Skip to main content

tv   Cuomo Prime Time  CNN  November 10, 2021 10:00pm-11:00pm PST

10:00 pm
looks like we're walking, kid. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ breaking news in the mask wars. a federal judge in texas ruled governor greg abbott's executive order prohibiting mask mandates in texas schools violates the americans with disabilities act. the law comes after a debate over whether the state was violating the ada by not requiring schools to wear masks. the news continues with "cuomo prime time." the kyle rittenhouse trial took a major turn today. the 18-year-old who killed two, injured a third with a semi-automatic rifle during a riot in kenosha, wisconsin, took the stand in his own defense.
10:01 pm
that is a very rare choice. and he put on one hell of a show. however, he was almost upstaged by the sideshow of the judge fighting with the prosecutor. this thing came close to a mistrial today, with the judge going right at the prosecution's line of questioning. >> i was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence. that's basic law. it's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. i have no idea why you would do something like that. >> now, the main moments we have for you, and we're going to go through, because i think we likely saw today, what could influence the jury most. just to make sure we're all on
10:02 pm
the same page, this is the trial for what happened in the wake of the police shooting of jacob blake in kenosha, wisconsin in august 2020. kyle rittenhouse was then 17. he traveled to kenosha from a neighboring state, armed, to help protect the community, he said on the stand. he wound up shooting three people. he killed two. the third survived. this happened during a back lives matter protest that turned into a riot. anthony huber and joseph rosenbaum are dead. gaige grosskreutz was injured. the situation, immediately politicized. the left jumped on rittenhouse as the face of white hate. the white made him the poster boy for white fright and self-defense. but now at the trial notions of left and right must stay outside and all we know is what can be made as reasonable by the
10:03 pm
prosecutor. we only know what the prosecution can show. in the instant case, that means can the prosecution show that rittenhouse is guilty of murdering and injuring beyond a reasonable doubt. now, the surrounding circumstances are not helpful to rittenhouse. he claims he was at the protest to help, to provide medical support. but he was posing as an emt. he's not one. and he brought an ar-15 he wasn't allowed to have, two place he was not from, with no right or authority to protect any property. now, he says the property owner asked for his help. that is not what the owner says. nevertheless, for the jury, the key part is likely not why he was there, but whether it was reasonable for him to shoot three men in self-defense. early notions were that rittenhouse was chasing down and shooting at people.
10:04 pm
those were reversed by him on the stand today. he told a very different story. he sounded scared, got choked up while recalling the fatal encounter with one of the victims, joseph rosenbaum. listen. >> i was cornered from in front of me with mr. zaminsky and they were -- there were people right there. >> rittenhouse claims he was ambushed. he says he was cornered and did what he had to do to stop the deceased from attacking him. he testified that rosenbaum, seen here, threatened to kill
10:05 pm
him twice earlier in the night. >> he screamed -- sorry for my language -- he screamed if i catch any of you [ bleep ] i'm going to [ bleep ] kill you. he said, i'm going to cut your [ bleep ] hearts out and kill -- i'm not going to repeat the second word and kill you, n words. >> now, is it reasonable to believe that someone saying they're going to cut your heart out on a street is something that you have to prepare to defend your life against? the jury will decide.
10:06 pm
victim or vigilante? now, the reason that this trial took a major turn today was in part because of rittenhouse's testimony. it's very unusual for a defendant to take the stand in their own defense let alone into homicide case, let alone in a double homicide case. but there was something else. the cross-examination of him by the prosecution and the cross-examine of the progression by the judge. first, the prosecution taking on rittenhouse. listen. >> joseph rosenbaum never touched you in any way during that incident, correct? >> he touched my gun. >> he didn't touch your body in any way, did he? >> no. >> he didn't kick you. >> no. >> he didn't punch you. >> no. >> other than that plastic bag, he didn't throw anything at you? >> no. >> he didn't have a gun on him? >> no. >> he didn't have a knife on him? >> no. he didn't have a chain on him? >> no. >> he didn't have a bat on him? >> no. >> he didn't have any weapon of
10:07 pm
any kind, correct? >> other than him grabbing my gun, no. >> well, he didn't have possession of that gun. you did. >> this was effective. the prosecutor getting him to admit the first guy he shot and killed had no weapon. that means did he have to use the force he did to defend himself in the situation? here's more from the cross-exam. >> everybody you shot at that night you intended to kill, correct? >> i didn't intend to kill them. i intended to -- i intended to stop the people who were attacking me. >> by killing them? >> i did what i had to do to stop the person who was attacking me. >> by killing them? >> two of them passed away. but i stopped the threat from attacking me. >> by using deadly force. >> i used deadly force. >> that you knew was going to kill? >> i didn't know if it was going to kill them but i used -- i used deadly force to stop the threat that was attacking me.
10:08 pm
>> you intentionally used deadly force against joseph rosenbaum, correct? >> yes. >> you intentionally used deadly force against the man who came and tried to kick you in the face, correct? >> yes. >> you intentionally used deadly force against anthony huber, correct? >> yes. >> you intentionally used deadly force against gaige grosskreutz, correct? >> yes. >> with regard to joseph rosenbaum, you fired four shots at him, correct? >> yes. >> you intended to kill him, correct? >> i didn't intend to kill him. i intended to stop the person who was attacking me and trying to steal my gun. >> now, this is why a defendant does not go on the stand, let alone a young one, because saying that you used deadly force on purpose, that you were aware, deadly force inherently means what it sounds like. force that you're saying you
10:09 pm
understand can kill the other person. was the threat that he faced something that made using deadly force reasonable? that last part is going to be a problem, i'm telling you. self-defense in wisconsin is about imminent threat. you had to fear, to use deadly force, that someone is really going to hurt you, serious bodily injury, or death. was it reasonable under these circumstances? is someone trying to take your gun, if that's what even was happening, was it reasonable to believe that may happen? that's the standard, to use deadly force in wisconsin. he admits he intended to use deadly force. so he is going to have to convince a jury or the juror will have to feel convinced that it was reasonable. the jury has a difficult job here, to balance the two faces of the killer, the one i'm
10:10 pm
showing you now, weepy, cherubic kyle, fearing for his life, or the cool customer in kenosha that night who was described as cold and calm in telling officers that he had just killed people and he was using live rounds, pretending that he was one of them, saluting them, hanging out, taking pictures, proud of his involvement. this matters for him. this matters for the victims, their families. but the verdict is going to reverberate far beyond the walls of this courthouse. so it matters. let's take it to the better minds. criminal defense attorney, cnn legal analyst joey jackson. marilyn mosby, baltimore city state's attorney, prosecutor of the infamous freddie gray case, 2015. i start with you, counselor mosby, it's good to have you. >> nice to see you.
10:11 pm
>> dicey call, to put a defendant on the stand, especially in a double homicide case. was it the right move? >> so i think overall, i think it was very much the defense strategy to put kyle rittenhouse on the stand today and to portray him as the innocent young man, not looking for any trouble but rather invested into the safety of his community, that never wanted to resort to killing anybody. this was the reason, in my opinion, that we got that disingenuous, and this is my opinion, disingenuous breakdown on the stand that the jury could easily sympathize with. however, i was really, really, really disappointed with the judge that did not allow the prosecutor to call into question the sincerity of rittenhouse, his sentiments and credibility about the killings. i have to say honestly i felt like rittenhouse opened the door with his mental and emotional state and breakdown that could
10:12 pm
and should have been challenged in light of him posing four months later, after the shootings in southeast, with proud boys wearing a "free as f" t-shirt, which totally cuts against his current state of emotion and overall credibility. but i would say if you ask what the call is, this case will come down, as you already indicated, to whether the jury believes whether it was reasonable for him to use and necessitate that deadly force. and so yes, it was effective to have him on the stand, at least providing justifications for his actions. he testified rosenbaum tried to take his gun. he was going to be given -- if he didn't take his gun, he felt he would be potentially killed. so i felt like the defense was effective but i also felt like the prosecution overall did its best as they could into calling into question rittenhouse's credibility. they established that he lied about being a certified emt he lied about going there to protect businesses. he lied about not going there looking for trouble but he and his armed friends were there pointing guns at people.
10:13 pm
he lied to the crowd when he said the first man he shot had a gun. he lied to the crowd when he said he didn't shoot anyone, knowing that he had shot several people. i would argue he's lying now to the jury, claiming he was in fear of his life from two unarmed people who he shot and killed at close range with an ar-15 rifle. >> so, joey, obviously counselor frames the seminal issue here. will the jury believe that it was reasonable for kyle rittenhouse to use deadly force, which he admits is exactly what he thought was going to happen when he pointed the weapon and fired it, he didn't think he was going to hit him in the leg, he didn't think it would just hurt him. he says, "i used deadly force." do you think it is reasonable when these men are coming at you and one of them puts the hand on the gun, how does that play? >> it plays in a big way, chris. good to be with you. excellently argued by counselor
10:14 pm
marilyn mosby, of course you can tell she's a prosecutor of long standing. i see things a different way as a defense attorney. let me tell you how. i think it was a game changer to put him on the stand for the following reasons. number one, you humanize him. beyond whatever he did, whatever shots he fired, he is a human being, he is a person who feels miserable about what he did. there will be a debate whether they were crocodile tears, whether it was an act, et cetera. you want to introduce the client to the jury. more important, number two, he explained his uses of force. if someone raises their arms and has a gun in their hand, as one of the people that he shot and killed did -- excuse me, he shot this person and shot him in the arm, he didn't shoot the person who had the gun. but if they have an actual begun, you're going to shoot. i don't know that you need more. was he pressing the trigger at
10:15 pm
the time? he indicated he shot because he was -- you talk about imminency of the threat. you know i have to stop you, mosby is all about momentum. let me play a little bit of sound that gives context. play p-1 about rittenhouse on firing shots after shooting joseph rosenbaum, the first victim who died. >> not a crowd, a mob was chasing me, as i'm running past mr. huber, he's holding a skateboard like a baseball bat, and he swings it down. and i block it with my arm as i'm getting up, he strikes me in the neck with his skateboard a second time.
10:16 pm
>> then what happened? >> he grabs my gun and i can feel it pulling away from me. i can feel the strap starting to come off my body. >> and what do you do then? >> i fire one shot. as i'm lowering my weapon, i look down and then mr. grosskreutz, he lunges at me with his pistol pointed directly at my head. >> now, this is his best scenario, except, joey, in putting in those details, we never saw a picture of him having any injury, and you would have one if you got hit in the neck with a baseball bat slash skateboard, the way he describes it. however, to your point, the guy has a gun. he's getting hit. is that enough? >> i think so, because number one, you talk about the person who had the gun, that wasn't the clip there, but so he justifies that. now you pivot to the skateboard. as marilyn mosby knows because prosecutors do it all the time, anything could be a dangerous weapon. if you're using a skateboard as
10:17 pm
a baseball bat to hit someone, that's problematic. the final person that he shot was grabbing at his weapon. and so yes, that provides what you need in order to establish self-defense. last point, consider the context. consider the context of the people who were angry. there's fires, tensions are flaming, people are saying to get you, i need you, et cetera. and after that, what does he do? he turns himself in. so you lose the element of consciousness of guilt. if he did something wrong, why wouldn't he run away? i think on balance the defense made the case for self-defense. and i would be very -- i mean, i would be surprised if he were convicted in this case. >> mosby, give me a quick counter. >> so the only thing i will say is that ultimately it will come down to credibility and that's why that sort of ruling and admissibility of that four months later, his credibility, it was so incredibly important. i think that when you look at whether or not it was a life or death matter, i think you have to consider the fact that you have a young white boy openly carrying and illegally possessing an ar-15 loaded with rounds to a black lives protest matter in order to protect
10:18 pm
someone else's property, from rioters, which are code name for criminals, where he subsequently shoots and kills two other people, wounds another, yet he approaches the police, arms up, ar-15 strapped to his body, and the police drive past him, why? because in no way, form, or fashion is this young man, who was carrying an ar-15 and had shot three people, perceived as a threat. now how can he hide behind this defense of self-defense? >> that judge would never have allowed you to say half of that, mosby. >> nope. >> but i appreciate you saying it here. they're points that need to be made. joey, thanks for the analysis. joey jackson, marilyn mosby, the best. thank you. more to come. it was a heavy day in court. the judge was fired up. we don't know this judge.
10:19 pm
is this just the way he is? was he right on the law with what he was doing with the prosecutor, not once but multiple times? that's an issue too. where is the line? when should he have dismissed the jury to have a conversation? did he do it the right way? we know someone who knows the system very well, a retired state supreme court justice. what is her take? her honor, next.nsuran ce, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? you got it. ♪ liberty, liberty - liberty, liberty ♪ uh, i'll settle for something i can dance to. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ ♪ ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ with clean, fresh ingredients, panera's new chicken sausage and pepperoni flatbread is a mouthwatering explosion of yes.
10:20 pm
craft? yes! heartiness? yes! living life to the flavor-fullest? heck yes. panera. live your yes. now $1 delivery. at fidelity, your dedicated advisor will work with you on a comprehensive wealth plan across your full financial picture. a plan with tax-smart investing strategies designed to help you keep more of what you earn. this is the planning effect.
10:21 pm
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.
10:22 pm
why hide your skin if dupixent has your moderate-to-severe eczema or atopic dermatitis under control? hide my skin? not me. by hitting eczema where it counts, dupixent helps heal your skin from within, keeping you one step ahead of eczema. and that means long-lasting clearer skin... and fast itch relief for adults. hide my skin? not me. by helping to control eczema with dupixent, you can show more with less eczema. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. when you help heal your skin from within,
10:23 pm
you can change how your skin looks and feels. and that's the kind of change you notice. talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent, a breakthrough eczema treatment. will is saving big holiday shopping at amazon. so now, he's free to become... wonderland will. deck the halls with printer paper! recycled of course. kyle rittenhouse, sobbing on the stand. it wasn't really what determined the state of play today in the trial. it was a big factor, don't get me wrong. but it was the sideshow, the judge going at the prosecutor multiple times and he was doing it in a state of high dudgeon. he questioned the timing of the prosecutor's question of whether
10:24 pm
or not rittenhouse refused to speak after his arrest, saying, hey, that's his fifth amendment right. but the way he said it, he was very hot about it. he got angry at the prosecutor. he thought he was going around one of his rulings, trying to sneak in evidence. take a look. >> i was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence. that's basic law. it's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. i have no idea why you would do something like that. don't get brazen with me. you know very well that an attorney can't go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. so don't give me that. i don't believe you. there better not be another incident. i'll take the motion under advisement.
10:25 pm
>> now, look. that is not usual behavior for a judge. this judge is the longest serving circuit court judge, 75 years old, he's been there a long time. this is his reputation. that means the prosecutor should have known who he was dealing with. but you remember, this is in front of the jury. they're hearing this. how can they feel about the prosecutor? now, here's a little secret when it comes to legal analysis on television. if somebody doesn't know the job or know the situation they're talking about, they don't have much credibility. you are very lucky, because you have someone who is not just a judge from that state, who is not just a supreme court judge, but is a judge who did trial court for a dozen years and did homicide cases. so this justice checks every box. retired justice janine geske, served on the wisconsin supreme court, marquette university law professor. great to have you, your honor. >> thank you, chris, it's great to be here.
10:26 pm
>> what's your take? >> well, everybody's nerves are frayed, that's my first take. you know, in terms of the judge's reaction today, i think there are a couple of things going on. one of the things that happens during a high profile, tough homicide case is, everybody gets more tired and more angry and more on edge as the trial goes on. and i think that's happening in this trial. judge schroeder, i was appointed two years earlier than judge schroeder to the bench. if i had stayed on the bench, i would be longer than him on the bench. he is a tough, no-nonsense judge. that is his reputation. he was angry today. and i think rightfully so. the risk of mentioning or alluding to a defendant's right to remain silent as somehow inferring guilt is one of those basic rules, as he stated. >> why do you think the prosecutor did it? >> you know, i think the prosecutor was looking at it in
10:27 pm
a different light. he was trying to use what happened to say that kyle had adjusted his statements because he had heard all these witnesses. and so he had the opportunity, his first chance to talk about it was after having heard all the witnesses all day. and i think he was thinking along that line, and probably was not thinking about, you know, kyle's right to remain silent. i think the judge just saw -- the judge is very protective of his record. it's clear to me with his rulings, he does not want to give rittenhouse grounds for appeal if he gets convicted, so he's being very careful in his rulings. >> right on the law, okay. but right in terms of how he handled it, would you have done it the same way? >> yeah, well. that's why i was saying everybody's nerves are frayed.
10:28 pm
he's obviously very tired and exhausted. my response to that is, the answer is no. you know, the judge sets the tone in the courtroom. the judge has to be able to bring tempers down. and he was just exploding with rage over what he believed the prosecutor had done. you know, and legally he was right, but, you know, all that does is excite everybody else. and people that are watching, you know, are thinking, you know, is he biased because of this anger? i think he was simply angry about the ruling. there's nothing legally wrong with what he did, but i think stylistically, it's a dangerous thing for a judge to lose his temper during a trial. >> do you think there is a risk that going after the prosecutor that much in the most important phase of this trial may have colored the perception of the jury? >> well, most of this was done outside the presence of a jury. the problem -- we are multiple problems with this case, but one of them is that we live in a world of social media. the jury has been told not to
10:29 pm
look at social media, to not get in touch. we can pray they all not do that but it's pretty attempting. he wouldn't know most of that. they probably know that the judge is tough, has been tough on the prosecutor. i don't think it's going to change anything with the jury. the jury's going to take a look at kyle rittenhouse's testimony and some of those videos and make a determination. and i think it is in part going to come down to his credibility today. >> justice geske, i appreciate you very much. you also have a reputation, and it was that you handled things the right way. you were right on the law and you were right in your demeanor as well, and that's why you were the perfect guest tonight. thank you for adding value to the audience. >> thank you. thanks, chris. >> be well. breaking news, a federal court just delivered another ruling on donald trump's fight to keep documents secret from the january 6th committee. the latest decision, right after the break.
10:30 pm
(man) go on, girl, go on and get help! [heartwarming music] (man) ah! (burke) smart dog. with farmers crashassist, our signal app can tell when you've been in a crash and can send help, if you want it. get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ your skin isn't just skin, it's a beautiful reflection of everything you've been through. that's why dove renews your skin's ceramides and strengthens it against dryness for softer, smoother skin you can lovingly embrace. renew the love for your skin
10:31 pm
with dove body wash. when you hear, cough cough sneeze sneeze. [ sneezing ] it's time for, plop plop fizz fizz. alka seltzer plus cold relief. dissolves quickly. instantly ready to start working. so you can bounce back fast with alka-seltzer plus.
10:32 pm
10:33 pm
>> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. donald trump denied again. he went back to the same judge who denied him yesterday and said, are you sure? and the judge said yes, i'm sure. and the reasoning is interesting. she says, look, they don't deliver this information, the national archives, until the 12th. between now and then, you can appeal.
10:34 pm
if you want to appeal my order, that's fine but i'm not changing my order for you. let's go to norm eisen. norm, this should not come as a surprise. the question is why did they go back to the same judge a few days later and ask her to overrule herself? >> chris, thanks for having me back. donald trump and his lawyers are not exactly famous for their legal acumen. the shrewder move would have been to go straight to the dc circuit. there is an argument that under the federal rules of appellate procedure, they're required to exhaust efforts in the district court. but judge chutkin was clearly having none of it. they tried to dress up their argument as something different, chris, as a stay. judge chutkin rejected that out of hand. she said, you want another injunction? i just told you you had a junk case, goodbye. so they fail yet again. now we'll see what happens, they'll undoubtedly rush to the court of appeals, to the dc circuit. >> what do you think happens there?
10:35 pm
>> well, a lot will depend on the panel of three judges that they draw. there have been different panels deciding things lately. so it's possible that they'll get a very short administrative stay while there is rapid briefing, emergency briefing on whether there should be an injunction pending appeal. and chris, we've talked about this before on this show, this is one of the most urgent questions that is facing us as a legal system. and i think as a democracy today. if donald trump is allowed to run out the clock with his usual strategy of delay, lose all the battles but win the war by running the clock out, that means that the committee may not get to the bottom of what happened on january 6th, it won't be able to prevent the next insurrection, it won't be able to consider legislation,
10:36 pm
and chris, donald trump is still doing it, that same incitement, that same big lie. so it's of the utmost urgency that the dc circuit decide this immediately. i think they should rip the band-aid off. this is a garbage case. no injunction. >> how would he run out the clock, assuming that they take it, a three-judge panel, the fancy way of saying it is en banc. if they do it, who is to say the supreme court will take the case? >> i don't think the supreme court will take it, chris. trump's play here, and again, the december circuit must not countenance it and the parties must insist this not happen. what happened in some of the litigation i was involved in, the first trump impeachment, the mcgahn case, he gets a stay pending appeal, and then there's a long appellate process, there's briefing, there's argument, multiple arguments.
10:37 pm
before you know it, years have gone by. we can't allow that. these issues are too important to the health and the very survival of our democracy. so it can be decided quickly. watergate, a little over three months from subpoena to supreme court decision. we can go fast here. we should. we must. >> a professor like you are you norm, told me once that equity abhors a forfeiture. the appellate court will decide whether the national archives can hand over the documents. we should get an answer quickly. when we do, i'll have you on with me. >> thanks, chris. the president took a victory lap over the infrastructure bill. yet he acknowledged the hard reality of an economic problem. inflation as a problem. why? what is it? how did it happen? how did we get here? and what can he really do? and what does that mean for the rest of us? we're all jumping ahead and using this as a political
10:38 pm
football. nobody knows anything. let's fix that, next.
10:39 pm
10:40 pm
watch: serena williams... wonder woman.... serena... wonder woman... serena... ace. ♪ ♪ get your tv together with the best of live and on demand. introducing directv stream. >> man: what's my safelite story? my my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪
10:41 pm
you don't need me or the
10:42 pm
federal government to tell you that prices are going up. you see it every time you go to the grocery store. it's harder to feed your family. beef, 20% up. pork, 14% up. prices up on just about everything. cars, medical care, all up. medical care not that much. cars, a lot. especially used cars. gas, high. keeping a roof over your head, up 3.5%. inflation. it's worse than we've seen in more than three decades. why? let's take a look at how we got here. the labor department's consumer price index, that's the cpi, right? that's a part of the reality, all right? it confirms it. you already feel it. the money is not going as far as it used to. they can tell you that wages run but when you adjust for inflation, they're not. so voters, like in virginia, they say this is our biggest issue, because this is what
10:43 pm
affects my family most right now. but rather than listening to what you're saying, too many in power are trying to tell what you it means. the truth, almost none of them know what they're saying. the president has spent months offering up higher wages as a counterweight. listen. >> when it comes to the economy, we're building rising wages aren't a bug. they're a feature. >> look, wages are up. about a half a percent. it's not enough to keep up with inflation, okay? it's like wages actually fell 1.2% in the last year. inflation this year was, you know, like 6%. so yeah, they're up but they're not really up, okay? that's political speak. that's how we get in trouble in terms of respecting our leaders. meanwhile the right is hammering democrats, claiming this proves government is broken. >> despite rising inflation, increasing prices, the president is still marching forward with his vision of big government. >> biden has forgotten about the inflation that's biting the budgets of families all throughout our country. >> we simply cannot afford any
10:44 pm
more bidenomics. >> it's all bs. the stick they're swinging, at the gop, is rotten. the tax cut. the tax cuts in 2016 that you didn't pay for helped fuel inflation. and they sat silent on the same problems that they're carping about now when the r's and d's have reversed power. how will we get out of it? it will take people who see past the politics and deal with reality. former treasury sector larry summers has made some waves on the left by speaking out against his own party on exactly this issue. let's talk about the fix, next. . with the right balance of risk and reward. so you can enjoy more of...this. this is the planning effect.
10:45 pm
when i heard about the science behind the new sensodyne repair and protect with deep repair i was super excited about it. it shows that the toothpaste goes deep inside the exposed dentin to help repair sensitive teeth. life is just too short to miss out on simple things like drinking that cold cup of water or having a sip of hot coffee. i have the science to prove it, i can see that it works and i feel confident recommending it to my patients. i'm really excited to recommend new sensodyne repair and protect with deep repair.
10:46 pm
what can i du with less asthma? with dupixent i can du more... yardwork... teamwork... long walks.... that's how you du more, with dupixent, which helps prevent asthma attacks. dupixent is not for sudden breathing problems. it's an add-on-treatment for specific types of moderate-to-severe asthma that can improve lung function for better breathing in as little as two weeks. and can reduce, or even eliminate, oral steroids. and here's something important. dupixent can cause serious allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis. get help right away if you have rash, shortness of breath, chest pain, tingling or numbness in your limbs. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection, and don't change or stop your asthma treatments, including steroids, without talking to your doctor.
10:47 pm
are you ready to du more with less asthma? just ask your asthma specialist about dupixent. woman: i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer ♪ ♪ yeah i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin that's my new plan. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: keep your skin clearer with skyrizi. most who achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months had lasting clearance through 1 year. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin at 3 years. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or coughs or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine.
10:48 pm
♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. as someone who resembles someone else, i appreciate that liberty mutual knows everyone's unique. that's why they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. [ ferry horn honks ] i mean just cause you look like someone else doesn't mean you eat off the floor, [ chuckles ] or yell at the vacuum, or need flea medication. oh, yeah. that's the spot. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ the last time inflation was this high, 6.3% year over year, november 1990. a year later, it was less than half that. but the political damage may have been done. by november of '92, bill clinton
10:49 pm
beat george h.w. bush, "read my lips, no new taxes." once taxes were necessary to deal with the inflationary environment. larry summers was one of the few democrats who raised concerns about inflation back when biden and the democrats were pushing through the covid stimulus bill. in fact joe manchin was basing some of his concern on what larry summers had said. welcome back to "prime time," sir, good to have you. >> good to be with you. >> so first let's deal with your prognostication here, which is inflation doesn't come fast, doesn't leave fast. this is going to be with us for a while. listen to janet yellen spinning a different future for us. >> i think he's wrong. i don't think we're about to lose control of inflation. i agree, of course, we are going through a period of inflation
10:50 pm
that's higher than americans have seen in a long time. it's something that's obviously a concern and worrying them. but we haven't lost control. and as we make further progress on the pandemic, i expect these bottlenecks to subside. mary ann noah americans will return to the labor force as conditions improve. and remember the spending that we did that partially has caused this high demand for goods, it's been very important in making sure that the pandemic hasn't had a scarring effect on american workers. it's given them enough income and support to get through this with that while still being able to put food on their tables and keep roofs over their heads. >> what is yellin weighing in a way that you are not?
10:51 pm
>> look, i have great respect for secretary yellen, but the administration's budget and the administration's forecast with this stimulus was that this year we'd have 2% inflation. and it's likely to come in three times that. i think they are just not recognizing just how much demand is being created by the tremendous wall of money, 15% of gdp, in one year, that they released last spring. and that in conjunction with central bank, the fed, keeps the interest rate at zero. it's buying all kinds of bonds at mortgages when the middle of the housing boom just sets off a dynamic that then the thing
10:52 pm
about inflation is you start chasing your tail. rising inflation of inputs leads firms to raise their prices. that leads other firms to raise their prices. and the whole thing spirals. it can be broken but it needs to be broken by some kind of dramatic action and those kinds of dramatic actions often cause recessions. i think we are speeding down the road at a rapid rate, kind of a downhill road, and it's not going to be so easy to put the brakes on here. that's why i'm concerned and i think the policy makers in washington unfortunately have almost every month been behind the curve. they said it was transitory. it doesn't look so transitory. they said it was due to a few specific factors. doesn't look to be a few specific factors. they said when september came
10:53 pm
and people went back to school that the labor force would grow and it didn't happen. so i hope they're right. i really very, very much hope that the scenario that secretary yellen sketches proves to be the right one. my experience is that you should hope for the best and plan for something much less than the best. i think that means stronger actions by the fed. it means the administration has to be thinking about inflation. i think it's great what they're doing to decongest the ports and to get more through the ports, but i think it will be much more important if they remove some of the tariffs holding up prices, get a set of things to encourage energy production so that gasoline prices could come down. if they were very conscious of costs as they regulated or if
10:54 pm
they had procurement rules about buy america and the like. i think they've got to focus on the things they're doing. >> what about the spending bill, larry? >> i think it's fine. chris, if you look at it, the ten years of the two spending bills together, a, are less than the one year of what they did last spring and, b, unlike what they did last spring are paid for by tax increases. so i don't think that's an inflation problem. i think a lot of it is vitally needed investments in the future of our country. look, why should it be the case that it takes me 20 more minutes to take a flight from boston to
10:55 pm
washington than it did when i started on the route, 40 years ago. that's all about our lagging infrastructure and there are a ton of other examples. i think we should be making it easier for people to put their kids in daycare. >> that's one of the major criticisms -- one of the major criticisms among democrats, the more moderate democrats is you didn't means test all these policies, that there are too many people who don't need the help that's going to come in this bill that will get help that they don't need, that are making money that they shouldn't need this kind of support. do you think that fair criticism? >> i'd probably rather see more emphasis on public investment and less on transfer payments. i think that's right. but overall if you gave me my choice, up or down on this bill, i think up is much better than down. yes, i'd like to see more of it be public investment. i'd like to see less of it be transfer payments.
10:56 pm
i'd like to see more revenue increases. you know, people like me, like you, chris, who have been very, very fortunate in life who are in the top small part of the income distribution, we'll get tax cuts because of the changes that are being made. >> right. >> we shouldn't be getting tax cuts at a moment like this. that is probably the biggest change in this bill but, yes. that is a much bigger deal to be raising our taxes than taking money from somebody making $90,000 a year. i'd much rather focus on doing more for those at the very high end. >> larry summers, thank you very much for putting in your perspective and talking to us about how we get out of it. be well. >> thank you. >> we'll be right back with the hand-off.
10:57 pm
♪ i had a dream that someday ♪ ♪ i would just fly, fly away ♪ this is the planning effect. as carla thinks about retirement, she'll wonder, "what if i could retire sooner?" and so she'll get some advice from fidelity, and fidelity will help her explore some different scenarios, like saving more every month. ♪ and that has carla feeling so confident that she can enjoy her dream... right now. that's the planning effect, from fidelity.
10:58 pm
ebenezer. ebenezer. marley? first you will see the past.
10:59 pm
excuse me! coming through! ugh! and then...the present. and finally, ebenezer...the future! introducing the all-electric eqs. happy holidays from mercedes-benz.
11:00 pm
this is elodia. she's a recording artist. 1 of 10 million people that comcast has connected to affordable internet in the last 10 years. and this is emmanuel, a future recording artist, and one of the millions of students we're connecting throughout the next 10. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students, past... and present, can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities. thank you for watching. time for the big show don lemon tonight with its star d. lemon. >> these moments when the former president denied twice or


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on