demonstration when dr. kelly testified. this bullet entered here in the middle finger and came out here. this is how you grab something. i'm mr. rosenbaum trying to take this gun away. and this is how i'm going to do it with my hand turned almost completely around and with apparently my fingers spread so these don't get around the gun or the outside of the path and the other ones do get soot. we're not talking about injuries to the palm here. we are not talking about injuries like this or any kind of grabbing injuries. we are talking about either accidental or completely defensive to knock that gun away as he is being shot just before he is killed on the third or fourth shot. we're supposed to believe that mr. rosen water main is james borne or wic some super star hero capable of killing with his hands and deserved the treatment that he got from the defendant. mr. richards' closing was quite personal, if not taking shots personally at mr. binger he was gloating about his client's kills. and he talked about a lot about the ziminskis he knows darn well they are charged by my office and fifth amendment right. >> stop, stop. stop. let me ask you to step out for a moment, would you. >> what's your objection. >> not in the evidence and mr. ziminski her case has been disposed of and she did not appeal. >> she did not plead charged with any arson which the defense could get into and she would have a fifth amendment right. >> as i recollect, i think i have the case. i handled the case. >> what's that? [inaudible] >> that's pending. mr. ziminski's case is pending and repeatedly adjourned to follow this case at the state's request. i handled the case of mrs. ziminski. it was a recommendation i think for a seven day sentence. >> she is being revoked and sent to prison. but, if attorney richards. >> she wouldn't have a right, i think i sentenced her to seven months in prison consecutively to her sentence and i don't think -- why would she have a testimonial privilege any longer? >> if there are charges outside of what she was charged with? she wasn't charged with any arson. >> are you going to charge her? >> i don't know. probably not. [inaudible] >> all of the charges out of the event were wrapped up. they can't piecemeal the charges and to argue that she has a fifth amendment right now is ridiculous. >> i said z had a fifth amendment right i did not say mrs. ziminsyy. >> find out from the reporter what was said. i thought it was just mr.. age. >> bret: this is bret baier. we are watching the kyle rittenhouse trial in wisconsin. the jury has just been escorted out as the judge and the prosecutor go over some elements of this. let's bring in andy mccarthy. andy, you have been following this very closely what's hang here and the concern? >> bret, there are two very important witnesses to the rosenbaum part of this first shooting. and they were not called to testify and what the prosecutor is saying is when the defense pointed out that the prosecutors have failed to call them that they have a live fifth amendment privilege because they could be charged with arson. and what the prosecutors aren't telling them, evidently, is that one of them doesn't have a live privilege anymore because she had a guilty plea and that's been dispose dollars of. but the other thing i think is important is the prosecutors have the power to immunize people and, thereby, remove their fifth amendment privilege it would mean that they couldn't prosecute them. but if they really wanted their testimony, they could have given them immunity and puts them on the stand. >> bret: andy, you are a former district attorney for the southern district of new york. you have been watching this every day, day in and day out. how do you assess how this has come down and where the prosecution is in making their case? >> bret, i think it's very telling that you are hearing a lot of things from the prosecutor about how, you know, the defendant lacked courage, he lacked character, he was in a place he shouldn't have been. all kinds of behavior that really doesn't have anything to do with the charges and that he is not charged with. it's out of the own mouths of the prosecution witnesses and the videos they showed that the defense was able to establish self-defense. i just think it's very telling that the prosecutors want to talk about a lot of demagoguery and a lot of as moss fu atmosph. >> still has pending charges. attorney richards knows that he has a fifth amendment right to not testify. >> your honor -- >> will let me ask you to step in the library again, please. >> your honor. >> 2, 1. wait for the door. one, it's not in evidence. two, if he wants to say he has a fifth amendment right, they can also grant him immunity. they are the only people who can. if they are going to say that i should have a surrebuttal to explain it to those people. they hold the key to mr. ziminski testifying and not testifying. >> i just heard two hours how terrible he was and now the defense wants to argue immunity. >> that's not. >> he still has a fifth amendment right. >> you know, the questioning -- the question the ziminski case has been here on a number of occasions and been a mutual request to adjoin the case of who is his lawyer? >> [inaudible] >> it's been repeatedly requested and adjourned and i assumed or was told, i'm not sure which, it would be adjourned pending the outcome of this case. no, that's not true? >> no. >> well, it's not true. it is true that i assumed it. whether i was told that or not, i don't know. >> it's not the same as -- your honor, it's a different situation. >> the case will go to trial ton january 31st. that's the plan. >> why was it being adjourned. >> i think there were was some -- we had a witness not available at the last trial date so we needed more time to get them in. >> okay. and, mr. richards also brings up a point that you have control over the availability of a witness in terms of granting immunity. i don't want to get into that because i think on the first point he made, which is that i don't think it's in evidence. >> [inaudible] >> what did you ask. >> i asked mr. debruin that when we were talking about our meeting that zinski and that he talked to him mostly about mr. ziminski. >> say again? >> after mr. debruin talked about our meeting, on cross-examination, i asked mr. debruin, i believe, this was a while ago, i indicated that he was going to be a witness in the ziminskyimplet and ask about mrr and why we ask questions about mr. ziminski to change his statement in the rittenhouse case he had no answer for that. >> what does that have. >> fifth amendment right. >> the district attorney is making -- or the defense attorney is making? >> it's that there is an open pending case against him. >> testified that was a trial date on january 31st that came in through mr. debruin and i actually mentioned it in my closing because it's in evidence that there is a pending case on prosecuting mr. zim inski that's in evidence, your honor. >> that has nothing to do with the defendant which is what i'm objecting to and bringing that into this. >> i don't know. you are making it sound as if -- well, you are making it sound, and correctly so, that mr. ziminski is unavailable because of his testimonial privilege. but, now mr. richards is asking whether he should be allowed a surrebuttal to -- so the jury would understand that that is somewhat under the control of the district attorney but, i'm not going to -- at this point i'm not going to get further into that. i'm just going to ask you to move on to something else. >> well, my next line of argument is that the defense named them in their witness list and could have called the ziminski. >> no he can't he has a fifth amendment privilege for the reason you indicated and privilege must be claimed as much as possible outside the presence of the jury. that's the statute. >> they called kelly ziminski they root rowe routed her here from prison. >> pardon me? >> we had to have her available in case something came up. that doesn't mean we have to call her. we sphro obligation to put anybody on the witness stand. >> nor does the state. >> mr. richards commented many times about how we could have called them, which i think was dishonest given the fifth amendment issue, but then also i can mention that when he said written list the ziminskis were on them and they could call them as well. >> witness list is not in evidence. >> opening statement commented multiple times. >> i don't -- um, -- is what was the last statement made now for the objection? >> that ziminski has an open case and fifth amendment right. >> well that is accurate statement. >> i should be able to fill in the holes. >> they are the only ones give him immunity. i can't call him. >> i know that. >> [inaudible] >> you know, you know. >> no, no, no. you address your remarks to me. both of you, to me. not, not, not to each other, please. >> it's called being prepared. i don't know what's going to happen at a trial. >> okay. will well, i think i'm just going to tell the jury that mrs. ziminski would have been available to be called by either party. okay? >> fine. >> fine. >> okay. let's ask them to come in, please. >> bret: let's bring back andy mccarthy. you saw that back and forth there. these guys can go to the local bar and fight over cheese kurds and beer but they are fighting over the future of this young man's life and how this operates. what happened? >> yeah. they would have been -- they would have gotten more done at the bar, i think. this is a dry hole. basically, they want to say that the prosecutors want to say that the defense knows that we couldn't call him because there is a fifth amendment privilege. the defense wants to say they could immunize him he fifth amendment privilege their obligation to call them. the prosecutors want to say they could have called them. to say but the defense wants to say but it's not our burden of proof and it basically gets you nowhere. you are off on a tangent. the judge would have been better off sustaining the objection and telling them to move on to something else. >> bret: all right. the jury is walking back into the courtroom, hence the up and down of everybody standing again as they walk in. let's listen in. >> ziminski would have been available to either party to call as a witness. and neither of them has done so. okay? any questions? go ahead, mr. krause. >> thank you. mr. richards also mentioned how attorney binger called all these people liars and acting like a whiny defense attorney. i don't know why that language had to be used. mr. binger never said any such thing. he never called anyone a liar except for prance, mr. rittenhouse. and mr. richards talks about how well in the state's opening he heard nothing about provocation. mr. richards knows it's the specific thing that instruction we get from the judge at the end of the trial. had we mentioned in the beginning he would have objected. he would have objected. now, let's talk about this threat. the supposed threat. mr. richards talked about that gas station and showed the video and showed mr. rosenbaum at the end. attorney binger had said he is not in this video as it started and you don't hear anything from him. and that is true. at the very end, he is seen standing quite a bit away from mr. bauch and mr. rittenhouse. this is where that supposed threat happened. there's a distance between them. the back, the protesters are pushed back. and you never hear any threat. you hear nothing. and mr. -- and apparently that is what the defense accepting where the threat happened mr. rittenhouse does not accept that he says it happened a block or two north. so they can't agree on when the threat took place. they can't agree on where the threat took place. and it's the only few seconds of that part of the night that is not on tape anywhere. it's another concoction to give credence or to give weight that, oh, he had defend himself against the unarmed man. he doesn't talk about how the defendant came around that dura max and raise -- that didn't seem to be an issue in the case until the defendant lied about it on the stand. the defendant themselves submitted exhibit number 41 in which it is denoted where the person that put that video together indicates rittenhouse pointing a gun at ziminskis and question mark. this is their exhibit. there was testimony from detective and we showed this drone video. now, but then the defendant won't admit to it on the stand and then all of a suddens 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 provocation. now, i did have on rebuttal mr. armstrong put in two blurry questions. mr. binger didn't even mention these pictures in his closing. because they are maybe fifth, sixth, or seventh strongest piece of evidence that mr. rittenhouse raised his gun. but the defense is seizes on them and they inaccurately said it took them 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. but we thought it important that there at least be some still shot besides these videos. the second one i showed, 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's why those pictures are given 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 he provoked the attack. now, i would like to show you -- i believe this is the followfolm video. exhibit 73. can you please play it? so 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 at the tv. please stop it. now as you see in this video mrt seem like the only recourse the defendant has in retreating is walking into this mob of people who are breaking cars. but look at all that open space that he has. at this moment he could have turned around and ran in that space and got right back sheridan and everyone would be alive and everyone would be fine. instead, he decides to start slowing down and run into these cars in which he is supposedly trapped. being trapped in a target parking lot. he is playing it. goes around them no problem. goes right into this totally 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. now, i'm going to go to the video and point something else. mr. binger is going to play it again and i will show you. this is in relation to mr. richards indicated that no one that attacked or went after mr. rittenhouse in the second incident observed the shooting. that is not true. this video shows the person that is referred to as junk kick man leaving the scene and another video. i will point that out. >> wheelchair get out of the way. this is you see this. the whole time. helped push wheelchair. absolutely was there. he did see what happened. next. this is exhibit 10. this fisher video. if you look after the shooting, it shows this individual pushing a wheelchair away from car source 3. there he is across the street pushing the man in the wheelchair away out of the scene. hello. this is the video you have seen before. it does look better on the large television. but this is where he comes into the screen. this is one of the videos that 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 within the limitations of the video. i will point it out up here. as i said it is better seen on the large tv. not close enough [inaudible] got it? again, that really wasn't an issue at trial until the defendant lied about it. exhibit 84. this is another video that mr. armstrong did in his 20 hours of work. this shows the part of the chase that you see him point. mr. rosenbaum does his jump. see the defendant slowing down preparing to shoot and look at where that first shot is. roll back play it one more time. this is the zoomed in image that will eventually was shown. look how far -- he's not reaching. he is being shot in the hip and falling. he goes immediately to the ground and the defendant keeps shooting at him although he poses absolutely no threat. again, 4 feet from the barrel of the gun not from mr. rittenhouse himself. another video mr. armstrong made in his 20 hours of work. he made six of them all tolled, they are all in evidence. here is a close-up of the final shooting. the puff of smoke is already out. is he already upright. he crump els to the ground. 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 he was killed by a shot in the back and it was the third or fourth shot. attorney richards indicated that nick smith called the defendant. nick smith did not testify to that he was never asked. we don't know who or what -- who called the defendant it go to that scene. and despite the fact that there is this mad man out there such a threat and is going to kill the defendant, he just saunders down there all by himself. no problem. is he not scared. this threat was not taken seriously is he a babbling idiot as mr. lozowski said. mr. rittenhouse testified he didn't hear anything before he shot. he didn't hear this fuck. he didn't factor in the gunshot. there is no evidence that mr. huber did anything untowards that evening. they talked about pushing a dumpster, i canning up pepper balls that was not evidence submitted in this trial. i don't know where that comes from. no evidence that he told gage grosskreutz i had to shoot in self-defense. and, attorney richards talked about how well, mr. detective howard testified 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 is not 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, detective reviewed and it 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 how gaige grosskreutz had an attorney how hypocritical from a lawyer credit criticizing someone else to hire counsel. mr. rittenhouse isn't here alone. he has lawyers. and i apologize that the district attorney's office followed our interpretation of marci's law fairly recent especially at that time constitutional amendment. >> mr. richards, don't [inaudible] >> gaige grosskreutz is not on trial. he followed advice of his counsel. 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 wanted to 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. gaige grosskreutz testified what he heard he heard i didn't shoot anyone and gaige grosskreutz acted on that. he then followed -- he left mr. rittenhouse, thinking that he was not involved in the shooting, and started going to the shooting of mr. rosenbaum before being told by others that saw it that he was the shooter and then he returned. so, gaige grosskreutz relied on the statement of mr. rittenhouse. we're talking -- let's talk about a rush to judgment. mr. rittenhouse turned himself in. he is supposed to be days, weeks, months to charge murders who we know murdered people? it's a red herring as mr. binger said. it's throwing up red herrings, false hypocritical arguments and attacks on those that mr. rittenhouse killed to try to distract you from the fact that he was not in fear of death or great bodily harm and he was not privileged to act how he did. we heard from ms. carrie ann schwartz. now that talked about jail now we can smear mr. rosenbaum more even though there was no dispute that he came from a hospital. he is carrying a hospital bag. ms. schwartz testified that she talked to the hospital about how he would be released. that he went to this hospital. she knew he was coming home from the hospital. she knew what was in the bag. he showed that picture of it back lit against the fire trying to make it seem sinister. she talked about how medical papers in there. we did this image again. mr. armstrong did impeek in the bag. the big image they see looks like rolled up medical records that you get when you are discharged from a hospital. and ms. schwartz 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. volts did not testify that 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. debruin. he did take some nice photographs and clearly wanted the world to know he took some nice photographs. is he really more relevant to mr. ziminski. he apparently -- this the is forecast the bag. you can examine that further. mr. debruin must have some problem with police and d.a.'s offices. he goes to the detectives. he doesn't give a full story, he says, he testifies to this. this ♪ me saying anything. he forgot he was so nervous because the door to the police station still had 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 showed him some videos is this josh ziminski no it's not. other pictures? you don't know if it's josh ziminski somehow that's him changing his statement. what's that? we show him pictures, videos, say is that josh ziminski, we don't know. show other pictures. recognize that as the same person? yes. that's not getting him to change his statement. we had him read a 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 he was so nervous meeting with us because we showed him video or photograph that he took of joshua ziminski. >> then what did he do he? goes and hires a lawyer, very closely connected with a gossip blogger who attacks my office on a regular basis and very pro-rittenhouse. another, just funny coincidence in this case just like how mr. hernandez who doesn't live in this state could hire any of the thousands of attorneys in wisconsin or tens of thousands of attorneys in the state. no, he hires an attorney who kyle rittenhouse's defense team has already paid money to that firm. what a coincidence. so, mr. debruin doesn't tell us any information then tries to attack us and then telling 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 to be a paramedic, a policeman and a fireman without receiving any real training in any of them. 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 is a chaos tourist. he was there to see what's 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 reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would have done. kept hearing about rock in his hand. there is no evidence of a rock being in that hand. now, there is 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 gaige grosskreutz sitting there with his hands up, the defendant turns over his gun and is looking at it and doing something with it. fully reason -- the defendant admitted to this that he looked at the gun, fully reasonable that mr. grosskreutz could assume that he was reracking and preparing to fire. and it does not mean that an unspent shell casing has to be on the ground. officer beret testified that she sought ar-15s. she knows ar-15s. there is -- if it jams and unspent 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 is certainly reasonable for mr. grosskreutz to interpret it that way. and then what does he do? he doesn't step back and take a firing position and shoot. he didn't shoot him five, six seconds earlier when he was -- when mr. rittenhouse was being an active shooter. after having killed the 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 he said, you know he believed his surrender was not being accepted. who shoots someone like this? if you trying to shoot his own hand off? he never does anything about an actual position to shoot that gun. and as mr. richards admitted in his closing, when it's pointed at his head his arm is already blown off. we're supposed to sob scared of mr. grosskreutz with his glock when the defendant is holding a loaded ar-15. there is this preposterous argument kelly ziminski holding flashlight must be bash heads. certainly no one carries a flashlight at night. i take one for taking my dog on the walk. use it to bash heads? no. we hear about how oh, this vicious kick that if you watch it live did not seem to make much contact. 180 degrees that is kyle tracking him with the gun and shooting him. he is moving as is he moving. that is not the force of the kick. and the video makes that clear. but, again, we are grasping at straws and throwing out red herrings. and now a skateboard is a deadly weapon. someone should tell all the patience and grandparents and santa claus getting skateboard this christmas about how they are 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 and holding down and taking that skateboard and trying to hold him down and trying to take that gun. and what happened? the gun stated 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. it's an absolute ridiculous argument. imminent threat. not oh 5 minutes after i get beat up. might be a threat. imminent threat. you've heard all the videos. i'm not going to go into it any more great length, but, when you listen to the crowd as mr. rittenhouse is running, they start yelling after is he running, get him. also, as people are approaching him at the end, they are 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 mr. binger said, i probably wouldn't do it either. but that did it is brave and did not deserve to be killed. kyle rittenhouse strong ties to kenosha uses google maps to find a business he says he has driven by every day. he knows kenosha so well and so familiar with kenosha that he doesn't realize you can walk one block either way to get back to the car source. he didn't want to go back to the car source. he wanted to see what was going on. he wanted to stay in the action. he wanted to continue to do things that would make him feel big and make him feel important. these minor injuries you have 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 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 metal jacket and ar-15 rounds and no bullets are not bullets. we heard testimony about that. mr. richards mentioned this in opening but apparently he has noticed that the evidence doesn't bear it out. he testified about this how mr. rosenbaum put this shirt over his head to hide his identity because he is going to go ambush kyle rittenhouse. well then obviously watch the videos he has this that shoulder on his head some time. covid, all prevaccine as we all know. where it's e.m.s., fire, whatever it is, he is using to protect his face. not evil plan to get kyle rittenhouse. they are setting fire and begin walking down sheridan. there is no evidence they knew he was coming. there is no evidence that they had any plan to get him. i would submit to you that the ziminskis were doing what they were doing all night. they were going to bash that temperature max or start or stoke -- he runs onto the scene. he puts down the fire extinguisher. he raises up his gun. mr. rosenbaum yells gun, gun, gun. why else would he yell that? it's very possible that while he is yelling friendly friendly friendly is he doing so holding an ar-15 at the ziminskis. mr. rosenbaum was going to chase him out of there to end the danger. and mr. richards boasts that, you know, he won't do sht mother fucker. wrong. way to kill someone unarmed because you won't won't with he raises the gun, provokes retreat. he has to retreat. he has to exhaust all remedies before he can use -- before he would gain the right to even use self-defense. not even to use deadly force. that's a whole other separate question. he does regain the use -- uses all options. he does not. he could have ran a different way. he could have fought. he has ways to exhaust his options did he not do it. as i said at the beginning of my closing, i don't think so you need provocation. unarmed man chasing you and you shoot him four times as he is falling, you kill him as he is falling in front of you, because you don't want to physically defend yourself, mr. richard plays games with the name reckless, it means not intentional in this circumstance. can you read the jury instructions and come to your own conclusions. and ar-15 shows utter disregard for human life. there is no explanation for it. shooting ar-15 at close range at people you have no regard 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 the instruction. obviously, you will have the whole instruction. the term reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. it is a doubt where a reason can be given. a reasonable doubt is not mere doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. that's what the defense is asking you to do to guess what mr. rosenbaum to doing, to speculate what mr. rosenbaum is doing, to speck rate and guess what mr. huber and this unidentified man were doing. we don't know because he killed two of them look at the evidence straight up head immobilized. doubt which rises merely from sympathy to return a 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 they could have been prosecuted. it's not up to mr. brian house to be the judge, the jury and eventually the executioner. a reasonable doubt is not a doubt maybe used to escape the responsibility of a decision. there is a lot going on in this case. 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 fact finders. you decide what is yard. you decide what he is guilty 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. >> ladies and gentlemen of the jury the time has come reaching a just fair and conscientious decision in this case will be placed with you jurors selected by 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 willable 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 to any greater weight than that of any other juror. i am -- we're going to stop at this point and i'm going to ask that you return tomorrow -- i'm going to let you take a vote. when you want to start tomorrow. >> bret: all right, the judge reading the rules, the regulations, what the jury is going to consider and how they can consider it in the kyle rittenhouse trial. let's bring back former u.s. -- former assistant u.s. attorney from the southern district of new york andy mccarthy and trey gowdy from south carolina. you have been watching this, the prosecution making its final pitch, what do you think? >> apparently there is a rule in wisconsin the prosecutors cannot be persuasive. closing argument is a combination of passion and logic. you don't just simply sit there and recite the evidence and use your pen to check off your points. so, look, tough acts make for bad lawyers. their star witness went south on them. i get that. but i think the case was still winnable. you just can't do it when your closing argument puts the jury to sleep. >> bret: all right. andy? >> yeah. i'm not sure the only thing i disagree with trey about is i'm not sure this case was win being. but is he quite right that what you want to do at this last moment of the trial where you have this great opportunity to leave an impression on the jury is figure out the three best things that you can say about the case, say it, hit them between the eyes with it, keep it short. keep it punchy and sit down. and i just don't think they advanced the ball. in the trial, bret, you are either winning or losing. you know, if you are up there rambling and looks like you are not coherent as you ought to be, the impression on the jury is you don't have a very good case. >> bret: well, andy, trey, we will follow it here as the jury heads back for deliberation. obviously we will follow all of what's coming out of kenosha, wisconsin as well. thank you, gentlemen. there was other news today. for example, at the white house, president biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure spending bill. that was a victory for president biden. it comes amid new lows in approval numbers. particularly among independents and fellow democrats and some question marks about what comes next with his build back better plan and what that bill looks like on capitol hill. white house correspondent peter doocy is with us now to take a look what happened today. good evening, peter. >> peter: good evening, bret. there were 800 people invited here today to see the president sign this bipartisan infrastructure bill into raw. law,that's as large of an event president biden hosted at the white house since he got here there were also republicans invited to speak at the microphone. part of the official program as the president tried to celebrate, something that had some bipartisan support and actually got passed. here. >> this is what it looks like when elected leaders set aside differences, shut out the noise, and focus on delivering results. >> hopefully this week we will be passing build back better. >> all of it paid for by making everyone pay his or her own fair share. >> this bill as significant as it is, as historic as it is, is part one of two. >> congress must also pass the build back better act. >> too often in washington, the reason we didn't get things done is because we insist on getting everything we want. the only way to move this country forward in my view is to compromise and consensus. >> that bipartisan infrastructure bill though is more popular than the president in a new "the washington post"-abc news poll. now they will shift towards trying to get at least $1.75 trillion worth of social spending but that new poll finds that 59% of adults they surveyed think the president biden's policies are making the government too big within an hour is he going to sit down virtually with the president of china. bret? >> bret: president xi. peter doocy lyon the north lawn. thanks. quick analysis from brit hume. you know, this was a win for this president. let's not sugar coat this as all. this is definite win. there are questions about how long it will take to feel this infrastructure package, maybe some economists say mid decade. but, this was a bipartisan win for president biden. >> no doubt about it, bret. it's a bipartisan bill but it was mostly a democratic bill that attracted some republican support. it is a popular idea, large broadly speaking in the country to fix up the roads and bridges and other things. a lot of this bill is about that. a lot of it is also not about that. it doesn't seem to matter. this will go down as a win for him and help him politically in the short-term. as you point out, i don't think the consequences of this bill being ensecretary of stated and the spending begun will be felt in time to help his party in the coming midterm election which is something obviously everybody has their eye on in washington right now. >> bret: yeah. quickly, brit, he has tied these two bills together, the build back better and reconciliation bill churned out on capitol hill and now democrats are bracing other lawmakers for what could be, they say could be a bad cbo number. in other words, it might not be paid for. >> well, when you consider the administration has been making this extravagant and arguably ridiculous claim that the cost of the bill is zero because they figured out a way to pay for it and then congressional budget office who, you know, views on these things are important and comes in and says no, no, it's not paid for. going to cost x number of billions than you are claiming to be raised. that may cost votes. they can't spare many votes. this thing could go down on the strength of that. i'm not saying it will but it could. >> we will watch it closely, brit, thank you for inus into your home tonight. different show tonight. that's it for this "special report," fair, balanced and still unafraid. we have got you covered on all elements of the news. around the world and in the u.s. "fox news primetime" hosted by jesse watters starts right now. ♪ >> jesse: good evening and welcome to "fox news primetime." i'm jesse watters. moments ago the judge in the kyle rittenhouse trial handing the case to the jury. deliberations will begin at 10:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow morning. this is the most clear-cut case of self-defense i have ever seen. everybody who is watching knows that, this is the kind of justice and transparency that makes our country great, but lately truth has been taking a backseat to mob justice. take the prosecutor's closing argument, for example they know self-defense but they want to mail this kid to the wall. someone has to pay, an