Skip to main content

tv   Americas Newsroom With Bill Hemmer Dana Perino  FOX News  November 15, 2021 6:00am-8:00am PST

6:00 am
>> just in time for the holidays order rachel and sean duffy's new book called all american christmas. available at fox news thanks for joining us. >> dana: president biden's popularity in freefall. new "washington post" abc poll shows approval rating at a record low 41%. voters largely unsatisfied with his handling of the economy as skyrocketing prices put a damper on the shocking season. good morning, trace. bill is off today. >> i'm trace gallagher and this is "america's newsroom." while the president's poll numbers are underwater republicans are riding high. the gop has a 10 point lead on the generic ballot.
6:01 am
the largest margin in 40 years leading democrats bracing for the possibility the red wave could become a tsunami by the time mid-terms roll around. >> dana: growing speculation in 2024. there are reports of severe dysfunction in kamala harris's office. alexandria hoff is tracking what's going on there. marc thiessen with analysis and first jackie heinrich live from the north lawn. the press secretary last night tweeted in support and defense of kamala harris. they must realize this story has got some legs. >> no kidding, dana. it was interesting to see her response to it in that way on twitter almost immediately after it came out. going back to the polling you were referring to. the most troubling for democrats and for the white house is that this drop in the polls came after congress passed the bipartisan infrastructure deal the president will sign into law later today. meaning that legislative win
6:02 am
did not translate to a political bump for president biden. that is a problem for them. "washington post" abc poll shows the president's aroofshal rating down to 41%. 53% disapprove of the job he is doing. 78% rate the economy negatively and 38% in poor condition. half of americans overall blame president biden for rising inflation. and 59% expressed concern that biden will do too much to increase the size and role of government. bad news for democrats 51% of voters say they would vote for a republican if elections were today. despite all of those warnings, the white house is staying the course continuing to argue that more big spending is going to bring inflation down. >> the president understands that prices increasing, inflation really does put a strain on families and we understand that and we get that.
6:03 am
but here is what's important. if you care about inflation, if you care about making sure that we ease inflation in the upcoming months in the future, voting for this, the build back better act is a way to go. >> if you care about inflation the build back better act is the way to go the deputy press secretary this morning. later this week the house could vote on the second piece of the president's agenda, 1.75 trillion reconciliation package the democrats want to pass along party lines. moderates are holding out for a score from the congressional budget office to make sure it is fiscally responsible for bringing it to the floor for a vote. republicans are still hoping that once it goes over to the senate, that people like senator joe manchin could trim it back or stall it. he is one of the folks raising concerns about continuing more big spending amid these rising inflation numbers, dana. >> dana: jackie kicking us off this morning.
6:04 am
have a great week. thank you. >> the white house is defending vice president kamala harris after those blistering reports of widespread exasperation and dysfunction within her office. questions about whether she will even be on the 2024 ticket. alexandria hoff live in washington good morning. >> good morning. two articles came out over the weekend and painted a picture of a vice president who assumed she was in line for the top spot but with few accomplishments feels cast off. many in the vice president's circle fume that she is not being adequately prepared for positioned and is instead being sidelined. saturday the vice president returned from a recovery mission of sorts to france where she was tasked with soothing over u.s./french tension. just like the trips she had taken to the northern triangle and vietnam it was overshadowed this time by the president's infrastructure bill which other prominent democrats played a keel role in. pete buttigieg to name one.
6:05 am
the president's spokeswoman tweeted this. it is unfortunate that after a productive trip to france and reaffirm our relationship with america's oldest ally and demonstrated leadership on the world stage and following a infrastructure bill show in the media are focused on the gossip not the results. results are where the american people are stumbled now. her approval rating is a dismal 28%. while she holds the title of border czar she has yet to make a trip there. jen psaki offered this quote. for anyone to needs to hear it vp is a vital partner but a bold leader taken on key important challenges facing the country from voting rights and migration and expanding broadband. today harris will join the president delivering remarks on the signing of the infrastructure bill. trace.
6:06 am
>> alexandria live in d.c. thank you. >> dana: a new poll shows there could be major trouble ahead for democrats. both parties set their sights on the mid-terms. let's bring in marc thiessen former speech writer for george w. bush. i want to get the numbers. abc news poll. preference for house candidate among registered voter. gop51%, dems 41. when we say it's a record in 40 years if you have to go back what, the 1980s when ronald reagan was there? >> it sounds like it. they have an even bigger advantage in the senate side. plus 23 for the republicans. this is bad news for the biden administration. the floor is falling out from under this presidency. the reason the floor is pulling out from under them is president biden didn't do what he said he would do when elected. which the poll shows americans notice that. he promised unity, bipartisanship, reaching across
6:07 am
the aisle. returning to normalcy and instead the only thing he has done that closely matches that is the bipartisan infrastructure bill which he is only being signed into law today because he endorsed and gave his blessing to the progressives to hold it hostage as leverage to get through their massive multi-trillion dollar social spending bill the american people don't support. he could have had multiple signing ceremonies like this and had a signing ceremony with republicans on police reform. senate passed a bipartisan china bill and has been held up by his progressives in the house. so he is not doing what the american people asked him to do which -- >> dana: good point. >> reach across the aisle. unify the country. he put his whole soul into it and hasn't lifted a finger. >> dana: they could have passed the infrastructure in april and police reform in june and at least some wins before
6:08 am
inflation took hold and afghanistan. there is also this. 63% of respondents said biden has accomplished little to nothing so far. i wonder about this. 7 out of 10, 59% of americans said they know some or little about what is in both bills. then you see the white house and democrats saying our policies are very popular. we're just not very good at selling them to the american people because they don't know what's in the bill. is it a communications problem or a policy problem? >> no, because 6 in 10 americans say they are worried biden is doing too much to increase the size and scope of government in our lives. look, if you were a normal democrat you would look at this poll and say oh my god, we have to change course or we'll lose power. instead what the democrats are saying is oh my god we'll lose power we better ram through as much of our agenda that the american people don't support before we do. they don't have a maybe date
6:09 am
for socialism. 60% of the country don't want to have more government. biden is increasing the size of government. why are they pushing -- why is their response to push a $4 trillion socialist monstrosity to insert the hand of government into our lives from cradle to grave? it doesn't make sense. it is not responding to the american people. the reason is very simple, dana, because the progressive -- >> dana: i want to ask you about kamala harris. her approval is at 28%. so we just had -- one of the complaints from the vice president's office say that she hasn't been given substantive enough policies to comment or not given this opportunity. i noticed yesterday she was asked a question about russia's threat to ukraine. and instead of saying we are for whatever the administration's policy is, she said i cannot talk to you about
6:10 am
classified information. so even when given an opportunity to comment about something that's very important and that everyone in the world is watching to see what this white house says she didn't take the opportunity, marc. >> part of the problem being vice president when you run for president you don't get it and get to be vice president, you don't get to choose your portfolio. the president gives you a portfolio. she should be able to answer a question like that and talk about any subject. she has been given specific tasks. in charge of fixing the border and for months refused to go to the border. americans look at her and said biden is terrible and she is worse. and the problem for democrats is this is their safety valve, their escape hatch from the biden presidency collapses she is supposed to step up and do it or pete buttigieg, the transportation secretary who is presiding over the worst supply chain crisis in our history. they don't have a safety valve for the collapsing biden
6:11 am
presidency. george h.w. bush said the job of the vice president was you die, i fly, right? he had managesed to get elected president of the united states following ronald reagan. she has to do her job, stop complaining and maybe spend time the tasks joebld has given her and fix the problems. >> dana: it is hard to get out of a narrative like this. appreciate it. >> kyle rittenhouse trial set to resume in an hour at the kenosha county courthouse in wisconsin. we'll take you there live for jury instruction and closing arguments when the jury will start deliberations. he is accused of shooting three people killing two of them. he claims he shot them in self-defense. tony evers has sent 500 national guard troops to kenosha ahead of this verdict there. >> dana: hundreds of migrants pouring into the u.s. in recent
6:12 am
days. the number of unaccompanied children skyrockets. we're live from the border straight ahead. >> taliban flaunting weapons and equipment in a military parade in kabul. it's where they got them from that's raising major concerns. >> dana: soaring prices, inflation hits a 30 year high. biden says his build back better plan will help. is more spending what the nation needs now? maria bartiromo will join us next. >> it is important to realize that the cause of this inflation is the pandemic and i would expect if we're successful with the pandemic, to be sometime in the second half of next year, i would expect prices to go back to normal.
6:13 am
bipolar depression. it made me feel like i was trapped in a fog. this is art inspired by real stories of people living with bipolar depression. i just couldn't find my way out of it. the lows of bipolar depression can take you to a dark place... ...and be hard to manage. latuda could make a real difference in your symptoms. latuda was proven to significantly reduce bipolar depression symptoms and in clinical studies, had no substantial impact on weight. this is where i want to be. latuda is not for everyone. call your doctor about unusual mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children, teens, and young adults. elderly dementia patients on latuda have an increased risk of death or stroke.
6:14 am
call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, and confusion, as these may be life threatening... ...or uncontrollable muscle movements, as these may be permanent. these are not all the serious side effects. now i'm back where i belong. ask your doctor about latuda and pay as little as $0 for your first prescription. ♪ ♪ ♪
6:15 am
♪ what's strong with me? what's strong with me? and pay as little as $0 what's strong with me? what's strong with me? what's strong with me? me? with me!
6:16 am
ray loves vacations. but his diabetes never seemed to take one. everything felt like a 'no'. everything. but then ray went from no to know. with freestyle libre 2, now he knows his glucose levels when he needs to. and... when he wants to. so ray... can be ray. take the mystery out of your glucose levels, and lower your a1c. now you know. try it for free. visit it's another day. now you know. and anything could happen. it could be the day you welcome 1,200 guests
6:17 am
and all their devices. or it could be the day there's a cyberthreat. only comcast business' secure network solutions give you the power of sd-wan and advanced security integrated on our activecore platform so you can control your network from anywhere, anytime. it's network management redefined. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. comcast business powering possibilities.
6:18 am
>> dana: gas prices in california hitting an all-time high amid surging inflation. the average cost for a gallon of gas is $4.68. a penny higher than the previous record set in october of 2012. national average is 3.42. >> outside the door is 5.50. it's high. as prices keep rising americans are losing faith in the economy. 7 in 10 now say it is in bad shape according to a new abc news, "washington post" poll and 48% of americans blame president biden for rising inflation. let's bring in maria bartiromo from fox business and sunday morning futures. great to see you. you look at the numbers 7 to 8 year highs for gas prices, 12 year highs for food prices. the highest single year increase since 1979. the people i talked to and i'm sure the same for you are
6:19 am
concerned because they don't know where this is going. >> yeah. good morning, trace. thanks very much. unfortunately it appears it is going to get worse because when you look at what's happening in washington right now, the democrats are pushing through this spending plan that will only stoke inflation further. it does not bring any joy to say that this commentary out of the white house that this build back better plan will help inflation is just a talking point. unfortunately not true. the classic textbook dictionary definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods. too many dollars chasing too few goods and that's what we're seeing here where the democrats have completely ignored what voters said in the last two weeks. they almost lost new jersey, they lost virginia. voters are rejecting these policies and they are doubling down and pushing through this
6:20 am
package which will only make things worse. the "wall street journal" made a good point. for every percentage point rise in interest rates, that will add more than 100 billion to interest payments this year. very simply put, the federal reserve will have to do something about inflation. one of those things will be raising interest rates as interest rates go higher, all of the debt that we are facing gets more expensive to carry. and right now markets aren't focused on that but you know, trace, markets find a way of not worrying about things until they worry and that will add another crisis on top of a crisis if we see markets start selling off because interest rates are making the cost of carrying this debt more expensive. >> trace: you talk about doubling down. i want to play some of the sound of the administration members talking about how this build back better plan is really the elixir for inflation. watch this. >> if you care about making
6:21 am
sure that we ease inflation in the upcoming months, in the future, voting for this, the build back better act is the way to go. >> this bill is fully paid for. it won't add to inflationary pressures. the opposite. >> build back better bill we're working to move forward will not add to inflationary pressure and will ease inflationary pressure over the long term. >> trace: the theme here is you print up a couple trillion dollars and it takes this inflation thing out of the way. >> these are uninformed comments. clearly we know inflation is only going to get stoked further by more dollars, more money being thrown at this economy and i will point out this, because of all of the free money being thrown at people as a result of the covid legislation back in march, people have dropped out of the workforce and it is increasingly tough for companies to fill those jobs. 4.4 million people have dropped out of the workforce in the month of september. that is a huge number.
6:22 am
it tells you that these policies are not only creating what they are saying temporary situation costing us all so much more money, but it is also creating a fundamental structural change in the workforce. people are dropping out of the workforce, expecting free money. it will make us less productive. >> trace: lastly we don't have time to play the sound but an anchor on a different network we got the money, we can afford inflation and this stuff. >> yeah, people can't afford this stuff. i think it was the same woman who told you trump colluded with russia for so many years. bottom line we're about a week and a half away from what will be the most expensive thanksgiving we've seen in decades. >> dana: it is unfortunate. >> trace: maria bartiromo, great to see you. thank you. >> dana: more heartbreaking imfrajs the southern border. agents finding a 5-year-old child all alone wandering the dangerous terrain in the rio grande valley sector.
6:23 am
we're on the ground in texas. the latest revelations about the discredited steele dossier a top democrat says he has no regrets about using that very document to go after former president trump. andy mccarthy with analysis next. it's time to refinance. newday's low rate refi offers their lowest rate in history. two and a quarter percent. just 2.48 apr. save thousands every year and there are no upfront costs. not one dollar. the newday low rate refi. take advantage of these record rates so you and your family can save. >> 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. ♪ to be a thriver with metastatic breast cancer
6:24 am
means asking for what we want. and need. and we need more time. so, we want kisqali. women are living longer than ever before with kisqali when taken with an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- metastatic breast cancer. kisqali is a pill that's significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant alone. kisqali can cause lung problems, or an abnormal heartbeat, which can lead to death. it can cause serious skin reactions, liver problems, and low white blood cell counts that may result in severe infections. tell your doctor right away if you have new or worsening symptoms, including breathing problems, cough, chest pain, a change in your heartbeat, dizziness, yellowing of the skin or eyes, dark urine, tiredness, loss of appetite, abdomen pain, bleeding, bruising, fever, chills or other symptoms of an infection, a severe or worsening rash, are or plan to become pregnant, or breastfeeding. avoid grapefruit during treatment. ask your doctor about living longer
6:25 am
with kisqali.
6:26 am
6:27 am
do you have a life insurance policy you no longer need? now you can sell your policy - even a term policy - for an immediate cash payment. call coventry direct to learn more. we thought we had planned carefully for our retirement. but we quickly realized we needed a way to supplement our income. our friend sold their policy to help pay their medical bills, and that got me thinking. maybe selling our policy could help with our retirement. i'm skeptical, so i did some research and called coventry direct. they explained life insurance is a valuable asset that can be sold. we learned we could sell all of our policy, or keep part of it with no future payments. who knew? we sold our policy. now we can relax and enjoy our retirement as we had planned. if you have $100,000 or
6:28 am
more of life insurance, you may qualify to sell your policy. don't cancel or let your policy lapse without finding out what it's worth. visit to find out if your policy qualifies. or call the number on your screen. coventry direct, redefining insurance. >> trace: another in a series of heartbreaking stories from the southern border. we ran into a 5-year-old wandering the rio grande valley by himself. the boy's parents are in the u.s. and encounters with unaccompanied minors at the border this year are higher than any other time on record. bill back on the story for us in la joya, texas. good morning, bill. >> good morning to you. already a lot of activity out here this morning. want to show you the business pulling out right now. that's full of unaccompanied children and young teenagers. we watched them all being marched onto that bus.
6:29 am
all little kids. all young teenagers completely by themselves. no parents, no guardians. a big group that crossed this morning. if we can pan back here. more than 100 migrants who crossed here. some are still waiting to be apprehended here. mostly the family units. the ones under the tarp there are the complete family units, moms and dads with kids. the bus that's leaving is completely alone unaccompanied minors. take a look at this video we shot this morning from the fox drone as groups were starting to arrive this morning. we see it every day here. they cross over the rio grande, walk down the road and give themselves up to border patrol in hopes that they will be released into the country. all those children leaving on the bus will go over into hhs custody. you mentioned that little boy off the top. look at this video we shot here same spot saturday night. heart wrenching to look at. a 5-year-old guatemalan boy traveling completely by himself showed up here. we kept our shots tight to
6:30 am
respect his privacy. agents told us that little boy's parents are in the united states. believe it or not, a little boy that young this sort of thing happens all the time during this border crisis. look at this graphic here. shocking numbers. just in fiscal year 2021 alone there were about 147,000 unaccompanied children or unaccompanied minors who showed up at the border. take a look at the 2020 numbers almost a five fold increase. it is happening constantly here. the video saturday night. the boy was part of this massive group that showed up where we're standing here. upwards of 300 people showed up at the park again all family units, all looking to turn themselves in and we see it all the time. little kids traveling completely alone in those big groups. it is not just here where the activity is. look at this video out of the del rio, area. they caught 25 single adult male runners trying to get away. inland from the border. they have already crossed and
6:31 am
you can see the guys are all in camouflage or black. they don't want to be caught and not turning themselves in. a close-up of one guy. an aggravated felon with an ice warrant out for his arrest for reentry spending seven years in prison for aggravated robbery. these are some of the guys mixed into the runners coming across the border. 20 runners got away that night. back here live that's the big story. the gotaways. we see the family units turning themselves in all the time. we see the runners. what we don't always see are the gotaways. in one 24 hour period here in rio grande valley over the weekend, dhs source said there were 262 known gotaways. people they see on the cameras and cen sores not able to get to. the big question is how many unknown gotaways are there? 262 one day, one sector. it is pretty remarkable, trace. send it back to you. >> trace: thank you, bill.
6:32 am
>> don't regret saying we should investigate claims of someone who was a well respected british intelligence officer and we couldn't have known years ago we would learn years later that someone who is a primary source lied to him. >> dana: adam schiff saying he is fine with having pushed the discredited steele dossier against former president trump even after the durham probe indicted one of the primary sources for lying to the f.b.i. news outlets call coverage of this the most egregious journalistic errors in american history. good to have you, andy mccarthy. one of the things that happened is you have the media slowly saying yeah, whoops, my bad as if they bumped into you on the subway. this had major consequences, andy. >> yeah, it had incredible consequences. it was not only something that was really unprecedented. it was a counter intelligence
6:33 am
investigation against a presidential campaign but it also undermined president trump's ability to govern for a couple of years. and it shouldn't matter to people i don't think, dana, you could be a trump hater or a trump lover, whatever. this was a made-up investigation that hung over the head of the president for a couple of years and it is important to our country that we don't have a president governing under that kind of a situation. >> dana: the media can say gosh, okay, we got it wrong. some will say we would put in our reporting that this is not a verified dossier. they put it out there for everybody to see. tell me a little bit about the intel chairman, house intel chairman adam schiff who has a book out. that's one of the reasons he is doing these interviews saying well, even if it was discredited it was the right thing to do. >> well, it was the wrong thing to do obviously. adam schiff because he was a chairman of an important
6:34 am
committee, the intelligence committee in the house, much like the f.b.i. he was actually in a position to investigate these claims before going public about them. and he dropped the ball on that just like the f.b.i. did. the thing that concerns me, dana, is if he is going to be the last hold-out still defending this thing that everybody is running for the hills to get away from. this dossier. it was ridiculous on its face you should have known there were problems with it. i think people should also note that he is on the january 6th commission. the committee that pelosi commissioned in this congress. if he can't be objective enough at this point to say that that dossier was garbage, why should anyone think that he could be credible in connection with this important inquiry which pelosi didn't allow pro-trump members of the house of representatives to sit on because she questioned their
6:35 am
ability to be fair and objective? >> dana: an excellent question. wanted to ask you about some crime here in the city in the new york city central park. there was basically sexual assault 45 minutes from one another. we have a situation where the details are horrible. the prosecution and the policing is not matching the moment. >> well, this is a very bad problem and going to be a bad problem for a while. it is not like you can switch -- flip a switch and suddenly get good policing after you've stepped back and not had as good policing. and what i mean by that for example is that in 1990 in new york city, we had 2600 homicides. about seven a day. by 2017 we had 290. it had dropped almost 90%. that is not something that happens overnight. it is a sustained effort at creating a culture of law and
6:36 am
order. and if you lose that it is not like you can flip a switch and get it back. what i would be very worried about is even if mayor adams comes in and he is determined that the city is going to be safe again it will take awhile to turn around what has gone on in the last few years. >> dana: one of the sexual assaults from the weekend. one was released from jail two days prior to the attack. that is happening not just in new york city but many cities across the country. we'll talk to you later as the kyle rittenhouse murder trial goes into closing arguments today. thanks, trace. >> closing arguments in the kyle rittenhouse trial. we'll take you to kenosha as the trial resumes. president biden and president xi jinping meeting for the first time since china tested a hypersonic missile. general jack keane joins us to talk about that next. >> are you saying that the
6:37 am
united states would come to taiwan's defense if china attacked? >> yes, we have a commitment to do that.
6:38 am
veteran homeowners- have you been spending more time at home? imagining the possibilities? like a bigger kitchen, a swimming pool for the grandkids, or a backyard deck. your va home loan benefit and the newday 100 va loan make it possible. by borrowing up to 100% of your home's value you can take out up to $60,000 or more. with home values at all time highs, now's the time to call.
6:39 am
♪ i see trees of green ♪ ♪ red roses too ♪ ♪ i see them bloom ♪ ♪ for me and you ♪ ♪ and i think to myself ♪ ♪ what a wonderful world ♪ a rich life is about more than just money. that's why at vanguard, you're more than just an investor, you're an owner so you can build a future for those you love. vanguard. become an owner. - hi, i'm steve. - i'm lea. and we live in north pole, alaska. - i'm a retired school counselor. [lea] i'm a retired art teacher. [steve] we met online about 10 years ago. as i got older, my hearing was not so good so i got hearing aids. my vision was not as good as it used to be, got a change in prescription. but the thing missing was my memory. i saw a prevagen commercial and i thought, "that makes sense." i just didn't have to work so hard to remember things.
6:40 am
prevagen. healthier brain. better life. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit and get started today. as a dj, i know all about customization. that's why i love liberty mutual. whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪
6:41 am
earn about covid-19, the more questions we have. the biggest question now, what's next? what will covid bring in six months, a year? if you're feeling anxious about the future, you're not alone. calhope offers free covid-19 emotional support. call 833-317-4673, or live chat at today.
6:42 am
6:43 am
>> dana: steve bannon former white house advisor to president trump has turned himself in on sbi washington field house in washington, d.c. he was held in contempt over the subpoena regarding january 6 facing an indictment. he is expected in court later today. he has been indicted and expected in court later today after turning himself in. also growing concerns russia may be planning an invasion of ukraine. there are 100,000 russian troops surging to the border between the two countries. state department correspondent benjamin hall is live with the details. you have been following this closely all weekend.
6:44 am
>> everyone at the state department who we speak to and administration is on the same message about this. they say we are in lock step with our allies and warning russia not to do anything foolish. i can tell you also what the ukrainians want and need is just the ability to defend themselves against this russia aggression. as you say there are 100,000 russian troops massing on the ukrainian border with ukraine and there are growing fears they could invade. the u.s. has sent some intelligence to european allies but offered only vague warnings to russia. >> based on the past, we have real concerns about what we're seeing in the present and it would be a serious mistake for russia to engage in a repeat of what it did in 2014. >> on sunday ukraine received around 80,000 kilos of ammunition from the u.s. part of a $60 million package.
6:45 am
ukraine wants anti-missile defense systems and more anti-tank missiles like president trump gave them and membership to nato. gop members of the house armed services committee have called for a harder line approach and urged president biden to deploy troops to the region as a deterrent. u.k. has sent some special forces to poland. last june the biden administration halted a military package to ukraine what russia promised a troop build-up. the administration gave approve fo*l for the nord stream pipeline. on the same day president biden is speaking to president xi you better be sure the chinese are watching closely to see how far the u.s. will go to defend its allies. dana. >> dana: thank you so much. we appreciate it. >> trace: president biden is set to hold a virtual meeting with china's president xi today. the first since china tested a
6:46 am
hypersonic missile and one major concern. let's not forget their lack of transparency on the origins of covid-19 and threatening actions toward taiwan among other things. let's bring in retired four star general jack keane senior strategic analyst. great to see you. if you were advising the president today prior to his virtual meeting with president xi, what is the top priority in your view general? is it taiwan, the missile firing, is it the wuhan lab leak, what do you think? >> it's the general relationship itself. the tensions between our two countries have never been as high as they are. certainly as china's aggression that is driving this and their strategic goals to dominate the indough pacific region and replace the united states as the world's leader is driving it. the top of the line issue for the administration and the concern that they have is given the tension between the two
6:47 am
countries, that as a result of that we don't have some unintended consequences that leads to conflict. that has got to be on the back of our minds as we begin these negotiations. virtual meeting not nearly as good as one in person. president xi obviously doesn't have confidence in his vaccination program to the degree that the united states and other world leaders have because they have been meeting regularly in person here and it is unfortunate that meeting isn't taking place. but both of these leaders come into this meeting politically president xi has been enshrined by the chinese communist central committee when he gets his third term in office implying he will stale in office indefinitely. president biden politically as you have reported and we've been reporting for some time is having some problems in support from the american people for his policies. economically both of us are facing head winds to be sure.
6:48 am
but it is actually china's aggression. the rapid growing military in the world. the balance of power in the the pacific has shifted to them. it is the most massive undertaking by any country to undermine another country's civil society and steal its technology and information. and clearly the united states has got to push back and tell president xi unequivocally this kind of aggression we are going to continue to counter and confront. not enough just to compete. we can't have any of the language that president obama had years ago when he tried to counter president xi on the south china sea expansion and overcybersecurity and what happened as a result of that? despite president xi saying yes, he will take that into account and will curb his behavior. my words, not his. what did he do?
6:49 am
he doubled down on all of it. even what the chinese say may not have much meaning. what we have to do is watch what they do. xi lied to obama and certainly the nature of this relationship will always be tense because of look, we're at an ideological impasse. these two systems are very opposed to each other based on our values and aspirations for our own people and what our relationship with other countries in the world are about. there is nothing that is going to change that ideological separation. what we need to do is make sure it doesn't lead to military confrontation and conflict. and that's the undercurrent of what's taking place here. >> trace: i have 30 seconds left. i was going to play the sound bite. the president said we're obligated to defend taiwan. what extent in your mind of
6:50 am
that obligation. are you talking about unintended consequences. what's the extent of our obligation there? >> first of all, according to the taiwan relations act, publicly we're not allowed to announce that we will defend taiwan although we can provide them the capability to do that. we've sent every signal as possible we fully intend to do that. what's critical here is to tell president xi listen, you have forced my hand, president xi. your aggression with taiwan is forcing me to forward deploy more forces into the region to make certain that you don't take the foolish act of taking taiwan by force. and that sends more of a message than any words will send. it is what our actions are in the region militarily. that will get the message across to president xi and military leaders.
6:51 am
>> trace: general jack keane. great to see you, sir. thank you. >> dana: fox news alert. the trial of kyle rittenhouse resumes in minutes with closing arguments and jury instructions. we'll go live to the courthouse for that plus help wanted. more than 10 million jobs open but no takers as record numbers of americans are quitting work. what is going on with the jobs market? who better than mike rowe. he is up next. here comes the interception. oh -shawn? yes. thank you. you're welcome. have a great day. if it's “that will leave a mark season,”
6:52 am
it's walgreens season.
6:53 am
well, would ya look at that! if it's “that will leave a mark season,” it was an accident. i was— speaking of accidents, we accidentally left you off the insurance policy during enrollment, and you're not covered. not even a little bit? mm-mmm. no insurance. no. when employees can't enter and manage their own benefits enrollment information, it can be a real pain. not even— nope! with paycom, employees enter and manage their own hr data in a single, easy-to-use software. visit and schedule a demo today.
6:54 am
6:55 am
♪ ♪
6:56 am
♪ ♪ >> dana: 4.4 million people got out of the workforce in september. mike rowe from fox business prime time is here. i understand you will be at the patriot awards. >> what else is awkward i'm
6:57 am
wearing the same shirt here i was in the promo. >> dana: it matches your eyes. why are all these people quitting their jobs but not taking the other jobs? >> look, the honest answer is the 300-page book i can't get around the to finishing. in general i think it's coming down to the ever-evolving definition of what a good job is, the expectations what it has for people wanting to do with their life. money, incentives, disincentives, uncertainly is all swirling around and it is tempting to get on the back porch and scream at the kids to get off the lawn, laziness and work ethic things i love to talk about. we can't blame people for acting in their own interests. if we lay out a topography that ultimately encourages people to not work, then i'm afraid that's the fault in our stars. we aren't going to do it.
6:58 am
that's part of the problem. but ultimately i think it's a real complex thing. fundamentally you can't argue with the number. 10.4 million open jobs. opportunity is not dead if we can simply get around to making a more persuasive case for the opportunities we have. >> dana: if young people and parents or grandparents are watching this program or how american works on fox business, what could they learn to start to change that perception of what is a good job? >> right. i think so much of the debate always -- the way we set the table. here are the employers and employees and here is the gap and here is the problem. the shows i work on all attempt to remind the rest of us how much skin we have in the game. so how america works tonight we look at salt production. we meet the men, a guy in new
6:59 am
mexico. how reliant we are on salt. it is a real simple look at that job. it is also a very clever recruiting mechanism. when you look at a show like this, you see people who love their jobs. you see them prospering. you see them moving the needle and contributing in a meaningful way to society. so my thing is to try and get the 300 million other people who are daily unimpressed with the fact that the lights come on when we flick the switch or the poop goes away when we flush the toilet. we're all connected. this shows we try to magnify on this program and dirty jobs and everything i have worked on the last 20 years is the same message. >> dana: i love it. one of the favorite books i ever read called salt. the history of salt and wars were fought over salt. >> salt was gold before refrigeration. >> dana: dirty jobs got renewed again. >> january 2 we have a new season.
7:00 am
>> dana: you're busy. you have a lot of jobs. >> i do what i can. dress is casual. >> dana: i love it. i wear blue all the time if i were you as well. >> i will. >> trace: you stole my lines. i read salt, too, and it was fantastic. >> dana: court is back in session and attorneys set to make closing arguments in the trial of kyle rittenhouse charged with shooting three men and killing two of them. next in the hour. welcome to a new hour of "america's newsroom." bill hemmer is off today and we have a good friend here. hi, trace. >> trace: good morning, i'm trace gallagher. national guard on stand by as the judge gives final instructions to the jury and lesser charges to consider. rittenhouse, 17 at the time of the shooting, faces charging ranging from intentional homicide count that could mean life in prison to an underage weapons charge that could mean a few months in jail. fox news covering all the bases.
7:01 am
we are all on deck. we begin with alexis mcadams outside the courthouse in kenosha, wisconsin. >> a busy day in kenosha, wisconsin as the trial raps up. deliberations will happen in the next half hour or so as court just began. that's the courthouse here. there are still protestors and people in the community out there. right now there is still more discussion going on inside the courtroom to decide if the judge will allow the jury to hear lesser charges in the case. the mother of kyle rittenhouse walked into court as deliberations beginning later today. the judge will allow jurors to consider some lesser charges in this case but also denied one of those requests. legal experts say the trade-off could help get a conviction in this investigation but would insure that rittenhouse would not receive a life sentence. according to the court both sides will have about 2 1/2
7:02 am
hours today for those closing arguments. the illinois teenager on trial for shooting three men, killing two during the unrest following the police shooting of jacob blake. the rittenhouse family optimistic about the outcome. >> that's a concern but this was pure self-defense across the board and we believe the jury knows that and they see that. >> last summer the area here in kenosha was hit extremely hard during the unrest. kenosha business alliance told fox news 100 businesses have been badly damaged or destroyed. the wisconsin governor says he has 500 national guardsmen on stand by in the area in case for preparations with the verdict coming. business owners telling us they keep thinking about last summer's unrest. >> before it just came out of
7:03 am
nowhere, boom. things went left real quick. >> never in my lifetime would i expect to experience anything like that. but to roll up and see years of work, years of memories, years of connections just gone in an instant. >> after the community in kenosha went through so much last summer as you can hear from the business owners, the police department and other officers on stand by. we haven't seen heavy police presence in the city. as things continue to unravel and deliberations begin it could change in a moment's notice. >> dana: joining us now is jonna spilbor. they had the weekend to think things through. how does the prosecution sum up its case after they had a rather rough week last week? >> they had a rather rough trial. i think it is going to be a benefit for the prosecution if they do get some of these
7:04 am
lesser charges in front of the jury by way of instructions so they will be pulling for that. i think the other thing the prosecution has been doing to me has been very misleading but one of their key points is to say that look, kyle rittenhouse was the aggressor because he had no business being if kenosha in the first place. that is very misleading because look, he went there only after the rioters and looters were there. we have to remember that kenosha, the streets of kenosha weren't filled with soccer moms in protest of pesticides. kenosha was on fire. if the protest o*rls had a right to be there so did kyle rittenhouse in order to try to combat the destruction that was happening all over the place. so i think the defense really needs to make sure that the jury knows it doesn't negate a self-defense defense just because he was someplace where it might have been dumb to be. that's a nuance i hope the
7:05 am
defense really imparts to this jury. >> trace: jonna, i want to bring in jonathan turley, george washington university law professor. you look at this case and you talk about this provocation possible charge and for me the question becomes they're really have a tough time the prosecution of trying to prove that kyle rittenhouse was the aggressor when you had this evidence and you had the witnesses really proving that he was not the aggressor in this case. >> this was a remarkably bad design for the case. engineers would call it a catastrophic failure just because they rushed to the indictment in the matter of a couple days after the shooting and overcharged with first degree counts. either because they weren't aware of some of the evidence or they were responding to public outcry. but at points in the trial the prosecutor seemed to be learning facts at the same time as the jury.
7:06 am
and the prosecutors also the ended to get the law wrong on critical facts. one of the most embarrassing moments when the prosecutor was schooled by the defendant who explained he couldn't have bought a handgun as opposed to an ar-15. there is also critical flaws here in my view. the gun charge which is the miss demeanor i think is very much in doubt whether he could be held guilty under that law. believe it or not it comes down to a single word of and. he has to be found to have violated two different sections of the wisconsin code. one of those is that he was 15 or 16. he was 17. so there are some major problems here. even if they get a conviction they could face a very serious appellate challenge. the big victory they got in the trial was -- after the trial i
7:07 am
should say in the motions hearing was the provocation instruction. the judge will allow them to argue that rittenhouse provoked the violence. if the jury believes that, it creates a higher standard for self-defense including a duty to retreat. that was a major win. i just don't think it will work because this case is just in complete collapse at this point because of the contradictions in the testimony. >> dana: very interesting. joining us now is former u.s. attorney and fox news contributor andy mccarthy. two questions, andy. the first is how you think that in some ways this is like the chauvin trial but not in another way and you understand how wisconsin has a different way of going about things. help us understand what we might see this morning that might be different to what we are used to. >> well, the difference, dana, in procedure for example when i tried cases as a prosecutor in
7:08 am
federal court in manhattan, the way the procedure worked is the lawyers would go first in the summations, the government goes first, the defense goes after that and then the government gets to rebut at the end because they have the burden of proof and then the judge would give the legal instructions to the jury and they go off to deliberate. here in wisconsin the judge will instruct the jury on the law first. and the law is kind of complicated here as john points out, there are going to be a number of charges and we were talking this morning how they will allow lesser-included charges in addition to the ones we've been talking about for a couple of weeks and that will take a while and a little bit dense. the judge will do that first and then we'll hear from the lawyers and i think this is one of these cases where there is not a lot of factual dispute about what happened and a lot comes down to the law. so it is probably a little more important than it usually is.
7:09 am
the other thing that's different from the chauvin trial, which we're not used to homing in on for the last couple of years. if you remember in the chauvin trial that involved the george floyd killing, we were still under covid restrictions. so there really weren't spectators in the courtroom. in this trial it has been much more like what a normal trial was before the early part of 2020. so there have been a lot of people in the courtroom, including some supporters of some of the people who were testifying for the prosecutors and who participated in the rioting. and i just wonder what the effect of all that is on the jury. you have a situation where the case is very intensely covered, you have cameras in the courtroom. cameras seem to be moving around the courtroom. there has been a lot more fluidity in the coverage that
7:10 am
way than anything i've ever seen in the way of a trial covered on television and you have people who were in the courtroom looking at the jury and what's going on. you just wonder what kind of effect it will have on them. >> dana: interesting. >> trace: i want to bring jonna back in. the conversation andy was touching on is the fact the lesser charges here. we don't know the judge hasn't spelled those out and he will do so during the jury instructions. but is it an indication in your view, jonna, that when they talk about lesser charges that it might be a barometer of how strong the prosecution's case was? >> i think so. i think the prosecution knows their case stunk and the only way to get a win is if the jury can get the lesser included. they aren't a win for the defense by any stretch. he might not be looking at life behind bars, but even with the lesser included he will be
7:11 am
looking at 10 to 60 years. that's not something to rejoice over if you are his defense table. >> dana: jonathan turley if i could bring you in. one of the things that was interesting last week was the idea of self-defense and the wisconsin law how does that play into here? as the nation is riveted looking at this trial, the jurors have to listen to the instructions from the judge and it's wisconsin law they have to pay attention to. >> wisconsin law is actually very generous in terms of self-defense. so once he puts that into play, which rittenhouse did, the burden shifts to the prosecution. they have to disprove it. instead they seemed to go out of their way the prove self-defense including tremendous blunders with witnesses. but one of the most damaging parts of the trial was when one of the individuals shot admitted to the defense that rittenhouse did not shoot him
7:12 am
when he had his hands up and then he fired after this alleged victim pointed a handgun at his face at close quarters. that was just a catastrophic moment. so this is a lot for the jury to accept. lesser charges are commonly considered in these cases but you can really damage your case by overcharging. the jury, i think, starts with the most serious offense and works down. if that first degree charge is wildly out of reach, it can really undermine your case. the last problem is an opening statement almost like an oral contract. you promise the jury to produce something. they promised this jury they would see a gun-crazed vigilante on the blood lust. that's not what they got and it will hurt the prosecution. >> dana: thank you all so much. let's go to the courtroom now
7:13 am
closing statements will be happening today. >> i inquired on the message last night is anybody familiar with authority on this subject that requires that? i will argue with you and hear the rest of what you have to say. you know, attention, stan, as you know, you speak to juries all the time. and when you start repeating yourself you lose your audience mighty fast. they have a lot to hear today from me and from you lawyers. and i -- if i am reading the self defense instructions, i would expect to lose the audience rather rapidly and this is so typical of lawyers who are high bound who have always done it this way. i will tell you that for years
7:14 am
i have -- i have taken out common elements of things and put them in separate areas of the instructions. and once they learn what the term intent to kill means i don't have to define it every single time it comes up. and i've never gotten even to my knowledge there hasn't been an appeal on it. my job here is to communicate with the jury so that they understand what the law provides and i think that can be done better briefly and concisely than by repeating the same old stuff over and over again. but given the position of the parties if that's your position, we'll do it. but to me it's a monumental waste of time and may end up
7:15 am
having a negative effect. but i'm not going to mess around with a case of this magnitude over two weeks to try. so if you think that it risks everything to proceed as i suggested, then we'll go with the long forms every time. i'm going to have to counts on you to make timely objection if you feel that i'm leaving something out on a particular count because i have prepared it in the 36 pages of instructions, i have prepared them using a brief form without -- there is already plenty of repeating going on. but if i have to do a longer you will have to object if you think i'm missing something or it will be a waiver.
7:16 am
just so you are forewarned. you have to make a contemporaneous objection. is that clear? >> it is, sir. the only one you don't have it in that we had talked about a little bit was count five. you had -- there is a lesser-included offense of recklessly endangering safety. >> on that one i didn't put it in there. although it does in the final sentence says they have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting lawfully and in self-defense. i will try to squeeze the content in there as well. and i guess i am not sure i agree with your statement that -- i will have to take a look at it. of course, the state wants me,
7:17 am
as i read the self-defense portions in, then they want me to repeat every time provocation which you have opposed so they will hear that again. >> they don't want that anymore. >> they don't want it anymore? >> i will throw that request to the time. >> okay. but in counts 2 and 3, i gave special instruction only with respect to mr. mcginnis because the law is different with respect to him. and we'll get to that. but i didn't reread it with respect to the count involving mr. -- the jumpsuit man. >> the one that i think is --
7:18 am
so you have attempted first degree with self-defense, attempted second degree with self-defense but the way i read and if i'm reading it wrong i know the court will correct me, on page 27 of the final instructions, it simply says here are the elements. i didn't see self-defense mentioned in there. >> you're right. because as i -- let me say on counts -- the attempted murder and the murder, an those that's the pattern instruction. if i had my way i think it is overly verbose and we didn't used to do it that way and they came up with this and i follow it, but i think it could be better stated, but i follow the guidance of the instruction committee. there is more of them than me
7:19 am
and they are very bright people. but then on count 3 i gave a special instruction because of the situation with mr. mcginnis. but i didn't on count 2 or count 5 because i relied upon the general principles of self-defense on which i instructed them. so if you want me to do it on 5 i need to do it on 2, too. that's on 2 also. and that's right after they've just heard it. so all right. >> my only concern is that the instruction makes it clear that self-defense is an issue for first degree attempt and second degree attempt. i don't know -- >> and that's because that's from the pattern instruction. i understand you're thinking because i didn't discuss it in the portion on reckless
7:20 am
endangerment, that they will think it is not part of it. the last sentence tells them and if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's conduct was not privileged under the law of self-defense you should find the defendant guilty. >> did you find that under the -- is that what you are telling us? >> that's on the -- yeah, that's on -- excuse me i'm reading the fourth count here. look at what i said on five. you see, if i accept this i would have put --
7:21 am
you know, you're right. maybe i misunderstood what you wanted. did you want the whole self-defense instruction discussed again or just the clause? and if you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant -- i should say all three elements of the crime of endangering safety of the first degree have been proved and that the defendant is not privileged under the law of self-defense, you must find the defendant not guilty. >> i think that's fine as long as they are aware that self-defense is an option. >> you're right. all right. i was misunderstanding what your email said. so if you are not satisfied
7:22 am
beyond a reasonable doubt. there is more missing there than that, you know that? there is not the clause about if you are satisfied. all right, so it will read page 27, the fourth line will be if you are satisfied that all three elements of the crime of reckless endangerment have been proved and that the conduct of the defendant was not privileged under the law of self-defense then you should
7:23 am
find the defendant guilty of reckless endangerment of the first degree that's charged as submitted. if you are not so satisfied, then you must find the defendant not guilty. is that satisfactory? okay. what's next? >> i have nothing else on the instructions. >> defense? >> so judge, this is more for the record, you have already made, i think, preliminary you had talked a little bit about the ritchie mcginnis instruction on page 8 and 9. >> right. >> the position that i had taken was one of the lines says but the defendant does not have a privilege of self-defense as
7:24 am
to richard mcginnis. after that, there is discussion about self-defense and what that means. on page 9 there is a sentence that says if the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, his conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another. i had told you in an email that all the parties were involved and that i felt there was some incon grew -- just for the record i wanted to make sure it was on there. because i do think it's confusing. however, i know it's the pattern instruction and you took it from the pattern. >> it is the pattern and i won't argue with you that it is confusing but it is a statement of the law. mr. mcginnis does not have a
7:25 am
self-defense status because he is -- the defendant has no right of self-defense -- [inaudible] and that's what the instruction is telling the jury. but if he was acting lawfully in self-defense with respect to mr. rosenbaum, then it kills one of the elements. i think i'm reading that right. it gives him absolution with respect to the element of-what is the precise element? it is -- it is part of element unreasonable and substantial risk of death. it says then the jury can't find it.
7:26 am
if they can't find they can't find one of the elements so they have to find the defendant not guilty. >> do you think it's appropriate if he was acting in self-defense with relation to rosenbaum. i think it makes it clearer. >> where do you want that put in? >> on page 9, it would be -- there is a -- some heading determining whether the beliefs were reasonable. i think it's the third or fourth to last sentence says if the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, comma. with respect to joseph rosenbaum. >> with respect to joseph rosenbaum. >> his conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to richard mcginnis. >> yeah, i'll do that. any objection? >> no. >> okay. what's next? >> your honor, on page 34, two
7:27 am
of the witnesses. you said one of the witnesses was convicted of a crime. mr. gross kreutz and mr. smith had been convicted of a crime. i think you need to say multiple witnesses, something like that. >> what page? >> 34. you want to word some instead of one or multiple, several? how many was it? >> two that i recall. >> there was another witness with convictions but i don't believe the question was asked, so two. >> what was the answer? >> two. >> all right, i'll put down two then. >> then there was some
7:28 am
conversations regarding a cautionary instruction regarding mr. armstrong? >> i really struggle with it. >> we had proposed the instruction to the court, which i think we took off of 245 or something like that. so we're asking based on his testimony, that the court instruct with that modified 245 instruction as relates to mr. armstrong. >> did you want to be heard? >> well, i would stand by what i indicated over the weekend in my email but i believe that -- i am looking up the specific instruction. did you say 245? testimony of accomplices. >> that's a good model for it. that is what i had planned on
7:29 am
using if i had addressed it myself. >> judge, i just don't think it's necessary. the evidence was received, the points that the defense wanted to get into were made on cross examination. giving any kind of instruction on this would be telling the fact finder how to weigh the evidence. i propose a different -- some different wording. you should not be guilty upon it alone unless after consideration of all the evidence you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty is completely inappropriate. not where it's talking about a one picture out of 100 some odd exhibits. so i don't believe it is
7:30 am
appropriate or necessary. i again believe these arguments about pixels and zooming are capricious. that their expert used a similar software program where zooming. >> there was no objection then. >> i understand that. there is no basis for an objection they know that. >> i can't read their minds. >> forensicly sound program used by a forensic analyst who is trained. this image is peer reviewed. if they want to discuss the proprietary algorithms and how an analyst would not know a proprietary algorithm contained in the software they are using that's an industry standard they can argue that. but to give an instruction that tells the jury essentially to ignore this evidence unless everything else proves it is
7:31 am
way too far. >> well, this whole business about -- i don't want to say the whole business but the daubert rule is the product of the abuse of so-called scientific evidence by attorneys. there were companies, pension funds, individuals were bankrupted because of legal decisions that were made on the basis of so-called -- which were later shown to be garbage. so when you come in here and you tell me this is what they rely on, i think that's fine except when my common sense tells me wait a minute. what's happening here when you get an image that is -- is consistent of just i'll say it again. 2500 pixels and you blow it up
7:32 am
to 25,000 or 250,000, and you don't really know what fills the vacant space, that is a little struggle for me and this is not being used to decide which camera i'm going to buy or which phone i'm going to buy when i'm at the store. this is being used to decide about whether someone is innocent or guilty of a crime and that's why i was -- when the witness answered he didn't know. and the only reason i left here and i troubled about it and in the end i decided well, wait a minute, we allowed this kind of thing to happen in dwi cases where the officers ask how does the machine work? i don't know. i just am trained how to operate it. but there is a difference there. that has already passed
7:33 am
judicial scrutiny and that has been determined to be accurate. has that been determined in this? i thought i maybe should give a cautionary instruction. ultimately you convinced me in our exchanges that i don't want to be meddling and commenting on the evidence. i will tell you this, assuming that there is a conviction, one or more, assuming that other motions don't contaminate whatever outcome there is, if it comes out at some time that the method used produces unreliable results, this is going to fall like a house of cards because you are basing an
7:34 am
extremely important segment of the evidence on something that i'm really queasy about. but as i said when i left here friday, this is the jury's case, not mine. and i'm going to let them decide. they have your photographs and your video and they've got the testimony of the person who was working on it who knows a lot more about this stuff than i do so i've decided to leave it alone. i won't give an instruction on it but i've made my record on the high risk i think it presents for the case. okay, what's next? >> the two last things. the court modified a little bit count 6, which was -- >> i did. >> the third element that you have listed there is the dangerous weapon was a rifle that had a barrel length of less than 16 inches or less than 26 inches. we have pulled the transcript
7:35 am
and looked at it. detective was asked if this was a short barreled rifle. he had answered no, he did not believe that it was. that's the only information regarding that. >> was the gun offered as an exhibit? >> yes. >> that is evidence enough in itself. the jury can measure it. >> okay. >> fair enough. the way i looked at it there was no other information that would -- a reasonable juror could believe that count 3 has been met. >> what are you telling me? >> i'm asking you take it from them. >> you're asking me to dismiss the case for failure to prove count 6. >> judge, there have been many discussions about this count. i won't rehash everything. the state disagrees with the
7:36 am
interpretation. the court has established. we do not believe the jury instruction is appropriate or that the exceptions was properly raised by the defense. we argued about that on friday. i'm not going to rehash it. i believe it should go to the jury and if the jury believes that it was proven they can return a verdict on that. but the state has objected all along or has given its version all along we stand by that version. i believe that this jury instruction essentially swallows the entire statute. we've gone over that before. i believe that if they raise an exception it should go to the jury. we would like the standard instruction. it's clear the court isn't going to do that. >> well, up to now the motions were motions to dismiss the
7:37 am
complaint. and you filed a very nice brief which well explained what the law is and of course we were dealing with what the complaint stated and whether the complaint stated sufficient facts to bring the case to court and the court is confined on that kind of a motion to what's in the complaint and whether it meets the law. as you pointed out these are affirmative defenses and the d.a. doesn't have to plead them and why i ultimately denied the motion to dismiss. it ought to have been mighty clear i had big problems with this statute and made no bones about that from the beginning. and there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. well, that's not fair for me to say because i was sitting here. but shame on me. but --
7:38 am
i ultimately read the statute and have even when i ruled on the motion to dismiss, i was of the opinion that the statute was as interpreted by the defense and -- but it was not sufficient grounds to grant the motion to dismiss. is the firearm here now? >> yes. >> we can either measure it or you can stipulate that it does not meet what i stated are the requirements. and if it is out of compliance -- if it is -- if the barrel length is less than 16 inches, or an overall length less than 26 inches, then i will deny the motion if it does not meet
7:39 am
those specifications then the defense motion will be granted. >> we are not disputing that the barrel isn't appropriate. it is not a short barreled rifle, yes. >> either by barrel or overall length? >> correct. >> count 6 is dismissed. what's next? >> i had filed november 8th we had addressed a motion for mistrial with prejudice. the court had taken it under advisement. what i would inform the court i have filed something in writing on that. i know a court likely hasn't had an opportunity to review it.
7:40 am
i don't know -- >> i am assuming we'll go obviously through closing arguments today but i did want to make sure the court was aware it had been filed and at some point have the court make a final ruling on it just for the record. >> i will. if it's necessary. the -- okay. came in this morning? okay. anything else? >> judge, were you ever able to use the defendant's interview link we sent to play, the "washington post" story? >> i did receive that. i did receive that. >> it relates to the motion, that's the reason i ask. the defense motion, it relates to that. >> i'm not going to take up the motion now. >> i didn't say now.
7:41 am
i just wanted to make sure -- >> i did receive it. >> okay. >> okay. anything else right now? >> are you done? >> the only thing, judge, in our arguments we would like to indicate that pointing a loaded ar-15 at someone without reasonable justification would be a criminal act without citing the specific statute but that pointing under 941.20 is a crime. we would like to point that out and we just wanted to preview that. if there is objection we can handle it now. >> do you want to respond? >> we would object. this is once again relying on the exhibit that is so far out of focus and there has been nothing in the record. when i specifically asked the detective howard regarding the strong arm robbery i asked about it.
7:42 am
strong arm robbery while masked. i asked about it. it is in the record. >> the struggle i'm having with that and i will -- how do we know it was pointed at or toward whoever? you have a theory it was pointed in that direction. i agree with that but the statute's prohibition is pretty explicit and i'm not sure that the evidence that you have especially because it's just -- not just especially but in part because it's just a regular photograph, it is not multi-dimensional, it doesn't show the exact area in which the firearm was aimed. even if you see the firearm. >> again the photograph is perhaps the fifth for sixth most relevant piece of evidence on this topic. >> the most what?
7:43 am
>> we have testimony and videos. i won't go over that again. the defense submitted their own exhibit of the f.b.i. video with the zim inski's noted being the only two on that side of the doour owe max. mr. zim inski starts out one of the windows, the rear passenger side window, and so there is no real dispute that they are in that area and that is where we argue that he is pointing the weapon. it is for the jury to decide if he is pointing it at them or not. >> it is for the jury to decide. not speculate. let's look at the statute. that's a good place to start.
7:44 am
941.20. yeah. that brings up a separate issue, i suppose. that what is the role of mr. rosenbaum, assuming the defendant violated that statute? it's a very theory the state proceeded on in the first place is that the defendant was a vigilante who was getting himself involved in something that was not his concern? now you're telling me that would justify mr. rosenbaum's actions? i'm struggling with that, too. how would that justify? what does the jury do with that? >> i don't fully understand the court's question. >> pardon me?
7:45 am
>> he also pointed the weapon at mr. rosenbaum before the shooting while he is being pursued he turns and points it at mr. rosenbaum. >> there is no question about that. >> he was being chased by him. >> pardon me? >> he was being chased by him. >> it used to be points or aims a firearm at another. i'm not seeing that exact language anymore. i'm not seeing it here in the statute that there would be a
7:46 am
broad enough sweep to capture -- some wrongfulness in just pointing the firearm towards the west without evidence that it was pointed specifically at or toward another. what am i missing? >> the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon. endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon. we would argue that it is -- if the court feels otherwise we will talk about it. >> where was the fire armed aimed? i didn't hear them come in and say that. who said it?
7:47 am
>> except for looking at the video and that's who was over there. videos indicated those are the ones who are over there, that would be the only evidence. >> i'm not saying it didn't happen. i'm saying i don't think i can give an instruction to the jury telling them something when i don't see the statutory -- >> for the instruction in our closing -- in our arguments we just wanted to say -- >> i think it would be okay for you to state what the law says but you have to be careful because the jury cannot be invited to speculate. so i don't want to -- there is such a universe of possible statements that could be made but i don't want to try to rule in advance. i refrain from doing that. i always try to because i can't read your mind. but so i'm not going to say you
7:48 am
can't mention that at all that it's unlawful to point a gun at somebody. the jurors probably have a sense of that anyway. but as to what might be said, i can't tell you what's in and out of bounds. okay? what's next? >> that's all we've got. >> okay. ready for the jury? i'll probably take a break after these lengthy instructions and -- >> the trial here. we have been watching the trial here. making sure my microphone is open. a lot of back and forth before the judge brings the jury back in to talk about the instructions that he is then going to give them and closing arguments begin. something significant happened while we were listening.
7:49 am
jonathan turley if i could turn to you in regards to count number 6, what was that and what was the decision? >> i just wrote a column on count number 6, which is the possession of a dangerous weapon. i'm not convinced that it is actually an applicable statute to this circumstance. you really have to violate it by having a short barreled weapon and if you don't you have to in my view satisfy that the person violated two statutory provisions, one of which was that he is 15 or 16, which does not apply here. to the judge was asked to address this issue and the defense noted that a police officer stated earlier it was not a short barreled weapon. and the judge said well, you know, if it's not a short barreled weapon i don't see how this could possibly apply and he said where is the gun?
7:50 am
why don't we just measure it, which is a rather novel and welcoming statements because it's bizarre to me that this would go to the jury if the prosecutors have not put into evidence that it is a short barreled weapon. and so the judge just got finished talking about how he doesn't want the jury to speculate. this count 6 really seems to invite that. so the judge indicated that he may still grant a motion from the defense if that barrel is not short and we'll see what happens. but that's a misdemeanor count but it is also a count that would drop away, if the court granted this -- and it could have an impact on the prosecution -- but also the judge really tightened up these instructions. this is where sausage is being made. people usually don't watch this part of the trial. but there were very important decisions made with regard to
7:51 am
those instructions. >> dana: i thought it was pretty interesting to listen to all of that. in some ways it seems like there was still a lot to work out as they head into closing arguments. >> right. >> trace: it's fascinating to me, andy mccarthy. you listen to the judge, defense and prosecutors trying to figure out if they can include this testimony or this evidence where kyle rittenhouse turns and points the gun at joseph rosenbaum and the defense said look, he was being chased at the time. and we saw the video, the only video that we think exists of that drone video showing the actual shooting and he does point the gun toward rittenhouse. i am unclear what the prosecutor was trying to convey in that. he showed the video, it shows the ultimate shooting and they're trying to say yeah, he did turn and point the gun at joseph rosenbaum but what's the intent there, andy? what is the prosecutor looks to
7:52 am
be daming for the prosecution when he is being chased by rosenbaum. >> they wanted to show he pointed the gun at zim inski who was with rosenbaum. it's outrageous. what they're trying to suggest even though they haven't put a shred of testimonial evidence in on this point, is on the basis of a blowup which is very difficult to see of this video that they got at the last second, that rittenhouse pointed the gun at zim inski and their theory is it was provocative and by having done that he provokeed zim inski and rosenbaum and now instead the defense here is that he was responding, rittenhouse was responding to assailants and exercising his right of self-defense. what the prosecution wants to
7:53 am
argue based on what i regard as no evidence he doesn't have an argument of self-defense of having provoked the people to assault him in the first place. >> dana: jonna spilbor. as a defense attorney as you watched these back and foergtd with the lawyers and judge, what did you see? >> i thought it was good. i think the judge is being very exacting but jury instructions are where the jury can glaze over. they are obviously very important. the knew answer thaes are clearly in the jury's lap to decide. when you are not a lawyer or legal commentator sometimes these can go right over your head and it is important to get the jury to understand the importance of these instructions. >> dana: the judge will now give the jury the instructions. >> as to the innocence or guilt of the defendant you must disregard that impression entirely. and decide this case solely as
7:54 am
you view the evidence. you are the sole judges of the facts and i am the judge of the law only. keep if mind that the information is nothing more than a written formal accusation against the defendant accusing him of the commission of crimes. you are not to consider it as evidence against the defendant in any way and it does not raise any inference of guilt. the information contains six counts charged unlawful behavior against the defendant and to each of these he entered a plea of not guilty which is a demand the state prove every element of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt. self-defense is an issue in this case. as to each of counts 1-5. i might interject here count 6 is no longer part of your consideration. that was the firearm charge. so that will not be something that you will need to address. you will need to address only the first five counts.
7:55 am
count -- well self-defense is an issue in this case, as in each case counts 1-5 the state must proves by evidence that soes you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act lawfully in self-defense. the law of self-defense allows the defendant to threaten or intentionally use force against another only if he believes that there was an actual or imminent unlawful interference with his own person and he believed that the amount of force which he used or threatened to use was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference, and his beliefs were reasonable. the defendant may intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believed that the force used was necessary to prevent imminent death for great bodily harm to his own person. a belief may be reasonable even though it is mistaken in determining whether the
7:56 am
defendant' beliefs were reasonable the standard is what a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence would have believed in the defendant's position under the circumstances that existed at the time of the alleged offenses. the reasonableness of the defendant's beliefs must be determined from the standpoint of the defendant at the time of the defendant's acts and not from the standpoint of the jury now. there is no duty to retreat. however, a determining whether the defendant reasonably believed the amount of force used was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. you may consider whether the defendant had the opportunity to retreat with safety, whether such retreat was feasible, and whether the defendant knew of the opportunity to retreat. you should also consider whether the defendant provoked the attack. a person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack and who does provoke an attack is not allowed to use or threaten force in self-defense
7:57 am
against that attack. however, if the attack which follows causes the person reasonably to believe that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, he may lawfully act in self-defense. but the person may not use or threaten force intended or likely to cause death unless he reasonably believes that he has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm. counts 4 and 5 require intent to kill as part of the elements. intent to kill means that the defendant had the mental purpose to take the life of another human being or was aware that his conduct was practically certain to cause the death of another human being. while the law requires that the defendant have acted with the intent to kill, it does not require that the intent to kill have existed for any particular
7:58 am
length of time before the act was committed. the act need not have been brooded over, considered or reflected upon for a week, a day, an hour or even for a minute. there need not have been any time between the formation of the intent and the act. the intent to kill may be formed at any time before the act including the instant before the act and must continue to have existed at the time of the act. you cannot look into a person's mind to determine intent. intent to kill must be found if found at all from the defendant's acts, words and statements, if any, and from all the facts and circumstances in this case which bear upon intent. intention not be confused with motive. proof of motive is necessary -- while proof of motive is necessary to a conviction, proof of motive is not. motive refers to a person's reason for doing something. while motive may be shown as a circumstance to aid in
7:59 am
establishing the guilt of the defendant, the state is not required to prove motive on the part of the defendant in order to convict. evidence of motive does not by itself establish guilt. you should give it the weight you believe it deserves under all the circumstances. the first count of the information charges that on or about tuesday, 25th of august of last year at the city of kenosha in this county the defendant recklessly caused the death of another human being joes en d. rosenbaum under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life. reckless homicide as defined in the criminal code is defined as one who recklessly causes the death of another human being under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life. before you may find that the defendant guilty of reckless homicide of the first degree, the state must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following three elements were
8:00 am
present. first, the defendant caused the death of another. because means the defendant's act was a substantial factor in producing the death. second, that the defendant caused the death by criminally reckless conduct, criminally reckless conduct means that conduct created a risk of death or great bodily harm to another person and if that the risk of death or great bodily harm was unreasonable and substantial. and that the defendant was aware that his conduct created a reasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm. the circumstances and -- of the defendant's conduct showed utter disregard for human life in determining whether the circumstances of the conduct showed utter disregard for human life, you should consider these factors. what the defendant


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on