Return to Transcripts main page
Don Lemon Tonight
A Temporary Win For Trump; Judge Schroeder Made Offensive Joke About Asians; Judge Versus A Juror Inside Rittenhouse's Trial; Judge Schroeder Praised By Kyle Rittenhouse's Mother; Trump's Argument To Hold Documents Is Weak. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired November 11, 2021 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST (on camera): All right. Thank you very much for watching. It's time for the big show, DON LEMON TONIGHT with its big star, D. Lemon.
DON LEMON, CNN HOST: And we got a lot of news.
CUOMO: You do have a lot of news. You have all of these heavy aspects of this Rittenhouse trial, this by play with the judge and the prosecutor, this witness who painted such a beautiful picture for Rittenhouse and the judge wouldn't let him be questioned about why he may be giving such a perfect picture?
LEMON: Can we talk -- can we talk about this judge?
LEMON: So, I've been sitting back just --
CUOMO: Longest serving judge in the Wisconsin bench.
LEMON: OK, fine. Just sitting back and watching just as a lay person, right, just kind of watching this, watching this, watching this, and I think -- I think the legal analyst just because they are legal analysts, and they want to keep their composure, and there used to being, you know, deference -- they are paying deference to the judge. He is ridiculous. His antics are absolutely ridiculous.
And today, Chris, saying that someone who writes for a biased publication, who, that has been favorable to Kyle Rittenhouse, that has spoken out against Black Lives Matter, that that should not be brought in so that the jurors can't make up their own minds about what is bias, and what is not, and what is relevant, and what is not.
I think is, I think for me, I don't know if it works that we legally, that's cause for a mistrial. Like, what are you doing? This guy, maybe, you know, legally he is right about things, I've been listening to the legal folks, but certainly his demeanor, the way he speaks to the prosecution, the way he looks at Kyle Rittenhouse like it is his grandson, I mean, come on America!
And then for people to, I've heard pundits, right-wing pundits like, make him out to be this choir boy, like he has some sort of hero. OK, he is a young kid, he is misguided, I'll give him that. Maybe he was defending his life, I will give him that.
But to go across state lines, with an illegal AR-15 weapon, and insert himself into a situation that had nothing to do with him, and you are going to make him a hero? Now that's outside of the courtroom. That is a public opinion. In the courtroom, I don't see how anybody can say that this judge is not bias, and is not leaning in a certain direction.
CUOMO: He has a reputation for being a tough guy, being tough on prosecutors.
LEMON: There is a difference between tough --
CUOMO: I am just saying though --
CUOMO: -- in terms of a mistrial, if he is a right on the matters of law, or within his ambit of discretion, I think only the one with the witness and his background, I think that would be something that could be problematic in terms of an appeal of that.
CUOMO: But I don't know that it will rise to that level. And for the judge's demeanor to become the grounds for a mistrial has to be so egregious. But look, there is no question that he is really pissing people off who are watching the trial.
What I didn't like was, pick your spots.
CUOMO: Everything you just mentioned is absolutely a legitimate ground for being upset by what we are seeing. How that I talked about the lunch order, I don't get it.
LEMON: The Asian joke?
CUOMO: I don't get it. I don't know that he even made an Asian joke.
LEMON: Well, he --
CUOMO: I know that I'm not allowed to judge it, because I'm not Asian. I'm just saying that it sounded to me like he said, we are going to be late for lunch, I don't know how long it is going to take, I hope the Asian food isn't stuck in the supply chain problem out in California.
LEMON: Something on a boat or something. I forgot --
CUOMO: Yes, he was talking about the supply chain, you know, the backup at the port in Los Angeles. Now it's -- he said something that was offensive to Asians, the left is going after him, I just feel like the left is setting itself up for the right to have another hammer to hit him with --
LEMON: Well, this is -- look, I don't know if it's --
CUOMO: -- the woke were upset against.
LEMON: Well, I wouldn't call -- necessarily call it that. If you have Asian groups that are find it offensive, then I don't know, they could be conservative Asians. You never know they, could be Republican Asians.
CUOMO: First of all, they are absolutely allowed --
LEMON: And so --
CUOMO: -- to say whether or not --
LEMON: Right. So, I'm not --
CUOMO: -- something is found offensive to them. I didn't see it in his intent but not it's become part of the analysis.
LEMON: Well, maybe because you don't know. Maybe he just doesn't know. And that is ignorant, you can also be bias and bigoted in your ignorance. Isn't that what bigots --- bigot -- bigotry is? Bias. It's ignorance.
CUOMO: It can be, but it could also be straight up hate.
LEMON: So, listen. I just --
CUOMO: People can be, you know, bigot --
LEMON: I take, look, I'm not an Asian American. But if someone who is Asian says that they find it offensive --
CUOMO: Then it's offensive.
LEMON: -- then it is offensive.
CUOMO: So, I know.
LEMON: And so, perhaps as the longest serving judge, one would think that he would be educated on these matters. You would think that, if you are deciding life and death cases, if people were going to go to jail, if they were going to spend time in prison, if you are deciding people's freedom or not, shouldn't you be educated on these matters? And on this matter?
CUOMO: I hear you.
LEMON: Shouldn't you be aware that the cameras are out there, and there are people --
CUOMO: He is aware the cameras are there.
LEMON: -- who are judging your behavior? And you know, then the --
CUOMO: He is aware that the cameras are there.
LEMON: God bless the USA ringtone, which is the Trump rally theme song? I understand.
CUOMO: There is no question that he is aware the cameras are there.
CUOMO: All I'm saying is this. You've got a lot of strong points to make about how that his judge is conducting himself in this trial. And now, it's all about what he said about lunch, and Asian food, and I think that it gives leverage to the people who are going to defend him. To say, now he is a racist.
LEMON: It's not all about that. I have -- that was the least. I mean, look.
CUOMO: I mean, today it's been all over the place. And I just feel like, no, you know --
LEMON: The thing today --
CUOMO: -- you are going to waste the good points.
LEMON: No, I think the thing today that's been all over the place is the thing about not --
CUOMO: The witness.
LEMON: -- the witness.
CUOMO: Yes, it should be.
LEMON: I think that's a big -- yes. And that should be all over the place. The other thing is that --
CUOMO: He said I don't know how you can isolate how the guy's politics would affect how they process the evidence.
LEMON: How they process the evidence --
LEMON: -- for the looters.
CUOMO: If I like Don, and you ask me what happened when he shot someone, God forbid, when he did whatever he did, crossing the street, --
CUOMO: -- I'm going to say it in a way that is good for Don --
CUOMO: -- because I like Don.
CUOMO: Come on.
CUOMO: I mean, that really shocked me.
LEMON: I'm speaking to one of our legal analysts tonight, and they said -- I won't say who it was, but said, if you put the mom on the stand, you don't tell the jury that t's the mom. Isn't that like --
CUOMO: I know.
LEMON: Right? It just -- it just makes no sense.
CUOMO: I think what happened was, I think one, he is old. And I think two, he got tripped -- look, age matters, OK? People, at 75 years of age, that's not 55 years of age, it's not 35 years of age, I think age matters because he said two things that didn't make sense. That didn't make sense.
And when the prosecutor said, hey look, I'm just saying if I've to honor follow your rulings, so does the defense. And the judge said, hey, I was talking about the Constitution. LEMON: About the Constitution.
CUOMO: That's 50 years old that law. That's not what the prosecutor was talking about.
LEMON: That's not what he was talking about.
CUOMO: The judge's ruling was on prior inconsistent statements, and not being able to bring in what Rittenhouse just said about ready to shoot looters.
CUOMO: He wasn't even talking about the same thing.
CUOMO: That could be age. That could be age. And therefore, not being as sharp on the bench as he should be.
LEMON: I don't know. I'm just -- I hate -- I don't want to be an ageist because I know lots of sharp older people. But Houston we have a problem. And I think everybody can see it. And people are afraid to say it. There is a problem. And we are also are seeing it in Georgia as well. We do not want the black folks in the room, the pastors, we have a problem. There is some --
CUOMO: Well, that's a lawyer who I had on my show --
CUOMO: -- who is absolutely a wild -
LEMON: I've got to run but I've got tell you, this judge has an issue, say it. People, speak out.
CUOMO: There are multiple issues.
LEMON: There is a problem. There is an issue there.
CUOMO: There are multiple issues.
LEMON: Yes. The good thing is that we are bringing light to it, people can see what happens in the legal system, in the court system, and perhaps there will be more energy, and vigor for some sort of change when it comes to the criminal justice system.
CUOMO: If there is a hung jury, --
CUOMO: -- you are going to hear about all of this again. LEMON: Yes. I've got to go. Thank you.
CUOMO: Love you, D. Lemon.
LEMON: Love you more. I appreciate the conversation. I'll see you soon.
So, yes, this is DON LEMON TONIGHT.
I'm going to get to that, I'm going to get that. I've been holding this for a while, I've just been sitting here, watching, talking to our legal people, and I am like OK, OK, OK, on the legal matters it is this, it is this.
We live in the real world. We see what's happening. Imagine if it was reserve reversed, right, if it was a black kid with the gun.
I have some huge news to tell you about the dual fight between two presidents, between a sitting president and a former president. And make no mistake, this is about protecting our democracy.
Late today a federal appeals court granted the former president's last-ditch request to stop the January 6 committee from seeing documents from his White House. A win, but it is only a temporary win.
And the pressure is building on Mark Meadows to cooperate with the January 6 committee tonight, demanding he appear, demanding that he appear for a deposition, and turn over documents tomorrow morning.
We got a lot to come on all of this. Now, back to what I was talking about. Kenosha. What a day, what day, right? A couple days it's been. The defense resting its case in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse who shot and killed Anthony Huber, and Joseph Rosenbaum and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz.
Using an AR-15 style rifle during protests last summer following the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Remember he came across the line too young to legally carry that weapon, because he says he thought it looked cool.
This time, the 18-year-old defendant didn't take the stand, so there were no tears today. What we saw was really unbelievable, the judge asking the jury to leave the room twice for the second day in a row while he got into it with the prosecutor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRUCE SCHROEDER, JUDGE, KENOSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WISCONSIN: It certainly was my impression that we were talking about a video of the entire episode. And no that certainly, in my mind it was not limited to the specific numbers on this observation pointless that you are talking about.
I'm a little bit challenged when you say, is there something that I'm saying that drives the face that you are making?
THOMAS BINGER, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY, KENOSHA COUNTY: I --
SCHROEDER: Go ahead, say what you want to say.
BINGER: have to say your honor, yesterday I was the target of your ire for disregarding your orders. Today, the defense is disregarding their order. Yesterday, as I said, I was under the court's ire.
SCHROEDER: I don't want to talk about -- why don't we just --
BINGER: I think it's a fundamental fairness on the issue, your honor.
SCHROEDER: All right. Say what you want to say.
BINGER: If I am being held to obey the court's orders, I'm asking that the defense be held to that too. This is something we litigated at Daubert hearing. We spent time on this.
SCHROEDER: You know, I am to interrupt you, and I'm going to let you talk again, but I was talking yesterday about the Constitution of the United States. And how the Supreme Court has interpreted it for 50 years. That's not what we are talking about here today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON (on camera): This is the second day of this. And then there was this moment, arguing over a witness' possible bias and painting a pretty, rosy picture of Kyle Rittenhouse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BINGER: Does real America's voice have any sort of, political bias or agenda, or anything like that?
SCHROEDER: What is the relevance?
BINGER: It goes to the bias of the witness, your honor.
SCHROEDER: The bias in what respect? I assume that people, we, as I come at the beginning of this is not a political trial. And I don't know how you would isolate a person's particular politics, and determined that that person is going to evaluate the evidence one way or another.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON (on camera): I -- has he not done any background or research on this whole thing? It is not a political trial? OK. Maybe in one sense. But if -- and some of this is on the prosecutor to, I don't know what kind of pressure they are under, but maybe the prosecutor should have been stronger against the judge to try to make his case.
But if you put a witness on the stand that says favorable things about the defendant, and biased things against the people who he is accused of injuring and killing, and then who gets, that that people can't tell their story.
Let's remember that this is a judge who told prosecutors before the trial began that he wouldn't allow them to call the Rittenhouse -- the people Rittenhouse shot victims, but he would allow the defense to call them arsonists and looters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHROEDER: Let the evidence show what the evidence shows. And if the evidence shows that any more than one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting, or looting, then I'm not going to tell the defense they cannot call them that. The word victim is a loaded, loaded word. And I think alleged victim is a cousin to it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON (on camera): Looters not loaded though? Rioters not loaded? What about alleged? What about the dead people who can't speak for themselves? During eight days of testimony in the trial, jurors heard from 31 different witnesses. The judge told jurors that closing arguments in jury and instruction in the trial are expected on Monday, each side will have two and a half hours total for their closing arguments.
So, I want to bring in Kyung Lah and she's going to talk about this story. Here's her story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHROEDER: We are in the final stretch, enjoy the weekend and --
KYUNG LAH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): With that, closing arguments are now set for Monday. Testimony ended in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, eight days of testimony with 31 witnesses. The last day of testimony ending as it did through much of the trial leaning on video from that night.
The first victims shot by Rittenhouse, Joseph Rosenbaum, seen here in the red t-shirt. Rosenbaum was among the protesters in Kenosha, days and nights of unrest after police shot Jacob Blake. Rosenbaum would collide with unarmed Rittenhouse.
UNKNOWN: Raise your right hand please.
LAH: This video was taken by defense witness Drew Hernandez who described Rosenbaum this way.
DREW HERNANDEZ, WITNESS: Rosenbaum was charging Kyle Rittenhouse from behind. Here you can see it in real-time. And Rosenbaum is lunging towards him very clearly and Kyle fires.
LAH: The defense's goal by showing what led up to the shootings is to boost Rittenhouse's self-defense claims, that the then 17-year-old was cornered and feared for his life. He has pleaded not guilty.
A moment his lawyers help humanize the defendant who faces a potential life sentence. But the third man shot by Rittenhouse, Gaige Grosskreutz whose bicep was blown off by Rittenhouse's bullet, says he didn't see an emotional man on the stand.
GAIGE GROSSKREUTZ, SHOT BY KYLE RITTENHOUSE: To me, it seems like a child who had just gotten caught doing something that he wasn't supposed to. More upset that he was caught, and less upset about what he had done and what he had taken. And the numerous lives that he affected through his actions that night.
LAH: The eight-day trial was wrought with tension, not just from the witnesses, but between Judge Bruce Schroeder and prosecutor Thomas Binger after the judge lashed out yesterday.
SCHROEDER: Don't get brazen with me.
LAH: Another testy exchange.
BINGER: Yesterday, as I said, I was under the court's ire.
SCHROEDER: You know, I don't want to talk about it. Why don't we just --
BINGER: Well, I think it's a fundamental fairness on the issue, your honor.
SCHROEDER: All right. Say what you want to say.
BINGER: And if I'm being held to obey the court's orders, I'm asked the defense to be held to that too.
SCHROEDER: I was talking yesterday about the Constitution of the United States. And how the Supreme Court has interpreted it for 50 years.
LAH: But the Rittenhouse trial is most noteworthy for being a flash point in a battle far beyond Kenosha. Hernandez was just one of the many capturing the events on the Kenosha Street. He's an Arizona-based commentator who works for far-right wing outlet, Real America Voice, and post frequently on social media.
HERNANDEZ: Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization.
LAH: Hernandez testified, he was in Kenosha to track antifa, and BLM when the shootings happened.
BINGER: Have you ever posted anything on social media?
BINGER: In support of Kyle Rittenhouse?
HERNANDEZ: One could argue, yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON (on camera): That was CNN's Kyung Lah reporting from Kenosha, Wisconsin. And by the way, my colleague Kyung, made a point of noting this to me earlier.
So, take this. The judge presiding over Kyle Rittenhouse's homicidal -- homicide trial made a strange and offensive joke inside the courtroom today. I want you to listen to what Judge Bruce Schroeder said as the court was preparing to take a lunch break.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHROEDER: Let's hope for one o'clock. I don't know -- hope the Asian food is coming, that's not on one of those boats in Long Beach harbor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON (on camera): So, he appears to be referring to the supply chain backlogs caused by congestion problems in California ports. But his comments were offensive and perceived as anti-Asian by some. And as placing blame on Asian people for a catastrophic event happening in this country.
John Yang, the president and executive director of Asian Americans advancing justice told CNN that the joke, and I quote, "it harms our community and put us in the crosshairs of micro aggressions, as well as actual physical violence."
It was only last week that a juror in the same case was dismissed over a joke about the police shooting of Jacob Blake. Case in point, jokes have no place in or around the courtroom.
And so, let's just say he didn't need to talk about Asians. Why is he talking about, if he's saying this trial is not about politics, why is he bringing politics into it by talking about the supply chain?
People are not stupid. Closing arguments coming up on Monday. Then 12 of the 18 jurors will be picked to deliberate. I've got two lawyers here who have tried cases in this part of the country. They are going to tell me what they think is ahead after this.
LEMON (on camera): The testimony phase of Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial now over. The defense resting its case today. The trial resumes Monday with closing arguments in the judge's instructions to the jury before deliberations began.
So, I want to discuss today with Patrick Cafferty, a criminal defense attorney who represented Jacob Blakes -- Blake and his shooting by Kenosha police officer set off the unrest that led to Rittenhouse fatally shooting two men. Also, back with me tonight is Paul Bucher. Paul Bucher knows
everything about that area. He is a former district attorney for Waukesha County, Wisconsin.
Good to see both of you. Thank you both for joining.
Patrick, let me start with you. Because, you know, we can talk all about the questions of bias swirling around. One of the defense's witnesses was, you know, an Arizona-based commentator who works for far-right wing media outlet, he testified that he was in Kenosha to track antifa and Black Lives Matter when the shootings happened.
That is political. The judge says that he is trying to keep politics out of this case. You know this, judge. This, I mean, what do you think -- what do you think of this decision or his comments?
PATRICK CAFFERTY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: So, Don, thanks for letting me join you tonight. As far as politics are concerned, what I am focused on as a trial lawyer observing this is what the potential political orientation of each of the juror is going to be.
So right now, you have 18 jurors, it's going to be narrowed down to 12. Kenosha County is very diverse. But it's pretty easy to identify what people's political orientation is based on which part of the county they come from.
So, i-94 splits Kenosha right up the middle. The west end of Kenosha County votes the same way that Utah does. The east and basically votes the same way that Chicago does. So, it's blue, Democrat.
And eventually you are going to have this down to 12 people. Right now, you have 10 females. Statistically, females are -- lean towards being Democrats. You have eight males, one of whom is of color. Statistically, men lean toward being Republican.
So, once they spin people out randomly the gender breakdown here is going to be huge because of the likelihood that that will identify which political party the individual jurors are oriented toward.
LEMON: So, what is that --
CAFFERTY: I think that --
LEMON: So, as it relates to today than when he is saying this is not political and there is a witness who clearly works for a political organization who is there to track a group that has been part of political discussions. So, what does that -- square that circle for me?
CAFFERTY: So, again from my perspective, this is about what the jurors heard. There's been a lot of focus on things that have occurred outside the presence of the jury. So, the judge talking to the prosecutor and what people perceive to be a harsh tone, things of that nature.
The jury didn't hear any of that. So, the likelihood is that will have no effect on the jury. As far as the judge excluding the bias of the news organization that this gentleman was from, he basically let the prosecutor get to the bias in a different way by basically asking or allowing him to ask whether this person had posted things that were pro-Rittenhouse.
So, I think that he allowed for the prosecutor to get to that issue without actually identifying which party the witnesses oriented toward. I mean, generally speaking, judges don't want politics to be part of a criminal case. They want the jury to focus on the facts of the case, apply the law to the facts of the case and come up with the decision.
LEMON: But it's not like the prosecutor was asking --
CAFFERTY: And that's what --
LEMON: -- if you're Republican or Democrat. He's asking me if you have said -- if you have written things or posted things that are favorable to Kyle Rittenhouse and that are not favorable towards another group.
I don't see what -- doesn't he -- he wasn't saying you are Republican or Democrat or independent. He was just asking a straight-out flat question, the judge stopped him. Why? I don't under -- I don't understand that.
Paul, let me bring you in here. Because you know that there's been a lot of back and forth between this judge and the prosecutor. And I just -- I want you to watch this from today where the judge brings up a face that he says that the prosecutor was making when he got -- when they got into it yesterday. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHROEDER: I'm a little bit challenged when you say, is there something that I'm saying that draws the face that you are making?
BINGER: I --
SCHROEDER: Go ahead, say what you want to say.
BINGER: I have to say, your honor, yesterday I was the target of your ire for disregarding your orders. Today, the defense is disregarding your order. Yesterday, as I said, I was under the court's ire.
SCHROEDER: You know, I don't want to talk about --
BINGER: Well, I --
SCHROEDER: Why don't we just --
BINGER: I think it's fundamental fairness on issue, your honor.
SCHROEDER: All right. Say what you want to say.
BINGER: If I am being helped to obey the court's orders, I'm asking that the defense to be held to that too.
SCHROEDER: I am going to interrupt you then I'm going to let you talk again. But I was talking yesterday about the Constitution of the United States and how the Supreme Court has interpreted it for 50 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON (on camera): So, Paul, what is going on here? Maybe we just don't see that much of what's happening in the courtrooms because there's cameras in there now. But is the judge -- it seems that the judge is inserting himself a lot here.
PAUL BUCHER, FORMER DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN: Well, he should. That's his role. When I was in Waukesha that happened all the time. And I got addressed on many times. But I believe the government in this case really tried to do an end around. That's what the judge is talking about that he was referring to yesterday. He was trying to bring in other bad acts or other things that Mr. Rittenhouse may have done.
And he also was talking about him commenting on the pose to risk silence. However, it's pretty clear that this prosecutor -- and I don't know the gentlemen personally but he is not hearing what Judge Schroeder is saying or he is ignoring it. And he is just pounding away and I don't know if he's just tempting Judge Schroeder -- Schroeder or not but he is just not getting the hint to back off, and the judge I think is tired.
And I don't -- I know this judge, I practiced in front of him. He is not a racist. He is not biased. I didn't quite get the humor in the Asian thing. I don't know what he meant by that. I don't think he meant anything mean by it, but I think you're right. He just didn't get it.
LEMON: Do you -- do you that the --
BUCHER: But clearly, --
LEMON: Go ahead, finish your point and I'm going to ask you something else. Go ahead.
BUCHER: I would just say the prosecutor I think the prosecutor needs to, you know, read the tea leaves here, so to speak. I don't mean to be racist or anything, but to understand where the judge is coming from and adjust his approach to the case which he has not done.
LEMON: Listen, yes, the prosecutor could have done a lot of things. I think most people can agree with that. Do you think that the prosecutor there is a method to this? You said, is he poking him? Is he going for something by trying to get under the judge's skin possibly?
BUCHER: Well, that was suggested by one individual that they are trying to throw the case but I don't believe that to be the situation. They could have easily done that. I just -- I just feel like he is listening, for instance, I want to come back after the noon hour yesterday and apologized to the judge. Not in front of the jury, but obviously he did something that the judge didn't like it. And the judge is the judge and he is the one that runs the courtroom.
So, I just do not see that zeal, if you will, in the prosecutor's presentation of the case, and I just don't think they are hearing that this judge is not happy with the government. And you need to adjust, you need to bottom weave on the fly. We have to be able to do that, and I've done that, and I'm sure Patrick has done it. And when things -- you can kind of see that this isn't working very well, I better try another tactic.
LEMON: Can I -- I just want to play, I know you guys want to move on but just one, this is, I want to play Kyle Rittenhouse's mother tonight on another network. Let's watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WENDY RITTENHOUSE, KYLE RITTENHOUSE'S MOTHER: The judge is very fair. People that I talked to that lives in Kenosha all their lives, they told me that Judge Schroeder is a very fair judge and he doesn't allow no nonsense in his courtroom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON (on camera): Patrick, your response please to that.
CAFFERTY: Well, I can you that I've tried cases in front of Judge Schroeder, he is a no-nonsense judge. He most certainly keeps control over his courtroom and rightfully. So, when he has people who he believes or lawyers he believes are undermining his rulings he reacts swiftly. And he is certainly not shy about letting people know when he is upset with them. So, he has done that in this case.
There are only been a few issues that he has focused on. The public has reacted very dramatically to those rulings, but again, the jury hasn't heard those things. I don't think a lot of the things that we are focused on now are going to make a difference to the jury because they just won't know about them.
LEMON: Yes, apparently though, it was so loud yesterday that reporters were saying they were near the jury room or wherever the jury was sitting and you could hear the interaction between the judge and the prosecutor. And if they could hear it --
CAFFERTY: So --
LEMON: -- then the jury can mostly hear it.
CAFFERTY: So, having tried cases in that courtroom multiple times I can tell you that it's a very strange jury room. It's actually on another floor, one floor up from the courtroom. So, I think it's unlikely that the jurors heard what the judge was saying.
LEMON: They were in the library.
CAFFERTY: If they were in the library, that's closer.
CAFFERTY: If they were in the jury room they were much further away.
LEMON: No, they were in the library. OK, Patrick, Paul, thank you both. We'll see you I'm sure tomorrow and then next week as this continues on.
Next, call logs, speech, drafts, memos, and handwritten notes. It looks like the committee investigating the January 6th insurrection won't be getting those Trump documents tomorrow.
LEMON (on camera): So, late today a federal appeals court granted the former president's last-ditch request to stop the January 6th committee from seeing documents from his White House. A win but it's only a temporary win. That, as the pressure is building on Mark Meadows to cooperate.
I want to bring in now CNN's senior justice correspondent, Mr. Evan Perez. Here we go again, Evan Perez. Good evening to you. Deadlines. Lawyers. Appeals courts. Mark Meadows, the January 6 committee has clearly lost patience with him.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Look, deadlines are for regular people. Mark Meadows says you are going to have to get a judge to make me come in and provide the testimony that this committee says that they want. And so, now, they have given him an ultimatum. Show up on Friday morning at 10 a.m. or we are going to turn to the alternative, which is to begin the contempt of Congress proceedings which obviously is a drawn-out process.
The bottom line, Don, is that this committee is not going to get the answers it's not going to get the testimony that they want, at least not for a while, because Meadows says that he is being ordered by the former president not to provide that testimony because it's protected under executive privilege which the courts still haven't reeled -- haven't ruled whether that's a thing or not.
LEMON: So, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hit -- they did hit pause on the National Archives -- (CROSSTALK)
PEREZ: They did.
LEMON: -- turning over the Trump White House documents to the January 6th committee --
LEMON: -- at least for now. So, what is the timeline here? Because we are saying, you know, Friday they are already in the process, so when are we going to know?
PEREZ: Yes. Look, I mean, we are looking now at possibly December before this court rules. I'll show you the briefing schedule which begins on November 22nd is the first brief from the Trump team. The committee is on the 22nd.
And then on the 30th is when they are going to have oral arguments. We anticipate obviously, Don, that however this goes, whoever loses it's going to go to the Supreme Court to get -- to get them to weigh in.
And so, look, for this committee the clock is ticking. They know that they want to see these documents, 700 pages or so that they say are key to this investigation and they want to see it soon. Because you -- you know, Republicans and Democrats on the hill know that they are looking possibly at Democrats losing the House. And then this investigation would probably not continue.
LEMON: What a mess this all, what a mess this entire thing has been. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Evan Perez, I'll see you soon.
LEMON: The former president getting the delay that he wanted tonight, but like I said, it is a temporary victory. So, now what?
LEMON (on camera): So, a federal appeals court granting a request to hold off on releasing Trump administration records to the January 6 committee.
I want to bring in now CNN contributor John Dean. John Dean is a former Nixon White House counsel. And Kim Wehle is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore School of Law. She's the author of "How to Read the Constitution and Why."
Good evening to both of you.
Kim, let's see. Let's start with Kim. So, the three-judge panel in this executive privilege case they won't hear oral arguments until November 30th. For now, Trump is getting what he wants. Delay, delay, delay, but what happens if they rule against him? Can Trump go to the full D.C. Circuit Court before an appeal to the Supreme Court?
KIM WEHLE, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMORE SCHOOL OF LAW: Exactly. I think that's what will happen, Don. He will, if he loses, which, I think he will given this panel and given, frankly, the weak -- weakness of his case, he is essentially saying that his view overrides a president, a sitting president's view about what to do with presidential records.
I think what it will do is go and ask for re-hearing in bank by the entire panel of judges on the D.C. circuit and that requires a motion to get re-hearing in bank. If that's granted then there will be another round of motions on the merits of the case by the full D.C. circuit. And then if they -- if he loses there, I think he'll go up to the United States Supreme Court. So, this could -- this could drag on even though, as I said, I really think his case is weak.
LEMON: Wow. So, this is why I didn't go to law school. So, Trump's lawyers are saying without judicial intervention that Trump will suffer irreparable harm, John. What about the irreparable harm to our democracy by not getting to the bottom of his attempted coup?
JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, that was one of the arguments that the trial judge blew away that there was no real harm. In fact, she quizzed Trump's counsel during oral argument and wanted to know what was the harm? And he couldn't say this could send my client to jail as potential harm or ruin his reputation.
So, he really couldn't come up with a good explanation for how -- what kind of harm there was. So, I think there is the only harm is as you suggest to the system and to the investigation in getting this information out.
LEMON: All right. I need to take a quick break. Can you guys stick around? We'll come back on the other side. We'll be right back.
LEMON (on camera): John and Kim are back. Thanks for sticking around. Kim, I want to follow up on this question. What do you know about the three judges, Judges Patricia Millett, Robert Wilkins, both Obama appointees and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee? What do you know?
WEHLE: Well, it looks like all three of them based on their histories are either have experience in the as a public defender or in the United States Justice Department civil division. One was a federal judge at a lower court and ruled against Donald Trump.
These are not, I want to be careful, Don, not to suggest these are ideologues. It's just that as I indicated before this is a dual between a sitting president and a former president over official public records. It's not private records. So, I think these judges are not going to be persuaded by politics and will rule against Donald Trump given --- given their sort of very solid government service records.
LEMON: But we still have to go through the lengthy legal process as we pointed out in the segment before as you laid out. John, the January 6 committee is demanding the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows appear for a deposition tomorrow or face contempt of Congress. I mean, does that even have any teeth without -- teeth without a ruling from Merrick Garland on Steve Bannon's contempt charge?
DEAN: It makes it difficult to have teeth when it looks like a pass at the committee is a pass. I think that Garland at some point will take action on Bannon. They may be considering civil remedies, as well as the criminal referral that they've got. But I just don't think they can let it pass.
The other thing, Don, I'm not terribly concerned about this delay. There are massive amount of material that has not even been transferred to the archives that's very relevant to this inquiry. There are 100 million e-mails that are still in the executive office building that belong to the Trump team and those are being sent over in tranches to the archives. They've got to be sorted and unexamined. That's a lot of e-mail, 100 million.
So that process is going to go forward during this downtime while it is proceeding in court.
LEMON: Your testimony --
DEAN: But Kim is right. It's going to -- Trump is going to lose.
LEMON: John, your testimony in the Watergate hearings brought down President Nixon when he revealed that he knew about the cover-up, right? So, when you look at Mark Meadows, if he is compelled to testify under oath, what are the chances that Trump tries to throw him under the bus first?
DEAN: Well, that goes with the territory if you testify against a president. There was an unrelenting effort to discredit me before I testified.
There has been an unrelenting historically by Nixon apologists to discount my testimony or to point false fingers at the witness and try to undo the damage that I have done to that presidency by just telling the truth.
So, Mark Meadows he knows what he is up against. He still has political ambition, I believe. And this is why he is obviously not going to waltz in there and easily divulge anything he doesn't have to.
LEMON: John Dean, Kim Wehle, thank you so much. I appreciate it. I'll see you guys soon.
Eight days, 31 witnesses, testimony in the Rittenhouse trial wrapping up today with questions of bias and reprimands from the judge. We've got the details after this.
LEMON (on camera): Tonight, the testimony phase of Kyle Rittenhouse's homicide trial is over. The defense wrapping up its case. Up next in the trial closing arguments from both sides.