Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Prosecution Delivers Closing Argument In Rittenhouse Trial; Bannon Leaves Court After First Appearance On Contempt Charges. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired November 15, 2021 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

THOMAS BINGER, KENOSHA COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: This A.R.- 15 had completely incompatible with the role of a medic.

Richie McGinnis testified he's been to demonstrations in Seattle, Portland, Washington, D.C., New York, Minneapolis. He's never seen anyone walking around claiming to be a medic with an A.R.-15.

And certainly, when you see someone like that, it doesn't exactly send a warm fuzzy message, oh, come to me, I'm here to help.

And the defendant acknowledged he had to take off his A.R.-15 to treat people. No serious credible medic wears an A.R.-15 slung around their body.

That is because the defendant was a fraud. He was not an EMT. He lied. He lied to the press.

He's been interviewed by Richie McGinnis, who he hears is a member of the media, and he said I'm a certified EMT. You're lying. You're absolutely lying.

Jason Lackowski and Dominic Black said he had to borrow his medical supplies from us.

This is an emergency situation. Everybody is anticipating violence. Everybody is prepared for people to be hurt, harmed, injured.

And yet, the defendant is going to go there and walk around claiming to be a medic. He's like a quack doctor, practicing without a license. That puts lives as risk.

And one of the things that I had Gaige Grosskreutz testify about is that tattoo on his right arm, which said, "First, do no harm," which is one of the precepts, one of the fundamental tenants of medicine. First do no harm.

So how do we evaluate the performance a medic that night? On one hand, he wrapped up an ankle. And I think maybe helped someone who got a cut on their hand. Yay.

On the other hand, he killed two people and blew off Gaige Grosskreutz's arm and put two more lives in jeopardy. So when we balance your role as a medic that night, I don't give you any credit.

He showed no remorse for his victims, never tried to help anybody that he hurt. And even on the witness stand, when he testified on Wednesday, he broke down crying about himself.

Not about anybody that he hurt that night. No remorse. No concern for anyone else.

For him to call himself a medic is an insult to anyone like Gaige Grosskreutz who spent hundreds of hours training and working hard to become an EMT. It is an insult.

The defendant made a series of reckless decisions that night. Going armed with a A.R.-15, at 17 years old, when he knew he shouldn't have done so.

Because that gun is normally locked in a safe that he didn't have access to. And it is not even legally his.

He's out after a citywide curfew. He's intentionally and knowingly entering into a dangerous situation. And he expects it. Because he brings along his A.R.-15 and some body armor.

So don't tell me you didn't know.

He brings along no non-lethal means of defense, which means his only option is to kill.

I don't know about a lot of you, but I remember that night. I didn't come down here. I don't think most reasonable people did. In part, because we all knew that it was going to be violent and dangerous.

Most reasonably people, to the extent they came out, they were gone by then. Because you don't willingly put yourself in this situation. Unless you want it. Unless you're looking for it. Unless you want trouble.

Now to put this in perspective, at this time, here in our community, there were people who were scared. There were people who were worried about themselves, their homes, their families, their business. That is understandable.

But this is different. There are also people out there who were exercising their First Amendment right to assemble because they have that right, too. But that is not what we're talking about.

The curfew, the riots, the arson, the looting that we'd seen in the prior nights, roadblocks set up around downtown, closed exits on the interstates, all of this was sending the message to reasonable people go away, don't come down here.

Who was left at 11:45 at night? Most reasonable people had gone home before the curfew. Or never even came at all.

[14:35:04] But the defendant's down there, and he says, because he wants to you believe he's protecting Car Source. Even though he had no actual ties or genuine concern for this building.

You have this caravan of people from West Bend, Ryan Balch, Jason Lackowski and Joann Feedler (ph) coming down from some other communities having now idea what is going on down here in Kenosha, having no idea what businesses are and never dealt with Car Source before, just injecting themselves into this situation.

Car Source that night was empty. The owners testified they moved all of the cars off the lot. They took the tools out from inside. And they didn't even feel the need to protect that building.

So who is there? These guys with the A.R.-15s are just wanting to be soldiers acting tough. Trying to manufacture some personal connection to this event, furthering their own personal agenda.

Just a small part of the deluge of chaos tourists we saw here in Kenosha trying to feed off of what we were going through. Despite everything we did to try and tell them go away, stay out.

Did those owners, Sam and Sal, ask anyone to protect their business? I called them to the stand because I wanted you to hear from them. I had their statement, but I wanted you to hear from them. And I'm sure you formed your own impressions about them.

I'm not here to tell you that I believe what they said on the witness stand. I don't think it really matters much, except I wanted you to have a flavor of who these people were and what was going on at that building.

What was interesting to me is that text message from the defendant to Sam asking for the address of Car Source, even though the defendant said he's already been there. That doesn't make any sense to me.

It is not hard to find if you've driven past there every day. Kenosha is one of the easiest cities in Wisconsin to navigate. It is all east- west, north-south. And how hard is it to find this place?

But the agreement was the defendant was supposed to stay at the 59th Street location. There's another group at 63rd. It was their responsibility.

And the defendant testified, when the shootings occurred at 11:45 or 11:50 at night, he didn't know if the other group was there or if they have had left.

But crucially, you heard the testimony of Kristan Harris out there reporting for his "Rundown Live" and make something video.

And he tells the defendant, stay on your property, don't go out on the streets an engage with these protesters because you're just making it worse and you're escalating the situation.

He tells the defendant specifically that. Just 20 minutes before the shootings.

Kristan Harris probably said that because he knows this is a crowd that is feeling threatened by the defendant and his group.

Richie McGinnis testified, when he left his hotel and ran over to 59th Street, he saw guys up on the roof and he felt threatened. These guns, he said, were the things that changed the dynamic for him.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: OK. We have breaking news. This is Steve Bannon just leaving the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., after his first appearance after he was charged with two criminal counts of contempt of court.

We saw him a couple of hours ago going into this courthouse and now he is leaving. We'll see if he has anything more to say to reporters.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Bannon here, prosecutors didn't seek to detain him before his trial. But we know is coming and bond was set. And his official arraignment is next week.

But we heard from this morning where he said this speaking about the proceedings today was noise, as he called it. Of course, Bannon revels in this attention.

Listen to what we hear from Steve Bannon.

STEVE BANNON, FORMER ADVISER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: Where is David?

DAVID SCHOEN, ATTORNEY FOR STEVE BANNON: Right here.

Listen, ordinarily, we don't like to comment on a case. But I have an obligation to respond to something Attorney General Garland wrote.

Attorney General Garland wrote, he "promised Justice Department employees we're show the American people by word and deed that the Justice Department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts of the law and pursues equal justice along the law."

I assume you're here to take off your masks.

BANNON: Do it. It is a free country.

SCHOEN: There's nothing about this case that reflects a pursuit of the equal justice under the law.

This thing was a scam from the beginning. The committee -- the committee -- the committee that was convened here was convened exclusively of people who have made prejudgments and announced them publicly.

The chair of the committee sued President Trump personally. And before he was even appointed to his position, determined and put in writing that President Trump was responsible for the events of January 6th.

This is not an investigative committee. There's nothing to investigate when he's made a prejudgment. Other members of the committee who announced their prejudgments well in advance.

[14:40:08]

It is not equal justice under the law, Mr. Garland, to charge a matter like this criminally. The holder of the privilege in this case, executive privilege invoked the privilege.

Mr. Bannon is a lay person. When the privilege has been invoked by the purported Holder of privilege, he has no choice but to withhold the documents. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Mr. Bannon acted as his lawyer counseled him to do by not appearing and by not turning over documents in this case. He didn't refuse to comply. He made quite clear that if a court ordered him to comply, he would do that. But he had an obligation to honor the privilege that was invoked.

And in terms of prosecuting this criminally, it violates settled Department of Justice policy that is binding on the executive branch. It is outrageous that a criminal charge was brought in this case.

It is a misdemeanor. But it is being treated as if it were a capital case.

Mr. Bannon takes this very seriously. It is outrageous what the government did.

The principles of equal justice under law that Attorney General Garland speaks about are vitally important to us. And we all lose as Americans when they are selectively used and when we violate that principle.

BANNON: You see these signs right here, the guys over here saying insurrection and all of that? That is what this country is about. It is free speech. They've got their opinions. We have our opinions, OK?

(CROSSTALK)

BANNON: Hang on.

They have their opinions.

I'm telling you now, this is the misdemeanor from hell for Merrick Garland and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Joe Biden ordered Merrick Garland to prosecute me from the White House lawn when he got off Marine One.

And we're going to do go on the offense. We're tired of playing defense. We're going on the offense on this. And stand by.

(CROSSTALK)

BANNON: By the way, by the way, you should understand Nancy Pelosi has taken on Donald Trump and Steve Bannon. She ought to ask Hillary Clinton how that turned out for them. OK?

We're going on the offense.

(CROSSTALK)

BANNON: Stand by.

SCHOEN: You should be outraged if you ever faced that possibility as an American. There's nothing criminal about any conduct that occurred in this case.

And when we respond to Merrick Garland, we say apply the law equally. Who else did they prosecute for invoking executive privilege in a criminal prosecution?

Read the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel letters. It is unconstitutional, according to their own opinions, from some real luminaries.

And including, by the way, read the Office of Legal Counsel opinion by Eric Holder for the Obama administration from the Fast and Furious case.

This is unheard of to force a person to violate the invocation of executive privilege.

By the way, I mean the court hasn't ruled yet in President Trump's case, in Trump versus Thompson on whether executive privilege applies.

But even beyond that, the Office of Legal Counsel opinions make clear that it applies to discussions with former government officials. And that makes sense. It makes sense because we often see former officials kept in the loop that the president needs to consult with.

And whatever you happen to think of the president -- President Trump talked about at the time, that is what executive privilege exists for. So people could speak freely with the president and talk about strategy matters around talk about national security and other important matters.

BANNON: By the way, by the way, not just Trump people or conservatives. Every progressive and every liberal in this country that likes freedom of speech and liberty, OK, should be fighting for this case.

That is why I'm here today. For everybody. I'm never going to back down, And they took on wrong guy this time, OK. They took on the wrong guys.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Why did you -- (INAUDIBLE)

SCHOEN: Because he was instructed by his attorney not to show up in Congress.

A lay person has to follow his attorney's advice, in my view at least.

When he's faced with a subpoena, he doesn't know anything about legal process otherwise. He relies on a lawyer and the lawyer gave the advice.

And I must say, relies on the Office of Legal Counsel opinions, which very clearly say he need not show up.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Did he get bad advice?

BANNON: No.

SCHOEN: No.

BANNON: -- executive privilege --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHOEN: There's no other choice. Once the privilege is invoked, what would the choice be? Show up and testify.

And by the way, they asked to have to have -- if he were to testify, to have those people invoking the privilege. A representative of the person invoking the privilege present just to be able to monitor it and make an objection if a privilege the matter came up. They refused to allow that.

(CROSSTALK)

BANNON: By the way, if the administrative state wants to bring me on, bring it. Because we're here to fight this. And we're going to go on offense. And you stand by and we're going to see how we're going on offense, OK?

(CROSSTALK)

BANNON: Nancy Pelosi, Merick Garland, Joe Biden, the whole -- all of them, OK?

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: What do you mean -- (INAUDIBLE)

SCHOEN: What he means by offense is we're going to challenge this affirmatively. We're going to fight to defend his rights and your rights also.

BANNON: Your rights.

SCHOEN: I represented the American Civil Liberties Union for more than 20 years and all of the allegation we had in Alabama. This is an issue that the American Civil Liberties Union ought to be on our side with.

(CROSSTALK)

BANNON: All right. We have to go.

SCHOEN: Thank you.

BANNON: Thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Sir, you said that all hell would break loose --

[14:45:03]

BLACKWELL: All right, you heard the remarks from Steve Bannon after this first appearance. Also from his attorney, David Schoen.

Steve Bannon calling this -- he said it is "the misdemeanor from hell," referencing Attorney General Merrick Garland, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and even squeezing in Hillary Clinton reference there as well.

So clearly, the man versus the administration is the one that he wants to follow.

Let's bring in Evan Perez, who is outside the courthouse. Ryan Nobles is on Capitol Hill. Also with us, senior legal analyst, Elie Honig, on set.

Evan, let's start with you.

Tell us what happened inside of that courtroom?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Victor, that was a name check of all of the greatest hits, if you are Steve Bannon and you have a podcast and you need to fundraise, right? And so that is one of the things that you heard from him just now.

In court, he was obviously a lot different. He answered respectfully to the judge when the judge advised him of his rights. The judge scheduled his arraignment for later this week before the trial judge, and judge who is actually going to hear this case.

And then he was released on his own. They took away his passport, they said, but he is free to go and has to abide by certain restrictions while he's out.

But, look, as you can tell, from that little press availability just now, this is not a normal case. This is not going to be a normal case by any stretch of the imagination.

Not many defendants show up to the FBI to turn themself in with a live stream crew behind them. He is here with his own production crew. They're about to walk out just a few yards away to some SUVs to go back to his home where he does his podcast from.

And you could tell also that he says this is not going to be an easy case for the Justice Department.

And I think that is one of the indications and one of the reasons why, despite the frustration from a lot of people, the Justice Department took some time, the attorney general and the U.S. attorney here in Washington took their time in considering this referral from the House before they made a decision on Friday to bring this criminal case, right?

As Bannon has pointed out, there's decades of Justice Department internal legal guidance that he believes supports his idea that he didn't have to show up, that he could rely on the former's president's claim that he is protected by executive privilege.

Some of that will have to be worked out before the court -- Alisyn and Victor?

CAMEROTA: Evan, thank you.

Elie, what about that? It was interesting to see that he was very different inside of the court. He was respectful to the judge.

And then he comes out and there's always that measure of Bannon bluster and martyrdom that he leans into.

But what about his argument that the executive privilege issue hasn't been resolved yet?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Alisyn, so first of all, you're right, that was a show. Let the political martyrdom begin.

The problem with what he just did and the reasons why smart lawyers will tell you don't say anything is he sort of contradicted himself.

Because he said two things. He said the reason I defied the subpoena is because it is a political witch hunt, and Pelosi and the other names that he dropped, and I'm not going to allow that to happen. Also I have this executive privilege issue.

So which one is it? What is your reason? What's your defense? They don't go well together.

His lawyer was mischaracterizing these DOJ memos to an extent. There's a DOJ memo, which said it is possible that executive privilege could apply beyond the executive branch in certain narrow circumstances that I don't think are relevant here.

Also, this is the big question for Bannon: How is he going to claim executive privilege on conversations with other people not in the executive branch, with Rudy Giuliani, with this lawyer, John Eastman? He's going to have a major problem.

Ad this gets back to one of the big problems with Steve Bannon strategically. He has put up a blanket stop sign. If he said I agree to this and I fight that, it would have been a much harder of a case to prosecute.

BLACKWELL: Elie, there's one point that Steve Bannon made that maybe should not be pushed aside with the rest when he said that President Biden told Merrick Garland to prosecute me.

They're on the South Lawn, coming off of Marine One. President Biden was asked, should there be this filing, should there been an indictment, and the president then said yes.

HONIG: Sure, should. And that was a mistake by Joe Biden. He should not have done that for exactly this reason. And because it looks like he's telling the attorney general what to do.

We had problems -- I had a problem with Donald Trump telling Bill Barr what to do under the last administration.

But we do have to point out Joe Biden walked that back the next day.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

HONIG: He acknowledged publicly that was wrong and I should not have do done that.

Was it a direct order to Merrick Garland? No. Was this something that Steve Bannon will weaponize? You bet.

CAMEROTA: Ryan, just remind us why Steve Bannon is so vital to the committee?

[14:49:58]

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, there's no doubt, Alisyn, that they view Steve Bannon as at the center of this nexus between the peddling of the Big Lie after the November election and the ramp up intention leading up to what happened what led to January 6th.

As Evan has pointed out, he has been on his podcast since Election Day spouting a lot of wild conspiracy theories about what went wrong in November, claiming that Donald Trump was the rightful winner of this election, and that his supporters should be outraged by it.

In addition to kind of the angst that he was fomenting across the country to Trump supporters through his various media channels, there was also a tangible planning element to all of this, that Bannon was a part of the communications at the Willard Hotel of a back room of individuals, Rudy Giuliani and others.

Then of course, he was on his podcast just a couple of days before January 6th, warning that there was going to be big problems on January 6th, that there was going to be all hell that was going to let loose, and that turned out what the situation was at the capitol.

What you see the committee attempting to do is get him in front of them so they can ask very serious questions about what we knew and when he knew it, and where the coordination lies if at all.

And is that coordination, does it track back to the White House? Is it involved with the Trump campaign? Is it involved with these outside groups, the Stop the Steal organizations, the rally organizers, the money trail? What does Bannon know about that?

And then, what did that information do to lead to everything that took place here on January 6th? They want answers to those questions.

And also, Victor and Alisyn, there's somewhat of a symbolic effort here connected to Steve Bannon. They view him as one of the big targets. The fact that they have taken a forceful approach to him, almost an

aggressive approach in trying to get him in front of them.

That sends a signal to all of these Trump associates under subpoena, Mark Meadows, Kash Patel, Dan Scavino, the list goes on and on.

If you don't comply, if you don't find a way to come before us and give the information we're looking for, you, too, will find yourself in front of a judge, being forced to surrender your passport, and facing the prospect of jail time.

Because we are going to enforce Congress's due right to issue subpoenas and get the information that we're looking for.

BLACKWELL: And Bannon will be back in front of a judge in less than a week.

Evan, what's next?

PEREZ: Look, I mean, I think you heard a little bit of what least going to be doing. He's going to be full throttle on idea that this is a legitimate exercise.

And, you know, for this committee, Bannon is a problem, right? The fact that they have now gone this route means most likely they're not going to get information from Bannon because this is now in the hands of a judge, and it's going to take time for it to be worked out.

They're hoping that this serves, as Ryan just laid out, serves as some kind of a cudgel to get some of these other guys to come forward and to provide some information.

It's not clear if that wall of silence -- you know, you have three dozen subpoenas that are outstanding there. Most of those people are not really talking.

It's not clear whether this is going to break that wall of silence. We'll see whether this had that effect.

But, yes, you're right. He's going to be in court the next few days. And this will work itself out over the next coming months.

CAMEROTA: OK, we have just again seen Steve Bannon emerge from his first court appearance.

Elie Honig, Evan Perez, Ryan Nobles, thank you all very much for the reporting and the analysis.

Let's go back now to Kenosha, Wisconsin, where the prosecution in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse is continuing to make closing arguments.

Let's listen in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CROSSTALK) (END VIDEO CLIP)

BINGER: The rest of the video is the crowd being warded off by gas launched by the police. They launched tear gas, which affects the defendant, which affects Ryan Balch, which affects Kristan Harris.

And that group all runs alongside the 59th Street Car Source, away from the street, away from any protesters.

At no point in that video do you hear any threat that Joseph Rosenbaum makes. It's not there. Trust me. If the defense had it, they'd play it for you.

Now, they want you to believe that that threat is made. And they also want you to believe that it was something that the defendant took into account when he decided to kill Joseph Rosenbaum.

One of the questions that occurs to me is, how would the defendant even know who that guy is? Because earlier in the night, Joseph Rosenbaum is wearing a red shirt and a blue bandanna. But by the time he's killed, he's got no shirt on. He's got no blue bandanna.

[14:55:05]

This is someone the defendant has never even met before. He's one of hundreds of people in the crowd. And yet, we're expected to believe, in a split second, the defendant remembers this guy? I don't believe so.

So then that video that I just showed you picks off -- leaves off at about 11:35 p.m. The police have moved the protesters south of 60th Street. They have tear gassed the crowd, and there's no protesters left.

And 59th Street is no longer in any danger. It wasn't in much danger to protect. There wasn't anything left there to protect. But by this point, there's no danger.

As law enforcement comes through, you're heard this video where they tell the defendant and his group, we appreciate you, and hand them out bottles of water.

As long as you stay on that private property, yes. No one is saying you don't have the right to stay on private property and protect private property.

What people are saying, what the crowd is saying is stay there. Don't go out looking for trouble.

The defendant hears this message from the police and takes it the wrong way. He thinks, oh, well, now I'm junior policeman. I can run around stopping crime.

But I asked him, and I asked some other witnesses, if the police are there on the scene and the protesters are gone, go home. Why are you still here? Shouldn't have been here in the first place. But why are you still sticking around?

And interestingly enough, one of the questions I have always had in the back of my mind is, what's the end game, when is the crew going to be done and decide that it's time to leave?

Right after the defendant kills Joseph Rosenbaum, kills Anthony Huber, and comes back, they all flee like rats on a sinking ship.

But it's boring at 59th Street. There's no protesters. There's no action. So the defendant decides, about 11:35 p.m., to cross the police line and go looking for trouble.

He knows at this point he's entering a hostile crowd. He has seen this crowd. He knows what they're like.

That's why he has to yell "friendly" to them because he knows they're not going to see him and think he's friendly. And he knows he's got to have Ryan Balch with him, some sort of buddy to protect him.

And he's immediately confronted by that man with the yellow pants who says, you just pointed your gun at me. And the defendant says, yes, I did. He admits that.

Now, what's interesting to me is they want you to believe this never happened, this guy in the yellow pants made it up or is lying. But he's just standing there by the side of the road minding his own business when the defendant happens to walk up to him.

Do you think he just sat there and thought, oh, I'm going to make up a lie about this guy on a spur of the moment or did it really happen?

And is it consistent with everything else you've seen about defendant. Does he sound like the sort of guy who would point a gun at someone for standing on a car? Does he strike you as the kind of guy that would threaten deadly force to protect property?

Because that's what happened. The man in the yellow pants says it happened. The defendant agrees, and comes into trial and says, I'm being sarcastic, like he's a little 17-year-old.

Shortly after that, the defendant loses track of his protector, Ryan Balch. So now he's in a position where he knows that he's surrounded by people that consider him a threat.

He knows that he's not supposed to go anywhere without Ryan Balch. He knows he's supposed to go back to 59th Street.

And he does. He tries. He walks up to the police line. He says, I work there, that's my business, which isn't true, but whatever. And they won't let him through.

Now, Ryan Balch makes it on through shortly thereafter. But the defendant gives up.

He could go one block in either direction and make it back easily if he wants to. But he stops and decides, you know what, I'm going to stay here, and maybe see what's going to happen.

So then he talks to these people with fire extinguishers and he's going to go down to 63rd Street. And he asks one of them to come along, and they say no.

At this point, he doesn't have Ryan Balch. He knows he's supposed to go back. He knows he's supposed to have a buddy. Yet, he decides to go it alone. He decides to run down to 63rd Street or walk down to 63rd Street.

Doesn't even know if that other group is still there. Doesn't even know if he's really needed. But he can't wait to take this opportunity to go down and confront people.

Because he thinks he's some sort of cop, some sort of law enforcement agent, some sort of junior cadet who's out there with the responsibility to fight crime.

[14:59:59]

Nobody asked him to do that. Nobody gave him the right. Nobody deputized him.

Ryan Balch says the police told me, the crowds, we're going to push them down by you. You're going to deal with them.

The Bear Cats hand out water and tells him he's appreciated.