Return to Transcripts main page

Don Lemon Tonight

Judge Chutkan Denies Trump's Request; Kyle Rittenhouse In His Emotional Testimony; Judge Schroeder Yelled At Prosecutor; Trump Critic And Candidate Change His Tune; Facebook Dividing The Country More; Consumers Reeling From High Inflation. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired November 10, 2021 - 22:00   ET




CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST (on camera): All right, thank you for watching. Time for the big show, DON LEMON TONIGHT, with its star D. Lemon.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: And these moments when, you know, president -- the former president denied twice, or like, or whatever, former or ex, I really don't know what's going to happen. This is really -- it's unprecedented. We only have a few days until the documents actually have to be turned over, really. What, just tomorrow, right, before those documents have to be turned over.

And if they get, as you were speaking to the expert there, this sort of quick injunction, right, a temporary injunction just to sort of figure it out. Still, it remains to be seen, if that is even going to happen. So we just have to watch, because the last night, I wouldn't think of tonight, I'd be reporting on the same breaking news as I was reporting on last night.

CUOMO: Well, you knew he was going to appeal.

LEMON: Right. We knew that.

CUOMO: Why did he go to the same judge when she just denied a day before? Two theories. One, they stink. Two, they had to exhaust all remedies before appeal to the next level. You can argue it either way. They obviously thought they needed to do this, so they did.

Now, the archives are supposed to deliver these things starting on Friday the 12th. Between now and then, that was to do a judge's reasoning. You've got time, go to the D.C. circuit court. And get them to stay at, because I'm not changing my order.

So now they'll do that, they'll run over to the D.C. circuit court, and then they'll try to get a stay, pausing this before that they can appeal. Now will the appellate court do that? It depends on a three- judge panel you get.


CUOMO: What they see underlying this appeal, they may want to take a look at it, and they will give them a temporary stay, how much time will they give it? But you know, these fears about running out the clock, will that would mean the midterm elections.


CUOMO: I do not see what is worthy, or what do I know -- talking to people who study the Supreme Court on the legal side, not journalists, they don't see what's in this for the Supreme Court. They don't understand one would be worthy of review. So, I don't think you can run out the clock.

LEMON: Well, that's the question I have for experts that I have -

CUOMO: I just answered it --


LEMON: I've got some experts coming up right now. But again, the only thing that I can say is because of this breaking news, because this is unprecedented, is the old stay tuned or watch this space, because we will be reporting it.

I love you. I'll see you later.

CUOMO: Make your witness.

LEMON: I got to get to the breaking news. Thank you very much.


And we do have breaking news. And this breaking news is from the same federal judge who broke news last night at this time, OK? She thinks some new stuff. But basically, she's saying, you know, she is standing by, doubling down on what she said last night.

She -- Judge Chutkan, Tanya Chutkan is saying she will not help the former president as he attempts to buy time, arguing to keep records from his presidency secret. She is pointing him instead to an appeals court.

As Chris just mentioned, so the judges last decision comes a day after or the latest decision a day after she ruled against him in a historic case over access to records from his presidency sought in the January 6 committee's investigation.

Writing, presidents are not kings. And plaintiff is not president. With the National Archives set to send records out -- out to the House on Friday, the former president is scrambling in court for even a temporary hold. OK?

So, let's get right to CNN senior legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid. CNN political director, David Chalian, and Kim Wehle, the professor of law at University of Baltimore School of Law.

So, we have expert minds here to talk about this and to get us through this breaking news. Good evening to all of you.

Paula, I'm going to start with you for the reporting on this. The former president denied again in this executive privilege case. What are you learning?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Surprising, Don. Because as you noted, just last night, this is the same judge that ruled the former President Trump could not keep his White House records secret from the House select committee investigating January 6th.

Now the National Archives inherited Trump's White House records after he left office. And right now, they are scheduled on Friday to hand over this group of about 700 pages of White House records to the House select committee.

Now, this is supposed to happen on Friday but Trump and his attorneys they were asking for that to be delayed while he appeals this. It's not surprising that Judge Chutkan denied that request. Now he will likely go to the appellate court to make the same request, and it would be surprising if they didn't grant it.

LEMON: Yes. OK, but he is running out of options to delay, right?


REID: Well, he is appealing this. I mean, he is appealing this, and I will say --


LEMON: He is running out of time, it's only one day, but you know, well, the judge, this judge believes that he has time, he will go to the appeals court and try it yourself. Go on. I'm sorry.

REID: No worries. It's also complicated because you have a federal holiday between now and then. But yes, he has the right to go to the appeals court to ask them, to just pause this hand off of the documents while they examine this larger constitutional question.

And this really is a pretty historic case. They are very novel questions raised in this case about the rights of a former president to keep his personal records protected. Right now, most of the powers to protect the records of former presidents, it lies with the incumbent.

We've seen here President Biden has declined to protect these documents, and that's where we get this case. Now so far, it's not looking great for former President Trump. But we'll see what happens at the appellate level, and then of course whoever loses there would likely one to appeal to the Supreme Court. Whether they'll take it up.

I know one of your earlier -- our colleagues said, that they didn't see a question here. I disagree. I think there is actually is a novel constitutional question that the Supreme Court may actually want to take up.

LEMON: OK, standby, Paula. I want to bring in the other folks here. So, David Chalian and Kim Wehle, they're also here with me.

Kim, give me your reaction to what Judge Chutkan is doing, rejecting this, trying -- saying he is trying to buy time, and then he's saying I'm not going to help you with that.

KIM WEHLE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW: Well, under the federal rules of appellate procedure, will, a, actually, if Trump wants a stay from the courts of appeals the rules do require that he first asked the district court judge for this day. So, it is almost like an exhaustion process.

It had to go to her first, and then it has to make the same showing to the appellate court that she rejected, and that is a four-part test that includes a showing of what we call likelihood of success on the merit. So, he's going to show he'll probably win his appeal, and that is the weakest, the weakest part in my mind.

But I have to agree with Paula on the Supreme Court here as well. Because that's exactly the state --


LEMON: Wait, hold on, before -- I'm going to let you get to that. But why do you say that's the weakest in your mind?


LEMON: Before you go --


WEHLE: That's the weakest in my mind because the Presidential Records Act under which this lawsuit was brought, is a post-Watergate reform that was specifically designed to bypass President Nixon's attempts to essentially potentially destroy records and maintain records. And

LEMON: Got you.

WEHLE: And the United States Congress said, no, the records belong to the people. And the incumbent president, Joe Biden is the one -- he is the holder of the people's interest. So, this is really about the public interest in this motion --

LEMON: Got it.

WEHLE: -- in this moment. So Donald Trump has to argue, he is more in tuned with the public interest than the United States president under the Constitution. I think that's a really tough sell.

LEMON: OK. So, let me -- what if Judge Chutkan has just taken -- had just taken her sweet time? Did she have to act with urgency expediently here, or could she have just taken her time and said on Friday, like I'm sorry, you got to go to the appeals court?

WEHLE: You know, she -- there's nothing mandating that you do it in any particular amount of time. But she knows what the rules are and I think wants to --


LEMON: But she didn't indifference to the -- right. To the --


WEHLE: Yes, indifference to the appellate court, and she knows this is all eyes on this. And I'll tell you. The opinion was relatively brief --


WEHLE: -- but she nailed everything. I mean, it was a very tightly worded, very, very well-done opinion. She knows what she's talking about.

LEMON: One more question before I get to David. So, then what are you expecting when Trump gets to the appeals court, again, or to the D.C. circuit court of appeals again, what are you expecting?

WEHLE: Well, you know, I did a little research on this in sort of a legal scholarship field, and it's actually rare to get the state that he wants. It's in less than 2020 study, it was in less than 20 percent of the cases that actually get when he's actually for. But they tend to be a high percentage, if you're asking to stay release of confidential documents.

So, I do think it's possible that the court of appeals is going to say listen, this is important, will issue the state alternatively. They could just say we agree with the lower court, you have not satisfied the standard for injunction, we are going to briefly deny - deny the whole thing. That's conceivable. It does depend on the panel, the judges that are going to decide this.

LEMON: We'll be watching. OK, David, let's bring you in here. Because -- David is our political director, he knows all things politics. Without an emergency relief from the D.C. circuit court --


DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Yes. Please do not ask me about appellate procedure --

LEMON: I'm not going to ask you -- I'm not going to ask you about that. I'm going to ask you about the political angle of this. Because it's a 40 pages, you know, 40 pages are going to get released on Friday related to January 6th.

The question is, what are they hiding? What can we learn from these White House records? I mean, who knows, there's a whole bevvy of things. CHALIAN: Yes. I mean, we know that the committee is interested in. Right? We know that the committee is interested in piecing together the buildup to January 6. The plotting and planning, and who was involved with that, and how close did that get to President Trump, and then was he directly involved in any way.


The day itself, everything that was going on around the president on the 6th of January. And of course, the aftermath. And so, we know that they're interested in finding out, sort of precisely through those days leading up and the day of the president's movement, who was around him? What where those conversations taking place?

And you mentioned, you know, it is up to the current president to assert privilege. And Joe Biden made a really big decision a couple of weeks ago, when he came to the conclusion that he was not going to assert privilege.

Now we know and the White House asserted again today in a statement, Don, that Joe Biden is committed to a full accounting of what occurred in the buildup to and on January 6 so that the country can prevent an attack on our democracy like that ever again.

But still, this was a weighty decision. It's going to set a precedent, which no doubt he and White House counsel were very much thinking through when they came to this conclusion. But he came to the conclusion that the transparency and accountability for this greatest attack on our democracy, Trump, part of the pond, any claim that the former president may have, relating to privilege.

LEMON: OK, another political question here. Because the concern, obviously, politics is law running out the clock the 2022 midterms are coming very soon. Congress could change hands. Could he run up the clock on this?

CHALIAN: I mean, we'll have to see how lengthy not just this particular appeals process is on privilege but throughout the entirety of the existence of the committee. Obviously, they've issued a bunch of subpoenas. We know people have not been complying with those subpoenas based on guidance and counsel and advice from Donald Trump. Trying to still sort of appease to the desires of the former president.

So clearly, there is a clock here that the Trump team will try to run out. But Don, the committee is keenly aware that Congress may change hands next November and come next January, Republicans could be in charge of the House. So, no doubt, they are going to be setting a timetable here to complete their work sooner rather than later in 2022. They have no desire for this to go into the next Congress.

LEMON: OK. One more, David. Because as you know CNN is exclusively learned that the January 6th committee is interested in talking with at least five people from Mike Pence's inner circle, the former vice president. And some appear to be engaging with the committee. And we all remember that video of Pence being rushed out to safety. Look, it's been sort of back and forth with, you know, Mike Pence

standing up really for the Constitution and for free and fair elections. And then, but then also saying in another, with another voice, or speaking from another side of his mouth, then, you know, praising the former president in, you know, speeches and what have you.

So, if these folks are wanting to comply and wanting to testify and meet with the committee, how worried should Trump be that Pence's inner circle could do that, testify?

CHALIAN: Right, it's no surprise that the committee wants to talk to aides very close to vice president -- to then Vice President Pence. What I thought was so incredible in the reporting that we had today on this, was exactly this notion, Don, that there are eagle people in Pence world to tell their story.

Now, it is clear, you mentioned the video of him being ushered out. It is clear that the committee is very interested in the entire pressure campaign on Pence from Trump to over --illegitimately overturn the election.

We know, we've heard about the communication that former Vice President Dan Quayle had with Mike Pence explaining that there was no way for him to intercede. That it was a purely ceremonial job for the vice president on that day for the counting of the Electoral College votes, Don.

But the entirety of the pressure campaign gets at the president's motive, and so having Pence's inner circle be willing to go up and tell the story of everything they know, of the pressure Trump was applying, it is a key piece to the entirety of this puzzle, of putting together the entire fact pattern of what was pretty clear right now. You know, an attempted coup.

LEMON: Yes. Yes. I was just looking at the new statement from the judge. Kim, let me ask you, because the former chief counsel, Greg Jacob, he reportedly pushed back on Attorney John Eastman who created the memo saying that Pence could overturn the result.

Former national security adviser, Keith Kellogg was with Trump at the White House on January 6th, and the former chief of staff Marc Short, he was with the V.P. leading up and on the Capitol Hill on January 6. These are all critical fact witnesses.


WEHLE: Absolutely. The John Eastman memo, it's short but from a constitutional perspective, really stunning. I mean, the plan was to have Mike Pence as president of the Senate, basically, cancel or ignore the Electoral College certifications from seven states.

And so that means all of the votes in those seven states that went to the Electoral College for Joe Biden, every human being voter in America would have been canceled in that moment. And then there would have been a contingent of 26 Republican-led states that would then hand the election through a series of maneuvers to Donald Trump.

And it was Mike Pence who standing alone said no to that. It's a pretty stunning thing that he did frankly, given that they were hanging gallows outside the capitol and shouting for his assassination.

Yes, I think his loyalists probably want to tell his side of the story and have him have his place in the history books for as controversial as he is politically, I really do think that we could be in very dark waters right now.


WEHLE: And we could be in dark waters again if the January 6th commission doesn't get to the bottom of what Donald Trump did leading up to January 6th.

LEMON: Well, thank you both very much. David, I just want to ask you about federal rule number -- I'm kidding. I appreciate it, guys, helping me out with breaking news. Both of you, have a great evening. Thanks so much.

Meanwhile, in a courtroom in Kenosha, it erupts in fireworks and sobbing. The latest on the dramatic day in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.



LEMON (on camera): This has been a day of drama and fireworks in the Kenosha courtroom where Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial for shooting two people to death and wounding a third during protests in August of 2020 over the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time and is now 18 taking the stand in his own defense at his homicide trial breaking down in tears while insisting he did nothing wrong.


KYLE RITTENHOUSE, DEFENDANT: There were people right -- there were people right there.

UNKNOWN: Take a deep breathe, Kyle.

RITTENHOUSE: That's why I ran.


LEMON (on camera): The judge called for a 10-minute recess after that. It was an emotional moment. But this whole case is going to turn on the question of what happened in the streets of Kenosha when shots rang out during the chaos of the night of August 25th, 2020. Was it self-defense or vigilante killing? Rittenhouse insisting today that he was just defending himself.


RITTENHOUSE: People were screaming and I just was trying to get to the police running down the (Inaudible) road.

UNKNOWN: You say I'm trying to get to the police. Why were you trying to get to the police?

RITTENHOUSE: Because I didn't do anything wrong. I defended myself.


LEMON (on camera): The prosecution hammering Rittenhouse over his use of deadly force.


THOMAS BINGER, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KENOSHA COUNTY: Everybody you shot at that night you intended to kill, correct?

RITTENHOUSE: I didn't intend to kill them. I intended -- I intended to stop the people who were attacking me.

BINGER: By killing them.

RITTENHOUSE: I did what I had to do to stop the person who was attacking me.

BINGER: By killing them.

RITTENHOUSE: Two of them passed away but I stopped the threat from attacking me.

BINGER: By using deadly force.

RITTENHOUSE: I used deadly force.

BINGER: That you knew was going to kill them.

RITTENHOUSE: I didn't know if it was going to kill them but I used deadly force to stop the threat that was attacking me.

BINGER: You intentionally used deadly force against Joseph Rosenbaum, correct?


BINGER: You intentionally used deadly force against the man who came and tried to kick you in the face, correct?


BINGER: You intentionally used deadly force against Anthony Huber, correct?


GINGER: You intentionally used deadly force against Gaige Grosskreutz, right?


BINGER: With regard to Joseph Rosenbaum, you fired four shots at him, correct?


BINGER: You intended to kill him, correct?

RITTENHOUSE: I didn't intend to kill him. I intended to stop the person who was attacking me and trying to steal my gun.


LEMON (on camera): During cross examination Rittenhouse claimed Joseph Rosenbaum tried to take his gun and said he didn't want to have to kill him.


RITTENHOUSE: If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people if I would have let him get my gun.

BINGER: And even after you shoot him one time, and he starts falling, you continue to shoot three more times? Right?

RITTENHOUSE: I continued to shoot until he was no longer a threat to me.


LEMON (on camera): But amid all the drama, this may not have been a good day for the prosecution. The defense making a motion for a mistrial with prejudice which would mean the case is over. Can't be retried. It claimed -- they claim that the prosecutor committed, quote, "what amounts to prosecutorial overreach."

The judge saying that he'll take the motion under advisement but tearing into the prosecution, asking the jury to leave the courtroom twice during cross examination then ripping into the prosecutor's line of questioning.


BRUCE SCHROEDER, JUDGE, KENOSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT: I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post arrest silence. That's basic law. It's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. I have no idea why you would do something like that.


BINGER: Before the -- SCHROEDER: Don't get brazen with me. 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. I don't believe you. There better not be another incident. I'll take the motion under advisement.


LEMON (on camera): Let's remember this is a judge who told prosecutors before the trial began that he wouldn't allow them to call the people Rittenhouse shot victims. But he would allow the defense to call them arsonists or looters.


SCHROEDER: Let the evidence show what the evidence shows. And if the evidence shows that any or more than one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting, or looting, then I'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that. The word victim is a loaded, loaded word and I think alleged victim is a cousin to it.


LEMON (on camera): This case has been a lightning rod from the beginning. So of course, some people have to make it all about them. Exhibit a, since we're talking about the courtroom.

Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance, the one-time critic of the former president who has changed his tune now that he is running for office. He apparently couldn't resist weighing in on this case. Pay close attention. This is what he tweeted. And I'm quoting here.

"We have our boys -- we leave our boys without fathers. We let the wolves set fire to their communities. And when human nature tells them to go and defend what no one else is defending, we bring the full weight of the state and the global monopolists against them."

Law and order. Right? Law and order. Wolves? We let the wolves set fire to their communities. That's a really loud dog whistle you've got there. And there's more.


J.D. VANCE (R), OHIO SENATE CANDIDATE: It is time for us as patriots to stand up because if we don't fight back against the lawlessness, if we don't defend this young boy who defended his community when no one else was doing it, it may very well be your baby boy that they come for. It'll be your children whose lives they try to destroy when no one else is defending their communities.


LEMON (on camera): That, actually that's quite dangerous. What if everyone decided to arm up and go out and be vigilantes? Is that what law and order is about? Very, very dangerous. Very.

Look, Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people and killed two of them, right? If he had not been there, it wouldn't have happened. If he had not inserted himself into the situation, it wouldn't have happened. But let's not forget. OK, I want to be very clear about this. Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent until proven guilty. And it is playing out on our television sets now.

That's how our legal system works. That is how it should work. It shouldn't work through vigilantism in this country. It's not -- that's not part of it. But think about this. I want you to listen to what Baltimore City state's attorney Marilyn Mosby told Chris a few moments ago. It pretty much sums it up.


MARILYN MOSBY, MARYLAND STATE'S ATTORNEY, BALTIMORE CITY: I think you have to consider the fact that you have a young, white boy openly carrying and illegally possessing an AR-15 loaded with 30 rounds to a Black Lives protest matter in order to defend businesses, not his business, not his life, not his liberty but defending someone else's property for rioters which are code name for criminals where he subsequently shoots and kills two unarmed people, wounds another, and yet he approaches the police, his arms up, AR-15 strapped to his body and the police they drive past him. Why?

Because he is in no way, form or fashion, is this young white boy carrying an AR-15 who just shot three people was perceived as a threat.


LEMON (on camera): Where is the lie? So, did Kyle Rittenhouse convince the jury he acted in self-defense? Experts weigh in, next.



LEMON (on camera): Kyle Rittenhouse taking the stand in his homicide trial today. Rittenhouse breaking down, while insisting he was acting in self-defense when he killed two people and wounded a third during the unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

There is so much to discuss with CNN senior legal analyst Laura Coates, and Paul Bucher, the former district attorney for Waukesha County, Wisconsin who is actually arguing in front of this judge and knows about the judge. So, we're going to talk all about this. Perfect folks to have to discuss.

Good evening. Laura. The defense took a risk putting Kyle Rittenhouse on the stand today. Who do you think benefited the most from his testimony?

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So far, the defense, I mean, the risk seems to be paying off in the sense of having the appeal of the jury. The sympathy card was played.


I mean, obviously, crying on the stand, it's going to evoke this level of sympathy from the jurors. But remember, it's not the -- the tears in and of itself are not the most compelling aspect of it. When he asserted self-defense, he still has to demonstrate that he was entitled to use self-defense and specifically lethal force to repel whatever force he perceived was being used against himself.

And so, while there may have been that dent in terms of the sympathy card and figuring out this young man is speaking for himself, and what would he sound like, what would he act like, would he be defiant, would he be resolved, would he be sympathetic? He's answered those questions but he hasn't answered the question of whether he was entitled fully to use lethal force in this instance.

LEMON: So, well, Paul, I'll let you weigh in, what do you want to say?

PAUL BUCHER, FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN: I agree. Although remember the burden is on the government, it's not on the defense. They raised the issue. It's a privilege. It's what I call a but for defense. He said he pretty much has pled guilty to the homicide but I always call it a but for. I wouldn't have done a but for.

And the judge in this case is clearly antagonistic to the government. I've not quite seen something like that but I think the government has created a reversible error by commenting on the defendant's post arrest silence. But I think --


LEMON: We're going to talk about that. We're going to play from the judge. But why do you thank the judge is antagonistic? Explain that. Because you know this judge. That's why I want you to talk about it.

BUCHER: I do. Because I think the government has tried to do a back door where he called it a 904.04. Well, that's a Wisconsin statute I'm sure --


LEMON: No, no, no. No. I want to -- we're going to play that. I want to talk about. But why do you think the judge is antagonistic? Why would you -- why would you --


BUCHER: Because he thinks -- he thinks the government tried to do a back door around and tried to get in evidence he ruled inadmissible.

LEMON: Just on this one thing. You didn't mean antagonistic overall?


BUCHER: Just on this one issue. That's when he blew.

LEMON: OK. Let's -- let's talk. Let's play that. Let's play the judge when the judge chastises the prosecution. Let's play it.


BINGER: I thought this is my good faith explanation to you and if you want to yell at me, you can. My good faith feeling this morning after watching that testimony was you had left the door open a little bit. Now we had something new and I was going to probe it.

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


LEMON (on camera): Yes. That -- listen, that was just a short part of it. There were a couple times that that happened, Laura.

Paul, you first because you know him. And then I want to get Laura's take on this. But you know, he -- you've appeared in front of this judge before. Should this prosecutor know better? Is this prosecutor in over his head? What do you think of that moment?

BUCHER: I don't like to criticize anybody. I don't know this prosecutor. I don't know why he has another prosecutor at the table. We would normally switch off if things aren't going well with one prosecutor you put up the other one.

But clearly, I think the judge felt that this prosecutor was trying to do an end around and he was not happy with it. That was clear. Not in front of the jury of course, but there was the other incident about commenting on the post arrest silence.

So, I don't think things went well for the prosecutor -- prosecution today. I think the defense did well. I think mister -- the defendant, I should say, that Mr. Rittenhouse did well and held his own.


BUCHER: I'm sure this is much more complicated and we don't have time today for lesser included offenses. That is going to be a big issue that's going to be coming up.

LEMON: Yes. What do you think of the way this judge ran the courtroom today, Laura?

COATES: Well, I mean, judge, this judge is pretty theatrical and his -- the offense he takes the comments that are made. There is a lot of pearl clutching that I don't think actually -- was meritorious based on the good faith arguments that were stated by the prosecution.

Having said that, the judge is absolutely right on two counts. Number one, it is inappropriate to comment on the silence of a defendant. Remember, the Miranda warnings we're all accustomed to you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you, not things you do not say.

You can imagine a prosecutor in a courtroom deciding to point out the defendant has not taken the stand in the closing arguments saying, see? Why didn't this person tell you himself?

Making all sorts of illusion for somebody who has a constitutional right not to actually take the stand is inappropriate. Now on the second front, the idea that he was trying to according to this judge bring in what's that called propensity evidence suggesting that, hey, if the person committed other prior bad acts or crimes, they must have committed this particular crime. That is the essence of it. The judge took offense to both. And there is a reason to do so.


However, the idea of calling this prosecutor a liar or talking about the notion of not believing they made a good faith argument, I think is a step too far, but the judge has a responsibility to ensure the defendant has a fair trial.

And they often times will bend over backwards to make sure it is clear they are not going to do the heavy lifting for the prosecution and because of the prosecutorial burden they have to carry all of the water including ensuring that they dot their I's, cross their t's, follow the evidence --


COATES: -- and ensure that the Constitution is followed.

LEMON: As resource has said, the, what you mentioned, the prior bad acts, usually judges don't like that because they think it's not fair to the defense when you are talking about --

COATES: Right.

LEMON: -- something that is specific to this case -- is not -- it's not specific to this case. So. Interesting. Interesting stuff. Thank you both. I had so much to ask you. We'll continue obviously this conversation because this trial is still going on. Thank you. Good to see you.

So, let's talk about gas, food, rent. all costing more as inflation hits a 30-year high. President Biden addressing the problem today. But what can he actually do about it? Stay with us.



LEMON (on camera): President Biden trying to calm concerns over higher-than-expected inflation today. The biggest increase in 30 years. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Today's economic report showing unemployment continuing to fall but consumer prices remain too high. It tells us that the American people amidst this economic crisis the recovery is showing strong results but not to them. They are still looking out there. Everything from a gallon of gas to a loaf of bread costs more, and it's worrisome.


LEMON (on camera): OK. So, look up on your screen because the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics is reporting that over the last six months there has been a 6.2 percent increase in consumer goods across the board.

And take a look at this. Gas prices rose by 49.6 percent, computers 8.4 percent. TVs, 10.4 percent. Washers and dryers, 14.9 percent. Milk, 4.3 percent.

Straight Austan Goolsbee now. He is the former chairman of the council of economic advisers. I appreciate you joining us, Austan.

So, talk to me about this -- good evening to you. Talk to me about these numbers. I'm going to put them up in the screen again. Gas skyrocketing, with inflation, everything costs more. It's something that's impacting everyone. How long do you think this is going to be like this?

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, FORMER CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Well, the whole debate going on among the economists, is this temporary or is this lasting? But even the most temporary oriented think it's going to be months. I mean, the basic problem is that all the countries of the world are trying to come roaring back at the same time and the supply chain is not equipped to handle that.

And we're spending far more of our income on physical goods than we have for almost 20 years. Because lots of services are shut down and people are afraid of catching the virus. So, while those two things continue to happen it is going to be hard to get off this train and so it's going to be a, you know, a grumpy several months.

LEMON: Gas prices are really the big thing right now. And if you -- you know, anyone who is on social media, just talk to people. They're like gas prices are so high. People. You know. But there is not a quick fix on this for the president.

I mean, some options include tapping into emergency reserves, urging oil producing countries to ramp up production, or even stopping U.S. oil exports. Are any of these good options?

GOOLSBEE: None of those are lasting options. You know, if you think about the strategic petroleum reserve it can affect things but it is sort of a few days, you know, couple of weeks. That sort of thing. What's happening with oil is, like I say, you got every country of the world is trying to come booming back. And so, if you look at this, the inflation that's taking place and gas

prices it's not just happening in the U.S. It's a obviously a worldwide phenomena. You got inflation really ramping up all over the world.

And we've got to get -- I know it seems weird but we've got to get control of the spread of the virus so that people can go back to spending their money on services and there will be less emphasis in demand for physical goods and cars and computers and all of the stuff that are experiencing the supply shortages.

And then on the energy side, you know, we -- eventually they're going to produce more but we just went through over the last 10 years, we've just gone through this cycle where prices are really high and there was massive production and then prices went down and everyone went broke.

And now the prices are back high again and you see a lot of those producers saying, wait a minute, wait a minute. How do we know this is going to last? This didn't last the last time. So, let's not be as keen on pumping as much as we did before.

LEMON: Yes. It's interesting too to watch. Because look, in the real estate market homes in the suburbs like went crazy during COVID. I'm just wondering now if it's going to -- those people will move back to the cities, right, because of the high gas prices.

GOOLSBEE: Right. And you've already seen it. You've already seen. Now prices, different prices are going up. This -- this is what happens when you have such an epic shutdown. We kind of close down, now we're trying to reopen. And if everybody in the world tries to reopen at the same time, the supply chain is not designed for that.

Like as I said, we're buying more physical goods as a share of income --


GOOLSBEE: -- than at any time in the last 20 years, so of course we're going to have supply chain problems. And you see that in the list you went through. If you look at TVs, if you at cars, if you look at computers, all of those are using computer chips and computer chips are in short supply because in the factories where they make the computer chips --



GOOLSBEE: -- they're having these COVID outbreaks. So you can't -- you can't ramp up the production yet.

LEMON: Forty-nine-point six percent for gas, so, I mean.


LEMON: It's crazy.

GOOLSBEE: Sixty-eight bucks. I filled my car 68 bucks it cost.


GOOLSBEE: And, yet, this, like I say, we are going to have a grumpy several months because these are not -- these are things which get fixed. They just -- they don't get fixed in weeks.


GOOLSBEE: You know --


LEMON: A lot of people don't want to take mass transit because of, you know, the COVID, right, social distancing?


LEMON: I mean, the subway and the buses are looking pretty good right now with those -- with those prices. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

GOOLSBEE: Thanks. Great to see you, Don.

LEMON: CNN is asking Americans if Facebook is making society better or worse. And take this. Seventy-six percent say worse.



LEMON (on camera): Take this, everyone. In a divided country, Americans agree on at least one thing. Facebook is making our lives worse. A new CNN poll finding 76 percent of U.S. adults say Facebook is having a negative effect on society. Only 11 percent think it improves society. OK.

But get this. Even when you only ask people who frequently use the site, 70 percent still say the social media giant is doing more harm than good. It's addictive. Even when people know it's not good for them. So are people going to demand change?

Our poll finding there is bipartisan agreement on this. Fifty-five percent of Democrats and 48 percent of Republicans are in favor of more federal regulations. When have you seen Democrats and Republicans so close together? Fifty-five and 48 percent. Maybe it's time for the public to have more of a say in the online algorithms that have real- life consequences.

Up next, our breaking news. Another court loss for the former president. And the January 6th committee could be getting documents this week.