tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN November 18, 2021 8:00am-9:00am PST
truck, didn't pull out anything, no, ma'am. >> okay. and so he runs up -- how close did he get to the truck the first time? >> probably from me to you at the furthest, i would say. it was close, yes, ma'am. >> and you got out of your truck? >> yes, ma'am. >> you got out with the shotgun that time? >> i did not. >> you got out of the truck, yelled at him. >> as efs getting close to me,
yes, i yelled at him at that point, stop, yes, ma'am. >> he turned around to run back. >> he did. >> didn't threaten you in any way? >> no. >> didn't verbally threaten you, yell at you? >> not verbally, no. >> didn't swear at you? >> no. >> didn't say anything? >> no. >> did not pull out a gun. >> he did not. >> turned and ran away. >> once he got there, ran away, that's when i reached into my truck, yes, ma'am. >> at that point you're reaching into your truck, he sees you do this. >> yes. >> he turns and runs away. >> yes, ma'am. >> you say he ran up around the dogleg, correct? >> he did, correct. >> and at that point, we see him running back down the dogleg, is that right? >> yes, ma'am. >> so he got back to that blue mailbox and headed back towards you. >> i believe he passed the blue
mailbox. >> so he got past the blue mailbox. >> yeah. he was completely out of isight. >> now in the video we can see he's turned around and is heading back towards you. >> that's correct. >> at this point he's pinned between the two pickup trucks. >> he is between two pickup trucks, yes, ma'am. >> all right. we're going to freeze frame it right here. you've raised your shotgun at this point at him. >> at that point, yes. >> and he's 30 to 40 yards away from you. >> that's what i put on the -- that's what i said in the statement and wrote. i believe, thinking back on it now, i think it was 30 to 40 feet. it was closer than 30 to 40 yards. 120 feet. he was not that far away from
me. >> right. and at this point right here, hasn't said anything to you. >> he has not said anything yet, no. >> hasn't verbally threatened you. >> verbally, no. >> still running with his hands at his sides. >> directly towards me, yes, ma'am. >> hasn't pulled out a gun. >> hasn't seen a weapon yet, no, ma'am. >> and hasn't shown you a weapon this entire time. >> yes, ma'am. >> hasn't said a word the entire time. >> no. >> all he's done is run away from you. >> run past me, yes, ma'am. >> and you pulled out a shotgun and pointed it at him? >> running directly towards me and this is now the second time on the road coming directly and watching how he interacted with the pickup truck, in that general location, when i pulled up the first time, attacking the truck, and then seeing him interact with the vehicle on burford, seeing that the police are coming, him turning and
running on top of seeing mr. al benzi point and the whole february 11th episode, i was under the impression this guy can be a threat and he is coming directly to me, yes, i pointed the shotgun at him to deter him from coming directly to me, which was effective at that point. >> so you're under the impression -- is that right? you were under the impression because of all those things that you just mentioned, that, what, he could be a threat to you? >> yes .
>> now, let's take a look at state's exhibit 129. all right. your father is in the pickup truck, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and he has his .357 magnum, correct? >> he has it, yes. >> all right. and this is when you finally have given him the phone and said, "call 911." >> seconds before this is when i gave him -- when i dialed 911 after i realized that i was misunderstood that he has not called 911 or had not called 911 and realized the error in
calling and gave my dad the phone once i saw mr. arbery coming back at me this third time, gave it to him once he was coming around the dogleg, yes, ma'am. >> and your father had 30 years of law enforcement, is that correct? >> i believe so. >> so he knows how to take care of himself, doesn't he? >> he knows how. >> he's got a handgun with him, right? >> yes. >> and he's on higher ground, isn't he? >> he -- yes. i would say higher ground. >> and you never once anywhere in your police statement said you were ever worried about your father or him being attacked at all, never said that once in any of your statements. >> in the statements, i guess not, no. >> so at this point, you and your dad are both yelling at mr. arbery to stop. >> i am yelling. i'm sure my dad is, but i was not paying attention to many
what my father was saying. >> all right. so at this point in time, you are right next to your pickup truck in the doorway, right? >> right in the crux of it, yes, ma'am. >> all right. and mr. arbery is moving this way and then he's moving that way, correct? >> yes. correct. >> and you have now moved yourself out of that crux of the doorway into the roadway, is that right? >> yes, because when i drew down on him and then he -- because he was coming directly toward me, focused in on me, drew down on him, he immediately broke his direction and went to the right. when he went to the right, i came to the left to gain distance. i was thinking that what i would
do or anybody else would go across the yard, would run across the yard. well, as i was going across, i saw that he turned and started directly towards me on the road again and then turned a third time and then went back to the side of the vehicle. >> so you're -- >> i was trying to gain -- i was trying to gain distance. >> gain distance. so you're expecting that he should take action to get away from you because you're pointing a shotgun at him. >> i did not want him to come to charge me, attack me, which i assumed was happening, yes, that's exactly what i was doing. >> so him running down this road pursued by mr. bryan's truck, he was attacking you. >> the last time i saw mr. bryan's truck was when i was at a stop just before where i'm
at now, and he was attacking -- was all over that truck. and they left. and i was -- i never saw that truck turn around, and then mr. arbery is coming back to me. directly to me. he wasn't going to the left. he wasn't going to the right. he was coming straight to me that first time. i was thinking he's going to try to get in this truck or he's going to try to attack me or my dad or who knows what. he was acting weird. he was acting funny when i was trying to talk to him prior, so i'm on alert. he turns, runs off, comes back. i'm sure i saw mr. bryan's truck in this instance, but i was focused on what i perceived as a threat. so -- i don't even remember the question now. >> i think the question is you didn't know what he was doing except continuing to run away from mr. bryan's truck. >> no. he was coming towards me. >> but you just said "who knows
what." you didn't know what this guy was going to do. >> i did not. >> all he had done so far is run away from you. >> he has ran past me and i let him runl away, yes. >> but this time, you're not letting him run away. you're pointing your shotgun at him, correct? >> i am not letting him run to me, directly to me. >> and he doesn't. he comes around that corner and you have closed the distance yourself on him, haven't you? >> i have gone to the front of my truck. i did not go to the passenger's side of my truck at that time. i was trying to keep an eye on him to make sure he didn't try to get in my truck or try to get to my bad or who knows, go into the passenger side or what. i was trying to keep an eye on him. and i would think that he's
avoiding me once i aimed the shotgun at him. he sees me at the front of the truck that he would not come back around, which i was thinking was more likely was going to happen and then he would continue to go. >> so at this point in time,ing you could have stepped closer to your pickup truck and had that pickup truck between you and him, correct? >> can you say that again? >> sure thing. you have moved out of the road, you've aimed this shotgun at mr. arbery. >> i did. >> mr. arbery goes to the passenger side of the truck. >> yes. >> okay. your dad is still yelling at him, because we can hear him yell stop, goddamn it, stop. >> yes. >> you could have easily just stepped back to your pickup truck and watched him keep going, right? >> i could have. yes. but i was -- i still didn't know what he would have, could have done right there right at the scene. and to get closer to the pickup, getting closer to that, getting to the truck, if he's going to try to come to the truck, i
would be right there. i was thinking he was a threat, might go after myself, my father, or the truck, i want to be right there to deter him or to be able to handle it if i needed to. >> so, you also could have stepped around the back of the truck and followed him in the path that way. is that right? >> yes, but then he would have an open, unrestricted run around the truck and into my open door into my pickup truck. >> so you're telling this jury that a man who has spent five minutes running away from you, you're now thinking is somehow going to want to continue to engage with you, someone with a shotgun, and your father, a man who's just said, stop or i'll blow your fucking head off, by trying to get in their truck? >> that's what it shows, yes, ma'am.
>> he comes around the front of the truck and you are right there with that shotgun, correct? >> i was coming around and then as soon as i was at the front panel, he turned, and, yes, we were on each other. >> that's your head right here. >> that is my head. >> all right. you heard the medical examiner testify that mr. arbery's hand was between him and the shotgun and he was shot here into his torso, correct? >> that's the theory, yes, ma'am. >> that was the medical examiner giving his opinion, correct? >> his opinion, correct. >> okay. and you saw the digital evidence that backed that up with the arterial spurt from his arm
before the first two shots, correct? >> yes. >> all right. you testified yesterday that mr. arbery grabbed your shotgun. >> that's correct. >> all right. do you remember the detective specifically asking you if he grabbed your shot gunn? >> i do. >> all right. and you then said -- you want to take a look at it? >> page 30? page 31? >> let me find it for you. page 44. >> 44.
>> so, do you remember describing the first interaction you had with him coming around the corner? >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. so you told the detective that he came up, mean plg arbery, and that i think that's when he hit me or started striking. he was on me. he had my shirt, you know, or something to that point. i had the gun. i was too close to draw down on him. i did like that, you know, and he's still fighting, fighting, and i was, just, like -- and at that time you're showing the detective you had the gun like this, correct? >> yes. >> and the detective specifically asked you, do you remember if he grabbed the s shotgun at all? and your response was, "i want to say he did, but honestly, i cannot remember. me and him were face-to-face the entire time." do you remember saying that? >> yes. and i was trying to think of that exact moment. like i said, trying to give him as much detail as possible under
the stress and all this going on. he had the weapon the way i was describing it. he said he did not have the gun at that second, i don't know why, but, yeah, that's what i said. i don't want to say he did, but i honestly cannot remember. >> so you didn't shoot him because he grabbed the barrel of your shotgun. you shot him because he came around the corner and you pulled that trigger immediately. >> no. i was struck and he was -- we were face-to-face and i was struck and that's when i shot. so he came up i think is when we hit, he started striking, had my shirt, and i was too close to draw on him.
>> so you're saying that all of that took place, he's got your shirt, he's striking you, you have the gun up in this thing, you can't draw done on him and it's a struggle and he's on you and you're going back and forth this front of the truck. is that what you're saying?? >> yes. >> okay. is that what happened? >> it's on the video, yes, ma'am. >> and he was shot right here in the torso. so, your gun was parallel to the ground, yes? >> yeah. you grab a shotgun and you snatch it away, it will straighten the shotgun out, yes, ma'am. >> all right. so which one was it? was it like this or was it like
this? >> it was obviously like that, yes, ma'am. it happens do fast and trying to recall and everything, i obviously missed every minute detail. >> all right. so let's talk about some of the things that you chose not to do with this matter. okay? you could have made sure that you and your dad called the police from your house at 236 before you ever got in the pickup truck, correct? >> i could have, but i was under the impression he has called the police. >> and you could have just continued to drive behind mr. arbery and not even speak to him or confront him at all. isn't that true? >> i could have, yes.
>> mm-hmm. and you could have just let him run away when he took off in front of mr. bryan's house from the night owl video we saw. could have gone, he's running, we'll just let him go or drive behind him really slowly, right? >> could have and did after i realized that he was not going to talk to me. >> and you could have stayed in your truck over on holmes drive, right? >> could have, yes. >> and you could have stayed in your truck until he ran by and then driven away to go ahead and follow him, right? >> i could have, yes. >> okay.
>> not once during your statement to the police did you say that you and your father were trying to arrest mr. arbery, did you? >> in the statement? >> yeah, to the police. >> no, ma'am. >> all right. you never told the police that you said to mr. arbery, "you're under arrest." correct? >> i did not. >> okay. in fact, you never did tell mr. arbery, "you're under arrest for the crime of" fill in the bhank. >> i didn't have time. i was still trying to get him to
stop . >> let's talk a bit about your attitudes towards sort of vigilanteism, okay? >> okay. >> you i've posted several times on facebook some things, and we talked about one of them in response to kimball stair roese, where it's like you're playing with fire on this side of the neighborhood. do you remember posting that? >> yes. >> and in response to another post about crime, you responded, "arm up," correct? >> that the ballesteros one?
>> does that refresh your recollection that you said "arm up"? >> yes, ma'am, it does. >> in addition, back in january of 2019, do you recall having a facebook conversation with a lacy allison cox? >> i do. >> all right. and at that point, do you remember telling her about how she felt that you need to make examples out of somebody if they steal something? you said, "that's right.
hope y'all catch the vermin." >> that's correct. >> all right. in addition, she was kind of worried about her father because she said, "we have had a lot of trouble with" -- >> objection. hearsay, your honor. i guess this is a post connected with the witness? >> i'll ask a better question. >> thank you. >> do you remember -- >> sorry. the context. it may have been hearsay. it's sustained. >> okay. i will rephrase. do you remember telling her that -- that your old man is the same as her old man, which is slap crazy, old as dirt, and doesn't care about going to jail? do you remember that? >> i don't think i wrote that. >> okay.
>> it's on the top of the second page. take a look at that and see if it refreshes your recollection . does that refresh your recollection about what you agreed with miss cox about? >> yes. i agreed and responded to it, yes, ma'am. >> all right. she said we've had a lot of trouble with thieves. it worries me because my dad is slap old crazy, old as dirt, and
doesn't carry about being in jail. you responded, "that's what this world needs more of. my old man is the same way." >> i did say that, yes, ma'am. >> in the next line, you said, "hell, i'm getting that way." >> i did say that. >> she said, "have to make an example out of somebody." you said, "that's right. hope y'all catch the vermin." >> i did. >> so your attorney has repeatedly stated a recurring theme here for you, that when seconds count, the police are minutes away. did you hear him say that in his response? >> i've heard him say it, yes. >> is that your statement? >> it's not. >> then why is your attorney saying that? >> i guess that's what he believes. >> okay. that's not what you believe? >> i can agree with that, but i don't think i said that.
transcript and the statement you had with officer nohilly. >> yes, sir. >> take a look at page 1 -- page 7, line 1. >> 7, line 1. >> can you recall what you said to officer nohilly there? >> objection. inappropriate question. this is not directing a prior inconsistent statement at this time. >> it's a rehabilitation of the witness after he's been cross-examined about his intent and why he made the decisions he did. this is a prior statement by him that is consistent with his testimony and to rehabilitate him after cross-examination. he's been questioned extensively, your honor, about what he said. >> you're rehabilitating him. >> yes, your honor. what do you say page 7, line 1? >> just line 1 or --
>> i have a copy so i can make sure -- the full statement before. the first full sentence there. >> okay. >> read it out loud. if you remember the statement, how are we doing this? >> yeah. just read it, what he said to the officer. >> well, objection. improper -- >> do you recall what you said to the officer? >> i do. >> don't read it. what did you say to the officer? >> i told -- it was -- >> what date were you speaking about when you were talking to the officer? >> i was speaking of february 11th when i saw him the first time i encountered him. >> and did you tell the officer or give the officer an impression of what you thought about mr. arbery at that time? >> yes. i said that when i stepped out, that he was not there, he wasn't clearly there and reached into
his pocket. >> what did you mean by clearly -- he, mr. arbery, was clearly not there? >> the way he was interacting with me, the way he was reacting to just being caught creeping or lurking in the shadows, to reach into a pocket and then just i would say bold or having a brazen moment when you do that, and then just go into the house and continue to do what you were doing. it was not -- it was -- >> did you share this with officer nohilly a couple hours after -- >> i did, yes, sir. >> all right. if you'll go to page 9, line 3. before you do that, at any point in time, did you try to describe mr. arbery's behavior as you were interpreting it on burford road to officer nohilly? >> i did, yes. ? and do you recall how you described his behavior? >> yes.
>> okay. how did you describe it? >> funny. acting funny. clearly not there. >> okay. let me stop you. what did you mean by acting funny? >> the way that he -- his facial expressions when i first pulled up, you know, the anger, and then not speaking, not talking at all, it wasn't, like -- not trying to ignore me. he just -- the way that he was expressing himself. he just wasn't talking. he was in an anger state. >> and whachs your interpretation of that? >> objection. relevance. >> goes to his conduct. calls for speculation and not relevant. it's interpretation. >> i think it is relevant. not just his interpretation. >> sustained. >> did you tell -- did you speak to -- did you ever indicate to officer nohilly that you felt something was just not right with mr. arbery?
>> all right. nothing further. >> all right, sir. you may step down. why don't you just leave those there. >> all right. >> i'm not sure whose transcripts those are. why don't you step down and let whoever owns the transcripts grab them. figure out where we are and a little early to break for lunch. >> we have a brief witness. just give me a minute.
>> do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> yes, sir, i do. >> all right. have a seat. >> hi, miss cofer. >> hello. >> miss cofer, i just want to ask you a few brief questions, if you wouldn't mind telling us where you live. >> satilla shores. >> how long? >> since 1976. >> 1976. what road do you live off of? >> satilla drive, on satilla drive. >> have you ever been involved with any of the facebook pages associated with satilla shores? >> yes. i'm a member of the satilla shores home owners page. >> i see. and any other types of pages that involve the exit 29 area or the satilla shores? >> all right, everyone. you've been listening to travis mcmichael, the man who fatally shot ahmaud arbery, testifying in his own defense. he was cross-examined all throughout the morning by the prosecution for two hours.
mcmichael insists he was acting in self-defense. he is one of the three men on trial for the murder of 25-year-old ahmaud arbery, the black jogger that you saw throughout that video, the man who is now dead. joining me for what we saw, which was an important moment this morning, cnn's senior legal analyst, elie hoenig and paul callan as well. elie, your take on what we saw through cross-examination for two hours this morning. >> kate, that was a clinic. that was a meticulous takedown. anyone in law school, that's how you do it. the prosecutor went one question at a time, one fact per question, got such important concessions. the two pillars of the defense, i think she knocked them down. the first is we were making this citizens arrest, but she got the witness to admit he never said anything to the police about a it a zens arrest. the jury has to be thinking that's a huge problem. the second is this idea that ahmaud arbery grabbed the gun.
travis mcmichael testified on direct he grabbed the gun. that's what he said. but the prosecutor exposed that when mcmichael made a statement to the police he said, i want to say he did, i honestly cannot remember. that is devastating to the defense. >> what sticks out to you, paul? >> she's a real pro in terms of cross-examination. we were talking about her off set a little bit. a good cross-examiner sort of baby steps the witness along and then hits the witness with a big, important point. >> every step of the way, she'd ask almost at one point asking the same series of questions. >> yes. >> and he had not threatened you. he had not pulled a weapon. >> up to this point he had not threatened you. at this point he wasn't trying to get into the truck. she finally had him cornered. you get to this final fatal encounter, which is at the front of the truck, and the scene, i think the jury is seeing in its mind, is the shotgun being held by one person and it's not arbery, obviously, and the gun being fired at him, you know,
pointlessly, really, without self-defense, without any sort of a legitimate self-defense claim. >> so you think she was effective in what she did. every smart attorney, i think both of you have said to me, that it is important, while rare, it is important when you're trying to argue self-defense, to hear that from the defendant themselves. so they put him -- they put travis mcmichael on the stand. do you think it was a smart choice? how did he do? >> i think he did poorly, and i don't think it ended up being a smart choice. but i'm not sure they had any other choice. >> okay. >> normally it's very rare for a defendant to take the stand. they always say i'm going to take the stand but almost never. but in self-defense cases, the common wisdom is you have to. you don't technically have to, but someone has to hear. it's what we call an affirm tich defense, you're arguing, yes, i shot and killed this person but for a reason. that's with the way you get it in. i thought mcmichael did okay on direct exam. i thought he explained what
happened. but then the prosecutor just took out his knees on cross-examination, showing he was being untruthful and the main reasons he offered in his own defense did not stand up. >> this business about defendants not taking the stand, there's truth to it, but usually the defendants who don't take the stand have long criminal records that will come out if they take the witness stand. and as elie was just saying, in a self-defense case, you have a little bit of a different situation, and particularly where your client doesn't have a criminal record. and here they try to, you know, show his extensive training in the coast guard, that he was familiar with carrying a weapon and trying to de-escalate situations. and you know something? i think that's going to blow up on him completely, because they tried to show that he was cool, calm, well trained in how he handles situations. this cross-examination demonstrated that he was in a panic state, really, in this case. he wasn't deliberately making decisions about how to use force or not. and one of the big areas of
questioning also was that arbery was cornered. one of them used the word "cornered like a rat" in statements that were made previous to the testimony. his father was there with his .357 magnum. there were other ways that he wasn't really in danger because he had all of these other people around him. and if he was this cool, collected, trained coast guard person, he didn't act that way in this particular case. >> so you've got the three departments here, travis mcmichael, who's taken the stand, and we heard this morning another one of the defendants, william bryan, he at least through his attorney said right now he is not planning to testify. what do you think of that? i don't know if it ends up only being one of the defendants takes the stand. what's the impact of that? >> i think it's very unlikely we hear from either of the other two defendants. there's an interesting dynamic that happens in a multidefendant trial, where, remember, each has his own lawyer.
actually, the father's lawyer, bryan's lawyer, they could have cross-examined travis mcmichael if they wanted to, but they chose not to. i think the strategy here is let's put our best spoken person forward, most at the center of the action forward, and he will speak for us. i do think, you know, the jury, it's important, has to return separate verdicts on each of these people. so it's possible they find travis guilty and the father not guilty, right. so we'll get different verdicts down the line. one of the things that happened is bryan, the guy in the car, the separate car, he is a little bit fading into the background now of the jury's mind. he was barely mentioned. so his lawyer may be happy with that. sometimes you want your client in the background if you're a defense lawyer. >> i agree. bryan won't be put on the stand because the prosecutors haven't made out a conspiracy between the three men to corner arbery, very clearly, in front of the jury. and bryan i think, has a very strong possibility of walking. you notice that travis was very defensive about his faeter, too, because his father made a number of outrageous statements.
and so i don't think you put the father on stand. he'll make a lot more outrageous statements if he takes the stand. >> in addition to this testimony today, we also -- this is -- also today that same attorney who has been complaining about the presence of black pastors in the courtroom filed a third motion today to try to keep reverend al sharpton as well as jesse jackson out of the courtroom. and every day -- this has become an everyday thing. every day he's complained about the presence of allowing black pastors to sit in the courtroom. i'm wondering why, like, what is it? >> it's for show. it's for show. there's no legal basis to that. courtrooms are public spaces. any member of the public can go into this courtroom. pastors are entitled to be there just the same as anyone else. >> is this about later? is this about a motion -- >> no. theoretically, but no. >> come on. these motions have no legal ground. it's a public courtroom, and if al sharpton or jesse jackson wants to watch the trial, and as
you see, they have a legal right to do so. this is a lawyer who i think doesn't know what he's doing, doing this sort of thing. it's mind-boggling what he's doing. he's injecting clearly racism into the trial when of course the best defense here is that this has nothing to do with race, it has to do with us trying to apprehend somebody who's committing a crime. >> on the most basic level, elie, you have three men versus one, one person as we learned today, one person with a gun, the defendant with a gun, you have white men chasing a young black man down in two pickup trucks. like, how do you get beyond those facts? >> yeah. i think that's a really powerful argument that the prosecution is making. picture the scene. try, if possible, put yourself -- imagine what it was like for ahmaud arbery. it was a really effective portion of the cross-examination at the end when the prosecutor asked a whole series of "you could have" questions. you could have let him run. you could have followed him in your car.
you could have stayed in your car. and the answer to all of those from travis mcmichael, was yes, yes, yes. i think it drove home the point they did exactly what the father told the cops they were trying to do, and this is the father's line, trap him like a rat. it's a powerful point. >> i appreciate that. we'll keep a close eye on this trial. we'll bring you more. but we also now want to turn to day three of jury deliberation in the kyle rittenhouse trial. the jurors have deliberated for more than 17 hours. they have asked the judge to, again, watch video evidence that was presented in this case, including, we can show you, this drone video of the -- one of the deadly shootings at the heart of the latest mistrial request from the defense. this drone video is now becoming a very big thing. cnn's shimon prokupecz is live outside the courthouse in kenosha, wisconsin, with the very latest. shimon, what's happening right now? what are you hearing? >> reporter: jury's back. they're deliberating. there was a brief discussion
with the lawyers and the security staff at the courthouse about something that they're trying to figure out. we don't really have any reportable information on that. but as far as the jury, they're back, they're deliberating, and we're just waiting. we haven't heard anything else from the judge or the court this morning, but we do know, as i said, that the jury is back. i was talking to the defense attorney, marc rich archdiocese, briefly in the hallway after they had this meeting with the judge. he actually said, interestingly enough -- he's been lawyer for many, many years. he told me this is the longest he's had to wait for a jury verdict. this is the longest he's had a jury out in any of the criminal cases he's tried. so i thought that was kind of interesting. but, you know, they're just waiting. the other thing that everyone obviously -- it was raised yesterday because of the drone video, the defense is very angry about it, they've asked for a mistrial. the defense attorney told me they're waiting to file this motion. they haven't filed it yet, but they're waiting to file it. we're waiting on news on that.
otherwise, everyone here is just pretty much waiting. the jury, really, it's kind of interesting, they're just continuing to work. rehaven't heard much from them except for some of those notes yesterday. >> shimon, thank you so much for that. really appreciate it. we are following another high-profile trial in charlottesville, virginia. closing arguments are under way in the unite the right trial. it's federal lawsuit which includes white supremacists of engaging in a conspiracy to commit racially motivated violence in the rally in 2017 that turned deadly. jason karol is at the white house. what's happening? >> reporter: all morning long we've been listening to mr. chairmans' attorneys giving their closing arguments, and really giving an overview, a comprehensive overview of the totality of evidence that they presented over the course of this three-week trial, which they say shows enough evidence to show that there was, quote, evidence is crystal clear that
the plan went as intended, basically saying all the evidence is there for jurors to see that these defendants conspired to commit acts of violence. they showed the text messages they showed, reminded them of the social media posts that were out there. one text message in particular, one that was sent from christopher cantwell, a well-known neo-nazi, to richard spencer, the person who coined the phrase "alt-right," this text message read, "i'm willing to risk a lot for our cause, including incarceration. i want to coordinate and make sure it's worth it for our cause." again, reminding jurors of these text messages, all of the totality of evidence that they presented throughout this trial, asking jurors, they say it is a reasonable foreseeability given all the evidence that was pre presented to show these men conspired to commit acts of violence. of course the defense will get their turn later this afternoon.
kate? coming up for us still at this hour, house republicans are standing by and supporting congressman paul gosar despite being censured for posting that violent video depicting him killing a colleague and attacking the president. political extremism reaching new lows in america. that's next. ♪ so light 'em up, up, up light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ i'm on fire ♪ ♪ so light 'em up, up, up light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ light 'em up, up, up ♪ ♪ i'm on fire ♪ ♪ oh-oh-oh-oh-oh, oh-oh-oh-oohohh ♪ ♪ in the dark, dark ♪ new cheetos boneless wings. exclusively at applebee's. people with moderate to severe psoriasis, or psoriatic arthritis, are rethinking the choices they make like the splash they create the way they exaggerate the surprises they initiate. otezla. it's a choice you can make.
otezla is not an injection or a cream it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. ♪ ♪ you are my fire ♪ ♪ the one desire ♪ ♪ you are, you are, ♪
♪ don't wanna hear you say... ♪ ♪ ♪ i want it that way ♪ as someone who resembles someone else, i appreciate that liberty mutual knows everyone's unique. that's why they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. [ ferry horn honks ] i mean just cause you look like someone else doesn't mean you eat off the floor, [ chuckles ] or yell at the vacuum, or need flea medication. oh, yeah. that's the spot. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪
try garlique healthy immune support formula. uniquely formulated with garlic, vitamins and minerals to support a strong, healthy immune system. garlique. new this morning, republican congressman paul gosar is defiant after being censured by the house of representatives and stripped of his committee assignments for posting a violent animated video depicting him killing congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez and attacking president biden. about an hour after that rare rebuke, he re-tweeted the same cartoon video again. cnn's lauren fox is live on capitol hill with more. lauren, so that's what happened yesterday, but what does it all mean today? >> well, there are few things that we're going to be watching for. the ethics committee is going to
be looking into this incident. they usually go ahead with their investigations behind closes doors and they are secretive about that, so we may not have results from that for a couple of weeks or even months. there is also a question of whether or not this potentially could be criminal behavior. house speaker nancy pelosi told me yesterday that this is something that law enforcement should look into, not just because this was a threat against a fellow member but also a threat against the president of the united states. now, yesterday during this censure, there was a call from representative alexandria ocasio-cortez arguing that this was really just a simple question of wrong or right, and here's what she said. >> what is so hard? what is so hard about saying that this is wrong? this is not about me. this is not about representative
gosar, but this is about what we are willing to accept. >> and, of course, kate, one of the things that happened yesterday was just two republicans were willing to vote with democrats on this censure resolution and to remove gosar from his two committees. obviously not very many republicans thought this was worth admonishing. kate? >> lauren, thank you. joining me now for senator huma abedin, a to be aide and longtime adviser with hillary clinton starting from the first lady's office to the senate and state department and beyond. also the author of the new book "both and, a life and many worlds." good to sigh, huma. thanks for coming in. >> great to be with you, kate. just look at the political discourse today. you as well as secretary clinton faced untold number of kind of political attacks and even threats of violence, and for years, i mean, who do you blame for what we see as the political
discourse reaching these new lows? >> well, you know, as i write in the book, i've been in politics for the last 25 years. i grew up in a time where, you know, you had a proactive positive message for the day. you didn't listen to the nonsense, and that was when we were living in the world of 24-hour news, and now we're in 24-second news, and there's constantly things being thrown out in the world. it does feel like we're increasingly divided, but i believe the only way forward is to sit at the table with the other side and try to understand, try to respect, but some of the most recent stuff is shocking. >> only two -- as lauren said, only two republicans joined democrats in supporting the censure. i mean what, we heard from some republicans is this was ridiculous and childish and stupid coming from gosar but not a real threat of violence. do you see that? >> i think to have civility and respect for the other side is the only way forward, and it seems -- and it's hard to be in
that spates and place today. it doesn't -- you know, i don't think if i have talked to somebody who i disagree with that i'll necessarily change their mine, but at least having the ability to have those civil conversations, it just seems these days to be extinct. >> think about just like the environment today. you write a lot about -- in your book about hillary clinton's legacy and that you see the vice president. you see vice president kamala harris as part of that, and i was reflecting how like hillary clinton vice president harris is serving in the service of a former rival. this week the white house is defending after -- defensing the vice president after cnn has been reporting of tension in the west wing. key aides saying that they are worn out by what they see as entrenched dysfunction and lack of focus from harris and her staff. when you hear this, what do you make of it from just your experience? >> i walked into the white house in 1996 as a 21-year-old intern
and i write as i progressed in my job with hillary, 2000 senate race, 2008 presidential campaign and 2016. it is hard for women in politics, i think it is hard for people to see women in executive leadership positions whether it's in politics or outside, and senator, vice president harris and then senator harris who made history before she was vice president, she's done a lot of tough, hard things. her team i publicly and privately support the effort that they are trying do. there's always going to be people talking. >> do you see sexism in this? >> absolutely i see sexism in some of the ways we talk about women leaders and i've seen it with hillary. i end the book with my belief that we really need to be supporting, especially our vice president. she is an extremely smart, talented, you know, history-making figure, and i -- i resent every time there's some sort of a negative accusation
made, but i do -- personally i do see sexism in it. >> you talk about how long you have been in politics and how -- i mean, you have seen the -- some of the best and definitely some of the worst of politics which is why i was so struck when i saw you say in interviews that you're leaving the door open yourself to running for office. after you have experienced up close what the glare of political -- politics and political office, what that spotlight can do, the toll that it can take on families, why would you want to expose yourself to that when you know the real costs of it? >> well, you know, i -- that was my very first interview that i did when i was asked if i would run for office. this is my year of saying yes. one of the things i'm thrilled about with this book is i've put everything in there. a lot of people ask questions about the choices and decisions i made in my own life. it's all in the book. i hoped this would be my year of saying yes. i close the book by saying i think one of the greatest
professions you can be involved in is public service. the reward. it's worth the risk. i loved every minute of t.do i see myself running for office? i don't, but i would like to be open to all kinds of options and possibilities. >> you end the book with -- with -- that you would do is all over again so no regrets. is that what you're saying? >> no regrets. absolutely not. i can't think of anything that i would regret. i have so much gratitude for the life that i've, been one of extraordinary prif learning daughter of immigrant parents, came to this country. i have only positive and, you know, wonderful reflections on my experience in politics. >> and you can read it all in the book. huma, thank you for coming in. >> thank you. >> thanks so much for being here and "inside politics" begins right now. hello, everybody, and welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king in washington. thank you for sharing your very busy day with us. anxiety as america anticipates a