tv Cuomo Prime Time CNN November 15, 2021 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
to unveil them to the world. ♪ the news continues. let's hand it orr to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> thank you. get me in the center of the frame why this is an important night. ellie's the director. everybody is finally back. it's been over a year. my ep as he says it's been one year and eight months almost to the day since we were in this studio. and for you it may matter, it may not. for us this is a big sign that things are getting back to normal. literally i have dreamed about being able to do the show here again. having the people around.
understanding the energy. having guests that you can actually see. hopefully it all allows us to give you an even better program that has more resonance and relevance. so here we are. we are back. and welcome to prime time. the jury has the kyle rittenhouse case and their job got harder today. i'll explain why. now on one level they are doing this with 500 national guard troops on stand by for any unrest in wisconsin. and i have to remember this jury is not sequestered. we don't know who's deliberating yet. you have a group just under a dozen people. the judge will decide which ones of the 12. they'll go home and try not to follow the coverage but they'll be aware of all the weight of expectation just that's heavy. the atmosphere is tough but so's the case. they got a lot of charges to consider. and they came and got extra ones today and got an unusually
confusing set of instructions from a controversial judge who's an issue. will he be for them? we'll see. now the judge threw out a weapons charge today. you are hearing a lot about in online. look. the statute has a length for a weapon to trigger no pun intended the statute where it's too long to be carried. the judge determined that the weapon that rittenhouse the defendant had an ar-15 is not long enough to be prohibited understood the state statute so the double homicides and alleged attempted homicide have layers to consider. why does the prosecution do? hedging why there's more choices and can be confusing for a jury especially with the instructions of what's okay and when and it's going to extend this process. i'll tell you that now.
however, after we have heard the cases and the closings we can give you the main questions. was the defendant's presence and the behavioral at the protests or riots or whatever you want to call him, the behavior a provocation to the people around him? that's a key word. was it a provocation? why? because if he provoked and created the situation you cannot claim self defense as a cure to a situation you created. if the jury does not believe that he provoked the situation and that is not unlikely they then have to look at each incident of a use of force. here the firing of his weapon. they're going to have to assess with each of the victims in each situation so much times it's with each bullet. i don't think that's going to happen here because it came in less than a second but did the defendant need to use deadly
force to avoid serious injury or death in each instance he used the gun? is it reasonable to them? does it make sense? do they say if it's me i would have? that's the key. what are the questions in looking at it? were the people chasing him? trying to hurt him? were they trying to kill him? people observing the case outside the jury got really strong feelings. some of them don't meet the facts. on the left kyle rittenhouse the defendant was framed early on as an absolute vigilant, a villain. he is a righty, an extremist looking to shoot protesters that night. something even he alluded to specifically a couple weeks earlier caught on video saying, hey, you see those looters? i would have shot them. the jury never got to hear that and we did. the right paints him as a victim, a hero. he acted in self defense.
when that mob came at him. i have said this all along. okay? the coverage of this situation has not been great. it's steeped in political agendas. this was not an easy case for this prosecutor and this prosecutor did not do a great job. okay? neither of these portrayals has to find a home on the jury and it could be the case that the defendant while has no explicit burden, it is on the prosecution, but his team may have made and with him in the chair a stronger showing in their affirmative defense case than the prosecutor did in making theirs and meeting their burden. remember, everything they put out about his self defense was their choice but here in this court the prosecution has to prove to this jury beyond a reasonable doubt he didn't need
self defense. the main takeaway a provocation. that's the headline of the closing argument. provocation invalidates the self defense claim. listen. >> you're not allowed to run around and point your gun at people. this is the provocation. >> this is what we see in the video. him putting the fire extinguisher on the grown and then raising the gun. that is what provokes this entire incident and one of the things to keep in mind is that when the defendant provokes the incident -- >> think back to back on november 2nd when this case started? did you hear one word about provocation? you didn't. because it was never said. but when his case explodes in his face now he comes out with provocation. >> now, that's not the defense's best push back. the best push back is that you
didn't hear the prosecutor say who did he point the gun at? because if you're going to provoke somebody you're going to point the weapon at them. they have to perceive you do the provocative act. did the prosecution make the case beyond a reasonable doubt to that jury that it's rittenhouse who started what wound up with him firing the weapon at the same people? did he do that? why rittenhouse was in kenosha that night, so compelling in the media, to so many of you watching this? came across state lines. ar-15. lying that he was an emt. prosecutor says that all makes him an agressor. listen. >> here's the defendant running in between those parked cars, slowing down and you can see just how close or rather how far away mr. rosenbaum was when the
defendant shot him. mr. rosenbaum is not even within arm's reach of the defendant when the first shot goes often. there's no way he could have taken that gun. he is already falling to the ground. you can't claim self defense against an unarmed man. >> you can claim self defense against an unarmed man. it depends on what the unarmed man is doing to you. just because you have the gun. but was it reasonable. is what he perceived reasonable in the mind of this jury that it needed to be responded to with deadly force? because remember, he admitted on the stand i used deadly force on purpose. again remember this jury's going to hear all of this. the judge says don't listen to the immediate gentleman they're not sequestered. they got people around them. they got lives. so much noise on this. what will filter through?
what wont? now, does being in kenosha, this is the damning fact, he went there for bad reason and he's got bad ideas in his head. even if that's all true, does it mean he provoked the attacks on him? that's what the defense seized on. here's their rebuttal. >> we don't play fast and loose with the facts. pretending that mr. rosenbaum was citizen "a" number one guy. he was a bad man. he was there. he was causing trouble. he was a rioter. and my client had to deal with him that night alone. >> mr. rosenbaum was shot because he was chasing my client and going to kill him, take his gun and carry out the threats he made. >> the defense attorney actually said -- i have never heard this before. i'll ask in a few minute he said he's happy the defendant shot
and killed mr. rosenbaum because if he hadn't he would have taken the weapon and used on other people. a closing argument has to be anchored to the facts but this judge who you know couldn't find enough opportunities to talk let them go and didn't say anything. that is a huge leap for this jury. i wonder if it bothered them because there's no fact to support that. the only reasonable thing to argue is that he would use it on rittenhouse. rittenhouse's mother has been there, has been emotionally obviously but also working the case in the media saying that gun that her son had that they say is a bad thing it saved his life. >> a lot of people shouldn't have been there and he brung that gun for protection.
to this day if he didn't have that gun my son would have been dead. >> now remember he had no business become there. he should have never been there and you shouldn't have taken him. she didn't take him. the fact that he shouldn't have been there is not what this jury is looking at unless they see the presence and behavior there as provocative to the same people provoking the same people who chased him. did the prosecution prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? now, look. you can argue if he didn't have the gun two men wouldn't have been killed and another's arm blown off. horrible to look at. but remember the judge said it was not illegal for him to have that weapon there. he removed the charge. i know it plays outside but does it play inside? here's some of the final words from both sides in a very polarizing case.
>> the defendant committed these crime just the question is whether or not you believe that his actions were legally justified. and i submit to you that no reasonable person would have done what the defendant did. and that makes your decision easy. he is guilty of all counts. >> ladies and gentlemen, the videos show the truth. they had to charge the white supremacist who isn't a white supremacist. this is a political case. we can take politics out of it as in democrat and republican. but the district attorney's office is marching forward with this case because they need somebody to be responsible. kyle rittenhouse's behavior was protected under the law of the state of wisconsin. the law of self defense. >> no one is saying that mr. rittenhouse did not have a right to defend himself. this case is about the right to use deadly force in imminent threat.
the only imminent threat that night was mr. rittenhouse. >> all right. now, the big question is, who are they going to believe? i want to get something very right. the law is you can't carry a weapon as a minor if it has a short barrel. why? the policy behind is it trying to keep people from using sawed off shotguns. this ar-15 has a full barrel. that's the law. that's the ruling and the charge is out so now for the jury victim or vigilant? peacekeeper or provocateur? let's see what the better minds think. joey jackson, laura coats. laura, what do you think? did the prosecutor meet his burden?
>> you know, i don't think they met their burden on all of the counts and here's why. in wisconsin it's a very low threshold for a defendant to demonstrate some aspect of self defense. the prosecution always has the burden of proof as you well know but once the self defense claim is asserted then the prosecution has to disprove that the person was entitled to use that and frankly the two people to give you the frank and forthright explanation as to whether they themselves were acting in self defense against kyle rittenhouse died and the third person survivoring member of the victim unit is somebody that had a gun in the hand, a testimony that a -- more than anything else so at the end in the closing argument they made the strongest case about the notion of kyle rittenhouse being an active shooter and if anybody had an access to self defense it was everyone there trying to subdue an active shooter that did kill again and then rebutting fully this idea of self defense, entitled to kyle rittenhouse, i'm not sure they met that threshold yet and it is too late
now. >> they won't get another shot no matter what they think of the judge. if he is acquitted it is over. do you believe in acquittal or a hung jury is likely? >> this is my view. i think if the jury buys the argument of self defense it is all or nothing. we want to talk about lesser included offenses that relate to charges added that may not be the top count you did something, wasn't intentional, maybe reckless, i don't think they split hairs like that. in my view. >> if they say he had to do what he did to defend himself, don't like why he was there, that's reasonable and doesn't matter what the charge is. >> exactly right. it would then be over. number one, was he in immediate
fear of death or serious body injury? were his actions proportionate to the threat posed? number three is did he act reasonably, one charge that concerns me if i'm his defense attorney is the issue with mr. rosenbaum. the issue of firing, firing again, again and again. four times. i thought the prosecution did a very effective job saying the first shot you ripped the pelvis out. shot him again. shot him again and again. why am i concerned from a defense perspective? it is disproportionate. the defense said he shot to terminate the threat. >> also the volley all in under a second. >> exactly right. but what the prosecution i think to great effect is it was under
three quarters of a second and made it sound he shot, he shot, he shot and he shot and you have to justify every bullet that comes out of that weapon. if you don't it's a problem. i'm not sleeping well over that. if the jury buys that there was provocation here by him and you started it off and very well as you sum this up, be clear. it is not because i come there and i don't belong there and i thought i was an ems and i'm not. thought i was a cop. no. when you had to engage in self defense, did you provoke prior to that specific time, that specific person? the jury has to define it that way. if they do he has a shot at acquittal. if they he shouldn't have been there then the defense has a problem. >> running away could be a -- >> remember, though. on that one point. >> go ahead. >> if i can, remember the jury instruction.
so important in this case. the jury instructions don't allow the jury to end the inquiry saying did he provoke? if he did he can't use self defense. the jury instructions require the jury to say if he was the one that provoked the attack, if the response allowed him to feel in fear of death or bodily harm he is entitled to use self defense unless he exhausted all remedies to escape. the prosecution went through the list of things that even if he provoked and believe he did and reasonably in fear for his life based on somebody's attempt to counter act the attack he did not they believe try to escape at all costs. there's other ways to go around and remained in the thick of it. it is important to think about the attitude and remember we learned a lot as a society. people who are the laymen about the idea of the use of force standard. remember we are talking about proportionately of the type of force you use.
if it's a cop case you think about the eyes through the reasonable police officer. normally it's about what a reasonable person would do. the jury instructions here require the jury to look through the perspective of that then 17-year-old kyle rittenhouse. now the idea of whether he had any business being there i think is a resolved one. he had no business being there. motivation, trying to test right now, was it reasonable in this jury's mind that at the time he felt that the kay not you can situation he perceived enabled him to act that way and that's why this is such an odd thing to have the expert in the testimony. they're trying to align him as if he is a member of law enforcement or somehow an extension of that. and that's dangerous obviously for a society. this is a 17-year-old with an ar-15 who got off possession over a technicality at this point. >> right. >> but that's the theme of this particular defense case now.
>> there are all kinds of wrong in this story. does that translate for this jury into all kinds of crimes? we'll see. joey, laura, thank you very much. now to bring in someone who understands this process better than most. what will this jury absorb? what influences matter? what does it mean they're not sequestered? don't pay attention to the coverage of the case but it is going to be hard not to. a jury sorting through the confusion. what resonates? what doesn't? an expert, next. ♪ my songs know what you did in the dark ♪ ♪ so light 'em up, up, up light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ i'm on fire ♪ ♪ so light 'em up, up, up light 'em... ♪ i thought i was managing my moderate to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... ...me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there for her.
so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is the #1 prescribed biologic for people with crohn's disease. humira helps people achieve remission that can last. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections. serious and sometimes fatal infections, including tuberculosis, and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened, as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. learn how abbvie could help you save on humira.
after pioneering photographic film, we made it our mission to help change the world... in healthcare, our imaging expertise and ai technology aims to help diagnose disease earlier. but why stop there? when we can apply our expertise in cell biology and specialized technologies to help make vital vaccines and treatments available to all. we'll never stop innovating for a healthier world. fujifilm value from innovation ♪ ♪ cases of anxiety in young adults are rising as experts warn of the effects on well-being caused by the pandemic. ♪ ♪
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ no annual fee on any discover card. ♪ this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to know you have a wealth plan that covers everything that's important to you. this is what it's like to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. making sure you have the right balance of risk and reward. and helping you plan for future generations. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity.
kyle rittenhouse. victim or vigilant? now it's time for the jury to decide. deliberations begin tomorrow. the arguments are over. joining me now is richard gabrielle, jury consultant. worked with juries on the o.j. simpson and casey anthony case. good to have you, sir. >> good to be here, chris. >> first, the idea of the judge's instructions. i found them very confusing. long winded. but what usually resonates and not with a jury no matter what the instructions are? >> there's a lot of basic instructions. jurors get confusing
instructions. it is not that unusual and a lot of times they don't pay attention to the instruction just however when it comes to certain instructions on some self defense elements and provocation elements that's when jury can pay attention depending upon the disputes are in the jury room. when they get to the jury form, does it meet this criteria, that's when they may turn to the instructions. otherwise a lot of it is kind of a bunch of noise they sort of go, okay, what do we think this case is about? >> not being sequestered, what does that mean? >> well, it's a tricky one. jurors i think do intend to follow the judge's instructions and to not follow the media but they are influenced by the households. some can't resist. we are so automatically on the phones and things these days it is hard not to be exposed to that.
they're aware the world is watching them and creates added social pressure. they know they're actually giving a verdict on a bunch of political issues that clearly had resonance in the trial. >> how much of their decision winds up being consumed by having had access to the defendant's testimony directly? >> oh, it is critical and for a particular reason. because the -- kyle rittenhouse and his intent, his motivation becomes critical in this. whether he is the helper or the instigator. jurors have to look at who is this guy? did he go to kenosha to carry out a plan to assault these rioters, do be a vigilant? and that really is going to be one of the key questions in their mind. even though technically the instructions say that he only has to be the instigator in that moment with each of these three
victims. so his testimony, how they see his motivation becomes critical in this case. >> especially because under the state law yes they're always have to think about whether they would have done that but the specific instruction is to think about him. the 17-year-old in that situation. was it reasonable for him to think what. not you. that makes having access to him and hearing him that much of a bigger deal. let me ask you as a final thought, watching the trial and understanding what you do about what persuades juries, do you believe the prosecution made its burden here in a way that will resonate with the jury? >> well, it's a difficult question because it's personal and political and political is personal. it is about the story that's told and the defense talked about kyle rittenhouse perspective in the closing
argument today and the prosecution did okay but probably did not. both sides will trade on the fear of the jury, the jury's fear in a kenosha community about whether they want somebody like kyle rittenhouse to come and protect them or whether they in kenosha also feel like they want to be afraid of an active shooter in the community. so aside from evidence and burdens and testimony and legal instruction, jurors are looking at what's the story i most believe? and that comes back to what would i do in that situation? how do i feel as a member of this community? >> richard made an interesting point. you have been talking about how come there's no black people on the jury? the community is very white. a great tip that i have heard before and richard echoed. don't worry about color as much as their credence. what are the politics? because that may resonate more in the room than anything they
bring in as a function of race. richard, thank you very much. appreciate you. we'll see how it goes. >> thank you. another big case to follow, big implications, as a society. steve bannon showed up to court today. looked horrible. is this a good situation for him? contempt of congress. he looked like he was loving every minute of it and needed to visit a barber why who was bannon telling to stand by, next. got a couple of bogeys on your six, limu. they need customized car insurance from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. what do you say we see what this bird can do? woooooooooooooo... we are not getting you a helicopter. looks like we're walking, kid. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
(man) so when in doubt, just say, "let me talk to my manager." next, carvana's 100% online shopping experience. oh, man. carvana lets people buy a car-- get this-- from their couch. oh, how disruptive. no salesman there to help me pick out the car i need. how does anyone find a car on this site without someone like us checking in? she's a beauty, huh? oh, golly! (laughter) i can help you find the color you want. that sounds nice. let me talk to my manager. (vo) buy your next car 100% online. with carvana.
do you take aspirin? plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. new vazalore is the first liquid-filled aspirin capsule clinically shown to cause fewer ulcers than plain aspirin. vazalore is designed to help protect... releasing aspirin after it leaves your stomach... where it is absorbed to give you the benefits of life saving aspirin... to help prevent another heart attack or stroke. heart protection with your stomach in mind. try new liquid-filled vazalore. aspirin made amazing!
with garlic, vitamins and minerals to support a strong, healthy immune system. garlique. we're taking down the biden regime. i want you to stay focused on the mess and. this is all noise. that's signal. >> what does that mean? is that a qanon -- no. that's steve bannon using something that's from science. the signal not noise ratio. it's a way of -- remember. he was a navy intel guy. this is his way of saying my message is coming through clearly. there's more signal than there is noise. is that true? defiance is exactly what he wants to be in this situation. he turned him in to the fbi in washington. two counts of contempt of congress. refuse to hand over documents, refusing to testify.
he was released without bail after surrendering his passport and can't travel. he is now set to be arranged thursday and expect a not guilty plea. bannon is claiming executive privilege even though that power rests with biden. he had no formal white house role at the time of the capitol riot but we know he was in touch with trump in the lead-up and foreshadowed what would happen the day before saying all hell is going to break loose and used inflammatory language leaving the courthouse. listen. >> this is going to be the misdemeanor from hell for merrick garland, nancy pelosi and joe biden. joe biden ordered merrick garland to prosecute me from the white house lawn when he got off marine one and we'll go on the offense. tired of playing defense. we'll go on the offense. stand by. by the way, by the way, by the way you should understand nancy pelosi is taking on donald trump
and steve bannon. she ought to ask hillary clinton how that turned out for them. we are going on the offense. >> i got to tell you he will have a big platform now to talk about this stuff and the media is going to take it and give it to you. okay? if he's convicted on both counts which could happen bannon would face up to two years in jail but he could also be a short timer and then what signal would that send? okay? remember this, though. even if you're convicted it doesn't force you to produce records or testify. it remains to be seen how many of the 34 people subpoenaed take from this. will they choose loyalty to trump or feelty over country? there's a great journalist breaking a lot of news about what led up to this and i have to tell you in reviewing the book shocking things that happened with people that we don't even know about in situations but you will know tonight. details that congress are s
trying to learn more about. jonathan karl is here tonight. his book is a blockbuster. literally by definition. "betrayal" is out tomorrow. we got him tonight. we are long time friends and colleagues but he told me a lot of stuff i don't know in this book and you are going to learn it next. also tomorrow, beto o'rourke will be here just announcing he is running for texas governor. what is the real chance of him winning? he says he can and he'll tell you how. we'll be right back.
football, is a game of inches. but it's also a game, of information. because the nfl is connected. and at any moment, the fate of the season can come down to this. billions of secure connections, per second. when the game is on the line and the game is always on the line touchdown! the nfl relies on cisco.
with steve bannon the conversation is about testimony. documents but testimony. the january 6 committee is also looking to get hold of that. right? physical evidence. documents why it is telling that the only time the former president has legally tried to assert any privilege is when it comes to documents. why? because documents don't lie. documents don't spin.
documents don't take the fifth. documents don't not recall. now new reporting about several key new pieces of evidence, a memo not written by an outside lawyer but someone working for the trump campaign, an email written by the chief of staff and pictures taken by an official white house photographer. the existence of all the of it reported for the first time in "betrayal: the final act of the trump show" written by next guest chief washington correspondent for the abc news jonathan karl. good to see you, brother. congratulations on a really, really profound piece of work. this will be the first draft of history. >> great to see you and thank you, chris. that's why i wrote it. history of those attempting to rewrite as we speak. that's why i wrote this book. >> he is my friend and haven't seen him in forever.
the -- i was blown away by stuff that's in this book that i didn't know. for instance, sidney powell working with flynn and what they were trying to do. you really have reported -- you will see it in the book. i don't want to give away the whole book but she really wanted special operators to be dispatched to go find the head of the cia and bring her back? gina haspel? >> this is a strangest things that i found out and you know how many strange things took place over the final months of the trump presidency but sidney powell called the undersecretary for intelligence and security at the pentagon, ezra cohen put in there after the election and somebody she thought was an ally because he had worked previously
with michael flynn and wanted him to send a special operations team to germany to get gina haspel. it is a bizarre story but it got so strange and so convoluted and spread through the qanon channels that actually the cia had to put out a statement saying thatty that haspel was back in langley, virginia, doing her job and there was nothing amiss but this -- happened as ezra cohen turned her down and basically told her to get lost and she placed a call to the personal cell phone of the director of the national intelligence during this same period and it was believed that the dni -- how would sidney powell get this private cell phone number. again the fingers were pointed at mark meadows as somebody who put sidney powell in touch with the dni and also the phone call to the pentagon to a private phone number. >> not to undersell your own reporting i got to stop you.
i got to sell it. the point is not just the intrigue of the crazy which actually is and that is worth reading all by itself but ezra cohen now it givers you perspective on his level of disgust and what that would mean going forward. what is the reporting in terms of whether cohen is a possibility, as someone to be a truth teller? >> i think ezra cohen is somebody that the january 6 committee will be very interested in talking to. he is somebody that worked at the intelligence agency when michael flynn was the head of dia and brought into the white house on the national security council as the top intelligence official when michael flynn for that very short period of time was the national security director. apparently michael flynn believed that. and when cohen got that job at the pentagon during the
transition after the election, he called ezra cohen and said he wanted his help in doing whatever the heck michael flynn wanted to do. this is when he is talking about marshal law, when he is organizing this stop the steal effort. and ezra cohen again said, look, no. this is crazy. the election is over. and michael flynn started screaming at him and saying that he was part of the problem so yes. here's somebody again who you know by his bio and the background you wouldn't necessarily think he would be the one to stand up in disgust and say no to all this but he did and there are a number of people like this who i think at critical moments stopped this entire disaster after the election from actually being a lot worse. >> one other point i want do get before we go to break and i'll keep jonathan. mark meadows, you talked about people that stopped it. he seems to be on the opposite
side. what's the reporting of the dates we have? him taking all of these different steps, the p-2 time line if you want to putt it up for the audience, trying to plant the seeds. does the reporting reveal to you that these were done in earnest? he believed this or about him just trying to spread stink? >> i don't know what was inside the man's mind but at every turn he enabled trump's worst desires. i found no evidence anywhere of him pushing back against donald trump and what donald trump was trying to do. and you get the sense that donald trump had some crazy idea that was brought in by sidney powell or rudy giuliani and meadows enabled that to go through the highest levels of our government and the memo is an important document with the talk of the memo that john
eastman wrote and john eastman he was an outside, you know, lawyer. but meadows is forwarding a document that basically outlines the effort to essentially have a coup, a document written by a lawyer on the trump campaign payroll. >> let's talk about why that was done, why we haven't heard more about this and a name, again, it is a little bit embarrassed. i'm shocked at the name i'll introduce you to with jonathan karl where the man came from, wound up and was instrumental to derail our democracy. stay with us.
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. ♪ nothing is everything. ♪ woman: talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. the new sensodyne repair and protect with deep repair has the science to show that the toothpaste goes deep inside the exposed dentin to help repair sensitive teeth. my patients are able to have that quality of life back. i recommend sensodyne repair and protect with deep repair. ♪ my songs know what you did in the dark ♪ ♪ so light 'em up, up, up light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ i'm on fire ♪ ♪ so light 'em up, up, up light 'em... ♪ why hide your skin if dupixent has your moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis under control? hide our skin? not us. because dupixent targets a root cause of eczema,
it helps heal your skin from within, keeping you one step ahead of it. and for kids ages 6 and up, that means clearer skin, and noticeably less itch. hide my skin? not me. by helping to control eczema with dupixent, you can change how their skin looks and feels. and that's the kind of change you notice. hide my skin? not me. 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, you can show more with less eczema. talk to your child's eczema specialist about dupixent, a breakthrough eczema treatment. ♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪ you're never responsible for unauthorized
the media will focus on the names you know. when the committee puts out its report it will likely feature a whole cast of people you may not know. jonathan has conthe work of laying out why people like john mcentee. who is that? you want to know. we're discussing now, abc news big shot correspondent is here. this book, i believe, will be the first draft of history of what happened at the end of this administration. it is a must read. now, mcentee, why do people need to know that name? >> mcentee is a guy actually, he's one of the most fascinating people in the trump presidency.
chris, that i met back when i was first starting to cover the trump campaign. they had like ten employees. i went to trump tower. there was nobody there. there was a kid a few years out of connecticut named johnny mcentee shaking my hand and giving me a tour. fast forward trump wins and becomes the body guy, the kid who carries the bags for the president to marine one and served that role through much of the first year of the trump presidency until he was fired for issues raised on his background check but he came back in january of 2020 and he came back and he came back because trump knew that he was the guy that was more loyal to him than anybody who would do absolutely anything he wanted and trump actually put him in charge of the presidential personnel office. this is in charge of the hiring and firing of everybody in the united states government in the executive branch and all the
political appointees and at that point, chris, he hadn't hired a single person in his life. he had no experience for this job but the experience was relevant for trump is he would go through the course of 2020 and conduct a purge and go through and systematically go through the political appointees and all of the agencies, they had interviews with hundreds of interviews conducted by this team that mcentee brought in, mostly people in their 20s and to remove anybody not deemed sufficiently loyal to trump. so he becomes the guy that i think in many ways made january 6th possible because when trump took his darkest turn, there was nobody around to stop him. there was nobody around to question him. there was nobody around to push back in meetings. >> literally the bag man was there. >> yes. >> the bag man. >> yes, yes. >> so jonathan and i were talking on the break whether or
not this will move the needle. i'll say this because we're out of time. if this doesn't move the needle and open people's eyes to what was actually happening, i don't think anything will. and i know that you wrote it as a journalist but i'm telling you it will be the first draft of history. jonathan karl, good luck, brother, i wish the best for you and thank you for this work of journalism for this all important time in our collective history. jonathan karl, abc news the book is "betrayal" the final act of the trump show. it is on sale tomorrow. it is the first draft of our history. be well. big show for you on wednesday, a special hour-long interview with bill maher covering a lot of ground. he'll say things that you will want to hear. he's going to say things that you will not want to hear. thank you for watching us tonight.
moving is a handful. no kidding! fortunately, xfinity makes moving easy. easy? -easy? switch your xfinity services to your new address online in about a minute. that was easy. i know, right? and even save with special offers just for movers. really? yep! so while you handle that, you can keep your internet and all those shows you love, and save money while you're at it with special offers just for movers
have a long ways to go when it comes to covid. we will continue to follow the protocols, but we are back in studio and happy about it. good to see you guys. you guys are okay? >> yeah! >> the guys in the studio. i'm used to working alone. me and the camera. i am so glad you could join us this evening. we have got new developments on multiple big stories. we will take you first to kenosha where we are hours away from the beginning of jury deliberations in the kyle rittenhouse trial after a dramatic day that comes down to this. it was what kyle rittenhouse did shooting and killing two men, wounding another, was it self-defense? >> you cannot hide behind self-defense if you provoked the incident. if you created the danger, you forfeit the right to self-defense. >> did he have the right to use deadly force?