Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Homicide Trial In Wisconsin, Georgia Murder Trial: Two Cases Where Race Is Playing A Role; Democrats Pointing Fingers Over Election Losses; Capitol Rioter Sentenced 60 Days Behind Bars; Thirty-Seven Cases Of Unruly Passengers Sent To Federal Prosecutors. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired November 04, 2021 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DON LEMON, CNN HOST (on camera): Okay, everyone, a lot to discuss tonight. Two big trials underway in different parts of the country, important cases where race is playing a huge role, Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial in Wisconsin and the case of three white Georgia men accused of murdering Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man out jogging.

Now, the judge in the Rittenhouse case dismissing a juror for telling a joke about Jacob Blake. Jacob Blake is a Black man who's shooting by police officers set off on arrest in Kenosha. The judge says it gives an appearance of racial bias which he says could undermine the outcome of the trial.

And as opening statements begin tomorrow in the Georgia murder trial controversy over the jury selection process there, resulting in 11 white jurors and only one Black juror. We're going to hear from Ahmaud Arbery's mother in just a few moments on what she thinks about that.

So, tonight, extensive coverage of both cases. Omar Jimenez is in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Martin Savidge is in Jekyll Island, Goergia. Firt, though, to Wisconsin in trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is facing seven charges, including intentional homicide in the shooting deaths of two men and the wounding of another during civil unrest in Kenosha in August of 2020.

Defensive attorneys not disputing Rittenhouse fired the fatal shots but arguing that he did so in self-defense. Key witnesses on the stand today. A warning, though, some of the video shown in court is graphic.

Here's CNN's Omar Jimenez.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE).

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A third day of testimony in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse focused on how the shooting began the night of August 25th, 2020, starting with the killing of Joseph Rosenbaum, one of two killed by Rittenhouse that night.

RICHARD MCGINNIS, VIDEO DIRECTOR, DAILY CALLER: I do.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): Richard McGinnis, video director from the website the "Daily Caller," was the fifth witness called by prosecutors in the trial who was emphasized Rosenbaum was unarmed.

UNKNOWN: Did you ever see a weapon on Mr. Rosenbaum?

MCGINNIS: I did not.

UNKNOWN: Never saw a gun on Mr. Rosenbaum?

MCGINNIS: I did not.

UNKNOWN: Never saw him have a knife?

MCGINNIS: No.

UNKNOWN: Never saw him have a club or a bat or a chain or anything like that?

MCGINNIS: I just saw (INAUDIBLE).

JIMENEZ (voice-over): Prosecutor Thomas Binger took jurors to the moment of the shooting.

MCGINNIS: I realized that Mr. Rosenbaum was continuing to advance and that Mr. Rittenhouse was standing still based on Mr. Rosenbaum's -- the way that he was running. And then eventually lunging towards the front portion of the rifle, it was clear to me that something with the weapon was about to happen, and I didn't want to be on the wrong side of that.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): Rosenbaum was. McGinnis as on the scene that night documenting the unrest and even spoke to Rittenhouse before shots were fired.

[23:05:05]

KYLE RITTENHOUSE, DEFENDANT: There's somebody hurt. I'm running in the harm's way.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): Not long after.

UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE) real quick!

JIMENEZ (voice-over): He was forced to render emergency aid.

MCGINNIS: I was under his right shoulder. There is another individual under his left shoulder. And there were maybe one or two people carrying his legs. And I was just telling him that we are going to have a beer together afterwards and it was all going to be okay. It seemed that his eye was looking at me, but it was kind of rolling back. And then when I started talking, it rolled back kind of towards me, and I was looking at him. So, I'm not sure if he heard me, but I think perhaps he did.

UNKNOWN: Did he say anything?

MCGINNIS: No.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): During cross-examination --

MCGINNIS: He is in a low position running.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): -- the defense focused on why Rosenbaum's pursuit of Rittenhouse continued.

MARK RICHARDS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Could have stopped at any time once he sees an armed individual, correct?

MCGINNIS: I assumed he could have, yes.

RICHARDS: He kept advancing?

MCGINNIS: Correct.

RICHARDS: And he continues to advance until he makes a lunch for the weapon, correct?

MCGINNIS: Yes. It appeared that he was on him for the front portion of the weapon.

RICHARDS: Okay, which would be the business end of an AR-15?

MCGINNIS: Yes.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): Trying to paint a picture that Rosenbaum was the aggressor as he lunged and Rittenhouse was defending himself.

RICHARDS: You know as you sit here today that he yelled the words, F you, but the whole words, correct?

MCGINNIS: Yes.

RICHARDS: Okay. What was the tone of his voice as he yelled that?

MCGINNIS: Very angry.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): Rosenbaum's demeanor was the focus of the next witness called as he began his testimony, including one encounter in particular.

RYAN BALCH, WITNESS: If I catch you guys alone tonight, I'm going to effing kill you.

UNKNOWN: And he said that to you?

BALCH: Correct.

UNKNOWN: Did he say that to the defendant as well?

BALCH: The defendant was there, so yes.

JIMENEZ (voice-over): But words never became actions, as Ryan Balch, who is with Rittenhouse that night, later laid out.

UNKNOWN: Did you ever actually see Mr. Rosenbaum physically injure anyone that night?

BALCH: No.

UNKNOWN: You had your Glock pistol on your hip, correct?

BALCH: That's correct.

UNKNOWN: Did he ever reach for that?

BALCH: No.

UNKNOWN: Did he ever touch that?

BALCH: No.

UNKNOWN: Did he ever touch you?

BALCH: No.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON (on camera): So, joining me now, Omar Jimenez. Omar, good to see you. A juror was dismissed in this trial earlier today after he reportedly made a joke to a deputy about the shooting of Jacob Blake. It's unbelievable. What else are you learning here?

JIMENEZ: Yeah, Don. So, the juror was dismissed after attempting to make a joke earlier this week to a deputy about Jacob Blake that began with why did it take seven shots to shoot Jacob Blake, and according to prosecutors, it ended with because they ran out of bullets.

This juror was called into the courtroom, questioned by the judge. He affirmed that he told a joke, didn't deny that that's what happened. Both sides of the defense prosecution agreed this juror should be dismissed and that's what happened as the judge emphasized that the public needs to be confident that this is a fair trial. And of course, this now has 19 jurors in total, 11 women and now eight men.

At this point, we are expecting from prosecutors to continue to call witnesses as you are expecting them to do, I should say, through early next week. Don?

LEMON: Omar, thank you very much. Great reporting there.

I'm going to turn now to the trial of three white men accused of murdering Ahmaud Arbery. Ahmaud Arbery was 25-year-old unarmed Black man shot and killed while jogging last year.

CNN's Martin Savidge is covering this trial for us, where opening statements begin tomorrow. Martin, hello to you. The jury in this trial made up of 11 white jurors, only one Africa-American. Tell us more about the racial makeup of this community and how this happened.

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT: Many people are wondering how exactly did this happen. Glenn County, which is where this trial is taking place, is majority white, but 25% African- American. There were a thousand jury settlements that were sent out, hundreds of people were in interviewed, including many African- Americans for the possibility of serving on this jury.

And then we get to what is the actual selection process. The way you actually select the jury is by the defense and prosecution deciding who they don't want on the jury. They do that by strikes. In this particular case, the judge awarded twice as many strikes to the defense as they did to the prosecution.

By the time the process was done, at the end of the day yesterday, we found out there were 11 whites and only one African-American. The prosecution was absolutely outraged. They immediately filed a motion with the judge. They accused the defense of actually denying eight African-Americans the opportunity of serving on that jury simply because, the prosecution said, they didn't want Blacks on the jury. The defense denied that emphatically.

[23:10:00]

They said there were other reasons. They felt that these jurors were not going to be impartial. The judge basically said, he sided with the prosecution here, believing that actually the defense had used race. But, at the end of it all, he said, the law really doesn't give me much option, will go with the jury, as has been seated (ph), and that's where we are.

LEMON: Any explanation, Martin, as to why the defense got twice as many strikes?

SAVIDGE: Well, first of all, you have to remember that there are three defendants going on trial at the same time. There are three different defense teams and there are six attorneys in total. The judge felt that, given that circumstance, that was the best way to divide up the strikes.

LEMON: Gotcha. We're all learning that the judge is expected to rule tomorrow, Martin, on some important aspects of this trial. What are you hearing about that?

SAVIDGE: Right. Even as we're on the eve of what we anticipate to be the opening statements, there are two big statements that judge has to finally rule on. Number one, should the jury be told that Ahmaud Arbery was on probation at that time he was killed? The judge has already ruled that nothing about Ahmaud Arbery's criminal past can be introduced at this trial. After all, he's not on trial.

But if you tell the jury that he was on probation, well, the jury is going to automatically kind of assume, well, you don't get on probation unless you've done something wrong. So, that's one issue the judge has to rule on, should they know that? The other has to do with the image that was on the pick-up truck driven by Travis McMichael. Travis McMichael is the man who actually shot and killed Ahmaud Arbery, shooting him three times with the shotgun. On his pick-up truck, at the front with the vanity plate is in part a confederate flag emblem. Should the jury know that? And if they know that, what might they infer about Travis McMichael?

So, those are the two big issues the judge still has to rule on before we get the testimony.

LEMON: Martin Savidge. Thank you, Martin. We will check back in, following this one closely.

So, I want to bring in now CNN's senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Laura Coates and legal analyst Elliot Williams. He was a former deputy assistant attorney general under President Barack Obama.

Wow. I mean -- good evening. Okay. So, Laura, this is -- look, you did this forever. You know what's up with these trials. Will they tell us about where we are in the legal system and with race in this country?

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, look at both these trials. I mean, you had one juror being dismissed because the punchline, essentially, of somebody being shot in the back seven times was apparently more important than somebody getting access to a fair trial, somebody being able to understand about humanity.

In another, you've got a concerted effort, according to the judge, it seems, to try to have a jury that is comprised of people who are all white or mostly white. In fact, all but one white. There is never actually a guarantee that you get to have a specific racial composition of your jurors.

But, you know, the Supreme Court and prosecutors and defense attorneys across the country know that when you are trying to engage in any behavior to try to curate a jury in a way that removes any element of diversity, particularly when you have a racially charged case like you have here, well, this doesn't really sound like justice truly or the pursuit of justice. It feels like an opportunity to try to undermine it.

LEMON: You know, Elliot, a juror in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial -- Laura just mentioned a little bit, she touched on it -- was dismissed for telling the deputy a joke about the police shooting of Jacob Blake. According to the judge, the juror said something to the effect of why did it take seven shots to shoot Jacob Blake and it is outrageous, but does it also say something about what can be just under the surface in these high-profile cases here?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Well, in any case, Don, look,

it is actually -- number one, it can be hard to get on a jury because there are a number of ways that juror can be struck. It can also be incredibly easy to get on the jury, because at the end of the day, all the juror has to be able to say is, I can impartially judge the facts in the law, right?

So, someone who either has a pattern or history of making racist jokes or makes racist jokes can still get on a jury. And frankly, this is just the individual who happened to make it to a law enforcement official. The judge did the right thing here by getting this person off, but you just don't know what's under the surface.

LEMON: But Elliot, he felt comfortable enough --

WLLIAMS: Yeah.

LEMON: to tell a member of law enforcement a joke. I mean, hello.

WLLIAMS: You know, Don, it's actually quite wonderful that you used the term comfortable enough --

LEMON: Yeah.

WLLIAMS: -- because the bigger thing linking these two cases with these two -- and they're very different cases, very different states and law.

[23:15:00]

WLLIAMS: The two things linking them is the idea of who is allowed to be a vigilante --

LEMON: Right.

WLLIAMS: -- in America, who is allowed and empowered to be able to say, you know what, I'm going to take the law into my own hands and take a gun and, in one case, cross state lines with an illegal firearm and gun people down. It's -- you know --

LEMON: But he thought that the law enforcement person, a member of law enforcement would be cool with him, telling -- you get what I am saying?

WLLIAMS: I get totally what you are saying. It is all about what people feel comfortable --

LEMON: Yeah.

WLLIAMS: -- and empowered to do, and that is what he did there.

LEMON: Yeah. Laura, listen, I got to get your take on this.

COATES: It is also the reason --

LEMON: Go ahead, Laura. Go ahead.

COATES: I was going to say it is also the reason, you know, people often wonder why do you have to be reminded the black lives matter. Well, if seven shots to somebody's back at the hands of police officer is the precursor to a punchline, it should be no wonder. This person felt so comfortable. You would only make jokes to people you think you might have reciprocal humor with, right?

LEMON: Right.

COATES: The expectation that this person --

LEMON: Is in on a joke.

COATES: -- would also chuckle along. And remember, it is the Rittenhouse trial. It is not about Jacob Blake being on trial. But remember, Rittenhouse, according to his defense team, appeared there because he was trying to respond to and protect property in the aftermath of the shooting of Jacob Blake.

And so, you cannot divorce yourself from the fact that racially charged discussion and inflection point in America, one of many just that you are alone, was what precipitated this now defendant to be in that area and for two people to be killed and another person wounded.

So, if you have jurors, sitting jurors making these jokes, making these correlations, it's not hard to think about how that case or any other racially inflection point would actually impact a juror's mind in this trial.

LEMON: Yeah. Laura, I am going to ask you to get your take on this -- on the nearly all white jury in the trial for the men accused of killing Ahmaud Arbery. If the situation was reversed and a white man was killed by three Black men, do you think that the white jurors would be struck down during the selection, leaving an overwhelmingly Black jury?

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: You want me to pause? Should I pause? Let me give you the Hollywood pause. Let me think. No, Don. The answer is no. Statistics, history, sociology, and the intersection of race and history in the law in America tell you that there is a very different vantage point, a very different expectation, and a very different approach to the way in which we seek jurors when you have a white victim and a Black defendant.

It is very different. You see the opposite in this case. Remember, this is something not only with the Ahmaud Arbery killing. It took months for it to even be prosecuted, video the video was even shown. And you had even one of the former prosecutors being looped in for aspects of this in terms of unethical behavior and possibly criminal behavior as well.

And so, now, you had that defense attorney in this case say, I am sorry, your honor, we do not have enough people who are over the age of 40, not college educated, white men who are referred to as they were bubba or Joe six-pack. This is a gross injustice here.

If that is where we began, then no, this would not be the same if we were talking about a white victim and, say, three Black men on trial. I mean, the exonerated five might tell you a little bit about the history of America when it is a white victim and even the expectation or thought that there are Black defendants who committed the crime.

WLLIAMS: Don, to add to that, the other thing is that they were struck and McMichaels -- one of defendants' attorney, said they were struck because they expressed strong views. In his words, they express strong views.

Look, white jurors express strong views, too. Frankly, as you saw in Kenosha, Wisconsin, white jurors hold biases as well. The notion that Black jurors who expressed strong views about a case are automatically -- it is just pretext for getting them off the jury.

And under the law, you cannot strike a juror because of their race, but you can strike a juror because of their race if you say (INAUDIBLE) have some other reason or can articulate another reason for it. This is why they have strong views.

LEMON: Strong views? Why are the Black jurors bias and the white jurors not bias?

WLLIAMS: That is exactly it. It is a gross double standard that you are seeing here. The white jurors on that panel certainly expressed strong views about the case. They live in a community and so on. Of these 11 folks that got struck, the overwhelmingly majority of them were struck on the basis that they had strong views.

LEMON: Can I ask you something: So, this is -- listen, everyone I talked to said this. Don, you got to bring light to this. Why do judges have so much power? We can see the ridiculousness of it and you can see the bias of the judges.

[23:20:00]

LEMON: There is -- why -- why don't the judges have someone or -- do they -- you know what I am saying? Like hey, you are wrong about this. Go ahead, Laura.

COATES: On the one hand, let me just -- let me just play and give an olive branch to the members of the Judiciary for just a brief moment although I am often critical of particularly overt acts of bias or expressions of bigotry on any level on justice system.

But to a certain extent, and Elliott knows this, we are talking about what the law provides and the Supreme Court allows for you to give a non-race base reason to articulate a reason that you struck the juror to extent a judge's hands are tied to be able to say, okay, well you provided some reason and (INAUDIBLE) challenge as a juror.

Now, it might not pass the smell test for most people, but that is the question really to reform aspects of what we require to prove that you actually have a nondiscriminatory purpose for striking a juror, particularly when it smacks of this sort of level of obviousness in that case.

On the other hand, judges, they want to avoid being appealed. If there is a conviction, they want to make sure they have sort of the clean hands, they have done everything they can to be deferential (ph) to a defendant, and you see that here.

But that is not what happens or what should happen when you are talking about due process and a fair trial. It is about giving a fair trial to both sides --

LEMON: Exactly.

COATES: -- not about bending or backwards for a defendant.

LEMON: Yeah. Elliot, are you good? Are you good? Do you want to weigh in?

WLLIAMS: You are literally asking me, are you good? Well, when the chief counsel speaks, I'm always good. Just to add one point to what Laura is saying there. Number one, all these rules act to protect defendants across the criminal justice system regardless of their race. You want to be able to ensure that a defendant gets a fair trial.

But what you are grafting on top of that right here is bias and race infecting our criminal justice system. And, you know, using the example of expressing strong views or biases and just being able to say we have a race neutral -- you can always, Don, point to a race neutral reason for getting a juror (ph).

LEMON: Yes.

WLLIAMS: You can say, use someone's zip code as a basis and they happen to live in a Black neighborhood. That is a base for getting someone off a jury that will send up to Supreme Court scrutiny. So, you know, at the end of the day, you can use race but sort of just say you are not using race.

LEMON: So, what she said. What Laura said.

WLLIAMS: What Laura said.

COATES: I can play Elliot Williams. Elliot Williams is a sharp, sharp attorney. I commend him. He did not echo me (INAUDIBLE). He is always (INAUDIBLE).

LEMON: Right.

COATES: I love him.

WLLIAMS: Lyrics and music, Don. Lyrics and music.

LEMON: That was a backhand smack to me. Thank you, guys. I'll see you both.

COATES: No. Don't get me in trouble here. Don't get me in trouble. Don, you just stir pots.

LEMON: All right, guys. See you later. Thank you so much.

The Democratic Party split and not able to get on the same page. What do they have to do to right the ship? I'm going to speak with the two former senators who would know, senators Max Baucus and Barbara Boxer. They are next. Hopefully, it will not go off the rails like this last one did. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON: Breaking news. Source telling CNN the House will vote tomorrow on President Joe Biden's "build back better" bill and bipartisan infrastructure bill.

I'm going to discuss it now with two former Democratic senators here, Max Baucus of Montana and Barbara Boxer of California. We got a lot to discuss. We are going to do it -- try to get through these segments quickly here. Good evening to both of you.

Senator Max Baucus, I'm going to start with you. Set tomorrow for the votes on the $1.9 trillion "build back better" bill and the infrastructure bill, getting these bills passed the first step in damage control after the trouncing Democrats got in Virginia. Do you think that's what this is?

MAX BAUCUS, FORMER MONTANA SENATOR: That's a lot of it. It's clear that voters are very confused and discontented with what they see as Washington unable to manage the country's affairs. It has taken the Democrats way too long to negotiate out both the infrastructure bill and the so-called reconciliation bill.

I'm glad to see a vote. It will probably pass the House. Nancy Pelosi never does anything until she knows she has the votes. But it's not going to pass the Senate. It will be modified in the Senate.

It's very important that (INAUDIBLE) get the leaders of both bodies together to get a moderate (ph) bill. Moderate (ph) bill is too extreme. A moderate (ph) bill passed because I think that's what the majority of voters want. The infrastructure bill is critical. That's jobs.

LEMON: Yeah.

BAUCUS: We should remember that Bill Clinton once said, you know, it's the economy, stupid. I think it's as true today as it was then. If people care about their incomes, their jobs, get that infrastructure bill passed.

LEMON: Senator Boxer, Virginia Democrat Abigail Spanberger told "The New York Times" this about President Joe Biden yesterday. She said, nobody elected him to be FDR, they elected him to be normal and stop the chaos. CNN is reporting that the president called Congress on Spanberger today asking her to support the spending package. What do voters actually want from this president?

BARBARA BOXER, FORMER CALIFORNIA SENATOR: Well, I think they won all of the above. I do think they wanted to return to normalcy after we had a presidency who has anything but normal and divided us and hurt us and divided us really so badly that we're still reeling from it. So, yes, I agree with her.

But I think they also want action and, you know, times are really tough with this pandemic.

[23:30:00]

BOXER: It's still around. You know that. You talk about it so beautifully all the time. And people are still wary. I'm sitting here. I used to be able to go to a studio and do this. I'm in my home, which is unfortunate. It works out. Everybody is discombobulated still.

So, I think getting these two -- I agree with my former colleague, Max. He was the chairman of the Environment and Public Works and then I became the chairman, and we delivered, we delivered these infrastructure bills. I did three. I'm so proud of them. And by the way, we never kept holding press conference, Max, remember, until the deal was done. I think one of the problems is they're looking at the sausage and its ugly.

LEMON: Right.

BOXER: So, get it done already. Get it done.

LEMON: Thank you. I can agree with you more. And on the whole idea of we didn't elect him to be FDR, he is elected to stop the chaos, are Democrats, Senator Baucus, just trying to do too much with the margins that they have? What should his priority be with the midterms less than a year out?

BAUCUS: Well, in my experience, when I was in the Senate, when one party controlled both the White House and also both houses of Congress, they tend to get ahead of their skis. Hubris began to set in. They let too much, go too far. They tend to not listen to the other side, let it get too much to their heads. I think some of that has happened here.

I think the package was way too big for the beginning. That caused, frankly, the inability of Congress, the Democrats to get their act together because that for some moderates to dig in their heels. And it's natural.

So, I do think initially was too big because it's inevitable. It happens. But now, the time has come when the president -- frankly, I think the president ought to get the leaders in a room over the White House sit down and say, okay, I've locked the door, we're not leaving until we get a deal here both on infrastructure and on the big package.

And I think that's what presidents do. That's what they should do. That's what I think Joe Biden needs to do.

LEMON (on camera): I just had a conversation with Jon Meacham last night. I could have used that. What I am saying, it exerts some sort of pressure. That's exactly what the American people want. They want things to get done. They want to look through the backstops here at his desk in the Oval Office.

Senator Boxer, key player in getting anything passed is Senator Joe Manchin. I want you to listen to him talk about the president on CNN. This is earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): I think we're cut out of the same clothes, basically from a legislative process, and I really think Joe Biden is a moderate. I think that he understands. He did it for 36 years. People that worked with him are still in the Senate now. Tell me that Joe Biden was great to work with. You always knew where he came from. But he was always willing to meet you in the middle.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): So, is Biden a moderate? Is he being dragged too far to the left because progressives say that this massive social spending is all the president's plan?

BOXER: Joe Biden is Joe Biden. He is going to go for the policies he thinks are right and he is going to do it wisely. Everything is going to be paid for. But I do have to say this. It is as Senator Baucus said. We have these very, very close margins, very difficult.

And one of the things Joe Manchin said that I agree with -- I don't agree with Joe Manchin on a lot of his stance. I think that he's missing some very important points on family leave and other things. But he said something that was true, Don. He said, you know, you guys have to elect more liberals in order to get more of this done. He's right.

I mean, the reason he is front and center and Sinema is front and center is because, you now, it's 50/50. But I think it's key to have a big tent. If Democrats lose the big tent, the whole tent is going to collapse. You have to learn to walk in other people shoes.

When I got to the Congress, I thought I knew everything and everyone was gone and all that. And pretty quickly, I recognized, especially those from the purple districts and later the purple states, you have to walk in their shoes.

So, go as far as you can go. Be pragmatic. I think that's what Joe Biden is. I think he is -- yes, I think he has liberal and progressive views on many things, but he's a pragmatist. And he wants to keep the tent together. And it's incumbent on every single Democrat, liberal, progressive, moderate, wherever you are, to pull that tent together and don't let it fall. I feel so strongly about that.

LEMON: Yeah. Hey, Senator Baucus, really quickly. I just have a short time left here. What did you think of what happened in Virginia? Sign of things to come if Democrats don't get their acts together?

BAUCUS: I think Democrats were taken by surprise. They took it for granted.

[23:35:00]

BAUCUS: And look at the result. I do think -- not to be critical, but McAuliffe, I think, too much time talking about the past, his role as governor, what he's done in the past tied with Joe Biden. Rather (INAUDIBLE) jobs he is going to provide. I think (INAUDIBLE) you're going to get something done. (INAUDIBLE).

LEMON: Okay.

BAUCUS: I was once chairman of Senate Finance Committee for many years and I know that that's the kind of stuff you have to do. You have to show what you're going to do, not what you want.

LEMON: Yeah, and stop talking about the former guy. He is not in power anymore. People are quite frankly tired of hearing about him. Thank you both. I appreciate it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): I just -- I just want -- I want you guys to listen to this, okay? All right? Sit back. Take this. Capitol rioter Jenna Ryan tweeted -- quote -- "definitely not going to jail. Sorry I have blonde hair, white skin, a great job, a great future, and I'm not going to jail. Sorry to rain on your hate parade. I did nothing wrong.

But a judge says otherwise. The 51-year-old real estate agent flew to Washington, D.C. from Texas on a private jet with two friends to attend the "Stop the Steal" rally, livestreaming herself as she walked with the crowd into the Capitol building. In August, she pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of illegally demonstrating inside the Capitol.

And now, she is facing 60 days behind bars. That's a harshest sentence yet for someone who has pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense. The judge calling her out for a total lack of remorse. Ryan actually said she believes rioters deserve a pardon from Trump. That tweet of hers speaks for itself.

If you think she has remorse for equating her blonde hair and white skin with no jail time, guess again. Listen to what she said she had to say when CNN caught up with her and asked her about that tweet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JENNIFER RYAN, PLEADED GUILTY TO ILLEGALLY DEMONSTRATING INSIDE THE CAPITOL: I think that is a travesty. I think that everybody should be able to tweet without being persecuted and treated like crap. So, you know, watch what you tweet, because if you tweet, you can go to jail. I regret ever tweeting, but, you know, it's a free country and I'm allowed to say, you know, it's free speech. (END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON (on camera): Those are the people who say, oh, you're cancelling me because -- Nope. No remorse for citing her skin color or her hair color. No explanation for why being white or having a good job made you won't go to jail either when you did something wrong.

More rioters are being sentenced. Remember that almost 10 months later, none of the politicians who spread the big lie had faced any consequences. Whether they will, we shall see.

Meanwhile, the unfriendly skies, and related news. Airline passengers are getting more and more unruly. It is the same mentality, really. What the feds are doing now to crack down.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): So, despite all the warnings, we keep hearing stories about airline passengers getting unruly and even violent. So, as CNN aviation correspondent Pete Muntean reports, the feds are sending a new message, bad behavior may land you in jail.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNKNOWN: (INAUDIBLE).

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The most egregious acts of in-flight violence are now being turned over to federal prosecutors. For the first time, the Federal Aviation Administration says it has sent the cases of more than three dozen unruly passengers to the Department of Justice. If eventually charged and convicted, they could face up to 20 years in jail.

SARA NELSON, INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS: That's what needs to happen.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): Sara Nelson heads the Association of Flight Attendants. Flight crews have reported 5,033 unruly incidents this year alone. The FAA has initiated enforcement in 227 cases. Now, it is asking prosecutors to bring charges against 37 of those passengers.

NELSON: We know this works, and the Justice Department just has to take action, put some people in jail, and have people understand there are severe consequences if you act out like this on a plane and put everyone in jeopardy.

UNKNOWN: Sit down now.

MUNTEAN (voice-over): The FAA says it has no tolerance for passengers who throw punches and shut down flight crews.

The FAA's newest plead to passengers aired first on CNN. The agency cannot bring criminal charges, but the Justice Department can. The ad shows the notice of (INAUDIBLE) when their case turns criminal.

STEVE DICKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, FAA: We are pulling out the stops --

MUNTEAN (voice-over): FAA Chief Steve Dickson says more federal investigators are meeting flights at the gate. Last week, police and the FBI were waiting in Denver for the man now charged for allegedly punching an American Airlines flight attendant in the face.

DICKSON: The crews are there for passenger safety and this is about a behavior that is not appropriate in an aviation environment. We need to get it under control.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON (on camera): Certainly do. Pete Muntean, thank you very much for that. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LEMON (on camera): Before we go, a sneak peek of a new CNN Special Report. Make sure you join Jake Tapper for "Trumping Democracy: An American Coup." It begins tomorrow night at 9:00, and I'll be on right after that. Here's a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CROWD: Freedom!

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (voice- over): You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength.

REP. ANTHONY GONZALEZ (R-OH): January 6th was the line that can't be crossed. January 6th was an unconstitutional attempt led by the president of the United States to overturn an American election and reinstall himself in power illegitimately.

[23:55:03]

CROWD: Freedom! Freedom!

GONZALEZ: That's fallen nation territory, that's third world country territory. My family left Cuba to avoid that fate. I will not let it happen here.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): That's Republican Congressman Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio.

GONZALEZ: I rise today in support of the Cuban people.

TAPPER (voice-over): Grandson of an immigrant, he has a quintessentially American success story. A talented wide receiver who played three years for Ohio State. Five more in the NFL. And when injuries sidelined him, he got a business degree from Stanford. All this before age 34, when Gonzalez felt called to run for Congress.

GONZALEZ: I got into this because, look, my family came here from Cuba. My father's family came here from Cuba. We come from a country that has fallen. We come from a failed nation. And we've seen what happens when the rule of law is dismantled, when a strawman is allowed to take hold, and democratic norms cease to exist.

TAPPER (voice-over): And now the conservative Republican has a warning for all of us about what Trump and his minions tried to do when they tried to steal the election.

GONZALEZ: This country has been through a lot. We fought through it and we've persevered. As much as I despise almost every policy of the Biden administration, the country can survive a round of bad policy. The country can't survive torching the Constitution. That's the one thing the country can't survive.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

LEMON (on camera): And thank you for watching, everyone. Our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)