first approach with a skateboard. you testified that after a few more feet, you felt light-headed and you stumble. that's what you told when your attorneys asked questions, correct? >> correct. >> no one knocked you to the ground. you lost your arm balanced, correct? >> i was hit to the point where i stumbled. >> you said in response to your attorneys questions that you stumbled because you were light-headed. >> from getting hit. >> you were light-headed because you had been running, and you were being chased. that is why you were light-headed, correct? >> that and being hit, yes. >> let's continue. pause. there is an individual who comes at you and jumps towards you and attempts to kick you, correct? >> he does kick me.
>> you fire two shots directly at him with your ar-15. >> yes. >> you intended to hit him with those bullets, correct? >> i intended -- yes. >> at that close range, it is a miracle that you missed, right? >> i don't know. >> you intended to kill him with those shots, didn't you? >> no. >> did you even care whether or not those two rounds were going to kill him? >> i didn't want to have to kill anybody that night. >> in this moment, you are making a deliberate decision to pull the trigger twice, correct? >> yes. >> that was not an accident. i was your conscious decision. >> yes. >> you are firing an ar-15 at close range to this individual, correct? >> yes. >> you knew full well that if you hit him with one or both of
those bullets, it could kill him, right? >> there is that possibility. >> if you hit him with one of those, wouldn't you agree it's a strong likelihood you are going to kill him? >> i don't know. >> did that factor into your mind at that point? did you care if you were going to kill him or not? >> i didn't want to have to kill anybody. i was being attacked. that's why i shot at him. >> you shot at him with the intent of hitting him and killing him, correct? >> i didn't want to kill anybody. >> then why are you shooting at someone with an ar-15 at close range if you don't want to kill him? >> because he is attacking me. he was stomping my face in, jumping and kicking my face. >> you didn't see any weapons on that person, did you? >> no. >> you didn't see a gun, knife, a bat, a club, a chain. all he uses is 1 foot, correct?
>> yes. >> let's continue the video. pause. you've just shot around into anthony hubert's chest. up until this moment, probably for the rest of that evening, you did not know the name, did you? >> i did not. >> up until the mic this moment in this evening, you have never had an election with him, took notice of him? >> yes. >> when you shoot him, he's got his skateboard in his hand? >> yes. >> you didn't see any gun? a knife? a bat? a club? >> no. >> all he's got is the skateboard, correct? >> that he has hit me in the head with twice, yes. >> and you intend to pull the trigger at that moment with your
ar-15. that wasn't an accident that was a deliberate decision. you know the way that gun was positioned, if you were going to fire it up on -- right in his chest, correct? >> he was attacking me, so i pulled the trigger. >> you knew that when you pulled that trigger, that bullet was going to go into his chest, didn't you? >> i don't know where the bullet would have went exactly. >> the end of that gun was pointed directly at his chest when you pulled the trigger, correct? and you knew that, correct? >> yes. >> and you still pulled the, didn't you? >> yes. >> you intended to kill anthony hubert at that moment, didn't you? >> no. >> what did you think was going to happen? you've got a gun that is aimed directly at his chest, you pull the trigger, what did you think was going to happen? >> if i didn't pull the trigger, i thought he was going to kill me.
>> may be a mismy question. when you pull the trigger of the ar-15, and it's directly against his chest, what did you think was going to happen to anthony hubert? >> that he would no longer be a threat to my safety. >> because he would be dead, right? >> because he wouldn't be a threat to me. i don't know if he would be done or not. >> did you even care that moment whether or not anthony hubert lived or died? >> yes. >> your only concern was your own safety, correct? >> yes. >> the next shooting is of gauge gauge -- we have stopped the video at a moment or he's crouched in front of you with his hands in the air. your gun is pointed at him, isn't it? >> it is pointed downward towards his feet. >> it is pointed at some part of his body, correct?
>> yes. >> he is no threat to you at this point. >> your honor, he's in front of them with a gun. >> that's an argument you can make. i'm asking a question of the witness. he has no threat to you at this moment, is he questioning >> he is a threat. he has a gun >> you saw that gun? >> yes. >> so throughout all of these moments in your interaction, you were aware of the fact that he had that gun in his hand? >> not until that moment. >> i am talking about from this moment on. >> yes cured >> of course, that is a handgun, and you have an ar-15, correct? >> yes. >> at this particular moment, he's not pointing his gun at you, is he? but you got your gun pointed at him, correct? >> looking at the video, i think i'm lowering my weapon. i think it is just a still shot where you have it there, but i
believe in the video, i am lowering it, and he flips his gun at me. >> can you help me understand why gage, with a pistol in his hand, is a threat to kill you, but you with an ar-15 pointed at him is not a threat to kill him this moment? can you help me understand that? >> i have been attacked by several people, and he decided to point a gun at my head. >> he hasn't done that yet, has he? >> again, i ask you, you told us that he's a threat to you right now. he's got a pistol not aimed at you. you have got an ar-15 aimed at him. why is he more of a threat to you than you are to him? >> he was moving at me with a
gun in his hand. >> this is right after you killed anthony, correct? right after you fired two shots at almost point-blank range at the man running toward the camera right now and missing him, correct? >> yes. >> you are telling us that gage is the real threat at this moment? >> yes. >> can we please pull up exhibit 80, beginning at frame 468. this is an exhibits which consists of -- what is 732?
729 frames from the "bg on the go" video we just watched. this is prepared by james armstrong. i'm not going to show all 729, but i would like to start at frame 468. we are going to go frame by frame from there until frame 500. could you please slowly advance frame by frame until i tell you to stop?
mr. rittenhouse, this is immediately after gage has stopped in front of you and you are doing something with your firearm at that moment. do you recall the questioning >> yes. >> you are asking questions. is it fair to say you turn your firearm over and are looking at it, examining a customer >> yes. >> your testimony is you didn't do anything to manipulate it at that moment. is that fair to say customer >> correct. please continue. is that fair to say? >> correct. >> please continue. >> frame 500 shows you firing
your ar-15 towards gaige grosskreutz. at this particular moment, he does not have that pistol pointed towards you, does he? >> he does. >> has left leg has stepped across, not directly towards you, but to the side of you, correct? >> yes. >> he is reaching and with his left arm towards you, correct? >> yes. >> he never steps back and puts the gun in both hands in an in y aim position towards you? >> he never does that. >> he doesn't take his gun out, stand there with his right hand in front of them, and emma directly at your customer >> no, he does not pointed directly at my head. >> and you thought that's how he
was going to shoot you? >> yes. >> you thought he ran close to you to shoot you? >> yes. >> you understand that he could have taken that gun and shot you from 10-15-20 feet away, right? >> sorry, i'm trying to understand the question. >> you understand that a pistol like that does not need to be right next to somebody to shoot, right? it can shoot from 10-20 feet away. >> yes. >> mr. grosskreutz could have stopped 20 feet away if you wanted to shoot you and fired his pistol at you, couldn't he? >> he could have, but he didn't. >> your testimony is that he ran up close to you and reached in with his left hand with his gun on his right hand, because that was his way of using the gun to shoot you? >> yes. >> did you think he was reaching into grab your gun?
>> no. >> you didn't think he was going to take your gun away, did you? >> i thought he was going to shoot me. >> with his pistol? >> yes. >> which he never does. >> correct. >> he never fires that gun at you. >> no. >> in fact, in this entire sequence of events, no one ever fired a gun at you, did they? >> someone fired a gun from behind me. >> did he fire that gun at you? >> i believe so. >> what did you base that on, the video? did you see it? >> no. >> you are talking of the incident with mr. rosenbaum? >> correct. >> that happened while you were running across the storage lot, correct? >> correct. >> at that moment in time, you do not see him fire a shot, you customer you heard a gunshot, but have no idea who fired. >> i believed it was him.
>> so, that gunshot did not affect your decision to kill joseph rosenbaum, did it? >> no, mr. rosenbaum tried to -- >> so you did not think there was a gunshot from joseph rosenbaum. >> i see what your question means now. you didn't see all might think the shot was by -- it had been fired by mr. rosenbaum. >> exactly. >> okay. >> you heard a gunshot. you now know that was joshua, but at the time, you did not think that was joseph rosenbaum. you don't agree with me that you didn't have the right to kill joseph rosenbaum for something joshua does, correct questioning >> yes.
>> when you heard that gunshot, you did not know if it was fired up in the air or at rosenbaum or anyone else, did you customer >> i heard from behind me, but i didn't -- >> you did not know where was aimed, correct? you did not feel it hit you, correct question works because correct. >> you did not hear it ricochet anywhere near you. >> correct. >> you received no indication that that gunshot was going to put your life in danger, correct? >> i don't know. >> there were gunshots going off all night long, weren't there? >> sort of? >> firecrackers customer >> yes. >> hard to tell the difference? >> yes. >> right after you kill rosenbaum, there's three shots after that stomach >> yes. >> from close to where you were, yet you don't shoot anybody there after you hear those, did you? >> no. >> back to my original question:
in this entire sequence of events, no one ever fired a shot at you, did they customer >> no. >> after you kill anthony huber, shoot gaige grosskreutz, and attempt to fire those to push out that the person who jumped at you, you got up and walked away. >> yes. >> you are what a block away from the police line? and you know that line as they are because you are running towards it? >> yes. >> there's really nothing on the road between you and that police line after the shooting, is there? everybody scatters? >> nothing in the road. >> you have a clear line of sight from where you did those shootings to those law enforcement vehicles, correct? >> yes. >> you still have your ar-15, and the crowd pretty much runs
after they hear the shots, right? >> yes. >> you still have your medic bag. you never once offered to help anybody you just shot, correct? >> i don't. >> correct? >> correct. >> anthony huber is lying there on the ground after you shot him once in the chest. >> correct >> you didn't know whether he was alive or dead? >> i didn't. >> you never went over to check? >> no. >> you didn't know if it was possible to save his life, did you customer >> i didn't. >> you didn't care? you just kept walking? >> i kept walking to get to the police line. >> gaige grosskreutz, right after you shoot him in the arm, he is yelling "i need a medic." did you hear that? that's in the videos, isn't it? you don't do anything to help him? >> no. >> you decide to get out of there as fast as you can,
correct? >> yes. >> if you had seen someone running up the street with a gun in the crowd wasn't saying that person just shot someone, like they were saying about you, you would have taken action to stop them yourself, wouldn't you questioning >> no. >> you are putting out fires, aren't you? shootings are far more serious than a fire. >> yes. >> you took it upon yourself to do the things that the police and fire were not doing that night, correct?
>> i helped put out fires, but i wouldn't say that. >> you offered medical service because you didn't think there were emts or emss that would come in their? >> yes. >> you took it upon yourself to do the things that you didn't think the police or fire could do, correct? >> i wouldn't say i took it upon myself, but i was helping people with first aid and putting out fires at businesses. >> if you saw someone running with a gun on him and everybody says "that got shot someone," he would have taken your ar-15 and try to stop them, wouldn't you? it goes to the crowd's reaction to him, your honor. i think he would react the same way. >> the crowd is important, in terms of it is a factor that bears on some of the accounts as to what the surroundings were. otherwise, the crowd is unimportant. what he might have done vis-a-vis the crowd, i don't see
where we are going. >> understood. when you got back to that police line, and, what did you say, they pepper sprayed you? >> i believe so, but i don't remember. >> they told you to get out of the road because they were going in there to do what you hadn't done, which is try to help the people that you just shot, right? >> yes. >> you went back after that to the 59th street car source, didn't you? you told them you just shot someone. >> yes. >> someone, meaning an individual person, correct? >> i didn't mean an individual. i was saying i just shot someone. >> you were told by nick smith that the police were coming to your location come up to the 59th street car source, right customer >> i don't recall that. >> and yet, you decided to flee, didn't you? >> no. >> you did not stick around for
the police? >> i want to turn myself into the antioch police department. >> a couple of hours later? >> and our. >> i am asking the witness they will answer. >> you can answer. >> it was a couple of hours later, wasn't it customer >> no. >> in between leaving that location downtown kenosha and getting to antioch, you were looking at social media? >> my phone was dead. >> you heard from other people that your name was out there, right? >> later in the evening, i believe i heard something, but know. >> you knew your picture was out there? >> no. >> you are telling me as you sit here, under oath, that after those shootings, between then and the time you turned yourself into the antioch police department, you had no idea that there was a social media out there with your picture and name as the shooter?
>> i'm trying to recall, but... i'm trying to remember. i'm sorry, i don't remember. >> any further questions? >> nothing further, your honor. >> you may step down, sir. >> your honor -- before calling a witness, i need to use the men's room. >> about a 5-10 minute break? please do not talk about the case during the break. you may either use the jury room or remain down here in the library.
>> we have been watching the trial of kyle rittenhouse. it's been riveting the entire day. you are watching "the five." great to have everybody here, judge jeanine, geraldo, jesse watters and jesse watters and greg gutfeld. >> jeanine: i was just checking, how long after the two murders and the one assault or attempted murder the charges were filed? this video and all the other information that's been brought together, it took a while to put together -- this d.a. charged rittenhouse within 48 hours. the d.a. never really looked into whether or not there was a possibility of self-defense. he immediately indicted him. what you are seeing today is a d.a. who was reacting to the scenario of what we were doing in a post george floyd world, in an area where jacob blake had just been shot. you've got a young guy who was a
new cpr, a police explorer, some kind of fireman cadet. he was a good kid. he went there to clean up graffiti on the buildings. he has exemplified, on that witness stand, whatever defendant should learn to do. that is to speak clearly, directly. he stops exactly where he should stop. he doesn't add any further information. he listens exquisitely to the questions, and -- there isn't anything on the part of the defense attorney to object to this prosecutor, who is so desperate, so out of control that he's even got the judge going through the roof in that courtroom. the bottom line here is that this kid has established that when he shot rosenbaum, the first victim, he was in fear for his own life. when he shot the second guy, he was legitimately in fear and reasonably of his own life, and when he shot grosskreutz come of
the third guy who did not die, though he is being charged with attempted murder, he had legitimate grounds for which he used deadly physical force. the question is whether or not the prosecutor can prove, because the burden of proof has shifted, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was not self defense. he can't. >> yesterday geraldo, you thought that this might not even go to the point where you have the defendant take the witness stand, but he did. perhaps, that might have been the best thing he could have done for himself? >> geraldo: it's not something i would've recommended. putting the defendant on the witness stand is always a toss of the dice. more bad things can happen that i am good, but this kid has stood his ground. this is a self-defense case. did he reasonably believed that his life was in danger, and was the force he used it to himself appropriate? it seems to me that the kid -- now, he is a dopey kid with a
hero complex. he shouldn't have been there. he should not have had the ar-15, but i think he walks to tell you the truth. i don't see how they touch him on the murder case, the most serious charges. the other one, what is it, recklessly endangering? i think there's a reasonable possibility that, aside from the possession of the weapon is a minor, i think he's going to go. >> dana: go ahead, judge. >> jeanine: i don't think he is dopey. just because he's not mr. gore from new york city does not make him a dopey kid. these kids practice cpr, train with the police. >> geraldo: he's a 17-year-old with an ar-15! >> jeanine: you don't know what it's like in that part of the country, maybe you do. >> geraldo: i lived there. >> jeanine: you do, you lived there. [laughter] charges for possession of that weapon is nine months, because he's under 18. let's not conflate the issues.
that's a great kid, the kind of kid who will grow up and have a moral core. >> dana: earlier today, the defense asked for a mistrial because of the prosecutor. >> jesse: the prosecutor is a joke. not only has he exhibited misconduct. he coached a witness to lie and got caught cold. it's now illegal to defend yourself. if someone is assaulting you, chasing you, grabbing your weapon, shooting firearms over your head, and then aiming a revolver at your skull, this prosecutor says you can't defend yourself. that is insane. this all started with jacob blake. the prosecutor's office, corrupt democrat district attorneys, release a falsely edited piece of footage to make it look like this was a cold-blooded racial execution attempt, when in fact blake was a bad guy who was a rapist and had a knife, and was
a danger to police officers and people in that car. that didn't come out until rider. at that point, that inflamed such hostility in the streets -- this is a tender moment, just after the situation we saw in minneapolis. all of a sudden, people start looting and rioting, millions of dollars in damage. politicians have told the police to stand down. they weren't doing anything. unfortunately, small business owners had to call in help, and this guy -- i agree that he shouldn't have had a gun, both dominic probably shouldn't be there, but that's what happens when you treat police like garbage and politicians tell them not to defend law and order. clear self-defense. everybody that sees the footage knows that. the media comes out and smears this guy as a white supremacist. joe biden comes out during the campaign it puts out a tweet when he donald trump, says "white supremacy" with a picture of rittenhouse. that is slander.
then, there's nasty charges thrown at this guy because he wants to run for d.a. he's got political aspirations. this is the axis of evil. it's prosecutor, the press, and politicians conspiring to create violence, create a deadly situation. when a deadly violent situation happens, they want a scalp of this kid. that's corrupt. >> i want to show one thing. we have sound from the judge folding the prosecution, and we will go to break. >> i was astonished when you begin your examination by commenting on the defendant's postarrest silence. that has been basic law in this country for 40-50 years! i have no idea why you would do something like that! i will leave it at that. i don't know what you are up to.
you know very well that an attorney can't go into these types of areas where the judge has already ruled without asking outside the presence of the jury to do so. >> that happened earlier today. there is another angle on this. the media coverage at the time and since, and if there's any sort of revisiting of that. >> greg: as jesse pointed out, the media coverage of the jacob blake thing led to this. what they did was they excused the rampant violence, cheered at the reduction of police. what did i do? it creates a void. who fills that void? sometimes, folks do, but other times, well-meaning citizens who have had enough. that is the story old as time. when there is no police, you become the policeman, hence why you have cops. i've learned a lot from this prosecutor. number one, you have to let someone beat you over the head
with a skateboard. if you defend yourself, that's on you. you should never shoot a guy pointing a gun at you, because he hasn't shot you yet. remember that. he made that very clear. "he hasn't shot you yet." when a guy comes at you with a gun up close, he probably won't shoot you, because he could have shot you maybe 10 feet earlier. however, he probably would've had a better chance to kill you up close, but that never would've happened, because he would've done it already. the bottom line, there's somebody pointing a gun at you. it's not enough for self-defense. you must be shot first. bottom line, and jesse nailed it. rittenhouse was doing a policeman's job because he could no longer rely on the state or politicians to provide cover or protection for the police. the city was burning and going to hell unabated, so this kid rightly or wrongly, probably acting on his own stinks,
thought he could help. i loved jeffrey toobin's take today saying "rittenhouse is that he's not on trial for being an idiot." [laughter] he shouldn't be thinking about getting a permit before going after jeffrey toobin. i think you are going to see, if the media deliberately blocks this information from coming out and instead -- for example, you never would've known that gaige pointed a gun at this guy if you had been following the media's coverage of this. therefore, if he is acquitted, you are going to have the same thing were people go "oh, my god, why guy is acquitted, he can do whatever he wants!" even though he shot white people. our media is interested in the racial divide. they will make it about race. rex chapman artie did on people. what's going to happen is you will have the activist class egged on by the media again at cnn, saying "it's time to scream and yell, and yes, restorative
justice can take the shape of looting and arson." we are in the business of misinforming the public to create conflict. >> dana: we have a montage of our team put together of some of the media coverage. >> to defend the actions of a 17-year-old man who killed two protesters, one of which was armed with a skateboard. last time i checked, i don't think a skateboard can kill someone. >> a 17-year-old kid from out of state, a boy, from out of state, drives up to the state with an error 15 around his neck, shoots and kills a couple of people, shooting wildly, running around, acting like a rent a cop. >> it's not good that a 17-year-old vigilante, arguably a domestic terrorist, picked up a rifle and drove to a different state to shoot people. >> the media continued to basically bask in glory, i
guess -- the judge goes forward with this request from the defense for a mistrial. is that a possibility? >> jeanine: i don't think at this point, a judge will grant a mistrial. i have something to say about the judge and the way the judge acted in this case. the judge lost it for good reason. what you've got is a prosecution crossing the line that is as old as the constitution, where you have a right to not incriminate yourself. the prosecution is trying to make this kid someone who is not entitled to the right to remain silent. you know from every tv show you've ever watched you have the right to remain silent, but this prosecutor is saying "this is the first time you've talked about it since this thing happened," as if, therefore, you are not entitled to have the right to remain silent. everyone in their mind when they go into the jury room is going to say "i wonder, he had to think it all through into work at all through." that's a fundamental mistake by
the prosecution. when the judge says "why would you even do that? i can't figure out why you would do it," the prosecution wants to push a mistrial, because the prosecution knows they are losing. this kid is one of the best witnesses i've seen on the witness stand without a doubt. he has an uncanny sense for what to say and when to stop. >> dana: and he's fighting for his life. back to the trial in a moment, but one more comment from geraldo and jesse. speech of the defense to speech of the defense does not want to mistrial. the >> geraldo: the defense does not want to mistrial. the defense is winning. this is a prosecution built on false legos, that this is a 17-year-old kid -- again, it's a dopey mistake, hero complex, "i can save my community, i'm just like all those great people." >> greg: like those people who join the military. they want to help their society. >> geraldo: may be so.
i understand -- i believe he's going to be acquitted. the prosecution missed the mark, trade every dirty trick they possibly could, the facts don't work for the prosecution. the kid was reasonable in his use of force, deadly force. >> jeanine: geraldo, don't you think once the d.a. had the information for the witnesses, they should have at least offered a plea here? the d.a. jumps -- and 48 hours indicting a case at this, you don't know the facts in 48 hours. there should have been some recognition that this was a loser case. >> geraldo: i wonder at what point the defense knew they were going to put the kid on. i want to know if they lead the prosecution down the primrose path to then whack them with a kid that was impenetrable from the point of view of this lamb cicada. >> jeanine: we've known for a long time that that video has been out there.
you don't have to tell anybody -- >> dana: let's get jesse. >> jesse: the montage we showed of the press, that was so sinister. they have lost control of information in america. they used to have total control. you could go on tv and why. you look at the headlines covering the story, it's like they are watching a different child and the rest of the country. we have the internet. we see all angles of footage. we can watch testimony live. they are trying to sell a lie to their audience. many of the audience wants to be lied to. they are not interested in the truth. >> geraldo: can i say one thing? we have to be careful not to be rooting for the kid. >> jesse: sometimes, things are sideways. from the narrative -- move the narrative towards the truth. they have not done it. >> the kid should not have been there, but they should not have threatened them with pistols.
they should not have whacked his head with a skate board peered >> this is self-defense. >> i am saying it is. >> okay. >> greg: it's funny. it is hard not to personalize this, but i keep thinking -- they keep saying that he went across state lines. it's close to where he lives. it's where he works. >> jesse: his father lives in kenosha. >> greg: i know that. what i'm saying is, if i were 17, and my community was being destroyed, and i was there, and i had the skills, and -- again, i'm 17, i am an optimistic, hopeful person, and i'm watching my community be destroyed, what i hide in my house? i don't know what i would do, but i would definitely be outside. i would definitely go and see what i could do. i don't know if i would have a gun, because in california, it's different, but i would have been there. >> jesse: for the most part, as he has testified in witnesses have testified, he was putting out fires and delivering medical
need. that is what he was up to. >> jesse: that >> geraldo: that was the least believable part. >> jeanine: they have videotape of him getting rid of graffiti and witnesses saying he did apply medical relief. >> dana: we are going to take a very quick break. more of "the five" coming up. landscaper larry and his trusty crew... were delayed when the new kid totaled his truck. timber... fortunately, they were covered by progressive, so it was a happy ending... for almost everyone.
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.
>> geraldo: welcome back to "the five." the judge in the rittenhouse case has dismissed the trial for the day. they will restart tomorrow morning. we will give full coverage, on dana's show in the morning. >> dana: thank you. >> geraldo: i could pass on a comic relief not to experience and some joy when my least favorite congressman, adam schiff, got in broad daylight by "the view" for his toxic role in promoting the totally discredited phony trump russia dossier that torture then president trump and put the country under hell. watch them squirm through this tough line of questioning. because the president's -- >> you put together the information yourself for years by promoting it. that's what people who entrusted you to be the senate until community chair confused by your culpability in this.
>> i disagree with your promise. it's one thing to say an allegation should be investigated, and they were. it's another to say that we should -- that some people were lying, which is impossible of course to do. let's not use that as a smoke screen to somehow shield donald trump's culpability for inviting russia to help him in the election, which they did. none of that is undercut. some don't like none that serious misconduct is diminished by the fact that people lied to christopher steele. >> your credibility is. >> his credibility is nonexistent. this is b.s. it cut the it put the country through agony. it made him crazy. >> jeanine: who? >> geraldo: president trump. >> jeanine: it made me crazy. i think he held it together. [laughter] this guy, he has a sack of schiff. [laughter] >> geraldo: can you say that shirley? >> jeanine: oh schiff.
this guys running around saying "i got the evidence, i have proof beyond a reasonable doubt!" even in his denial, he says "we cannot shield trump from asking russia to help in the election." even when he is shown to be a liar, that he didn't have evidence, did not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, he is not willing to apologize for it. we hated each other in america! families did not talk to each other about russian collusion. for the first time -- and they are still talking about it! it's as if russia, and not china, is the biggest enemy of the united states at this point. i think he's pathetic and i don't believe a word he says. >> to the judge's point, remember the chain of events. this led directly to the first impeachment. it unsettled the republic in a way that was profound for what, the third time in american history. this is not a little thing.
>> jesse: schiff ruined many waters' thanksgiving. he made my mom deranged! i'm serious! this destroyed the country. that's why trump wanted a do-over. [laughter] we now know that the democrats started the hoax, the democrats paid for the dossier. now, we know they put the lies in the dossier. schiff comes out on "the view" of all places and gets his teeth kicked in. he has been doing interviews the whole year, and now he goes to "love you," where a guest host hold his feet to the fire? it's pathetic that it took this long for the press to ask him a straight up question. we have to assume everything democrats say is erroneous. at this point, we are going to find out the election was rigged, greg! we've been waiting! >> greg: good one. >> geraldo: that is a counter narrative. [laughter] dana, there was a suspension of decency in the way the russian collusion probe was carried out. there was no fair play for the president.
i believe that william barr save the republic by sticking up for trump him saying "they are going to make him nuts by continually attacking him for something he denies." when the mueller report came out, it exonerated him essentially, and still there was the thanksgiving dinner conversations. >> dana: even after all we know about what's been happening with the durham investigation, the congressman goes on -- he has written a book, that's why he's on "the view." let's not forget. let's not give him more promotion. >> geraldo: "how i have screwed the country." [laughter] >> dana: he hasn't done an interview in years because he doesn't put himself in that position. he probably didn't expect that from morgan. she knows what she's talking about. he basically said "you cannot believe what i say, but still, you have to believe everything i say." he reminds me of the prosecutor in the rittenhouse trial. not dissimilar. >> geraldo: it's interesting
to hear you say that. it discredits our institutions so profoundly. you see a prosecutor lying, you see a prosecutor in the russian collusion case making stuff up, and it deflates you. these were the building blocks of our republic. if you can't trust the state to prosecute honestly, can't trust the justice department to investigate honestly, what do you have? >> dana: the truth is coming up here the wheels of justice turn slowly, but also, it will be exposed. i am confident of that, and i think if i were hillary clinton on my next book, i would not try to sell my get on the view with this guest star. [laughter] >> geraldo: to your point about the rittenhouse trial, and our comments being out of sync with the majority, this russian collusion news is not carried anywhere. >> greg: this is probably the
biggest point. as much as i am repulsed by adam schiff, i want to say it was great to see morgan ortagus on "the view." she seemed out of place with her pleasant, serious tone. it's like seeing dana at an snm dungeon. [laughter] "i'm disgusted by him." he didn't do this by himself. if you think about 2016 and 2020, the number of hoaxes crated by the democrats but engineered by the media -- you have the russian hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, the white supremacy movement hoax. what happened to that? speak to the in his room. >> greg: that's the dossier, the russian collusion. that's how it started. all these things did untold damage to so many people. personal, political, institutional -- >> dana: financial. >> greg: -- republicans used to be pro-fbi, pro-doj, pro-cia. no. they are as radical as abbie
hoffman! we are on the same side of glenn greenwald! we all saw what they had seen years ago. my question is, where is the legitimate reckoning for this five-year hoax? what can you do? this guy thinks he's going to run! why does he keep saying election instead of insurrection? >> jesse: pencil neck? [laughter] >> geraldo: what about what jesse said about families divided? its alternate realities now. >> jeanine: why are you asking me that? [laughter] >> geraldo: you have kids. >> jeanine: most of my kids are with -- they are sensible. [laughter] here's the bottom line: we have never been torn apart as a country as we were by this russian collusion delusion. they hurt all of us. i had friends for years who won't talk to me because of donald trump, as if he is a
so you have diabetes, here are some easy rules... no sugar. no pizza. no foods you love. stressed? no stress. exercise. but no days off. easy, no? no, no, no, no with freestyle libre 2, you can take the mystery out of your diabetes. now you know. sir? you know what you want to order? yes. freestyle libre 2. try it for free.
♪ ♪ >> dana: welcome back. before we get to one more thing. don't miss "the five" tomorrow we will be outside on fox square for veterans day honoring the brave men and women who serve our country and it's going to be a fine time had by all. we will be there. greg, you are first. >> greg: this one here. greg's electrifying news. not much to say here. but i thought it was kind of interesting to see a long haired chihuahua with static hair. this is a -- his hair got from the static and the electricity made his hair stick out so it's
a chihuahua's hair. >> jesse: i have some product for him. >> greg: please do. >> dana: pretty cute. geraldo could pull that off. i don't know about you guys. all right, jesse. >> jesse: happy birthday to the marine corps in 1775 on this day the continental congress established this branch of the military, guess where the recruiting headquarters was? in a tavern, obviously. >> dana: of course. >> jesse: tavern waters street in philadelphia that's where they got their first recruits. these guys have been using naval assets project power all over the world. happy birthday to marines. we love you. >> dana: have a beer tonight if you see one. >> geraldo: absolutely. >> dana: i have footage of jesse running against sandra smith in the new york city marathon. check this out here. there he goes. yeah, try to keep up there. i don't know how this happened. but this duck decided to run alongside. isn't that cute? isn't that amazing.
>> jesse: faster than that i have been challenged and i have not accepted. >> dana: all right. we will keep at it then. >> greg: he usually runs from the bill. [laughter] >> judge jeanine: oh, that's good. >> dana: geraldo? >> geraldo: here is the latest edition of geraldo's geraldo news with geraldo. >> dana: only one more thing do you? [laughter] >> geraldo: let's talk golf for a great cause. sean hannity often helps me with our golf tournament for life's work. a charity devoted to helping the disabled. how about playing the disabled playing golf for themselves? it's really a wonderful program. a group in my hometown of cleveland at the wharton center. pga professionals, therapist volunteers cleveland clinic the volume va including my own p.t. jeff houser. the disabled actually get to play golf regardless of the disabilities. they use, you know, whether they have strokes, amputees,
traumatic brain injuries. cerebral palsies, parkison's, whatever, they get to play golf. >> dana: awesome charity. all right, judge. >> judge jeanine: when you bring home a new pet, you usually can be pretty sure of the species, right? this family found a pet and brought him home and called him one run because he was constantly chasing local farm animals like chickens and ducks. probably in the marathon, too. here's the problem. this family. >> geraldo: that's a coyote. >> judge jeanine: shocked the new dog was a wild fox. the fox has since run away from their home because after three months he turned from a puppy into a fox. and so the fox has run away since they put out a warrant to shoot him and they are hoping to find him and return him to his natural habitat. so that's the last of the foxes on fox news. >> dana: fox news alert. >> greg: all dogs are foxes.
>> judge jeanine: all dogs are. >> greg: all dogs think they are foxes. >> judge jeanine: foxes think they are foxes. >> dana: dogs come from wolves. >> greg: dogs are foxes trust me on this. >> dana: i will have to google this on the way home. that's it for us. don't miss exclamation point. mike emanuel is up next. >> mike: congrats on%e the cute pup. >> dana: thank you. >> mike: good evening welcome to washington i'm mike emanuel in for bret baier. >> there were people right there. >> breaking tonight the illinois teenager on trial for killing two people and wounding a third following a protest in wisconsin following the death of george floyd took the stand today. that all wrapping unjust moments ago. tomorrow the defense will call a self-defense expert to the stand. senior correspondent mike tobin has more tonight from kenosha.