posting an altered video depicting violence against democrats. why is there more anger over an infrastructure vote than a violent video fantasizing about the death of a colleague. the force happening all across the globe. why the bad guys are winning and what it means for the future of politics everywhere. later new efforts at the state and city levels to expand booster eligibility as covid cases are rising and vaccination rates lag compared to our western allies. welcome to "meet the press daily." i'm chuck todd. right now on the house floor lawmakers began their initial debate to censure representative
paul gosar. republican leadership has not condemned gosar at all which depicted him in some sort of fantasy killing of democratic congresswoman. gosar took the video down and said it was not intended to be violence. i guess you can call him that version of apologizing. speaking to reporters later this hour and while he is not condemned gosar's behavior publicly he urged members of his caucus to stop attacking the 13 republicans. some received death threats for simply supporting what used to be a noncontroversial subject. stark and bleak of when there is apparently more anger with a republican who voted for roads and bridges and a republican who depicted the death of a democrat. this entire gosar video episode
has inflamed already elevated concerns about basically allow violence to be main stream against members of congress. toxic political rhetoric on the right including the president's ongoing defense of the january 6th insurrection. for his part, gosar somehow is defending that the video depiction of violence is simply symbolic. in a debate over immigration. speaker pelosi spoke to garrett haake ahead of the vote to punish congressman gosar. here's what she had to say this morning. >> why did you feel you had to act today on paul gosar? >> because it's an emergency. violence against women, workplace harassment. really, i think legal matters in terms of threatening a member and threatening the president of the united states. this is, we have to address it immediately. this is central to our work in congress that we protect the integrity of the house, of the
institution but also the lives of our -- this is outrageous on the part of the republican leadership not to act upon this. >> well, joining me now on capitol hill ali vitali and betsy woodruf want and also an msnbc political analyst. ali, i guess i tried to figure out why this is not more bipartisan. right. paul gosar is republicans roll their eyes about him. he's considered a clown by some who others would say, yeah, the whole thing is a clown show, but that guy is extra clownish. but there seems to be a line that some republicans think the democrats went too far. that the censuring is one thing and stripping of assignment is another. is that the reason why this
isn't more bipartisan? >> chuck, you could really ask the same question why isn't this more bipartisan when you talk about the january 6th committee, too. because many if not all of these lawmakers were here for this day of main streamed political violence that stemmed from lies about the 2020 election and they still are not supporting the inquiries that the committee is doing into it and even talking about it as something that truly really happened as an example of main stream political violence. so, i don't necessarily even think it is about censuring versus stripping. all of this comes back to what happened about ten months ago in the very building where i am standing and where these lawmakers go to work every day. we have been listening to the house floor as they debate the rule to eventually move on to this vote and one of the democratic congresswoman who spoke said, yeah, we could have dismissed this as an inartful statement or a mistake of a video and tweet except they know what happens when rhetoric is taken into action by people who take their lawmakers and political leaders seriously. all of this comes back to that.
when it comes to the stripping of committees, you have to remember one of the committees that they were talking about stripping gosar off of is one he actually serves on with alexandria ocasio-cortez. censure pretty rare in congress. you don't see this very often. this creates the precedent for them to turn around, if and when they retake the majority in 2022, and start targeting democrats who they don't like what they say. looking at people like congresswoman maxine waters, for example. that's very much in this conversation, too. broadening it out and looking at the delicate dance that kevin mccarthy had to do over the course of the last few weeks and, frankly, doing this dance far longer in the trump era and this is a small scale example of what we're probably going to see starting in 2023, if and when house republicans retake the house because this dance is not going away any time soon. there are still parts of this caucus whether or not people want to call them clowning or what not who are not in line
with other parts of the party unifying them is not super easy for mccarthy or frankly anyone else. >> you know, betsy, the reason i want to lead with this today is because this to me is an example of the frog has been, has been bathing in boiling water now for basically an entire year. when i think of what house republicans did do to steve king, which is not that long ago, versus their silence on gosar who arguably has done things even worse than anything steve king, you know. i don't think steve king threatened a colleague like this. i feel like it really does show you how the radicalized base of the republican party has forced elected republicans to act so radical. >> that's true. the house republican conference is following its space rather than leading them in a direction of, for example, rejecting these types of violent threats against
other members, the house of representatives. it's what we're seeing persistently and what we've seen for the entirety of the trump and now post trump era and it's not something we expect to let up any time soon. we did reporting earlier this week about the republican base's response to steve bannon being indicted and i talked to one house republican staffer who works on investigations who said that the republican base will immediately start pressuring members of congress on why they have it secured the imprisonment of certain democratic, political leaders or officials or staff. the republican base is ravenous for revenge and for retaliation against their political enemies and that's what the leaders of the house republican conference are responding to. they're just doing what their base wants them to do. and this is what it looks like. >> basically paul gosar is considering a more outstanding member than liz cheney. i mean, just that statement
alone i think reinforces this notion that the republican party looks like a very radicalized party. and i don't believe the whole party has been radicalized, but they're acting like it. >> chuck, you made a point just now about how much things have changed. i'll give you an example when i got to congress in 2015, i was elected from a swing district and house republican leaders used to encourage me, not that i needed it, but they would encourage me to find opportunities to work with democrats because they thought it would be good for their swing district members politically. now we're talking about house republican leadership and thankfully it doesn't seem like they're going to do this. but under pressure to punish members who voted for an infrastructure bill that almost 20 senate republicans including the senate republican leader voted for. so, there is a broken culture in the house republican conference.
you know, the fact that people like paul gosar have allies who vocally defend him despite this embarrassing, unacceptable conduct is evidence of that. and your other point about steve king is absolutely right. kevin mccarthy not only stripped steve king of his committees, but orchestrated steve king's ouster from the house because kevin mccarthy a few years ago did not want those kind of voices in the house republican conference but now in this culture imposed by donald trump, those voices are actually not just excused but in some cases celebrated. and it's dangerous and it's bad for the future of the republican party and, more importantly, chuck, i think it's just bad for the country. >> there's no defending this and watching these elected leaders sweep this under the rug is just so demoralizing. but it gets at this weakness that i guess kevin mccarthy has
and i guess i want you to explain this. he has to cater to everybody. does he have any strength inside the caucus because he, it does operate and act as if he's extraordinarily politically weak and that he's afraid essentially of any small faction upending his ability to be speaker. >> well, that's right, chuck. it's a hig wire act and we'll see if kevin mccarthy can successfully perform this act. kevin mccarthy is trying to please all factions of the republican party and it really does seem, it's clear that there are irreconciable differences between these factions. so, if republicans take the majority next year, which, today, the polling looks good for them, i still think it is going to be difficult for kevin mccarthy to get the votes he needs and, of course, you know, the past is always the best
predictor of the future. kevin mccarthy had a difficult time and couldn't get the votes back when john boehner retired back in 2015. he's trying to please everyone and he's trying to keep the peace. >> let me ask you the question this way, carlos. any house republican that fears kevin mccarthy? i can give you a list of 50 house democrats maybe even 100 who fear being on the wrong side of speaker pelosi. is there anyone who fears being on the other side of kevin mccarthy? >> kevin mccarthy's greatest strength and i know this from experience is that he's a really good member to his member. kevin mccarthy is the kind of guy who will call members on their children's birthdays and show up when members personal life and why he was able to survive his failed run for speaker in 2015. now, leaders, it's good to be liked, but, you know, nancy pelosi the reason she's been
successful and had such staying power, you could say the same thing about mitch mcconnell in the senate members are a little bit intimidated by these leaders at least and want to stay in their good graces. kevin's strength is that he's just a really good guy. very kind. we'll see if that's enough. >> look the rush chairs at sororities are always well liked. ali vitai, this vote today, any democrats that are quietly wondering if i get because they stripped marjorie taylor green of city assignments they decided to make this vote. any democrats that are quietly wondering why they didn't make this a stand alone censure vote and maybe made the other vote a second vote instead of doing it all at once? >> it does seem like a unified coalescing around what the plan
forward is right now. but even more striking, democrats who will probably look back on this as a precedent setter for the years to come, specifically the next two to five years as democrats prepare for the likelihood that they could be in the minority here in the house. i think the other piece of this, though, the republicans who are voting for it because i think that tells the story just as well and underscores all of the points that we've all been making about the january 6th role as the backdrop here. but kisinger and cheney said this is something that needs to be punished and language and action like this cannot go unpunished and also taking aim at people like kevin mccarthy. cheney is digging in her heels and trying to stay, at least right now in her re-elect for next year. they are in the minority here. they are so comfortable crossing over party lines when it comes to matters of morality right now. but the voice for morality in the republican party, at least the way kinzinger and cheney want to see it is so small and i think it's so striking when you
talk about matters of main stream political violence spurred by leaders in the republican party and then contrasting that with the dance that kevin mccarthy had to do around the 13 people who voted for roads, tunnels, bridges and things that members of their districts use every single day. it is the clearest picture of what's going on in the republican party right now and the post-trump era. they cannot decide if they want to coalesce around policy. they don't know what policy to coalesce around. instead, it's still personality and we talk about the frog in the pot of boiling water and the most apt metaphor for what we're seeing play out right now in the halls of congress and taking it out to the rest of the country, too. >> betsy, when you think about on january 7th, there was, i think you could have gotten a majority of house republicans on the side of impeachment on the president and if you had that impeachment vote before january 20th in the senate, i think you find the 15 votes. but it has been this concerted effort at rewriting the
narrative and creating pressure. i mean, look where we've gone from taylor green where trying to orchestrate to oust her and now has to fear her for a vote for speaker. how do they respond to? >> all acutely aware of any tools that they use now to investigate the trump, former trump administration and to hold republican members accountable for saying or sharing images like the ones gosar shared that are so disturbing. any tools they use they know republicans will use against them once they take back the levers of government if that happens sooner or later. they will use the tools in a way that they find deeply problematic and unfair. but they decided at this point
that that is not a reason for them to use hard ball tactics as they're pursuing accountability. for example, in the case of the january 6th investigation. the fact at the biden administration has broadly waived so much privilege despite trump trying to claim it. republicans will use that down the road sooner or later to justify trying to get communications, trying to subpoena members of the biden administration. the biden white house knows that, house democrats know that. they're still moving ahead with using the tool because they think it is that important. same thing with going after steve bannon with asking doj to bring charges against him and with doj bringing those charges. i can tell you, republicans are chomping at the bit to try to do the same thing whenever the future comes when they control the house and the white house. which, again, they are hoping will come very soon. i can tell you, republicans want to put a democratic politician or staffer in jail, that's going to be a top priority for them. democrats know that, too. but it hasn't deterred democrats
from using these tools and the same thing we're seeing right now with gosar. >> you know, i think some democrats are baiting the republicans. go ahead, try the retaliation strategy. overreaching is certainly how republicans have blown their majorities in the past. if it is somehow possible and an uglier year in american politics than we had in the last four and that's saying something. ali, betsy and carlos, thank you for getting us started on this story. we're monitoring all these moving pieces on the hill this hour. we'll bing you any updates if we get them including any interesting remarks from kevin mccarthy or the speaker. air force one took off moments ago and selling the infrastructure plan for a second day in a row at the opening of a new gm plan in detroit. the legislation gets millions of dollars in funding as an investment into the electric vehicle market. but up next, the bad guys
are winning. those words from one historian who is warning about the rise of historian leaders not just abroad. but right here at home. you're watching "meet the press daily." bogeys on your six, limu. they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. woooooooooooooo... we are not getting you a helicopter. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ why hide your skin if dupixent has your moderate-to-severe eczema,
or atopic dermatitis under control? hide our skin? not us. because dupixent targets a root cause of eczema, it helps heal your skin from within, keeping you one step ahead of it. and for kids ages 6 and up, that means clearer skin, and noticeably less itch. hide my skin? not me. by helping to control eczema with dupixent, you can change how their skin looks and feels. and that's the kind of change you notice. hide my skin? not me. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur, including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines, don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. when you help heal your skin from within, you can show more with less eczema. talk to your child's eczema specialist about dupixent, a breakthrough eczema treatment. pnc bank believes that if a pair of goggles can help your backhand get better
welcome back. the rise of the strong men. attacks against dissidents. free elections being disputed. threats of violence. the anti-democratic forces are growing. and it's not just a phenomenon isolated to trumpism in this country, january 6th. as troubling as those trends are, the subject of a new cover story in "the atlantic" entitled "the bad guys are winning." if the 20th century was the story of a slow, uneven struggle ending with liberal democracy over other ideologies, the 21st century is so far a story of the reverse.
ann applebaum joins me now. i love the way you frame this but my first thought when you talked about the first part of the 21st century is if you went back 100 years, you could have written the same lead in 2021, excuse me 1921, right? we were seeing these same forces rising and, obviously, inevitably led, we had to have hot wars to essentially decide the future of the globe in these directions. i read your article and i think, oh, my god, is this the inevitable start to something like that. >> it's not inevitable because nothing is inevitable and actually i think we made a big mistake over the last several decades imagining that liberal democracy was inevitable. that allowed a lot of us to think we don't have to worry about anything. we can go off and write books and we didn't have to be involved in politics. we could leave that to the politicians. but actually democracy is never
safe. our founding fathers knew that. they wrote our constitution with the idea that democracy might fail in the back of their heads. they were reading about the democraies of ancient greece and rome. so, no, it's not inevitable that democracy will decline but very important to be aware of what kind of world we're living in now. >> the ingredients that we've seen. i look at and i like to look at venezuela as an example. this is a country that had a democracy and slipped into authoritarianism pretty fast and couple things look familiar to what we're staring at. they had a massive geographic divide in that country. right. the elites were in caracas and you're seeing and i've seen the same patterns in turkey where erdoan and sometimes its
religion that is used in different ways. it looks awfully familiar to our divides here. how vulnerable are we? >> so, the rural urban divide is now almost everywhere. i mean, you can find a version of it in many parts of the world. and you're right to focus on exactly this point about polarization. because it's really that divide the assumption that only my team is right and only we are the real turks and venezuelans and the real americans. when people begin to talk like that, then you begin to have an undermining of institutions. things like independent courts, you know, things from inspectors general to neutral civil servants to neutral diplomats and all those things are necessary, actually, to the maintenance of a kind of even playing field so that you could
have competition between ideas. and one side gives up on that and no longer believes that there can be that kind of even competition and seeks to win in other ways than democracy is under threat. yes, you're right. the pattern in venezuela or the pattern in turkey does look in some ways like the patterns in the u.s. you don't want to make two comparisons but, yeah, the attacks on the ports, the attacks on the press, attacks on neutral institutions, civil service. this is a pattern that we all recognize now. >> the other role that we're struggling with as a democracy is being the leading, i guess, not just example, but the leading spreader of democracy around the world. you point out sanctions don't have the bite that it once did. but i also wonder, are we not being as transactional on a positive front the way we used
to be? in the '70s which was let's go buy allies. you have bad guys on your side which you're sort of buying their allies. that's what china seems to be now more comfortable with doing and we're not sure how to get our relationships in order these days. how big of a problem is that? >> so, the difference between now and the 1970s is that the autocrattic world is no longer definable in the way it used to be. so, there's no soviet block that we're fighting against. we are fighting against people who call themselves communists and people who call themselves nationalists. they all work together in this very transactional way. the state companies of one country invest in those of the other and the beneficiaries are
inevitably the politicians and they share surveillance tactics and they share disinformation tactics and we don't really, not just as the united states, but as a kind of alliance of democracies, we don't have a response yet. we don't have a response to china's belt and road policy, which does do investment infrastructure all over the world and often using investments to give kick bacbac. and even having a strategy on how to deal with that. how to make sure that our values get heard and that, you know, that other, you know, countries wavering behind democracy and autocracy see something attractive in our support in our alliance. we've fallen behind in that game. it's true. >> well, part of it is we're trying to figure out what kind of democracy we are. hard to spread something around when you still have your own internal house in order.
ann, i know you've put a lot of work into this. this is one of those folks. sit down, take your time reading this and an important cover story for you to digest in the "atlantic." we'll take you now to the courthouse in georgia where one of the defendants travis michael has taken the stand in his own defense. let's listen in. >> you know, mom is telling me more frequently she hears of more things being taken and being stolen and more suspicious persons lurking around during that time. >> all right. i want to move to a different topic. have you ever had any law enforcement training? >> i have. >> okay. where did you receive that training? >> in the united states coast guard.
>> and did you attend any kind of school to be trained for the coast guard for law enforcement purposes? >> yes. >> what is the name of the school that you attended? >> it was the basic boarding officer course and then following extra classes with it. but it was at the maritime law enforcement training center. >> where was that located? >> charleston, south carolina. >> okay. did you serve in the coast guard? >> i did. >> what were your dates of active duty? >> march of 2007 to june or july of 2016. >> okay. in general, did you have duties other than law enforcement type duties in the coast guard? >> yes. >> can you name the category of the type of duty that you had? >> yeah, so, my rating of my average job and i was a machinery technician, i was a mechanic. my 9:00 to 5:00, you would call it. >> okay.
did other than going out and doing law enforcement type things did you do any search and rescue type operations, as well? >> yes. >> is that part of the coast guard practice that you had in addition to law enforcement and doing mechanic work? >> yeah, that was it. >> okay. so, let me ask you, what are the types of law enforcement things that you did in the coast guard? >> we did search and rescue. we would go in there and then something would arise to that for the rescue to turn into a bui -- >> what is that? >> boating under the influence. water cops. counter drugs. >> what was that? >> counter drugs. migration or immigration.
stuff like that. >> i'm sorry assisted who -- >> border protection. >> did you ever write violations or siilaticitations for people? >> i did. >> did you ever work with local law enforcement when you did your law enforcement investigations on the water? >> yes, several times. >> so, what types of law enforcement agencies would you work with? >> so, we would work with local and state law enforcement. the sheriff's department or, yeah, the sheriff's department were the two stations i was at and florida wildlife commission or georgia department of national resources or mississippi natural resources. >> why is a high-interest vessel? >> high interest vessel is -- it would be like a cruise ship or kind of like a historical. something that somebody would want to do harm would choose that vessel and make more news,
i guess. and it's also called a high value asset, which would also be dangerous cargo would be in there. >> did your activities as a coast guard officer involve you working with high-interest vessels? >> yes. >> in what way? >> in security. making sure that we would set up zones to make sure that nobody is wishing to do harm to it or that would impede its movement would get in the way. we would actually enforce laws. you know, we had arrest powers to make sure that we can accomplish that mission. >> do you remember the name of the law enforcement course that you took at the law enforcement academy? >> yeah, basic boarding officer course. >> okay. what essentially did that training authorize you to do? >> it allows us to make -- >> how do you write that down?
>> it's an acronym. it's seasii. >> okay. >> it's search -- >> yes. >> examinations, arrest, cease, inspect and inquire. >> okay. >> seasii. >> yes. >> all right. and can you tell us a little bit about the components of your training that you had under this seasii course. >> yeah, so, i'll give you, i guess it would be best if i give you the law. >> what is the law essentially that authorizes you to be a coast guard law enforcement
search officer? >> so gave us arrest powers and everything involved with that was 14 usc 89 alpha. which gave coast guard officers petty officers which i was, warrant officers and reserve of the same on active duty the right to seasii. >> all right, so this here is the code section that gave you the ability to do. >> and all vessels in u.s. territory waters. >> all right. did this course have a law component, like a legal component? >> it did. >> did the legal component, what did the legal component address? >> fourth amendment.
>> and search and seizure does that fall under fourth amendment? arrest. >> it did. >> in terms of did you also deal with the fifth amendment? >> we did. >> like due process and things of that nature? >> yes. >> okay. did you learn terms like probable cause or reasonable suspicion? >> we did. >> and what was your training about probable cause? >> probable cause definition that we received was a level of suspicion by a reasonable and prudent person. >> i'm going to write it down. so hold on. level of suspicion by a reasonable and prudent person. okay. >> given the overall circumstances.
>> given the overall circumstances. okay. >> to believe a crime has been committed. >> spell check on these things, so i'm not sure. okay. let me go back to a component perhaps of training. did you have a component of your training called use of force? >> we did, yes. >> can you tell us what that is? >> yeah, so use of force is the level force needed to compel compliance in the safest manner and then we had acronyms and everything for that, too. we had a use of force continuum. >> hold on. so use of force. and you said you had a
continuum? >> yes. >> what does that mean? >> it was, it's levels one through six. >> i don't know how to spell continuum. c-o-n-t-i-n-u -- two us? awesome. use of force continuum. what is that? >> it was six levels. and it goes from level one which is officer presence. >> all right. >> i'll just go through all of them. >> what does that mean officer presence? >> what we call showing the flag. being out there having a flag and blue lights just like a cop pulling up on you. you have blue lights, the uniform, his presence, his demeanor, the badge. stuff like that. and going to level one and
seeing the police officer and seeing somebody that is authoritative figure. >> to compel compliance to do what? >> whatever is needed or asked from the officer. >> does it include talking? >> yes. >> or making an arrest? >> yes, it can. >> all right. what is the next level? >> level two is verbal commands. >> what does that mean? sounds pretty obvious, but what does that mean? >> it was task, direction and consequence. task, direction and consequence. >> so, give us just a little bit of a working example of that. >> you're in active duty and you're in law enforcement function and i would say, you move to the side for me, can you move to the side for me or i will have to move you. usually you didn't have to go to that. >> is there a physical component to this or just you talking? >> no, that's all it is. verbal command. >> with the purpose of obtaining
what? >> compliance. >> so, you can do what? >> so i can do my job safely and effectively. >> okay. all right. is it volume dependent? your voice. >> yeah. yeah, voice infliction, tone is definitely key into it. being on a boat, shrimp boat or something like that and loud engines and everything. if i have to talk to you, if i'm trying to talk to you like this, you can get aggravated. but if i speak louder and my voice infliction is, hey, move over there, you might take it as i'm upset and then this can escalate into something that we don't want. but if i take everything into consideration and go, excuse me, can you move over there for me? we use it every day. >> all right. you use the word escalate. is it your goal to escalate situations? >> no, absolutely not. >> why? >> because once you escalate, you don't know where it is going to go from there.
you want to keep everybody calm and cool and be able to do whatever task is at hand safely and effectively. >> all right. what is the next level after verbal command? >> control techniques. >> what does that mean? >> it was anything hands on. which had a low probability of causing connective tissue damage or injury. >> and what's the point of it? >> it was if verbal commands didn't work at that point, like i said earlier if i will have to move you, it goes to the point i have to move you and i control you where i safely can get you to point a to point b or a normal application handcuffs is to control you, the subject, without any harm to myself or to you. >> what is the next level? >> level four was aggressive
response techniques. >> all right. what does that mean? >> kicks, stuns and punches. and the use of pepper spray. >> okay. >> at what point does something like this become necessary? >> we had two types of subjects. probably easier if i said earlier but level one would be so you have passive and aggressive. you have passive compliant and passive resister and then then active resister and aggressor. >> you're talking about now you or the person you're dealing with? >> the person you're dealing with. >> you have levels and you categorize them as? >> passive and aggressive. and then broken into there from level one and two, level one is passive compliant.
which would be anything i ask you to, you would do it. >> that would be me. >> that would be you. passive resister could go into level two, level three. can you move over there? you don't. can you move over there or i'll have to move you. after i make that move, that could be a passive resister. and handcuffs and if i have to put hands on you, passive resister. >> okay. >> level four active aggressor. >> someone who is -- >> actively trying to cause you harm. >> okay. and what's the next level after four? >> intermediate weapons. >> okay.
what does that mean? >> the expandable baton. >> all right. to be used. >> for level five. if you're coming at me, always, if you're trying to harm me and to hit portions of the body to stop you from hurting myself or others. >> level six? >> force. >> is your -- are you always moving from level one to level six? is this always moving through that progression? >> yes, that's fluid.
it's fluid nonstop. depends on what you walk in to and what occurs during the situation. it can go from level one to level six or level one to level four or four back to one. it's just constantly flowing. it just depends on the situation and how whoever you're talking to reacts pretty much. >> i want to talk about the physical side of your training and experience that you had with this type of thing. >> okay. >> okay. but before i do that i want to ask you again about de-escalation and to make sure de-escalation. as it relates to that continuum, do you have any goals as it relates to de-escalation? as it relates to this use of force? >> you want to keep it as nimble
as possible. you don't want anything to escalate. >> so, you want the absence of escalation? >> that's correct. >> okay. let's talk about when you were with the coast guard, did you work with a team of others? >> yes. >> okay. did you and your team ever do training as it related to these types of use of force continuums and search and seizure and arrest? >> we did. >> okay. when would you do those? >> we had -- it was required, minimally it was required four times a year. yeah. four times a year. but we had so many people who were e1s to e3s before they made rate would be our boarding team members and during the training i went to in charleston i was a
trainer to trainer. i was authorized to teach other coast guardsmen how to assist. so, we would have new coast guard boats would be coming to station and we were constantly training. it was probably minimum once a week. sometimes two, three times a week. sometimes we would dedicate a whole week to training. and it went from physical levels one through five to like six, obviously. >> would you practice level one officer presence? >> yes. any time that we were on the water was, obviously, level one. >> my question is, would you practice these various levels? >> yes. >> how would you practice some of these levels that start to get into physicality or higher verbal? >> in training? >> yeah. >> so in training we would go
into level four or whatever we would have a thing called red man suit and we would fridays usually we would bring everybody together and teach the techniques of the proper way to do this because take a baton and strike somebody in the head that is, obviously, deadly force. we do not want that to happen. we have to teach, you know, you strike somebody on the knee portion of the body and how to properly do this stuff and best way to do it is get out there and do it. we would do red man training, which these guys would exercise this on each other. level four, level five we would do handcuffs and then the entire time we're also doing level one and two. and if say me and you were in a scenario and depending on whether you're the boarding officer how you interacted with me is how i would interact back with you. so if you came in without another acronym called leaps.
>> what is l.e.a.p.s. >> how do you spell listen? >> no, i know how to spell listen. l.e.a.p.s. what's e? >> empthiz. ask questions. paraphrase. >> all right. >> and summarize. >> okay. and you were saying you would use l.e.a.p.s. in your training. >> yes. >> teach l.e.a.p.s. >> yes. that would go with the situation and jump on a board or scenario like this that somebody is
strong and very upset. instead going in, calm down, i'm here to do this. there's other ways to do this. what is going on? what happened? well, say you explained to them what happened and my dog just died. and you go to emphasize, yeah, i had that happen, too. i'm sorry this happened. and then goes into -- >> you're saying emphasize. you're talking about having empathy with somebody? >> yes. >> you said emphasize. maybe it was a slip. you would share in one's experience? >> yes. ask questions about it and pretty much dearming somebody and calming them down because, once again, the whole goal is to de-escalate. >> so, is it that this can lead to de-escalation? >> yes, absolutely. >> okay.
>> have you have you ever had to use officer presence on the job? >> yes. every day. every day that we were doing it. >> did you ever use verbal command on the job? >> very much so, yes. >> did you use control techniques on the job? >> i've had to. >> okay. did you ever have to use one of your aggressive response techniques, using a baton on portions of their body? >> yes. >> did you ever have to use intermediate? >> i did not. >> or deadly force? >> no. >> did you have any training on hand to hand combat? >> yes. >> did you have any training on how to retain your weapon?
>> yes. >> can you talk a little bit before that? >> so we carry -- there's, like i said earlier, hva or -- >> hva being -- >> high value asset, which stayed on the boat, we had crew-mounted weapons. for weapons retention is what we're talking about, we were trained on the personal defense weapon which is our pistol. we carried m-16 and we also carried 870 shotgun which is a small 14 inch barrel shotgun. >> okay. and did you -- what was the type of training that you had about weapon retention? what was it, what was that you were training one another to do? >> how to -- >> it's obvious, but -- >> yes, it's how to keep your weapon from going into the hands of somebody that's trying to take it from you. >> is this something that you would practice? >> i was -- yes, absolutely. >> okay.
what is the concern about not retaining your weapon? >> that it would -- one, that you would not be able to protect yourself in a deadly force situation and also that somebody taking it from you would use it on you or others. >> did you have any special training with a shotgun? >> yes. >> did it include how to retain it? >> yes. >> okay. did it include how to use it to de-escalate a situation? >> yes. with any weapon, it was the same as the other weapons. >> explain that. explain, how do you use a weapon to de-escalate a situation? >> so in a situation like a -- we consider it a level one, which was officer's presence, in certain situations, like if you had what they call known safety hazards, which you would have your weapon drawn, and sometimes a third eye, which is right
here, or it was easily -- it was readily accessible, you didn't have to take it out of the holster, it's officer presence, you see somebody with that weapon, it's officer presence. also if you had to draw your weapon on someone other than that was, there was a reasonable possibility that use of deadly force may be authorized, which is another key component on that. >> all right. a reasonable possibility. >> yes. >> that deadly force -- what? >> may be authorized. >> okay. and what does that mean to you? >> it means if you go into a situation that you are not aware of that you don't know if someone's armed or if they have made threats or made threatening gestures and you have a weapon, obviously holstered, and they
come towards you or make these threatening gestures closing the deadly force triangle or attack triangle, you are authorized to draw that weapon. >> what is the attack triangle? >> it's subject's actions, weapon, and opportunity. >> okay. action, weapon. >> yes. >> and opportunity. and how does that work? >> so say a scenario where you have threatened me. so you're threatening me. you put it on subject's actions. weapon, we're taught that everybody has a weapon, hands, fists are a weapon. so in an attack triangle would be, you're threatening me, you are close enough to attack, and -- which is the opportunity, and then obviously you make the threat or you made the gesture with the fist, that's at that
point an attack, the attack triangle is closed, and at that point i would use what would be level four or five situation. then there's a deadly force triangle, which is subject's actions -- >> yes, go ahead. >> weapon and opportunity. and then under weapons, maximal effective range and if it's readily accessible. >> when you talk about range, what do you mean by that? >> if you -- if you have a baseball bat and you're 50 yards away from me, the weapon is no longer -- the closed triangle, the maximum effect of range is no longer there, you're not going to harm me with that bat at 50 yards. if i can see a gun on you, and you're making the threats, the gestures, then deadly force triangle is closed. >> i asked you earlier if you
have ever been trained to use a firearm to de-escalate a situation. is that something that you have trained to do, to use it to de-escalate but not to actually shoot somebody with it? >> yeah, that was it, under level one, they're doing the -- having it -- having it out of holster or having to draw down if need be if you felt that deadly force may be authorized. >> you say draw down. what do you mean? >> to actually have it pointed at you or at the subject or anybody that is causing the threat or may be a threat at that time. >> and when you say draw down and pointed at somebody, does that mean you are in fact going to pull the trigger? >> the possibility is there. but you're obviously trying to de-escalate the situation. >> in your experience, can pointing a gun at somebody de-escalate a situation?
>> yes. > how so? >> if you pull a gun on someone, they realize that this is -- if this threat or if you don't know what's going on in a situation, and if you pull a weapon on someone, from what i've learned in my training, usually that causes people to back off or to realize what is happening, compel compliance. >> outside of your coast guard life and your coast guard work, did you [ inaudible ] firearms? >> yes. >> did you ever have to use those firearms before for protection? >> yes, i have. >> all right. can you tell me about that? >> objection. relevancy.
>> it's relevant because he is carrying a gun in this case. he is carrying a gun, i believe, for this testimony we'll establish why, and the fact that he's had experiences with having to do this before, informs him and informs the decisions that he makes as a person under these circumstances. so the fact that he's been in situation where he's had to use his gun to protect himself before informs his decisions on also february 23. >> relevance to what he did under these circumstances. >> you're talking about something he was doing in the coast guard? >> no, i'm talking about him as a private citizen where he's been out with a firearm, carrying a firearm before, where he's had to use it to protect himself.
>> ladies and gentlemen, if you could take a step into the jury room, police. >> all rise. >> we've been listening there, as you see, it was a surprise, wasn't 100% clear that any of the defendants would be taking the stand themselves. but the decision here to see travis mcmichael take the stand and the line of questioning establishing his potential law enforcement credentials is something that i think many people will be analyzing. i am coming to the end of my hour here. our coverage in general but as well as this trial is going to continue with my friend katy tur who i'm handing to baton to right now. katy, it is yours. >> chuck, thank you very much. again, we've been watching this trial of the man accused of
killing ahmaud arbery and it was a bit of a surprise to have travis mcmichael take the stand. it seems like what the defense is doing is trying to paint another picture of travis mcmichael, he's got a haircut, he's sitting there in a suit, they're trying to go through his credentials as a member of the coast guard, a member of law enforcement, they're trying to establish that he has training, he has judgment. joining us is nbc's ron allen in georgia and msnbc legal analyst joyce vance. no one was expecting mr. mcmichael to take the stand. >> this is a somewhat surprising decision to put him on the stand.