a major campaign promise. update our viewers. >> yeah, wolf, it is a major campaign promise and not just to repair the nation's roads and bridges, which is at the heart of what this bill will do, but also to work with republicans to get his policies passed. that's what was so unusual about this signing ceremony you saw on the south lawn today just a few hours ago. there's president biden there. he was surrounded by democrats and some of the republicans who helped get this across the finish line and you heard from them at the beginning introducing the president, talking about why they voted to support this bill. it was a theme the president included in his remarks, even thanking senator mcconnell, who was not present there today, but did of course vote for this bill. and president biden thanked him. of course we know it's tens of billions of dollars for roads and bridges, for the nation's airports, for boosting internet access. but the president also talked to the american people about what it means for democrats and republicans to work together. >> the world has changed. we have to be ready. my fellow american, today i want you to know we hear you and we see you. the bill i'm about to sign into law is proof that despite the cynics, democrats and republicans can come together and deliver results. >> now he signed this bill into law. now he is going to start selling it to voters. the white house hoping it will boost those low approval ratings you've seen lately. starting in new hampshire tomorrow, where the president is going to be on the road talking about what this bill will do given of course it is going to take some time to implement this bill. that is something the former new orleans mayor is going to be in charge of overseeing. the implementation of this billion dollar plan. he he was there this afternoon and of course it's going to take time, but the white house wants to go ahead and start talking about the results to voters so the president will be hitting the road tomorrow to sell this bill, wolf. >> i'll be going off to new hampshire tomorrow to begin the sales pitch for what is now the law of the land. thank you very much. let's discuss what's going on. the white house press secretary, jen psaki, is joining us now. thank you very much for joining us. i know there's a lot in this bill. $1.2 trillion for much needed improvements. the roads and bridges and airports, expanded access to the internet. which component of the bill does the president believe will have the most transformative impact on americans' lives? >> well, that's like picking between children, wolf. they're all going to have huge, important impacts, but i will tell you a couple of things you didn't mention. one is expanding broadband access to people across the country. we saw during the pandemic, parents, mothers, dads, had their kids in parking lots because they didn't have access to broadwaband. the president wants to change that. across the country, millions of people are drinking water through lead pipes. kids are drinking poisoned drinking water. we're going to replace these pipes. those are areas that are going to have huge impacts on the country and we're going to rebuild roads and bridges so we can become more competitive with countries around the world. a big deal, a big day. >> very important bipartisan sport. i did say the legislation will have expanded access to the internet, so i did mention that. the president also told americans that their lives are going change for the better because of this bill. how quickly can americans expect to see that change how long will it take? >> former mayor lieutenant governor just started. today was his first day. what a day to start. going to be traveling with the president tomorrow. the president's made clear he wants him to get to work implementing this bill. that means working with mayors and governors. with members of the cabinet to get going in imp ming this bill. i sat in on the president's cabinet meeting on friday and what that was focused on for two or three hours was each of the component of the cabinet members and what they're going to be implementing about this package. i will note this bill is designed to be spent over a period of time. it's not meant to be all thrown into the economy immediately. it's spent over time. but there are component that we're going to get started as soon as mitch land rue has a few days under his belt. >> beyond his appointment, what steps are you taking to ensure that all of the 1$1.2 trillion s allocated wisely and not wasted? >> well, the president takes waste, fraud, and abuse seriously. when he was asked by former president obama to oversee the implementation of the recovery act back in 2009, people called him sheriff joe because he was so focused on cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse. he had a lot of success in doing that. so that is actually a big component of what the former mayor will be overseeing in this role as the implementation coordinator, ensuring this money is spent efficiently, effectively, wisely, and that is going to require hours of every day on the phone with mayors and governors and making sure we're getting this money where it needs to be. put people back to work, create good union jobs and make sure we're impacting people's lives. >> as you know, this new "washington post" abc news poll that finds 63% of respondents say the president has accomplished, quote, not very much or little or nothing so far in his presidency. has there be a failure of messaging on the part of the white house? >> well, you've covered a few white houses, wolf, and what i can tell you from having worked in a white house before as well is that you don't design a communications strategy around telling the story of the sausage making in washington. and that's what we've been talking about over the last couple of months. this is an important essential part of how bills get done. how democracy happens, but what the president really wants to do and what we think is going to be effective is get out there in the country, sell this bill, talk about the impact on people's lives. the vice president will be out there doing that. members of the cabinet. it's much easier and effective to do that when the bill is final. you know what the components are and you can talk about all the pieces we've been talking about during this interview. >> as you point out, some of the legislation won't be implemented for several years. the next huge priority of course on the president's agenda is what's called the build back better plan. $1.75 trillion piece of legislation presumably going to pass the house very much up in the air as far as the senate is concerned. should that spending plan be delayed until next year given that inflation here in the united states has now risen to a 30-year high? >> well, first, wolf, inflation, which is something we certainly watch closely and any cost increase for the american people is something that's of concern to the president. but what this bill will do is lower costs and the way inflation impacts people at home is it increases costs. whether it's goods or housing or healthcare. what this bill does is lower cost. it's going to cut the cost of childcare. it's going to cut the cost of healthcare. for people who rely on insulin, it caps the cost at $35. in building housing units so people can go and find affordable housing. it's a bill about cutting costs. that's what the american people need now and economists across the board will say this will help reduce inflation, address inflation. >> how is the bill going to cut the cost of gasoline? >> one of the things it will do over the long-term is invest in clean energy, make sure we're not relying as much on oil. that's a long-term impact of this package that has an enormous investment in climate and addressing the climate crisis. what we need to do over the short-term on gasoline is a couple of things. one, the president has been clear that we are going to go after price gouging. he's asked the ftc director to look into that. we've seen, while we've seen an increase in oil supply out there, we have not seen a decrease in gas prices. that should not be the case. so that's something they're looking into. and we're going to, we have a range of options at our disposal. we're going to look into every option we can to lower the price of gas for the american people, but this is a bill that's going to help cut a range of costs, childcare, housing, healthcare for the american people and something we feel we need to do as quickly as possible. >> let me ask you about steve bannon, who made his initial appearance in federal court here in washington today, jen. he says, i'm quoting, he says joe biden ordered merrick garland, the attorney general of the united states, to prosecute me from the white house lawn. the president walked back his previous comment on that, but could that remark actually complicate the justice department's case against bannon? >> well, let me be very clear here. the president nominated merrick garland to serve as attorney general and made clear he's going to oversee an independent justice department. merrick garland in his hearing, which i know you covered, made clear he would not have taken the job and done the job unless he had an independent justice department and that's how it has been operating and will continue to operate. so the department of justice can speak to their decisions here, but i will note maybe this feels foreign because this is different how the justice department and white house interacted in the last four years. we're doing something new here and allowing them, leaving the space for them to operate independently as they should. >> was it a mistake for the president to say bannon should be prosecuted before the justice department reached any decision? >> we were clear shortly after that, wolf, that the president does not involve himself, does not engage himself in the decisions made related to prosecution by the justice department. that they have independence and that will continue to be the case. >> we'll see if it becomes an issue during this case. last night after cnn reported that west wing aides are exasperated by what they see as dysfunction between the vice president, kamala harris, and her staff, you took to twitter to defend the vice president saying she's a vital partner to the president of the united states. press secretaries don't necessarily respond to every story. why did you feel the need to respond to this one? >> i've seen the vice president work up close and i've watched the president and the vice president in meetings and watched them work together up close and i just wanted to be clear about what i saw. that's my role as the press secretary in this white house is to send a clear message to the american people. so i went out there and made clear that the vice president is a vital partner. she's a bold leader and she's taken on some challenging assignments, but important ones. whether it's voting rights or addressing the root causes of migration. that's what i felt i should convey to the american people out there. who may have been reading a range of stories. >> i know we're almost out of time, but lastly, very important. i know you just returned to the white house the other day after having covid. sorry you came down with covid. first of all, how are you feeling and second, did having this virus yourself, i take it members of your family, give you a new perspective as the administration tries to lead the country out of this pandemic, which sadly still continues? >> well, i would say it made me even more grateful for the vaccine, as you noted. members of my household tested positive. i then several days later even after four negative tests tested positive and i'm grateful for the vaccine. i had mild symptoms. i was a little tired and fatigued for a couple of days, but i abided by my ten-day quarantine and returned back to work. i'm grateful to the vaccine, it may have saved my life. >> vaccines are so, so important. but i want to clarify, you and all the members of your family are fully recovered, everybody is fine? >> yes, i appreciate that, wolf. thank you for asking. everybody is fine. everybody is recovered and we're grateful to be back at work and school and everything we're all a part of every day. >> that makes me happy to hear that. thank you so much for joining us. i know you've got to run. thanks for doing this. >> thanks, wolf. great chatting with you. >> we're going to continue to monitor the trial of kyle rittenhouse that's still ongoing. stand by for more on that. also, we're going to have more on steve bannon in court here in washington today and clearly, he's on the offensive as he battles contempt of congress charges. stay with us. you're in "the situation room." our sleigh is now ready, let's get on our way. a mountain of toys to fulfill many wishes. must be carried across all roads and all bridges. and when everyone is smiling and having their fun i can turn my sleigh north because my job here is done. it's not magic that makes more holiday deliveries to homes in the us than anyone else, it's the hardworking people of the united states postal service. (naj) at fisher investments, our clients know we have their backs. (other money manager) how do your clients know that? (naj) because as a fiduciary, it's our responsibility to always put clients first. (other money manager) so you do it because you have to? (naj) no, we do it because it's the right thing to do. we help clients enjoy a comfortable retirement. (other money manager) sounds like a big responsibility. (naj) one that we don't take lightly. it's why our fees are structured so we do better when our clients do better. fisher investments is clearly different. [uplifting music playing] ♪ i had a dream that someday ♪ ♪ i would just fly, fly away ♪ >> 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. ♪ try garlique healthy immune support formula. uniquely formulated with garlic, vitamins and minerals to support a strong, healthy immune system. garlique. back to kenosha, wisconsin. the assistant district attorney. >> and it's the few seconds of that part of the night that is not on tape anywhere. concoction to give credence or weight that oh, he had to defend himself against a unarmed man. there's some talk about how the defendant came around that duramax and raised his gun. that didn't seem to be a contested issue in the case until the defendant lied about it on the stand. the defense themselves submitted an exhibit, number 41. it is denoted where the person that put that video together indi indicates rittenhouse pointing gun and there's a question mark. this was their exhibit. there is testimony from the detective and we showed this drone video. now but then the defendant won't admit to it on the stand then all of a sudden, the defense has to fight it and talk about hocus pocus and make up little clever rhymes. the defendant could have told you the truth. but that hurts his case and that gives us provocation. now, i did, i did have on rebuttal, mr. armstrong put in two very blurry pictures. mr. binger didn't mention these because they're fifth, sixth or seventh strongest evidence that mr. rittenhouse raised his gun, but the defense is seizing on them and inaccurately said it took him 20 hours of work to do. he worked on that drone video for 20 hours. he made us multiple shorter videos of it. these images were the last part of that work. and that image does show mr. rittenhouse holding a gun. it is blurry. does it show every detail? no. we thought it important to show a still shot besides these videos. the second one again is very blurry, but it's of the shooting. and you see mr. rittenhouse blurry. you see the puff of smoke and you see mr. rosenbaum blurry still very much upright. and that is why those pictures are giffin. it was the tail end of all the work that mr. armstrong did on this video. the defense seems very scared of these pictures because it helps to prove their client lied on the stand and it shows that he pro provoked the attack. i would like to show you i believe this is the full drone video? exhibit 73 . in this one, it is difficult to see the raising of the gun because it's the full video. i would encourage you if you find it necessary to take a closer look, please stop it. as you see in this video, mr. richards wants to make it seem like the only recourse the defendant has in retreating is walking into this mob of people who were breaking cars. but look at all that open space that he has. at this moment, he could have turned around and ran to the space and everyone would be alive and be fine. instead, he decides to start slowing down and run into these cars in which he is supposedly trapped, which is like being trapped in a parking lot. as you see, he goes around hthe, no problem and he goes right into this clear space that was available to him the whole time. he did not exhaust his duty to retreat. he did not exhaust all of his options. i'm going to go to the video. this is in relation to mr. richa richards richard indicated that no one that attacks or went after mr. rittenhouse observed the shooting. that is not true. this video shows the person that is referred to as jump kick man leaving the scene. we have another view as well from another video, but i will point that out . >> this is -- there he sees it. standing there the whole time and he comes and he helps push the man in the wheelchair out of the scene. he was there. he did see what happened. this is exhibit ten. if you look after the shooting, it shows this individual pushing a wheelchair away from car source three. there he is across the street, pushing the man's wheelchair away. out of the scene . this is a video you've seen before. it does look better on the large television, but this is where he comes into the screen. this is one of the video that is mr. armstrong cropped for us in his 20 hours of work. this is slowed down by 50%. and it zooms in as good as possible given limitations of the video. i'll point it out up here, but it is better seen on the large tv. there he is pointing a gun. he's not close enough to the car to have that be a factor. he breezes off. do the next -- you got it? it really wasn't an issue at trial until the defendant lied about it. exhibit 84. another video that mr. armstrong did in his 20 hours of work. this shows the chase that you see him point. mr. rosenbaum does hit jump. see the defendant slowing down, seemingly preparing to shoot. and look where that first shot is. play one more time. this is the zoomed in image that was shown. look how far. he's not reaching. he's being shot in the hip and falling and he goes immediately to the ground and the defendant sees hit to keep shooting at him although he poses absolutely no threat. again, 4 feet from the barrel of the gun. not from mr. rittenhouse himself. here's another video mr. armstrong made in his 20 hours of work. he made six all told. they're in evidence. here's a krclose up of the fina shooting. he crumples immediately to the ground but the defendant keeps shooting him. so did mr. rosenbaum turn and get shot in the back that way? no, he was even less of a threat. he was falling face first on the ground with his hip shattered. so, yes. he was shot in the back and killed by a shot in the back and it was the third or fourth shot. attorney richards indicated that nick smith called the defendant. he did not testify in that. he was never asked. we don't know who or what called the defendant to go to that scene. and despite the fact that there's this madman out there who's such a threat and is going to kill the defendant, he just saunters down there all by himself. no problem. he's not scared. his threat, if it existed, was not taken seriously. he's a babbling idiot as mr. -- said. mr. rittenhouse testified he didn't hear the, anything before he shot. he didn't hear this fuck you, he didn't factor in the gun shot. there is no evidence that mr. huber did anything untowards that evening. they talked about pushing a dumpster, picking up pepper balls. that was not evidence that was ever submitted in this trial and i don't know where it comes from. no evidence that he told gage, i had to shoot in self-defense. and attorney richards talks about how detective howard testified in a certain way and how he didn't talk about the drone footage or anything. he knows we got the drone footage surprisingly after detective howard testified. guns do not have handed. there's not a left-handed or right-handed gun. so, yes, the demonstration that mr. binger did is how it happened. the defendant was facing that way. he picked it up. and the videos show it. the detective reviewed it and saw it and testified to it. and it wasn't an issue until the defendant lied. videos don't lie. but we know kyle rittenhouse does. he lied all that night. a lot has been made about how gage had an attorney. how hypocritical from a lawyer to hear someone criticize someone else higher in counsel. mr. rittenhouse isn't here alone. he has lawyers. and i apologize that the district attorney's office followed our interpretation of marcie's law, which is a fairly recent, especially at that time, constitutional amendment. gage is not on trial. he followed the advice of counsel not to turn over his phone, just as anyone who hires counsel can do. they can follow the advice of their counsel. we got his video from that night. the defense has seen it. we have it. what else do we need? text messages from three weeks before? they just want too try to dig up dirt because they think it's there because the defense wants you to believe that these people got what was coming to them. that they were bad people doing bad things and we should be proud and boastful of mr. rittenhouse for killing them. gage testified what he heard, he heard i didn't shoot anyone and he acted on that. he then followed and went, he left mr. rittenhouse thinking he was not involved in the shooting and he started going too the shooting of mr. rosenbaum before being told by others that saw it that he was the shooter, then he returned. so he relied on this statement from mr. rittenhouse . let's talk about a rush to judgment. mr. rittenhouse turned himself in. supposed to be days, weeks, mo mornts to charge murders, it's a red herring. throwing up false, hypocritical arguments and attacks on those that mr. rittenhouse killed. trying to distract you from the fact that he was not in imminent fear of death or bodily harm and he was not privileged to act how he did. we heard from miss carrie ann. now we can try to smear rosenbaum more even though there was no dispute he came from a hospital. he's carrying a hospital bag. she testified she talked to the hospital about how he would be release. that he went to this hospital. she knew he was coming home from the hospital. he she knew what was in the bag and he showed itd trying to make it seem sinister. you can get a peek in the bag and i would argue you can see medical papers. that big image looks like rolled up medical records that you get when you're discharged from a hospital. and she testified he was given medications that day. perhaps they didn't work. perhaps there was a bad reaction. i don't know. i'm not a doctor, but he was given them that day. he could not get the ones for future days because things were closed. bauch did not testify that he thought there was anything sinister in the bag. he said something inaccurate at the time, but he said he saw shampoo bottles and a water bottle. mr. dubrio, he did take some nice photographs and clearly wanted the world to know he did some nice photographs. he's really more relevant to mr. zimenski. this is the photo of the bag. you can examine that further. he must have some problem with police offices. he goes to the detectives. he doesn't give a full story. he says, he testified to this, he forgot these because he was so nervous because the door to the police station still had an unrepaired window. that caused him such nervousness that he could not give a full statement. he meets with us in a very polite, short meeting. he has very little relevance to this case that we knew about and yes, we shared some videos. is this josh zimenski? oh, no, it's not. you don't know? somehow, that's us getting him to change his statement. what's that? we show him pictures, videos, say is that josh? i don't know. we show other pictures. do you recognize that as the same person? yes. that's not getting him to change his statement. do you have anything to add to it? no. the next day, he goes over to mr. richards' office. all of a sudden , he knows all this extra information that wasn't in his statement. oh, but he was so nervous to meet with us because we showed him a video or photograph that he took of joshua. and then what does he do? he goes and hires a lawyer very closely connected with a gossip blogger who attacks my office on a regular basis and he was very pro rittenhouse. another just funny coincidence in this case. just like how mr. hernandez could hire tens of thousands of attorneys in the state, but no. he hires an attorney who kyle rittenhouse's defense team has already paid money to that firm. what a coincidence. so mr. dubrin doesn't give us information then gives the defense a lot more information. mr. rittenhouse denied pointing a gun at the yellow pants man. said he was being sarcastic. mr. richards basically admitted he did point the gun. so which is it? we know that mr. rittenhouse was going around that night trying be a paramedic, a policeman and a fireman without receiving any real training in any of that. tough job to do all three at once. and he went around with his gun trying to scare people, to intimidate them, to not do minor property damage. he's a chaos tourist. he was there to see what was going on, act important, be a big deal. and then the moment a little bit of that chaos comes back at him, he cowardly shoots a man instead of fighting back. you put yourself in this situation, you know it's going to be out of hand, it gets a little out of hand, someone is chasing me. and you have to shoot them. that is not privileged. that is not reasonable. and that is not what any reason person in the defendant's shoes would have done. we kept hearing about this rock in his hand. there's new evidence of there being a rock in that hand. now there's talk about how the defendant maybe reracked his gun. we don't see that in the video. we don't know what he did. but we do know that as gage is sitting there with his hands up, the defendant turns over his gun and is looking at it, doing something with it, fully reason, the defendant admitted to this, that he looked at the gun. fully reasonable that he could assumed he was reaking and preparing to fire. and it does not mean that an unspent shell casing has to be on the ground. officer bray testified that she shot ar-15s. she knows ar-15s. if it jams and there's an unspelled shell casing, the reracking will take out the unspent shell casing. it does not have to be a live round. i don't know what he was doing with his gun, but it's reasonable for mr. grosskruetz to interpret it that way. he didn't shoot him five, six seconds earlier when he was, mr. mr. rittenhouse was being an active shooter. after having killed his second person and shot at his third. he would have had every right to have stopped mr. rittenhouse's activities at that point. but he didn't. he came up closer. he surrendered and said you know, he believed his surrender was not being accepted. who shoots someone like this? was he trying to shoot his own hand off? he never does anything about an actual position to shoot that gun and as mr. richards admitted, when it's pointed at his head, his arm is already blown off. when the defendant is holding a loaded ar-15. then there's this argument that kelly is holding a flashlight. it must be to bash heads. certainly no one carries flashlights at night to walk in the dark or home to your car in the dark. take my dog for a walk. looking to bash in heads. no. we hear about how oh, this vicious kick that if you watch it live, did not seem to make much contact. spun him 180 degrees. that is kyle tracking him with the gun and shooting at him. he's moving as he's moving. that is not the force of the kick and the video makes that clear. but we're grasping at straws and throwing out red herrings. and now a skate board is a deadly weapon. someone should tell all the parents and grandparents and santa claus getting skateboards this christmas about how they're giving their children a deadly weapon. i guess they should get them an ar-15 instead. it's just preposterous, and yes, mr. huber was acting heroic in taking that skateboard and holding him down and trying to take that gun. and what happened? the gun stayed attached to mr. rittenhouse. because when the defense concocted this they were trying to take my gun story, they left out that it is literally strapped to him. he shot an unarmed man four times because he was so scared that mr. rosenbaum was going to take the gun away from him when it was attached to him. it's an absolute red herring, an absolute ridiculous argument. imminent threat. not oh, in five minutes after we get beat up, then i might be a threat. imminent threat. you've heard all the videos. i'm not going to go into it anymore great length, but when you listen to the crowd as mr. rittenhouse is running, they start yelling after he's running, get him. also, as people are approaching him at the end, they're asking why did you shoot him? why did you shoot him? these are people that were provoked because they witnessed an attack or heard shots or heard he was attacking and they took action. as bmr. binger said, i probably wouldn't do it either. but that they did it is brave and they did not sit there to be killed. kyle rittenhouse has strong ties to kenosha, but used google maps to find a business he says he's driven by every day. he supposedly knows kenosha so well that he doesn't realize you can walk one block either way to get back to the car source. he didn't want to get back. he wanted to see what was going on. he wanted to stay in the action. he wanted to continue to do things to make him feel big and important. these minor injuries we've heard the defendant have, again, mr. richards misstated the standard. it is not could have caused great bodily harm or death. it is not likely to have caused great bodily harm or death. it is imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. where is that when you get a couple of scrapes? everybody takes a beating sometimes, right? sometimes you get in a scuffle and maybe you do get hurt a little bit. that doesn't mean you can just start plugging people with your full metal jacket ar-15 rounds and no bullets or not bullets. we heard testimony about that. mr. richards mentioned this in opening, but apparently, he's noticed that the evidence doesn't bear it out. he talks about this how mr. rosenbaum put this shirt over his head to hide his identity because he's going to go ambush kyle rittenhouse. then obviously watch the videos, he's had it on his head for some time. whether it's covid, this is all pre-vaccine, as we know. whether it's tear gas, fire, whatever it is, he's using it to protect his face. not as some evil plan to get kyle rittenhouse. they're setting this fire and they begin walking down sheridan. there's no evidence they knew he was coming, that they had a plan to get him. i submit to you that the zimenskis were doing what they were doing all night. bash that duramax or start a fire. he sees this and runs on to the scene. he runs on to the scene. he puts down the fire extinguisher, raises up his gun. mr. rosenbaum yells, gun, gun, gun. why else would he yell that? it's possible while he's yelling friendly, friendly, friendly, he's holding an ar-15. mr. rosenbaum was going to chase him out of there, to end the danger and mr. richards boasts that you know, something along the lines, you won't do shit, motherfucker, well, mr. rosenbaum was wrong. way to kill someone because you won't engage them. he raises the gun. he provokes the attack. he has to retreat. he has to exhaust all remedies before he can use, before he regains the right to even use self-defense. not even to use deadly force. that's a whole other separate question. he does regain the right to use self-defense if he exhausts all options. he does no. he could have ran a different way. he could have fought. he had all sorts of different ways. he did not do it. as i said in the beginning of my closing, i don't think you need provocation. an unarmed man chasing you and you shoot him four times as he's falling, you kill him as he's falling in front of you because you don't want to physically defend yourself, that's first degree reckless homicide right there. and mr. richards kind of plays games with the name, reckless. reckless means not intentional in this circumstance and you can read the jury instructions, you can come to your own conclusions. firing an ar-15 in any circumstance like this shows utter disregard for human life. no other explanation for it. you're shooting an ar-15 at close range at people, you have no disregard for human life. that's not really in any dispute. i want to leave you with this. the meaning of reasonable doubt. i'm going to read portions of this instruction. obviously you'll have the whole instruction. the term reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. it is a doubt for which a reason can be given. a reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. that's what the defense is asking you to do, to guess what mr. rosenbaum was doing, to speculate what mr. rosenbaum was doing. to speculate and guess what mr. huber and this unidentified man were doing. we don't know because he killed two of them. all we can look at is the evidence, and see him standing, pretty much, straight up or exactly straight up when he was shot in the hip and immobilized. wh a doubt which arises from a fear return to verdict of guilt is not a reasonable doubt. the defense's whole case has been trying to stoke sympathy for mr. rittenhouse, and showing how everyone else was just a terrible person. every life counts. every life matters. if people did bad things that night, that could've been prosecuted. it's not up for mr. rittenhouse to be the judge, the jury, and eventually the executioner. a reasonable doubt is not a doubt, such as may be used to escape the responsibility of a decision. there's a lot going on in this case, and we all know that. we all knew that from the day we walked in on november 1st. but this verdict should be about what the facts are, and what mr. rittenhouse did. that's what the 12 of you, who go to deliberate, will go and decide. you are the factfinders. you decide what is beyond a reasonable doubt. you decide what he is guilty of or not guilty of from this menu of options that you now have. an imminent threat. the only imminent threat that night was mr. rittenhouse. he was not acting in legal, justified self-defense. he is guilty. thank you. >> thank you, mr. kraus. members of the jury, the time has now come when the great burden of reaching a just, fair, and conscientious decision in this case will be placed wholly with you jurors selected for this most important duty. you will not be swayed by sympathy, passion, prejudice, or political beliefs. you will disregard any impression which you may have regarding what you believe to be my opinions on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. you will disregard the claims or opinions of any other person or news media or social networking site. you will pay no heed to the opinions of anyone, even the president of the united states or the president before him. the founders of our country gave you and you, alone, the power and the duty to decide this case based solely on the evidence presented in this court. you will fearlessly keep faith with those who have entrusted to you the fair rendition of justice and the protection of our freedom. you will be very careful and deliberate in weighing the evidence. i charge you to keep your duty steadfastly in mind and as upright citizens, to return just and true verdicts. you will decide only whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the offenses which are charged. any consequences of your verdict are matters for me, alone, to decide. and must not affect your deliberations. it will be for you to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty as to each of the offenses charged or submitted. you must make a finding as to each count of the information. each count charges a separate crime, and you must consider each one separately. your verdict for the crime charged in one count must not affect your verdict on any other. this is a criminal and not a civil case and, therefore, before you can reach a verdict which may lawfully be received, it must be reached unanimously. in a criminal case, all 12 jurors must agree in order to arrive at a verdict. when you retire to the jury room, select one of your members to preside over your deliberations. that presiding juror's vote is not entitled any greater weight than that of any other juror. i am -- we are going to stop at this point and i am going to ask that you return tomorrow. i am going to let you take a vote. um, when you want to start tomorrow. you could choose 8:00. you can choose 8:30. you can choose 9:00. um, how many would be in favor of starting at 8:30? how many want to start at 9 -- i missed 8:00, didn't i? how many want to start at 8:00? how many would like to start at 9:00? all right. that's the clearer consensus -- well, it's not a consensus. but clear plurality -- probably, majority i think and so, we will start at 9:00 tomorrow as -- as we have been. the case is ready for a decision by a jury of 12. we don't have that, and it's -- so, it's just as important as ever -- i'd say more so, except that it was always important -- that you not discuss the case with anyone. and you won't have to resist that much longer now because you will be able to decide the case. um, please don't read any account of the trial or anything to do with the trial. and um, tomorrow morning, we'll assemble and as i indicated earlier, the tumbler over there will be used. all of your numbers will be placed in there and six of the -- well, assuming there are still 18 of you, six of them will be drawn out. and um, those persons will be held in reserve. they will not join the 12 in deliberation. um, we are going to retain you here in the building -- those of you who are not selected. will stay here in the building. and in the event that your services are needed as we continue the case. and then, the 12 of you who are are the jury selected, will commence your deliberations at that point. so again, no talking about the case. please, don't read, watch, or listen to any account of the trial. any questions, anybody? enjoy the evening. we'll see you tomorrow. >> judge bruce schroeder. the prosecution and the defense. they have made their respective arguments now. it's in the hands of the jury. cnn's omar jimenez is in ken sew sha. he has been covering this from day one. omar, very dramatic arguments from both sides today. >> that's right, wolf. really, on the prosecution's side, they try today paint a few arguments in this. most recently, during the rebuttal that many of us have been listening to. you heard the prosecution say this case isn't about kyle riten sh house defending himself. it's not even saying that joseph rosenbaum shouldn't have been chasing him. what this comes down to is did kyle rittenhouse have the right to use deadly force against those that were coming up against him? and the prosecution argued that there was no imminent threat of death and they argued the defense made assumptions that kyle rittenhouse would have been -- would have had great bodily harm or even further. the defense said that kyle rittenhouse never would have shot anyone, if he were not attacked. and even went as far as to say that he never shot anyone, until he was actually cornered by some of the people that were chasing him. you heard the jury break for the day and saying that now, tomorrow morning, the decision will be in their hands once they draw those final 12. and to give you an idea of what they will be looking at, they will be following instructions hammered out by prosecutors, defense, and the judge about two or multiple key definitions but two, in particular. when you look at self-defense. it critically says that rittenhouse could use deadly force only to prevent imminent death or great-bodily harm to himself. b but also, what they will be looking at is the definition of provocation. saying that a person who provokes an attack can't use or threaten self-defense until he has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape death or great bodily harm and those will be two very key cruxes that the jury will be considering once they, of course, reconvene back tomorrow morning. but we've seen both sides lay their stakes and now we have only got one thing left, wolf. >> stand by, jeffrey toobin has been watching all of this unfold. what's your assessment, jeffrey? >> i still think this is a tough case for the prosecution. self-defense in circumstances like this is difficult to refute. but i do think the prosecution made some progress today. i thought the focus on the four shots that were used to kill mr. rosenbaum, four shots. um, that's a lot of shots. and he could have done it -- he could have done it with less or no shots. i thought that was a very effective moment for the prosecution. >> laura coates, what'd you think? >> i think the use of the phrase active shooter really ruled the day. we thought that victims or the idea of not being able to use that word would be very impactful but the idea of threading a very important needle here. not alienating gun owners in wisconsin but also asking the question did you forfeit your life if you try to be heroic and stop an active shooter? that was the most compelling today of the closing aurmtds. >> paul callan, what did you think? >> i think it's the difference between the prosecutor saying this is like a walk through disney world and, um, the defense saying it was dante's inferno. and i think, when you look at the whole picture, it looked like dante's inferno and there were plenty of reasons for rittenhouse to think he might be killed. >> the deliberations begin tomorrow. we'll watch. see what happens to our viewers, thanks very much for watching. i am wolf blitzer in the situation room. "erin burnett outfront" starts right now. outfront. the breaking news. the jury deliberations beginning tomorrow in the case of kyle rittenhouse. the armed teenager who killed two people, injuring a third. was it self-defense? we are about to hear a jury's verdict. plus, president trump's adviser, defender, and supporter defiant after his court appearance on criminal contempt charges. steve bannon calling it the misdemeanor from hell. and president biden set for a high-stakes meeting with the president of china set to begin momentarily this hour. let's go outfront. >>