Return to Transcripts main page

Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees

Kyle Rittenhouse Testifies In His Own Defense In Homicide Trial; Sources Say January 6 Committee Interested In At Least Six People From Pence's Inner Circle; Federal Judge Denies Trump's Attempt To Withhold Records From Jan.6 Committee; House Dems To Introduce Resolution Calling For Gosar Censure; Neighbor Who Called Police To Report Arbery Inside House Under Construction Takes Stand; Federal Judge Overturns Texas Ban On Mask Mandates In Schools Because It Violates Americans With Disabilities Act. Aired 8-9p ET

Aired November 10, 2021 - 20:00   ET


ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: The landing on the moon had been set for 2024 by the Trump administration. The goal is to set up a long-term presence on the lunar surface so astronauts can learn how to live and work in there, you know, in incredibly low gravity, right, to provide a roadmap to land humans on Mars.

Thanks for joining us. Anderson starts now.


ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Good evening. As days in court go, they don't get any more dramatic or consequential perhaps to the case in question than today in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Defendant Kyle Rittenhouse taking the stand. He is 18 years old now, 17 when he shot three people, killing two during the street unrest there last summer. What he said in explaining his actions and his decision to pick up an AR-15 and travel to Kenosha, as well as how the prosecution conducted his cross examination and how explosively the Judge reacted to that could be pivotal in the homicide case against Rittenhouse.

So at the end of a very eventful day, I want to first go to CNN's Sara Sidner in Kenosha -- Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there was both yelling and sobbing in this trial today. The sobbing coming from Kyle Rittenhouse, the yelling coming from the Judge in this case.




SIDNER (voice over): Kyle Rittenhouse took the stand in his own defense for the killing of two men and wounding of another last summer during the unrest that exploded in Kenosha, Wisconsin. MARK RICHARDS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: On the night of the 24th, were you

aware of anything going on in Kenosha?

RITTENHOUSE: I knew there were protests, demonstrations and riots going on in the later evening.

RICHARDS: Okay, and how were you aware of that?

RITTENHOUSE: I saw videos on social media.

SIDNER (voice over): The next day his friend suggested they go to help protect businesses, and they did, he testified.

He said they went to the Car Source car dealership and the owners accepted their help.

RICHARDS: Did they give you permission to be there?


SIDNER (voice over): Later that night, Rittenhouse said he left the dealership and was asked by his friend to put out a fire elsewhere. That led to his first deadly shooting. When it came time to talk about it though, Rittenhouse broke down in sobs saying he was cornered.

RITTENHOUSE: I hear somebody scream "Burn in hell." And I replied with "Friendly, friendly, friendly" to let them know, "Hey, I'm just here to help."

SIDNER (voice over): He said he noticed a dumpster fire, went towards it and was approached by two men.

RITTENHOUSE: As I'm stepping forward, I believe his name is Joshua Ziminski. He steps towards me with a pistol in his hand, and as I'm walking towards to put out the fire, I dropped the fire extinguisher and I take a step back. I look over my shoulder and Mr. Rosenbaum was now running from my right side. I was cornered from in front of me with Mr. Ziminski and there were people right there.


SIDNER (voice over): His sobbing prompted the Judge to call for a break. Rittenhouse returned completely composed.

RITTENHOUSE: Mr. Rosenbaum was right there at the corner of the Duramax starting to chase me. A gunshot is fired from behind me, and I take a few steps and that's when I turn around. And as I'm turning around, Mr. Rosenbaum is coming at me with his arms out in front of him. He -- I remember his hand on the barrel of my gun.

RICHARDS: As you see him lunging at you, what do you do?

RITTENHOUSE: I shoot him.

RICHARDS: And how many times did you shoot?

RITTENHOUSE: I believe four.

SIDNER (voice over): Rittenhouse says he began to run.

RITTENHOUSE: People were screaming, "Get his ass. Get his ass. Get him. Get him. Get him."

SIDNER (voice over): Rittenhouse then describes how and why he shot the other two men, saying he was defending his own life.

RITTENHOUSE: Mr. Huber, he is holding a skateboard like a baseball bat and he swings it down and I block it with my arm trying to prevent it from hitting me, but it still hits me in the neck. And as I block it, it goes flying somewhere off in the distance.

RICHARDS: And did you stop them?

RITTENHOUSE: No. I get lightheaded. I almost pass out and I stumble and hit the ground.

I'm on my back, and Mr. Huber runs up. He -- as I'm getting up, he strikes me in the neck with a skateboard a second time.

RICHARDS: Then what happened?

RITTENHOUSE: He grabs my gun and I can feel it pulling away from me and I can feel the strap come off my body.

RICHARDS: And what do you do then?

RITTENHOUSE: I fire one shot.

RICHARDS: After you fire striking now we know, Mr. Huber, what do you do?


RITTENHOUSE: I lower my weapon and I see Mr. Grosskreutz. He lunges at me with his pistol pointed directly at my head.

RICHARD: Did you rerack your weapon?


SIDNER (voice over): That contradicted Gaige Grosskreutz testimony where he said Rittenhouse tried to reload his gun. Rittenhouse said he only fired at him when his life was in danger.

Prosecutors then cross-examined Rittenhouse questioning him about why he possessed a gun.

THOMAS BINGER, KENOSHA COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: So you're telling us that the reason that you wanted Dominic to buy you an AR-15 as opposed to a pistol is the only reason was because you felt you couldn't lawfully possess a pistol?

RITTENHOUSE: Correct. BINGER: You didn't pick out the AR-15 for any other reason?

RITTENHOUSE: I thought it looks cool.

SIDNER (voice over): The prosecution also tried to bring in evidence that Rittenhouse had said he wished he had a gun to shoot shoplifters in the days before he arrived in Kenosha.

BINGER: And you'd agree with me that you're not allowed to use deadly force to protect property, correct?


BINGER: But yet, you have previously indicated that you wished you had your AR-15 to protect someone's property, correct?

SIDNER (voice over): The Judge suddenly sent the jury out then admonished the prosecutor for questions about evidence that he said he had excluded from the trial and the prosecutor's questions about Rittenhouse requesting an attorney after turning himself in to police.

SCHROEDER: Don't get brazen with me. You knew very well -- you know very well that an attorney can't go into these types of areas when the Judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. So, don't give me that.


COOPER: Sara, what do we know about the possibility of a mistrial?

SIDNER: That was quite a tongue lashing there, and that was just a little bit of tongue lashing from the Judge to the prosecution. We do know the defense, after all of this happened, did tell the Judge that they intend to file for a motion for a mistrial. The Judge said that he would consider it.

So we are waiting for that to happen. We do know though that the defense is continuing its case. It is going to bring another young man in, a friend of Kyle Rittenhouse who we have heard from who bought him that AR-15. That's expected to happen tomorrow -- Anderson.

SIDNER: Sara Sidner, appreciate it. Joining us now CNN legal analyst, Paul Callan who has considerable experience on both criminal defense and prosecution sides of the courtroom, also Harvard Law School senior lecturer and former Federal Judge, Nancy Gertner.

Appreciate both you being with us. Paul, what do you make, first of all of the trial today, the defense strategy putting Rittenhouse on the stand?

PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, most defense lawyers were shocked that he took the stand because lawyers are terrified to put their own clients on the stand. And I was very surprised at how remarkably effective he was as a witness.

He put together really, a very solid self-defense claim. I mean, he said people had thrown rocks at the back of his head, knocked him to the ground, that he had -- that one of the individuals he fired the shots at had not only threatened to kill him, but threatened to cut his heart out.

And then of course, he broke into tears as he, you know, explained how the killing took place. So, I think he made a very, very good witness in his own behalf.

COOPER: Judge Gertner, you saw how Judge Schroeder admonished the prosecution multiple times today. And I just want to play one of those moments where the Judge goes after the prosecution for what they're bringing up in court to talk about it. Let's watch it.


SCHROEDER: I don't believe you. There better not be another incident. I'll take the motion under advisement. And you can respond.

When you say that you were acting on faith -- good faith, I don't believe that, okay. Let's proceed. Everybody in good faith. All right --


COOPER: As a Judge yourself, I'm wondering what you thought of what we saw today in the courtroom?

NANCY GERTNER, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: I don't think that in 17 years that I was on the bench that I ever admonished the lawyer in that way. And you also have to begin with, this is the Judge who when he began told the defense that they could call the victims "looters, arsonists and protesters." And that the defense was entitled to demonize the victims to score points with the jury. That was an extraordinary comment.

And whereas the prosecutor was not allowed to call the people who had been shot "victims," which of course is standard.

So candidly, I was troubled by his behavior. One never knows -- I didn't think that anything that the prosecutor did warranted that kind of an outburst and that kind of rage. But of course, I wasn't in the courtroom, so I can't tell.

But still the -- you know, the lawyers make mistakes in the heat of the trial and so this was -- I was putting in the context of the other instructions that he had given which were very, very troubling.


COOPER: And Judge, I mean, you've seen a lot of defendants on the stand. What did you think of how Kyle Rittenhouse was today?

GERTNER: You know, I thought -- I agree that he was effective. But you know, I really want to step back and say that this, the self- defense is actually not available to somebody who provokes an attack, and there is an argument that the prosecutor is going to make that some -- that the 17-year-old who is carrying around an AR-17 was provoking an attack.'

You can respond in self-defense, but only if the provocation that you started leads to the person to become essentially the aggressor. What's troubling here is a skateboard and an AR-17, an AR-15. That just doesn't match.

The Judge actually could keep a self-defense instruction from the jury, not likely in this case, it doesn't take much. But you really have to step back. This is really not the kind of situation for which the laws of self-defense were designed.

COOPER: But Judge, I mean, somebody can be beaten to death with a skateboard.

GERTNER: Yes, but the standard is to use -- you're allowed to use deadly force when you're threatened with imminent deadly force. And to be sure, that doesn't take much to make a self-defense claim. But typically, when you're the provoker, you don't get the benefit of self-defense. That horse is out of the barn. I mean, this Judge is obviously going to let Rittenhouse indulge in a self-defense defense, and he was very effective for that.


GERTNER: He certainly described his fear, and that was -- that was impressive.

COOPER: Paul, what do you --

CALLAN: Well --

COOPER: Go ahead. Paul, go ahead.

CALLAN: Yes, the defense is going to claim that he was not the initial aggressor. In fact, he was carrying the AR-15 as a self- defense measure, and he only started to use it after he was attacked, and his assailants threatened to kill him. One of them had a gun, and as a matter of fact, the prosecutor brought out that he had heard shots being fired at the scene as well.

So there's a lot of provocation on the other side. So there is no way that the self-defense claim is going to be taken away from him. It'll be up to the jury to decide. But I think he made as compelling a self- defense claim, as I've seen in a courtroom, and I've tried quite a few murder cases.

COOPER: Judge, it is an interesting argument that you're referencing the idea that I mean, somebody -- it's not like he is a trained security officer. He doesn't have experience -- he clearly -- from what it seems like, had never been in a kinetic, volatile, violent situation like this.

He chose to insert himself into the midst of it, albeit he said just to protect property. Are you saying that if somebody does that, if they insert themselves into a volatile situation, knowing it's a volatile situation, that any form -- I mean, that that there's no way he can have self-defense just because he inserted himself --

I mean, if somebody in the midst of a riot gets attacked, they can't defend themselves?

GERTNER: No, listen, it was a point about what the law is, and to some degree about what the legal policy is, that usually self-defense is not in a situation in which you were the provoker. That could -- the exception would be where you've provoked a confrontation, and then the other person becomes the aggressor, and you think you're in danger.

And in this situation, I thought that the prosecutor brought out something that the press is uncovering that, you know, he was guarding this car dealership, and then he decided to go into the into the melee carrying an AR-15.

And some of the comments that he was getting initially was because he was armed and in that melee. Again, I agree that the Judge is going to give him a self-defense instruction. But I wanted to step back and say this is really not what self-defense was intended to do.

And your point about police is very interesting, because, you know, we've spent the past almost two years being concerned about police use of deadly force against the civilian and they are trained. The notion that we're doing anything to privilege a 17-year-old carrying an AR- 15, who in fact, has no idea how to deal with these situations has got to be troubling for all of us.

COOPER: Yes. Judge Nancy Gertner, I really appreciate you being with us. Thank you. And Paul Callan as well, thanks so much.

CALLAN: Thank you, Anderson.

COOPER: Coming up next, the uncle of Jacob Blake, whose shooting by a Kenosha police officer touched off the unrest of the center of this case, I'll talk to Justin Blake about what he wants to see from this trial.

And later, breaking news as the House, or at least, a number of House Democrats prepared to seek sanctions against Congressman Paul Gosar over his posting of that violent PhotoShopped anime video attacking a colleague and threatening President Biden.



COOPER: The Kyle Rittenhouse trial resumes tomorrow morning. The defense saying, it intends to call several more witnesses.

Judge Bruce Schroeder telling jurors he expects to finish the case sometime early next week. Few people have been following the trial more closely than our next guest. He's the uncle of Jacob Blake whose shooting by Kenosha Police sparked the unrest that drew Kyle Rittenhouse and so many others to the city. Jacob Blake was partially paralyzed. Last month, the Justice Department chose not to pursue Civil Rights

charges against the officer who shot him. Justin Blake, Jacob Blake's uncle joins us now.

Mr. Blake, thanks for being with us. I'm wondering what your reaction to Kyle Rittenhouse's testimony was today.

JUSTIN BLAKE, UNCLE OF JACOB BLAKE: Salam Alaikum. Thank you for having us tonight.

Well, first off, it was just implausible, the things that he was talking about, the way he felt, the crying and the display that he showed. Nobody wants to hear that.

This young man, once you step into an adult world, you're sort of trapped on that side. He didn't want to be 17-year-old at home playing Atari or playing whatever game they play these days. He stepped into a very adult world and therefore he has to suffer the consequences of it.


Two men are dead and will never walk back through the doors of their mother and fathers. They had girlfriends, they have fiancees, they had a life. These are two human beings. They're not animals. They weren't dogs like they were shot in the street. They're human beings with family, lives, and loved ones.

COOPER: Do you believe that Rittenhouse has remorse for what he did?

BLAKE: There is no remorse. You can't show remorse because you don't have any way. Every day they listen and read the doctrine. They are close to the Ku Klux Klan and the skinheads. How can you blame a kid that is 17-year-old that listens to that over and over again, and then goes out and actually acts it out?

COOPER: From what I understand, you've been outside the courthouse every day so far. To you, what does justice in this case look like?

BLAKE: Well, justice looks like -- being little Jake's uncle that was shot seven times in the back by Kenosha Police Officer Sheskey in front of his three kids and paralyzed, we didn't get a chance to go to court. Little Jake hasn't had his day in court. His day was the bullets and the seven shots in the back.

These people made it to trial. They've got 12 people who seemed to be breathing and conscious of what's going on in their community, and they have the chance to settle the bill for these two families. Although the Judge has put his hand on the scale from time to time, and made that very difficult and set precedents almost to let this kid walk, the 12 jurors finally will be holding the last say.

COOPER: And just finally, your nephew, Jacob Blake, how is he doing in his recovery?

BLAKE: Man, he is our hero, bro. He gets into his therapy every day. He is mentally on top of his game. He said he's going to walk next summer and we're looking forward to it. As his uncle, there is -- we do want to say this presidency has led the families down of the Floyds beyond Austin, the aunt of Breonna Taylor is upside down about the President not following up with the words that he said.

Jacob Blake, my big brother is very upset about the President and the Vice President not following up on what they said. We need, as African descendants, need protection. We helped build this country, 300 years of free slavery, we are the richest country in the world.

If anybody deserves a vote, we deserve to vote. If anybody deserves Civil Rights and liberties, we deserve those Civil Rights and liberties.

COOPER: Mr. Blake, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

BLAKE: Big ups to the red, black, and green. Unity now. One Africa. Thank you.

COOPER: Up next, a CNN exclusive. Who the January 6th Select Committee wants to talk to from former Vice President Mike Pence's inner circle. Jamie Gangel joins us with her exclusive reporting, next.



COOPER: A CNN Exclusive: The House Select Committee investigating the deadly Capitol insurrection on January 6th is interested in gathering information from at least five members of former Vice President Mike Pence's inner circle according to sources familiar with the effort.

Our special correspondent, Jamie Gangel broke the story joins us now with her exclusive reporting. Jamie, good see you.

So, the Vice President's former National Security Adviser, Keith Kellogg has already been subpoenaed. Who else does the House Select Committee want to talk to?

JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So, I think in the end, it's going to be a long list. We know of at least five members of Pence's inner circle. We're told some of these individuals who are close to Pence may be willing to cooperate either voluntarily or under the guise of a friendly subpoena.

And according to our sources, some Pence aides are actually proving more willing to engage with the committee than has been previously made public.

You mentioned Keith Kellogg, who has just subpoenaed; other aides the committee would be interested in. Former Chief of Staff Marc Short, who was at the Capitol that day with Pence, former Chief Counsel Greg Jacob, who was the person who pushed back on John Eastman in that memo, and Keith Kellogg, who you mentioned, who has significant firsthand knowledge because he was actually with Donald Trump in the Oval Office on January 6th. He saw everything Trump did.

CNN reached out to the aides, who won't surprise you to know, didn't respond or declined to comment. I think they really do not want any publicity that they are engaging with the committee.

The House Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson did go on the record and confirm that the Committee was getting some cooperation.

But bottom line, Anderson, these are witnesses who have significant firsthand knowledge, and for the first time, we're hearing that they are engaging with the Committee.

COOPER: It's fascinating to hear that. In terms of the standoff between Pence's staff and the President's staff on January 6th, how might that play into what Pence's staffers tell the Committee?

GANGEL: So we've heard from the beginning that Pence's staffers were very angry, both in the lead up to January 6th and that day, and that certainly, I think, is playing a role into how and why they're engaging with the Committee.

They also have texts, e-mails, other documents that could be of interest, but I want to highlight this tweet, which was flagged for me. It is actually from the night of January 6th. We might have forgotten about it.

It was put out on Pence's official Twitter account. And let me just say, I don't think Pence was tweeting these photos of him that night.

He is surrounded by Capitol Police. He's on the loading dock of the Capitol where he was hiding. I think it is fair to say the staff who were very angry, put that out as a clear statement, that while President Trump was watching the insurrection on TV, while people were calling for "Hang Mike Pence" that the former Vice President was thanking the police for protecting him and the country.


COOPER: Wow. Fascinating though, it's going to be fascinating to see what happens with this.

Jamie Gangel, appreciate it. Thank you.

GANGEL: Thank you.

COOPER: Now the former president's latest setback and efforts to keep presidential documents away from the Select Committee, the National Archives is set to release them actually on Friday. Last night, Federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan, gave the green light in a ruling that read in part quote, presidents are not kings and plaintiff is not president. Well, like today lawyers for the not president who would be king appealed the case and sought to stay in the judge's order. She's yet to rule on that.

Want to bring in see CNN chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. So, first of all, just the fact that they've asked for a stay, they're asking them for a stay from the same judge who gave that ruling.


COOPER: That order?

TOOBIN: That's, that's how it works. The first thing you have to do when you're asking for a stay is you ask the judge who, who made the original order. It's unlikely that Judge will grant this day since she said, the press -- the former president's position had no merit, but you have to jump through that hoop before you have the right to go to the court of Appeals, the DC Circuit, which then could grant a stay. And that's really I think, where the action is going to be over the next 24 hours. Because, you know, that is a very politically polarized court, the DC Circuit, there are seven Democrats, four Republicans, also several Republicans who are senior, who have senior status, sometimes sitting cases.

How the randomly drawn three judge panel turns out, could be enormously important because if there are judges who are sympathetic to the former president, they could issue a stay. And that could delay this for many months. But if there is no stay, it really does look like the National Archives will begin to turn over those documents. And this investigation, which has been stymied in many respects, might make some real progress.

COOPER: So it really made -- it may boil down to kind of a roll of the dice of who's on a three person panel deciding from the District Court.

TOOBIN: Exactly, exactly. Especially -- I mean, and this is true. I mean, this is a broader lesson about the federal judiciary now. You know, the federal judiciary, the judges don't like to hear this, but on politically sensitive cases, the difference between Democratically appointed judges, Obama judges, Clinton, judges, Biden, judges, and Trump judges in particular, is so enormous, and particularly in a politically charged case, like this one, the makeup of this panel will tell you an enormous amount about how the case will ultimately be resolved.

COOPER: Wow, that's kind of depressing. The former president's team, they seem to be making the argument that they're trying to protect the rights of the presidency, which is what anybody who's trying to, you know, any president tries to do, or says they're trying to do. But is that -- does that make sense in terms of how executive privilege is understood legally? Because I mean, the current president is the one who decides this. And the current president says, there's a greater reason to have these documents out there.

TOOBIN: You know, Judge Chutkan's opinion is really fascinating on this. I mean, she basically says, look, you know, it is the executive privilege does not exist to protect the individual who happens to be president, it exists to protect the institution of the presidency. So yes, it is true that former presidents may seek to invoke it. But we give great deference to the current president, because that as the person who was charged with the responsibility of preserving the prerogatives of the executive branch. So when you have a conflict here, between the current president and the former president, you almost always are going to defer to the current president, because he is the person who is now responsible for the prerogatives of the executive branch.

You know, I have to say, this is a relatively new area, there are not a lot of cases. So, it would not surprise me if this case goes to the DC Circuit and ultimately to the Supreme Court. But I thought Judge Chutkan's opinion was quite persuasive. And we'll see if the three judge panel thinks like one (ph).

COOPER: It's also interesting, because I mean, it's bigger than just the executive branch. It's also the legislative branch. I mean, you have a, you know, a duly appointed commission, which is investigating this. So it's Congress, as well as the executive branch, wanting the National Archives to release this stuff.

TOOBIN: And again, that's a point that that the judge makes, which is, you know, this is about the structure of American government. Is that we need to honor the wishes of the different branches of government. We have the executive branch on one side, President Biden representing that. We have the legislative branch which is seeking this information. These people have -- these institutions have prerogatives and I as a representative of the third branch of government should not lightly overturn the will of both of the other branches of government which are here allied in saying that the National Archives should turn over this material.


COOPER: Yes. Jeff Toobin, appreciate it. Thanks. We'll be watching.


COOPER: Coming up next, breaking news from Democrats but more thundering silence from Republican Kevin McCarthy on disciplining the Congressman with a violent enemy attacking fellow lawmaker. Why the man who might one day be speaker, if he gets his dream that comes true has so little to say about the bad behavior of his members.


COOPER: There's breaking news tonight. The first concrete step toward consequences for a congressman who put out a Photoshop anime video depicting himself murdering a co-worker and attacking the president of United States. Ten House Democrats tonight announcing they'll introduce a resolution to censure Arizona Republican Paul Gosar unclear whether it'll get a vote, it'll be up to the House Democratic leadership. As for the House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, let's just say there have been no anime videos of him springing into action to discipline one of his own. There wasn't even a silent movie or single peep for that matter.

For a second straight day Leader McCarthy had nothing to say at all about Congressman Gosar's video revenge fantasy, putting himself on the swords against Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the President. Gosar took it down from social media but that's no longer the main issue which is the deafening silence of his party's leadership on it which I mean really shouldn't come as a shock. The GOP these days with rare exceptions is not a party all that keen on self-examination, especially when it comes to obnoxious and crude or even outright threatening behavior toward colleagues or the president.



REP. BILL POSEY (R-FL): Let's go Brandon. I yield back.


COOPER: As Florida Republican Congressman Bill Posey posing ended his remarks last month with the right wing meme for, F Joe Biden. He said it on the House floor face no consequences from his party. He sort of did it in a lackluster way, didn't really put his heart into it didn't seem.

Remember when Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted, you lied during Obama's State of the Union speech that was considered shocking. He faced no consequences as well actually from his party, which voted back then overwhelmingly against resolution of disapproval. As for the priorities this time well, Republicans, including Leader McCarthy certainly have found time to drum Congresswoman Liz Cheney out of her leadership position at the former president's bidding.

Now in her case, of course, her offense seems to have been seeking out the truth about January 6. We invited speaker McCarthy of course on the program for the second time this many days. And just like his response to the Gosar controversy, we didn't hear anything. So ghost.

Perspective now from CNN chief political analyst, Gloria Borgia and S.E. Cupp, conservative columnist and CNN political commentator.

Gloria, first of all, what do you make of the plan for a Democrat led resolution to censure Congressman Gosar? I mean, does that go anywhere? Does that help anyone?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, we're not sure if it's going to go anywhere. They're going to introduce it on Friday. I think it's not surprising that it comes from the Democrats. Remember, it was the Democrats who voted to strip Marjorie Taylor Greene of her committee assignments, who said, you know, this shall not stand and they put that on the House floor. So clearly, they believe something has to be done. But it's, as you were talking about just a moment ago, where's Kevin McCarthy? This is about leadership. This is about his leadership team. This is about how a member of Congress ought to behave, not about well, gee, you know, will this hurt me with Donald Trump, because Donald Trump likes Paul Gosar. I want to be the next Speaker of the House and on and on.

I mean, there is a moral obligation, it would seem to me to speak out and say, this can't stand. This person needs to learn a lesson here. And of course, McCarthy doesn't want to do that. COOPER: S.E. I haven't heard the term moral obligation in relation to -- I mean sad -- I'm and I don't say this with any like pride, like in relation to a lot of folks in Congress of late.

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, it's no surprise that we're here. The President himself used threatening language against members of Congress, anyone he deemed and an enemy, which was the media, which was intelligence officers, which were diplomats. I mean, it didn't, it didn't really matter. Anyone who came across this path was an enemy, and he really riled people up to turn against their own neighbors. And unsurprisingly, they did.

But there's another layer here, Anderson, which is one of misogyny, and women in any kind of public eye get this sort of they get death, the death fantasies, we get rape fantasies, I've been subjected of some of these and they're awful. Conservatives you really use to rail against that kind of misogyny when it came from political figures like Keith Olbermann or even Rush Limbaugh. Women, though, never should expect to get that from a sitting member of Congress. That's the shocking part that a sitting member of Congress put out a video wherein he, in an animated way, kills a woman in Congress. I mean, it is shocking.

And, again, unsurprising because no one ever expected a sitting President to do that kind of -- to use that kind of misogynistic language against women. And yet he did.

COOPER: I mean, Gloria that Paul Gosar has a long list of just reprehensible things, I'm writing (ph) and talking about sort of politically, I'm just talking about just from a human standpoint, he's just been pretty reprehensible of late. Or, I mean, I don't know how long back it goes, but I've only been paying attention to him for a year or so.

But how do you square the Republican Party wanting to punish its members for voting to fix bridges and roads, but not punish them, which they're all out there in their states? You know, promoting, frankly, but not punishing them for producing a video like this?

BORGER: It's, it defies explanation. I mean, you know, here they are finally getting some bipartisanship on Capitol Hill. But you have Donald Trump out there and I guess he's the reason Donald Trump out there saying you know, you all these people who voted for infrastructure, you've got to defeat them. You have Marjorie Taylor Greene giving they're their phone numbers and why. Don't forget and I was just thinking about this today Donald Trump himself signed on to, in theory, a $2 trillion infrastructure plan when he was president till he walked out on the Democrats, because he was mad. They were investigating him. But he was for infrastructure until the Democrats voted for it and why they, they don't want to give Joe Biden a win on anything. And Trump came out and said that.


And so Republicans are just following because they don't know any other way at this point. And it's, it's really depressing, actually. COOPER: So I mean, S.E., is it going to pay off, though I mean, the gamble the Republican leadership is making right now. Is that going to pay off politically?

CUPP: Probably. Yes, there doesn't seem to be any pain, or anger or division that Republicans are not willing to exploit and manipulate, to collect votes to please Trump, to remain in power. And so I don't think there's anywhere they won't go no worse, off limits. I just think I fear and I fact, I just know, this is going to end badly and violently. And I wonder if that's what it will take for Republicans to stop turning Americans against Americans. We already saw the violence. It wrecked rigged out at the Capitol we've seen violence. Is that what it's going to take for these guys for this party to rediscover their souls? Because that's what it feels like, it feels like there's nowhere they go anymore.

COOPER: S.E. Cupp, Gloria Borger, I appreciate it. Thank you.


COOPER: Up next, the neighbor who called her report seeing Ahmaud Arbery inside a house under construction minutes before he was gunned down takes a stand to trial the men accused of the killing. What he saw that was in his words shocking.



COOPER: A man who called police to report Ahmaud Arbery inside a house under construction testified today and the trial of the men accused of chasing him down and killing him. The witness who's lived in the neighborhood for more than 30 years said that minutes after he called the police non-emergency number. He heard gunshots and came across what he described as a shocking scene where Arbery's body was lying on the road. Also on the stand today detective who seemed to contradict the argument that the defendants thought Arbery was committing a crime.

The latest from CNN's Martin Savidge.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For its own truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth.


MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): (INAUDIBLE) prosecutors continuing to try to dismantle the defense claim that the three defendants were attempting as citizens arrest, the day 25-year- old Ahmaud Arbery was killed. On the witness stand that detective testified when he asked Gregory McMichael, if he had seen Arbrey commit a crime that day, McMichael said he didn't know and that it was up to investigators to try to figure that out.

Here's the detective reading McMichael's answer from a transcript.

RODERIC NOHILLY, SERGEANT, GLYNN COUNTY POLICE: Well, that's just it. I don't know. That's what I told. I told. What's your name out there? I said listen, you might want to go knock on doors down there, because this guy had just done something that he was fleeing from.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): In earlier testimony, the first officer to interview Gregory McMichael will still on the scene, said he never once mentioned the men were attempting to apprehend Arbery.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did he ever tell you while you're talking to him that he was attempting to make a citizen's arrest?


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you ever use the word arrest?


SAVIDGE (voice-over): The last moments of Arbery's life were captured on a cell phone video taken by one of the defendants William Rodney Bryan. The video shows two armed white men father and son Gregory and Travis McMichael, confronting Arbery as he runs down the road. Travis McMichael and Arbery struggle of a Travis he shotgun. Arbery is shot three times and collapses.

Gregory McMichael's defense attorney argued the senior McMichael feared Arbery was going to kill his son Travis if he got control the shotgun.

FRANK HOGUE, DEFENSE ATTORNEY FOR GREGORY MCMICHAEL: If he'd had gotten that shotgun, and there was any separation between Travis and him. I was going to cap his ass.


SAVIDGE (voice-over): Outside the courthouse during lunch recess, Arbery's family and their attorneys held a prayer vigil. The Reverend Al Sharpton called Arbery's death a lynching in the 21st century, that for a long time received little or no attention.

SHARPTON: Let's not be fooled. They never intended for these three to be in a court.



SHARPTON: The reason they are even on trial is because some of us stood with this father and mother and demand the justice.


SAVIDGE (voice-over): Back in court the prosecution interviewed the first witness from the neighborhood where Arbrey was killed, Matthew Albenze is the voice and the now widely played called to police that first reported Arbery in the neighborhood that day.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, what is he doing?


SAVIDGE: Well, Albenze called police he died the non-emergency number for the Glynn County Police Department, not 911, something he was asked about on the witness stand.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So you didn't dial 911.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right. Why didn't you dial 911?

ALBENZE: I did not see an emergency.

SAVIDGE (voice-over): Not long after Albenze says he heard gunshots and when he went to the scene, he was shocked to see the person he had just reported to authorities now lying in a pool of blood in the middle of the road, and Gregory and Travis McMichael standing nearby.


COOPER: Martin Savidge joins us now. It's just certainly that videotape, since the state decided to try all three men at the same time has that complicated the trial?

SAVIDGE: Has it ever. I mean, this is the first time I've ever covered a trial where you've got three defendants all being trialed at the very same time. Just the sheer logistics when you look at it inside of a courtroom here. You know, you've got the prosecution in normal you'd have one defense team. Here you've got one defense team, that another defense team, that another defense team all seated side by side of course with the defendants in the court room as well.


And say when the state gets up and provides a witness like they did today, that witness is likely to be interviewed four different times, first by the state and then by one attorney from each of those defense teams. Then there are the objections. Often it could be one attorney, two attorneys, three attorneys standing up and objecting and they may not all object over the very same thing. It forces the judge to send the jury out of the room while they try to settle all the disputes. It is extremely frustrating. Anderson.

COOPER: Martin Savidge, appreciate it. Thank you.

Up next, breaking news on the ban on mask mandates in Texas schools by the governor. The new ruling from a federal judge ahead.


COOPER: There's breaking news in the mask wars. A federal judge in Texas has ruled Governor Greg Abbott's executive order prohibiting mask mandates in schools violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. I mean to Texas schools can again set their own facemask rules.


The order comes after a month long legal dispute between parents and disability rights organization and Texas officials over whether the state was violating the 1992 -- 1990 law known as the ADA by not allowing school districts to require mask.

News continues. Let's hand over Chris for "CUOMO PRIME TIME." Chris.