Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

President Biden Set to Sign Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Into Law; Closing Arguments in Kyle Rittenhouse Trial. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired November 15, 2021 - 15:00   ET

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

[15:00:00]

THOMAS BINGER, KENOSHA COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: 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 him. The BearCats hand out water and tell him he's appreciate it.

As he's crossing the police line, they warn him about people throwing rocks. What is the message the defendant takes from all of this? The wrong message: Oh, well, now I have got the power. I have got the gun. I'm going to go confront these bad guys. I'm going to get my -- stick my nose in things.

So what does he do when he gets down to 63rd Street, the first thing he does? We showed it to you at the very beginning, that drone video, grabs that gun and points it at someone to protect property, points it at the Ziminskis, because why? Because they're, what, about to mess with some sort of fire? They're not threatening anyone's lives. He doesn't need to protect anyone. He doesn't need to protect himself.

He's pointing a gun because he thinks he needs to protect property. He says he wants to put out a fire. But the first thing he does is, drop the fire extinguisher on the ground. His AR-15 isn't going to put out a fire. So why is he really there?

And we all agree, you can't use or threaten deadly force to protect someone else's property.

You are here to decide whether or not his actions are legally justified, not to buy pathetic excuses that might be given to you. As a teacher, when a student says to you, the dog ate my homework, that's an excuse. It doesn't get you out of the homework assignment.

If you panic in a situation, that is not reasonable. That is an excuse. It is not a legal justification. If you're 17, if you don't have training or experience, if you put yourself in a situation where you're in over your head, if you're scared, those are excuses. Those are not legal justifications to kill.

They do not erase your personal responsibility for your own actions. The court has read to you the instructions in this case. They lay out the law that you should apply. That reading took a long time. And I understand there was a lot to digest. And one of the things that

you will have the opportunity to do when you go back and deliberate is read through those instructions yourself, because I get that listening to them doesn't always make it clear.

But I encourage you to focus on some things when you consider the defendant's behavior in this case. You are told that criminal -- criminally reckless conduct is conduct that threatens other people's lives and poses an unreasonable and substantial risk to other people.

There is no dispute the defendant's activities here threatened other people's lives. He took two lives. This is not like a normal murder case. A lot of murder cases, we're in here trying to convince a jury that the defendant killed somebody.

That's not in dispute here. That's the easy part. The question is, does he get a pass? Do we think that's OK? Do we think what he did was right? That's the question you have to answer.

And when you consider whether his conduct was criminally reckless, consider, did it pose an unreasonable and substantial threat to the safety of others? Count four charges him with first-degree intentional homicide of Anthony Huber.

There is no doubt that the defendant intended to kill Anthony Huber or committed conduct that he knew was practically certain to kill Anthony Huber. That gun was pointed in Anthony Huber's lower left ribcage, and the defendant deliberately pulled the trigger. That was no accident. And when you do that with an AR-15 against someone's body, it is practically certain to kill.

We all know this case comes down to self-defense. But there's a high bar for using deadly force in a self-defense situation. The law says that the defendant may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if the defendant reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

So did Joseph Rosenbaum pose an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the defendant? No way. Did Anthony Huber pose an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to the defendant? Absolutely not.

Did jump-kick man or Gaige Grosskreutz? No. None of these people posed an imminent threat to the defendant's life or to cause great bodily harm? The standard, when you make this decision, is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant's position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offense.

[15:05:13]

The reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the defendant's acts, and not from the viewpoint of the jury now. So, put yourself in the defendant's position. Would you have done the

same thing? Would a reasonable person have done the same thing? Would you have engaged in the reckless conduct that led to this course of events? Would you have gone out after curfew with an AR-15 looking for trouble? Would you have aimed at other people? Would you have tried to use the gun to protect an empty car lot?

No reasonable person would have done these things.

The court has also instructed you on provocation. You cannot hide behind self-defense if you provoked the incident. If you created the danger, you forfeit the right to self-defense.

By bringing that gun, aiming it at people, threatening people's lives, the defendant provoked everything. And if he does that, he has to exhaust all reasonable means to avoid a confrontation, all reasonable means.

So, if Joseph Rosenbaum is running at him, Joseph Rosenbaum is no threat to his life. And not only is the defendant expected to run. He's expected to yell, push, shove that rag doll around, run back for help, call 911, call for help do all sorts of other things besides just turn and fire four shots as Joseph Rosenbaum falls helpless to the ground.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt in this case that the defendant committed these crimes. He committed a first-degree reckless homicide against Joseph Rosenbaum. He put Richie McGinniss' life in jeopardy. He put jump-kick man's life in jeopardy.

He intended to kill Anthony Huber. And he attempted to kill Gaige Grosskreutz. All of those elements are true. The question is whether or not you believe that his actions were legally justified.

And I submit to you that no reasonable person would have done what the defendant did. And that makes your decision easy. He's guilty of all counts.

Thank you.

JUDGE BRUCE SCHROEDER, KENOSHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT: Thank you, Mr. Binger.

Let's take a break, and about 2:25, hopefully. And please don't talk about the case, rewatch or listen to any account of the trial.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: All right, you have number listening to the closing arguments from Thomas Binger, who is the assistant DA there in Kenosha, making his case, putting Kyle Rittenhouse in the framework of what he says was an active shooter, going on after a break for lunch for about an hour and 50 minutes.

He still has the balance of the two-and-a-half-hours allotted for rebuttal after we hear the defense closing arguments.

Let's bring it now Elie Honig, CNN senior legal analyst and former state federal prosecutor, and Alexis Hoag, assistant professor of law at Brooklyn Law School. Sara Azari is a criminal defense attorney as well.

Elie, first to you.

We discussed the narrative that was not part of the cross-examination of Kyle Rittenhouse when he was on the stand. Do you see a clearer narrative? Was this better performance from this prosecutor?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it was. I think that was a solid, workmanlike effort that we just saw from the prosecutor.

Really, his whole presentation boils down to two main themes. One, he went looking for trouble. Kyle Rittenhouse went looking for trouble. Translated into legalese, that's what we're calling provocation. If he put himself into a dangerous situation where it was likely he would provoke an attack, then that severely limits his ability to argue self-defense.

And then point two is, he went too far. He used force that was not -- that was not equal to the situation. He was not facing risk of death or serious bodily injury. And, in return, he used lethal force. So that's really what the prosecution case boils down to. He went looking for trouble and he went too far.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Alexis, even before he used lethal force, the prosecutor ticked through the things that -- the bad judgment, basically, that got him there.

He should -- he wasn't supposed to be there. He didn't live there. He didn't live in that state. There was a curfew. He crossed the police line. He wasn't supposed to have that AR-15. He didn't have a connection to the business that he claimed that he was protecting. His victims were unarmed, for the most part, except for the person whose arm he shot.

[15:10:02]

So, what about all that? Does that does that count for self-defense?

ALEXIS HOAG, BROOKLYN LAW SCHOOL: Thank you, Alisyn.

It's really about shaping a narrative here. And what the prosecution was able to do was use the weekend to try to tie up all of their loose ends. And, right now, the state doesn't want to alienate people who believe in Second Amendment gun possession rights.

And so, in their initial framing, it was that Rittenhouse did not have -- wasn't from the community. He wasn't protecting his own family. He wasn't protecting his own property. So, again, this is signaling to people that the state of Wisconsin still supports gun possession and gun rights.

But, in this instance, we had someone coming from outside, using disproportional force, as Elie was saying, and did not have the law on his side when he shot and killed two people. BLACKWELL: Yes.

And, Sara, we heard from Thomas Binger speaking to the jury, you remember that night. I remember that night. None of us came out here looking for that. We stayed at home. Anybody who was out at that hour was looking for that fight.

Your first thoughts on what we heard from the district -- assistant district attorney there?

SARA AZARI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, Victor.

So, a follow-up to what Elie said. Provocation was all over the summation. And we really saw how important this instruction is in a case where self-defense is the defense.

What I will say, though, is that much of what the DA argued, the same set of facts, are going to be spun by the defense in Rittenhouse's favors. For example, the idea that none of these men -- or, I should say, Rosenbaum, for example, and Huber -- had a weapon, it doesn't matter.

A skateboard is a deadly weapon in the course of an assault. The fact that he argued, for example, the context of that night, the chaos, right, and yet said there was a reasonable way for Rittenhouse to escape, as opposed to respond by shooting.

Again, the defense, I expect, will argue that that same chaos, that same context is what caused Rittenhouse to run away and to act the way that he did. He didn't run away because of utter disregard for human life after having shot two people. He ran away to save his own life.

So, again, the same set of facts, I think, are going to work more in the defense's favor than they do in the prosecution's favor. And one more thing I'd like to say is this idea of the credibility, which is a huge issue, right. The defense really turns on Rittenhouse's testimony primarily.

And what the prosecution is doing is saying, if he lied then, then he's lying now. So, even if you do believe that it was reasonable for someone to respond in this way, and that the force was proportional to the threat that was posed, that he's not telling you the truth. He's lied multiple times to multiple people, going through the video frame by frame and repeating it and showing the jury that some of what he said was not true, that he lied to the police, that he that -- he really put the crowd of danger by lying and not saying that there's an active shooter among the crowd.

And that's -- again, that's another form of provocation of the entire crowd, not just the people that he shot. So I think the prosecutor did the best he could, given that he was really boxed in by this judge.

But we saw how the provocation instruction was so critical for the state.

CAMEROTA: Yes. AZARI: And I'm curious to see what the defense will do.

CAMEROTA: Yes, we all are.

Let's bring in CNN's Shimon Prokupecz. He was in the courtroom. He's there in Kenosha for us.

So, Shimon, wow, that was a quite a, from our point of view, compelling presentation, but it did include very graphic, hard-to- watch video and photos. So what was the reaction of the jury during all of this?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: No, certainly, the photo -- or the video, the still photo of the wound that Gaige Grosskreutz suffered, there was some visible reaction from the jury during the display of that, the prosecutor saying it's important for them to see this. Don't turn away, because this is what an AR-15-style rifle can do.

I can tell you, from being in the courtroom this afternoon, the jurors are engaged. They're listening to the prosecutor. What he's doing that's really effective, I think, is -- are these bullet points. What some of the jurors are doing is, they are leaning forward. They're looking over up at the screen, the monitors, and they're actually reading the bullet points as he speaking.

So it's kind of reinforcing what the prosecutor is saying. But they are all engaged. They are all listening. Some of them are leaning forward as he speaks.

And when you think about some of the hits kind of the prosecutor has taken for his presentation in this case, it seems like he's doing a pretty effective job, a pretty compelling job going through all the evidence.

I can tell you, the courtroom is more packed than it's been before. There's a line actually now to get into the courtroom. That wasn't the case for the two weeks that we have been here. And a lot of the community people are in there watching.

[15:15:06]

So it's going to be interesting to see certainly how they view this case coming out from listening to the prosecutor. But, as you know, now it's going to be the defense attorneys' chance, and we will see how the jurors react to that.

But I think the key here is, there's always a concern, especially after lunch, that jurors are going to kind of start nodding off. I didn't see any of that. I mean, they seemed to be really paying attention to what the prosecutor was saying.

And the other thing I want to bring out I thought was effective with the prosecutor is, he made a line in there about like, who came here that night? What kind of people would come here that night, on the night of the demonstration, and obviously the riots and the looting? And he said, most of us stayed home. He's talking to the jurors as members of the community. And then he said this line. He said, in our community, people were scared.

And that's a total dig at Kyle Rittenhouse, because he's not from this community. There was another -- one other point I want to make is that there was a reaction from one of the jurors when, during a PowerPoint, one of those presentations that the prosecutor was making, he referred to the defendant as a fraud, a fraud, being that he wasn't this medic, he was claiming he was a medic, but he referred to Rittenhouse as a fraud.

And you could -- I could see one of the jurors, like, raise his eyes as the prosecutor was saying that. So I thought that that was really interesting, but really the prosecutor going after Kyle Rittenhouse, showing no sympathy towards him, and really just laying out a really compelling argument to the jurors for why they should convict him.

BLACKWELL: So what about that, Elie, this lies, as it was, that he said he was a medic? He was not a medic. The prosecutor played that stretch of -- that portion of the video where he's running around -- running away from Rosenbaum there after he shot him and says, "He pulled a gun," and Rosenbaum didn't have a gun.

What's the value of that to the jury?

HONIG: I think two things.

First of all, I think the prosecutor is going to argue, that shows consciousness of guilt. That shows that Rittenhouse knew he had just done something wrong. That's why you lie.

The other thing, again, goes to this provocation point, that he was a fraud as a medic. His whole idea I'm here to protect property and tend to wounds was really just a cover for someone who wanted to get into the action.

But I want to say a very important thing for our viewers. We have only heard one side right now. I have been in this position. I have closed as a prosecutor and thought this -- wow, that went great. But you got to hear from the defense before you judge jump to any conclusions.

The prosecutor is going to come back on rebuttal. That's going to be crucial. The other thing everyone has to keep in mind, beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof always sits with the prosecution, including in self-defense cases.

So if this is, gee, it's a close call, that's going to be not guilty. The prosecution has to prove he did not act reasonably beyond a reasonable doubt.

CAMEROTA: And, Alexis, what about that? I mean, just give us the larger big picture view. Do you think right now -- and I know we have to hear from the other side -- that the prosecution has proved that Rittenhouse -- has the prosecutor made the case that Rittenhouse caused first-degree intentional homicide? HOAG: I think that top charge is going to be the most difficult to meet, which is why we had an agreement in advance that the jury can consider lesser included offenses.

And what I think is most interesting about the preparation for jury instructions, which I know for most people is quite boring, but I think we probably all nerded out on them, but what the judge clarified is that Rittenhouse does not have a claim of self-defense vis-a-vis McGinniss.

And that's the reckless endangerment charge. And that carries a maximum of 12.5 years. That's a significant charge. It's a significant amount of time. So even if the state is not able to get that top charge of first-degree intentional homicide, if perhaps second-degree, if perhaps reckless endangerment to McGinniss and this unnamed -- I think they're calling him dropkick man, those are still serious charges that carry serious prison time.

And so I think the state has made out as best of a case as they can. And it will be interesting to see what sort of arguments the defense makes, when self-defense vis-a-vis McGinniss is off the table.

BLACKWELL: What's the significance of that sixth charge, the only misdemeanor, now being dropped this morning, and the judge saying that there to the jury?

AZARI: That's so hard for me to hear, because so many people are convicted and are serving upwards of 15 years for mere possession, not even use of a firearm.

And when you have people that are -- and I'm speaking mostly black and brown people.

BLACKWELL: Yes.

AZARI: And they're incarcerated for mere possession. And you have this person who shot and killed two people and injured a third.

And so this idea that now that gun possession charge is off the table because of a wonky way that Wisconsin statute states the length of a barrel is not unlawful for a 17-year-old, I was upset. I understand, legally, technically, but I was really upset with that outcome.

HONIG: And, Victor, that was a disaster for the prosecution to have that charge thrown out in two respects.

Number one, it was their easiest conviction if it applied. He had a gun. He was under 17. But it didn't meet the elements of Wisconsin law. The other problem is, the jury knew there were six counts. And, today, the judge said, oh, hey, jury, there's just five now.

[15:20:02]

They can do the math there. They know that it was something the prosecution did wrong. So, that was a major mistake by the prosecution. CAMEROTA: Alexis Hoag, Elie Honig, Sara Azari, Shimon Prokupecz,

thank you all very much for walking us through what we just listened to.

OK. We are now moments away from President Biden, who will be signing his landmark bipartisan infrastructure bill into law. We're going to go to the White House for this rare bipartisan meeting.

As you can see, the ceremony is about to begin. We will bring it to you live.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:25:13]

BLACKWELL: All right, live pictures now at the White House.

Any moment now, President Biden will celebrate a major legislative win and sign the bipartisan $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill into law. This is a rare show of bipartisanship. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are there at the ceremony today.

CAMEROTA: But this historic legislation comes as record inflation throws the rest of President Biden's economic agenda into some jeopardy.

And new poll numbers indicate his approval rating continues to be underwater.

So joining us now, we have CNN chief White House correspondent Kaitlan Collins at the White House for us. CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju is on Capitol Hill. Also with us, CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger, CNN senior political analyst Nia- Malika Henderson, and CNN political commentator David Axelrod.

I don't know. You guys, we're prepared for anything, whatever happens, with all of you guys here.

So, Kaitlan, let's first talk about what President Biden hopes to accomplish with this show today, because I have a few excerpts from the speech he's going to make.

And he's going to say: "I ran for president because the only way to move our country forward is through compromise and consensus."

I mean, that's basically his mission statement. And this is, I think, Exhibit A of it.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think that's also what the president is going to try to get across in this signing ceremony today, is, this is much more to this White House than just roads and bridges.

Of course, there is a lot for that. But the president is saying that this is kind of proving what he had said on the campaign trail, which is that democracy can work and Democrats and Republicans can come together. And so that is what this signing ceremony, the White House believes, is proof of, given, of course, this was a bill that was passed with both Democrats and Republicans.

And so that is what the president will say today as he's signing this bill, actually putting it into law. We do know that's the overarching message the White House wants to push here, though, of course, there are questions on whether or not you will ever see a signing ceremony like this at the White House again where there are also Republicans present.

And so the president is also going to talk about the actual implementation of this bill, because you see former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu here.

He is going to be the official that is tasked with overseeing the implementation of this trillion-dollar bill that we should remind people, when this goes into law, it is a historic investment in the nation's infrastructure, because it's not only got tens of billions of dollars to fix those aging roads and highways and bridges that you see throughout the nation, and that President Biden will travel to later this week.

But it's also investments in boosting Internet access and clean drinking water, in modernizing public transit, updating airports throughout the nation. And so that is going to take some time, of course, for all of that to get actually implemented into place. Those are very lengthy projects, but the White House wants to focus on selling this, so they believe that they can help potentially boost those low poll numbers that you have seen of President Biden's lately.

And just to talk about the implementation of it for a second, we have heard both from Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and the commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo, saying that their respective departments are going to have to hire potentially hundreds of people to help actually put this bill into law, because it is that big, it is that large of an investment.

And so that's what you will see play out over the next several months. But, today, the president wants to focus on getting this passed and getting it passed with Republican support.

BLACKWELL: David, now President Biden has a BFD moment of his own.

DAVID AXELROD, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, he has. Yes, indeed.

BLACKWELL: Of course, we remember that reference after the passage of the Affordable Care Act.

Just 30,000-foot view, they have got the big rollout here, all of the state flags, a beautiful ceremony there. What this means for this administration, and particularly at this time?

AXELROD: Well, it is a BFD moment, in part, because, if you think back to the spring, a lot of Democrats were saying, why are you wasting time? You will never get an agreement with the Republicans. And there were times when it seemed like he wouldn't get a deal with the Republicans. And he persisted.

CAMEROTA: David, hold that thought for one moment. We want to listen to Senator Kyrsten Sinema on this.

AXELROD: OK.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

SEN. KYRSTEN SINEMA (D-AZ): ... to cleaner water, to faster Internet in more places.

Our plan will create millions of jobs and make our country stronger, safer and more globally competitive, without raising taxes on everyday Americans.

You may have heard less about new policies in our bill that do not grab the same media attention, but will make a big difference. States like Arizona that are confronting historic drought will see billions of dollars to strengthen water systems throughout the American West.

Communities will see historic investments to prevent and recover from wildfires. Land ports of entry, key national security infrastructure and commercial hubs will see major upgrades.

[15:30:00]