tv At This Hour With Berman and Bolduan CNN November 30, 2016 8:00am-9:01am PST
holster. he yells "gun, gun" to his fellow officers. in his interview with investigators, officer miranda said that mr. scott looked at him and then pulled the gun out of the ankle holster. officer miranda began yelling drop the gun, drop the gun. officer hofstetler, he's the officer in uniform, ran to the suv, in the regular uniform, ran to the suv and tried to break the passenger side window with a baton. as he did this, he reported seeing mr. scott holding a gun in his right hand as he was seated in the suv. after officer hofstetler broke the window, officer miranda said he saw mr. scott take a deep breath and exit the suv. officers vincent, hofstetler,
wiggins and sergeant pendergraft all saw the gun in mr. scott's hand after exiting the vehicle. however, as everyone here is aware, none of the video recordings, the dash cam, the body-worn camera or mr. scott's cell phone video, clearly capture mr. scott's hands. what is clearly captured on video is mr. scott's right ankle. when he exits the suv, you can see that his right pant leg is pulled up above the ankle. this is the same spot where you can see a bulge in his pant leg in the convenience store surveillance footage and the same place on his ankle where police recovered a holster following the shooting. here, the bulge, here, the
ankle, goes along with what officer miranda indicated, he reached down and pulled it out. you see what appears to be a holster. also captured on all videos are the repeated commands from officers for mr. scott to drop the gun. based on the dash cam video footage and mrs. scott's video, officers can be heard at least ten times commanding mr. scott to drop the gun. the videos also show that mr. scott did not comply with those commands. in interviews, officers described mr. scott's behavior during this incident. those descriptions included that he had a blank stare as if he was in a trance-like state. this behavior is consistent with the known side effects of medication prescribed to mr. scott. additional side effects are aggression and behavior
abnormalities. i'm going to show you a picture of officer vincent and where he was in proximity to mr. scott when he exited the vehicle. this is from the body-worn camera of officer hofstetler who had broken the window. officer vincent here gets in what i call the jeep, the white suv of mr. scott, the police van that comes up and pins mr. scott here in close proximity. there has been some speculation in the community -- i'm sorry. i missed a slide. officer vincent could see that mr. scott continued to not comply with the officers' command and in his interview, he described the moment that he perceived that mr. scott posed
[ inaudible ] >> so at this point, i'm going to take you through officer vincent did not know mr. scott. none of the officers knew mr. scott. none of them had had contact with mr. scott. but what did officer vincent know? officer vincent was aware that mr. scott had a gun in his vehicle. he was aware that he had marijuana in his vehicle. he was aware that when he pinned
the car, that mr. scott chose to draw that weapon and had it in his hand. he was aware that after repeated commands, mr. scott did not obey those commands, acted with aberant behavior, stepped out of the vehicle with gun in hand, doesn't run, doesn't drop the gun, doesn't leave the gun in the car, but steps out and steps back, assessing each officer. with a trance-like look described by officer vincent. how about mr. scott at that
point? well, officer vincent did not know mr. scott, had not seen him, so unknown to him, mr. scott was aware that he was a convicted felon with a gun, an illegal gun, and that he had warrants out for him, and that he had police officers in tactical gear, weapons drawn, surrounding his vehicle. it's at this point that officer vincent fired his weapon four times, striking mr. scott in the wrist, abdomen and rear shoulder. despite officers and medical personnel's attempts to render aid, mr. scott unfortunately passed away. i'm going to show you a medical examiner -- what the medical examiner did for us, and that is a -- what's the correct term?
a mannequin. a mannequin, where the m.e. put the trajectory of the bullets. now, we know there were four shots because you hear four shots in rapid succession on the video. we also know because officer vincent says that he fired. we also know it because there are four shell casings that are around in proximity to officer vincent. the medical examiner could not tell us the sequence of the projectiles. one in the wrist that we don't show, one in the wrist is not what we call a clear through-and-through because there are pieces of the bullet in the wrist. the one in the abdomen goes into
the abdomen on the left side, travels through and comes to rest at the spine, at the lower level. the one in the upper shoulder travels from left to right and front to back. begins at the shoulder, seven inches from the midline of the back, travels down, through and ends up at the abdomen at the front part. so there has been much speculation as the first shot being a shot in the back. the totality of the evidence does not come close to supporting that. the medical examiner can't say the sequence of the shootings but if you look at where officer vincent was located, and then you look at the video, we can
conclude that one of the shots before the shot in the shoulder was to the abdomen, causing mr. scott to keel over, causing a shot after to go through the shoulder and the trajectory ends up in the front of the abdomen. there has been some speculation in the community regarding whether mr. scott was armed. i would like to address those specific concerns. all of the credible and available evidence suggests that he was, in fact, armed. here's the evidence that leads us to that conclusion. prior to my action -- prior to any action being taken, officer vincent told sergeant pendergraft that he saw mr. scott with a gun and sergeant pendergraft relayed that information over the radio. that's the radio traffic you heard a few minutes ago. every officer present reported seeing mr. scott holding a gun.
officers can be heard on video repeatedly commanding mr. scott to drop the gun. the idea that mr. scott was unarmed does not explain why officers acted defensively, had their guns drawn and ordered him to drop the gun. everyone who has seen the video of the incident can feel the tension in that situation. according to officer wiggins, after mr. scott was shot, he fell to the ground and his gun landed near his waistline. officer wiggins said he moved the gun away from mr. scott and stood over the gun to assure it could not be accessed by mr. scott. on the dash cam video, on the dash camera, and on body cam, officer wiggins is soon crouching down, reaching with one hand and moving something from mr. scott. you do not see the ground. you see officer wiggins crouch down, this arm move, and step
back and then stand there. kind of unusually. other people -- other officers start tending to mr. scott. he is standing there awkwardly. in mr. scott's video you can see an object between his feet in the same place where we see the firearm and body-worn camera footage from another officer who responded to the scene just after the shooting. he stands there, you can see something, you don't know what it is, an officer comes up immediately afterwards with body cam. he is going -- the officers tell him clear the car. you can see him going to the car to look to make sure there's nobody else in it. the cars are cleared and it's his body cam, it's clearly detected, officer standing over the gun. mr. scott's dna was found on the
slide of the gun and on the grip of the gun. let me say that again. his dna was found on the slide of the gun and on the grip of the gun. mr. scott's fingerprint was found on the gun when it was examined by the police crime lab. however, the state crime lab did not find that print to be of value, meaning they did not find it to be significant enough to be able to say if it was mr. scott's. there's a reason for that. the police department uses a certain technology, they use that technology, they made the determination when they send it to the state bureau of investigation, they send a disc along with a card, a lower resolution card. the state bureau of investigation has different technology. it's like you sending me something to open on some great program you have and i don't have it, i can't open it.
the fbi had to look at the lower resolution and they found they could not make a determination based on that. mr. scott's gun, a colt .380 semiautomatic, was recovered at the scene. it had one round in the chamber. the safety was off and the gun was cocked. there's the gun, safety off, cocked and later it was found a bullet live in the chamber. investigators traced mr. scott's gun which was stolen from a gaston county home, then illegally sold to mr. scott on september 2nd. the seller admitted that he sold the gun to mr. scott in a facebook conversation betwee the seller and a third party
corroborates this information. basically the seller saw what we all saw on the video of the incident that was being displayed and said i know that guy and i know that gun. i'm now going to show you excerpts from that conversation. he's talking to a third party, talking about what he saw on the tv. through the report that will be released today, you will be able to read the entire conversation between the seller and the third party. i will never sell another one. the hammer's cocked back. that's the seller. he had an ankle holster. i hope he wiped my prints off of it. third party, me, too. i can get time for that and they would burn me. third party, i was really hoping it wouldn't be the one but you know, i'm going to pray for the best on that for you, cuz.
ty, i have learned, means thank you. i'm still hurt. i feel like it's my fault he is dead. the seller also revealed that he sold a holster to mr. scott with modifications that matched those found on the holster mr. scott was wearing. here's the holster. he said he modified it. when he was showing the holster he says oh, yeah [ inaudible ]. the seller went to gander same day he sold it, where mr. - scott purchased a magazine and ammunition for the firearm. agents located a computer transaction receipt for the magazine and ammunition and the purchase was made with a debit card ending in the numbers that matched the debit card found in mr. scott's wallet.
text messages from mr. scott's phone show that on september 10th, he and the seller communicated about returning or exchanging a clip at gander mountain because the one he had purchased was too short, it wasn't working in the gun. if you see the gun, it doesn't have a clip in it. .380 ammunition was located in mr. scott's vehicle inside a pack of cigarettes in the center console cup holder. this center console, pack of cigarettes, [ inaudible ]. lot of rounds, .380 to fit the gun. a reading book was not found in the front or back seat of mr. scott's suv. a composition notebook was found wedged between the center
console and the front passenger seat. it did not match the description given by witnesses who claim that they saw mr. scott with a book. i would like to address erroneous claims that someone other than officer vincent shot mr. scott. first, officer vincent took responsibility for the shooting from the outset. every officer's gun was seized and ammunition count was conducted by investigators. each one had a full complement of ammunition with the exception of officer vincent, who was four rounds short of a full complement. in the videos, the sound of four rounds is clearly heard and four shell casings were recovered at the scene. each officer is issued a firearm with a unique serial number. officer vincent's gun as well as the four shell casings were sent to the lab for analysis.
an expert firearms analyst found that the four shell casings were fired from officer vincent's gun. nine civilian witnesses were interviewed by investigators. some of the witnesses gave conflicting statements as well as statements that are unsupported by video or physical evidence. three of these witnesses claimed on social media or in media interviews that scott was unarmed but the fbi later determined they had not actually seen the shooting. when they were interviewed by fbi later, they said they did not actually see the shooting despite their claims on social media or with the media. one told reporters that she was an eyewitness and saw a white officer shoot mr. scott and that officer vincent wasn't around at the time of the shooting. she later acknowledged to the fbi that she heard officers telling mr. scott to drop the gun, but she didn't see the shooting. another told reporters that she saw mr. scott with his hands
raised, step over a book that fell from his lap. those statements are refuted by the video evidence and she later told the fbi that she was in her apartment at the time of the shooting and didn't see mr. scott until after the shooting had occurred, and she never saw a book or a gun. a juvenile under the age of 16 told investigators that he saw the incident from his apartment. he initially told charlotte police department that mr. scott was reading a book when officers tried to break his window. he said mr. scott put the book down and exited the suv, empty-handed with his hands wide open. in a later interview with fbi, he shared that information again and added that officers said they were going to tase mr. scott and he was actually tased by police. he also said the officer did not say anything to mr. scott when he exited his vehicle and that a
white officer shot him. the physical evidence does not support those claims and when questioned on some of these issues, this witness referenced someone's claim in a youtube video and it became apparent that he had incorporated information he had heard from other sources. investigators also went to his home to examine his vantage point. what they discovered is that it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to make those observations due to the obstruction of a tree and the positioning of mr. scott's suv. basically from his apartment, there's a tree and it is the passenger side of mr. scott's vehicle. he would have had to see through the tree and through the passenger side to see anything occurring on the other side of the vehicle. two witnesses said they were inside nearby home and watched the incident unfold. they heard the officers' commands to drop the gun. both indicated they saw something in mr. scott's hand but could not identify the object.
they had a view but because of their distance, they say that he had something in his hands but they can't say what was in his hand. another witness was working in the area, heard the officers' shouts but turned away when the shots were fired. mrs. scott has maintained that her husband was unarmed during the encounter. it's important to understand that we must consider her statements and weigh them along with all of the other evidence in this case. charlotte mecklenburg detectives began to interview mrs. scott at the hospital on the evening of the shooting. but she ultimately terminated that interview on the advice of her attorney. she and her attorneys later publicly claimed that cmpd never attempted to interview her. before that interview ended, she
told cmpd that four white officers were present. all four fired their weapons and there were no black officers present. the brief interview was captured on a body-worn camera. later in the interview, with cbs news, she stated that officer vincent, who is black, was present but she did not believe he shot her husband, mr. scott, because he was not part of the action. mrs. scott did later meet with the fbi for an interview and she provided valuable information about her husband's medications and their effects. she said that mr. scott had just taken his medicine and that those prescriptions make him zoned. mrs. scott has maintained in interviews with investigators and the media that mr. scott did not have a gun. she told the fbi that the last
time she ever knew scott to have any type of firearm was prior to his wrearrest in october 2015 a she was certain he did not have any guns after january 2016. however, text messages between mr. and mrs. scott the month before the shooting include an argument about a gun in mr. scott's possession. in the report that we are putting online, you will find limited information regarding mr. scott's background and medical history. while he had a criminal history and was receiving treatment for psychiatric disorders, his history was unknown to officer vincent. in this case, it would be merely speculative to assess whether this history explained mr. scott's conduct on the day of the incident. in conclusion, after a thorough
review and given the totality of the circumstances and credible evidence in this case, it is my opinion that officer vincent acted lawfully when he shot mr. scott. he acted lawfully. i am fully satisfied and entirely convinced that officer vincent's use of deadly force was lawful. the central issue here is whether officer vincent was lawful in using deadly force against mr. scott. anyone is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believed and in fact, believed that he or someone else was in imminent danger of great bodily injury or death. we cannot know what mr. scott's intentions or reasoning were that day. officer vincent could not know that at the time. what he saw was a man who had drawn a gun when confronted by police, exited a vehicle with a gun in hand, and failed to comply with officers who commanded him at least ten times to put the gun down.
when considering imminent threat, it's important to consider the response time and reaction time. the reality is that mr. scott could have raised his gun and killed officer vincent or another officer before any of them could have reacted to the threat. reaction time studies dealing with police shootings provide valuable insight for the analysis of this shooting and these studies are cited in the report. those studies show that in these scenarios the result is a tie, at best. even officers in a position of ready, watching somebody, if they're armed with a gun to their side, by the time they do this, the reaction from officers has to be from the brain to the trigger finger and the studies say it is tie at best. when considering -- i'm sorry. i think there's a misconception out there about the scope of the review in the d.a.'s office. this office did not examine whether an officer followed cmpd
directives or policies or whether the incident was handled appropriately from a tactical standpoint. in this case, the only determination this office is making is whether or not officer vincent acted in self-defense. now i would like to speak to the community. i know that some out there are going to be frustrated. i want everyone in this community to know that we meticulously, thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence in this case, made sure it was credible evidence, in order to make the decision that we made today.
we took a lot of pain-staking effort to make certain that there was no personal bias in the review, that public opinion did not factor in our determination. i would like the community to take a collective pause. the community should read the report, digest the report. police did not act viscerally on news snippets. read the report. described in the legal analysis, the basis for this decision, in this case we find ourselves in the position of correcting misinformation that has been shared both on social media and in the news media. people made claims on camera but later admitted to law enforcement they didn't actually see the incident.
people and the public might then ask themselves why didn't you release more information to refute these untrue statements. i have always asserted that my office would strive towards transparency but i need people to understand that among my highest priorities is also protecting the integrity of every investigation. that means responsible transparency. responsible transparency. in an ongoing investigation, details are closely guarded to help measure the truthfulness of witnesses and should someone be charged, preserve the defendant's right to fair trial. i know a lack of accurate information is frustrating to the public and the media that operates on a 24-hour news cycle but in this age of instant media and the impulse to immediately form an opinion, i'm asking that as we move forward, we remind
ourselves that in these cases, we should not jump to conclusions until we have all of the facts. in the days that followed mr. scott's death we watched as long-simmering frustrations boiled over. i heard observers say this is not charlotte. this is not the city that we love. but it is. this is charlotte. this is where our friends, families, neighbors and colleagues felt so passionate that they marched on our streets to call for change. let me be clear. i have not and will not condone violence or property damage as a means of expression. but the fact that criminal charges are not appropriate under the law in this particular case does not mean we can dismiss the concerns expressed by those who raised their voices to raise the consciousness of this community. i think it's high time that all of us recognize that this is
charlotte and not everyone experiences the same charlotte. throughout our entire justice system, people should have the same experience. the people of mecklenburg county deserve the confidence that every case is handled with fairness and equity. i want this community to know i would not hesitate to prosecute an officer whom evidence showed acted outside the law. in fact, we have. from assaults to dwis to fraud to unfortunately, sexual offenses, we have prosecuted officers. it is my sincere prayer that no one is ever killed by police. but i also pray that police are never placed in a position of having to make the decision to use lethal force to protect themselves or innocent lives around them. i welcome being part of the ongoing public discussion and exchange of ideas on how to
improve our system so that all community members have complete confidence that they will be dealt with fairly and treated with respect. justice demands nothing less. at this time i will take questions. [ inaudible question ] >> we do. i would just tell you that he was taking a significant number of drugs and they were for -- some of them, somewhat mind-altering. >> reporter: did mr. scott actually raise the gun at any point? >> he did not raise the gun, to our knowledge, based on the video, any evidence from any statements of officers. [ inaudible question ]
[ inaudible question ] >> you know he had a gun. why? >> sir, as i stated, i appreciate the question. an investigation has to unfold. when video gets out, individuals can comport and in this case, did, what they say they saw to a video. the investigation, what i would ask is your community, your church, this entire community,
to please just wait for the investigation. it takes awhile. you have to get analysis of the gun. the police did a good job in going out, finding where did that come from, where was it located, all that investigation has to come to us, then we have to evaluate. in this case, there were 63 fbi agents called in from around the state to do the investigation, with over 2300 hours of their time to do this investigation. that's a quarter of the entire fbi. that's how important this case was. that's the time they put on. but that doesn't happen overnight. that's why i'm asking the community to take a collective pause. next question. >> reporter: so you said he did not raise the gun, he had a wild look in his eye based on the medication. it was difficult to hear the officer but it sounds as though the bottom line here is you're saying because he had the gun in his hand, he had a zoned-out
look in his eye, the decision was made to shoot because they didn't know what he was going to do. >> it's a justified shooting based on the totality of the circumstances. the gun, the gun that when officers come, he draws the gun. he don't keep it in his holster. he don't put on it the floor. he's told to drop the gun. he gets out, doesn't turn to run away from officers, turns toward them with a look, i don't know if it's from medication, i don't know if that's his look, i don't know mr. scott, but assessing, looking at each and focuses back on officer vincent, our determination is that at that time, his belief was reasonable that he was in imminent threat of death or the death of his fellow officers and he was justified in shooting. >> reporter: follow-up, any medical experts talk to you about that drug and what -- >> investigators did talk to medical experts. really, the medical has nothing
to do with the analysis since officer vincent and none of the officers knew about the medical. it's the scene and what occurs at that split second and everything surrounding that decision. >> reporter: the officers said they saw marijuana, that was one of the reasons they approached him in the first place. why was there no test in the toxicology report, for marijuana. >> first of all, the drug was tested. it was marijuana. the prescription bottle or empty yellow bottle had residue that was marijuana. a later test was done and mr. scott did test positive for recent consumption of marijuana. >> reporter: where is that information? it's not in the toxicology report. >> it's not in the -- >> thank you so much for joining us, everyone. kate bolduan along with john berman. we have been watching this press conference from the charlotte mecklenburg county district attorney andrew murray, making a very big announcement that there are no charges against the
officers involved in a shooting that really gained nationwide attention. this is officer-involved shooting from back in september of keith lamont scott. the district attorney saying no charges. the officers acted lawfully. this is a case again, the nation was watching after this shooting took place and it also sparked days, at least two days of riots following this shooting. >> officer bradley sin vevincen d.a. said, acted lawfully. we want to bring in laura coates and cnn senior law enforcement analyst and former fbi assistant director tom fuentes. danny, let me start with you. this case, as in so many we have seen involving police shootings, seems to turn on whether the officer believed he was in imminent danger. >> it actually centers on two inquiries. first, what was the reason for approaching mr. scott in the first place and secondly, the decision to shoot.
those are separate, distinct inquiries. critical here is the determination that once, if the police saw number one, marijuana, and they saw him exit the car with a firearm in his hand, remember, this is an open carry state which creates a thorny issue. how do you decide someone who may be lawfully open carrying their weapon is committing a crime or dangerous? it really is problematic. and the question is, if you're holding a firearm by your side are you brandishing it such that it's dangerous? or did the police have reasonable suspicion to approach and initiate contact with this victim. the second issue is whether or not the shooting part was justified and if he was noncompliant and making any sort of threatening moves. that's an easier analysis in favor of the police. but that initial reason to approach should really be scrutinized in this case. >> laura, want to bring you in on this. the d.a., it's noteworthy to
everyone sitting here, went into meticulous detail about the investigation and their findings and what led the district attorney to reach this conclusion of no charges. from what you heard, did the d.a. convince you? >> i'm not convinced that we have all the information that he had to make that decision, because frankly, a very big chunk of this, missing piece here, is this idea of we all saw video of keith lamont scott also walking backwards at the time that he was shot and that wasn't really discussed by the prosecutor. and what really kind of got under my craw, for lack of a better term, is what he was relying on in part is this notion that somebody who has a weapon drawn at his side would be able to match or tie the speed time and reaction time of an officer responding to it. that may be the case. but focus on all the things an officer did not know at the time. they didn't know about the medical history, didn't know
about the drug use except for the marijuana, perhaps, didn't know about his traumatic brain injury, and they saw a man with a gun down on his sidewalking backwards. there must be more to it. really, this case comes down to this. it was a competition between credibility. you had the community members who were shown in many parts to give one testimony in front of the media and one in front of the fbi, and you had officers who were already deemed to be credible and you had more than one saying there was a threat of lethal force by keith lamont scott. in that balancing act, officers almost always win. >> one of the discrepancies was did keith lamont scott have a gun. a lot of the witnesses said no. the wife said no. the evidence as laid out here in the witness testimony from the other police officers and radio traffic is yes. that is what the d.a. just said there. however, tom fuentes, the d.a. made clear keith lamont scott did not raise or point the gun. no witness testimony points to
that. the other piece of evidence which is interesting is none of the video, there was a lot of video from dash cams, body cam, to keith lamont scott's own wife shooting video with her cell phone, none of the video actually shows a gun in his hand. >> first of all, they not only show that he had a gun, they showed that he had and proved that he had that gun, with the evidence that it had been stolen and the individual who sold it to scott, that that's how he obtained that gun. the idea that he would be wearing an ankle holster without that gun in the event that he might find a holster on the street to fit that gun is absurd. the whole notion that just because the gun's in his hand and he doesn't pose a threat, i was a police firearms instructor, an fbi firearms instructor, s.w.a.t. team member, s.w.a.t. commander. i can tell you that wild bill hickok would have a difficult time winning that draw if the subject already has the gun in his hand because it would take less than a tenth of a second to
raise it and let a bullet fly toward that police officer. we can do this, we can go to a test lab and try this with toy guns, if you want. but i'm telling you the notion that he didn't raise the gun and therefore didn't pose a threat is absurd from a police officer's standpoint. secondly, he doesn't -- the officer doesn't shoot him the second he gets out as danny mentioned, it is an open carry state. he gets out of the car. they don't know who he is yet. they don't know if he has a lawful right to possess a weapon. he gets out of the car with that gun in his hand. and you can hear in his wife's video where the officers yell ten times at him to drop that gun and he doesn't comply. that indicates to them each time they yell and he doesn't comply, the level of threat goes up because now you wonder what is he going to do and it shouldn't be a guessing game, shouldn't be a quick draw contest between the police and the subject. no matter what's going to happen here, you are not going to have
a situation where an officer under those circumstances doesn't defend themselves and shoot the individual. >> you know, we have been reading leading up to this press conference that the county, the city has been -- has put officers on standby, really, because they will be working, be ready to work 12-hour shifts in the event they need to prepare for any violence following when the d.a. made this announcement. that of course is top of mind. you could hear it in the d.a.'s voice when he pleaded with the community, he hopes the community now takes a collective pause and considers and digests this report. big news coming out of charlotte following this officer-involved shooting of keith lamont scott. danny, laura, tom, thank you. so -- go ahead. >> the attorneys for keith lamont's family -- sorry. do we have nick valencia in charlotte? i was told we have him standing by with the family. okay. we are trying to get the family to speak to us.
nick valencia is with them. we'll be right back. way better buddies since we started shopping at fingerhut.com. first down! that's because with fingerhut.com we can shop over 700,000 items go to fingerhut.com to get low monthly payments and the credit you deserve. that's a touchdown, buttercup! ♪ ♪ oww! ♪ everything your family touches sticks with them. make sure the germs they bring home don't stick around. use clorox disinfecting products. because no one kills germs better than clorox. (sfx: park rides, music andoooh!d sounds) when your pain reliever stops working, your whole day stops. (sighs sadly) try this. only aleve can stop pain for 12 hours. plus, aleve is recommended by more doctors than any other brand for minor arthritis pain. aleve. live whole. not part.
that's a good thing, eligible for medicare? but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too, and they all travel with you anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled
in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. ♪ call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you.
faced a challenge. did she survive? manu raju on capitol hill with the results. >> reporter: hey, john. yes, she did survive. nancy pelosi re-elected as the house democratic leader by a vote of 134-63. she of course has run this caucus since 2003, the most dominant leader of the house democrats in a very long time. but this is a significant challenge posed by congressman tim ryan of ohio. 63 defections is a significant number, nothing for her to sneeze at. last time she had a challenger back in 2010, keith schuler got 43 votes so 20 more defections in her caucus. something she needs to pay attention to, i'm sure she will, going forward. now, tim ryan, the ohio democratic congressman who mounted this challenge, had little shot. this was viewed as an uphill bid because nancy pelosi has deep loyalty within the caucus. she's raised a ton of money for
her colleagues and she's very progressive, like a lot of people in this very progressive caucus. tim ryan ride to make the case that it's time for change, the party needs to go in a different direction, particularly to communicate to rust belt voters and states the democrats struggled with in the past election. he appeared to have made some headway within the caucus by the fact he did get 63 votes. still, nancy pelosi re-elected as house democratic leader. the pressure will be on her to get back to the house majority, something they have not had since that 2010 election. she can figure out how to do that within two cycles, she will be in a better chance but still, something for her to pay attention to. nancy pelosi a little more vulnerable than we may have thought a few weeks ago. john and kate? >> absolutely right. thank you so much. breaking news from capitol hill. we also have breaking news this morning on the trump transition. a major announcement coming from the president-elect. he moves from the boardroom to the oval office, trump tweeting
this morning that he will hold a news conference in two weeks with his children by his side to discuss the future of his business empire. trump says he's leaving his business behind, writing this in part. legal documents are being crafted which take me completely out of business operations. the presidency is a far more important task. >> huge, crucial questions. also. announcements, who he wants to run the economy. nominated treasury sector, and commerce secretary and co-owner of the chicago cubs, deputy commerce secretary. a lot of news this morning. let's go straightaway to cnn's phil mattingly. phil? >> reporter: certainly a lot to unpack starting with the president-elect's tweets about his business. following the conflicts of interest, and real conflicts's
interest is facing now. the news in the president-elect's tweets this morning. he'll have a news conference in december. first one in more than 130 days. there's no actual news yet on what he's going to do with his business. john, you laid out the crucial point here. huge questions that need to be answered. what we do know. according to advisers, ethics lawyers are trying to tackle this issue oit's extraordinary complex one. and consider putting operations boo a blind trust and hand business operations to his children. his children current loin his transition team taking part in various calls with foreign leaders. there are a lot of issues here that need worked out, and reality of whether or not the president-elect can actually remove his business operations from a very real conflict of interest, that is still an unanswered question. one point advisers continue to make that is interesting is this -- voters knew this conflicts existed when they elected the president. the fact he would not do a lot to address them, they don't feel
it's a shock to any of these people. key an eye on comments like that, a preview. the economic team, the individuals that will lead the way on some of the president-elect crucial policies of tax reform, top line economic issue for him and also on trade. you mentioned steve mnuchin and wilbur ross, well liked by wall street. you can look and see how they feel and todd rickets, political connections, well known. family wealthy on the doney side and co-owner of the chicago cubs. figured he won the world series. might as well work in government. >> a huge part of it, i'm sure, phil. sure. huge. >> and saying he helped lead the cubs to the cord seriworld seri. didn't really say that. cnn politics editor mark preston, and christine romans. >> the star. >> and a george w. bush staffer
market hoover, betsy woodruff and joshua green senior national correspondent with bloomberg business week. mark preston, first you. we don't know the details, how donald trump intends to separate himself from the business and if he will as much as promised in the tweets. that does matter. this is something to an extent that has begun to hang over him during this transition period. >> and hung over him during the campaign. people brought this up, but it was brushed aside. the laws are vague anyway about what could actually be enforced if donald trump did try to continue to run his businesses. no matter what legal documents he signs, no matter what he pledges to do, the bottom line is he's going to be sitting at the dinner table with his kids, clearly having discussions about business. this has been their entire life. i don't know if it's a conflict they get beyond. you would hope donald trump would do his best to try to keep a clear line of demarcation between both of them.
>> involves emoluments. >> doesn't it all? >> came up, we were sitting together. this came up. the other night. which is fascinating in and of itself. how he separates himself, if he can, it's all in the details. what is the range? do you see -- is there a way for him to pull himself completely out of business operations which is how he said it on twitter, to the satisfaction of those who are trying to pressure him to do, cut himself out? >> i think the naming of the december 15 date and saying he is going to take himself totally out of his businesses is something people wanted to hear. hear he wasn't going to try to do both at once. wasn't long ago said he could do both perfectly, wouldn't be a conflict, as president, possible for him -- >> he didn't need to. >> his names are on the buildings and he will benefit from his name being more famous today than when he ran for president. always that part of the story that will be a question, i
think. i think the december 15th, saying he's going to legally separate himself from his business was good move that ethics professionals wanted to see. but his name is on the buildings. so foreign leaders could come and stay at the trump hotels because they want to be seen as favor with the family. >> what ethicists think and he thinks may be two different things. steve mnuchin and wilbur ross. particularly mnuchin, treasury secretary-generally known at the captain of the economic ship. what do we know about them? >> mnuchin, extraordinarily wall street banker and also one that brings a lot of liabilities for trump. if lmp lmp desielizabeth warren it would be mnuchin. son of a goldman sachs partner, went to yale, drove a porsche, made a fortune buying a bank and
foreclosing on 36,000 mortgages. the bank later flipped for hundreds of millions in profits. wound up needing a $2.2 billion government bailout and failed wiping out taxpayer money. somebody facing a rough, rough confirmation fight. >> margaret, even before then. just look at the background of mnuchin and ross. look at, a wall street -- just interrupting myself quick. down to charlotte. this is, i think, the lawyer representing keith lamont scott, following the announcement from the district attorney that no charges are filed against the officer involved in his shooting death. let's listen in. >> -- that andrew murray, his office, the sbi, and the courtesy that they have shown to the scott family this morning, in meeting with us, and answering the questions that we had, and giving us a lot of additional information about what their investigation had showed. we still have concerns, and it's
important for the family -- the public to understand that this doesn't end our inquiry. there are differing legal standards that apply to a decision about whether an officer should be criminally charged for the discharge of their weapon and the use of deadly force and whether the department, the officer, or the city, should be held civilly liable for negligence in the way this entire situation was handled. we still have real questions about the decisions that were made that day in terms of how they confronted keith, how they reacted to the information that he had a brain injury and whether they used appropriate de-escalation techniques to end this situation in a way that didn't result in the loss of keith scott's life. so we look forward to having an opportunity to review the entire
investigative file. we think that we will see information in there that perhaps they didn't. we're going to continue to look at other aspects of the situation, and we look forward to some day obtaining justice for keith and his family. i think mr. kur hi a couple remarks he'd like to make, and then we'll -- >> can everybody please introduce themselves. >> yes. attorney edwa wrd oward o wruar >> the family of keith scott, sill devastated about his loss. it's a painful situation that can't be covere up, and they are going to have to learn to live with his absence. we are still in the process of investigating this case. standards are different, as attorney monette has said, and what we ask is that the public withhold any judgment that they
would make, be considerate of this family and allow us to conduct what we would call a thorough investigation behind the investigation. we don't even have the files yet. we will be getting those, and we will be pursuing the matter for mr. scott and his family. and we would ask the media to assist us in asking charlotte and the community to keep an open mind, to be -- to have a reasonableness, to remain objective and to support this family in their quest for justice. >> well, and -- let me say, we know that there are other members of this community who are going to be equally disappointed with this decision. but what rakia and the family want you to know, first of all, they appreciate all of the support and outpouring of love received from the community. there are still significant issues that need to be addressed, in terms of community police relations in charlotte.
but they want everyone to understand while we encourage them to express their feelings openly and publicly, to do it lawfully and peacefully. there is no excuse for violence, and we implore everyone to protest, to protest peacefully and to be respectful of everyone's rights. >> justin bamberg of bamberg legal. today is a, it's a bittersweet day, you know. we've been saying from the very beginning that we wanted to know the facts. he wanted certain questions answered, and we did get some of those answers today. but like you've heard from both chuck and eduardo, we're going to continue to look into this matter. while i have you, i