Return to Transcripts main page

Cuomo Prime Time

Right-Wing Video Blogger Testifies In Rittenhouse Trial, Claims Teen Shooter Tried To "Deescalate" Tensions; Defense Attorney In Arbery Case: "We Don't Want Any More Black Pastors Coming In Here"; Federal Appeals Court Issues Trump Ruling. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired November 11, 2021 - 21:00   ET



ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Her dad says she planned on taking over the family business, after graduating in the spring.

Her mom says she was always thinking about everyone else. And she says, the first thing, her daughter ever asked for, was to go to this concert. She added, "Why didn't I say no to her?"

Our thoughts are with her family and every family touched by this tragedy.

The news continues. Let's hand it over to Chris for "CUOMO PRIME TIME." Chris?

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST, CUOMO PRIME TIME: All right, thanks, Anderson.

I am Chris Cuomo and welcome to PRIME TIME.

Happy Veterans Day. Thank you, to those who have served, and all the Armed Forces. You do it on our behalf. And we know it.

To the men and women currently serving, those who have retired, all of your families, because we know they make the sacrifice, right along there, with the Enlisted. Thank you to all of you.

Now, this is the first Veterans Day, in 20 years, that the U.S. doesn't have boots on the ground, on foreign soil, in any active war, because the war in Afghanistan is now over.

But while our troops are no longer there, too many are dealing with all kinds of illnesses, from their time abroad. Did you know 86 percent, of those stationed, in Iraq and Afghanistan, were exposed to toxic burn pits.

These are garbage fires that are filled with things that can throw off noxious chemicals. Sometimes they have jet fuel as an accelerant thrown on them. They're not allowed here. But our men and women spend hours and hours, they live, they sleep, sometimes they stay in guard, in front of these things, for weeks, years.

Question, why would we make, our Veterans, jump through all these hoops, to prove the pits are the cause of their illness, before paying for their treatment? Shouldn't we pay for Veterans' health care no matter what the cause? Don't we owe them that?

President Biden took some good steps in the right direction. He announced a new series of actions today, to make it easier for Veterans, to get help for burn pit and other illnesses.

Biden has said in the past that he thinks his late son Beau, the brain cancer he had, may have been linked to burn pits that he was exposed to, during his service in Iraq.

On this day, let's not just speak our thanks. We have a problem with talking the talk, but not walking the walk, when it comes to our Veterans. They are the best of us. It's on the rest of us to respect their service with action.

Again, Happy Veterans Day. Thank you for your service.

Now, let's turn to the Rittenhouse double homicide trial, nearing an end in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Reminder, this is the trial, for the 17-year-old, killing two unarmed men, and shooting a third armed man, in the wake of the Police shooting, of Jacob Blake, in 2020, became symbolic of the nation's polarization, over gun rights, racism and Police brutality.

This trial has the nation similarly divided. In fact, the division, found its way, onto the witness stand, in the form of an eyewitness, who backed up Rittenhouse's self-defense claim. Here is some of the testimony.


DREW HERNANDEZ, DEFENSE WITNESS: Rosenbaum is already charging Kyle, from behind, here, saw it (ph) in real-time.

Rosenbaum is lunging towards him, very clearly, and Kyle fires.


CUOMO: All eyewitnesses are not equal. Why they say what they say matters, and should be tested on the stand.

The judge allowed that man to testify, as an eyewitness, without allowing the prosecution, to tell the jury that the witness, Drew Hernandez, works for a fringe-right website, and has posted anti-BLM content.


THOMAS BINGER, PROSECUTOR: Does Real America's Voice have any sort of political bias or agenda or anything like that?


BINGER: It goes to the bias of the witness, Your Honor. SCHROEDER: The bias in what respect? I assume that people -- we -- as I commented, at the beginning, this is not a political trial. And I don't know how you would isolate a person's particular politics, and determine that that person is going to evaluate the evidence, one way or another.


CUOMO: Seriously? The judge doesn't know how someone's politics might shape how they describe the events? Is it not odd that he paints a decidedly starker picture, than others, and of the video that we've seen, in describing what Rittenhouse was about, and how he handled himself?

This was the second day, in a row, of vexing attacks, from the bench, on the prosecution. There was nearly a mistrial yesterday, when the lead prosecutor enraged the judge, about his line of questioning.

And they had a couple more clashes today.


SCHROEDER: I am a little bit challenged when you say -- is there something that I'm saying that draws the face that you're making?


SCHROEDER: Go ahead. Say what you want to say.


BINGER: I have to say, Your Honor, yesterday, I was the target, of your ire, for disregarding your orders. Today, the defense is disregarding your order.

Yesterday, as I said, I was under the court's ire.

SCHROEDER: You know, I don't want to talk about--


SCHROEDER: Why don't we just?

BINGER: I think it's a fundamental fairness issue, Your Honor.

SCHROEDER: All right, say what you want to say.

BINGER: If I'm being held to obey the court's orders, I'm asking that the defense be held to that too.

SCHROEDER: I am going to interrupt you. And then I'm going to let you talk again.


SCHROEDER: But I was talking yesterday about the Constitution of the United States, and how the Supreme Court has interpreted it for 50 years.


CUOMO: Maybe he's been on the bench too long. But the judge seems to have been forgotten, seems to have forgotten that it's not about him.

Of course, he's the referee of the trial. But we're going to talk to some big experts about whether or not this obviously goes beyond that, and whether his decisions, let alone a lot of this discussion, in front of the jury, maybe coloring and prejudicing justice.

So, the jury is not going to know that that testimony came today, from someone, with a clear prejudice.

And surprise, that eyewitness helped confirm the version of events that Rittenhouse portrayed, on the stand, Wednesday, when the judge refused to let the prosecution, tell the jury that the accused had mentioned shooting looters, at a BLM protest, sometime before all this happened.

Instead, the defendant, painting himself, as just wanting to help, and then running for his life, and cornered that night, he said he did not intend to kill anyone, now this is key, didn't intend to kill anyone. But then he admitted that he used deadly force, on purpose.

Question for the jury, can you knowingly use deadly force, and not intend, for someone to wind up dead?

The only survivor of the shootings, today, said "Don't let any of those tears fool you."


GAIGE GROSSKREUTZ, WITNESS/SHOT BY KYLE RITTENHOUSE: I think any time you see your would-be murderer, on the stand, it's emotional.

To me, it seemed like a child, who had just gotten caught, doing something that he wasn't supposed to, more upset that he was caught, and less upset about what he had done.

He murdered two men, and he attempted to murder me.


CUOMO: Closing arguments are Monday. There could be a verdict, next week. Will the jury believe the accused to be a victim or a vigilante?

Let's take it to the better minds. Mark O'Mara was George Zimmerman's defense attorney, in the infamous Trayvon Martin murder trial, and helped get Zimmerman acquitted. And Laura Coates, former federal prosecutor, and CNN Senior super-duper Legal Analyst.

It's good to have you both. First, let's talk a little bit about the judge, in these sidebars, although sometimes, in the presence of the jury, and then where we think things stand. The going after the prosecutor, the way he does, not letting the prosecutor ask Rittenhouse, about what he had said, about shooting looters, at BLM protests, in the past, and not getting to ask that witness, about the place that he works, and the politics behind it, fair, unfair?


Of course, you don't want to put your thumb, on the scale, to aid prosecutors, because of course, there is already a lot of weight, when you have a jurisdiction versus an individual. There's already a lot of things tacked against that defendant.

But not putting the thumb, on the scale, is not the same thing as tying the prosecutor's arm behind their back, when there are legitimate purposes, for introducing certain aspects of evidence.

Now, arguably, the prosecutor may have toed the line, or crossed, in some capacity. But the judge's pearl-clutching was a little bit theatrical, for me, because there were some legitimate interests, in allowing for the jurors, to get the full context, to test the credibility, of the witnesses, for whom the defense would like you to believe.

If the jury are the ultimate fact-finders and assessors of credibility, they have to know the relevant information. And that includes any indication of bias.

CUOMO: How is it -- yes. How is it bad to, or how does it offend justice, or offends the rules of trial practice, to ask a witness, about where they work, and what their political predisposition is, when they're giving eyewitness testimony that just happens to be conveniently, all in favor of someone, who meets with their political aims?

It's to you, Laura.

COATES: Is that for me? Well, can I say, we are, on the one hand, simply asking the question does not assume all of his political leanings.

And the assessment of credibility, and asking the person, where they work, and what the motivation was, when they were posting certain material, or making statements that were in support of extra-judicial statements, et cetera, that's relevant not to find out who this person voted for. And that's what the judge failed to understand here.


Nobody was asking who you voted for, what your politics were. It was directly to the point of, is there some reason for this jury, to understand, or to question, whether your eyewitness testimony, or your testimony, here, today, is being shaped by whatever bias you might bring in. Now, the jury may ultimately say, "You know what? This has nothing to do with it." But that's for the jury to parse through and understand.


COATES: And there was nothing inherently extra-prejudicial, against this defendant, by having them say, "What's your background in the sense of how you came to this case?"

If it were one of his relatives, wouldn't we want to know that?

CUOMO: Right.

COATES: Certainly, we would.

CUOMO: Yes. No, listen, I totally get. I was a little shocked by that, especially by someone who's such a veteran. This judge is the longest- serving member of the Wisconsin bench.

Now, why am I only talking to Laura? Because I'm trying to get Mark O'Mara's audio back up. We're having a little communication issue there.


CUOMO: So, while we're trying to do that, let's--

COATES: I thought you were just trying to talk to me, Chris!

CUOMO: Well?

COATES: I was -- I was enjoying the conversation.

CUOMO: I mean -- I mean you are--

COATES: What do you mean?

CUOMO: You are the upgrade!

COATES: There was an audio issue?

CUOMO: You are the upgrade! There's no question.


CUOMO: But let's -- while we're trying to get him, let you and I listen to--


CUOMO: --and the audience, some of Drew Hernandez, that's the witness that we're talking about, and how he characterized the events of that night.

Here's some of the testimony.



BINGER: Your videos that you have captured of these incidents that you call "Riots," they're very slanted against the people, who are rioting. You characterize them as "Antifa Black Lives Matter rioters," correct?

HERNANDEZ: Because they are rioting in the footage, yes, absolutely.

BINGER: Have you ever posted anything on social media?


BINGER: In support of Kyle Rittenhouse?

HERNANDEZ: One could argue, yes.


CUOMO: What did you make of that?

COATES: "One could argue, yes." I'm always a little tickled by answers that are not yes, or no, because it undermines one's credibility, when you try to get too cheeky.

Again, things for jurors to understand and consider, because some things you build your credibility, by simply conceding a point. We know this in front of a judge or in front of a jury.

But the idea of the footage is so important here, because it's very limited amount of footage, which is why one of the reasons they wanted to have Kyle Rittenhouse, actually testify, for the defense, because, of course, you want to give greater context, to this, and what's being told.

Also notice that the language that was used, by this witness, really echo some of the earlier concerns, Chris, that the judge allowed you to refer to the people, who are victims, not as victims, but as rioters, or looters, or arsonists, building again, an opportunity for the defense, to characterize the level of aggression, if any, towards him, and entitling him, in his mind, to use self-defense, let alone lethal force here.

CUOMO: Right.

COATES: But ultimately, again, the idea of somebody, answering these questions, in front of the jury, and narrating, the video should speak for itself.

But also, Rittenhouse has spoken for himself. And you had other witnesses, who are trying to buttress what he said.

The question is whether the prosecution has done enough, in the beginning, in their case-in-chief, to head off, anticipate, and undermine these claims. CUOMO: What's your gut on whether or not the prosecution has met its burden?

COATES: It's a very difficult case, and primarily, because you cannot extract and divorce from the political, the sociological, the cultural, the actual, everyday conversations that were happening at this time.

Remember, if you've seen the build-up, and we all have, from the time that these shootings occurred, up till now, we have seen Kyle Rittenhouse, be embraced by certain spectrums of the media, by certain quiet chat room that's been echo chambers, and certain segments of our society, who believe that his attempt to be in the presence, of this protest, was somehow a good thing, a usurpation of law enforcement- ability, a supplement to what they could not do.

Now, on the flip side, you see this, as somebody, who is an armed person, in the middle of a chaotic situation, and the idea of having an AR-15 there.

And you look at this person, who we should, of course, note, as you had, Marilyn Mosby on, last night, talking about this very issue, somebody who is -- who could have been perceived, as an active shooter, approaching the Police officers, and being told, "Go home, go home, go home," and he could.

And so, when you look at this case, it's very difficult to just look at this, from the idea of, was this person entitled to self-defense? There are so many different aspects of it. The jury is going to have to whittle that down.

But the prosecution is facing a very uphill battle here, because there's no one to be able, to defend or say that Mr. Rosenbaum, or his second victim, who were both deceased, what they did.

It's all through the lens in the eyes of the person, who is now fighting for his life, and trial, because the two people, who'd be able to present testimony, as to whether they felt, in fear, of their lives, or they were trying to restrain, his use of a weapon, they are now dead.


And the only other person, that surviving member, has been -- has already said that he himself was armed.

And so, this jury is looking at this uphill battle, probably seeing a little bit of the interactions, and the tone of the courtroom, and the eye towards the prosecution.

And then you got the idea of a young-looking, White defendant, in America, who at a time, we talk about the idea of the Second Amendment, and gun rights, all of this is on the backdrop, the prosecution is having a very difficult time.

CUOMO: Laura Coates, appreciate you. Couldn't get Mark O'Mara's computer back up. We'll have him back,



CUOMO: Thank you for carrying the burden for me. Appreciate you.

COATES: Please! Thank you. Take care.

CUOMO: All right, we're going to move, from what happened in the courtroom, to those conversations that are going on around this country, tonight.

Now, take Laura's point, the way it's intended. Of course, the jury doesn't make this decision, on the basis of how they feel, about whether Rittenhouse was there, or whether he's White, or whether he's that. But the point is they're human beings. And it's hard to look at a situation, with the facts, and not put any feel into it.

Now, let's take a look at those conversations around it, and what this case means. We have two views for you. We have Left, and Right, in search of being reasonable.

We're going to start with one of our most important voices on civil rights. Why does he believe this case is about White supremacy, and takes it to a new level? Next.









CUOMO: Some look at what's happening, and see White vigilantes on trial, in two courtrooms, Wisconsin and Georgia. You got Rittenhouse, in one, and you got the guys, who hunted down, and killed Ahmaud Arbery, in the other.

The juries are going to have to weigh the charges against both. They're going to have to do it in a vacuum. But we're not in the courtroom. And these verdicts are going to play, in the real world, in the larger cultural setting. And they're going to ask whether White fright is enough, to justify taking a life.

Watch this moment, in the Arbery case, today, when the defense attorney objected, to exactly who was watching the trial. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN GOUGH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We don't want any more Black pastors coming in here, or other -- Jesse Jackson, whoever was in here, earlier this week -- sitting with the victim's family, trying to influence the jury, in this case.

And I'm not saying the State is even aware that Mr. Sharpton was in the courtroom. I certainly wasn't aware of it until last night. But I think the court can understand my concern, about bringing people in, who really don't have any ties, to this case, other than political interests.


CUOMO: He also said Sharpton's presence was intimidating the jury.

My next guest is the former President and CEO of the NAACP, Cornell William Brooks.

Professor, good to see you.


CUOMO: Professor, do you have your sound on?

WILLIAM BROOKS: I do indeed.

CUOMO: There you go. We're good.


CUOMO: We're good.


CUOMO: I can't go zero for two. I lost somebody in the last segment.


CUOMO: So Professor, what do you make of defense counsel's protests, about who is watching in court?

WILLIAM BROOKS: In a way, this weaponizes the very presence of Reverend Sharpton, or any Black person. Reverend Sharpton is a minister. He's a Black pastor, as it were, but he's a human being.

All of us, I would argue, people, who are Black, White, Latino, Asian, we are tied to these cases, as fellow citizens. And so, to simply say that, because a person is Black, because they are a pastor, that they somehow are intimidating a jury, is quite simply ridiculous. Black skin is not a weapon.

CUOMO: So, in Georgia, in that trial, you've got one member of the jury, out of 12, is Black. The State is, you know, the numbers should have been about two or three--

WILLIAM BROOKS: That's right.

CUOMO: --for it to be equivalent to the reflection of society. Georgia, as a state, only enacted a hate crime law, after this situation.


CUOMO: What does that tell you about the atmosphere of justice?

WILLIAM BROOKS: What it suggests is that we are reactive. In other words, when there's a calamity, when there is a tragedy, in order to keep a lid, on a boiling pot, we respond reflexively. And so, enacting a hate crime statute, in the wake of so many hate crimes, and hashtags, suggests that we are not appreciating the value of human life.

The fact that you have one juror on, who's Black, in the Ahmaud Arbery case, and the fact that the judge admitted intentional discrimination, on the part of defense counsel, says all that you need to know that people have a reason, our fellow citizens, have a reason, to be distrustful, to be suspicious, to be concerned about the justice system, in Georgia and elsewhere, when it comes to Black Law.

CUOMO: In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, in the immediate aftermath, of the shootings, even though he didn't shoot any Black people? He killed White people. He shot a third White person, who was armed.


CUOMO: It was treated, as if he was the face of White hate.

And, on the Right, he was the face of White fright, and of being victimized by this aggressive Minority movement.

WILLIAM BROOKS: That's right.

CUOMO: Do you believe one of those is the correct way to see him?


WILLIAM BROOKS: What I believe is yes, I believe that Kyle Rittenhouse, along with the murderers down, in Brunswick, Georgia literally represent, not merely vigilantism, they represent the old- fashioned "Slave patrol."

That, is to say White men, who deputize themselves, or were deputized, by government, to literally hunt down Black people, or White people, who sympathize, with Black people, and stood in the gap, in terms of preserving and protecting Black lives.

So, the fact that there were three White people, who were shot in Kenosha, two of whom died, and all of whom were White, does not suggest in any way that this is anything less than a racially-infused and infected crime. In other words, White people are not safe from White supremacy.

The fact in the matter is you had demonstrators, who were protesting the fact that Jacob Blake was shot, in the back, seven times, on his son's eighth birthday.

The fact that you had all of these people, in the area, demonstrating, protesting, and we have this young man, 17 years of age, with an AK- 47, who self-deputizes himself, self-appoints himself, to go down extensively, supposedly, protect property.

CUOMO: But what if the jury finds he was being chased, he turned around, somebody reached for the gun, he shot them, and he was justified? Does that remove the onus?

WILLIAM BROOKS: I don't think so. And the reason I say that is, we can debate whether or not this is a plausible or, in fact, laughable defense.

And, after all, this is somebody, who posed with the Proud Boys, this is somebody, who claims that he wants to save lives, and serve as a medic, but he didn't turn around, to offer any aid, to the people he shot. But let's note that.

In, against the backdrop of history, which is to say, a long line -- a long, ugly legacy of, literally, White people, appointing, themselves, to literally stand in the gap, to protect White property, White lives, to the detriment of Black property, and Black lives, or White people, who sympathize with those concerns.

So, the point being is, in terms of the jury of public -- in the court of public opinion, Kyle Rittenhouse getting off, right, sends a very, very ugly and disturbing message, which is to say that any of us can appoint ourselves, to go out, and gun down, our fellow citizens, and particularly White men.

This is very disturbing, very unsettling, and the kind of thing that should be disquieting, should be disturbing, to not merely Black people, but literally Americans, of any hue, any heritage, because this is completely outrageous, and inhumane, and unjustified behavior.

CUOMO: Thank you, Professor Cornell William Brooks. Pleasure. Thank you for being on the show.

WILLIAM BROOKS: Good to be with you, as always.

CUOMO: All right, now look, as with everything else, in our society, right now, these things are seen very Black and White, literally and figuratively. The Left see a villain, in the defendant, a vigilante. But, for the Right, they see a victim.

And my next guest is praising the man, presiding over the trial, as his favorite judge ever. Why? Next.








CUOMO: Justice is blind. But the people observing it are not. And these trials, like what happened with George Floyd, and then the Derek Chauvin trial, the Police officer, guilty of his murder, they reverberate, beyond the walls of the courthouse.

And that's what we see with Kyle Rittenhouse, the bigger implications, certainly for the Right and Left. It's been completely politicized.

Now, we just talked to a civil rights activist, who says, in his eyes, an acquittal will be a signal, of a win, for White supremacy.

Many on the Right, see this, 180 degrees the other way that this kid shouldn't even be on trial, and that what he did, was defend himself, and he had the right to do that. My next guest says exactly that and, in fact, believes that he shouldn't be on trial. And the prosecutors only did this, because they caved to BLM, Black Lives Matter.

Let's bring in conservative radio host Mark Davis, from 660 AM The Answer, in Dallas-Fort Worth.

It's good to see you.

Not to seem prejudicial, but one step sideways, this is Veterans Day. Your father would have been 90-years-old. He was a 20-year vet, in the Air Force. Thank you for his service, and thank your family for it.

MARK DAVIS, TALK SHOW HOST, 660 AM THE ANSWER DALLAS-FT WORTH: Man, thank you guys, for you and the staff, for clearly reading my Twitter feed, on a number of levels. And I so appreciate it. Thank you, Chris.

CUOMO: All right. Well, we're human first.

Now, let's have the discussion here. Do I have it right that you don't believe Rittenhouse should be on trial, that you believe he did the right thing, going there, and that he did the right thing, in the face of imminent threat, of his own life?

DAVIS: Now that I've seen the evidence, and what a crazy thing that is, waiting to see the evidence, I strongly encourage it.

I believe this does belong on the list of events where, and you'll see them often, where something happens, somebody is in their home, they take some action in self-defense, a number of things that speak of self-defense. And the authorities look at this, and they say, "You know, this really

does look like self-defense, and maybe we don't even prosecute, in this case." I believe this smacks of exactly that.

And you're also correct, in my -- in giving voice to my suggestion that in taking just 48 hours, to reach this decision, that this prosecution, which is clearly flailing, is absolutely responding, to the streets of Kenosha, which were demanding, and a lot of voices, many of whom, you've been hearing tonight, who are just demanding this kid's head on a platter, because to not do so, would seem to be insensitive, to the Jacob Blake shooting.


CUOMO: What do you make of the Professor's argument that this smacks of White men, self-deputizing themselves, which is certainly what this kid did, for good reason, bad reason, or no reason, and that it smacks of slave patrols, and that he went there because he didn't like what was happening.

DAVIS: Oh my Gosh! I know. I know.

CUOMO: And that's what brought him there.

DAVIS: And--

CUOMO: And that it is -- it is symptomatic of a problem in this country.

DAVIS: I have such respect for Professor Brooks, and his civil rights legacy, and his diligence, in looking at such things.

And there's a long legacy, going back to the 50s and 60s, and all the way to the present time, racism is not dead. It hasn't been driven from our society.

But civil rights activism, in 2021, Chris, far too often takes on the following metaphor. When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And there is the notion of finding White supremacy absolutely everywhere.

And when you find it everywhere, it makes it harder to find it anywhere, that when everything is racist, nothing is racist. And the real tragedy of a lot of this is it's -- it's just impossible, to look at anything, without the lens of race being just jammed in your direction.

The Professor, and Laura, in her analysis, which I appreciated, as well, at the top of the show, coming at this, from a certain perspective, it's not really a 180 degrees different, for me, because for that 180 degrees different, from the Professor, would be for me to say, "I absolutely know race had nothing to do with it."

I don't know anything of the kind. But I look for evidence of it. And I can't find any evidence of racial animus in anything Kyle Rittenhouse did. And it seems like that's just not a welcome perspective.

CUOMO: Why is going to a place that you're not from, joining up with the Proud Boys, with an AR-15, not proof of going to a place, looking to get into the mix?

DAVIS: It is certainly possible that we have a 17-year-old young man here, who had a case of Junior G-Man syndrome.

And no kid of mine is going to arm up, and go 30 miles, 40 miles, to do whatever, however, altruistic and noble his intent may be, in the middle of a riot.

But that's not what Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial for. The fact of the matter is that he went. And we can like that or not like that.

CUOMO: Right.

DAVIS: What is an issue in the trial is, is he guilty of a homicidal act? And I think this jury is going to say "No."

And hopefully, we can have the kind of peace and resolve that we had there, when Derek Chauvin, a very controversial trial, I looked at the Chauvin trial, and said, "You know, he needs to be convicted of something." I didn't know what, but certainly something.

So, it's a crazy revolutionary idea, looking at these things, on a case-by-case basis, and taking our inherent biases, and preconceived notions, and maybe, please, God, putting a pin in them, and looking at the evidence.

CUOMO: Mark Davis, I appreciate you.

Also, look, for all the talk about his affinity, for Proud Boys and that, I, personally, in reviewing that evidence, I don't know who he was with. He was definitely with a group of White boys. I don't know if they had affiliation or not.

DAVIS: Thank you.

CUOMO: The point stands that it is not part of the fact analysis of the trial.

The jury is going to have to look at it. They are human beings. But they're going to have to look, at what he did, why they died, and whether or not what was a murder, can be justified, by self-defense, as an affirmative defense.

We'll see what they come up with. And then, we'll deal with whatever that verdict means, to the ongoing battles of division, in this country.

Mark Davis, appreciate you.

DAVIS: That's how the system works. Thank you, man.

CUOMO: All right. To the legal drama, over the Trump White House, now, this is not

getting reported the right way, OK? District Court judge says "No." They go back to the District Court judge. She says "No, I'm not stopping this. I just told you, yesterday." They had to check those boxes.

They go to the Appellate court. The Appellate court says "Hold on, National Archives, don't give the documents on Friday. Don't. Give us a second." It is not a decision on the merits. They're saying "You have to pause, so that we can try the appeal." That's all it is.

I'm going to bring in Norm Eisen. But you got to get this stuff right, OK? There has been no decision on the merits. They asked for a pause, to decide. They had to do that. Next.









CUOMO: We have news, the latest turn, in the Trump legal saga, and whether or not he'll be able to keep these documents, away from Congress, in their quest to understand what happened on January 6.

Let's bring in CNN Legal Analyst, Norm Eisen.

"He won" Norm, "He won." That's what I'm reading on Twitter. "Trump one. They're not delivering the documents, as planned, tomorrow."


CUOMO: It's the best I got!

EISEN: --in the land. This is, what happened today, is good news, for getting these documents, into the light of day.

It's another success for the Committee. And it's a very promising development. Let me tell you why. The, as we talked about yesterday, the court has put in, a short, the Appellate court, has put in a short administrative stay.

But rather than the months, and years, of delay, they have together with that, ordered extremely rapid briefing, not on another stay, to replace the administrative one, but on the merits.

All briefs are going to be due, and we're going to have oral argument, before the end of November. Chris, this case was filed on October 18. That is extraordinary speed. It reflects the importance of the matter.

We got three brilliant jurists, who will see through Trump's phony claims. So anyone, who doesn't think today was a good day, for justice, is misreading the legal tea leaves.

CUOMO: Two of the justices -- two of the judges are Obama appointees. One is a Biden appointee. And yet, they granted the stay. So, they're doing their job.

Now, the idea of, what's, going to happen here, next, I had colleagues here, at CNN say "Hey, I don't agree with Cuomo that he doesn't see why the Supreme Court would take this. I think they will."


And then I was getting beaten over the head, by legal experts, who gave me that understanding. They were saying, "Hey Cuomo, just because the Supreme Court hasn't reviewed something doesn't mean that it's interesting for their review."

What do you think happens with this question, if after the Appellate court, they try to get a grant, a writ of certiorari, at the Supreme Court?

EISEN: I don't think this is an attractive case, for the Supreme Court, Chris. The merits are lousy. This is not a close question.

As Judge Chutkan said, in the trial court, the United States only has one President at a time. It's Donald Trump, no more. The President is Joe Biden. He makes these decisions.

These claims that Trump's -- are making are nonsense. I think the D.C. Circuit is going to give him the back of the hand. This panel is moving quickly, because they want to get rid of this case. And I just think it is unlikely, never say never, but it's unlikely that the Supreme Court takes up these junk arguments.

CUOMO: Norm Eisen, you are a gift. And now, you will get many, because your birthday is upon us.

Happy Birthday, Norm Eisen! You got the best hair in the business!

EISEN: Thanks.

CUOMO: So whatever age you are, you got hair, it looks 22.

EISEN: Thanks, Chris.

CUOMO: Thank you very much, Counselor. I appreciate you. Your insight is a gift. Thank you for being a gift to this show. And I wish you the best for your birthday.

EISEN: Appreciate it.

CUOMO: All right, be well.

When we come back, there's one issue that matters most to voters, and that Democrats in power are clearly sleeping on. The Wizard of Odds with a giant wake-up call, FA (ph) says "Wake up!" Next.









CUOMO: Inflation means you pay more for stuff. Yet, for all politicians, telling you what it means, almost none of them know what they're saying.

Inflation is a coefficient of three things, the amount of money that's available, how much we want to buy, demand, and how much there is, for us to buy, supply, OK?

We collectively have more cash in our pockets, than any time, since the 80s. I know you're saying "Not me." I'm saying there is a ton of money in the economy right now. And that is going to affect things.

As a whole, we've also been able to save more, during the course of the Pandemic. Again, I know you're saying "Not me." It's a very unequal distribution. I'm talking about the gross amount of dollars, OK? Now, that seems wrong, because just today, we learned Americans have never been more in debt. That's why I get it. I get it.

That's because even though there's more money, in circulation, thanks to years of keeping borrowing rates low, through quantitative easing, remember QE1, QE2, QE3, and buying up trillions in bonds, during the Pandemic, that money is not evenly dispersed, a situation made worse, by the Trump tax cut, which comes with an estimated $1.9 trillion cost.

Bottom line, all that extra money did not go to you. I get it. But it means your money won't go as far. We're still trying to buy a lot more stuff, a reality that's only expected to increase, by around 7 percent, as we head into the holidays.

But as you know, it takes longer for that stuff to get here now, right, with the supply chain problem. That situation didn't just start either. Remember, last year, when the supply chain was so messed up, farmers were destroying their crops?

Meanwhile, Trump's trade war, is still in place, to the tune of $106 billion, paid by American importers, and passed on to? You (ph).

Fixes, like making it more expensive to borrow, risk raising the cost of a mortgage, which means fewer people buying homes, and fewer jobs, in areas, like construction. That's the problem, OK? Inflation comes on for a lot of reasons. And no matter what you do to fix it, you cause new ones.

Let's talk the politics, with the Wizard of Odds.

Harry Enten, what do you got?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Look, I go on Twitter a lot. I'm sure you visit. I see you replying to people. And people go, "Oh, you know, inflation's not that bad." Tell that to the American public.

Because, at this particular point, what do we see? We ask them, are things at the grocery store, everyday items, costing more? Look at that. 83 percent say "Yes." Has those increases caused hardship for your family? Look at that. 70 percent of Americans say, at least some minor hardship.

So, this is something that Americans are really feeling. And when you ask them, "What are you extremely concerned about right now?" What do we see? We see, inflation, number one, 53 percent. It's the only thing that gets a majority.

We just passed this infrastructure package. Just 27 percent of Americans are extremely concerned about that. It's so low on the list, I actually had to cut it off, of the top six or seven there. And then infrastructure is all the way down there, at 27 percent. Inflation, inflation, inflation, that's the number one concern for Americans.

CUOMO: Well, we always say, infrastructure, everybody loves it, except the voters.


CUOMO: They want it. They don't like the price tags. And it's just not an issue that they usually vote on. And that's proven there.

Now, is inflation at the top of the list, Harry, because it's been talked about so much and weaponized?

ENTEN: I don't think so. Because the fact of the matter is part of that little poll that I had, on that first slide, was actually something that was from August. Part of it was from August. Part of it was from October.

This is something that the American public has seen, for a long period of time. And it's taken time for the politicians, to actually recognize that. And I think, in all honesty, that result in Virginia, last week, may have played some role in that.

CUOMO: Let's go to the next slide. Inflation is the biggest issue.

ENTEN: Look at this.

CUOMO: This is hurting Biden.

ENTEN: Yes. I mean, here, it's part of the bigger economic issue, right? But look, Biden isn't doing enough about, and this is the top three issues that are listed.

Look at what's number one here. It's inflation at 60 percent. This is number one. It's the number one thing they're most concerned about. It's the number one thing that Biden -- they feel Biden's not doing a good job on.


And if you think, for a second, that voters aren't going to reward Republicans, because they think they're the best option, you only really get two, look at this, if you flip to slide four?

You see, "Who would do a better job and inflation?" Look at this, large gap, 45 percent say, the Republican Party. Just 21 percent say, the Democratic Party. There are some voters, in there, who's basically, say neither or both.

But this is one of the largest issue examples for Republicans that are out there. And the fact is, you can expect them to ride that hard, over the next year, especially heading into the midterm election.

CUOMO: Boy, oh boy, you know who's going to be talking about this? Joe Manchin.


CUOMO: Because this was his big objection to those support payments. Let's see how that plays, in the Democrat ranks, and how they divide.

Harry Enten, thank you.

ENTEN: Thank you.

CUOMO: Appreciate you.

ENTEN: Where are the compliments about my nice hair?

CUOMO: You have a good head of hair. There's no question about it.

ENTEN: Thank you. I appreciate it.

CUOMO: It's not real though. People don't know that. So, we'll keep it between us.

ENTEN: It takes one to know one.

CUOMO: I wish! Ooh!

All right, we'll be right back with the handoff.


CUOMO: All right, thank you very much for watching.

It's time for the big show, "DON LEMON TONIGHT," with its big star, D. Lemon.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: And we got a lot of news.