tv Americas Newsroom With Bill Hemmer Dana Perino FOX News November 18, 2021 6:00am-8:00am PST
. >> on capitol hill the house will talk about the spending bill today. in one corner of the room. then you have the senate beginning this confirmation hearing for this very controversial nominee for the treasury department. she has called in her prior work for the quote end to banking as we know it. >> bill: watching these major developments the trial in southeastern georgia. prosecutors will cross-examine the man who pulled the trigger he says in self-defense and the kyle rittenhouse trial where the jury starts day three of deliberations. >> we reviewed a drone video at the center of the mistrial request by the defense. outside the courthouse you have this going on.
[people shouting] >> tensions brewing out there. protests turned violent yesterday. there were a couple of arrests made at the scene outside the courthouse. all of this as everyone is on pins and needles. >> bill: alexis is outside the courthouse in kenosha. what is expected first off? >> good morning. big day here again in kenosha as we enter day three of deliberations. as you saw in the video things can get tense quick here in kenosha as they wait for the verdict. day three we haven't heard from the jury just yet. two mistrial motions are on the table in the kyle rittenhouse trial. at the heart of the motions drone video showing the first of three shootings from that night alleging the state withheld a high quality version of the video. the defense admitting the
second mistrial motion. >> we didn't have the quality of evidence that the state had until the case had been closed. i think that is required in a case like this where he is look being at a life sentence potentially without parole in con viktd. >> i do not believe a technical reality or technical -- unknown technical incident should result in a mistrial. >> now the judge says he is not planning to rule on the mistrial motions until a verdict is reached. the rittenhouse family says the second motion for mistrial only helps their case. >> the mood is very optimistic. i mean, what we saw today out of the prosecution was disgusting violation of kyle's due process rights. >> outside of the courthouse tensions running high. clashes between protestors on both sides ending with police
taking two people into custody there. this man who has been arguing with protestors walking around with a ar-15 questioned by investigators before he put the gun away. both sides gathered on the courthouse steps in kenosha. some flew in from out of state to be here for the verdict. >> i've been wanting to be here for a long time. i let stupid excuses keep me from coming and defending the rittenhouse family. >> most people live here most people think kyle is innocent. i'm not in the majority. >> i'm afraid of more arson and looting and more violence. that's a big concern. >> right now in kenosha the local and state resources remain on stand by, 500 national guardsmen based outside of kenosha in case. as you saw from the video things can get tense quickly here. they are staying on stand by in case they are needed. the jurors will be heading back
into the courthouse in kenosha momentarily. >> bill: back with you with developments in kenosha. >> on capitol hill house members are scheduled to begin the debate over president biden's massive multi-trillion dollar social spending bill. moderate democrats who aren't fully on board without more information from the cbo, congressional budget office. three scoring this as we say and waiting to tell everybody how much they believe it will cost. it is hard to tell what actually they are scoring at this point. let's bring in karl rove former white house deputy chief of staff and fox news contributor. great to have you with us this morning. good morning to you. your thoughts as they continue this process and try to hammer this thing out with or without a cbo score. >> well, look, first of all this hasn't been done in the normal process. we have not taken this measure through committees. we have not had votes. we have not discussed it or looked at it. it is a rush 2,185 page
document and rushing to get it through the house without even a cbo score. even if we get the cbo score we know this, the bill is filled with gimmicks. it has 10 years of revenue to pay for programs that are sun seted after three years, five years or six years which is never going to happen. these programs are designed to be permanent. it's based oh than a big lie. 10 years of revenue, less than 10 years of activity and some way it's not going to cost us anything, baloney. >> president bidden's pitch, >> the policies i propose, quote, help lift long term economic growth by stronger productivity, labor force growth as well as taking the edge off inflation. >> that's the argument at this point. if you pass build back better
you will east inflationary pressures by putting more money in people's pockets on the other end. >> well first of all, if the way that we could make prosperity wider and bigger in the country is to spend more money why are we stopping at 1 trillion 750 billion. if we spend our way to it spend more. this is based on a fraud. it's an expansion of the welfare state not the prosperity state. expansion of the government giving money to favored groups and not a situation where it will be growing the cone me. can i give you a couple of examples of some of the things baked in there? trial lawyers. big funders of the democratic party. there is a special provision in there that says they can deduct expenses and contingency lawsuits when expenses are incurred instead today you can only deduct those if you lose the lawsuit. it makes it easier to finance
contingency lawsuits. a giveaway to one of the biggest funders of the democratic party and make it easier for you to file frivolous lawsuits saying you can write off out-of-pocket expenses with other contractors and so forth and pay us back if you win the lawsuit. auto unions, you get a 7500 credit to buy an electric vehicle. most people who buy electric vehicles are wealthy people because these cars cost 75,000 and 80,000, but we'll give them $7500 out of the pockets of american taxpayers. however, if you're a union plant you get an extra 4500, why? auto unions are big funders of the democratic party. this bill is stuffed with special interest provisions like that. >> bill: rich stuff. i don't know if it goes through at the house at the moment. quickly by the way, if they go forward we would be at 9 trillion over the last 18 months in government spending. blows the mind. can i goat this?
-- get to this. the mid-term messaging mistake. democrats' problem is what they're selling. it's a reference to sean patrick maloney from upstate new york. make your point, carl. >> the chairman of the democratic congressional campaign committee. he says all the spending will bring us victory in 2022 and it is baloney. "wall street journal" nbc poll in october. which party is better on the issue of the economy? republicans 45, democrats 27. who is better controlling inflation? we're seeing that at the grocery and gas pump. republicans 45, democrats 21. crime, who is better? republicans 43, democrats 21. the author of the poll pointed out this is the biggest advantage for the republican party since these questions began being asked over 30 years. so the democrats are blowing smoke at us if they think blowing smoke at themselves if they think the answer to this
coming election is spend more of the people's money because it will give us victory at the polls. not going to happen. >> bill: more to come. nice to see you. add to that poll this morning. joe biden hit his lowest approval rating yet at 36% for that national poll. >> as carl points out in the piece he thinks democrats need to do 1,000 events. the president wants him to do 25 events because he is convinced it's just that the message isn't getting out in the proper way on these bills so we'll see how that goes. a lot of times. >> bill: 55 miles north of manchester new hampshire, yesterday. they went along. >> there is snow there on the bridge. >> bill: two things. jen psaki on the president not taking questions from the media entirely dismisses this idea. watch. >> i think it is more an issue related to the white house press corps as it is their job
to be and d.c. press than it is as a concern to the american public. it is not accurate to suggest he isn't accessible or doesn't answer questions. >> bill: it is a fact we want to ask questions every day and also a fact the president of the united states would hold a big news conference in the east room of the white house and not done yet. >> why not do the kind of thing president trump did all the time. fire off 10 or 12 questions ton way to marine one. a great way for americans to see what the president is thinking. why not do that in a more loose conversational way throughout the day? >> bill: here and there but not often. vice president kamala harris has been under a lot of fire this week. couple agencies writing a few pieces about her. she felt clearly that she had to come out and defend herself. she did that on abc this morning. >> we're getting things done and we're doing it together. >> you don't feel misused or under used. >> no, i don't. i'm very, very excited about
the work that we have accomplished but i am also absolutely, absolutely clear eyed that there is a lot more to do and we're going to get it done. >> bill: she will have to speak a lot more than she has. she is at 28% approval. it's a deep hole. >> provoked all kinds of conversations about her future and 2024 and all of this. so yes, she has some work to do on getting those numbers up. >> bill: so do we if you can tell already. here we go fox news alert. a likely fiery nomination hearing beginning a few moments from now. president biden's controversial pick to lead one of the top bank regulators. her history is something else. police report revealing she had a previous arrest for retail theft but just scratching the surface about her background. >> good morning. the problem for the white house is that it's not just
republicans raising concerns about this nomination, some moderate democrats are concerned as well. so saule omarova is her name. cornell law professor in charge of regulating our federal banking system. now criminal background check obtained by fox news found she was arrested back in the 90s for retail theft. that misdemeanor was later dropped. the white house has come to her defense saying she has been fully transparent about this incident throughout her entire career. republicans are also raising red flags about her time studying at moscow state university in the 80s. here is a picture from her there. she had a scholarship named after len-in and wrote papers about carl marx. her criticism about the banking system. cryptocurrency and fossil fuel companies is creating waves. she was filmed calling coal, oil and gas quote troubled
industries. later adding that we want them to go bankrupt even -- if we want to tackle climate change, right? >> this just reflects the massive bait and switch that america undertook in 2020. biden campaigned as a moderate but put forth radical people. >> they say they're engaged in desperate scare tactics. in a 50/50 senate it only takes one democrat to sink the nomination. senator john tester said he has some concerns. >> my guess is coming out of the committee, at best it will be 50/50. they will have to discharge her out of committee to get her to the floor. i hope there will be one discerning democrat on the committee to defeat that nomination there. >> in her opening statement coming up in a couple of minutes omarova is expected to talk about the values she was raised in and how she is an
advocate of community banking but should be prepared for tough questioning. >> bill: sounds like the republican senators will go after her on her record. aishah hosni on the hill. >> i will give you one warning and then we will have to escort you out. we'll move on so i will ask the officers to go ahead. >> oh boy, two texas fathers reportedly arrested after speaking out against officials at a school board meeting. ohio republican congressman jim jordan joins us with his reaction to that. >> bill: border patrol saying it seized more than 11,000 pounds of fentanyl in the fiscal year 2021, more than double last year's amount and resulted in suicides and overdoses all over america. it's coming up here, plus this. >> got it. >> roger. >> what is that thing floating
in the middle of the screen in that's a very good question. the senate considering establishing a permanent office within the pentagon to study those ufos. we'll explain coming up. ♪♪♪ veteran homeowners. you made a smart move when you bought your home. now make another one and turn your equity into cash with your va home loan benefit. the newday 100 va loan lets you borrow 100% of your home's value. remodel the kitchen, consolidate debt, pay off big bills or save for retirement. newday is holding the line on rates. with today's high home values, turning equity into cash is a really smart move. serena: it's my 3:10 no-exit-in-sight migraine medicine.
it's ubrelvy. for anytime, anywhere migraine strikes, without worrying if it's too late, or where i am. one dose can quickly stop my migraine in its tracks within two hours. unlike older medicines, ubrelvy is a pill that directly blocks cgrp protein, believed to be a cause of migraine. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. most common side effects were nausea and tiredness. serena: ask about ubrelvy. the anytime, anywhere migraine medicine. i brought in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks! (sighs wearily) here i'll take that! (excited yell) woo-hoo! ensure max protein. with thirty grams of protein, one gram of sugar, and nutrients to support immune health. what's strong with me? what's strong with me? what's strong with me? what's strong with me? what's strong with me? me? with me! bogeys on your six, limu. they need customized car insurance
from liberty mutual so they only pay for what they need. woooooooooooooo... we are not getting you a helicopter. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ ♪ 'tis the season to break tradition in a cadillac. don't just put on a light show—be the light show. make your nights anything but silent. and ride in a sleigh that really slays. because in a cadillac, tradition is yours to define. so visit a cadillac showroom, and start celebrating today. ♪ ♪
this is elodia. she's a recording artist. so visit a cadillac showroom, and start celebrating today. 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.
take a look. "new york post" cover. the war on warents. arrested profiled by feds and cops for caring about their children's schools. want to bring in ohio republican jim jordan. good morning. house judiciary committee ranking member and author of the book "do what you said you would do." thank you for your time today. there is a letter that's been drafted apparently by the whistleblower. not made public. it has been shared with some members of the media. we have not seen it. can you characterize the tenor of that letter by the whistleblower? >> the whistleblower talks about what is in the email that went out to the f.b.i. agents around the country telling them to put together this threat tag. put this label, this terrorist tag on parents. and this email, bill, went out the day before merrick garland came in front of our committee saying nothing of the sort is going on. he tells us that, testifies to that, tells the american people that at the same time just 24
hours earlier this email had been sent out. the whistleblower walks through some of that in his letter but it is just giving his belief about what this email tells f.b.i. agents to do. >> bill: on that specific letter has the f.b.i. or anybody responded to those claims? >> well, we had peter strock saying yesterday, no longer with the f.b.i. thank goodness. he said this is normal. this is how this works. threat tags. which should scare us when peter struck, the guy who did the activities he did in the trump/russia invest is calling this normal putting on the label. what is the number? how many americans, how many parents, how many moms, how many dads now have this tag, this label put on their name? do these two guys in texas, does clay travis who showed up at a school board meeting and spoke out against policies at
his children's school? that's the part that's most troubling. and why we need -- we ask chairman nadler yesterday when will you bring back the attorney general to answer questions. after all, it sure looks like he misled the american people when he gave the answer that he did. >> bill: two things here you mentioned merrick garland. here is testimony from three weeks ago, october 21. >> i can't imagine any circumstance in which the patriot act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children nor can i imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorists. >> bill: can you dispute that? >> as he made that statement the counter terrorism division at the f.b.i. was sendsing an email to f.b.i. agents around the country saying put a threat tag on parents' names. so that directly contradicts it. he can't imagine using the patriot act. why was it the counter terrorism division at the f.b.i. who sent this email out to f.b.i. agents?
he has a lot of questions to answer. >> bill: fair point. here is what the f.b.i. said about the threat tag phrase you used. a tag is merely a statistical tool to track information for review and reporting. it doesn't change a longstanding requirement or representing a shift in how the f.b.i. prioritizes threats. i'm saying that's pretty much of a nothing there. >> you have to take it in context, too. bill. remember, we had the school board association, left wing political group send a letter to the white house and coordinating with the white house prior to sendsing the letter asking joe biden to involve the f.b.i. and using the patriot act to spy on parents or to look into parents at school board meetings. five days later after that letter is sent merrick garland does exactly what the association asked for. what happened the day after he testified in front of our committee and we talked about this? the school board association apologized and withdrew their letter. why won't merrick garland do the same thing?
he needs to stop this in its track. he needs to stop tracking parents with whatever they'll call it. stop tracking parents and stop giving them this label. this is what needs to happen. the american people understand it for what it is. >> bill: we would like to see the letter. when it's available we'll look at it. jim jordan. good luck on the book. thank you for coming in. >> martha: let's go to this live. the trial in the death of aubry. travis mcmichael fired the shots that killed from arbery. now this is the man who fired the shots. let's watch. >> actually only half the definition, isn't it? >> that's what i was taught in my training that definition right there. >> so isn't it correct that -- let me ask it this way. didn't you learn from your training you need two parts? >> reasonable suspicion first
and then probable cause. >> so is it through your training you need two parts of probable cause. that a crime has been committed and the person you are arresting is the one who committed the crime. >> that would be correct. >> all right. but you left out the second part that you actually have to have probable cause the person you are arresting is actually the one committing the crime. >> that makes sense. that was the person that i assumed that was committing the crime. that was the probable cause was him. >> you assumed he was the one
committing the crime. >> yes. >> all right. you would agree that as law enforcement, when you were there in the military as a boarding officer, that even if you know a crime is committed, when you have several suspects, you can't just go and arrest the first suspect. you need evidence that that person is the one who committed that crime, correct? >> that's correct. and i believe i had it with the videos that i have seen with mr. arbery being the one that had been there multiple times and what i witnessed on the 11th with him sneaking through those yards -- through that yard and then the way that he reacted to me when i put the lights on him, reacted like he was going for a gun and then went into that house after we had our altercation and then
mr. -- being there that same evening and verified on the video the same guy he seen and then seeing him pointing down the road led to probable cause and saying it was the same individual was the probable cause it is the same guy that has been in that house that breaking into and stuff. so overall totality of everything led me to go down there and see if that was him. >> it led you to go see if that was him? >> yes. >> the guy you saw on the 11th. >> correct. >> all right. you used the word totality of
the circumstance a whole bunch haven't you? >> i guess. >> all right. let's go ahead and back up for a second. you had your gun stolen, correct, on january 1, 2020. >> yes ma'am. >> and you had a suspect in mind for that theft of that gun, correct? >> yes. when i got the videos from looking through there was a truck that came through that i haven't seen in the neighborhood before. and after looking at the truck i thought it might have been some teenagers i would see in that part of the county. it turned out it was a neighbor on the other side down as far as i went with that. >> who is david -- >> i have no idea. >> really? he is not a facebook friend of yours? >> not that i believe. >> will it help to refresh your
>> take a look at the yellow highlighted part. >> bill: all right. >> it must have been on the neighborhood page. i do remember the message now and i believe he must have saw it on the neighborhood facebook page. >> all right. so on january 1st he says he is sorry about your gun being stolen out of your car, is that right? >> yes. >> and then you indicated you had a pretty good feeling about who stole it. >> yes, ma'am. >> you found out where he lived and you had been watching him for several days. >> yes. >> it was not mr. arbery.
>> no, that was the truck i was telling you about. >> you indicated this may be the same individual who has been causing trouble in the neighborhood. >> yes ma'am. >> all right. that's not mr. arbery >> no, ma'am. >> so why in your written statement two hours after the homicide you put down the very first sentence on january 1 of 2020 approximately between 9 and 10:30 i had my truck broken into and my gun stolen out of my truck. >> because i was aware of burglaries and vehicles being broken into in the neighborhood and then on top of seeing what i saw on the 11th, that there were things being broken into. i was under concern that mr. arbery could be a suspect in the this or could not be. like i said prior he is the one i had seen and the one that had
been in that house several times. of course i'm thinking he is a suspect. i don't know if it was him or the other people that they seen or i heard about. >> so you have -- you don't know who stole your gun. there was no cause to arrest mr. arbery for stealing your gun. >> no, ma'am. >> you also didn't know who had stolen the items out of the boat, mr. english's boat, did you?
>> no, but i had the probability of who was doing that was the one who continued to go into this house that has been caught in this house several times, which was mr. arbery. >> you had no evidence he ever taken anything off of mr. english's boat. >> other than that there has been stuff stolen out of that house and that he has been in that house several times. >> so you have stolen items on the boat and you got that from your mom. >> yes. >> and then you got him inside the construction site, right? >> yes ma'am. >> and at the point in time on february 23rd you knew about --
[inaudible] >> yes. >> november 18th. and february 11th. >> yes. >> a white couple had gone in on november 17th, right? >> i did. >> you said there was a shady looking guy under the bridge, correct? >> i did. >> and you also suspected this guy in the neighborhood with the truck that might have stolen your handgun -- [inaudible] >> for a couple of days.
it was not a person that had the truck. i thought it was a different truck but that's not. >> is that rob way? >> i don't know who that is >> she didn't tell you she suspected rob way in the neighborhood as being the one who stole the purse out of her car january 30th? >> not that i recall. >> and you are telling this jury that your mother never told you that larry england suspected his contractors? >> no, ma'am. >> all right. so about february 11th, i want to make sure you're up to date. yesterday when you testified, did you testify that mr. arbery came toward you and started lifting up his shirt? >> yes, ma'am. >> you never said that before
car to ask him what he was doing. >> this is the written statement? >> correct. >> and he turned toward my vehicle and reached into his pants which led me to think that he may have a weapon. >> yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] >> no. >> and then you indicated i immediately put my car in reverse and the individual went into the house under construction, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and that was -- [inaudible] oh.
>> not at that time, no. >> wearing a big long t-shirt, isn't he? >> yes. >> and shorts cut off at the knees. >> i think they were cargo shorts. >> he has running shoes on. >> i can't tell. >> can you see the logo swoosh in the reflection? >> no, ma'am. >> see it then? that was state's exhibit 117 that i just published.
now that particular evening you've seen this body cam video of officer rash, is that correct? >> yes ma'am. >> officer rash told you and told your father that larry english said mr. arbery had never taken or stolen anything from the open, unsecured construction site, is that correct? >> my understanding never saw him taking anything from there, yes ma'am, never saw anything taken. >> larry english had never actually had anything stolen from the open unsecured construction site >> yes, he had stuff stolen out of his boat. that was inside that house, yes ma'am. >> but you didn't investigate that crime as a law enforcement officers because you weren't a law enforcement officer, were you? >> that's correct. >> and your father wasn't either? >> he was not. >> so you're basing your probable cause on something that was rumor that your mother
told you about things stolen. >> i was basing it on the 11th of seeing him in there again and hearing that stuff was stolen off that boat and hearing it from the other neighbors and then from seeing on the 11th. so yes, it happened and then seeing him come in multiple times and then everything that followed up on the 23rd, yes, that's -- >> you were here mr. officer rash testified, right? >> i was. >> you heard officer rash under cross examination answer the defense attorney's questions about if mr. larry english had filed a police report about items stolen off his boat, correct? >> yes. >> and he said the officer was assigned to investigate it, right? >> yes. >> that means interviewing layer english, correct? >> yes. >> an officer would have found
out that the boat had been moved back and forth to douglas, correct? >> objection, speculation. she is asking him to assume what officer rash would have done had he been asked to make a report about thefts by larry english and then how he would follow up on that. it is all speculation on the witness's part. >> what rash would have done, that's sustained. >> i'll ask a better question, your honor. on cross examination do you remember officer rash testifying that the officer assigned if mr. english had filed a report would have investigated that. >> yes. >> and that officer rash, you heard him testify, that would have included interviewing larry english, correct? >> yes. >> you heard larry english testify the boat had been moved back and forth between douglas, correct.
he knew it, he moved the boat back and forth, right? >> you talking about rash or >> i object. what he heard people testify in court if he didn't know of his own personal knowledge on a particular date. hearing what people later come and testify about in court is asking him to comment on the testimony before the jury and it doesn't seem to be a relevant inquiry. what he did and what he knew at those particular times surely, but what they testify about in court and how that may change his thoughts about the past doesn't appear to be relevant. >> it's overruled. go ahead. >> and you heard larry english testify that he suspected his stepson, yes? >> that larry english suspected his subcontractor had stolen the items off his boat.
you heard you him testify he told that to officer rash and officer rash said he told that to your father. >> yes. >> all right. so let's go ahead and talk about what was happening on february 23rd, 2020. you first saw -- you personally first saw arbery as he was running ahead of you on the street. >> that's correct. >> you were driving behind him in the white f-150 pickup truck. >> yes, ma'am. >> and at that time when you first saw him he didn't have a bag, did he? >> no ma'am. >> didn't have ooh backpack? >> he did not.
>> wasn't carrying a box. >> wants. >> you could see his hands as he ran. >> yes. and you could see he was wearing the cargo shorts and t-shirt. >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. >> and you didn't know who he was. >> i didn't know him personally, no ma'am. >> you didn't know his name or nothing about him. >> nothing. >> he didn't know you. >> not that i'm aware of. >> you just knew that he was a guy who was on video at the open unsecured construction site. >> that i saw on the 11th. >> and at this point in time when you first see him on the street you saw his hand in his pocket. >> no ma'am. >> he never yelled at you guys. >> no. >> never threatened you at all. >> no, ma'am. >> never brandished any weapons.
>> he did not threaten me verbally, no, ma'am. >> didn't brandish any weapons. >> no ma'am. >> didn't pull out any guns or knives. >> no ma'am. >> never reached for anything, did he? >> know. >> he was just running. >> at this point in time you catch up to him on the street by pulling up next to him, is that right? >> pulling alongside keeping with my window right there i did. >> as he is running down the street, he is on this side of the road or on that side of the road looking at on coming traffic. >> on the side for on coming traffic. >> you pulled next to him, is that right? you startled him. >> no. >> are you a mind reader? >> i'm not but i could see his actions the way -- he didn't
veer or run off. i came up to him slowly like i would anybody else. i never startled anybody doing that before anybody walking, jogging or running i've never had anybody become startled on that. >> sorry, how many times have you pulled up on strangers that you don't know next to them with a pickup truck to ask them what they're doing in your neighborhood? >> i don't think i have in that situation but i have pulled up on people that are running behind coming up behind them. but i mean if you could be startled with somebody coming up behind you is one thing or another you can tell if somebody is but i didn't startle him. i didn't come up on him hard or fast or blowing the horn or anything. i pulled alongside him on my side of the road right at the yellow line and once he acknowledged me and saw i was there is when i came a little
closer and stayed with him. >> so he is running. you pull up. he looks at you and you say to him what. i say what's going on. hold on a second. >> and he didn't say anything back to you? >> no ma'am. >> he just kept running. >> he stopped and turned and went backwards. that was the first time that was the one call on mr. -- video was -- [inaudible] >> so hold on. you pulled next to him, he stopped and he turns and starts running this way back down the street. and then you backed up, is that right? >> i did. >> you backed up the truck to follow him and at some point in time what do you say to him?
>> i'm asking him what are you doing? what's going on? what happened down there? why is there -- i asked him why somebody pointed down the road as i'm talking that's when he turned and runs back down the street. >> so now you are asking him why is somebody pointing down the road? >> that's what i was trying to get to. why there are people pointing down the road. >> all right. i'm not asking for generalities and what is in your head i want to know exactly what you were saying to the man jogging down the street, do you understand? >> yes. >> what did you say to him the first time you pulled up to him? >> i want to talk to you. >> and he turned around. >> he stopped. he turned and then went the other direction. >> and that was an indication to you he didn't want to talk to you? >> yes. >> it was an indication he was not going to talk to you.
>> yes. >> okay. and at that point in time you chose to put your truck in reverse and back up at him. >> back up along with him. >> so he is trying to get away from you, doesn't want to stop or talk and you are backing up to go along with him. >> that's correct. >> and at some point in time, then, he turns to run up the street, right? >> yes. i asked him again, asked him i wanted to talk to him and find out -- i don't know exactly what i said but the fact i want to talk to him and what happened down the road. >> at this point in time you aren't wearing any sort of uniform or not in a marked
patrol card or don't have any badges on your sleeve. >> i do not. >> and you told the police you were talking to him about -- let me try to get this right. do you remember telling the police i pulled up to him and said hey, you know, what's going on? he is running. he won't stop. i said stop right there i'm at the bottom of page 8. top of page 9. stop right there, stop where you're at. do you remember telling the police that's what you said? >> that's what's on here, yes, ma'am.
you want me to read it? >> i'm asking you if that's what you said. you said what's going on. he won't say. i said stop right there, stop where you're at. >> that was part of it. >> at this point you are ordering him to stop. is that correct? >> i wouldn't say ordering. i was asking him. >> nicely and politely please, sir, stop? >> at first. it was hey, could you stop? stop for a second, stop for a second. my voice inflection and tony was trying to stay -- trying to keep the situation calm. >> and this is at the time that he has already decided he doesn't want anything to do with you and run back down the street.
could have just stopped, right? >> i could have. >> you could have just let him run, correct? >> i could have. but i also wanted to make sure that everything was okay down the road and see what has happening. i wanted to ask him what was happening and what he would say. >> despite the fact you know about the fifth amendment and you know that no one has to talk to anyone they don't want to talk to, right? >> that's correct. >> and you said that you wanted to know what happened and that you saw a man in the street when you came out from the shotgun from your house, is that right? you didn't go down and ask him what was going on, did you? >> i did not. >> at one point in time you thought maybe someone had been hurt or something broken into or maybe larry english was down
there, right? but you didn't head that way to see what exactly had happened, did you? >> i did not because he was pointing down the road. i took it as whatever happened you need to go that way. you need to go that way. something has happened. i didn't try to ask him to see what happened, what happened. >> something had happened. >> something had happened. >> all right so at this point right here where he is running, you are still yelling at him to stop, i want to talk to you, stop. >> once i watched him run and saw him again is when i engaged with him again. >> going all the way down the street. >> no only 100 or 200 feet.
there was a wooded area right where i spoke to him again. >> all right. let's take a look at this. which it would be -- we're looking at on the board is going to be state's exhibit 300. taking a look at the state's exhibit 300. i'm going to go ahead and publish it up there so you can see it. >> okay.
>> can you see that on the screen? >> yes, ma'am. >> so at the bryant house you said you went down here and there was a wooded area. is it fair to say that wooded area is right in here? >> yes, it is right at the corner of that house right there, the last open area. >> right here. >> no, ma'am, right there, yes. >> all right. so you chased him down here and at this point in time you cut him off. >> no, ma'am. i'm alongside him and asked him to stop, i wanted to talk to him. after i asked him i want to talk to you. i want to talk to you, hold on a second is when he finally stopped and i thought now we can talk and see what's going
on. the cops are coming after he didn't respond to me or talk to me i said hey, the police are coming, state right here. that's when he turned and ran the other direction. >> you would agree with me when you say you never, ever told the police department or in a written statement that you said to mr. arbery the police are coming. >> i don't know if i did or not. if that's not on there i didn't say it. but i could have missed it from everything that was happening two hours later i might have missed it but i assumed they knew that. i was still under impression my dad called the police and i'm under the impression the cops are coming.
>> take a look at page number 9 again, the last paragraph. in your statement to detective, only a couple hours after the homicide of arbery, you basically say he goes around the corner, comes back. something is not right here, i tell him to stop, tell him to stop, grab the gun out of the truck. i say hey, stop, stop, stop. he runs back and you call 911 yet? find my phone, call, give it to my dad, said call the cops. let's get the cops. that was only after you grabbed your shotgun out of the truck at the corner of the street that you say hey, let's call the cops and you hand the phone to your dad to call the cops. >> that's when i found out that he did not call the police.
when i realized that he had not called the police. and then -- >> also on page 9 you never indicated that mr. arbery actually stopped long enough for you to have a conversation with him, is that correct, at the top of page 9? >> yes, i do. i said he is running. he won't stop. i say that's him, stop right there. stop right where you're at. call the cops. i told him that i called the cops. there he is, he starts acting funny and then he takes off running.
so he was stopped. he takes off running, then he was stopped at a point. >> do you remember yesterday telling this jury that's what you said to your dad, call the cops, you know, there he is? you remember telling the jury just yesterday that's what you said to your dad. call the cops, there he is. he starts acting funny and he takes off runny. i believe i said had he called the cops yet. what i mentioned to the police in the interview here. reading this and knowing hough i was all over the place when i was giving that statement, this is what i was talking about. it is what i believe what i was talking about. >> you agree nowhere do you say mr. arbery actually stopped. you said stop right there, stop where you're at and he takes off running. >> he takes off running. >> so nowhere in here do you indicate to detective that he stopped long enough for you to say the police are on their way and that's why he took off
running. nowhere in your statement is that indicated. >> in those terms saying it in that verbatim i did not. but looking at this and how i was still under stress, still under the impact of what happened a couple hours after this just two hours after the shooting, and seeing how i was talking, under stress, nervous, scared, i know what i was talking about here and that's what i was talking about. call the cops, stop where you're at, call the cops. i'm probably choppy trying to talk to him being nervous and saying that. i was saying this to mr. arbery and he takes off running. if you are running, he takes off running. i think that's what i was talking about there. >> what were you nervous about? while giving a statement? >> i just killed a man. i had blood on me still.
i was the most traumatic event of my life. i was scared to death. it was the most traumatic event of my life. i don't know anybody who wouldn't be scared, stressed, terrified, anything. it was horrible. >> i'm talking about giving your statement two hours later at a police statement. you were nervous because you thought you were going to jail, right? >> no. i gave them a statement. if i would have -- >> did you think you were going to jail is what you think? >> i was going through an investigation. i was following the investigation. >> so you -- you saw the body cam. his body cam. you were standing right behind the officer with all that went on, right? >> i guess, yes, ma'am. >> okay. so you just shot mr. arbery three times with a shotgun, correct? >> correct. >> he is dead on the scene, correct?
>> correct. >> he is unarmed, correct? >> he was. >> all right. and your father came up to you and grabbed you by the shoulders and went you had no choice, you had no choice, right, you saw that? >> yes. >> all right. you are covered in mr. arbery's blood. you go down to the police station, correct? >> right. >> all right. and at that point you are in the safety of the police department giving your statement, correct? >> yes. >> all right. you got all the time in the world, correct? >> yes. >> all right. and detective hasn't threatened you. >> no. >> hasn't forced you to make a
statement. >> he did not. >> and didn't promise you anything nor give you any statements. >> no. >> he did not. >> okay. but you are telling this jury that you are all confused and you can't get the facts straight as you are telling the police about why it was you shot and killed a man. >> i was trying with my best ability but like i said under the circumstances of going through traumatic event, the most traumatic event i've ever been through in my life. i don't know how -- i've never been through a situation like that so the reaction trying to go through and trying to be as factual to tell it and detailed
as i could, i didn't look at the transcript being scattered as it was i could tell that obviously i failed attempting to try the best i could. this is what you got. i tried and this is what happened. >> so fair to say you never told the detective nor wrote in your written statement that you told mr. arbery the police were on the way. >> it seems that i attempted to say it in these words here. >> and at that point mr. arbery turns around and runs back down the street to get away from you, correct? >> that's correct. >> so at this point in time he is running away from you. he has not threatened you. >> no. >> hasn't pulled out a gun. >> no ma'am. >> hasn't pulled out a knife. >> he did not. >> still arms at his side. >> that's correct. >> and he is trying to get away from you. >> and i was letting him run
away, yes, ma'am. >> you were letting him run away. >> that's correct. >> wasn't it your intention to go around the block and cut him off and find him over on the other side? >> no head him off and to see where he is located. that was my intention, yes ma'am. >> but you could have stopped right there and not done anything, right? >> yes, but then immediately after is when i saw his interaction with a black truck and realized that there is something to my suspicions here and i would like to see where he is at when the cops come, which i assumed the police were on the way that i would be able to tell them where he is at if they hadn't located him at that point. >> your whole intention was to go ahead and follow mr. arbery to keep an eye on him and to just tell the cops there he is.
>> at that point, yes ma'am. >> now, it's true that your father was in the truck with you going down the street toward that end was yelling at you cut him off, cut him off, right? >> he was talking to me. i don't know if he was saying cut him off. he said there he is, that's the guy. after that i'm not sure exactly what he said. >> at this point, you are still yelling at mr. arbery to stop at the end of the street. >> i was not yelling at him then, no, ma'am. >> and at the end of the street you and your dad both got out of the pickup truck, correct? >> when he turned and started running down the street when he was not a threat. if he was -- if he wanted to be
a threat he was long past that. i got out of the truck, yes, ma'am. he turned and ran, running away is when i got out of the vehicle. >> why would mr. arbery be afraid of you? >> because of when i was asking -- i asked him what was going on and recognized it was the guy that i saw on the 11th and mr. arbery was pointing everything going down i realized it was him and how he reacted when i shined the lights on him on the 11th, he acted like he did not want to be -- he was caught sneaking through the front yard. he have wasn't where he was supposed to be where he was several times and he reaches into his pants and i took that as a threatening gesture. that was the same guy on the 23rd that i just pulled up to that turned out my father was correct, people pointed down the road saying it happened 12 days prior that there was a
possibility that he may be armed with that gesture but he didn't show me that and started running down the road. i was no longer under a threat if there was to be one so i got out of the vehicle after my father got out of the vehicle to see what was going on and watch him. >> so when you first pulled up to him the very first time, you confirmed it was him, right? >> yes, ma'am. >> you testified under oath to this jury that i won't investigate someone who was armed, right? >> that's correct. >> you want this jury to believe that he was a threat to him and perceived him as a threat and continued to chase him down the street. >> i didn't know if he was a threat or not. i figured i could talk to him and get up to him at this point. >> at this point hadn't he
demonstrated three times he did not want to talk to you. >> when i stopped? >> right. you pulled up to him once. he doesn't want to talk to you. you back up. he doesn't want to talk to you. you pull down the street. your dad is yelling cut him off. three times he has demonstrated to you he doesn't want to talk to you, correct? >> y. >> also demonstrated he is no threat to you. he hasn't pulled out a gun or said one word to you. not threatened you in any way verbally or physically. >> no, ma'am. >> no knives. >> no knives. >> all right. not swearing at you. using profanity or anything like that. >> didn't talk. >> at this point you get out of the truck, correct? >> that's correct. >> you get out with your shotgun. >> no, i got out when my father got out and then my shotgun slipped and was in forward where my feet were all over it.
once i'm out of the vehicle it was safe i'm not going to reach wasn't going to grab it why mr. arbery was there. he is running off. no reason for it. i'm at the side of the truck. at that point i grabbed the shotgun out of the floor board and put it back on the seat. >> your dad gets out with his gun. >> i didn't see it. he didn't have it in his hand. >> he didn't have it in his hand running 10 yards down the road after mr. arbery. >> he didn't run down the road after mr. arbery. >> so -- at this point you see mr.
bryant pull out in his black gmc truck to try and run mr. arbery off the road. >> no, ma'am. i saw after i put the shotgun back onto the seat when it was on the floorboard and watching dad or talking to dad or trying to figure out what's going on, when i looked back down the road i didn't -- i don't know mr. bryant, didn't know where he lived and i didn't see him when i had the first encounter with mr. arbery. my assumption i was assuming from what i saw that he came from -- i thought at the very end of the road. more than likely seen the video the other day where the tree was closest to the street where it was almost on the road, i'm certain that's where i saw the encounter with them. it didn't look like he was
running off the road. mr. arbery i thought the vehicle was stopped and looked like arbery went to the left side and then to the right and then back to the left. it looked like he was engaging with that vehicle. >> so you are all the way down here. all the way down here. >> around there, yes, ma'am. >> and there all the way down here by time you look at them, is that what you are saying? >> by the time i noticed them, yes ma'am. >> okay. and you want this jury to believe that you thought mr. arbery was the one engaging in this black vehicle, not that the black vehicle was trying to hit him or run him off the road. >> object to the form of the question. you want this jury to believe. i think that's an improper form of the question. ask questions and answer but to
insinuate that he has some motive for the jury to believe is improper. >> cross examination. go ahead. >> thank you. you want this jury to believe that mr. arbery who is the aggressor with the black truck, not the black truck trying to run him off the road to help you. >> i didn't see the truck trying to run him off the road. i saw down there, i saw the vehicle look to be at a stop and mr. arbery was engaging the vehicle. >> and mr. arbery was able to get away from the black vehicle. >> he ran past the vehicle. >> and you wanted to go down there to see what was happening, correct? >> that's correct. >> you wanted to go around to cut him off. >> no, ma'am. i wanted to get around and see where he was at. not to cut him off. not the way you are saying cut him off. i wanted to see where he was at to be in the same area to let the police know where he was.
going through that. i'm not going back to him about the time the black truck that was at the scene and that's when he tried to stop it. >> yes. >> all right. so here you are telling the police the black truck at the scene was trying to stop mr. arbery. >> that's what i believed, yes. >> okay. that was right here in this corner just on the street probably half this intersection. so i turned and went this way. >> correct. >> all right. and then you came down and came around and came down holmes drive and he was right there. i said good, we'll probably have a chance to stop him now, correct? >> y. yes. >> all right. the black truck is right there. i was over here. hey, stop, stop. well, he is running up the road and i seen him coming. do you remember that? >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. so he came around an holmes and
you were a few houses down when you encountered mr. arbery and yelled again stop, stop. >> i think i had it wrong on here. like i said once i was bouncing back and forth trying to explain everything that happened that i misspoke on there. i don't know where i would say to stop, stop. came down, came around holmes drive. he was right there. i said good we'll have a chance to stop him now. black truck is right there. i was over here, stop, stop while he was running down the road and i seen him coming. that was at the end of holmes around the other side of the dogleg. >> you notice how it says right after it says which way is he running? you said he is coming up this way and where are you @ this time? i came around and turned off this road. i was about -- i'm not sure how far i was. i was a few houses down.
you were a few houses down when did you say hey stop, stop, a few houses down, correct? >> yeah on here that's correct. >> okay. and you also got out of your truck at that time a few houses down on holmes drive, correct? >> on here is what i said but i don't believe that's what happened. i don't believe -- i believe i misspoke or had it wrong or mixed up to when i stopped at the end of ho*efms. >> all right. you also wrote it down in your written statement. take a look at your written statement. it's about 2/3 of the way down. >> on page -- >> 2. i decided to continue down is
street and then go to holmes to see if he would be there, is that right? you see that line? >> yes. >> i made it halfway down, seen the individual turn and run back the way he came and then turn back toward me when the black gmc chevy turned onto the road. >> that's correct. that was at the end. >> i got out of my truck and told him to stop, which he didn't. i got back into my truck and stopped just short of the stop sign on holmes facing the other street. you had actually stopped, got out of your truck. told him to stop that he didn't. got back in your truck and then pulled down to holmes. >> that looking back after everything cooled off where i stopped and i don't recall if i got out or not. i think i had this mixed with the when i finally pulled up.
both times where i said i stopped and got out i was saying when i stopped and saw mr. arbery and the black truck coming at me we were on holmes just short of where this shooting occurred. i probably yelled stop at him but then once they passed me is when i pulled up a couple more feet and decided to stay where i was at. that's what i was speaking about here. >> isn't it true that at this point in time when you are a few houses down holmes you stopped, you get out, you yelled stop, stop, that's when your father yelled at him stop or i'll blow your fucking head off? >> i don't think so, no. >> you don't think so? you were standing right there and you heard your father say this, yes? >> i don't think i heard him say that, no. >> but you know that's what he
told the police he said. >> i've been in court and that's what i heard yes, ma'am. >> so at this point you are coming down holmes and you see there arbery coming toward you. >> he was in the middle of a turn. he was turning from -- he was on the right side of the road turning left in that apex is when i saw him there. the first time i saw him on holmes he was in the middle of the turn, turning back towards the other street. >> is that when video picked up? >> i don't think so, no, ma'am. >> so you are saying that you are coming down this way and he is running toward your truck. he is turning around and he runs back this way. you don't see the black truck at this point?
>> no, ma'am. >> all of a signed he is running back toward you and you see the black truck behind him? >> no, when i came around the dogleg the black truck and mr. arbery were together. the black truck came off the hill and heading towards me on holmes. >> but you are saying at this point you made it all the way down here? >> he was turning -- he was on the right side of the road turning left when i saw him he was in the middle of the turn and then he turned and was out of sight around that dogleg and i continued and once i got to the dogleg is when i saw him and mr. -- the black vehicle coming my way. >> and at that point he is pinned between the two vehicles. >> he was.
>> you get down to the end of here, having passed mr. arbery and the black truck? >> no, i was at a stop and they passed me. i let him run by and the vehicle pass me. i was stopped in the correct lane and saw them coming and that is when mr. arbery and the black truck were -- mr. arbery was running alongside the truck grabbing at the mirror and the door and then that's when they -- when they were coming in my lane is when they 134ri9. -smr*it. split. the black vehicle turned into his lane and following mr. arbery as they went around that dogleg. >> in order for you to get from here to here with them behind you, you had to have passed mr. arbery and the black pickup truck, correct? >> that's when they passed me
was back there was towards this street, yes, ma'am. >> [inaudible] >> we'll take a mid-morning recess. we'll take a 15-minute recess and then continue. >> bill: the last 90 minutes has been a bit of drama inside the courtroom. travis mcmichael on the stand trying to talk about the afternoon when arbery was apprehended and the shotgun went off. arbery is dead. three men are on trial.
steve, it is gripping at times. good morning there. >> bill, some very different pictures we're seeing of travis mcmichael who on the stand yesterday said he fired the three shotgun blasts that killed 25-year-old ahmad arbery in february of 2020. yesterday the defense tried to portray him as a concerned citizen. a highly trained member of the coast guard who knew the levels of the use of force. he said his goal was simply to see what was going on. there were a string of break-ins in the neighborhood and he was going to alert the police as to what might have happened when he was simply keeping an eye on arbery. today we're seeing an extremely different picture. the prosecution really going after mcmichael on the stand step-by-step meticulously laying out the different movements where it seems to show that arbery tried to leave, tried to run away at several points that in fact he
was being pursued by three men in two pickup trucks, two of those men armed and the father mcmichael shouting stop or i'll blow your expletive head off. a very dramatic testimony today. dramatic picture and two diametrically opposed portraits of the incident. >> bill: court should resume in 15 minutes. it occurred february 23, 2020 outside the city of brunswick in southeast georgia. >> martha: let's bring in jonna spilbor defense attorney. good to have you with us this morning. as we just heard from steve harrigan a very different picture which you would expect on the cross examination of travis mcmichael and it boils down to a couple of things, i think. whether or not mr. arbery was presenting any threat in this situation. and what was -- why or why not were the police called earlier to the situation and why did these individuals go on for all
of this back and forth without making sure that the police were on their way? >> i'm really struck, martha, by this case had legal similarities to the other case we've been following, rittenhouse. the question boils down to who had the superior right to self-defense. when you listen to this cross examination, which i think is an excellent cross examination, clearly ahmad arbery was not posing a threat. if he was not posing a threat, was this defendant, did he provoke it and bring about the need to defend himself as we know from rittenhouse detracts from your right to self-defense. this is really fascinating. when you listen to this cross examination it is as if this defendant was literally hunting down ahmad arbery trying to make a citizen arrest without any evidence that a crime was
at that moment afoot. it was really fascinating. >> martha: one of the things on mcmichael's side he was saying there are things going on in the neighborhood that we were concerned about. as neighbors it was established they had this facebook page. there were things that were taken from a boat that was behind a construction site, a house that there is a video of arbery walking through that house at a different point. so she is establishing that the contractor himself believed that it was an inside job based -- that was -- they took some things out of the boat. the boat might not have been at the site at this point. she also established we're looking at the video from february 23, 2020, of arbery before the shooting and she also pointed out in this can you see what he is wearing, loose t-shirt. does he appear to have a backpack or anything with him? he is wearing running shoes. what was your take on all of
that? >> look, even if -- let's say there were a string of robberies in the neighborhood and the neighbors want to get together and protect their neighborhood. that's all well and good. but unless a robbery is happening in front of their faces you can't hunt somebody down on your unfounded suspicion that he is the guy who may or may not have committed a robbery a week ago, a month ago and try to corner him and verntly end up shooting him because he is so afraid for his life that he grabs your weapon. what you do to protect your neighborhood in that case is you actually do call the police. here is a person who may or may not have committed a crime. come check it out. what you do, you go home. you get out of the way because you are not a cop. clearly this guy wanted to be one. >> >> bill: where do they go next when court resumes? >> i think the prosecutor will
bring him to the critical moment. the jury there will have to figure out who had the right of self-defense. the critical moment in the case. she is doing a fantastic job. right now it will be anybody's geese. -- this guy when he testifies doesn't sound like a monster but his actions, he didn't have any right or business chasing this person down. he should have left well enough alone, called the cops. that will resonate with the jury. that's common sense. >> bill: martha, we're watching kenosha where the jury started deliberations about 36 minutes ago there in wisconsin. >> martha: day three, jonna, as this gets underway. there has been a lot of discussion about a potential mistrial. that's what the defense would like to see based on the fact they were not given the highest resolution of the drone video. your thoughts where it stands now. >> this is a little surprising.
i'm actually surprised that the jury has been out this long. i am not surprised by multiple motions to dismiss. the defense has to do that whether they want to or not to preserve the record. what's most surprising thus far in this case is really i'm going to say it underhanded actions of the prosecutor in many respects. start evidence at the beginning when he was commenting on the fifth amendment right of this particular defendant and it continued right along to the very end when low and behold we didn't get the exact copy of the best copy of this drone video, critical drone video when you had it the entire time? come on. that's something you make movies out of. it's that egg greejous. -- egregious. the prosecution is never making many friends. they didn't have a great case. they still don't. the defense has pretty much done everything it should. what is taking this jury so long is anybody's guess but
that usually -- i can't make a prediction but usually doesn't bode well for a defendant when a jury takes this long to come to a decision. >> bill: you describe a pattern on behavior on behalf of the prosecution. they know the rules and what state law is. if you are right why would you do that? >> it's strategy. it is not an up and up strategy. perhaps this prosecutor knew the case was weak. perhaps this prosecutor knew -- not perhaps, he did know that he charged this case shortly after the incident, typically unheard of and knew he was kowtowing to the court of public opinion. that has no place in a court of law. the court of public opinion is never fact based. it is fear based and as we've seen, this jury needs to be secure in the fact that their verdict will be respected and that we aren't going to give the floor to the court of public opinion who will burn
down kenosha again if they don't like what happens inside a courtroom. if you don't like what happens inside a courtroom, blog your blogs and fly your flags and chant your chants but you don't get to destroy somebody else's property, somebody else's community because you don't like what is going on when you don't have the facts. >> martha: it's interesting you talked about the moment when arbery moved the gun away. he is being approached with a gun and puts his hand on it and it will become a big moment in this because was he trying to get the getaway, what we've heard in the rittenhouse case, or was he taking it to pull it away from him and use it himself? those are big questions in both of these cases. >> that moment in time is critical. in each of these cases. i think jurors will probably put themselves in those shoes. in other words, if you have are walking down the street minding your own business and somebody seems to be chasing you down and they have a gun, you will
want to protect yourself. jurors will have to make that decision in that critical moment in time. >> bill: thank you so much for your input on that. the last 24/36 hours has been the quality of this video that the prosecution had. they shared it with the defense. when it was shared it did not have the resolution that the state had. >> martha: he will not decide on a mistrial until after the verdict. it liberates this jury to do their work. >> if you look at them side-by-side there is a difference between what you would consider a high-quality video and something that was less. okay. we're back on all those cases in georgia, get to back to wisconsin. watching it together. meanwhile this story hit our inbox yesterday. drug overdose deaths in america hit an all time high impacting tens of thousands of families across the country. >> my daughter, my only child is gone.
and i'm thankful that i have my granddaughter. it is a little piece of her that keeps me going. >> bill: so much of this is fentanyl and it is coming across our border. how counterfeit pills are making the epidemic even worse. >> our streets are inundated with fentanyl spifsically when it comes to counterfeit pills. the pills that people think that are safe unfortunately many of them have a lethal dose. gold. your strategic advantage.
here comes the interception. oh...sh -shawn? yes. thank you. you're welcome. have a great day. if it's “that will leave a mark season,” it's walgreens season. your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire veteran homeowners, need a financial boost? the newday 100 va loan lets you borrow matching your job description. up to 100% of your home's value and take out up to $60,000 or more. give them a call.
veteran homeowners- with home values at all-time highs and rates at near all-time lows now's the time to do more with your home equity. veterans are calling newday at a record pace to take advantage of the newday 100 va loan. you can borrow up to 100% of your home's value to upgrade the kitchen, add a pool for the grandkids, or have the security of cash in the bank. with an average cash out amount of $60,000, you can do more.
inincrease in counterfeit prescription pills that actually contain fentanyl. bryan llenas is live with the details on this in our new york newsroom. >> drug overdose deaths are up 30% in the last year according to the cdc and the primary cause is the synthetic opioid fentanyl. the largest laboratory here in new york city where forensic chemists are inundated with fentanyl seizures, dea is warning fake prescription pills lailsed with fentanyl are flooding the u.s. more than 9.5 million counterfeit pills seized so far this year. a 430% increase compared to 2019. the fake pills are widely available and easy to purchase. the pills are made to look identical to popular pharmaceutical pills like vicodin and others. the dea showed us pills like these. on the left is oxy, on the right is fake oxy. the only difference is 40%, two
out of every five fact pills contain lethal dose of fentanyl. >> it's two milligrams, considered a lethal dose of fentanyl. two milligrams there. >> that's all you need to kill you? >> yes. >> most fentanyl originates in china and processed in mexico before coming here. it is replacing heroin as the drug of choice for cartels. fentanyl is cheaper to manufacture and more addictive. >> we are seeing fentanyl in cocaine. we're seeing fentanyl in methamphetamine as well. the question we must ask yourself is why fentanyl is so addictive? 50 to 70 times more potent. you can make money. after all, it is all about profit. >> the dea says cartels don't care about killing off
customers since the profit margins are so high. many deaths are accidental. only a chemist can tell if a drug has fentanyl in it. >> martha: awful. >> bill: more to that story and so many victims. show you something of better light. the patriot awards honoring everyday heroes across our country. great event last night in florida. the moments coming up next.
to be a thriver with metastatic breast cancer means asking for what we want. and need. and we need more time. so, we want kisqali. women are living longer than ever before with kisqali when taken with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer. kisqali is a pill that's significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant alone. kisqali can cause lung problems, or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death.
it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain, a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. avoid grapefruit during treatment. ask your doctor about living longer with kisqali.
veteran homeowners- you made a smart move when you bought your home. and a new seat at the table. now make another one and turn your equity into cash. with the newday 100 va loan you can take out up to $60,000 or more. veteran homeowners- with home values at all-time highs and rates at near all-time lows now's the time to do more with your home equity. veterans are calling newday at a record pace to take advantage of the newday 100 va loan. you can borrow up to 100% of your home's value to upgrade the kitchen, add a pool for the grandkids, or have the security of cash in the bank. with an average cash out amount of $60,000, you can do more.
>> president biden: the ride is bumpy, a new day and awful poll for biden. only 37% of americans now say the president is doing a good job. i mean that's a piling on of polls. more people say they want republicans now to take control in both chambers on the hill. plus republicans demanding new testimony from the nation's attorney general merrick garland.
exactly what are the details in those leaked documents about targeting concerned parents? senator lindsey graham, ari fleischer and more in "the faulkner focus" from washington, d.c. today top of the hour. >> martha: thank you, we look forward to that. exceptional americans were honored last night at the third annual patriot awards streamed live on fox nation. a look at some of the highlights from last night. ♪ the land of the free ♪ is >> please welcome to the stage our most valuable patriot. >> my father is an immigrant. i made a way for myself. i was taught to love my country. i'm here representing the usa. >> for all the men and women i served with over 20 years in afghanistan and the 13 that didn't come home. >> we love you and pray for you
every day. >> let's hear it for john gowdy. >> stand up for what you believe in. and fight for it. >> bill: so many great moments really. >> martha: you can't watch it without getting chills. >> bill: it gets better every year. >> martha: it really does. i hope everybody gets a chance to see it. if you didn't watch it last night watch the whole thing over. it needs to be seen across the country. it makes you feel good and tells these really important stories. >> bill: right about that. streaming on fox nation right now. think you might get a weekend showing this weekend late on sunday night here on the channel. we'll let you know when it comes our way. two men who for decades maintained their innocence in the 1965 assassination of civil rights leader malcolm x are set to be exonerated today. that decision comes after the case was recently reopened and david lee miller is outside the new york state supreme court in
lower manhattan with the story decades later. good morning. >> that's right. it took more than half a century but two men convicted in the assassination of malcolm x later today are expected to have their names cleared. 83-year-old mohammed and kalil islam tried to prove their innocence and behind bars. all three were members of the nation of islam. the group and malcolm x had a bitter falling out. the case was reopened after the a release of the documentary for nearly two decades manhattan d.a. reinvestigated the convictions and found the nypd and f.b.i. withheld crucial evidence that could have resulted in an acquittal. the assassination took place in 1965. witnesses had different accounts of the three men who
rushed the stage with firearms. the men's alibis that they were home should have made a difference at trial. >> these gentlemen had an explanation for why they weren't there and could not have committed this killing because they were not physically present. that was ignored. >> statement from one man said the events that brought us here should never have occurred. the events were a process that was -- the manhattan district attorney is expected to appear before a judge in just about three hours detime to ask that the convictions be vacated. still many questions about the case. likelihood will probably never be answered due to the passage of time. witnesses who have passed away as well as cloudy memories. bill.
>> bill: remarkable stuff. we'll watch it here from manhattan. we're remarking during this watching the trials with the video and cell phones and -- >> martha: heartbreaking. time can never be returned. unbelievable story. >> see you at 3:00 on the "the story". nice to have you back. see you tomorrow, everybody. harris live in d.c. begins right now. >> harris: we begin with the fox news alert. day three of deliberations in the kyle rittenhouse trial and the jury is deciding the fate of that 18-year-old defendant. the judge must now consider whether it should end in a mistrial all together. we're watching. i'm harris "the faulkner focus" live in our nation's capitol and you are in "the faulkner focus". a jury of seven women, five men will decide if kyle rittenhouse should be convicted for killing two men and injuring a third in kenosha, wisconsin last summer. he claims he acted in self-defense.