Skip to main content

tv   CNN Newsroom With Alisyn Camerota and Victor Blackwell  CNN  November 15, 2021 11:00am-12:00pm PST

11:00 am
a gun. that statement, he pulled a gun, was a lie. it's not true. the defendant knew it wasn't true. he's lying to the crowd as he's running away. joseph rosenbaum didn't have a gun. the defendant knew he didn't have a gun. the defendant is lying to save his own skin. instead of going and trying to help the person that you has just shot and killed. in exhibit number three, gaige grosskreutz's facebook live video he tells a similar lie. as they're running, mr. grosskreutz asked the defendant did you just shoot someone and the defendant said something about the police and said i did not shoot anyone.
11:01 am
and this is similar to the lie that he told jason loucowski and he saiddy not shoot anyone. and that was established through his testimony. and again i think it is worth emphasized that he had just met the defendant maybe an hour, this is about 11:50 at night, he got there at about 10:45. this is greige grosskreutz running towards danger, running to try to help. this is exhibit number three.
11:02 am
>> you pulled a gun. >> why shoot him? >> huh, what are you doing? you shoot somebody? who shot? who shot? hey, what are you doing? you shot somebody? who shot? who shot? >> listen to the second thing he says. >> you shot somebody? who shot? who shot? what are you doing? you shot somebody? who shot? >> it is hard to tell what his exact words are. i hear the word "not" pretty clearly in there as in i did not
11:03 am
shoot anybody, i did not do anything. jason lick owski lies too, he lies to the crowd and gaige grosskreutz he lies to. so at this point the crowd is dealing what they perceive to be an active shooter. someone who has just shot someone who is still in possession of the gun who is fleeing the scene and how are we supposed to know where he's going next. you know, all night that night the crowd has been hearing the sound of gunshots, they've been hearing fireworks, fire crackers, but now someone actually has been shot. the crowd sees the defendant running with a gun, he's lying to them. he still has the gun. he shot someone. this is provocation to them. this is someone who has committed a criminal act and is putting people in danger. it is entirely reasonable for that crowd to believe at that
11:04 am
moment that he is a threat to kill again. the defendant could have made it unequivocally clear what he was doing. he could have stayed at mr. rosenbaum's body and help protect him, help preserve his life, call 911. as he's running, he could have announced to the crowd exactly what he was doing. told them, he could have fired warning shots to try to keep them away. he could have dropped the gun and raised his hands in surrender. he could have signaled to this crowd that he did not pose a threat any more. but everything he does is indicative of someone who is still a threat. now, the defendant is going to tell you he wasn't. but from the crowd's perspective, how are they supposed to know any different? he does nothing to demonstrate to the crowd that he isn't a threat to kill again. and it turns out he does. it turns out within a few
11:05 am
seconds he does kill again. i submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that in this situation the crowd has the right to try and stop an active shooter. they have a right to protect themselves. the defendant is not the only one in the world who has the right to self-defense. but what does the crowd do to try and stop the defendant? i submit to you and this is not a criticism of them, but they use almost the least minimal least intrusive means possible. they could have used deadly force against him. he could have shot at him. but instead somebody comes up behind him and knocks his hat off and anthony huber comes up with a skateboard and the defendant blocks it with his arm and then the defendant falls to the crowd on his own. no one knocked him down.
11:06 am
this man that the deeft wants to cul jump kick man, he has no weapons, no knife and he comes into trying to kick the defendant in the case. anthony huber come back and tried to grab the gun and tried to pull it away because he's trying to disarm an active shooter. and gaige grosskreutz coming running in and stopped with his hands up in the air and until he sees an hears the defendant adjusting his weapon as if appearing to fire again. and what does he do? he reaches for the gun? to try and disarm the defendant. gauge grosskreutz had his own gun and he could have aimed and fired at the defendant but he did not. and you heard gaige grosskreutz testify about that. about how that is a decision that he was not prepared to make at that point in time. he's not the type of person willing to take someone's life
11:07 am
in anyone an stand, unlike the defendant who took two lives that night, very quickly and seemingly very easily. there is a video, exhibit five, which is the bg on the scene video which traces this entire incident which we call the second event. this is going to show you mr. huber, mr. grosskreutz and the other individuals trying to stop an active shooter using what i would characterize as the least intrusive mean s possible. someone knocks his hat off. thoern huber comes in with a
11:08 am
skateboard. in just a few seconds the defendant kills one person and attempts to kill two more and blows off gaige grosskreutz' arm. it's that fast. this someone who has no remorse. no regard for life. only cares about himself. and these folks that are coming at him, the jump kick man, anthony huber, aren't armed. they're not a credible imminent threat to his life. they are trying to stop an active shooter. and they have a right to do so. imagine if the crowd couldn't do that. imagine if they weren't allowed to try and stop someone in this type of situation. after killing anthony huber, after severely wounding gaige
11:09 am
grosskreutz, the defendant walked away like he's some sort of hero in a western. without a care in the world for anything he's just done. you know, it is interesting, this occurs about a block away from the police line. right down the road. if the defendant is so concerned about his safety, the police are right there. and in fact they pull up to this scenario almost instantly. the defendant has got his medic b bag on. he proclaims a metdic. he doesn't know if anthony huber is dead or live or capable of being saved and yet the defendant offers no assistance, makes no attempt to try to help anyone else, all he care about is himself. we have taken that video and we have broken it down into individual frames. and i want to take you through
11:10 am
frame by frame the incident with gaige grosskreutz. because a lot has been made about mr. grosskreutz's motions and what he does and where he goes and things like that so i think it is helpful for us to take a look at this. so this is exhibit 80, beginning with frame 356. at this point you could see that anthony huber is staggering off after being shot in the chest. the wound has entered his lower left rib cage and exited near his right shoulder and ripped through his ribs, his heart, his aorta and he not technically be dead but he's going to be dead within a few seconds. he's stumbling away. the defendants had the weapon toward gaige grosskreutz who is cowering and hovering and hiding and covering his head trying to stay out of the way and i'm going to go frame by frame here slowly as we see the movement. now we see the gun is moving down towards gaige grosskreutz.
11:11 am
it is pointed directly at him from a distance of just a couple of feet. gaige grosskreutz has his right leg planted as if he's pushing bard wards trying to get away. the gun is still pointed at him. the defendant here is going to adjust the gun, turn it over as if he's making some sort of adjustment on it, gaige grosskreutz testified that this was a movement that he interpreted as the defendant preparing that gun as if it was going to fire gun, as if clearing a jummed round so that he could shoot it at mr. grosskreutz. at this point, mr. grosskreutz is, i think, probably thinking to himself, if i could get away, i will. until he realizes that the defendant is getting ready to fire again.
11:12 am
in none of these frames is mr. grosskreutz's right hand with his glock pistol pointed at th e defendant. you can see mr. grosskreutz is actually backing up with his
11:13 am
right leg. let me go back a couple of frames here. this is frame 444. you can see his right foot is on the ground. but it is starting to move back. now as i move forward, in the frames 447, his right leg is moved back. this is someone who is about to retreat. his hands are in the air. he's backing away from the defendant. until he's testified he sees the defendant start to manipulate that gun in such a way that it makes mr. grosskreutz feel like he's about to be shot. and only then does he take action. what action does mr. grosskreutz take? does he hold that gun with both hands? the glock that he's got and point it at the defendant? no, never. does he even take the gun with one hand and point it? no. never. instead, you could see him start
11:14 am
to lunge in with his left arm forward. the gun is not in his hand. the gun is in his right hand. he's lunging forward, reaching for the defendant. probably reaching for the gun. probably trying to block the gun. you can see now he's going to take a step with his right leg across the defendant's body. not directly toward the defendant, but across the defendant's body. as he's reaching him, almost swiping away at the gun with his left arm, he has bladed his body in such as way as to try to present as minimal of a target as possible which is probably what saves his life. his right leg is about to hit the ground here. the gun, the ar-151 pointed directly at him from just two, may three feet away. he's trying to shield himself with his left arm. and as we approach frame 500 here, the gun goes off. at no point in this process is
11:15 am
mr. grosskreutz pointing his gun at the defendant. frame 499, the gun is just fired. frame 500, you see the puff of smoke. 501, the bullet has hit mr. grosskreutz's right bicep, severing it. i'm going to continue forward after this. because you could see that his right arm, this is an interesting frame right here, 504, you could see that gun, i'll go back even more, you could see that mr. grosskreutz's arm with the right hand with the gun, his right hand is pointed off to the side. what pulls that gun down closer to the defendant is the fact that mr. grosskreutz just had his right bicep severed. it is not a voluntary action. the musle is severed. watch frame 502. watch his right hand.
11:16 am
503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508. at this point, yeah, absolutely. that right arm is probably dangling down towards the defendant. it's not going to be able to pull that trigger without a working bicep muscle and it is not a voluntary thing. it is done because the defendant just blew his arm off. but, yeah, this is the time after the shooting when, yes, the gun happens to be pointed at the defendant. and i have to top here and highlight the hypocrisy of the defense. because according to the defense, if someone has a gun they're a threat. if someone points a gun their a threat. there is only one exception to that. the defendant. by their logic, he gets to run around with a gun all night. but oh, we're not supposed to take him as a threat. he gets to point the gun at everybody. but he's not a threat. doesn't work that way. the same set of rule as comply to the defendant as everybody else. there is no exception in the law
11:17 am
for kyle rittenhouse. there is no skels exception that said if anyone else has a gun your a danger except for kyle rittenhouse. there is no exception in the law that said if you point your gun at people, that makes you a threat and i could kill you, except for kyle rittenhouse. i could do it all night long. the same rules apply to him as everyone else. and everyone else has a right to deeft themselves also. flot just -- not just the defendant. we have shown you photos and videos of gaige grosskreutz's
11:18 am
injuries. exhibit 60 is a video taken right after mr. grosskreutz was wounded by the defendant.
11:19 am
it is hard to look at. but this is what we're dealing with. when you fire an ar-15 at someone from close range, this is what it looks like. i guarantee you, ladies and gentlemen, that the defendant had no clue what his gun was capable of. he didn't even bother to pay any attention to it. didn't concern himself with what he would be doing to other people. but this is what happened. let's not flinch away from this. it's important that we understand what that gun was capable of that night. it killed two people, and it did this to mr. grosskreutz's arm. when those shootings occurred,
11:20 am
that i just played for you, what would a reasonable person in the defendant's position at that time think? the good news is, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to tell us. as part of your decision in this case, you will represent the reasonable person of ordinary and prudent person and you will put yourself in the defendant's shoes that night. i submit to you that at the time of those shootings, a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would have known that he had provoked joseph rosenbaum by pointing his gun at someone else. that the defendant had put someone else at risk of dying by doing that. the defendant should have known that the crowd was aware of the fact that he had just shot someone and that they felt their lives were in danger. that is reasonable. it is also reasonable to understand that at that point
11:21 am
gaige grosskreutz had just witnessed all of this. he heard the defendant had shot someone, he heard the defendant lie about it, he saw the defendant shoot at jump kick man at close range, meiraculously missing and see the defendant kill anthony huber. gaige grosskreutz reasonably believes his life is in danger of that moment and he was proven correct. because the defendant shot him too. so when you consider what is reasonable in this case, consider whether or not it is reasonable for a criminal to be able to shoot himself out of a crime scene. when a bank robber robs a bank and runs away an the crowd comes after him, can he just shoot anybody and claim self-defense? if someone comes up to that person and trying to stop them, tries to disarm them like anthony huber did, do they are forfeit their life? did anthony huber forfeit his life by trying to be i hero an
11:22 am
stop ab active shooter and protect others. is that justified? can the defendant just kill him? in this case, the crowd was right. the crowd knew that the defendant had shot someone. when their coming after him, they know use just shot and killed joseph rosenbaum. but not every active shooter situation does the crowd have perfect knowledge. when they're told that person running up the street just shot nun, we don't have time in the moment to go back and look at the body and make a decision before going after the person with the gun. you know, we've had several police officers testify that an active shooter situation, the first instinct and training is to go in and stop the threat. they don't sit there and wonder, well maybe it was self-defense. i don't know. i'm going to witait and see and every day we hear about heros that stop active shooters. that is what was going on here.
11:23 am
and that crowd was right. and that crowd was full of heroes. and that crowd did something that honestly i'm not sure i would have had the courage to do. if i see a guy running up the street with an ar-15 and i hear he just shot somebody, my first instinct is not to approach. anthony huber was different. jump kick man was different. gaige grosskreutz was different. this doesn't make them a threat to the defendant's life. it doesn't make their lives worthless. they don't give up their right to defend themselves. they have just as many right as the defendant. i told you i wanted to begin by talking about the murders committed by defendant. now i want to go back and put it all in context for you.
11:24 am
and that context starts with bro, i'm just trying to be famous. the defendant's tiktok profile. four doors, more horse. a picture of him up in lady smith probably in early may, proudly holding his new ar-15. up until august 25th, 2020, this is the only time he'd ever fired that gun. maybe put 100 rounds through it or so at that property up there with dominic black. they purchase that gun on that same trip. the defendant admitted he knew it was a matter of law he could not buy that gun because he was only 17. yet he wants to tell you that he thought legally he would possess it. which didn't make a lot of sense to me. we don't have a lot of defendants come in and say well i possess cocaine, i knew i couldn't buy it but i thought i could possess it. no, that is not the way it
11:25 am
works. dominic black conducted what we call a straw purchase for defendant. he purchased that gun for someone not legally allowed to purchase it for themselves. i'm prosecuting domibbic black for that like i'm prosecuting joshua zimminski. because what dominic black did was wrong and we don't tolerate that. and the agreement was dominic black would keep that gun until the defendant turned 18. it was dominic black's gun. it was legally hit and the defendant knew it would be held on to until he turned 18. that hes that he -- he was going to have it until that birthday. i want to focus on the ar-15, when you consider the recklessness, how much you knew, cared or didn't know about this deadly weapon. he only fired it that one time,
11:26 am
maybe 100 rounds through it. he loaded the gun with full metal jacket ammunition which i'll talk about a little bit more. he wanted it because he said it looked cool. didn't seem to know or care much about the type of ammunition or the type of gun. he had a couple of witnesses tell us in this trial and i just could not believe it, a gun is a gun it a gun. don't even start with that. and a bullet is a bullet. no, it is not. it is not. and anybody who says that is ignorant and reckless. because there are some important distinctions here. full metal jacket ammunition is capable of piercing body armor and squad cars and you heard the officer testify that when they heard someone was running around
11:27 am
when a rifle, he got the plate armor because the regular body armor wasn't going to stop those rounds. ryan bull sh talked about how full metal jacket ammunition is designed and this is a former army infantry man is designed to go through a deer or say person and continue on. he said it could hit a target 550 yards away. that is five and a half football fields. and he explained that he had a handgun that night. which he put hollow point ammunition on and that is what he was planning on using for self-defense. because hollow point ammunition acts differently. it is going to hit its target but it is not designed to continue on and go through and hit other targets. so you will hit what you hit, but you won't put the rest of the community at risk especially on a night where there are hundreds of people out on a street in a heavy residential area. there are houses, there are
11:28 am
churches, there are day cares and schools nearby and you're firing full metal jacket ammunition around. i submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that that ar-15 had no lawful or legitimate purpose that night. now, the second amount allows people to carry guns. that is true. there are people who can't carry guns. convicted felons for example. but, generally speaking, i'm not saying people don't have the right to carry a gun. what i'm saying is, that ar-15 did not accomplish any of the goals that these folks said it was going to. so for example, ryan bullch said the handgun is what he was going to use for self-defense. several witnesses agreed, you can't point this gun or shoot this gun at people to protect property. so if you're going to protect the car source building, how is this going to help with that? the defendant has admitted the
11:29 am
gun was useless when he was going to treat people as a medic. because it got in the way. he had to take it off and hand it to someone. so you can't use it as a medic. you can't use it to protect the building. so what is it there for? well, it looks pretty imposing and it has some deterrence value but jason and ryan and they said they never intended to use their guns. so why is it there? the defendant was wearing a sling that night. he purchased it at zillinski's that afternoon. so he wouldn't lose possession of it. it was designed to help him retain possession of that gun. and he loaded it with 30 rounds, the full magazine. capable of killing 30 people or more. why do you need 30 rounds of full metal jacket armor to protect a building?
11:30 am
this ar-15 had completelyin capable with the role avenue medic. richie mcginnes testified he's been to demonstrations in seattle, portland, washington, d.c., new york, minneapolis, he's never seen anyone walking around claiming to be a medic with an ar-15. and certainly when you see someone like that, it doesn't exactly send a warm fuzzy message, oh, come to me, i'm here to help. and the defendant acknowledged he to take off his ar-15 to treat people. no serious credible medic wears an ar-15 slung around their body. that is because the defendant was a fraud. he was not an amt. he lied. he lied to the press. he's been interviewed by richie mcginnes who he hears is a member of the media and he said i'm a certified emt. you're lying. you're absolutely lying.
11:31 am
jason lick owski and black said he had to borrow his medical supplies from us. this is an emergency situation. everybody is anticipating violence. everybody is prepared for people to be hurt, harmed, injured and yet the defendant is going to go there and walk around claiming to be a medic. he's like a quack doctor. practicing without a license. >> that puts lives as risk. and one of the things that i had gaige grosskreutz testify about is that tattoo on his right which said first do no harm. which is one of the precepts, one of the fundamental tenants of medicine. first do no harm. so how do we evaluate the performance a medic that night. on one hand he wrapped up an ankle and i think maybe helped someone who got a cut on their hand. yay. on the other hand he killed two
11:32 am
people and blew off gaige grosskreutz arm and put two more lives in jeopard. so when we balance your role as a medic that night, i don't give you any credit. he showed no remorse for his victims never tried to help anybody that he hurt and even on the the witness stand when he testified on wednesday, he broke down crying about himself. not about anybody that he hurt that night. no remorse. no concern for anyone else. for him to call himself a medic is an insult to anyone like gaige grosskreutz who spent hundreds of hours training and working hard to become an emt. it is an insult. the defendant made a series of reckless decisions that night. going armed with a ar-15 at 17 years old when he knew he
11:33 am
shouldn't have done so because that gun is normally locked in a safe that he didn't have access to and it is not even legally his. he's out after a citywide curfew, he's intentionally and knowingly entering into a dangerous situation and he expects it. because he brings along his ar-15 and some body armor. so don't tell me you didn't know. he brings along no nonlethal means of defense which means his only option is to kill. i don't know about a lot of you, but i remember that night. i didn't come down here. i don't think most reasonable people did. in part because we all knew that it was going to be violent and dangerous. most reasonably people to the extent they came out, they were gone by then. because you don't willingly put yourself in this situation. unless you want it. unless your looking for it.
11:34 am
unless you want trouble. now to put this in perspective, at this time here in our community, there were people who were scared. there were people who were worried about themselves, their homes, their families, their business. that is understandable. but this is different. there are also people out there who were exercising their first amendment right to assemble because they have that right too. but that is not what we're talking about. the curfew, the riots, the arson, the looting that we'd seen in the prior nights, road blocks set up around downtown, closed exits on the interstates, all of this was sending the message to reasonable people go away. don't come down here. who was left at 11:45 at night?
11:35 am
most reasonable people had gone home before the curfew. or never even came at all. but the defendant's down there and he says because he wants to you believe he's protecting car source. even though he had no actual ties or genuine concern for this building. you have this caravan of people from west bend, ryan ball sh, jason lick owski and joann feedler coming down from spl other communities having now idea what is going on down here in kenosha and never dealt with car source before, just injecting themselves into this situation. car source that night was empty. the owners testified they moved all of the cars off the lot, they took the tools out from inside and they didn't even feel the need to protect that building. so who is there? these guys with the ar-15s are
11:36 am
just want to be soldiers acting tough. trying to manufacture some personal connection to this event. furthering their own personal agenda. just a small part of the deluge of chaos tourists we saw here in kenosha trying to feed off of what we were going through. despite everything we did to try and tell them go away. stay out. did those owners sam and sal ask anyone to protect their business? i called them to the stand because i wanted to you hear from them. i had their statement, but i wanted you to hear from them. and i'm sure you formed your own impressions about them. i'm not here to tell you that i believe what they said often the witness stand. i don't think it really matters much except i wanted you to have a flavor of who these people were and what was going on at that building. what was interesting to me is that text message from the defendant to sam asking for the
11:37 am
address of car source. even though the defendant said he's already been there. that doesn't make any sense to me. it is not hard to find if you've driven past there every day. kenosha is one of the easiest cities in wisconsin to navigate. it is all east west, north south and how hard is it to find this place. but the defendant was supposed to stay at the 59th street location. there is another group at 63rd. it was their responsibility and the defendant testified when the shootings occurred at 11:45 or 11:50 you didn't know if the other group was there or if they have had left. but you heard the testimony of christian harris out there reporting for his runned down live and make something video and he tells the defendant, stay on your property. don't go out on the streets an engage with these protesters because you're just making it worse and you're escalating the situation. he tells the defendant specifically that. just 20 minutes before the
11:38 am
shootings. christian harris probably said that buecause knows this is a crowd that is feeling threatened by the defendant an his group. richie mcguinnes testified when he left the hotel and ran over to 59th street he saw guys up on the roof and felt threatened. these guns said were the things that changed the dynamic for him. >> okay. we have breaking news. this is steve bannon just leaving the federal courthouse in washington, d.c. after his first appearance after he was charged with two criminal counts of context of court. we saw him a couple of hours ago going into this courthouse and now he is leaving. we'll see if he has anything more to say to reporters. >> bannon here, prosecutors didn't seek to detain him before his trial. but we know is coming and bond was set and his official arraignment is next week. but we heard from this morning speaking about the proceedings today was noise as he called it, of course, bannon revels in this
11:39 am
attention. let's see what we hear from steve bannon. >> where is david? >> right here. >> listen, ordinary we don't like to kplcomment on the case i have fln obligation to something attorney general garland wrote, he promised justice department ooexs would show they adhere to the rule of law and follows the facts an law and pursued equal just along the law. i assume you could take off your masks. do it. it is a free country. there is nothing about this case that reflects a pursuit of the equal justice under the law. this thing was a scam from the beginning. the committee -- the committee -- committee that was convened here was convened exclusively of people who have made prejudgments and announced them publicly. the chair of the committee sued president trump personally and before he was even appointed to his position determined and put in writing that president trump
11:40 am
was responsible for the events of january 6. this is not an investigative committee. there is nothing to investigate when he's made a prejudgment. other members of the committee announced their prejudgments well in advance. it is not equal justice under the law mr. garland to charge a matter like this criminally. the holder of the priv liblg in this case, executive privilege invoked the privilege. steve bannon is a lay person. when the privilege has been invoked by the purported holder of prison vilege, you have no choice. you can't put the jeannie back in the bottle. mr. bannon acted as his lawyer and counseled him by not appearing and not turning over documents in this case. he didn't refuse to comply. he made quite clear that if a court ordered him to comply, he would do that. but he had an obligation to honor the privilege that was invoked and in terms of prosecuting this criminally, it violates settle department of justice policy that is binding on the executive branch. it is outrageous that a criminal charge was brought in this case.
11:41 am
it is a misdemeanor. but it is being treated as if it were a capitol case. mr. bannon takes this very seriously. it is outrageous what the government did. the prips pells of equal jifts under law that attorney general garland speaks about are vitally important to us and we all lose when they are selectively used and they violate these simples. >> ysee the guys saying insurrection. it is free speech. they have their opinions. hang on. they have their opinions. this is the misdemeanor from hell for merrick garland and nancy pelosi and joe biden. joe biden ordered merrick garland to prosecute me from the white house lawn when he got off marine one. and we're going to do go on the offense. we're tired of playing defense, we're going on the offense on this and stand by. by the way, by the way, you should understand nancy pelosi is taken on donald trump and steve bannon, she ought to ask
11:42 am
hillary clinton how that turned out for them. we're going on the offense. stand by. you should be outraged if he ever faced that possibility. as an american. there is nothing criminal about any conduct that occurred in this case and when we respond to merrick garland, we say aplew the law equally. who else did they prosecute for invoking executive privilege in a criminal prosecution? read the department of justice office of legal council letters, it is unconstitutionally according to them and including by the ray, read the office of legal counsel opinion by eric holder from the fast and furious case. this is unheard of to force a person to violate the invocation of executive privilege, by the way, i mean the court hasn't ruled yet in president trump's case versus thompson. but even beyond that the
11:43 am
opinions make clear that it makes sense because we often see former officials kept in its loop. that the president needs to consult with and whatever you happen to think the president -- president trump talked about at the time, that is what executive privilege exists for. so people could speak freely with the president and talk about strategy matters around talk about national security and other important matters. >> by the way, by the way not just trump people or conservatives. every progressive and every liberal in this country that likes freedom of speech and liberty, okay, should be fighting for this case. that is why i'm here today. for everybody. i'm never going to back down and they took on wrong guy this time, okay. they took on the wrong guys. >> why did you -- >> because he was instructed by his attorney not to show up in congress. a lay person has to follow his attorney's advice. in my view at least. when he's faced with a subpoena, he doesn't know anything about legal process other wise. he relies on a lawyer and the lawyer gave the advice and i
11:44 am
must say rely on the office of legal counsel opinions which very clearly say he need not show up. >> did he get bad advice? >> no. there is no other choice. one the privilege is invoked, show up and testify and by the way they asked to have -- if he were to testify, to have those people invoking the privilege a representative of the person invoking the privilege present just to be able to monitor it and make an objection if a privilege the matter came up. they refused to allow that. about. >> by the way, if the administrative state wants to bring me on, bring it. and we're going to go on offense. and you stand by and we're going to see how we're going on offense. all of them. >> what do you mean -- what he means by offense is we're going to challenge this affirmatively. we're going to fight to defend his rights an your rights already. >> your rights. >> i represented the american civil liberties union for more than 20 years an all of the allegation in alabama, this is an issue that the american civil lib erpts union ault to be on
11:45 am
our side with. >> all right. we have to go. thank you very much. >> sir you said that all hell would break loose -- >> you heard the remarks from steve bannon after this first appearance. also from his attorney david shown. steve bannon calling this he said it is the misdemeanor from hell. referencing attorney general merrick garland and narncy peloi and joe biden and hillary clinton so clearly the man versus the administration is the one that he wants to follow. let's bring in evan perez and ryan nobles with us elie honig on set. tell us what happened inside of that courtroom? >> reporter: yeah, victor, that was a name check of all of the greatest hits if you are steve bannon and you have a podcast and you need to fund raise, right. and so that is one of the things that yo that you heard from him just now in court. he was obviously a lot different. he answered respectfully to the
11:46 am
judge when the judge advised him of his rights, the judge scheduled his arraignment for later this week before the trial judge and judge who is actually going to hear this case. and then he was released on his own, they took away his passport, they said, but he is free to go and has to abide by certain restrictions while he's out. but, look, as you could tell, from that little press availability just now, this is not a normal case. this is not going to be a normal case by any stretch of the imagination. not many show up to the fbi to turn them in with a live stream crew behind them. he is here with his own production crew, they're about to walk out just a few yards away to some suvs to his home where he does his podcast from. aurnd could tell also that you said this is not going to be an
11:47 am
easy case for the justice department and i think that is one of the indications an run of the reasons why despite the frustration from a lot of people, the justice department took some time, the attorney general and the u.s. attorney here in washington took their time in considering this referral from the house before they made a decision on friday to bring this criminal case, right. as bannon has pointed out, there is decades of justice department internal legal guidance that he believes supports his idea that he didn't have to sthow up, he could rely on the former's president's claim that he is protected by executive privilege. some of that will have to be worked out before the court. >> thank you. elie, what about that. it was interesting to see that he was very different inside of the court. he was respectful to the young and then he comes oits and there is always that measure of bannon bluster and martyrdom that he liens into. but what about his argument that
11:48 am
the executive privilege issue hasn't been resolved yet? >> so first of all, you're right, that was a show. let the political martyrdom begin. the problem with what he just did and the reasons why smart lawyers will tell you don't say anything is he sort of contradicted himself. because he said two things. he said the reason i defied the subpoena is because it is a political witch hunt and pelosi and the other names that he dropped and i'm not going to ex privilege issue so which one is it. what is your reason or defense? they don't go well together. his lawyer was mischaracterizing these doj memos. to an extent. there is a doj memo which said it is possible that executive privilege could apply beyond the executive branch in attorney narrow circumstances. that i don't think are relevant here. also, this is the big question for bannon, how is he going to claim executive privilege on conversations with other people not in the executive branch, with rudy giuliani, with this lawyer john eastman. he's going to have a major problem and this gets back to
11:49 am
one of the big problems with steve bannon strategically. he has pit up a blanket stop sign. if he said agree to this and i fight that, it would have been a much harder to case to prosecute. >> there is point that steve bannon made that should not be pushed aside when he said that president biden told merrick garland to prosecute me, they're on the south lawn, coming off of marine one and president biden was asked should there be this filing should there been an indictment and the president then said yes. >> sure should. and that was a mistake by joe biden. he should not have done that for exactly this reason and because it looks like he's telling the attorney general what to do. i had a problem with donald trump telling bill barr what to do under the last administration but we do have to point out joe biden walked that back the next day. he acknowledged publicly that was wrong and i should not have do done that. was it a direct something that steve bannon will weaponize, you bet. >> just remind us why steve bannon is so vital to the
11:50 am
committee? >> well, there is no doubt, allison, that they view steve bannon as at the center of this nexus between the peddling of the big lie after the november election and the ramp up intention leading up to what happened what led to january 6th. he has been on his podcast since election day spouting a lot of wild conspiracy theories about what went wrong in november claiming that donald trump fwas the rightful winner of this election, and that his supporters should be outraged by it, in addition to kind of the angst that he was fomenting across the country with trump supporters through his various media channels, there was also a tangible planning element to all of this that bannon was a part of. there was this warm roo-- war r at the bwillard hotel, and he ws
11:51 am
on his podcast a couple of days before january 6th warning that there was going to be big problems on january 6th. all hell was going to let loose, and that turned out what the situation was at the capitol. what you see the committee attempting to do is get him in front of them so they can ask very serious questions about what we knew and when he knew it, and where the coordination lies if at all, and is that coordination, does it track back to the white house, is it involved with the trump campaign. is it involved with these outside groups, the stop the steal organizations, the rally organizers, the money trail. what does bannon know about that, and then what did that information do to lead to everything that took place here on january 6th. they want answers to those questions and there is somewhat of a symbolic effort here connected to steve bannon. they view him as one of the big targets. the fact that they have taken a forceful approach to him, almost an aggressive approach in trying
11:52 am
to get him in front of them. that sends a signal to all of these trump associates under subpoena, if you don't comply, if you don't find a way to come before us and give the information we're looking for, you too will find yourself in front of a judge being forced to surrender your passport and facing the prospect of jail time because we are going to enforce congress's due right to issue subpoenas and get the information that we're looking for. >> and bannon will be back in front of a judge in less than a week. evan, what's next. >> reporter: look, i mean, i think you heard a little bit of what least going to be doing. he's going tfull throttle on ths idea. the fact that they have now gone this route means most likely they're not going to get information from bannon because this is now in the hands of a judge, and it's going to take time for it to be worked out. they're hoping this serves as
11:53 am
ryan just laid out, serves as some kind of a kaja, the wall o silence, you have three dozen subpoenas that are outstanding there. most of those people are not really talking. it's not clear whether this is going to break that wall of silence. we'll see whether this had that effect. he's going to be in court the next three days, and this will work itself out over the next three months. >> we have seen steve bannon emerge from his first court appearance. ely let's go back now to kenosha, wisconsin, where the prosecution in the trial of kyle rittenhouse is continuing to make closing arguments. let's listen in.
11:54 am
>> the rest of the video is the crowd being warded off by gas, launched by the police. they launched tear gas, which affects the defendant, which affects ryan balch, harris, that group runs alongside the 59th dr street car source, away from the street, away from the protesters. at no point in that video do you hear any threat that joseph rosenbaum makes. it's not there. trust me. if the defense had it, they'd play it for you. now, they want you to believe that that threat is made and they also want you to believe that it was something that the defendant took into account when he decided to kill joseph rosenbaum. one of the questions that occurs to me is how would the defendant even know who that guy is. because earlier in the night
11:55 am
joseph rosenbaum is wearing a red shirt and a blue bandanna. but by the time he's killed, he's got no shirt on. he's got no blue bandanna. this is someone the defendant has never even met before. he's one of hundreds of people in the crowd. and yet we're expected to believe in a split second the defendant remembers this guy? i don't believe so. so then that video that i just showed you picks off, leaves off at about 11:35 p.m. the police have moved the protesters south of 60th street. they have tear gassed the crowd, and there's no protesters left. 59th street is no longer in any danger. wasn't much danger to protect. at this point, there's no danger. they tell the defendant and his group, we appreciate you, and
11:56 am
hand them out bottles of water. as long as you stay on that private property, yeah. no one is saying you don't have the right to stay on private property and protect private property. what people are saying, what the crowd is saying, stay there. don't go out looking for trouble. the defendant hears this message from the police and takes it the wrong way. he thinks, oh, well, now i'm junior policeman, i can run around stopping crime. but i asked him, and i asked some other witnesses if the police are there on the scene and the protesters are gone, go home. why are you still here. shouldn't have been here in the first place, but why are you still sticking around? and interestingly enough, one of the questions i have always had in the back of my mind, what's the end game, when is the crew going to be done and decide that it's time to leave, right after the defendant kills joseph rosenbaum, kills hubert, they
11:57 am
all flea like rats off a sinking ship. but it's boring at 59th street. there's no protesters. there's no action. so the defendant decides about 11:35 p.m. to cross the police line and go looking for trouble. he knows at this point he's entering a hostile crowd. he has seen this crowd. he knows what they're like. that's why he has to yell friendly to them because he knows they're not going to see him and think he's friendly, and he knows he's got to have ryan balch with him, some sort of buddy to protect him, and he's immediately confronted by that man with the yellow pants who says you just pointed your gun at me. and the defendant says, yeah, i did. he admits that. now, what's interesting to me is they want you to believe this never happened, this guy in the yellow pants made it up or is lying, but he's just standing there by the side of the road minding his own business when the defendant happens to walk up to him. do you think he just sat there
11:58 am
and thought, oh, i'm going to make up a lie about this guy on a spur of the moment or did it really happen. and is it consistent with everything else you've seen about defendant. does he sound like the sort of guy who would point a gun at someone for standing on a car? does he strike you as the kind of guy that would threaten deadly force to protect property? because that's what happened. the man in the yellow pants says it happened, the defendant agrees, and comes into trial and says, i'm being sarcastic, like he's a little 17-year-old. shortly after that, the defendant loses track of his protector, ryan balch. so now he's in a position where he knows that he's surrounded by people that consider him a threat. he knows that he's not supposed to go anywhere without ryan balch. he knows he's supposed to go back to 59th street, and he does. he tries. he walks up to the police line. he says i work there.
11:59 am
that's my business, which isn't true, but whatever. and they won't let him through. now, ryan balch makes it on through shortly thereafter. but the defendant gives up. he could go one block in either direction and make it back easily if he wants to, but he stops and decides you know what, i'm going to stay here, and maybe see what's going to happen. so then he talks to these people with fire extinguishers and he's going to go down to 63rd street, and he asks one of them to come along, and they say no. at this point, he doesn't have ryan balch, he knows he's supposed to go back, he knows he's supposed to have a buddy, yet he decides to go it alone, run down to 63rd street or walk down to 63rd street. doesn't even know if that other group is still there. doesn't even know if he's really needed but he can't wait to take this opportunity to go down and confront people. because he thinks he's some sort of cop, some sort of law enforcement agent. some sort of junior cadet who's
12:00 pm
out there with the responsibility to fight crime. nobody asked him to do that. nobody gave him the right. nobody deputized him. ryan balch says the police told me the crowds, we're going fo push them down by you. you're going to deal with them. the bear cats hand out water and tell him he's appreciated. they warn him about people throwing rocks. what is the message the defendant takes from all of this? the wrong message. oh, well, now i've got the power. i've got the gun. i'm going to go confront these bad guys. i'm going to stick my nose in things. so what does he do when he gets down to 63rd street, the first thing he does, we showed it to you at the very beginning, the drone video, grabs that gun and points it at someone to protect property. points it at the zaminsky's, why, because they're about to mess with a fire. they're not threatening anybody's lives. he doesn't need to


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on