that evening, and the police witness accounts also support that. accounts are from the passenger s who were with mr. johnson in the car that evening and the fact that a live cartridge casing was found in the car where ronald johnson was seated that matched to a ammunition in the gun that the police recovered in his possession. in addition, mr. johnson's dna is on that weapon, and in this particular weapon connected through the ballistics testing to a prior shooting in september 2013 in the 7th police district and never recovered. again, it is our evaluation of the evidence in this case in its totality, and after with the careful analysis with the laws of the state of illinois, it is our determination that no criminal charges should be filed in this case against officer hernandez, because a crime cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. i think that we had the criminal statutes up there? do we?
illinois has well established that justifiable use of force is reasonable even if it is mistaken. and the reasonableness must be judged by the perspective of the reasonable officer on the scene, and not with 20/20 hindsight, and the cal yubl reasonableness is that police officers are often forced to make split second judgments in events that are intense, and rapid e evolving, and about the amount of force used in any particular situation, and this is relevant case law. a person is justifiably allowed to use excessive force against another's use of the imminent force, and however, the he is justified in the use of force which is intended por likely --
is sbeintended to likely cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that the death would result in further threat to the safety and defense of others. and also, if he is attempt ing to e evade arrest by flight. and an officer can use deadly force if believing that such force is needed for effecting the arrest, and escape has been by a person who has committed a felony, and is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon or other indicates otherwise that he is going to endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested wo without delay. the united states supreme court has held that if a suspect threatens an officer with a
weapon or probable cause that he is involved in the commitment or the infliction of the crime, excessive force may be used to e prevent escape and if some feasible warnings have been given. what is important, what is important when we review these cases is that you have to consider the mental state of the police aofficer at the time of this happens. what does he reasonably believe, and that is extremely important when you are make decisions on cases like this. because that is what the united states states supreme court dictates through the case law and that is what illinois law establishes. so, questions. >> how do you handle this perception across the country that the officer, your office is part of some cover-up, and your transparency at levels we have not seen before, and how do you handle the perception in the office of some cover-up? >> i don't know what cover-up you are referring to. i am not covering anything up,
and i have shown never this room what we have done the. and we are in different times right now sh, and when we are t ug about the transparency and what the public wants to see, and that is what we are doing. i have pretty much opened the door here for you to see the entire analysis, and the evidence that we looked at and the videos that we considered a and the relevant case law, and i have a tough job, alex. i have the hardest job in this county, and i have to make decisions each and every day, and each and everyday on cases like this and other cases pending in this criminal courthouse, and you know, no matter what decision i make, someone is going to be unhappy, and whether i charge, and whether i not charge, but i run in office with integrity and professionalism, and i am going to to call it as i see it based on the facts and the evidence and the law. a and the law is what guides me. so i am making a decision which
i believe is the appropriate decision here. >> is that video definitively show the gun in his hands and the forensics video? >> you saw it, and that is why we sent it to get blown up. and the individuvideo in and of and you know, the video, the dash cam videos and what we are seeing in these particular cases, and they are not hollywood quality videos, and they are grainy and it is dark, and it is blurry, and it happens so fast, and you saw it, and you watched the original video, karris and could you tell that quickly? you probably couldn't so we had to e slow it down and take more pictures and send it to the cfl to see whether or not they could definitively find, and i'm look looking at this, and it appears to be an object in there. you know what, the other thing to point out about that video, we know that officer hernandez's gun is out? of course, we do, and you can't watch it when you see the video the first time, you can't see his weapon, but you see flashes,
and you can't see his weapon, but we know that he had a e weapon and that he fired. and these videos are what they r are, and they are not the best quality. and you only get in the direction of the squad car is facing. so it is not a cameraman, you know, like we have here today that are following that case. but i believe -- >> why no audio? >> there is a lot of audio in here. yes? >> and why not audio on the video? >> first, let me talk about the audio. first, that is frustrating, because u now we have seen that in the cases that we are reviewing with these dash cams that there are no audio, and that is a problem nfor the chicago police department, and i believe they need to answer to that, and i don't know why there is no audio. there should be audio, and there is supposed to be audio, and you know, whether it is a malfunctioning or officers physically turning them off when they get into that squad car,
but that is a, you know, that is a policy, and it is something that the i believe that the police department has to the address, and they have to, and they have to address it, and fix it, because we would prefer to have the audio, but time and time again, we are looking at the videos, and we don't have any audio. >> and as a follow up, why are there officers in unmarked cars not activating the cameras. >> in unmarked squad cars they don't have dash cams. so the up marked ones don't have it, and the marked ones it goes on when they activate the emergency lights. so in a squad car if they activate the emergency lights, it goes on. and if you saw it in the car that is coming around, the suv, he never activated the lights, and that is why the video did don't on. >> but they could manually activate it? >> they could. >> why wasn't it? >> i can't answer that. >> and can i ask you why -- why you decided to release the vi o
video, and i also want to know that you read off the statute, and do you believe that people just don't understand what the use of excessive force is and how police can use it, and then thirdly, you have the u.s. attorney today who said that there should be an investigation to look into the police use of the excessive force and what do you think about that? >> first of all, as far as the u.s. attorney, i understand, and i did not see it, but i did understand that he did confirm that he in fact is still investigating the mcdonald case. i understand that the department of justice is going to be looking into, you know, the policies and the procedures of the chicago police department. and i welcome that, because i think that anything that we can do to improve police relations with the public, to build confidence in our communities that the police officers are out there doing their job and doing it correctly, i welcome that. i welcome that.
and, what is the other part of the question? the releasing of the individuvi. well, because what we have all seen at this the date and time, and clearly the events of the last several weeks, you know, i'm not hiding anything. and these videos are going to be eventually released and so i felt that it was appropriate and to be transparent and show you exact exactly what we looked at, what we considered, and what we did before, you know, announcing any decision on this case. >> and can you talk about laquan mcdonald and if not there would we be seeing this video -- >> and by the mayor's -- >> no. it was not forced by the mayor's office. and by the way, this -- back to the other part of the question, i do believe that the general public and the average citizen does not understand the use of force model. they don't understand the relevant case law. they don't. you are right. you are absolutely right, they
don don't. and so we have to educate the public. you know, how officers are trained and what they can and cannot do and when it is appropriate. and so in this particular case, dane, how these police shoot in ings, they are in vvestigated b ipra and that is the investigative agency and not me, ipra and in laquan mcdonald we chose to go with the fbi, and they were the investigative agency, and ipra is the investigating agency on this one. and i know that there is some announcements to today that is going to to be some changes at ipra. and you know, we can't get in front of the evidence. you know, we have to wait to have ipra to bring us evidence. they are the ones who go out to interview these people, and find these people, and get the evidence and bring it to us for review, okay. i know for a fact in april that
my office supplied to ipra two names that mr. johnson's family had asked to be interviewed in regard s regards to the case. april. they were investigated a week and a half ago. >> to you have concerns? >> yes, i do. because i would personally like to get information much sooner. i would personally like to have been able to wrap this case up whatever decision we were going to make much earlier. but i am bound by that. and you know, there is a new law going into place in january that i supported. and, you know, all about the police accountability and actions and part of that law, although this is the situation that we have here in chicago, we do have an independent investigative agency which is ipra which does not exist throughout the entire state so the new law is going to create that for the entire state. but one of the actions in that
new law is for the independent agency to be more efficient and get a, and to get the evidence in their, in whatever statements and whatever, and to the local prosecutor in a more timely fashion. that is going into law come january, and i welcome that. i welcome that. >> and with all of the investigatory information? >> well, it came in piecemeal when they had it, and lynn had to stay and keep asking and stay on top of them to give us the example of the witnesses. months. >> and the original report said that he had turned and fired at them. and did the original police report say that? >> no. there have been and we are seeing it more and more that certain spokesperson who would go out and say things at the site of a police shooting, apd
wou -- and i would not rely on any of those statements. >> and can your investigation be impacted by a flaw in the ipra invest xwags? >> well, that when everybody hears it, they believe it is going to be hollywood quality, but it is not looking at your faces, but when we ran it in realtime, and look, wait, wait, look again, and look
again and that is what we had the to do, and meticulously go over it, go over it, and get the stills if there is an object many his hand. i submit that there is an object many his hand. >> and you said that you had had outside agency. >> did they say whether or not there was a gun? >> they don't give an opinion, but just do what we ask. >> and is that dark at all or -- >> i i don't believe so. i don't, but that is their procedure. >> are you making any recommendations as far as the officer hernandez being disciplined or fired? >> they do that, but i am not involved in that as far as to cpd? >> yes. >> no, i am not involved in that. >> is this released because of the level of transparency because of laquan mcdonald. >> okay. we are in the digital age and we didn't have videos like this 15 or 20er years ago and now we do. and so we as prosecutors are
changing the the way that we have to do thing, because of the fact that we have communities and we have the public that want to know. and now, we have evidence like this that we didn't have before. so, we are going to continue to do it. >> and why has it taken a year to review the videos, and why has it taken so long? >> because ipra is doing the investigation and as i said, i can't get ahead of the the evidence and i have to wait for ipra to give me what they have, and it took eight months for them to find two witnesses to interview. >> and can you at least respond to the laquan mcdonald case, and the discrepancies of what is in the video, and are you aware of the discrepancies of that? >> i believe that the u.s. attorney confirmed that this morning, and we, again, looking at this police cases, they are complex, and very thorough. the only thing that i could say is that what he said this morning. the investigation continues, and he has not wrapped up his
investigation, and that is all i can say about laquan mcdonald, and i think that is the last question. >> thank you. u >> thank you. and there is going to be no charges levied against officer george hernandez in the shooting of ronald johnson, the video has take the anne year to be shown and today, you saw it for yourself for the first time. it has now been shown with context. i want to bring in the legal analyst joey jackson and danny cevallos, a cevallos, and we have witnessed what is the case in chief for the prosecution. and this is a different time, and the public wants transparency as anita alvarez just said, and this is the way it seems now that they have to announce these things to the public with a massive degree of con t context. >> and it is important, because that is what you want to do, and provide the context that underlies the decision. at the end of the day, it is
about the reasonableness of the officer's conduct and so you cannot assess the reasonableness of the conduct until you know the factors that existed at the time. and what were those factors? apparently some type of party, and that is apparently what the decedent now, he is dead and left the party and some shootout involved there and involved the car that he was in with four other individuals and they have to set up what was going on and the chaotic nature of the scene, and ultimately they relied and came back to the law, itself, and they relied upon the supreme court cases, and then that supreme court case basically says that if it is fleeing felon, when can an officer shoot you dead if you are a e fleeing felon, and the answer to that question is that if you pose a significant risk of death or physical injury to the officer or others, and in that contejst they were talking about when he was running, he had a gun in his hand, and other officers, apparently in the direction where he was going, in addition to unknown people who were in the park. so the context was important to lay out, and what is the basis for decision that the prosecutor made.
>> and danny, important to note the facts that the prosecutor just laid out, and that is that there was dna found on the gun that a lawsuit alleges was planted. there is dna of the decedent on the pep weapon. there is a traffic, this this dispatch traffic of 1:50 after the shooting that says weapon recovered and also a cartridge matching the the weapon that was found in the back seat where ronald johnson was seated according to the witnesses in the vehicle, and those witnesses, the prosecutor said it took eight months to track them down and interview them about it. and those are pretty strong facts in her case. >> very strong facts. i mean, when you look at the tot totality of the circumstances, and that is exactly what the supreme court dictates when it evaluates a deadly are force claim, these are all important factor, and it is important to know that under supreme court precedent, even where there is
no firearm, deadly force may be justified base odd on the facts and the circumstances, but conversely the mere possession of a firearm by someone does not automatically authorize deadly force. it is the threat that is posed by the firearm, and that threat must be fleshed out by the facts ash and you can see that is exactly what the prosecutors in the case were seeking to do, and establish not only the existence of a firearm, but establish evidence of the threat that particular firearm posed. >> to that end, to that end, the state's attorney outlined that there was another officer involved in the scene involved in the chase named officer hooper, i believe it was, who the state's attorney says was engaged with ronald johnson and there was a struggle, and that she alleged ronald johnson shoved that officer to the ground and then continued, and she says what is critical there is that officer hernandez who has not been charge ed d in thee witnessed that struggle, and that the shooting happened
shortly thereafter, and so with the whole fleeing felon notion, that is an important aspect. and i want to go out to our correspondent in chicago, ryan young, and ryan, this is a tender, tender time in the community there, and especially on the heels of laquan mcdonald, and the state's attorney anita alvarez says that we are in different times and the public wants transparency, and any indication that this is the kind of transparency that is going to be enough? >> well, there is still going to be question, and point out that the video in the case absolutely helped, and the chicago police department is going to be wearing body cams in the near future and spread that throughout the command and all throughout the police officers, and so this video will help in the case, but there are questions about the police report filed by the police office officers, and the same thing that happened in the laquan mcdonald case about the intention of what happened, and when you read through the case, and what happened, there is a term in terms of whether or not there is going to be a shot fired toward them, and people
are going to be asking questions about that part, and i have looked on twitter, and some people reacting to that saying that the police report does not match up to what was being said, but absolutely, the way she laid it out in the community, and this is carried live on all of the news station, and people are hearing for it the first time and getting a chance to see the individu video and hearing the the 911 calls is absolutely important when you have the people who are upset and taken to the street and feel that 400 days is too much. she pushed and talked about the other agency that was investigating the case before she got her hands on it, and that is all a part of it. and people are desperately saying they want transparency, and if a young man is shot, they want to go through it step by step by step so they know that everybody in the community is being treated fairly and that is what is happening with the intense pressure and scrutiny from around the country. >> and that agency the independent police review a authority that anita alvarez outlined specifically had their hands all over the case in ed
advance of the decision. i want to bring in evan perez our justice correspondent in washington, because there is one piece of information that stuck with me at a federal level, and i want you to weigh in on this, evan, and that is the shooting video arrived on her desk, in her office on october 31st, and that is roughly two weeks after the shooting itself on october 12th, and then she said she shared the video with the fbi in november as well, and that is the fbi would not participate in the investigation. help me to understand that. >> well, ashleigh. they are looking at these types of cases and decide whether or not there is something likely, some federal jurisdiction that is likely for them to pursue, and it is apparently what they did is to look at the video, and i have not checked with the fbi yet to see or the verify whether what the state's attorney said just yet in the press conference, but a wa they typically do is to look at the
evidence presented to them, and they make a call whether or not this is something that seems likely to produce a federal case, and federal jurisdiction, and again, what we are looking at here is the state responsibility is to bring a homicide case if they believe that the person was murder bade police officer. if that is not going to work, then the federal government has a civil rights jurisdiction and responsibility. and real quick, i want to pick up on one last thing that the ryan mentioned with the independent police review authority. in many of the cases that we have been discussing over the past year or so, there is no independent authority of looking at what police do in these shootings, but chicago has one, and clearly, that is apparently not working, and so it is remarkable to me that for after looking at the types of shootings over the past year or so, that the outcry from the communities is that, we need to make sure that the police are not investigating themselves, a and in chicago, they weren't. they have a separate authority,
and apparently, that system is broken and that is something that the justice department has to take a look at for sure, because it indicates that one of the recipes for fixing this type of problem is really not working. ashleigh. >> all right. hold that thought for a moment, evan. i want to bring in danny and joey back into the conversation. i has been a year, and this is part of the problem, the public is not happy about having to ask over and over and over again for a year to get this kind of video. when you saw what anita alvarez just laid out, it took the eight months to find the witnesses that provided some layer of context for what happened in that street that day. but is this what we are going to be seeing over and over again? >> well, you need to see a process that allows the commu community to have trust in the outcome. one of the things that we learned in the press conference is that she shared the video with the fbi in november of 2014. once she shared it, they
evaluated it in addition to other information and they said, we are not inclined to move forward with anything. so that imis important. and we should note that in the larger context of the things like this going on what we talked about before, the pattern and the practice evaluation investigation that is being undertaken by the fbi in chicago. to find out what are the use of force policies, and what are the procedures, and what are the prior cases, and what happened? is this a systemic problem and if so, how do you get to the root cause. ultimately, if you are going to get to grapple with the issue of crime, you need the police and the community on the same page. if you are working at odds, it is going to the present a problem. >> she did say that the public at large, and i will say,ane course and reporters and many of us don't necessarily understand the intricacies of the use of force procedures, and video looks like it is to the layperson and then in comes anita alvarez who says, hold the phone, this is what you need to know. and so now from now on in the new age of video and digital,
are we seeing a year where the prosecutors have to put context before they release the videos so that the cities don't burn, and so that there can be some understanding of the police work? >> it is funny that you bring it up, because we are now starting to hold the prosecutors of disclosure and swift disclosure, and oh how they have enjoyed for the last couple of centuries as an agency the privilege of telling us virtually nothing at all when and how they feel like it. and prosecutorial discretion is near plenary and they can charge or not charge and they have not had to show their work, and so we are entering a new era with the state and the prosecutorial offices that have historically not been designed to disclose public to the public and in fact, designed quite the opposite to conceal investigations. >> it is a fascinating development. what we saw was that power po t
point, and the crossing every t and dotting every i, and announcing through the digital package to the media that we not be charging, and from sanford, to cleveland to baltimore and now the here in chicago, and i appreciate your insight here, danny and joey and evan perez. and thank you for watching the extended version of legal view, because john berman is in for my colleague wolf blitzer who is on assignment. they will begin right after this break.
an old car a big car a small car a car that looks kind of plain a car that looks kind of like a plane a red car a white car a blue car a red white and blue car a green car a city car a country car this car, seriously this car a clean car, a dirty car a car for the two of you a car for all of them all you have to do is plug in hum and your car will be a smarter, safer, more connected car diagnostic updates, certified mechanics hotline, pinpoint roadside and emergency assistance hum by verizon put some smarts in your car and right now get your first month free with a subscription that includes the complete hum system. call or visit us online today
we begin with the breaking news in the san bernardino mass shooting a. new picture of the killers has emerged. it is showing sayed rizwan farook and tashfeen malik entering the u.s. for the ifirs time. they would later go on to kill 14 people, and wound 21. and today, we heard from one of the doctors who tried to save one of the victims and survivor s. >> my entire career i have tried to save people, and we have seen many terrible disasters, but this is the most horrific. our hearts go out to the victims. what really bothers me most is that none of the 14 who perished had a chance.
>> we are strong. we are a family. we held each other and we protected each other through this horrific event, and we will continue to hold each other and protect each other through what will be unimaginable weeks and months ahead. >> moving. trudy raymundo had hid under a table. and paul, you are there where the investigation continues. >> well, john, it is quiet here where the couple lived but the fbi made another run at the childhood friend enrique marquez, and consensual search, and they were trying to find out if there were any more weapons purchased by marquez for the kourple. he bought the murder's weapons
and rifles and interestingly marquez checked himself into o e a mental facility right after he heard of the carnage at the government offices, john. >> and we understand that tashfeen malik was a pharmacy student in pakistan and what more have you learned a bt her background? >> well, a lot of things are emerging about her. one, a government official is telling me on camera that she did not raise any alarm bells here, and clean as a whistle. no criminal record, and then back in pakistan she was known as a pretty good student. we talked to dr. hussein are from the university, and he said that the students there are so typically busy with the scientific research, it is wondering how he could wonder how somebody could get involved with being radicalized and they would never expect it at his school. this is is what the doctor had to say about malik. >> she was obvious ly studying with the girls, and this is the
classes, and all of the girls study together. she was very humble and cool and calm. very good in study. >> reporter: and now back here live, this is where people said that she was a typical housewife, a clear contrast to the crime that was perpetrated at the government center, and one man walked by here, and now this is a kind of the notorious site here in calm redlands, california, and he said, oh, that is where they had the bomb factory. john. >> thank you, paul. and now the government is close closely coming to unveil a new warning system that is within the next few days, and possibly within the next few days. >> we need a is system that adequately informs the public at large not through news leaks of
joint intelligence bulletins to law enforcement, and not through leaks of anonymous government officials, but we need a system that informs the public at large what we are seeing, even if wa what we are seeing is self-evident to the public and what we are seeing and asking the public to do. >> it is going to replace the new national terror system has never been activated. johnson said it is not ak vatd because it set the bar too high for alerts. >> and now sh, we will talk abo the isis strategy with a member of the senate foreign relations committee.
it protects my personal belongings should they get damaged, stolen or destroyed. [doorbell] uh, excuse me. delivery. hey. lo mein, szechwan chicken, chopsticks, soy sauce and you got some fortune cookies. have a good one. ah, these small new york apartments... protect your belongings. let geico help you with renters insurance. whether your car is a new car an old car a big car a small car a car that looks kind of plain a car that looks kind of like a plane a red car a white car a blue car a red white and blue car a green car a city car a country car this car, seriously this car a clean car, a dirty car a car for the two of you a car for all of them all you have to do is plug in hum and your car will be a smarter, safer, more connected car diagnostic updates,
visa. joining me e from capitol hill is arizona republican jeff flake are, a member of the senate foreign relations committee, and, senator, the president called for the authorization of military force against isis and you have been calling for it some time, and you have proposed a a bill to do just this, and what is the hold up? >> well, it is far too long in coming, and we have been laun launchilaunc launching air strikes against isis for more than a year now, and we have not authorized this campaign, and so we are glad that the president is calling for it now. congress needs to move ahead, and the president and the administration was pretty slow in offering their own language, but that still came months and months ago, and so it is right in congress' court now and we need to do it. >> and you are right, months and months ago, and it has been a long time since the president did ask for this. and so is it congress' fault? the republican leadership's fault at this point that it has
not happened? >> well, you cannot place it on either party. neither leadership in both of the parties is reluctant to bring it forward. members are reluctant to get themselves on the record apparently. >> they are scared? >> yes, it is with what should be no, kus. this is is congress' role. you can't go this far into the campaign like this against isis, a campaign that is going to last well beyond this presidency without authorizing it. so congress needs the do it, and myself and tim kaine on the democratic side introduced a a bipartisan language, and it may not be perfect. and if people want something different, then use it as a starting point, but let's get something done to authorize it. our allies need to hear it. the troops in the field need to know that we are behind them, and that we speak with one voice, and the adversaries as well. >> your bill will authorize the use of military force, but it does not call for ground forces, and in fact, it sort of rules it out. but in a new cnn/orc poll, 53%
of the americans say that the united states should send ground troops into syria to fight isis, and 43% say no, and this is the first time in our polling it has been a majority, so it is time now to consider ground troops inside of syria? >> our language does not specifically rule it out. it says that the purpose of the campaign is to support our allies in this fight. so, we have certainly hoped that we don't need a large number of ground troops, because we have some frankly. but, it does limit the duration so that the new president will need to come in and get a new authorization, as he or she should. so we are trying not to circumscribe what the president can and cannot do to win this, but congress needs to speak, and we need to authorize this specifically. we are working on an authorization that is, you know, from 2001, and it is simply not fitting very well. >> it is very old to be sure right now. americans are scared, senator,
after what happened in california. how do you explain to them how what you are proposing is going to stop the california-style attack, because those attackers, yes, ultimately the woman did apparently pledge of allegiance to isis, but the man had shopped around some, and our sources are telling cnn that he had tried to contact people from al shabaab and al nusra, and maybe you can defeat isis, but perhaps aren't the proposed terrorists going to find something to follow? >> well, they might. and anything we do cannot comple completely rule out an attack like this, whether it is directed by or inspired by a terrorist group, but we know that isis is the main source of the inspiration right now it seems at least. a and so the best thing to do is to defeat isis, and that is what we need to do. that is what we say that we want to do, what we say our goal is, but we are not making much progress in the goal. >> senator jeff flake, tau for
being with us. >> thank you for having me. just before the paris attacks president obama said that the radical group had been contained geographically, and some u.s. intelligence calling that into question. kimberly dozier says that a new report on isis commissioned by the white house says that the islamic state is going to spread worldwide and grow in numbers be unless it suffers a significant loss of territory on the battlefield in iraq and syria. and so, kimberly, what is this saying about what the president is saying publicly? >> this is an intelligence report commissioned by the white house, and they have asked the director of intelligence to look at all of the intelligence agencies' reports to come up with something short to serve as a report card on the coalition efforts against isis. this is asked for before the
paris attacks, and delivered after the president made that comment saying isis had been contained. i think that it served as a rude wakeup call for the white house. afterwards the president asked his top pentagon chiefs ash carter and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to come up with new options to fight isis, and that is when you also saw ash carter announce that sending that special operations team into iraq to conduct raids inside of syria. >> given what has happened in california. and given san bernardino, has it changed inside of the pentagon or the d.o.d. and are they approaching it differently? >> well, there is a sense of urgency, and also a sense of frustration. they are doing what they can with what they have been allowed to deploy. some of the limitations put on them from the white house and limitations on how close ly the can strike, and the limitations by the iraqi government.
one senior u.s. military told me that we are sending in a small roughly 200-man elite special operations force and setting it up in northern iraq, and we'd like to expand the size, but we have to prove to the iraqis that it is going to be successful, and that it is not going to be overreaching the authority before we can grow it. >> and you know, after the attacks in france, they stepped up the bombings substantially, but it does not appear that the united states has done anything specifically in terms of the campaign in syria in reaction to california. >> well, the white house would tell you that they have already taken some actions that have not started to take hold yet on the grou ground. they announced that they would send 50 special operations troops into syria to the advise the troops there and to make the strikes inside of that country more deadly. those troops have not arrived
and when they do, they will assess at how good the allies are at fighting before we see them take hold and the strikes are more deadly, at least that is how the administration puts it. >> kimberly dozier, thank you so much, and always great to talk to you. >> thank you. many of the republican presidential candidates criticized the president's address on isis, but what would they do to battle the terror group? we will discuss it with the political panel next. i've smoked a lot and quit a lot, but ended up nowhere. now i use this. the nicoderm cq patch, with unique extended
release technology, helps prevent the urge to smoke all day. i want this time to be my last time. that's why i choose nicoderm cq. this holiday, i can count on my going off list.again, and knowing right when my packages arrive. so that's two things. introducing real time delivery notifications. sign up at myusps.com
all there is? we need a new president fast." other candidates took to the air waves with their krcriticism. >> if this is a war, which can i believe believe it is, then we need to act accordingly and this president doesn't belief it's a war. all of the policy memos he's put in place in the intelligence restraints are making it harder for us to be successful in destroying isis. >> he announced nothing other than we need gun control even though it would have done nothing to prevent the attack. >> we're going. to take away privileges. no one wants a terrorist to have a gun. there has to be a process. ted ken dinedy was on the watch list. it was a mistake, but would you want to take their rights over a mistake? >> let's discuss now. we're join ed by commentator s.e. cupp.
what happened in california is the worst deadliest terror attack since suspect septembept. what new did you hear in the speech to address this? >> two things were important. a one is an acceleration of what they are doing so that means more special operations troops. that means more focus on an air campaign. that means closing the syrian border, making sure we have all our allies focused on the enemy of isis. but i think the other thing he said in addition to accelerating is that he said that we ought to be very careful and the muslim community has to stand up. so our rhetoric has to be careful about them and the muslim community has to take responsibility and stand up as well. that's an important message for everyone to hear. he did say acceleration, and that's important for people to hear. >> republicans have been
critical that the president did not go far enough or did not go far at all. but on the republican side, except for lindsey graham who wants to put troops on the ground, what do you think the republican plan is to battle isis in syria? >> well, there are a number of different ones. you're starting to hear people like marco rubio and chris christie talk about reopening nsa authority to collect more intelligence at home. you're starting to hear people like carly fiorina talk about taking isis territory away from -- out of their hands. containing isis territory. that includes airstrikes and more ground troops, which we don't need to call special operations. we can call them direct ground troops. but. the point of the speech was singular. it was to reassure the american public that the strategy we're
currently pursuing is working and can work. and so for the president to take that opportunity to instead defend the current policy as working when his own intelligence advisers have contradicted that and to point fingers back on the american people with whom he disagrees politically and personally seemed a total waste of time and offensive exercise in a a moment where there were a lot of eyeballs on him and was a a huge platform that he was using in very unique special circumstances to do one thing. reassure the american public. i don't think he did that. >> pointing fingers, i assume when you're saying pointing fingers you were talking about the president saying that muslims should not be discriminated against. >> it looks like he was talking to folks like donald trump who talked about having a database. stuff i disgra with. i don't want that either. but the point of the speech, to
the governor's point, this is important to talk about not discriminating against muslim americans and rhetoric against them. but it wasn't the point of last night's speech. that message comes o out of the white house on a daily basis. that comes out of democrat's mouths on a daily basis. last night should have not talked about gun control on muslim databases. it should have talked about here's what we're doing on isis and here's why it's going to work. the vast majority of his speech was talking about people like me and donald trump and his own intelligence advisers who disagree with him. >> i would never say you're like donald trump. but governor, do you want to respond? >> i do. a couple things. first of all, the majority of the speech was saying we're accelerating and here's our four-point strategy to do that to let people know action is being taken. . second, to say that the point of restricting terrorists or people who are on the watch list from
having guns is ir vel lant, i think, is crazy. of course, it's relevant. of course, we want to make sure terrorists don't have guns. it's one measure we can do. but i would also say the republicans have not said much different at all from what the president is already doing expect for bottoms on the ground. and then ted cruz this weekend saying we're going to carpet bomb them into oblivion. i don't know if sand blows, but we're going to see. what does that mean? he wants to start some sort of nuclear war. what does that even mean? >> governor, i agree with you that some of these solutions are not efficient. they are not possible. some are not even constitutional. when you have a a attacks in paris and san bernardino, donald trump is reaffirmed on a daily
basis unfortunately. the president's actions have clearly not been tough enough to satisfy even democratic voters on this issue. now we have a major ity in this country of the first time that things we should have boots on the ground in syria. so whatever the is doing or saying, it is not working and it's opening up areas for people like donald trump and ted cruz to fill that void. >> okay, and if you look at cnn's poll from last week, unless some of the republicans step up, donald trump is going to be your nominee. that poll made it clear he's winning in every category. every demographic category, so the republicans have to step up and say this is not who we are as a nation. this is not the kind of rhetoric that will help us. by the way, that kind of rhetoric will only encourage isis and recruits and our ed a ver stairs and it's dangerous to
america. >> i totally agree republicans need to do that. the president does not. >> an agreement here. we'll leave the show on an agreement. thank you both for being with us. that is all for me. the news continues, right now. i'm poppy harlow in for brooke baldwin. today radicalize d and reaching out for terror group to call their own investigators. piecing together the lives of the husband and wife terrorists who left their baby, their 6-month-old and slaughtered 14 people at a holiday gathering in san bernardino, california. we're now waiting for the fbi to update us on the investigation. a live press conference expected in just about one hour's time. we'll bring that to you as soon as it begins. this happens as new picture surfaces of the two of them together, the first showing the killers together. cnn has now learned that the