Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

Rittenhouse Jury Wraps First Day Of Deliberations Without Verdict; After 8 Plus Hours Of Deliberations, Rittenhouse Jury Adjourns For Day; Earlier: Jury Asks For Extra Copies Of Instructions; House Will Vote Tomorrow On Censuring Rep. Gosar Over Animated Video Posted Showing Him Killing Ocasio-Cortez; Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) Discusses About The Vote To Censure Rep. Paul Gosar For Twitter Post Depicting Animated Violence Against AOC And President Biden; Trump Attorneys Attempt New Legal Strategy To Try To Keep Docs Secret; Migrants Furious, Desperate As Clashes Escalate On Belarus-Poland Border. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired November 16, 2021 - 19:00   ET


BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Contacted by CNN, a representative for Steve Bannon did not comment for our story, Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: Excellent report, Brian. Thank you very, very much.

And to our viewers, thanks very much for watching. I'm Wolf Blitzer in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Erin Burnett OUTFRONT starts right now.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next breaking news, the jury in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial just ending deliberations for the day without reaching a verdict.

Plus, Republican Congressman Paul Gosar set to be punished for his graphic video depicting violence against the Democratic colleague and President Biden.

And a woman who backs election lies now running to oversee Michigan's elections and she's got Donald Trump's backing. Let's go OUTFRONT.

And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news, the jury in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse just ending their first day of deliberations. The Judge bringing them back into the courtroom moments ago. They were deliberating for more than eight hours. The jury telling the judge they are ready to break for the evening and they will, of course, return for day two tomorrow morning.

Now, the jury right now or who knows what they did today, but they are looking at five felony charges in addition to lesser counts and they are faced with a central question, was Kyle Rittenhouse acting in self-defense when he killed two men and wounded another in Kenosha, Wisconsin last summer. Now, before the deliberations began today, Rittenhouse helped narrow down the jury, they narrowed it down to 12 men and the women who will decide his fate. They picked six members at random who will, they had 18, those six are not going to be alternate jurors, so they're going to remain but they're not going to be in the room.

There haven't been many clues from the jury yet. What they did is asked for extra copies of the jury instructions. So these are 36 pages here, 36 pages with the jury directions, explaining issues of self- defense, provocation, all of this, of course, both sides talked about during the closing arguments.


THOMAS BINGER, ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: You cannot claim self- defense against the danger you create. That's critical right here.

MARK RICHARDS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Every person who was shot was attacking Kyle. One with a skateboard, one with his hands, one with his feet, one with a gun.


BURNETT: Omar Jimenez is OUTFRONT live from Kenosha tonight to begin our coverage. Omar, you were there in the courthouse today. What do you know about the jury? I know just moments ago they were released for the night, but how do things stand with them and their deliberations for tomorrow?

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Erin. So as you just mentioned, they were just dismissed after deliberating for close to nine hours on this day one of deliberations. Early in the day, they asked for copies or extra copies of pages one through six of jury instructions.

Now, of course, that was significant, because those are the pages that include some of these main concepts, these crux concepts here of self- defense, provocation. It also deals with intent and the charges around Joseph Rosenbaum the first person killed by Rittenhouse that night.

It was later in the afternoon, they then requested extra copies of set pages seven through 36, so essentially all of the jury instructions. To begin the day though, we saw Kyle Rittenhouse himself draw from an old school lottery tumbler the names or numbers of jurors who would be selected as alternates.

Some saw that is very unusual that the defendant would be drawing those names himself. The Judge just a few moments ago came out and addressed that and said that this has been the practice in this courtroom for at least 20 years since he's been presiding over it that he allows a defendant in a criminal case to draw the names of those who won't be the sitting juror panels to do that, the defendant himself. So he came out and wanted to be adamant about that.

Outside the courtroom, we have seen some protests throughout this trial today. Maybe the most amount we've seen, but still overall pretty small. Some calling Kyle Rittenhouse a killer, some saying the survivor like Gaige Grosskreutz is a hero, some calling Kyle Rittenhouse a hero, but what is clear from the people that have been out here so far, no matter what the verdict is, some people are going to be upset.

BURNETT: Yes. I mean, Omar, it is incredible the focus on this. And prosecution defense obviously making their cases and now you've got it in the hands of the jury. But what is interesting here, I know from your reporting, is that you're learning more about what the defense did. They hired someone when they were - looking at the jurors. Who is that? Why is that so important?

JIMENEZ: Yes, that's right, Erin. They hired a jury consultant who actually helped consult on the jury, the 1995 O. J. Simpson trial, the jury in that trial that, of course, ended up acquitting O.J. Simpson. That same jury consultant has been hired by the Kyle Rittenhouse team and has been working with them over the course of this, Jo-Ellen Dimitrius, she's been seen in the courtroom over the course of this oftentimes next to Wendy Rittenhouse.

And her firm described it to me as she is helping or over the course of this, she helps create the perfect juror for the defense.


And consulted the defense on what that juror would look like so that they would have confidence in their arguments that what they were saying was actually resonating with the jury which, of course, is all that matters at this point, Erin.

BURNETT: Right. Of course, some people look at jurors, they go, how could someone on each side agree. Well, you just need one. You just need one.

All right. Thank you very much, Omar. I appreciate it.

And I want to go now to Paul Martin, criminal defense attorney and a former prosecutor. Also with me tonight, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, former defense attorney and the former Mayor of Baltimore.

Paul, you're with me, so let me start with you. You heard Omar, nearly nine hours for that jury on day one. So this is the first six pages of the 36. They asked for this multiple times, then they asked for the whole thing. They wanted extra copies, 36 pages and it's complicated. I mean, it's complicated not just for me, you're saying, but also would be for a lawyer.


BURNETT: So what do you make of their request?

MARTIN: Well, I think they want to be thorough. I think the jurors in this case want to really look at the facts and apply it to the law and what better way to look at the law than have it in black and white before them. So I'm not surprised that they asked for the jury instructions. BURNETT: Mayor Rawlings-Blake, we talked about these instructions last night and how complicated they are. So I would assume you agree with Paul, they want to get it right but it's complicated. So they're looking at this and kind of going through it in this granular level of detail, which side do you think that that favors big picture?

STEPHANIE RAWLINGS-BLAKE, FORMER MAYOR OF BALTIMORE: Big picture, complicated instructions, I think, favors the defense. As I said, before, the jury doesn't want to clean up the mess of the prosecution or the defense. And when they can't make heads or tails of the jury instructions - people are frustrated, they're human and I wouldn't be surprised if they throw their hands up at that case.

BURNETT: I mean, so Paul, the prosecution in their rebuttal presentation, which they made one of the last things, the freshest things on the jury's mind, this was right before they went in the night before suggested that Kyle could have fought back aggressors without shooting. This is the argument they're trying to make. Take a listen.


JAMES KRAUS, KENOSHA COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY: No one is saying that Mr. Rittenhouse did not have a right to defend himself. Punch him in the face, kick him in the testicles, knee him in the face, hit him with your gun, you don't just immediately get to shoot someone.


BURNETT: Prosecution saying you can act in self-defense without killing.

MARTIN: Right.

BURNETT: That makes sense. But, of course, you're in a situation here where the law allows for guns and vigilantes. I mean, how does the jury see this?

MARTIN: Not so quick. Not so quick. The law of self-defense is pretty clear. You can use deadly physical force when you're confronted with deadly physical force.


MARTIN: But you can't take out a bazooka in the middle of a fistfight. You have to use proportional force for what you're being confronted with.

BURNETT: Do you think this was compelling then?

MARTIN: I think it would have been a great argument if they would have started with that from the beginning. It seems to me that they didn't drive it home during the course of the trial and to bring it up to summation maybe falling on deaf ears. BURNETT: I mean, so Mayor, to this point, one of the more powerful moments during closing arguments, again, and I'm emphasizing these because these are the last things, the freshest things on the jury's mind was when the prosecutor picked up Kyle Rittenhouse's gun. The prosecutor was trying to show basically what he sees as provocation from Rittenhouse ahead of the first shooting when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. Let me play that moment.


BINGER: This is the provocation. This is what starts this incident.

In putting the fire extinguisher on the ground and then raising the gun.


BURNETT: So was that effective, Mayor?

RAWLINGS-BLAKE: I think it may backfire. A lot of this, we've heard if what would a reasonable person do. And when that prosecutor lifted that gun and pointed it, I'm sure many of the jurors or at least one of the jurors is thinking, I would run. I wouldn't charge and is what a reasonable person charge at someone holding an automatic weapon. So I think that there's a possibility that that prop might not help the defense, I mean, might not help the help prosecution, sorry.

BURNETT: It's an interesting thing. For a lot of people, the first thing you would do would be to run the other direction.

Paul, let me ask you another moment, of course, not on that final day, but one of the most important moments, impactful moments, of course, was when Kyle Rittenhouse himself was testifying and started crying uncontrollably. This is sure to be on jurors' minds as well as all of ours as we cover this, let me just remind everybody.


KYLE RITTENHOUSE: There were people right there ...

RICHARDS: Take a deep breath, Kyle.


RITTENHOUSE: That's when I run.


BURNETT: How important is that to the jury?

MARTIN: It resonates. It makes him human. So it's not unusual for a defendant to cry and he did it on cue. So whether it's crocodile tears or they're sincere tears, someone on that jury probably felt that and so ...

BURNETT: Right. And the point is you only need one person to feel it's sincere.

MARTIN: All you need is one.


MARTIN: All you need is one.

BURNETT: And Mayor Rawlings-Blake, to the point of Omar's most recent reporting, which is that the woman who helped pick the jury in O.J. Simpson's defense trial work for the defense team and, obviously, jury consultants all the time, but that's who they have on this. How significant could that be? She does know this well.

RAWLINGS-BLAKE: It's very significant. I feel like if jury can - I'm looking for some Chelsea boots. The second I think about it, I think you can get a consultant that will have a good sense of what these jurors are thinking about, it is a science and this is someone who has a record of getting it right.

BURNETT: All right. It's pretty amazing. And as you say, it is a science and you both have dealt with this, you understand. All right. Thank you both very much.

And next, Republican Congressman Paul Gosar about to face the discipline for posting a video depicting him killing Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Plus, a woman who wants to be Michigan's Secretary of State calls public schools and I quote her 'indoctrination camps'.


KRISTINA KARAMO: You're forced to have your child be exposed to all types of unbridled wickedness that these Democrats and Liberals want to teach.


BURNETT: Her biggest backer right now is Donald Trump.

And we now know just how dangerous, how close dangerous space junk generated by Russia came to the International Space Station while seven human beings were onboard.



BURNETT: Tonight, a source telling CNN that the House will vote tomorrow on a resolution that will both censure Congressman Paul Gosar and remove him from the Oversight Committee. He serves on that Committee with Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

It comes after Gosar deleted a video that he had posted to Twitter portraying himself killing Ocasio-Cortez and swinging a sword at President Biden. Still, Republican leadership is standing behind Gosar. Here's what Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said today.


REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): He didn't see it before it posted. And he took it down. So it was not his intent to ever show any harm.


BURNETT: OUTFRONT now Democratic Congresswoman Jackie Speier who introduced that resolution to censure Gosar. So what do you say to Kevin McCarthy and other Republicans who are standing behind Gosar? You heard McCarthy's reasoning that Gosar removed it and he says he didn't know it was up even though, of course, Gosar has defended why he did it?

REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CA): Well, first of all, there was radio silence from Kevin McCarthy and Republicans four days after Mr. Gosar actually posted that venomous anime and tacit support is equated to silence. As the issue got hotter and hotter as the resolution got introduced, they then just took it down.

Now, subsequently, he has said publicly that he is not apologizing. He then said that he does not support violence. Well, then why would you do something like that, that shows you killing a colleague in the House of Representatives and attempting to do so with the President of the United States. It crossed the line, Erin, and that's why I felt so strongly about introducing the resolution. We cannot allow members of Congress to promote violence against other members of Congress.

BURNETT: Now, part of your life is very relevant here, okay. You said about Gosar, he's promoting the killing of a seated member of Congress and you know the reality of that danger personally, right? You were there on January 6th, but I'm not even talking about that.

Forty-three 43 years ago on this Thursday, you survived the Jonestown Massacre, you were there. More than 900 people led into a murder suicide by the cult leader, Jim Jones. You were Congressional staffer at the time. You traveled to the compound to try to help the followers along with your boss and mentor, Congressman Leo Ryan. And you were shot five times, you were left for dead on the tarmac, 22 hours until help arrived. Congressman Ryan was killed, shot 45 times. Three journalists and a cult defector all killed. It's unbelievable even have to say these things, but this comes into it.

What does it mean to you when you hear a threat, a threat against the life of a fellow congressman, coming from within Congress?

SPEIER: Well, it's chilling. And that's why it's so important for us to draw that red line to prevent this kind of conduct moving forward. Now, mind you, Mr. Gosar, then actually sent out to supporters a subsequent email, in which he chastise the resolution for being shrill and filled with invective.

The resolution just pointed out what his conduct was. So there's no remorse, there's no apology and I fear that if we don't shut this kind of conduct down, someone's going to get hurt severely and I just don't want to see that happen. And the House has become so filled with charged language, even members in the Republican side challenging other members on the Republican side for having voted for an infrastructure bill to benefit their districts. It really is out of hand.

BURNETT: And you announced today that you're retiring from Congress. You're the 15th Democrat Congresswoman to announce that you're not going to run for reelection. This is something obviously that comes from deep within a decision you've made. But does the threat from Congressman Gosar, the tone of why Washington right now, have anything to do with your decision?


SPEIER: Well, it certainly doesn't promote me wanting to stay here, but the decision was really made on very personal reasons. Because I've been in public life now for 39 years, it's time to pass the torch to a new generation. I have a spouse at home who's put up with a weekend wife for 20 years and he's now retired and wants us to spend some time together with our family and friends.

So it's time for me to go home. It doesn't mean I won't be part of the community or active publicly on issues that I care about. I still am very committed to the work that I've done here in Congress and in the state legislature in California.

BURNETT: You have gone through so much in your life and I know you're the great joy of your husband and your children. I mentioned Jonestown, which is incomprehensible to so many to imagine, the loss of your mentor. You were married before and your husband died in a car crash at the time you were pregnant with your daughter and you struggled so hard to have that pregnancy, I know. At one point, you and your husband had tried to adopt a child, the birth mother changed your mind at the last moment.

People hear all these things and they say, how could anybody endure all this, how could anybody get through this. I mean, it truly is incredible and you survived. You continue to help others. You have dedicated your life to public service.

What do you say to people now about how they too can persevere and why people should still believe in public service at a time when frankly a lot of people view it with disgust?

SPEIER: Well, that's in part why it's so important to shut down the kind of conduct that Mr. Gosar was engaging in. But I will say, I wrote my memoir a couple of years ago called Undaunted. And I really wrote it for a generation of young people to realize they can overcome virtually anything. I've had lots of ups and downs in my life. I must say that it has been such a privilege to serve the people in my district and in California and across the country and I wouldn't change it for the world.

BURNETT: Congresswoman, I really appreciate your time. Thank you so much.

SPEIER: Thank you, Erin.

BURNETT: And OUTFRONT now, Van Jones, former Special Adviser to President Obama. I mean, pretty incredible to hear her speak to think about going through what she has endured in life and persevered and thrived, it is pretty stunning. And yet she's going to move on with her life to a better chapter for her.

But you heard her, the tone in Washington 'doesn't promote me wanting to stay here'. That's really damning. I mean, Washington is going to lose some really dedicated public servants, people who went in this for the right reasons and stayed in it for the right reasons, because it's so dysfunctional.

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, when you start losing the good folks, the wise folks, the people who have suffered and endured, I mean, obviously, here in California, she's a legend and she's a legend for the right reasons. I mean, she's somebody who really has been there.

It says there's something wrong and I think that we're starting to now have a system where the good people are leaving and the people who I think have the wrong values are getting elevated and louder and louder. Look, 15 Democrats, that doesn't seem like a big number, but we're still pretty early in decision making process.

I hope that we don't have a situation where you start seeing people headed for the exits, because we actually need people just to stand their ground as best they can and to give the kind of service and kind of leadership that Jackie Speier has been giving for so long.

BURNETT: And as you point out, she's the 15th Democrat in the House to announce that she's not running. And the House Democratic Caucus Chair, Hakeem Jeffries, says, well, this is redistricting. It's to be expected. We're going to gain ground. And, I guess, you'd expect him to say that given his job.

But a Washington Post ABC poll, the latest that we have, Van, and you saw these numbers, 51 percent of registered voters say they'd support Republicans for Congress if the election were held today, 51 percent. Forty-one percent say they support Democrats. Now, some people might go, okay, 51-41. It's the widest that gap has been in 40 years in terms of a leadership for the GOP. And by the way, they weren't asking the poll question before that, so it's the widest it's ever been that's been measured.

This is a big problem for Democrats. Are they hearing the messages out of places like New Jersey and Virginia and other places or not?

JONES: I think so. Listen, there's a public face where everybody is being all brave and I think this is all going to turn around. But there's, I think, a lot of discussion behind the scenes.


JONES: I think people are looking at maybe the way that we've handled the public education crisis with regard to COVID. Maybe those shutdowns were tone deaf for some working parents, for folks in the suburbs.


And also I think there's a real rethinking in terms of how are we coming across. I think that there is, like I said before, there is a way that in our earnestness, in our zeal to help everybody, we can come across a little bit tone deaf, we can come across a little bit arrogant. I don't think our policies are unpopular. I think our posture with regard to our policies are unpopular.

BURNETT: All right. Van, thank you very much. And next, a woman who backs the big election lie wants to oversee elections in Michigan. She and her debunked claims are backed by Donald Trump formally.

And former President Trump is trying to keep more than 700 pages of documents from that January 6 Committee and tonight, his lawyers taking a new tack to protect it.



BURNETT: Tonight, a Republican pushing baseless conspiracies about her State's elections in 2020 is now running to oversee Michigan's elections and she has the formal backing of Donald Trump. Sara Murray is OUTFRONT.


SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT(voice over): A vocal critic of elections now wants to be in charge of them.


KARAMO: It is completely criminal.



MURRAY(voice over): Kristina Karamo has not been shy in insisting there was widespread cheating in the 2020 vote, touting debunked claims.


KARAMO: It is not right that hundreds of thousands of votes are allowed to be considered as lawful votes. We know they're illegal.

MURRAY: And saying Donald Trump was the true winner in Michigan.

KARAMO: Donald Trump won Michigan.

MURRAY: Unsurprisingly, she now has Trump's backing in her bid to become Michigan's next secretary of state.

KARAMO: Yes, I have President Trump's endorsement, which is massive.

MURRAY: Karamo has never run for statewide office, but gained some national notoriety after making unsubstantiated claims that she witnessed election fraud in 2020.

KARAMO: I was a poll challenger at the TCF Center.

MURRAY: As Trump eyes a potential 2024 comeback bid, he's backing candidates like Karamo and others who spread election falsehoods, looking to replace the battleground state officials one who stood up to attempts to overturn the results in 2020.


MURRAY: A CNN review of Karamo's podcast and writings on her now defunct personal website reveal previously unreported comments that show extreme views beyond just the 2020 election results and reveal barbed criticism of both parties.

KARAMO: There are a bunch of traitors in the Republican Party.

MURRAY: But her most inflammatory language is aimed at Democrats.

KARAMO: Their party has totally been taken over by a Satanic agenda.

MURRAY: Including Michigan's current secretary of state.

KARAMO: She's an evil woman. She's a very evil, evil, evil woman.

MURRAY: Karamo's staunch conservatism intermingles with her religious beliefs.

KARAMO: Ultimately, the culture war is really the most important war to fight.

MURRAY: A community college adjunct professor, Karamo, has a master's degree on Christian apologetics, traditionally the defense of Christianity.

Among her concerns, evolving norms around gender and sexuality, a view she often takes to the extreme.

KARAMO: There is no such thing as a person with two mommies and two daddies. That is just factually incorrect.

MURRAY: In an August 2019 blog post, she called transgender women trying to play sports mentally ill adults playing dress up. She suggested in a podcast that premarital sex paves the way for society condoning pedophilia.

KARAMO: When we normalize people fornicating and we normalize people living together with their boyfriend and girlfriends and all that stuff, we open a door to get to the point where we have people want to normalize pedophilia.

MURRAY: She's called public schools indoctrination camps. KARAMO: You're forced to have your child be exposed to thing these

Democrats and liberals want to teach.

MURRAY: And is against teaching evolution.

KARAMO: Evolution is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on us.

MURRAY: She also referred to herself an anti-vaxxer before the COVID- 19 vaccines were authorized.

KARAMO: Guess what, I'm crazy. I'm an anti-vaxxer.

MURRAY: These views under the spotlight as she seeks the Republican nomination.

KARAMO: One of the things that I try to be cognizant of. I'm running a statewide race. And I understand I have to win the hearts and minds of people who may not think like me.


MURRAY (on camera): Now, we reached out to see if she want today do an interview, as well as with a detailed list of questions for this story. No one got back to us and, Erin, because a lot of this is coming up for the first time, it is still unclear how this could affect her candidacy.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Yeah, absolutely.

All right. Sarah, thank you very much.

So, let me go straight to John Avlon, our senior political analyst.

All right. There's 26 state races across the country right now. Michigan is just -- is just one of them. We just heard all those things just to be clear. Trump has formally supported and endorsed her candidacy.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yeah. No, this is -- this is the best and the brightest according to Donald Trump, which of course is just a proxy for the person who will suck up to me most completely.

Put aside the bonkers, extreme social positions on any number of things you just heard, the issue is that she is running to be secretary of state -- the office that oversees elections, and she believes, without evidence, falsely completely, that the last election was stolen. That's disqualifying. It's disqualifying on a basic level, right? You don't -- you don't fly on a plane with someone who doesn't know how to fly. That's the equivalent in terms of overseeing elections.

The other thing is this is in the context as you just said of an election subversion strategy that Trump and his acolytes are pushing to try to overturn the next election. If these folks get in power, there is every expectation they would try to overturn the next election if Donald Trump runs that is beyond dangerous for a democracy.

BURNETT: Right. Does anyone, given what we just heard there, right, have any question what she would do in such a situation? That's the thing.

AVLON: No, that's the point of her candidacy.

BURNETT: Exactly.

So, Jonathan Karl, of course, the great ABC News reporter, he, according to the new book, Sidney Powell, the pro-Trump lawyer, made a bizarre call.

AVLON: That's one word for it. Go on.

BURNETT: But among them was this one that Jonathan Karl is reporting on, to a Pentagon official to initiate a, quote, special operations mission. Okay. Wanted to initiate a special operations mission in Germany to extract the then-CIA director, Gina Haspel, because Powell claimed she was injured overseas trying to get a computer server that would prove election fraud.


This call actually happened. I mean, obviously, what she asked requested didn't happen but the tact that Sidney Powell could request such a thing.

AVLON: Uh-huh.

In contact with the president of the United States and we should just emphasize to belabor the obvious that Gina Haspel was not being held captive in Germany while in a secret mission to obtain an election server. And saying those words out loud in that order should indicate how insane this is, and really just all the details coming out really show when it comes to Sidney Powell and these other folks who the in the Oval Office egging on the president to overturn the election, to commit sedition, at the very least, the best these folks are going to have is an insanity defense because it is completely bonkers what they were trying to say and pull off and, evidently, believed. It's just crackers.

BURNETT: And yet, you still have people, you know, say Ron DeSantis who will say if President Trump -- former president is run, I won't run. Even though we all know Ron DeSantis would want to run, right? The governor of Florida. But yet, there is still this step aside for Trump.

AVLON: It's completely cowardly. It's completely cowardly.

You know, James Madison made an argument for the Constitution saying ambition must counteract ambition. For all these folks that want to run for president to say no, I will step aside for Trump in the hopes that somehow they will benefit from their loyalty if he decides not to run is nonsense. These folks -- if Donald Trump, in addition to whatever else he might

say, attempted a coup against the United States of America. If that's not disqualifying, nothing is. If folks can't look at that person and say he is not qualified to be president, in addition to all the other reasons he's not qualified to be president. If they don't have the courage to stand up and call it out, they shouldn't be president.

BURNETT: Well, and there's one other thing they should know. Their loyalty will not be repaid. It will not be repaid. It means nothing.

All right. Thank you very much, John.

And next, giving Congress too much power. That's what Donald Trump's lawyers are arguing in their new attempt to keep those documents from the January 6th committee. They got a new filing tonight.

And frustration escalating in the violence on the Polish border with Belarus. Our Matthew chance was there, actually, caught in the middle.


MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: With water out. With water canon, covering us in water.




BURNETT: Tonight, lawyers for former President Donald Trump filing a new brief in his ongoing court case, arguing the courts would be giving Congress too much power by handing over White House records to the January 6th Committee. Trump is trying to keep about 700 pages of documents from Congress including visitor logs, call logs, handwritten memos from Trump's then-chief of staff, Mark Meadows.

Trump's lawyers warning quote, in these hyperpartisan times, Congress will use this new weapon to perpetually harass its political rival.

Evan Perez is OUTFRONT.

And, Evan, what else are Trump's lawyers saying in this latest brief?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: You know, this is fascinating, Erin, that this is -- this argument from the -- the Trump lawyers is essentially taking on both -- two branches of government, right? The Congress, which is asking for these documents from the national archives, and the sitting president, the White House, the executive branch, which has said that the -- that the Congress can have these documents from the previous administration.

And so, what Trump is trying to do is saying that, essentially, he is trying to protect this and current -- the current and future presidents from -- from Congress. He is saying that essentially by -- by letting Congress have these documents, you are going to weaken the current president and future presidencies.

And I will read you just a part of it and it -- and it -- the -- the document says today that this will have a direct and immediate impact on the advice given to presidents from President Biden and all those that follow him.

Again, it's an interesting framing of this dispute which, again, has the former president claiming that even though he is no longer president, he still has these powers to claim executive privilege even though the current officeholder is saying no, these are documents that have to do with an extraordinary event on January 6th. And because of that, it's in the public interest for these documents to be handed over.

Again, this is now in the hands of the appeals court. The appeals court is going to hear -- we are going to -- we are going to see filings from the House, next. And then, they are going to have oral arguments on November 30th. We expect that they might rule in December. But then, of course, we know whoever loses is going to go to the Supreme Court.

BURNETT: Yeah, for sure, right? And of course, then it goes even long. Evan, thank you very much.

So, let's go to John Dean, former Nixon White House counsel.

John, it's really interesting what Evan is laying out, right, their -- the argument that the Trump lawyers are making about not handing over this information, right, is that Congress will increasingly, inevitably, use this new weapon to perpetually harass its new rival. Don't do it, because when the shoe is on the other foot, it will happen to you, right?

It's the most compelling argument they can make, yet as everyone points out, this is extraordinary. But extraordinary can become extraordinary in the eye of the beholder if you look out in the future.

Does their argument have any grounds to hold up, do you think?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Evan is correct that they have reframed it by stomping their feet a little bit louder and verbally, if you will, in the brief. But it really is the same old brief they just lost on at the lower court. By a very well-reasoned opinion by a very good judge who had a lot of amicus brief to draw on as well and some very sophisticated lawyers being the friends of the court in this case.

So, it is not a new brief and it's really not a new argument. Trump's lawyers are just saying you got it wrong at the lower court and that's -- so we are going to try it again at the court of appeals.

BURNETT: So, you know, as Evan talks about, it eventually goes to the Supreme Court, right? You have got a committee that feels very much that they have a ticking clock, right? They are under the expectation that they need to be prepared for Democrats to lose the House next November and that their committee gets disbanded. May not happen but that's the working assumption they are under and they feel the pressure.

All right. In that context, you have got this that's going to go all the way to the Supreme Court. You have got -- Steve Bannon who has made it clear and sending a message to people like mark meadows that he is going fight it.


I mean, here is what Steve Bannon said when he was arrested.


STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: I'm never going to back down and they -- they -- they took on the wrong guy, this time. If the administrative state wants to take me on, bring it because we're here to fight this and we're going to go on offense. You stand by. You see how we're going to go on offense.


BURNETT: So, John, lawyers are telling me that -- that that fight easily could go past the midterm elections just to -- just to find out whether Bannon does or does not have to hand over information. Does that mean that it's really possible that they are just not able to get any of these important players in time?

DEAN: I don't think so. I don't think, one, that the -- the current action, the criminal action against Bannon will not force him to testify under any circumstances. If he loses, he -- he goes to jail. And he doesn't have to say anything.

If they bring a civil action, which they might well do, they could well force him under a civil contempt, which could outlast his other sentences to either provide the documents or not. So, that could happen.

As far as going to the Supreme Court, most people are kind of assuming, well, the Supreme Court will take this case. But not necessarily. This is the sort of area they don't like to wade into. This is not a well-briefed set of circumstances, either.

So, they could -- they could well pass on this one. And that would expedite things tremendously if they don't.

BURNETT: For sure. That is a really interesting point.

DEAN: Yes.

BURNETT: All right. Well, John dean, thank you very much for the expectative. I appreciate it.

DEAN: Thank you.

BURNETT: All right.

And next, violence escalating as polish forces try to stop desperate Belarusian migrants from crossing the border.

CNN's Matthew Chance was right there.


CHANCE: I just got blasted with a water canon. I can tell you the tension. Uh.


BURNETT: And dangerous space junk threatening the International Space Station. You are going to hear the moment those onboard were warned to take cover.



BURNETT: Tonight, violence erupting at the Poland-Belarus border. Polish forces firing water cannons and tear gas at migrants trying to cross the border, and more than 2,000 migrants have been trapped in a makeshift camp in deplorable conditions for over a week. They are attempting to cross into Poland. They all want to make it into other European countries.

Matthew Chance is OUTFRONT.


CHANCE (voice-over): This humanitarian crisis in Belarus is now a physical assault on Europe's borders.

Migrants in desperate conditions here are trying to force their way in. Hurling rocks at Polish border guards who are pushing back and pushing back hard.

I just got blasted with a -- a water canon. I can tell you, the tension -- uh -- has really started to raise here as you can see on the border between Belarus and Poland. You have got all these migrants angry at their situation. Throwing stones. Breaking down the fences here on the border.

Furious. Furious, that they're not being allowed in to the European Union, into Poland.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Them give us flower, we give them flower. But give us gas, we will give them storm.

CHANCE: At times, the violence seemed to surge out of control, as young migrants, desperate to enter Europe, tore at the barricades in fury.

Well, last night, when we left this place, it was a peaceful scene. But now, the women and children have been pulled back and the young men -- angry -- have come to the fore. Belarus is accused of orchestrating this crisis, directing vulnerable

migrants, mostly from the Middle East, to provoke these scenes to make Europe look weak and inhumane. What they got was a dangerous escalation on an international frontier.

They are throwing stones and see the Poles are responding with water -- ow -- with water cannon, covering us in water. Sometimes, that water is quite acrid. It has some sort of pepper component in it, and so it's sort of stinging your eyes a little bit.

They are smashing rocks on the ground to get smaller pieces, and then they are using those rocks to -- to throw at the polish line. But, however manipulated these people have been, their raw feelings of desperation of having nothing to lose are real.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are fighting to stay alive here.

CHANCE: To stay alive?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, to stay alive.

CHANCE: Will you go back to Iraq?




CHANCE: But after these events, they may have no choice. Poland has made it clear, it will not let them in. It's Belarus that may have to back down.


CHANCE (on camera): Well, Erin, tonight, there are already signs that may be happening. Belarusian security forces have moved into the area, and are clearing the migrants tonight away from the border region, and taking them to an indoor reception center about a mile, mile and a half away inside Belarus.

They are going to get food there, they are going to get medical attention but they may also face deportation back to their home countries -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Matthew, thank you very much. Incredible just that you're there. Glad he is safe.

And next, new details about what could have been a catastrophic collision causing death on the International Space Station.



BURNETT: NASA officials meeting with their Russian counterparts today, after a scare at the International Space Station. Russia took out one of its own satellites with a missile. Okay? And in doing that, they created a large and very dangerous field of junk, right? It exploded and then there is in space.

More than 1,500 trackable objects. Big enough to be trackable and you don't have to be trackable to cause a massive threat to the International Space Station. But you have 1,500 trackable items, seven astronauts inside the space station told to seek shelter.

Here is Houston Mission Control delivering the message.


HOUSTON MISSION CONTROL: Our next pass through the debris, we estimate to be around 0706. The information we have right now indicates that we will need to activate Dragon Safe Haven and close centerline hatches for the next two crossings.


BURNETT: NASA Chief Bill Nelson admonishing the Russian space agency in a phone call today, tweeting: expressing dismay over the danger our astronauts and cosmonauts continue to face on the International Space Station.

I mean, it is pretty incredible, what happened today that they could do this. The State Department of the United States saying what Russia did was a reckless and dangerous act that threatens the interests of all nations.

Thanks so much for joining us. Don't forget, you can watch OUTFRONT any time on CNN Go.

Anderson starts now.