tv Don Lemon Tonight CNN November 10, 2021 11:00pm-12:00am PST
this is elodia. she's a recording artist. 1 of 10 million people that comcast has connected to affordable internet in the last 10 years. and this is emmanuel, a future recording artist, and one of the millions of students we're connecting throughout the next 10. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students, past... and present, can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities. thank you for watching. time for the big show don lemon tonight with its star d. lemon. >> these moments when the former president denied twice or
whatever, former, ex, we really don't know what is going to happen. this is unprecedented. we only have a few days until the documents have to be turned over. just tomorrow, right? and if they get as you were speaking to the expert there, this sort of quick injunction, temporary injunction just to sort of figure it out, it remains to be seen if that is even going to happen. we just have to watch. last night i wouldn't think, tonight i'd be reporting on the same breaking news as last night. >> you knew he was going to appeal. why did he go to the same judge when she just denied him the day before. two theories. one, they stink. two, they had to exhaust all remedies before appeal to the next level. you could argue either way. they obviously thought they needed to do this so they did. now the archives are supposed to deliver these things starting friday, the 12th. between now and then, that was the judge's reasoning. you got time. go to the d.c. circuit court and
get them to stay it. because i'm not changing my order. now they'll do that. they'll run over to the d.c. circuit court and try to get a stay, pausing this before they can appeal. will the appellate court do that? depend on the three judge panel you get. what they see underlying the appeal. they may want to take a look and give him a temporary stay. how much time will they give it? these fears about running out the clock, that would mean the mid-term elections. i do not see what is worthy of -- what do i know , talking to people who study the supreme court on the legal side not journalists they don't see what is in this for the supreme court. they don't understand what would be worthy of review. i don't think he can run out the clock. >> that is a question i have for experts that i have. >> i just answered it.
>> i have got some experts coming up right now. but again, the only thing i can say is because of the breaking news because this is unprecedented is the old stay tuned or watch this space because we will be reporting it. i love you. i'll see you later. got to get to breaking news. this is "don lemon tonight" and we have breaking news. this is from the same federal judge who broke news last night at this time. she is saying some new stuff. but basically she is saying, standing by, doubling down on what she said last night. she is saying she will not help the former president as he attempts to buy time arguing to keep records from his presidency secret. she is pointing him instead to an appeals court as chris just mentioned. so the jung's latest decision come a day after she ruled again him in an historic case over access to his records sought in the january 6th committee investigation writing presidents
are not king and plaintiff is not president. with the national archives set to send records out to the house on friday the former president is scrambling in court for even a temporary hold. so let's get right to cnn's senior legal affairs correspondent paula reid, cnn political director david chalian, and professor of law at the university baltimore school of law. so we have expert minds here to talk about this and get us through this breaking news. good evening to all of you. paula, i'm going to start with you on the reporting of this. the former president denied again in this executive privilege case. what are you learning? >> you noted just last night this is the same judge that ruled that former president trump could not keep his white house records secret from the house select committee investigating january 6th. now, the national archives inherited trump's white house records after he left office.
and they are scheduled on friday to hand over this group of 700 pages of white house records to the committee. trump and his attorneys asked for that to be delayed while he appeal. it is not surprising the judge denied the request. now he'll likely go to the appellate court to make the same request. it would be surprising if they didn't grant it. >> okay. but he's running out of options to delay, right? >> well, he's appealing this. he is appealing this. and i will say -- >> running out of time is only one day, but this judge believes he has time. go to the appeals court and try it yourself. on, sorry. >> no worries, also complicated because there's a federal holiday between now and then. they examine this larger constitutional question. and this really is a pretty historic case. there are very novel questions raised in this case about the rights of a former president to keep his or her records protected. right now most of the powers to
protect the records of the former presidents it lies with the incumbent. we've seen here president biden has declined to protect these documents, and that's where we get this case. so far it's not looking great for former president trump, but we'll see what happens at the appellate level and then of course whoever loses there would likely want to appeal to the supreme court. whether they'll take it up, i know one of our colleagues said they didn't see a question here. i disagree. i think it's actually is a novel constitutional question that the supreme court may actually want to take up. >> okay, standby paula. i want to bring in the other folks here. so david chalian and kim whaly are also here with me. give me your reaction to what the judge is doing rejecting this and saying he is trying to buy time, and she's saying i'm not going to help you with that. >> well, understand the federal rules of appellate procedure, rule eight actually, if trump wants a stay from the court of appeals, the rules do require that he first second degree the
district court judge for the stay. so it is almost like an exhaustion process. had to go to her first and then has to make the same showing to the appellate court that she rejected, and that is a four-part test that includes a showing of what we call likelihood of success on the merits. so he's got to show he'll probably win his appeal, and that is the weakest -- the weakest part in my mind. but i have to agree with paula on the supreme court here as well -- >> wait, hold on. i'm going to let you get to that but why do you say that's the weakest in your mind? >> that's the weakest in my mind because the presidential records act under which this lawsuit was brought is a post-watergate reform that was specifically designed to bypass president nixon's attempts to essentially -- potentially destroy records and maintain records. and the united states congress said, no, the records belong to the people. and the incumbent president, joe
biden, is the holder of the peoples' interests. so this is really about the public interest in this motion. >> got it. >> in this moment. so donald trump has to argue he is more in tune with the public interests than the united states president under the constitution. i think that's a really tough sell. >> okay, so what did the judge had just taken her sweet time? did she have to act with urgency or expediency here or taken her time on friday and been like i'm sorry, you've got to go to appeals court? >> there's nothing mandating she do it in any particular amount of time. >> but she did it in deference to the -- >> yeah, in deference to the appellate court and she knows all eyes are on this. the opinion was relatively brief, but it was a very tightly worded, very, very well-done opinion. she knows what she's talking about. >> one more question before i get to david.
what are you expecting when trump gets to the december court of appeals again? >> did research on this in the legal scholarship field, and it actually is rare to get the stay he wants. in a 2020 study it was in less than 20% of the cases actually get what he's asking for, but they tend to be a higher percentage if you're asking to stay release a confidential document. so i do think it's possible the court of appeals is going to say, listen, this is important we'll issue this stay. alternatively they could just say we agree with the lower court, you have not satisfied the injunction, we're going to briefly deny the whole thing. that's conceivable. it does depend on the panel, the judges that are are going to decide this. >> let's bring you in here because david is our political director, he knows politics. >> please do not ask me about appellate procedure. >> i'm not going to ask you about that. i'll ask you about the political angle of this. because it's 40 pages. 40 pages are going to get
released on friday related to january 6th. the question is what are they hiding? what can we learn from these white house records? who knows, there's a whole bevy of things. >> yeah, we know what the committee is interested, right? we know the committee is interested in piecing together the buildup to january 6th, the plotting and plan and who was involved with that and how close did that get to president trump, and was he directly involved in any way, the day itself, everything that was going on around the president on the 6th of january. and of course the aftermath. and so we know that they're interested in finding out sort of precisely through those days leading up and the day of of the president's movements, who was around him, what were those conversations taking place. and you mentioned, you know, it is up to the current president to assert privilege, and joe biden made a really big decision a couple weeks ago when he came
to the conclusion that he was not going to assert privilege. now, we know and the white house asserted again today in a statement, don, that joe biden is committed to a full accounting of what occurred to the buildup to and on january 6th so that the country can prevent an attack on our democracy like that ever again. but still this was a weighty decision. it's going to set a precedent which no doubt he and white house council were very much thinking through when they came to this conclusion. but he came to the conclusion that the transparency and accountability for the greatest attack on our democracy trump -- and pardon the pun -- any claim that the former president may have relating to privilege. >> another political question here because the concern obviously over politics is running out the clock, the 2022 mid-terms are coming very soon. could he run out the clock on
this? >> we'll have to see how length anot just the appeals process on privilege but throughout the entirety of the existence of the community. obviously they've issued a bunch of subpoenas. we know people have not been complying with those subpoenas based on guidance and counsel and advice from donald trump trying to sort of appease to the desires of the former president. so clearly there is a clock here that the trump team will try to run out. but, don, the committee is keenly aware that congress may change hands next november. and come next january republicans could be in charge of the house. so no doubt they were going to be setting a timetable here to complete their work sooner rather than later in 2022. they have no desire for this to go into the next congress. >> okay, one more, david, because as you know cnn is exclusively learning that the january 6th committee is interested in talking with at least five people from mike pence's inner circle, the former vice president. and some appear to be engaging
with the committee. we all remember that video of pence being rushed out to safety. look, it's sort of back and forth with mike pence standing up really for the constitution and for free and fair elections, but then also saying in another -- with another voice or speaking from another side of his mouth and praising the former president in, you know, speeches and what have you. but if these folks are wanting to comply and wanting to testify and meet with the committee how worried should trump be that pence's inner circle could do that, testify? >> right. it's no surprise that the committee wants to talk to aides very close to vice president -- to then vice president pence. what i thought was so incredible in the reporting that we had today on this was exactly this notion, don, that there are eager people in pence world to tell their story. now, it is clear you mentioned the video of him being ushered out.
it is clear that the committee is very interested in the entire pressure campaign on pence from trump to illegitimately overturn the election. we know -- we've heard about the communication that former vice president dan quail had with mike pence complaining there was no way for him to intercede, it was a purely ceremonial job for the vice president on that day for the counting of the electoral college votes, don. but the entirety of the pressure campaign gets at the president's motive. and so having pence's inner circle be willing to go up and tell the story of everything they know of the pressure trump was applying, it is a key piece to the entirety of this puzzle of putting together the entire fact pattern of what was pretty clear right now, you know, an attempted coup. >> yeah, yeah. i was just looking at the new statement from the judge. kim, let me ask you because the former chief counsel, greg
jacob, he reportedly pushed back on attorney eastman who created the memo saying pence could overturn the results. former national security advisor keith ckellog was there. >> the john eastman memo is short but from a constitutional perspective really stunning. the plan was to have mike pence as president of the senate basically cancel or ignore the electoral college certifications from seven states. and so that means all of the votes in those seven states that went to the electoral college for joe biden, every human being, voter in america would have been canceled in that moment. and then there would have been a contingent of 26 republican led states that would then hand the election through a series of
maneuvers to donald trump. and it was mike pence who standing alone said no to that. it's a pretty stunning thing that he did, frankly, given that they were hanging gallows outside the capitol and shouting for his assassination. yes. i think his loyalists probably want to tell his side of the story and have him -- have his place in the history books for as controversial as he is politically. i really do think that we could be in very dark waters right for you. and we could be in dark waters again if the january 6th commission doesn't get to the bottom of what donald trump did leading up to january 6th. >> well, thank you both very much. david, i just wanted to ask you about federal rule number -- kidding. i appreciate you guys helping me out with the breaking news. both of you have a great evening. thanks so much. meanwhile in a courtroom in kenosha, it erupts in fireworks and sobbing.
the latest on a dramatic day in the kyle rittenhouse trial. as f, my body was telling me you got to do something. and so i came to clearchoice. your mouth is the gateway to your body. joe's treatment plan was replacing the teeth with dental implants from clearchoice. [ joe ] clearchoice has changed my life for the better. it's given me my health back. there's an amazing life out there if you do something for your health now. (tiger) this is the dimension of imagination. ♪ ♪
go with simparica trio it's triple protection made simple! simparica trio is the first and only monthly chewable that covers heartworm disease, ticks and fleas, round and hookworms. dogs get triple protection in just one simparica trio! this drug class has been associated with neurologic adverse reactions, including seizures. use with caution in dogs with a history of these disorders. protect him with all your heart. simparica trio. [sfx: radio being tuned] welcome to allstate. ♪ [band plays] ♪ a place where everyone lives life well-protected. ♪ and even when things go a bit wrong, we've got your back. here, things work the way you wish they would. and better protection costs a whole lot less. you're in good hands with allstate. click or call for a lower auto rate today.
(man 1) oh, this looks like we're in a screen saver. (man 2) yeah, but we need to go higher. (man 1) higher. (man 2) definitely higher. (man 1) we're like yodeling high. [yodeling] yo-de-le-he... (man 2) hey, no. uh-uh, don't do that. (man 1) we should go even higher! (man 2) yeah, let's do it. (both) woah! (man 2) i'm good. (man 1) me, too. (man 2) mm-hm. (vo) adventure has a new look. (man 1) let's go lower. (man 2) lower, that sounds good. (vo) discover more in the all-new subaru outback wilderness. love. it's what makes subaru, subaru.
we are the next. the next generation of visionaries. rule breakers. game changers. and world beaters. we certainly aren't here to do what's been done before. and neither are we. at palo alto networks, we are ready to secure our digital future. we innovate to outpace cyberthreats. so you can make the next day safer than the one before. we've got next. this has been a day of drama and fireworks in the kenosha courtroom where kyle rittenhouse is on trial for shooting two people to death and wounding a third during protests in august of 2020 over the police shooting of jacob blake. rittenhouse who was 17 at the time and is now 18 taking the stand in his own defense at his homicide trial breaking down in tears while insisting he did
was it self-defense or vigilante killing? rittenhouse insisting today that he was just defending himself. >> people were screaming and i just was trying to get to the police running down the road. >> you say i'm trying to get to the police. why were you trying to get to the police? >> because i didn't do anything wrong. i defended myself. >> the prosecution hammering rittenhouse over his use of deadly force. >> everybody that you shot at that night you intended to kill, correct? >> i didn't intend to kill them. i intended to stop the people who were attacking me. >> by killing them. >> i did what i had to do to stop the person who was attacking me. >> by killing them. >> two of them passed away but i stopped the threat from attacking me. >> by using deadly force. >> i used deadly force. >> that you knew was going to
kill. >> i didn't know if it was going to kill them, but i used deadly force to stop the threat that was attacking me. >> you intentionally used deadly force against joseph rosenbaum, correct? >> yes. >> you intentionally used deadly force against the man who came and tried to kick you in the face, right? >> yes. >> you intentionally used deadly force against anthony huber correct? >> yes. >> you intentionally used deadly force against gaige grosskreutz, correct? >> yes. >> with regard to joseph rosenbaum you fired four shots at him, correct? >> yes. >> you intended to kill him correct? >> i didn't intend to kill him. i intended to stop the person who was attacking me and trying to steal my gun. >> during cross examination rittenhouse claimed joseph rosenbaum tried to take his gun and said he didn't want to have to kill him. >> if i would have let mr. rosenbaum take my firearm from me he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people if i would have let him get my gun. >> even after you shoot him one time and he starts falling you
continue to shoot three more times? right? >> i continued to shoot until he was no longer a threat to me. >> amid all the drama, this may not have been a good day for the prosecution. the defense making a motion for a mistrial with prejudice which would mean the case is over. can't be retried. they claim the prosecutor committed, quote, what amounts to prosecutorial overreach, the judge saying he'll take the motion under advisement but tearing into the prosecution, asking the jury to leave the courtroom twice during cross examination then ripping into the prosecutor's line of questioning. >> i was astonished when you began your examination by commenting on the defendant's post-arrest silence. that's basic law. it's been basic law in this country for 40 years, 50 years. i have no idea why you would do something like that.
don't get brazen with me. you know very well an attorney can't go into these types of areas when the judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. don't give me that. i don't believe you. there better not be another incident. i'll take the motion under advisement. >> let's remember this is a judge who told prosecutors before the trial began that he wouldn't allow them to call the people rittenhouse shot victims. but he would allow the defense to call them arsonists or looters. >> let the evidence show what the evidence shows. if the evidence shows that any or more than one of these people were engaged in arson, rioting, or looting, then i'm not going to tell the defense they can't call them that. the word victim is a loaded, loaded word, and i think alleged
victim is a cousin to it. >> this case has been a lightning rod from the beginning. of course some people have to make it all about them. exhibit a, since we're talking about the courtroom. republican senate candidate jd vance the one-time critic of the former president who has changed his tune now that he is running for office. he apparently couldn't resist weighing in on this case. pay close attention. this is what he tweeted. i'm quoting here. we have our boys -- we leave our boys without fathers. we let the wolves set fire to their communities. and when human nature tells them to go and defend what no one else is defending, we bring the full weight of the state and the global monopolists against them. law and order. right? law and order. wolves? we let the wolves set fire to their communities.
that's a really loud dog whistle you've got there. and there's more. >> it is time for us as patriots to stand up because if we don't fight back against the lawlessness, if we don't defend this young boy who defended his community when no one else was doing it, it may very well be your baby boy they come for. it'll be your children whose lives they try to destroy when no one else is defending their communities. >> actually that is quite dangerous. what if everyone decided to arm up and go out and be vigilantes? is that what law and order is about? very, very dangerous. very.
look, kyle rittenhouse shot three people and killed two of them, right? if he had not been there, it wouldn't have happened. if he had not inserted himself into the situation it wouldn't have happened. let's not forget. i want to be very clear about this. kyle rittenhouse is innocent until proven guilty. and it is playing out on our television sets now. that's how our legal system works. that is how it should work. it shouldn't work through vigilanteism in this country. that's not part of it. think about this. i want you to listen to what baltimore city state's attorney marilyn mosby told chris a few moments ago. it pretty much sums it up. >> i think you have to consider the fact that you have a young, white boy openly carrying and illegally possessing an ar-15 loaded with 30 rounds at a black lives protest matter in order to
defend businesses not his business, not his life, not his liberty but defending someone else's property for rioters code name for criminals where he subsequently shoots and kills two unarmed people, wounds another, yet approaches the police, arms up, ar-15 strapped to his body and the police drive past him. why? because he's in no way form or fashion is this young white boy carrying an ar-15 who just shot three people was perceived as a threat. >> where's the lie? so did kyle rittenhouse convince the jury he acted in self-defense? experts weigh in, next. we emit optimism, not exhaust. we plug in our vehicles— as naturally as we charge our phones. -we. -we... are generation e. we want smart. -clean. -and safe. to also be fun, easy... and powerful! -ultium! -ultium! a battery that charges fast. runs long. it fits everyone.
>> tech: when you get a chip in your windshield... trust safelite. this couple was headed to the farmers market... when they got a chip. they drove to safelite for a same-day repair. and with their insurance, it was no cost to them. >> woman: really? >> tech: that's service the way you need it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪
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 at xfinity.com/moving.
kyle rittenhouse taking the stand today in his homicide trial today. rittenhouse breaking down while insisting he was acting in self-defense when he killed two people and wounded a third during unrest in kenosha, wisconsin. there is so much to discuss with cnn's senior legal analyst laura coates, and the former district attorney for waukesha county, wisconsin, who has argued in front of this judge. we'll talk all about this. good evening. the defense took a risk putting kyle rittenhouse on the stand today. who do you think benefited the most from his testimony? >> so far the defense. the risk seems to be paying off in the sense of having the appeal of the jury, the sympathy
card was played. obviously crying on the stand is going to evoke a level of sympathy from the jurors. remember, it is the tears in itself is not the most compelling aspect. when he asserted self-defense he has to demonstrate he was entitled to use self-defense and specifically lethal force to repel whatever force he perceived was used against himself. while there may have been that dent in terms of the sympathy card and figuring out this young man is speaking for himself, what would he sound like, what would he act like, would he be defiant, resolved, sympathetic? he answered those questions but hasn't answered the question whether he was entitled fully to use lethal force in this instance. >> so, paul, what do you want to say? >> i agree. although remember the burden is on the government not on the defense. they raised the issue. it is a privilege. it's what i call a but for defense. he pretty much has pled guilty to the homicide but i always call it a but for. i wouldn't have done it but for.
and the judge is clearly antagonistic to the government. i haven't quite seen something like that but i think the government created a reversible error by commenting on the defendant's post arrest silence. >> we'll talk about that. why do you thank the judge is antagonistic? because you know this judge that's why i want you to talk about it. >> i do. i think the government is trying to do a back door. he called it a 904.04. that is wisconsin statute i'm sure -- >> no, we'll play that. why do you think the judge is antagonistic? >> because he thinks the government tried to do a back door around and tried to get in evidence he ruled inadmissible. >> just on this one thing. you didn't mean antagonistic overall? >> oh, no, no. just on this one issue. that is when he blew. >> okay. let's play that. let's play the judge when the
judge chastises the prosecution. let's play it. >> i thought this is my good faith explanation to you and if you want to yell at me you can. my good faith feeling this morning after watching that testimony was you had left the door open a little bit. now we had something new and i was going to probe it. >> i don't believe you. there better not be another incident. i'll take the motion under advisement. >> yeah. that was just a short part of it there where a couple times that happened, laura. paul, you first because you know him. and then i want to get laura's take on this. you've appeared in front of this judge before. should this prosecutor know better? is the prosecutor in over his head? what do you think of that moment? >> i don't like to criticize anybody. i don't know this prosecutor. i don't know why he has another prosecutor at the table. we would normally switch off if things aren't going well with
one prosecutor you put up the other one. but, clearly, i think the judge felt this prosecutor was trying to do an end around and he was not happy with it. that was clear. not in front of the jury of course but there was the other incident about commenting on the post arrest silence. i don't think things went well for the prosecution today. the defense did well. i think the defendant, mr. rittenhouse did well and held his own. i'm sure this is much more complicated and we don't have time today for lesser included offenses. that is going to be a big issue coming up. >> what do you think of the way this judge ran the courtroom today, laura? >> well, i mean, this judge is pretty theatrical and the offense he takes to comments made. there is a lot of pearl clutching that i don't think was actually meritorious based on the good faith arguments that were stated by the prosecution. having said that, the judge is absolutely right on two counts. number one, it is inappropriate
to comment on the silence of a defendant. remember, the miranda warnings we're all accustomed to you have the right to remain silent. anything you say can and will be used against you not things you do not say. you can imagine a prosecutor in the courtroom deciding to point out the defendant has not taken the stand in closing arguments saying, see? why didn't this person tell you himself? making an allusion to someone who has a right not to take the stand is inappropriate. the idea he was trying to according to this judge bring in what is called propensity evidence suggesting, hey, if the person committed other prior bad acts or crimes they must have committed this particular crime. that is the essence of it. the judge took offense to both. there is a reason to do so. however, the idea of calling this prosecutor a liar or talking about the notion of not believing they made a good faith argument is i think a step too far but the judge has a responsibility to ensure the defendant has a fair trial.
they often times will bend over backwards to make sure it is clear they are not going to do the heavy lifting for the prosecution and because of the prosecutorial burden they have to carry all of the water including ensuring that they dot their is, cross their ts, follow the evidence, and ensure the constitution is followed. >> as you mentioned, the prior bad acts, usually judges don't like that because they think it's not fair to the defense when you are talking about something that is specific -- not specific to this case. so interesting. thank you both. so much to ask you. we'll continue this conversation because the trial is still going on. thank you. good to see you. so let's talk about gas, food, rent all costing more as inflation hits a 30-year high. president biden addressing the problem today. what can he actually do about it? stay with us. and daily vicks super c for me. vicks super c is a daily supplement with vitamin c and b vitamins to help energize and replenish.
dayquil severe is a max strength daytime, coughing, power through your day, medicine. new from vicks. you could email an urgent question to lisa in marketing. and a follow up. and a “did you see my email?” text. orrrr... you could see her status in slack. and give lisa a break while you find someone online who can help. slack. where the future works. ♪ ♪ ♪ hey google. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
with framebridge... make what matters to you last. halloween, '72. jojo's adoption day. asher's art phase. whatever you treasure, make it last. framebridge. ordinary tissues burn when theo blows. so dad bought puffs plus lotion, and rescued his nose. with up to 50% more lotion puffs bring soothing softness and relief. a nose in need deserves puffs indeed. ok, let's talk about those changes to your financial plan. bill, mary? hey... it's our former broker carl. carl, say hi to nina, our schwab financial consultant.
president biden trying to calm concerns over higher than expected inflation today. the biggest increase in 30 years. >> today's economic report showing unemployment continuing to fall but consumer prices remain too high. amidst this economic crisis and recovery it's showing strong results but not to them. everything out there from a gallon of milk to a loaf of bread costs more and it's worrisome. >> the u.s. bureau of labor statistics is reporting over the last six months there has been a 6.2% in cost of consumer goods. take a look at this. gas prices rose by 49.6% computers 8.4%. tvs 10.4%. washers and dryers 14.9%. milk 4.3%.
my guest, the former chair of the council of economic advisers. good evening to you. tell me about the numbers. gas skyrocketing, inflation, everything costs more. it is something that is impacting everyone. how long do you think this is going to be like this? >> well, the whole debate going on among the economists is this temporary or is this lasting? but even the most temporary oriented think it's going to be months. i mean, the basic problem is that all the countries of the world are all trying to come roaring back at the same time and the supply chain is not equipped to handle that. and we're spending far more of our income on physical goods than we have for almost 20 years. because lots of services are shutdown and people are afraid of catching the virus. so while those two things continue to happen it's going to
be hard to get off this train. and so it's going to be, you know, a grumpy several months. >> gas prices are really the big thing right now. and anyone who's on social media or you just talk to people gas prices are so high and, you know. there's not a quick fix on this for the president. some options include tapping into emergency reserves, urging oil producing countries to ramp up production or even stopping u.s. oil exports. are any of these good options? >> none of those are lasting options. you know, if you think about the strategic petroleum reserve it can affect things but it's a few days, couple of weeks, that sort of thing. what's happening with oil is like i say, you've got every country of the world is trying to come booming back. and so if you look at the inflation that's taking place in gas prices it's not just happening in the u.s. it's obviously a worldwide phenomenon.
you've got inflation really ramping up all over the world, and we've got to get -- i know it seems weird, but we've got to get control of the spread of the virus so that people can go back to spending their money on services and there will be less -- less emphasis in demand for physical goods and cars and computers and all the stuff that are experiencing the supply shortages. and then on the energy side, you know, we -- eventually they're going to produce more, but we just went through over the last ten years. we've just gone through this cycle where prices are really high, and there was massive production, and then prices went down and everyone went broke. and now the prices are back high again, and you see a lot of those producers saying, wait a minute, wait a minute, how do we know this is going to last? this didn't last the last time so let's not be as keen on pumping as much as we did before.
>> yeah, it's interesting, too, to watch. because, look in the real estate market homes in the suburbs went crazy during covid. i'm just wondering if now those people are going to move back to the cities, right, because of the high gas prices. >> right. and you've already seen it. you've already seen now different prices are going up. this is what happens when you have such an epic shutdown, we kind of close down. now we're trying to reopen, and if everybody in the world tries to reopen at the same time the supply chain is not designed for that. like i say we're buying more physical goods as a share of our income than at any time in the last 20 years. so, of course, we're going to have comply chain problems. and you see that in the list that you went through. if you look at tvs, if you look at cars, if you look at computers, all of those are using computer chips. because computer chips are in short supply because in the factories where they make the
computer chips they're having these covid >> i know. >> it's crazy. >> 68 bucks. i filled my car. 68 bucks it cost. and, yet, this, like i say, we are going to have a grumpy several months because these are not -- these are things which get fixed. they don't get fixed in weeks. >> a lot of people don't want to take mass transit because of covid, right, social distancing? the subway and buses are looking pretty good now with those prices. thank you, sir. appreciate it. >> great to see you. cnn is asking americans if facebook is making society better or worse and take this. 76% say worse.
(tiger) this is the dimension of imagination. ♪ ♪ (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.
take this, everyone. in a divided country, americans agree on at least one thing. facebook is making our lives worse. a cnn poll finding 76% of u.s. adults say facebook is having a negative effect on society. only 11% think it improves society. okay. get this. even when you only ask people when frequently use the site, 70% still say the social media joint is doing more harm than good. it's addictive. even when people know it's not good for them. so are people going to demand change? our poll finding there is bipartisan agreement on this. 55% of democrats and 48% of republicans are in favor of more federal regulations. when have you seen democrats and republicans so close together? maybe it's time for the public to have more of a say in the online algorithms that have real-life consequences.
up next, breaking news. another court loss for the former president. and the january 6th committee could be getting documents this week. e need to replant trees keeps growing. so subaru is growing our commitment to protect the environment. in partnership with the national forest foundation, subaru and our retailers are proud to help replant 1 million trees to help restore our forests. subaru. more than a car company. ♪ i'm a reporter for the new york times. if you just hold it like this. yeah. ♪ i love finding out things that other people don't want me to know. mm-hmm. [beep] i just wanted to say... ♪ find yourself in these situations and see who you are. and that's just part of the bargain.
and black cherry. as real as it tastes. i'll shoot you an estimate as soon as i get back to the office. hey, i can help you do that right now. high thryv! thryv? yep. i'm the all-in-one management software built for small business. high thryv! help me with scheduling? sure thing. up top. high thryv! payments? high thryv! promotions? high thryv! email marketing? almost there, hold on. wait for it. high thryv! manage my customer list? can do. will do. high thryv! post on social media? hash-tag high thryv my friend! get a free demo at thryv.com.
here is the breaking news. another big setback for the former president and his attempt to keep his administration's records from going to the january 6th committee. a federal judge denying his request to stop the transfer of dockments. judge tanya chutkan is the same judge who issued a ruling last night denying trump's claim of executive privilege and instructing lawyers to argue the case before an appellate court. unless the former president can get an emergency court order stopping the transfer. let's discuss with paula reid and former u.s.