things for americans from everything to buying gas to buying eggs and bacon at the grocery store. so the president today said that consumer prices are still too high. but the way he was talking about it was talking about selling this infrastructure plan that he had just got passed and was going to sign on monday, hoping it can alleviate supply chain gridlock and they hope in the end that it lowers consumer prices. >> kaitlan collins, thanks. let's discuss with white house chief of staff ron klain. let's talk about inflation. it's at a 30-year high up 6.2%. worse than had been feared. senator joe manchin's views on this must be of some concern to you because he is pointing to the rising inflation rate as a possible reason to pause on some parts of biden's agenda. manchin tweeted by all accounts the threat posed by inflation to the american people is not transitory and is instead getting worse from the grocery store to the gas pump.

americans know the inflation tax is real and d.c. can no longer ignore the economic pain americans feel every day, unquote. obviously, you need his vote. do you think that build back better in its current form is essentially dead because of inflation? >> quite the opposite, jake. i think senator manchin's concerns make the strongest possible case for build back better. one of the biggest expenses families face is child care. our bill will cut the cost of child care for middle class families in half. another thing that people are feeling the pinch on is prescription drugs. our build back better bill lowers the cost of prescription drugs, puts a cap on what seniors pay for their drugs. people are pinched by elder care costs. it brings that down. health insurance premiums. the bill brings that down. and for families with children, the bill provides a tax cut of $250 per child per month. i think if you are concerned about the cost of living, it's a concern here at the white house. it's a concern senator manchin

shares. the build back better bill is the best answer we have to bring those costs down. it also does it without adding a penny to the federal debt. it's fully paid for. without raising a penny of taxes on families making less than $400,000 a year. >> senator manchin is of the opinion that at a time of inflation, like now, putting more money, and this would be $1.75 trillion over the next few years, more money into the economy could actually have a harmful effect and have inflation increase. >> but jake, the bill doesn't put any more money into the economy on net for -- in the house bill $1.8 trillion of new spending. paid for by taking $1.8 trillion out of the economy from the big corporations that pay no taxes at all, from the richest americans who will see their taxes go up. so it doesn't add any new money to the economy. what it does it, it makes sure

that our federal spending meets the things that families really need. bringing down the cost of child care. bringing down the cost of drugs. bringing down the cost of elder care. bringing down the cost of preschool. cutting taxes for middle class families. that doesn't fuel inflation. it does the opposite. it brings down costs for everyday people. >> that's your argument. does joe manchin agree? >> we'll see when joe manchin votes. it's not just my argument. 13 nobel prize-winning economists said that our bill eases long-term inflationary pressure. so it's not just ron klain saying this or the white house saying this. but some of the world's leading economists who agree that this plan will help bring down long-term inflationary pressures. >> former treasury secretary larry summers has been sounding the alarm about inflation since february. and he has been one of these individuals saying that this big agenda, ambitious agenda from

president biden, was creating the risk of an inflation spike. secretary yellen told me three weeks ago that, quote, monthly rates of inflation have already fallen substantially from the high rates we saw in the spring and early summer. that was three weeks ago. the c pi, consumer price index is back up to 0.9%, matching its high in june 2021. is it possible that today's inflation news proves that larry summers was correct and janet yellen incorrect? >> i want to quote a leading source which said today that the government spending of this year, to say that the government spending of this year caused an increase in gas and food prices is fault. that was the cnn fact check that was out this morning on cnn about these claims. look, i know that former secretary summers was a critic of the rescue plan. i disagree with him on that. but i think secretary summers has been clear about the fact that when you take action to make the economy work better for people and you fully pay for it

by doing things like a provision in the build back better plan, the secretary summers recommended, increasing irs enforcement on high-income taxpayers who just refuse to pay their taxes and get away with it. those kind of measures help control federal spending. they are sound, long-term measures for our fiscal soundness. so i think we're on the right path here to help working families, to help middle class families, and to curb this inflation. >> according to a new monmouth university poll, about 42% of those polled say middle class families have not benefited at all under president biden. that's up from 33% who said the same in july. i understand why a lot of them might feel that way because of all the increase in prices. gas, used cars, bacon, beef, chicken, eggs, furniture, tvs, kids shoes, electricity, rent. what do you say to these americans who say we're not feeling any help from president

biden. >> that same poll showed that 52% of middle class people thought that 52% of middle class families would benefit going forward from the bill the president is going to sign on monday. the infrastructure bill. which will help deal with the supply chain problems we're having. get goods to market, less expensively. create jobs in the process. and, of course, with the rest of our legislation. so i have no beef with voters, pardon the pun, who say, look, the recovery is making progress. but not far enough along for me yet. that's why we are stopping work now. that's why we're working hard to move the recovery forward. there was a second economic report out today in addition to the inflation report. a report about jobs. it showed that unemployment is falling at the fastest rate since the 1950s. we've made progress on the jobs recovery. we now need to tackle inflation, supply chains, making sure there are workers available for the jobs not yet filled. we're making a lot of progress.

the economy is much better than it was a year ago. we have a lot of work left to do and that's what we're working on. >> a new cnn poll found that a majority of americans, 58%, believe that president biden is not paying attention to the nation's most important issues. what those issues are is fable obvious. 56% said the economy is the most pressing followed by coronavirus, immigration, climate change, national security and so on. but the economy far and above, even democrats are walking away from the idea that biden has the right priorities. 90% in april of democrats polled said that biden had the right priorities. now it's 75%. how do you fix this? obviously, i cover you guys every day. you do this every day. and you are talking about the economy. you are talking about coronavirus. but there's obviously some sort of disconnect here. >> look, i do think, as i said, i think things are better in

this country than they were a year ago with regard to covid, with regard to the economy. we have a lot of work left to do. and i think voters are in a show me, don't tell me mode. i don't think they care as much about what i'm saying on tv or what you're saying on tv about what they are saying about putting results into their lives. this president the president is going to sign on monday, the infrastructure bill, is a big step forward in terms of dealing with longstanding issues in this country. and i think the build back better bill which we hope the house will vote on, scheduled to vote on this week when they get back from veterans day recess is another thing. i have no objection to voters saying, look, i don't want to hear speeches about it. i want to see action. we've got action. just before congress went out. after four years and frankly 50 years of washington promising that there would be an infrastructure week. there would be action on that. we finally got that bill passed. it will be signed on monday. we have to continue to work on the other economic problems. of course, we have to continue our work on covid. just this past week we rolled

out the vax for ages 5 to 11. ours is the only government in the world that has bought enough vaccine for every child in this country to get vaccinated. we've gotten about a million kids vaccinated in just the first few days of this program. we'll see that continue to grow in the days ahead. we have problems to solve. we're solving them. >> all right. i'm getting the hook from from our team there. ron klain, really appreciate your taking our questions. hope to have you back soon. >> thanks, jake. back to kenosha, wisconsin, where the prosecution is cross-examining kyle rittenhouse who is testifying in his own defense. >> this is an exhibit which consists of --

729 frames from the bj on the go video that we just watched. this is prepared by james armstrong of the state crime lab. i'm not going to show all 729, but i'd like to start at frame 468, and we're going to go frame by frame from there until frame 500. could you please slowly advance frame by frame, until i tell you to stop. mr. rittenhouse, this is immediately after gaige

grosskreutz has stopped in front of you. and you are doing something with your firearm at that moment. do you recall that? >> yes. >> you were asked some questions about what you were doing at that moment. is it fair to say that you turn your firearm over and you are looking at it? you are examining it? >> yes. >> but your testimony is you didn't do anything to actually manipulate it at that moment? >> correct. s. that fair to say? >> correct. >> please continue. frame 500 shows you firing your

ar-15 towards gaige grosskreutz. at this particular moment, he does not have that pistol pointed towards you, does he? >> he does. >> his left leg has stepped across in a -- not directly toward you but to the side of you, correct? >> yes. >> he's reaching in with his left arm towards you, correct? >> yes. >> he never steps back and puts the gun in both hands in a ready, aim position toward you, does he? >> he doesn't do that. >> he never takes that gun with his right hand and stands there and holds it out with his right hand in front of him and aims it directly at you, does he? >> no, he does this, pointing it directly at my head. >> and you thought that's the way he was going to shoot you?

>> yeah. >> you thought he ran up close to you to shoot you? >> yes. >> you understand that he could have taken that gun if he wanted to and shot you from 10, 15, 20 feet away, right? >> i'm sorry, i'm trying to understand the question. >> you understand that a pistol like that doesn't need to be right up close to someone to shoot, right? >> yes. >> it can shoot from 10, 15, 20 feet away, right? >> yes. >> mr. grosskreutz could have stopped 10, 15, 20 feet away if he wanted to shoot you and fired his pistol at you, couldn't he? >> he could have, but he didn't. >> and your testimony is that you believed he ran up close to you and reached in with his left hand with his gun in his right hand because that was his way of using this gun to shoot you? >> yes. >> did you think he was reaching in to grab your gun? >> no. >> you didn't think he was going to take your gun away, did you?

>> i thought he was going to shoot me. >> with his pistol? >> yes. >> which he never actually does. correct? >> correct. >> he never fires that gun at you at all? >> no. >> in fact, in this entire sequence of events, no one ever fired a gun at you, did they? >> mr. zeminsky fired a gun from behind me. >> did mr. zeminsky fire that gun at you? >> i believe so. >> what do you base that on? did you see it? >> the video. >> did you see it? >> no. >> you're talking about back when the incident with mr. rosenbaum happens, correct? >> yes. >> that happened while you and mr. rosenbaum are running across the car course lot, correct? >> yes. >> at that moment in time, you didn't see josh zeminsky fire a shot, did you? >> no. >> you heard a gunshot but you had no idea who fired it. >> i believed it was mr. zeminsky. >> so that gunshot did not at

all factor into your decision to shoot mr. rosenbaum? >> no, he tried to -- >> so you didn't think there was a gunshot from rosenbaum. >> no. >> you knew he didn't have a gun. >> i see what your question is now. okay. you didn't think that the shot was -- had been fired by mr. zeminsky had been fired by mr. rosenbaum? >> exactly. >> okay. okay. >> so you heard a gunshot. you now know that was joshua zeminsky based on watching the videos, right? >> yes. >> but at the time, you didn't think that was joseph rosenbaum firing that shot, did you? >> no. >> you knew joseph rosenbaum didn't have a gun, right? >> yes. >> and you certainly would agree with me that you don't have the right to kill joseph rosenbaum for something joshua zeminsky does, correct? >> yes. when you heard that gunshot, you

didn't know whether it was fired at you or up in the air or at rosenbaum or anyone else, did you? >> i heard it from behind me, but i didn't -- >> you didn't know where it was aimed. >> correct. >> you didn't feel it hit you, correct? >> correct. >> you didn't hear it ricochet anywhere near you, correct? >> correct. >> you received no indication that that gunshot was going to put your life in danger, correct? >> i don't know. >> there were gunshots going off all night long, weren't there? >> sort of. >> firecrackers, gunshots. >> hard to tell the difference? >> yeah. >> right after you kill rosenbaum there's three shots right after that, aren't there? >> yes. >> from very close to where you were. >> yes. >> yet you don't turn and shoot anybody there after you hear those, did you? >> no. >> so getting back to my original question, in this entire sequence of events, no

one ever fired a shot at you, did they? >> no. >> after you kill anthony huber, shoot gaige grosskreutz and attempt to fire those two shots at the person who jumped at you, you got up and you walked away, didn't you? >> yes. >> and you are about, what, a block away from the police line? >> yes. >> and you know that police line is there because you're running towards it. >> yes. >> and there's really nothing in the road between you and that police line, is there? after the shooting? everybody scatters? >> no, nothing in the road. >> so you have a clear line of sight from where you did those shootings to those law enforcement vehicles, correct? >> yes. >> and you still have your ar-15. >> yes. >> and the crowd is pretty much run after they hear the shots, right?

>> yes. >> you still have your medic bag, correct? >> yes. >> you never once offer to help anybody that you just shot, correct? >> i don't. >> correct? you don't? >> correct. >> anthony huber is lying there on the ground after you shot him once in the chest, correct? >> yes. >> you didn't know at that point whether he was alive or dead, did you? >> i didn't. >> you never went over to check, did you? >> no. >> you didn't know whether it was possible to save his life at that moment or not, did you? >> i didn't. >> and you didn't even care. you just kept on walking. correct? >> i kept walking to get to the police line. >> gaige grosskreutz, right after you shoot him in the arm, he's yelling, i need a medic. did you hear that? >> yes. >> that's in the videos, isn't it? >> yes. >> you don't do anything to help him, do you? >> no. >> you just decide to get out of there as fast as you can. correct?

>> yes. >> if you had seen someone running up the street with a gun and the crowd was saying that that person just shot someone, like they were saying about you, you would have taken action to stop him yourself, wouldn't you? >> no, i wouldn't have. >> you're running around putting out fires, rbt you? >> yes. >> a shooting is far more serious than a fire, isn't it? >> yes. >> you took it upon yourself to do the things that the police and the fire weren't doing that night, correct? >> i helped put out fires, but i wouldn't say that.

>> you went around offering medical service because you didn't think there were emts or ems that would be able to come in there, correct? >> yes. >> so you took it upon yourself to do the things that you didn't think the police or fire could do, correct? >> i wouldn't say i took it upon myself but i was helping people with first aid and putting out fires at businesses. >> so if you saw someone running with a gun and they say that guy just shot someone, you would have taken your ar-15 and tried to stop him. >> what is the relevance? >> it goes to the crowd's reaction. i think he would react the same way. >> [ inaudible ]. >> the crowd is important in ferms of its a factor that bears on some of the accounts as to what the surroundings were. otherwise, the crowd is unimportant. and what the crowd -- what he might have done vis-a-vis the crowd is -- i don't see where i'm going. >> understood.

>> when you got back to that police line and they -- what did you say, they pepper sprayed you? >> i believe so, but i don't remember it. they told you to get out of the road because they were going in there to do what you hadn't done which is to try and help the people that you just shot, right? >> yes. >> and you went back after that to the 59th street car source. >> yes. >> and you told them that you just shot someone. >> yes. >> someone, meaning an individual person, correct? >> i wasn't meaning individual, i was saying i just shot someone, i just shot someone. >> you were told by nick smith that the police were coming to your location, to the 59th street car source, right? >> i don't recall that. >> and yet you decided to flee, didn't you? >> no. >> you didn't stick around for the police, did you? >> i went to go turn myself in to the antioch police

department. >> a couple of hours later. >> an hour -- >> it wasn't a couple of hours. you know what time it was. >> i'm asking the witness. if the witness can answer. >> go ahead. you can answer, sir. >> it was a couple of hours later, wasn't it? >> no. >> and in between leaving that location and downtown kenosha and getting to antioch, you were looking at social media, weren't you? >> no, i wasn't. my phone was dead. >> you had heard from other people that your name was out there, right? >> later on in the evening, i believe i heard something, but, no. >> you knew that your picture was out there right? >> no. >> you are telling me, as you sit here under oath that after those shootings, between then and the time you turned yourself in to the antioch police department, you had no idea that there was social media out there with your picture and your name as the shooter?

>> i'm trying to recall, but -- i can't -- i'm trying to remember. sorry, i don't remember. >> i have no further questions. >> you may step down, sir. >> your honor -- before i call that witness, i need to use the men's room. >> how about a five to ten-minute break. please don't talk about the case. during the break you may either use the jury room or remain down here in the library.

>> well, we've been listening in to the trial of kyle rittenhouse in kenosha, wisconsin. they are taking a five to ten-minute break. the prosecution is continuing its cross-examination of rittenhouse after he surprise league took the stand today in his own defense. it's kind of a rare event for a defendant to take the stand, unless, of course, if he's convinced it will be good for him. cnn's omar jimenez is live outside the courthouse in kenosha, wisconsin. kyle rittenhouse has been on the stand for most of the day. what are your biggest takeaways so far? >> jake, well, as soon as he took the stand we knew this was going to be -- this was the most anticipated moment of the trial so far, and i think it's lived up to that so far. we've seen questioning that has taken the entire day, basically, at this point. at points rittenhouse actually had to exit the stand because he got so emotional describing what led up to the -- what led up to

the sequence that went to the moments of the killing of joseph rosenbaum. he was the first two of people killed back in august 2020 here. and he began to describe the fact that he was being surrounded and actually could not continue because of how hysterical he was getting with his emotions. they came back and the questioning continued. as the defense tried to paint a picture as they alluded to that this was nothing more than self-defense because everything he did, he had to do it. then we got a little bit of trouble with the judge here in regards to the prosecution because at one point, the prosecutors, when they had a chance to cross-examine rittenhouse, basically questioned why rittenhouse had not said anything up until this point, and the judge chastised the prosecution saying that the -- that rittenhouse has the right to remain silent, and then not long after, the prosecution brought up an incident that the judge previously had not allowed into this case and so the judge

stopped it altogether. the defense said they were going to call for a mistrial because of this and did file a motion as they mentioned, or at least that they plan to. the judge is now taking it under consideration. and right now, again, right before you came to me, the prosecution was continuing their question as part of cross-examination and the day will continue after this break. >> omar jimenez, thank you so much. let's bring back our legal experts, charles coleman and mark eiglarsh. you are a former prosecutor. we are watching this trial, and the prosecution is trying to make the case that kyle rittenhouse did not have to use lethal force against the three individuals he shot, two of them fatally. has the prosecution succeeded at making the argument in any of this cross examination that kyle rittenhouse did not feel as though his life was in danger? >> well, jake, as we're watching

this trial, one of the things that you have to keep in mind is that a significant part of that defense, the self-defense claim in this trial is going to be based around kyle rittenhouse's state of mind. what the prosecution is attempting to do is slowly and surely try to sort of pick these different points that they will then go back to on summation and, on closing arguments, to talk about his state of mind was this or try to explain. he could not have thought that at this point. and so on and so forth. the problem with that, although it is technically sound, is that it's boring and it's not working for the jury. the gripping testimony, the emotional testimony occurred when kyle rittenhouse was talking about how he feared for his life. so while the prosecution is currently chipping away or trying to identify these isolated moments where his conduct in the moment may not make sense, given the chaotic scene and everything else that was going on at the time, i

think that's going to be a very, very hard sell for this jury who, at this ponts, i think, in rittenhouse's testimony quite frankly may be on his side. >> and mark, you are a defense attorney. we saw the district attorney try to back rittenhouse into corners several times. one moment that stuck out we just saw, this stuck out to me that we just saw was somebody approached rittenhouse and was holding his gun like this, like they do in a movie kind of like up and to the side, not how somebody actually, who knows anything about firearms would fire a gun but like that. and the district attorney was arguing, you really thought he was going to shoot you like that? and at least for me, i was thinking, i don't know that if somebody approached me with a gun holding it like that i would think that he wasn't just because that's not how people hold guns if they know anything about firearms. how effective do you think this cross-examination has been? >> not very at all.

desperate times calls for desperate measures. and to answer your original question, no. i don't think the prosecution has made the case that this wasn't self-defense. throughout their case, their own witnesses seem to establish that anyone would reasonably fear death or great bodily harm, which is why i don't know that i would have called this defendant as a witness. but since they did, he's actually doing really well. he's giving the prosecution the answers that they need. softballs. he's saying, no, no, yeah, right. no, however, at that point, i really did believe i was in fear, of death or great bodily harm. i think he's doing an amazing job and this case is not one that has scientific evidence. there's no video clearly establishing what happened like we do see in other cases. there's no busload of nuns who followed everybody around so we have credible honest familiar. we've got finger pointing and his testimony seems to be

credible. his effect seems to be genuine. and i think these jurors can't exclude the fact that he reasonably feared death or great bodily harm. >> thanks to both of you. appreciate it. houston officials gave an update on the horrific astroworld concert tragedy. what they say may have contributed to the chaos is next. like subway®. like the new baja steak & jack tender, thicker-cut steak and. wait sooo you're not coming out of retirement? i'm just here because subway has so much new, they bought time in this press conference to talk about it.

your mission: stand up to moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis. and take. it. on... with rinvoq. rinvoq a once-daily pill can dramatically improve symptoms... rinvoq helps tame pain, stiffness, swelling.

and for some, rinvoq can even significantly reduce ra fatigue. that's rinvoq relief. with ra, your overactive immune system attacks your joints. rinvoq regulates it to help stop the attack. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious infections and blood clots, sometimes fatal, have occurred as have certain cancers, including lymphoma, and tears in the stomach or intestines, and changes in lab results. your doctor should monitor your bloodwork. tell your doctor about any infections... and if you are or may become pregnant while taking rinvoq. take on ra. talk to your rheumatologist about rinvoq relief. rinvoq. make it your mission. learn how abbvie could help you save on rinvoq. to make progress, we must keep taking steps forward. we believe the future of energy is lower carbon. and to get there, the world needs to reduce global emissions.

at chevron, we're taking action. tying our executives' pay to lowering the carbon emissions intensity of our operations. it's tempting to see how far we've come. but it's only human... to know how far we have to go. breaking news in the national lead. moments ago, houston police gave their first news conference since saturday in that horrific astroworld concert tragedy. eight people were killed. many others crushed in what survivors describe as a whirlpool of people moving toward the stage. let's go live to cnn's josh

campbell at houston police headquarters where that press conference just wrapped up. after severalty days of silence, the police chief is clarifying the response of his department and his officers. tell us more. >> jake, we're learning about the police presence that day. the chief coming out and saying that this ultimately was not a -- an event the city was responsible for. it was a county event. hpd had a lot of resources there, over 500 officers in the area. the question we had about whose ultimate responsibility was it to bring that concert to a hold? that was up to the production, the organizers of the event. it wasn't a responsibility of the police. we're also learning, we've been reporting on what "the wall street journal" was saying that perhaps investigators were concerned that some of those concertgoers were injured by laced drugs. perhaps laced with fentanyl. i asked the chief about that directly. he said at this point they're

not ruling anything out. that remains under investigation. and finally there's this question about permits. how a permit was issued. i asked the chief directly. travis scott, the rapper, had two previous incidents where he was cited for crowd control issues. i asked the chief whether or not future permits should be granted. take a listen to what he said. >> those individuals that are making that decision to have that, they consider all of this, okay? we have eight people dead and two in the hospital. very critical. >> so the chief saying it's not his responsibility but those who issue the permits should look into that. and we saw that video of these people rushing through, past entrances the morning of that concert. the chief saying they were trying to get to a merchandise area. of course, that incident raising security questions where security was so overwhelmed that morning, could that have been a precursor to what happened that night. >> the police chief was asked about the security guard who

reported feeling something like a prick in his neck. what did the police chief say? >> that earlier reporting raised a lot of eyebrows that perhaps a security officer there was stabbed or injected with something. the police chief coming out and saying that has been ruled out after conducting an interview with that person. the security officer was taken to a medical tent after losing consciousness but saying that, no, there was no injection that something again that they are ruling out. but as it relates to other types of drugs that may have impacted some of those injured, that's still very much on the table according to the chief. >> josh campbell in houston, we're going to take a quick break and when we come back, we'll talk to an attorney who is representing plaintiffs suing in the astroworld case. thank you so much. stay with us.

kevin! kevin? kevin. oh nice. kevin, where are you? kevin?!?!? hey, what's going on? i'm right here! i was busy cashbacking for the holidays with chase freedom unlimited. i'm gonna cashback on a gingerbread house! oooh, it's got little people inside! and a snowglobe. oh, i wished i lived in there. you know i can't believe you lost another kevin. it's a holiday tradition! that it is! earn big time with chase freedom unlimited. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours.

hearing is important to living life to the fullest.

that's why inside every miracle-ear store, you'll find a better life. it all starts with the most innovative technology. like the new miracle-earmini, available exclusively at miracle-ear. so small that no one will see it, but you'll notice the difference. and now, miracle-ear is offering a thirty-day risk-free trial. you can experience better hearing with no obligation. call 1-800-miracle right now and experience a better life. constipated? set yourself free with fleet. gentle constipation relief in minutes. little fleet. big relief. try it. feel it. feel that fleet feeling. in business, setbacks change everything.

so get comcast business internet and add securityedge. it helps keep your network safe by scanning for threats every 10 minutes. and unlike some cybersecurity options, this helps protect every connected device. yours, your employees' and even your customers'. so you can stay ahead. get started with a great offer and ask how you can add comcast business securityedge. plus for a limited time, ask how to get a $500 prepaid card when you upgrade. call today.

we're back with more in our breaking news. moments ago, houston police were giving an update into the horrific and deadly concert tragedy over the weekend. i want to bring in thomas j. henry, an attorney who has filed multiple lawsuits on behalf of some of the victims in the astroworld tragedy. thanks for joining us. the police chief said that live nation had a job of securing mosh pits directly in front of the stage. how much fault do you put on the promoter for the actions of the crowd? >> i think live nation and astroworld and the performers all have responsibility. astroworld has an event plan. and, jake, one of the quotes from the plan is that astroworld as an organization will be

prepared to evaluate and respond appropriately to emergency situations. what did we have 37 minutes before drake and travis scott got off stage? they had a mass casualty incident. and within this event policy, they were required to give notice to shut down the concert. there are procedures in place to do that. and i want to tell you, i don't think they shut down the concert because they wanted their surprise guest drake to perform, and that was more important than a the mass casualties they knew were occurring 37 minutes continuously. >> the concert was declared a mass casualty incident at 9:38 friday night local time. video shows travis scott pausing the show and trying to note problems that he saw in the crowd. here's a little clip of that. ♪

>> we need help on somebody passed out right here. somebody passed out right here. hold on. don't touch him. don't touch him. everybody back up. security. somebody help jump him real quick. >> the video didn't make clear if the concert ended at that moment but even after the mass casualty incident was declared he kept performing and rapper drake also came back on stage. do you have evidence they knew of the severity of what was happening in the crowd and kept going? >> yeah, i think the video evidence clearly establishes that they had a bird's-eye view of what's going on. in fact, you can even, you know, tell from his own admissions he saw people that had problems. and what did he do when that person who was in trouble was being helped? he immediately told the crowd, he turned around within just a short period of time and said shake the ground. and so he had a complete disregard for people's safety

and their producers have a communication system in place within this plan. the astroworld plan has a communication system. and in following that plan, there can be no doubt that travis scott and drake all were communicated with about the mass casualties. it's his policy. that is -- that policy is followed in conjunction with live nation because they are doing this concert and this program together. so i have no doubt that they were aware that there was mass casualties and they continued that concert regardless. >> your firm has filed at least 110 lawsuits. how high do you think this number is going to get? are all of these on behalf of individuals in the crowd? >> yes, i represent now about 150 people. that lawsuit will be amended day by day. it's about 110 people at the moment that i represent in that lawsuit. probably by tomorrow at lunch it will be about 150.

by the end of the day, i would expect, based on the trend i am seeing with people reaching out to my law firm that it may get as high as 200 which is not surprising because you're talking about a small area where people were condensed in, and you had thousands of people in a very small area. >> before the astroworld festival, it's been reported travis scott faced criminal charges twice before for inciting his concert crowds, once in 2018 and in 2015. do you think this is specific to travis scott? or do you think that this is -- this could have happened with any performer? >> well, i think that that's speculation. what we know is there should have been a plan in place. the plan wasn't followed. it's a 54-page plan. i have that. i don't know if you've seen that plan, but if you read the plan, you can see every step of the way there were failures. and based on the information coming into the event, the mass

casualties, there should have been steps taken to protect the crowd. and those steps were not taken. so can it happen at concerts? yeah. but there are plans and procedures in place to safeguard people and they were not followed in this situation. and especially travis scott has a horrible reputation for inciting crowds and having a disregard for safety and disregard for security. so even more so, their own plan should have been followed and it was disregarded. >> thomas j. henry, thanks for your time. turning to our politics lead. quote, presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president. that blow to former president trump from a federal judge last night halting trump's efforts to block white house documents that could shed light on his activities leading up to and the day of the deadly insurrection. it's a win for the january 6th house committee. though trump is going to appeal it. but as trump teases a possible 2024 run for president, cnn's tom foreman reports the republican party and its donors need to decide whether or not they want to jump back to the

trump train. >> reporter: it's a whopping amount, even in big-money politics. close to a million dollars a week, according to "the washington post." that is how fast donations are pouring in for the man who lost the last presidential election and has yet to declare he's in the next one. >> one of the things raising money this early does is it shows his power to the party. i think you've seen that effect in terms of people being afraid to take him on. >> reporter: team trump is raking in donations through the save america political action committee, the save america joint fundraising committee, the make america great again again superpac and others. collectively his political groups reported more than $100 million on hand this past summer. >> hillary conceded. i never conceded. never. >> reporter: powering it all is a campaign of direct solicitation emails promising

signed banls, t-shirts, christmas decorations like this stocking for $50, all feeding off supporters who have embraced the big law. >> the election was stole from us. >> trump won in a landslide. >> reporter: and there are ads, especially on facebook where trump himself has been banned but his fundraisers have not, calling the 2020 election corrupt, tainted and trump the true president. some have continued the controversial practice of prechecked boxes which can lead supporters into automatically increasing their donations. as far as spending the sizable war chest, trump organization has reported giving little to republican candidates. even as the party hopes to regain congressional majorities in next year's midterm election. and when it comes to 2024, the limits on donors, the demand for reporting, the rules about spending get more complicated the moment he declares his candidacy. so he's still playing coy. >> make america great again.

dash, slash, calma, again. make america great again, i don't know. >> late notice from one of the trump spokespeople who says he remains committed to helping the republican party retake congress next year. they say nobody else is better at that than the former president. that said, what you don't hear anymore is what donald trump started his campaign with. a pledge that he was so wealthy, he'd pay for everything himself and not be out shilling for money like other politicians. that seems to have gone by the wayside. >> along with many other things. let's discuss with my august panel. donald trump just teased a run in 2024. how does this affect the republican party? >> well, i think he's going to run. and that's not just me from the outside. talk to people close to trump. it's close to 100% certainty that he's going to run. that's going to chill, i think, any other -- many other

republicans from getting in the race. and it's going to further solidify what was once a great political party is now -- it's become a political death cult of personality around donald trump. and it's lamentable for the republicans, dangerous for the country but almost isscertain t happen. >> as a republican, what do you think? >> people around him, close to trump are indicating and signaling that he will run. and keeping that conversation alive and keeping the rumors around, that helps with the fundraising, it helps with them growing the supporters for trump as if he needs that help. and as he said, it freezes out the field. the concern from a traditional republican or a traditional republican standpoint is, under trump and his leadership, we lost the house, the senate and the white house, and his getting back on board is not going to change the dynamic. if we didn't learn anything eshl else, we learned people have

gone past the trump train. they're going back to the policies that unite this party and this country and not the personalities that divide us. and what we need to do moving forward as republicans is not just look at who is going to rev up the base and be the strong supporter and candidate for the primary. we need someone who is going to win in the general election. and i don't see that's the way to do it with donald trump. >> you saw chris christie out there though, saying, i'm -- i am not going to let donald trump determine my potential presidential candidacy. if you don't think you can take on donald trump, you shouldn't run. and so he's saying others, don't let him freeze the field. however, as we all know, donald trump is hugely popular with the republican base and that's why a lot of folks are hanging back. >> even if he did decide to run as we're talking about here, but if he says that he will be running, you're talking about freezing the field. there are realistically republicans like nikki haley who are unlikely to run if he gets into the race.

there are clashes with ron desantis. it would be unclear if he got into the race. at the same time, there are folks like mike pence who would still probably get in the race, even if donald trump were running. so it's not to say that he would be the only candidate, if he were to run in 2024, but there are republicans who would back off. >> what about what this does to the republican party beyond the candidates that choose to run or not. what does this do in terms of -- there are a lot of republicans. look. to be clear, very few republicans have been courageous when it came to -- when it comes to taking on the indecency of donald trump and the lies of donald trump. you can put them on -- name them on one hand. but that said, a lot of republicans do want to move on. and want to have a glenn youngkin-type republicanism which is trump policies, per se, conservative judges, tax cuts, et cetera, but much more traditional, as you put it, would you say rational? >> rational. >> sane. not, you know, openly bigoted.

what does this do to the gop? >> i think the key that we need to remember is there's the new special interest group out there, right? it's parents. parents are concerned with their education. they are concerned with safety. they concerned with covid. and until there's a candidate that comes forward with parents at top of mind, pocketbook issues at top of mind, public safety and education, they are not going to rise to the top. and i think that's the goal moving forward. focus on those important issues. >> but can i say, i want to -- control room, i'm going to question six here because i want you to take a listen to a republican in arizona who is running for governor and has been endorsed by donald trump discussing the vaccine mandate that the biden administration has put forward and through osha, the occupational safety and health administration. take a listen. >> if i were governor right now and he sent his osha goons to

this state to violate our civil rights, i would meet them at the airport with our dps or state police and arrest them. >> i mean, that is this new tide of truly trump republicans. >> well, it harkens back to nullification, which led us into the civil war. sorry to be so dramatic. a state governor can stop federal safety and health administrators from protecting the health and safety of american citizens is pretty crazy and she seems to be hinting at force. she didn't say i'll send my bureaucrats or my lawyers. >> she said our state police and arrest them. >> right. that's -- first of all, plain unconstitutional. and perhaps this distinguished lady doesn't want to be part of the federal union. the people of arizona probably do. >> she called them goons. >> osha goons, a phrase that's never been used before. >> this is the anti-government language of donald trump. and it is, you know, she is imitating donald trump.

and there are candidates, all over, who are doing the same thing because anything is acceptable. any language is acceptable. and it's the bullying language. it's coming from a woman. there you go. >> what do you hear from republicans on capitol hill? republicans out in the states about the future of the party if donald trump continues to wield the power he does, if donald trump continues to endorse candidates like this woman who is obviously troubled in some sort. >> republicans are doing their own thing. we've seen it with senate majority -- not minority leader, former senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. at the same time kevin mccarthy has welcomed trump's support when it comes to house races but the nrcc is also doing their own thing even in areas where the president is challenging some of their members. and so, jake, i did want to add there's a debate that's going on in democratic party right now about how to respond to former president trump and whether, even this was even before

virginia, about whether you should focus on trump and trumpism as a way for democrats to succeed in the 2022 elections. and there is a school of thought that even if you don't focus on trump himself, that you should focus on trumpism because of some of the things you're talking about today. >> speaking of trumpism, look, congressman paul gosar was out there before donald trump came on the scene. but he then put out that tweet in which he showed a photoshopped an may character of himself killing photo shopped an may character of alexandria ocasio-cortez. he took out the tweet last night. gosar said it was truly a symbolic portrayal of a fight over immigration policy. >> where is the -- kevin mccarthy? where is he on this? this is outrageous. even his own sister, gosar's own sister called him a sociopath yesterday.

i mean, where is the leadership of the republican party saying that this is unacceptable, that we can't do this. that excuse is ridiculous. this wasn't about immigration. we all know that. f. >> if he wants a discussion and debate about immigration, have one about afghanistan. have one about covid. have one about all these issues we rightfully have policy conflicts with aoc and the progressives. let's have those conversations. but that is unacceptable and the race to the bottom by many republicans needs to stop. >> does this help democrats, the fact you have the -- i know that you wouldn't -- would not like as a democrat a party of glenn youngkins or congresswoman youngkin or rational seeming republicans who espouse conserve tough values. but, you know, the paul gosars out there this woman in arizona, donald trump, does it help republicans win elections? >> i don't know. maybe it does. i'd much rather have alice and her republican party which is a

distant memory now. >> it's right here. >> that's so far in the rear-view mirror. i'm sorry, but it is. the days when i thought it would be terrible if barack obama was replaced with mitt romney, are you kidding? these folks, some of them, are a threat to the republic, to the nation. finally from us today, be sure to check out the homes for our troops fifth anniversary celebrity ebay auction. among the great items, two tickets to a future marvel film premiere offered by don cheadle. a replica of the bar sign from brooklyn 99. you can buy a zoom call with "people" magmagazine's newly crowned sexiest man alive paul rudd. and i'll also be on that call. all proceeds go to build sp specially designed homes for severely wounded veterans of iraq and afghanistan.

ebay.com/hfot, homes for our troops. bidding closes on tuesday. until then, follow me on facebook, instagram, twitter. tweet the show. if you ever miss an episode listen to "the lead" wherever you get podcasts. our coverage continues with mr. wolf blitzer right next door in "the situation room." see you tomorrow. happening now. breaking news. a bombshell day in the kyle rittenhouse trial. rittenhouse sobbing on the stand, insisting he acted in self-defense when he killed two people during unrest in kenosha, wisconsin. on top of that, the judge yelled at the prosecutor and the defense asked for a mistrial. also today we're learning the january 6th select committee wants information from at least five members of former vice president mike pence's inner circle. i'll ask a key member of the select committee what these potential witnesses might reveal and whether they're likely to

at