest to editorialize anything. I'm going to ask him about specific quotes, not a lot of them, a couple from each statement and then ask him what Mr. Bryant said specifically to him on the same subject. That says not to ask him how they differ or, you know, just testified. It was just it was interesting to to and argue differences in the statement. You're welcome to do so as part of the argument. But for him to comment on another of a statement given to another officer, of course, I concur with that. So let me also address that since we got a break here with the use of the term victim, let me be very clear, because you mentioned a pretty strong ruling. The court is not definitive word on this case. What I what I said and what I think was told to me at the time was that I generally don't implement word bans. And what I was told was that everybody was very cognizant of that and understand that that term in this particular case brings a number of issues. And what about the state? Was there was going to be an attempt to at least reduce the use of that? I sustain the objection because the court saw that as being the term that was being used with this witness. That word made is still not in place because I realized after I made my ruling, it sounded like I've changed that. That is not the case. [14:25:08][2255.5] [14:25:08] The court found under these circumstances, that was the term that you were using over over to describe Mr. Aubrey under these circumstances. So I just want to clear that up. So the court's ruling pretrial ruling has not changed. I just want everybody to be aware of the terminology we're using and under the circumstances and facts of this case. So, yes, let's go and get the from all rights reserved and say. All right, thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to proceed with the evidence from the state agency. What did Mr. Brian say to you in your interview with him on May 13 regarding the moments when he left his driveway? If you can turn to page 25 of the May 13 statement lines, 18 into page twenty six lines nine to Mr. Ryan stated, and, you know, for whatever stupid reason, again, I mean, there's going to be some reasons here that I don't understand why I did it. I jumped out in the road from my driveway at about the same time he got there. I asked, So you just did like straight out Mr. Rock brought Mr. Ryan responded. Yeah. So I asked. So you didn't go left or right. You just kind of went straight. Mr. Ryan responded straight for maybe a tad to the left. I asked. Angled a little bit, Mr. Ryan responded. Just a tad. I said, OK, now why did you pull out and angle it to the left like that? Mr. Brown responded. I guess so. I could see. I said, OK. And what did you see? Mr. Bryan responded. And I'm thinking at this point, you know, I mean, it's running through my mind at this point. Try to get a picture. I said, OK, Mr. Brian said, but I hadn't got my phone out. I don't believe at this point. I said, OK, Mr. Bryan responded by what did I see? I seen him run right straight in front of my truck. I asked around the hood, Mr. Bryan responded around the hood for the ditch. OK, so at any point, as he's describing going from his driveway to Burford Road, that Mr. Brian ever say that he tried to force the force, Mr. Arborists, into the ditch in front of his house? No, man. OK, did he at any point say he tried to block them? No, ma'am. Now, did you talk to Mr. Bryan about the circumstances surrounding his belief that Mr. Aubrey tried to get into his truck somehow? I did. OK, so I want to turn your attention to page twenty eight, line twenty, starting from the word he into page twenty nine line for if you can just read that. I'm sorry. Mr. Ryan said he was just down there low, not in the road. He comes up out of there at about the time we get around a tree and we got really close to each other. I pulled him past and this is another one where I'm really fuzzy at man, but the only one neighbor that and at the time, I don't remember if I knew his name or not, but there is a neighbor, Tommy, up there and I angled up into his drive with kind of like a mailbox there. Oh, I don't know what the hell I was doing there. Right. Because it's about that point I realized I'm in front of them. He's behind me. My windows are down. I said, Oh, Mr. Brian continued, All right. And he's coming. So I backed up to try and get straight in. At that point, he's on me. He's coming, he's on me. And I'm just like, man, I've got to get out of here. So, I mean, I think I put it in drive or whatever at that point. I'm trying to I'm trying to haul ass. And he's on my door with his hands at the door handle. I hit gas, you know, keeping in mind I'm not trying to swing the boards out the back, you know, so and him describing that incident at any point that Mr. Brian say he tried to corner a no man at any point, did he say he tried to cut him off or he had cut him off real good. Now, in your statements and your interview with him, did you confront Mr. Brian about using the words block in his previous statement to the police officers versus what he told you? Yes, ma'am. OK, and what did he say? And I'll turn your attention to page twenty six. I'm sorry, page thirty three. So it starts at line eleven nine. Eleven to line fifteen for now. I said, oh, were you trying to do. Because I think in your original statement and again I'm not trying to pin you down, I'm just going back because I, I have to listen to it all. You talk about trying to box him in and do different things. Are you OK? And go ahead and read from lines 16 through 19, Mr. Braun responded, I figured if I slowed him down and got a picture, then maybe something would happen in the end other than just him getting away because not knowing who he was. OK, can go ahead and read to lines twenty five. I responded. So. So that kind of makes me want to ask why did the cops need to know. Mr. Brian responded Because I figured he had done something wrong. I didn't know for sure. I said, OK, what made you think that he had done that. He might have done something wrong. And flipping the page, lying, lying to Mr. Brian responded. It was just instinct, man. I don't know, Your Honor, at this time. I would like to publish the reenactment video permission to publish that. It's been submitted on. Yes. I am not going to go just the way we agreed with the defense that this is on. Meet with Agent Seacrest narrating So that was my agreement to be in complete. That was not your agreement. Did you know what? You just go ahead. You go right ahead. I withdraw my objection. OK, I just looked at so Seacrest can see the screen. OK, I'm going to play. Where are you right now? We are sitting in the driveway of Mr. Ryan's residence. You go back, OK, and that's three of seven for growth. That's correct. OK, and who is seated in the driver's seat? I'm in the driver's seat. And who is seated in the front passenger seat? Mr. Brian. OK, and who is seated in the back on the back seat? We have Mr. Golf and we have Jenny Sanford. OK, so if you could just so this jury is telling us right now where, as you said, getting in his car and what he's fixing to do, he wants to drive out and he's angling to the left in the direction that they went. And he's seen a rope around here is where Mr. Aubrey pops pops up. So he's backing up because it surprises him, doesn't back in quite enough to where when he makes the turn, he's getting close. He says goodbye to his mailbox and Mr. Aubrey is down in the ditch and they're running he's running somewhat parallel to to the vehicle, to his vehicle. Right. See the ditch and. Yes, ma'am, I can step down. Thank you. And don't touch the screen because things will happen. OK, but if you can just point to the general direction, there's a point right there to your right foot. You can see the ditch right through here. That's almost like little. I think that's a little footbridge right there over it. And the data is running right. OK, Captain, I know when you read that he's explaining that Mr. Aubrey is down the ditch, maybe not quite in the water, but he's down that ditch that way. He's going to start coming up and still kind of running parallel. They're coming up to a tree right here where you can see a little sign. I think it's a maybe a real some. As they're coming up. He's expecting Mr. Aubrey to go maybe around the tree the other direction, but he ends up coming. So not this tree. This next tree is coming up. He's taking Mr. Riesman go to the left of the tree. But Mr. Berry actually goes to the right of the trees that they're right there close to each other at this tree right here. So Mr. Arbor's between the tree and tree on his left and his truck on the right. As they come up, he's plate pushes ahead. At this point, he gets ahead of Mr. Arborio as he comes into this driveway. He actually angles off and that's where he was trying to stop his movement. We've tried now in this actual reenactment. Did Mr. Brian ever say that at this point he tried to corner Mr. Avery? Did he say he tried to block them? He did not. OK, he is angling off in the middle of a direction in the middle of his path of trouble at this point, says his windows down, he realizes that he's put himself in a bad position and he starts to back up. And it's somewhere in that time frame where the contact is made between Mr. Aubrey and the vehicle. Whether or not Mr. Aubrey has reached for the door handle or whether he is he's just touching the truck. That's where the contact is made. And Mr. Brian said he was worried at this point. So he put the vehicle in drive and that's when he took off ahead of Mr. Aubury again. He's turning off over onto satellite shows or satellite drop. OK, so is that this robbery here? Yes, ma'am, it is. We've just passed Holmes Road and he at this point stops and backs up as Mr. Aubrey makes the turn down Holmes road. At this point, Mr. Aubrey is ahead and Mr. Brian is essentially chasing Mr. Mr. Aubrey down Holmes road. Is this Holmes road right here? Yes, ma'am. As we get down the road here, you're going to see a think. You'll be able to see a brightly colored mailbox. I believe the time it was blue. And that's that was an important marker because that was where the video that he took on February twenty third began. You could see the actual brightly colored mailbox. So it was a are we able to see the mailbox right now? Yes, ma'am. OK, is that this one right here? Through my dirty windshield? Yes. OK, so we paused. He confirms he's on the left side of the road at that time. When the video starts, you actually see at this point in the video, that's what we're talking about, is you see, Mr. Aubrey, that he was briefly running away and comes running back towards Mr. Brian in the video, Mr. Brian believe that Aubrey ran down his passenger side. I believe so. At this point, is Mr. Brian still driving on the wrong side of the road? Yes, ma'am. We're discussing just different angles and where things were coming and going and referencing back to the actual video that he took in February. He told me that somewhere around there at that point after Mr. Aubrey passed him, that he'd gone back over on to the right side of the road. Now, during this portion of the actual video on the day of the incident in February, he had dropped the phone. So or put it on his lap, I think was what it was. So he was what happened here, you say, and how he went down a little bit farther now, the the mailbox you see right there on the right side of the driveway, that's actually another marker that we can kind of identify from the actual video on the day of the incident, which was I'll get right there to the right, that black mailbox and driveway. So it looks like fresh or concrete. You just filled with the I guess, the landscaping. You can identify it in the video. He drives past that at some point he decides to turn around and basically does like a three point turn where he and he's talking about on the video, you can hear maybe his tire trying to catch some gravel. And he's showing me where he wanted to spots. He likely, you know, pull over to the left, back in and then pull back out to the to the left to go back to direction. And Mr. Aubrey came back to the intersection of Holmes Road and said, Telegraaf. So at this point, where is Mr. Harbury? Mr. Holmes is going to be what you're looking at from my truck. He's going to be to the left, which is close to the intersection of where the incident occurred, basically. So going back towards the intersection. That's correct. And here it was pause right here. This is where we know that the the video where he picked up that because of that driveway. And in the video we're talking about, you can see the curve of the road and trying to figure out where he was in the road. He says he's kind of center of the road we're going around. And at which point he actually sees Mr. Aubrey. [14:46:09][1261.8] [14:46:09] We're determining where it was that he stopped at when he actually when he actually finally stopped and finished taking the video, printing up to the spot where he thinks he was. If you see the stop sign there, you can see the intersection that that's the intersection of where the incident occurred. And that scene essentially stopped. Yes, right there. Yeah, 144641 COUNSEL>> Now, Agent Seacrest, throughout that entire reenactment video with Mr. Bryan, did he ever once say that he tried to angle at Mr. Arbery? WITNESS>> I donâ?Tt recall him saying angle at Mr Arbery, no. COUNSEL>> OK, did he ever say that he tried to block Mr. Arbery in? WITNESS> No, maâ?Tam. 144702 COUNSEL>>That he tried to corner him at any time? WITNESS>> No, maâ?Tam. COUNSEL>> OK, so none of that was said on that video. WITNESS>> Thatâ?Ts correct. [14:47:09] That's close now. So Agency Press, I'm going to show you what's been marked for the purposes of identification and state's exhibit three, 03. Go ahead and look at it and tell me if you recognize it. Yes, ma'am, I do. What is it? This is a, I guess, a map from Google Earth that was created based on the most recent statements of of his path of travel in the city which shores neighborhood when the incident occurred. OK, and was that created by the GBI? Yes, ma'am. OK, is it fair and accurate? Yes, ma'am. At this time, we tend are three or three to the police which killed three people in the world. In a world, this is it was like asking this, hey, agency. Clearly. Yes, ma'am. OK, and can you step down, please? OK, ok. So remember, don't touch the screen, so go ahead and describe to us what we're looking at. Three or four. What we have is in a source neighborhood you're looking at still a source still assures us until the job is right here. OK, this is dry right here, actually comes down here. I believe this is perfect right here. This is home and this is Elwood. OK, Highway Seventeen is going to be up here. Hey, what is this that we're seeing right here? That's Mr. Englishes residence. OK, and what is this one that's leaving Michael residence? And just go ahead and show us what is this one? That's Mr. Brian's house. OK, so go ahead and just explain the route. As you saw in the video, Mr. Brian's house is right here. He pulls out and turns initially, eventually turned right out of his residence. He comes down here towards Seattle, a drive. You see this little part that pulls up on satellite. That's where he pauses and then backs, backs up, down here before drugs forward on the homes. And when he's going down homes is when he's initially behind Mr. Aubrey. At some point in here, would be where Mr. Aubrey turns around and comes back towards the intersection while Mr. Brian continues down somewhere here before he then turns around back to the intersection where the incident occurred. OK, and that is based on the reenactment video. What Mr. Brian, just months after this actually happened? That's correct. OK, thank you, Nancy. So it's a Seacrest. Remember we talked about the surveillance system. Yes. Mr. Ryan's house. Now, you said Agent Kelly was there with you when you all were trying to download that. That's OK. And was he the one who actually did the form for that one? I believe he did, yes. OK, all right. That is all I have for you. Thank you. The defense might have some questions for you if it was any present. Just want to take a 15 minute recess or mid-afternoon and we'll get back into the office. Thank you, Roger Harris. Agent, you couldn't step down if you could please be back within about ten minutes. I'll be ready to go. I remind you. Please do not discuss your testimony with anybody. All right. We're in recess for 15 minutes. [14:46:09][0.0] [15:10:10] Right, got the defendants represented by counsel for the witness back on the stand. Scoffs Are you ready to proceed, as they say? All right, Paramount, you are under oath. Let's go and get that Orakpo directly with the. All right. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to go ahead and proceed with the evidence, Mr. Carl. Good afternoon and good, if I recall correctly, that it was you who called Raddy Brian when initially you reached out to Mr. Roth. I did. I knocked on his door. It wasn't Mr. Brian looking for the spotlight. That's correct. And is it fair to say at this point that you needed his cooperation? Desire to cooperate? Yes, you wanted it. You wanted to make sure. And that's because under Georgia law, witnesses are not required to talk to you. No one is required to talk to because you are not a federal agent. I'm sorry. You're not a federal agent, your agent. That's correct. And you don't have the power to compel witnesses to speak to you. That's correct. So they do the monitoring? That's correct. Now, Mr. Brian had already given several statements to the Gwinnett County Police Department headed up. Yes, OK. And he'd already given the Glynn County Police Department his cell phone several times. Is that correct? Yes, sir. OK, but the first thing that you need to do is you need to secure his cell phone again. That's your first mission, is to secure his cell phone. My first mission? Yes, sir. There was a lot of controversy surrounding this now famous video, wasn't there? Controversy. I don't know about controversy as far as the video. There was. People do not like what the video showed for sure. For sure. And there was a lot of speculation out there about the video. And I'm going to test any speculation that I'm not asking him to provide details. I'm just asking whether he'll acknowledge that there was a need for the GBI to obtain that cell phone. Was there a need? There was. OK, in fact, as it turned out, there was another important video in this case or set of videos, whether or not if you're referring to the videos at his house. Yes. Or the night of it. Yes, that's correct. Somehow in their exhaustive investigation, going county police department, for whatever reason, did not obtain those videos. That's correct. And you were unaware of the existence of those videos until Mr. Raddy, Brian, brought them to your attention? Yes, sir. Directing your attention to May 11th. Did you tell Raddy, Brian, that the past week had probably been one of the worst of his life? Yes, And he agreed with you? That's correct. I believe you've testified that to McMichael, Michael. Defendants have been arrested. That's correct. The GBI director, Vic Reynolds, had given a press conference and to anything from the press conference. That's that's hearsay. I have no intention of going into the contents of the press conference. But your boss for Cobb County D.A., that frowns at that time. GBI director had actually given a press conference in this case. Yes, that's correct. You were physically present when he did so? Yes, sir, I was. And whether you were present, you were aware that there was a press release. I'm aware there were press releases going on. And when you were speaking with Mr. Brian, which you described as media and quote unquote, other entities were blowing the situation up even more objections around that, Your Honor, in terms of the relevance of what Seacrest thought about his media, based on the conversations we had yesterday outside the presence of the jury, I thought the importance of this line of questioning was clear. If you're asking the court that no. OK, so. Well, I'm at the court's direction, but the circumstances surrounding under which statements are made is relevant to their admissibility. So ask you question. Did you describe when you spoke with Mr. Brian, the media, quote unquote, other entities, quote unquote, blowing it up even more, directing your attention paid for the transcript as our review section would stick with us to go to page one every page for the future on which transcript the final OK at any point in time to. That's what I'm asking you about. Don't hesitate to let me know. Thank you. Yes, that's correct. A lot. And you noted that the media was already out front of Mr. Bryan's residence when you first attempted to make contact with Your Honor. Again, I wasn't doing his yes, the media was there. And that media craze only got worse in the days to follow the media was the media was present, OK. And again, on five, thirteen, two days later, when you speak to Mr. Brian again, you acknowledge that the past few days have been, quote, difficult for Mr. Brian, unquote. Yes, sir. Because there's even more media now is that, quote, I don't think that's a quote, but there were more media. I'm sorry you're asking me a question. I'm sure that you discussed with Mr. Brian the march through his neighborhood. Page one. Thirty nine on your flight thirteen transcript. I do recall that if you sympathize with unusual activity in the neighborhood. Yes. You've previously agreed that in the context of this interview in May of twenty, that this was a neighborhood on edge. That's correct. By this time, Mr. Brian feared for his own personal safety and that expanding the speculation, directing your attention to page 142 of what I believe is the transcript that was the transcript of his prior testimony in this trial. Did you give her a cigaret, everybody? A fair enough volume, one of the proceedings of May thirteen, twenty, twenty one. Do you have that transcript, sir? Not not here on the stand with me, Mr.. Have X your testimony. What page you on your page two to page 142. I'm sorry. Which statement? Which part of the page one. Forty two lines three through seven. Yes, sir. Do you recall being asked whether Mr. Bryan and his fiancee related multiple occasions incidents that gave them concern for their personal safety? Yes. Or do you recall Mr. Bryant's fiancee, Amy, giving you a threatening letter that she pulled out of my mailbox with your say? Yes. Anything in that letter is hearsay and relevance to Amy all. I'll rephrase it in this case, but I'll rephrase. In the presence of Roddy Bryant, did his fiancee, Amy L. Ron, give you a letter that she pulled out of her mailbox? Same objection, Your Honor. I don't know if there's it's certainly not hearsay. We have not it's not consistent. And what's the relevance of it? Is there any evidence that Mr. Ryan read the letter? I mean, what our office did, Mr. Bryan asked you to do something to help protect. I don't recall that directly. I know there were general concerns about his personal safety. Yes. There were multiple conversations about it. I is it fair to say that Mr. Bryan was very much concerned about speaking with you at this time? Objection. The speculation. I'll rephrase. Would you describe Mr. Bryan as scared? Not of me. I'm sorry. I didn't mean scared of you, but scared generally because the situation in the neighborhood. Yes. And you still need his help? I would like his assistance, yes. Can the last thing you want Mr. O'Brien to do, it's freak out. I don't want anybody to freak out. You certainly don't want to shut down because you want help. I'd like to get statements from anybody involved in an investigation at. Sir, I'm going to direct your attention to the bottom of page. The bottom half page. I'm the bottom two thirds of page three of the transcript, the five eleven transcript we which is, sir, I'm showing you the argument of three of that transcript. And no, this is not marked for this debate. The full transcript ready for. Do you recall that conversation? Yes, sir. I do think can you read that conversation from the ones you handicap or you can read the smaller print on the document? Either way, I stated, I. I do appreciate you. You said you would call me back and you did. And you said you wanted to talk and you are. I appreciate that. I want to tell you. Thank you. Like I told Mr. Golf, said Kevin, and I responded, Kevin. Yeah, it takes me a second sometimes, you know, at this point your your your a witness, you know, that's kind of what we've developed. I shouldn't say developed, but determined by listening to all the evidence and the statements and watching videos. There are there are things that we need to that we have questions on and that we'd like to to I guess, be a little more specific than what we've been able to see. You know, but I do appreciate you coming in and that if what said yes, sir, that is what I said [15:26:07][956.5] [15:26:07] At that point in time. Lf it was important for you to let Mr. Bryant know that he was a witness in this matter, it was important for him to know that I appreciated him calling me back like he said he would after my initial contact with him. It was important that he know what his role was at this point in time. And I wanted him to understand that I was looking at this objectively from a fresh set of eyes and not going strictly of what Glynn County Police Department relate. Now, when you told him that you had reviewed the previous statements to the Glynn County Police Department and the other evidence in the case, you weren't lying to him. I was not. You did actually. You had all that information available to you? Yes, sir. And you know that the Gwinnett County Police Department had referred to him as a witness. I don't recall that specifically. But if it's in there, it's in there. OK, well, you reviewed their case file. I did some pieces, I would say. And when you became involved in this case, the county police department listed him as a witness, asked and answered. I don't think so, but I'll defer to the court. The go ahead to do is go to the Glynn County Police Department and identified him as a witness in this matter. I don't recall. OK, fair enough. But you told him that he was a witness and told him at that point in time, which would be consistent as far as you know, with everything he had been led to believe. Objection. The speculation as far as what Mr. Brian was led to believe, I know that you executed a you had Mr. Brown execute a consent form. I believe it's of which show you what's been marked. State's Exhibit 197. I believe you read that to the jury earlier. Yes, sir, I did. Where in there does it tell Mr. Brian what he's under investigation for? It doesn't make. Thank you, sir. I would add that he knew what the investigation was about being as the whole case was around about Aubrey and his death. But we'll come back to that. Maybe I slept through it earlier, but where was the Miranda form that you used on this occasion? He was not under arrest. Miranda is only required when somebody is being questioned while they're in custody. At no time was Mr. Bryan in custody during this questioning. As a matter of fact, he was advised from the beginning that he was free to leave and that he was free to stop talking at any time to which Mr. Golfer's was present. During those conversations, Well, let's be clear here. You are under no legal obligation to give Mr. Bryan Miranda rights, but you could have there's no reason to. But you could have I could do a lot of things, but there's no reason to read him. Miranda, if he is not in custody or there's no chance of him being put into custody at that time, he'd never Mirandized somebody who wasn't in custody. I do a lot of different things depending on an investigation. The statutes and case law gives us parameters for which we have to work through. What I do in one case may be different than another based on the circumstances of that case. There's no straight cookie cutter approach to this. The point is to always get the information that's needed in the investigations that you can make a reasonable decision on charges should they be made or not. But in this case, there was a specific reason why you did not Mirandize Mr. Bryant. That's correct, because he was not in custody. When you fill out a Miranda form, are you not required to tell the subject what you're investigating them for? No, sir. No, you don't do that. Objection. Your relevance around the form. Josquin We've already established that a Miranda warning was not given. With all respect, the credibility of all witnesses is a matter for the jury. I'll say sort of said he didn't read. You never use the term citizen arrest in this conversation. Any of these interviews, either myself or Mr. Bryan, discusses the arrest that you discussed, other legal concepts. Did you not? Which ones such as self-defense don't recall that specifically. Do you have a reference? No. No, you don't recall that at all. If you have a reference to refresh my memory, but I don't recall that specifically circled back to that. You did discuss whether Mr. Bryan was scared on the side of the road. Do you have a specific reference? Did you discuss whether Mr. Bryan took defensive action to pull away from Mr. Aubury when he felt Mr. Aubrey was trying to get instructed, not testify that earlier today, not in relation to self defense, but in relation to these series of events that occurred prior to Mr. Berry's death? Yes, we discussed the now shortly into the interview, concern became apparent as to what your intentions were. But did it not concern for you? There was concern on the part of Mr. Bryan as to what your intentions were, objection to speculation about concerning Mr. Ryan. We don't have to speculate here. It's refresh breaking your attention to page twenty one of the transcript. Which which transcripts? The five eleven transcript. AC after this colloquy on page three, the defense review, page twenty one is a certain areas that you're. Yeah, the tell us that the part where the interview stops and I don't have line numbers on my copy, but from the part where it says, OK, I'll step outside a minute. In the beginning I guess to give some context, in the beginning of this interview, Mr. Golf had even reminded Mr. Bryan while I was telling him about the voluntariness of the interview, Mr. Golf reminded him that any point we could pause the interview so that Mr. Bryant could confer with his attorney on any questions he may have. And that's, I think, what is occurring right here. Mr. Bryan starts off from this page stating he asked me and I don't exactly remember right now what exactly he said then. He was just saying that, yes, if that wasn't me, well, he directed me to it. I directed him to the breaking the conversation. And then we approached Robert Speakman directing your attention line four. Well, it's the fourth line. I know there are no line numbers, but line four, how does this part of the conversation begin? I stated, OK, I'll step outside a minute. In the process. What next? Mr. Golf says, no, you step outside or I'm sorry, not you step outside, we'll step outside. And Mr. Brian said, Yeah, I was going to step outside. And I said, Yeah, that's fine, Roddy, have a seat. And then what do I say? Mr. Golf says, Right, you stay. We're stepping out. And Mr. Bryant says, OK. [15:36:20][613.2] [15:36:19] And then you say, no, you're good, you're good. And then I say, we're stepping out, OK? And then you and I step down. That's correct. And when we came back in, what did you tell Mr. Brian? I know not everybody talks to the police every day. And I know this is a very stressful situation, but, you know, we're going to be OK here. Mr. Ryan says, OK, OK. And then you say, all right, we're going to be OK. I mean, nothing has changed when we're done here. You're going home. OK, And Mr. Ryan said, OK, because he's just a witness. I believe that our our question or our conversation outside was to Braudis nervousness about talking to police and his trouble recalling events. And I believe you were speaking for your client as to his ability to recall events, because it's an issue. It's it's an issue when you're dealing with him that day, I don't remember being as much of an issue for him as it was for you. Really. OK, all right. Now, on the 11th, Mr. Ryan gave you an hour plus interview, did he not? Yes, sir, that's correct. Hour and fifteen something with that. May 13th, he comes back and gives you a two hour interview. That's correct. And he speaks with he was in his home. Bezzina, the May 13th interview for two hours. In addition to the two hour interview at the DNR headquarters, he invites you into his home. Meet with you is his. That's correct. After discussions with you, it was advised that we could go to his home. I believe that was to download the night our camera system. There was not an interview. It was a matter of gathering evidence. And you spoke with a man in the front yard, not about the facts of the case as much as it was the, again, the logistics of the video and everything else. And you're speaking with him down when you're getting his fingerprints. After you and I had already had a conversation where I promised I wouldn't ask any questions about the case during that time because you weren't present, because you had built a relationship of trust with Mr. Ryan, which I try to do with all of my witnesses and all of my people that I discuss with cases, whether it be subjects, whether it be witnesses, to the point where I've gotten text messages thanking me from people that I've arrested because I've treated them fairly. And in case it wasn't clear earlier, in all these interviews that transpired over several hours, you're discussing a lot of different subjects. Yes. Path of Travis. Only one of those I'm sorry, say the path of travel, the video, the now famous video. That's one of the subjects of those conversations, the recorded interview conversations. Yes. I mean, you're not really Mr. Ryan for four consecutive forty two hours at a time now. And half the time. That is one subject. No, these interviews are very conversational in nature about the events that that happened on that day before and after. And it was through no fault of yours that Mr. Ryan nevertheless had trouble articulate what was going on that day. No, sir. He didn't. You said it was no fault. It was no fault of yours. You were trying to work with him? I was working with him, yes. OK, now, on May 11th and May 13th, did Mr. Ryan appear at any time to be mentally unstable, sir, to appear to be influence under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants? No, sir. Was Mr. Ryan loud or boisterous? No, sir. Did he come across to you as gleeful or bragging or boastful? No, sir. Did he strikes you as someone seeking attention, seeking the spotlight? No, sir. To Mr. Bryan. Drop bombs or otherwise use profanity when you were talking to him? [15:40:36][256.9] [15:40:36] Yes, Was Mr. Brian in any way disrespectful to you? He was not. OK, now, there are times in the transcript where you and Mr. Brian or discussing the deceased in this case. That's hardly my first name. That's correct. In doing so, you didn't mean any disrespect? I don't see that as disrespectful. And certainly when Mr. Arborists said his name, you didn't take that as a disrespect towards Mr. Aubrey with Mr. Arborists, his name. When Mr. Brian said Mr. Arbor's first name, you didn't take that as a sign of disrespect? No, sir. Did you ask Mr. Brian how far I got in school on either May 11th or May 13th? Not to my recollection, but I think he did tell me that he graduated from Brunswick, if I remember correctly. Did you ask him whether he had any learning disabilities? Mr.. Did you ask him whether he could read and write in English language? I don't recall specifically if I asked that one at don't recall him replying. Most of it. I do recall that. Yes, sir. I now, Mr. Brian never denied following Mr. Obama every day. That's correct. And while he might not have used the word, Mr. Brian never denied angling his vehicle ahead of Mr.. He never denied angling his vehicle in that direction. His choice of words changed drastically from the point of the Glen County interview to the point of his interview with me. I'm sorry that I asked you whether he he changed his wording or did I ask you whether he denied angling his vehicle in front of Mr. Section? Your Honor, the witness is allowed to explain his answer, which I believe is what you just said. What a witness does is answer yes or no in any way. Which is state. Of course we do. Right. Brian never denied during his interview with you that he angled his vehicle ahead of Mr. Robert. That's correct. He never denied. He just changed the descriptive words that he used in his involvement in the incident that they did. You just tell the jury when the district attorney was playing this reenactment, did you just tell the jury as you pull the truck and where the where the driveway is in the ditch, didn't you just show them on the video of him angling and say that he did? You just didn't use the word? Yes, sir. He said he did that during the reenactment video with me. But the wording was different than his explanation when he was interviewed by the Oakland County Police Department. But based on your video, whether he used the same words or not, he conveyed the same meaning. He conveyed the same meaning with different intent. You know what's in Mr. Bryan's mind? I would still know. It's in his mind. But the use of the English language, in the words, can give some insight into a person's intent. Are you trying to specular? That's what was in Mr. Ryan's mind. I'm not speculating in what is in his mind. I guess I would be explaining what the meaning that I took to those words and what I would say as a general meaning to those words. Roddy Ryan never denied cutting in a head of Mr. Arbitrary Day, at which point at any point in your conversation with did he ever deny cutting in ahead of Mr. Orgo? No. He was factually correct in his movements that day during his interview with me. Now, beyond that, what you're really doing in this video and this narrative, you just get in the jury is you're largely speculating about what happened. I'm re I'm giving insight on what I was told was that had happened on the day of the incident. OK, was that Mr. Ryan's testimony, the words you were using when the video was playing or was that your spin on it? That would be me. Paraphrase what Mr. Bryan told me during that reenactment video, Mr. Bryan, that, you know, that he didn't think he could do this, do the reenactment video. Mr. Bryan. Let's you know, many times that he was struggling to remember events. Two and a half months later, which is not uncommon for anybody that has to recall events afterwards. But it doesn't stop me from being able to ask the questions. That's my job as an investigator, because you needed this reenactment video. Actually, you offered the video prior to the interview. You you referenced that Mr. Ryan had a hard time remembering the path of travel in a narrative format and that he was willing to take that path of travel after the interview. So you took that as the green light to put words in Mr. Bryant's mouth? I never put words in Mr. Bryan's mouth. Look, make sure we live in the same thing [15:47:06][389.2] [15:47:06] Yes. That's your job. And, sir, is it fair to say that what you did on May 13th in that car was that was a rehearsal before you recorded the. I'm sorry, repeat that question. You rehearsed this video with Mr. Ryan before you recorded it? Yes. There was a discussion as far as Mr. Braun's ability to recall exactly what happened. So we did refresh the hands prior to actually doing the recording. So it was practiced. He did address run a practice run before you turned the video. It was a run to refresh his memory because he was having a hard time with the path of travel. We assure you the investigators submarine prepared this. Thank you. Your investigative summary indicates that Jackson, if you're sitting around your house, at he's trying to refresh his recollection. That's one thing, but not very helpful documents. If you refresh your recollection that I don't believe the witness ever said that he couldn't remember anything. I'll rephrase. In your written summary, you acknowledge the difficulty Mr. Bryan had in determining his path of travel two and a half months later. Yes, just like I stated earlier, he needed an opportunity to refresh his memory. And it was only after you refreshed his memory that the video was turned off. I did not refresh his memory. It was impossible for me to refresh Mr. Brian's memory. I was not there on February twenty third. I could only go off the statements that Mr. Bryan provided that it was possible for you to refresh his memory. Wasn't that I Howard Chris. Mr. Bryan repeatedly said he's having trouble recalling the events of that day. And in all the times that you met with him and all the times he expressed difficulty, did you ever once offered to show him a copy of his own statement? No, sir. You had both of his statements from the police department at that time, right? You had the video and the transcript, I'm sorry, in the video, OK, you've indicated you reviewed them. Did you ever once give Mr. Brian an opportunity to review what he said two and a half months earlier? It wouldn't be standard to have somebody review their statement after the fact. The whole point of the GBI coming in to do another investigation. This incident was to try to start the investigative process from the beginning and basically get a fresh start. I wanted Mr. Brian statement from his recollection right then, and I could compare it to what he had said earlier and try to determine if there were discrepancies based off memory issues or if there discrepancies based off of I'll call it ill intent. Where in your five page written summary do you ever reference Roddie Brian attempting to run over Mr. Murray with his truck? I don't think it's in there. It's right here. Yeah, I don't believe it's OK. To be fair, you weren't investigating Roddy Ryan for an aggravated assault of a motor vehicle where he was investigating Roddy's involvement in the death of a model or very well, certainly if he had told you that he tried to run Mr. Aubry over with his truck, that would have changed the character of your investigation. Not necessarily. You certainly would have included in your five page summary, would you? That's correct, because other agents for the GBI and your supervisors are looking at these things as they come in, right? That's correct. And you previously testified about an incident where Mr. Aubrey, from Mr. Ryan's perspective, appears to be getting in the vehicle. That's correct. Or try. Yes. And in fact, he expressed a fear to you later that he that he was going to try again. That sounds familiar. Yes. Directing your attention to page fifty four of what I believe is the May 13th transcript show. Fifty four page fifty four. OK, directing your attention to the Middle where Mr. Brian begins with. Well at first he tells you he's trying to get out of the way. Ten find down. Yes. Now he's trying to get out of the way. He says, I mean for a split second he says, oh, my Go