he told jason likowsky, he says "i did not shoot anyone." i think it's worth emphasizing that jason likowsky had just met the defendant, maybe an hour. there was about 11:50 at night. mr. likowsky got there at 10:45. [ shouting ] this is gaige grosskreutz running towards danger, running to try and help. this is exhibit number 3. >> he pulled a gun! >> why did you shoot him? >> what are you doing? you shot somebody? who shot? who shot? hey, what are you doing? you shot somebody? who shot? who shot? >> listen to the second thing he says. >> you shot somebody? >> [ inaudible ]. >> who shot? who shot? hey, what are you doing? you shot somebody? >> [ inaudible ]. >> who shot? >> it's hard to tell what his exact words are. i hear the word "not" pretty clearly in there as in "i did not shoot anyone, i did not do anything." jason likowsky, he lies to. the crowd, he lies to. gaige grosskreutz, he lies to. so at this point, the crowd is dealing with what they perceive to be an active shooter, someone who has just shot someone, who is still in possession of the gun, who is fleeing the scene. and how are we supposed to know where he's going next? you know, all night that night, the crowd has been hearing the sound of gunshots. they've been hearing fireworks, firecrackers. but now someone actually has been shot. the crowd sees the defendant running with a gun. he's lying to them. he still has the gun. he's shot someone. this is provocation to them. this is someone who has committed a criminal act and is putting people in danger. it is entirely reasonable for that crowd to believe at that moment that he is a threat to kill again. the defendant could have made it unequivocally clear what he was doing. he could have stayed at mr. rosenbaum's body, helped protect him, help preserve his life, call 911. as he's running, he could have announced to the crowd exactly what he was doing, told them. he could have fired warning shots to keep them away. he could have dropped the gun. he could have raised his hands and surrendered. he could have signaled to this crowd that he did not pose a threat anymore. but everything he does is indicative of someone who is still a threat. now, the defendant is going to tell you he wasn't. but from the crowd's perspective, how are they supposed to know any different? he does nothing to demonstrate to the crowd that he isn't a threat to kill again. and it turns out he does. it turns out within a few seconds, he does kill again. i submit you to, ladies and gentlemen, that in this situation, the crowd has the right to try and stop an active shooter. they have a right to protect themselves. the defendant is not the only one in the world who has the right to self-defense. but what does the crowd do to try to stop the defendant? i submit to you, and this is not a criticism of them, but they use almost the least minimal, least intrusive means possible. they could have used deadly force against him. they could have shot at him. but instead, somebody comes up behind him and knocks his hat off. anthony huber comes up with a skateboard and the defendant blocks it with his arm and then the defendant falls to the ground on his own. no one knocked him down. this man that the defense wants to call junk kick man, he's got no weapons, no gun, no knife, no nothing, tries to kick the defendant in the case. anthony huber comes back and tries to grab the defendant's gun, he's trying to disarm an active shooter. gaige grosskreutz comes running in, stops with his hands in the air, until he sees and hears the defendant adjusting his weapon as if preparing to fire again. then what does gaige grosskreutz do? he reaches for the gun to try and disarm the defendant. gaige grosskreutz had his own gun in his own hand. he could have aimed it and fired at the defendant. but he did not. and you heard gaige grosskreutz testify about that, about how that is a decision that he was not prepared to make at that point in time. he is not the type of person who is just willing to take someone's life in an instant. unlike the defendant, who took two lives that night, very quickly, and seemingly very easily. there is a video, exhibit 5, which is the bg on the scene video, which traces this entire incident which we call the second event. this is going to show you mr. huber, mr. grosskreutz, and the other individuals who are trying to stop an active shooter using what i would characterize as the least intrusive means possible. >>. [ shouting ] >> someone knocks his hat off. anthony huber comes in with skateboard. in just a few seconds, the defendant kills one person, attempts to kill two more, and blows off gaige grosskreutz's arm. it's that fast. this is someone who has no remorse, no regard for life. only cares about himself. and that's folks that are coming at him, the jump kick man, anthony huber, aren't armed. they're not a credible, imminent threat to his life. they are trying to stop an active shooter. and they have a right to do so. imagine if the crowd couldn't do that. imagine if they weren't allowed to try and stop someone in this type of situation. after killing anthony huber, after severely wounding gaige grosskreutz, the defendant walks away, like he's some sort of hero in a western. without a care in the world for anything he's just done. you know, it's interesting, this occurs about a block away from the police line, right down the road. if the defendant is so concerned about his safety, the police are right there. and in fact they pull up to this scene almost instantly. the defendant's got his medic bag on. he proclaims himself a medic. he doesn't know at this point if anthony huber is dead or alive or capable of being saved. and yet the defendant offers no assistance, makes no attempt to try and help anyone else. all he cares about is himself. we have taken that video and we have broken it down into individual frames. and i want to take you through frame by frame the incident with gaige grosskreutz. a lot has been made of mr. grosskreutz's motions, what he does, where he goes, things like that. so i think it's helpful for us to take a look at exhibit 80, beginning with frame 56. at this point you can see anthony huber is staggering off after being shot in the chest. the wound has entered his lower left rib cage and exited his right shoulder. it's ripped through his ribs, his heart, his aorta. he may not be technically dead but he's going to be dead within a few seconds. he's stumbling away. the defendant has the weapon pointed towards gaige grosskreutz here who is cowering, hovering, hiding, covering his head, trying to stay out of the way. and i'm going to go frame by frame here slowly. as we see the movement. now we see the gun is moving down towards gaige grosskreutz. it is pointed directly at him from a distance of just a couple of feet. gaige grosskreutz has his right leg planted as if he's pushing backwards, trying to get away. the gun is still pointed at him. the defendant here is going to adjust the gun, turn it over as if he's making some sort of adjustment on it. gaige grosskreutz testified that this was a movement that he interpreted as the defendant preparing that gun as if it was going to fire again, as if clearing a jammed round so that he could shoot it at mr. grosskreutz. at this point, mr. grosskreutz is i think probably thinking to himself, if i can get away, i will. until he realizes that the defendant is getting ready to fire again. in none of these frames is mr. grosskreutz's right hand with his glock pistol pointed at the defendant. you can see mr. grosskreutz is actually backing up with his right leg. let me go back a couple of frames here. this is frame 444. you can see his right foot is on the ground but it's starting to move back. now as i move forward in the frames 447, his right leg is moved back. this is someone who is about to retreat. his hands are in the air. he's backing away from the defendant. until, as he's testified, he sees the defendant start to manipulate that gun in such a way that it makes mr. grosskreutz feel like he's about to be shot. and only then does he take action. what action does mr. grosskreutz take? does he hold that gun with both hands, the glock that he's got, and point it at the defendant? no, never. does he even take the gun with one hand and point it? no, never. instead, you can see him start to lunge in with his left arm forward. the gun is not in his hand. the gun is in his right hand. he's lunging forward, reaching for the defendant. probably reaching for the gun. probably trying to block the gun. you can see now he's going to take a step with his right leg across the defendant's body, not directly towards the defendant, but across the defendant's body. as he's reaching, almost swiping away at that gun with his left arm, he's bladed his body in such an a way to try and present as minimal a target as possible, which is probably what saves his life. his right leg is about to hit the ground here. the gun, the ar-15, is pointed directly at him from just two, maybe three feet away. he's trying to shield himself with his left arm. and as we approach frame 500 here, the gun goes off. at no point in this process is mr. grosskreutz pointing his gun at the defendant. frame 499. the gun has just fired. frame 500, you see the puff of smoke. 501, the bullet has hit mr. grosskreutz's right bicep, severing it. i'm going to continue forward after this because you can see that his right arm, this is an interesting frame right here, 504. you can see that gun, i'll go back even more, you can see that mr. grosskreutz's arm with the right hand with the gun, his right hand is pointed off to the side, what pulse that gun down closer to the defendant is the fact that mr. grosskreutz just had his right bicep severed. it's not a voluntary action. it's an involuntary -- the muscle is severed. frame 502. watch his right hand. 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. at this point, yeah, absolutely, that right arm is probably danging down towards the defendant. it's not going to be able to pull that trigger without a working bicep muscle and it's not a voluntary thing. it's done because the defendant just blew his arm off. but yeah, this is the time after the shooting, when yes, the gun happens to be pointed at the defendant. i've got to stop here and highlight the hypocrisy of the defense because according to the defense, if someone has a gun, they're a threat. if someone points a gun, there's a threat. there's only one exception to that. the defendant. by their logic, he gets to run around with a gun all night. but oh, we're not supposed to take him as a threat. he gets to point the gun at everyone. but oh, we're not supposed to take him as a threat. no, it doesn't work that way. the same set of rules apply to the defendant as everybody else. there's no exception in the law for kyle rittenhouse. there's no exception that says if anyone else has a gun, you're a danger, except for kyle rittenhouse. there's no exception in the law that says if you point your gun at people, that makes you a threat and i can kill you, except for kyle rittenhouse, i can do it all night long. the same rules apply to him as everyone else. and everyone else has a right to defend themselves also, not just the defendant. we have shown you photos and videos of gaige grosskreutz's injuries. exhibit 60 is a video taken right after mr. grosskreutz was wounded by the defendant. [ shouting ] >> [ inaudible ]. >> it's hard to look at, but this is what we're dealing with. when you fire an ar-15 at someone from close range, this is what it looks like. i guarantee you, ladies and gentlemen, the defendant had no clue what his gun was capable of. he didn't even bother to pay any attention to it, didn't concern himself with what he would be doing to other people. but this is what happened. let's not flinch away from this. it's important that we understand what that gun was capable of that night. it killed two people and it did this to mr. grosskreutz's arm. when those shootings occurred that i just played for you, what would a reasonable person in the defendant's position at that time think? the good news is, ladies and gentlemen, you're going to tell us. as part of your decision in this case, you will represent the reasonable person of ordinary and prudent person, and you will put yourself in the defendant's shoes that night. i submit to you that at the time of those shootings, a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes would have known that he had provoked joseph rosenbaum by pointing his gun at someone else, that the defendant had put someone else at risk of dying by doing that. the defendant should have known that the crowd was aware of the fact that he had just shot someone and they felt their lives were in danger. that is reasonable. it is also reasonable to understand that at that point, gaige grosskreutz had just witnessed all of this. he had heard the defendant had shot someone. he heard the defendant lie about it. he saw the defendant shoot at jump kick man at close range, miraculously missing. had seen the defendant kill anthony huber. gaige grosskreutz reasonably believed his life was in danger at that moment. and he was proven correct, because the defendant shot him too. so when you consider what's reasonable in this case, consider whether or not it's reasonable for a criminal to be able to shoot himself out of a crime scene. when a bank robber robs a bank and runs away, and the crowd comes after him, can he just shoot anybody and claim self-defense? if someone comes up to that person and tries to stop them, tries to disarm them, like anthony huber did, do they forefit their life? did anthony huber forfeit his life by trying to stop an active shooter and protect others? is that justified? can the defendant just kill him? in this case, the crowd was right. the crowd knew the defendant had just shot someone. when they're coming after him, they know he's just shot and killed joseph rosenbaum. but not every active shooter situation does the crowd have perfect knowledge. when they're told that person running up the street just shot someone, we don't have time in the moment to go back and take a look at the body and replay the video and make a decision before going after the person with the gun. you know, we've had several police officers testify that an active shooter situation, their first instinct, their first training is to go in and stop the threat. they don't sit there and wonder, well, maybe it was self-defense, i don't know, i'm going to, you know, wait and see. and every day we read about heroes that stop active shooters. that's what was going on here. and that crowd was right. and that crowd was full of heroes. that crowd did something that, honestly, i'm not sure i would have had the courage to do. if i see a guy running up the street with an ar-15 and i hear he just shot somebody, my first instinct is not to approach. anthony huber was different. jump kick man was different. gaige grosskreutz was different. that doesn't make them a threat to the defendant's life. it doesn't make their lives worthless. they don't give up their right to defend themselves. they have just as much right as the defendant. i told you i wanted to begin by talking about the murders committed by the defendant. now i want to go back and put it all in context for you. and that context starts with, "bruh, i'm just trying to be famous." the defendant's tiktok profile. "four doors, more whores" a picture of him, probably from may, proudly holding his new ar-15. this was the only time he had fired that gun. maybe put a hundred rounds through it or so at that property with dominic black. they purchased that gun on that same trip. the defendant admitted he knew as a matter of law he could not buy that gun because he was only 17. yet he wants to tell you that he thought legally he could possess it, which didn't make a lot of sense to me. we don't have a lot of defendants come in and say, well, i possess cocaine, i knew i couldn't buy it but i thought i could possess it. no, that's not the way it works. dominic black conducted what we saw a straw purchase for the defendant. he purchased that gun for someone who was not legally allowed to purchase it for themselves. i'm prosecuting dominic black for that, as you know, just like i'm prosecuting joshua zaminsky, because what dominic black did was wrong. and we don't tolerate that. the agreement was dominic black was going to keep that gun until the defendant turned 18. it was dominic black's gun. it was legally his. and the defendant knew that it was going to be held onto until he turned 18, that he was not going to have it until that birthday. i want to focus a little bit on this ar-15 because i think it's important when you consider the recklessness of the defendant's conduct, how much he knew, cared, or didn't know about this deadly weapon. he had only fired it that one time, maybe 100 rounds through it. he loaded the gun with full metal jacket ammunition, which i'll talk about a little more. he wanted it because he said it looked cool. didn't seem to know or care much about the type of ammunition or the type of gun. you had a couple of witnesses tell us in this trial, and i could not believe it, a gun is a gun is a gun. no. don't even start with that. a bullet is a bullet? no, it is not. it is not. and anybody who says that is ignorant and reckless. because there are some important distinctions here. full metal jacket ammunition is capable of piercing body armor and squad cars. and you heard officer krieger testify that when they heard someone was running around with a rifle, he went and got his plate armor out of the back because their regular body armor was going to stop those rounds. ryan balch talked about how full mental jacket ammunition is designed, and this is a former army infantryman, is designed to go through a target like a deer or a person and continue on. he says it can hit a target 550 yards away. that's 5 1/2 football fields. and he explained that he had a handgun that night which he put hollow point ammunition on, and that's what he was planning on using for self-defense. because hollow point ammunition acts differently. it's going to hit its target but it's not designed to continue on and about it through and hit other targets. so you will hit what you hit but you're not going to put the rest of the community at risk, especially on a night when there are hundreds of people out on the streets, in a residential area. we can see on that map, there are houses, there are churches, there are day-cares, there are schools nearby. and you're firing full mental jacket ammunition around. i submit you to, ladies and gentlemen, that ar-15 had no lawful or legitimate purpose that night. now, the second amendment allows people to carry guns. that is true. there are people who can't carry guns. convicted felons, for example. but generally speaking, i'm not saying people don't have the right to carry a gun. what i'm saying is, that ar-15 did not accomplish any of the goals that these folks said it was going to. so, for example, ryan balch says a handgun is what he was again use for self-defense. several witnesses agreed, you can't point this gun or shoot this gun at people to protect property. so if you're going to protect the car source building, how is this gun going to help with that? the defendant has admitted the gun was useless when he was going to treat people as a medic because it got in the way. he had to take it off and hand it to somebody. so you can't use it as a medic. you can't use it to protect the building. so what's it there for? well, it looks pretty imposing and it has some deterrence value, but jason likowsky, dominic black, and ryan balch all said they never intended to use their guns. so why is it there? the defendant was wearing a sling that night. he purchased that sling that afternoon. the purpose of the sling was so the gun couldn't be taken away, wouldn't fall off, he wouldn't lose possession of it. it was designed to help him retain possession of that gun. and he loaded it with 30 rounds, the full magazine, capable of killing 30 people or more. why do you need 30 rounds of full metal jacket armor to protect a building? this ar-15 is completely incompatible with the role of a medic. richie mcginnis testified he's been to demonstrations in seattle, portland, washington, dc, new york, minneapolis. he's never seen anyone walking around claiming to be a medic with an ar-15. and certainly when you see someone like that, it doesn't exactly send a warm fuzzy message, oh, come to me, i'm here to help. and the defendant acknowledged he had to take off his ar-15 to treat people. no serious, credible medic wears an ar-15 slung around their body. that's because the defendant was a fraud. he was not an emt. he lied. he lied to the press. he's being interviewed by richie mcginnis who he hears is a member of the media and he says i'm a certified emt. you're lying. you're absolutely lying. jason likowsky and dominic black said the defendant had to borrow his medical supplies from us. this is an emergency situation. everybody's anticipating violence. everybody's prepared for people to be hurt, harmed, injured. and yet the defendant's going to go there and walk around claiming to be a medic? he's like a quack doctor, practicing without a license. that puts lives at risk. and one of the things i had gaige grosskreutz testify about is that tattoo on his right arm which said "first, do no harm," which is one of the precepts, one of the fundamental tenets of the practice of medicine. first, do no harm. so how do we evaluate the defendant's performance as a medic that night? on the one hand, he wrapped up an ankle, helped maybe somebody who got a cut on their hand. eh. on the other hand, he killed two people, blew off gaige grosskreutz's arm, and put two more lives in jeopardy. so, you know, when we balance your role as a medic that night, i don't give you any credit. he showed no remorse for his victims. never tried to help anybody that he hurt. and even on the witness stand, when he testified on wednesday, he broke down crying about himself, not about anybody that he hurt that night. no remorse. no concern for anyone else. for him to call himself a medic is an insult to anyone like gaige grosskreutz who spent hundreds of hours training and working hard to become an emt. it's an insult. the defendant made a series of reckless decisions that night. going armed with an ar-15, at 17 years old, when he knew he shouldn't have done so, because that gun it normally locked in a safe that he doesn't have access to and it's not even legally his. he's out after a city-wide curfew. he's intentionally and knowingly entering into a dangerous situation. and he expects it because he brings along his ar-15 and some body armor. so don't tell me you didn't know. he brings along no nonlethal means of defense, which means his only option is to kill. i don't know about a lot of you but i remember that night. i didn't come down here. i don't think most reasonable people did. in part because we all knew it was going to be violent and dangerous. most reasonable people, to the extent they came out, they were gone by then, because you don't willingly put yourself in this situation. unless you want it. unless you're looking for it. unless you want trouble. now, to put this in perspective, at this time here in our community, there were people who were scared. there were people who were worried about themselves, their homes, their families, their business. that's understandable. but this is different. there are also people out there who are exercising their first amendment right to assemble and their free speech, because of whatever they believed in, and they have that right too. but that's not what we're talking about. the curfew, the riots, the arson, the looting we had seen on those prior nights, roadblocks set up around downtown, closed exits on the interstates. all of this was sending the message to reasonable people, go away, don't come down here. who was left at 11:45 at night? most reasonable people had gone home before the curfew or never even came at all. but the defendant's down there, he says, because he wants you to believe he's protecting car source. even though he had no actual ties or genuine concern for this building. you have this caravan of people from west bend, ryan balch, jason likowsky, joanne fiedler, coming down from some other community, having no idea what's going on here in kenosha, having no idea what the businesses are, having never dealt with car source before, just injecting themselves into the situation. car source that night was empty. the owners testified they moved all the cars off the lot. they took the tools out from inside. and they didn't even feel the need to protect that building. so who is there? these guys with the ar-15s are just wannabe soldiers, acting tough, trying to manufacture some personal connection to this event, furthering their own personal agenda. just a small part of the deluge of chaos tourists we saw here in kenosha, trying to feed off of what we were going through. despite everything we did to try and tell them, go away, stay out. did those owners, sam and sal, ask anyone to protect their business? you know, i called them to the stand because i wanted you to hear from them. i had their statement. but i wanted you to hear from them. and i'm sure you formed your own impressions about them. i'm not here to tell you that i believe what they said on the witness stand. i don't think it really matters much, except i wanted you to have a flavor of who these people were and what was going on at that building. what was interesting to me is that text message from the defendant to sam asking for the address of car source, even though the defendant says he's already been there. it didn't make any sense to me. it's not hard to find if you've driven past there every day. kenosha is one of the easiest cities in wisconsin to navigate. it's all east-west, north-south. but the agreement was the defendant was supposed to stay at the 59th street location. there was another group at 63rd. the witness testified he didn't even know if the other group was still there or if they had left. but crucially, you heard the testimony of kristan harris, he's making some video, he tells the defendant, stay on your property, don't go out in the streets and engage with these protesters because you're just making it worse and you're escalating the situation. he tells the defendant specifically that. just 20 minutes before the shootings. harris probably said that because he knows this is a crowd that is feeling threatened by the defendant and his group. richie mcginnis testified when he left the hotel and immediately ran over to 59th street, he saw guys on the roof and he felt threatened, these guns, he said, were the thing that changed the dynamic for him. drew hernandez, we showed video the drew hernandez having later sights pointed at him. and he said he felt threatened, he thought someone was pointing a gun from the roof and putting his life in jeopardy. these are two people who are veterans, they've been to protests in seattle, portland, washington, dc, new york. they've been through this before. yet here in little old kenosha, the defendant's group made them fear for their lives. that's the kind of impact these ar-15s have. the crowd is yelling at the defendant's group, stop pointing these guns at us, stop pointing these laser sights on this. the defendant sees this, he's well aware that the crowd on the street is hostile, they don't react well to him. he knees by 11:35 at night, this crowd is all the way south of 60th, so if i go down there, i need to be prepared and i need to expect that these folks are not on my side. >> what you're seeing right now is steve bannon who has just made his initial court appearance in washington, dc. i'm katy tur. this was not an arraignment. he will be doing that instead on thursday. let's listen in briefly. >> this thing was a scam from the beginning. the committee -- the committee -- the committee that was convened here was convened exclusively of people who have made prejudgments and announced them publicly. the chair of the committee sued president trump personally and before he was even appointed to his position, determined and put in writing that president trump was responsible for the events of january 6th. this is not an investigative committee. there are other members of the committee who announced their prejudgments well in advance. it's not equal justice under the law, mr. garland, to charge a matter like this criminally. the holder of the privilege in this case, executive privilege, invoked the privilege. mr. bannon is a layperson. when the privilege has been invoked by the purported holder of privilege, he has no choice but to withhold the documents. you can't put the genie back in the bottle. mr. bannon acted as his lawyer counseled him to do by not appearing and by not turning over documents in this case. he didn't refuse to comply. he made quite clear that if a court ordered him to comply, he would do that. but he had an obligation to honor the privilege that was invoked. and in terms of prosecuting this criminally, it violates settled department of justice policy that's binding on the executive branch. it is outrageous that a criminal charge was brought in this case. it is a misdemeanor. but it's being treated as if it were a capital case. mr. bannon takes this very seriously. it's outrageous what the government did. the principles of equal justice under law that attorney general garland speaks about are violate vitally important to all of us and they're important to all of us when they violate that principle. success see these signs here, saying insurrection? that's what this country is about. it's freedom of speech. they have their opinions, we have our opinions. hang on. i'm telling you right now, this is going to be the misdemeanor from hell for merrick garland, nancy pelosi, and joe biden. joe biden ordered merrick garland to prosecute me from the white house lawn when he got off marine one and we're going to go on the offense. we're tired of playing defense. we're going to go on the offense on this and stand by. by the way, by the way, you should understand, nancy pelosi is taking on donald trump and steve bannon, she ought to ask hillary clinton how that turned out for them, okay? we're going on the offense. stand by. >> you should be outraged if he ever faced that possibility as an american. there is nothing criminal about any conduct that occurred in this case. and when we respond to merrick garland, we say, apply the law equally. who else did they prosecute for invoking executive privilege in a criminal prosecution? read the department of justice office of legal counsel letters. it's unconstitutional, according to their -- according to their own opinions, from some real luminaries including, by the way, read the office of legal counsel opinion by eric holder for the obama administration, the fast and the furious case. this is unheard of to force a person to violate the invocation of executive privilege. by the way, i mean, the court of course hasn't ruled yet in president trump's case in trump versus thompson on whether executive privilege applies but even beyond that, the office of legal counsel opinions make clear it applies to discussions with former government officials and that makes sense. it makes sense because we often see former officials kept in the loop, that the president needs to consult with. and whatever you happen to think president trump talked about at the time, that's what executive privilege exists for so people can speak freely with the president, talk about strategy matters and talk about national security and other important matters. >> by the way, by the way, by the way, not just trump people, not just conservatives, every progressive and every liberal in this country that likes freedom of speech and liberty, okay, should be fighting for this case. that's why i'm here today, for everybody. i'm never going to back down and they -- they took on the wrong guy this time, okay? they took on the wrong guys. >> because he was instructed by his attorney not to show up in congress. a layperson has to follow his attorney's -- has to follow his attorney's advice, in my view, at least. when he's faced with a subpoena, he relies on a lawyer and his advice and relies on office of legal counsel opinions. there's no other choice, once the privilege is invoked, what would the choice be? show up and testify? and by the way, if he were to testify, to have those people invoking the privilege, a representative of the person invoking the privilege present just to be able to monitor it and make an objection if a privilege matter came up. they refused to allow that. >> by the way, by the way, if the administrative state wants to take me on, bring it, because we're here to fight this and we're going to go on offense. you stand by, you see how we're going to go on offense, okay? nancy pelosi, merrick garland, joe biden, the whole -- the whole -- all of them, okay? >> what he means by offense is, we're going to challenge this affirmatively. we're going to fight to defend his rights and to defend your rights also. >> your rights. all of you. >> i represented the american civil liberties union for more than 20 years in all the litigation they had in alabama. this is an issue that the american civil liberties union ought to be on our side with. >> we've got to go. thank you very much. >> a whole lot to unpack there. i'm katy tur in new york. it is 2:44 p.m. steve bannon there talking about freedom of speech. obviously the january 6th committee is looking into more than just a violation of freedom of speech. they're looking into an insurrection, an armed insurrection at the capitol. joining me is former chief spokesman at the justice department matt mill and her former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal contributor chuck rosenberg. gentlemen, it is very, very good to see you. matt, i want to start with what we just saw there. the lawyer arguing that steve bannon enjoys executive privilege because the former president invoked it. what do you make of that? >> first of all, welcome back, katy, it's great to see you again. as to your question, look, his attorney is trying to muddy the issue in the same way his defenders are trying to muddy the issue when this indictment has handed down last week and the same way all of of these people who have been subpoenaed by the january 6th committee has been trying to confuse the public about what's actually going on. they tend to treat this as if executive privilege is just this magic wand that when a president or former president waves it, it makes all questions go away and alleviates the need for a witness to respond to any questions about anything or provide documents about anything, even those which aren't plausibly covered by executive privilege. the difference between the way this has been handled by previous administrations, he mentioned the one case where president obama asserted executive privilege, that was in the fast and furious case, when i was at the justice department. in the obama administration, before that assertion of executive privilege, eric holder testified multiple times before several committees in congress. the justice department turned over thousands of pages of documents. and then they withheld a smaller set of documents over which the department asserted privilege. steve bannon did none of that, as the indictment made clear. not only was he not a member of the administration at the time, he didn't come and say there are certain things i can testify about because they aren't plausibly covered by executive privilege, they're communications with people outside of government, and he didn't provide any documents and then say there are certain other documents i've withheld altogether. he just completely blew off the committee, which i think is why we see him indicted and his statement, more his attorney's, was completely unmoored in previous factual representations of how executive privilege works. >> chuck, it seems pretty clear that what steve bannon is trying to do here is to politicize this whole process and claim that it is a witch hunt as the former president had said about everything whenever anyone went after him. what does or what is the effect of steve bannon turning this into a political show on the process here? how does that affect the doj and how they go about prosecuting this? >> yeah, i don't think it actually affects the prosecution very much. we may have a lot more press conferences like the one we just saw on msnbc. lots of heat but very little light. but in terms of the prosecution, the mechanics of the case, a judge is going to set a timetable, a schedule. there will be a timetable for discovery. there will be a timetable for motions. there will be a date set for trial. and mr. bannon can say whatever he wants on the courthouse steps. but inside the courthouse it's going to be run by a federal judge. and i would be surprised if you saw that bit of nonsense on the outside of the courthouse repeated on the inside of the courthouse. and by the way, katy, matt miller's recitation of the law here was spot-on. it's pretty clear you don't need me at all if you have mat. >> i think i neat both you guys, especially on a day like that. matt, i have one more question for you, how this affects the other people who have decided to not comply with their subpoenas for this congressional committee. i'm thinking specifically of mark meadows. does bannon's case differ in any significant way? let's start with matt, then we'll go to you, chuck. >> i would put the people in two separate committees. look, there is a real question whether a former president can assert an executive privilege. for people who were inside the administration, mark meadows, stephen miller, some of the other witnesses the committee has subpoenaed, they may have a viable claim or at least viable enough that it will stop the department from prosecuting them. we don't know the answer to that yet. the department didn't really make clear in this indictment of steve bannon what it thinks about the underlying questions of executive privilege that relate to a former president. but i think all the other witnesses outside the administration, the bernie carricks and mike flynns of the world, people in the same situation as steve bannon, if i were them, i would think very seriously about complying with the subpoenas from the committee, because i'm going to watch what happened to steve bannon, look at the fact that the department brought this case relatively quickly. and i'm going to probably make the decision that i don't want to gamble with being in the same place as him and find myself under indictment for not complying. >> chuck, in terms of the outcome of this, if ed this is not an attempt by the department of justice to compel mr. bannon's testimony. it's not civil attempt. this is an attempt by the department of justice to punish him for his refusal to comply with the subpoena. it's a crime and they're seeking to punish, not compel, him. now, in theory, and theory only, katy, whether this case ends, if it ends in a conviction or not, he could theoretically be subpoenaed again and then we would just start over from the beginning. but they're seeking to punish, not to compel. >> let's also bring in ken delaney, our national security correspondent. ken, good to see you. from your reporting, how is the department of justice looking at this case against steve bannon? >> katy, it's great to see you. i should just say before i answer your question, i just came from that scrum you were seeing on your screen when bannon was emerging from the courthouse. he loves this, it's absolutely very clear. his lawyer said he was acting -- when he defied the subpoena on advice of counsel, and that may be why he has different lawyers in the courtroom today, because his initial lawyer, robert costello, advised him not to comply with the subpoena because former president trump had asserted executive privilege. so i asked why didn't he just show up to the congressional hearing and cite the privilege on a question-by-question basis. the lawyer answered he could not do that because he had been instructed not to. that looks to be their defense. he wasn't a government employee at the time, so it's really questionable in the judge's view whether the privilege could possibly apply to him and his discussions at the willard hotel as a private citizen, which they want to ask him about, and also he was saying on his radio show that all hell was going to break loose on january 6. a defiant steve bannon. we also asked him if he knew there would be violence on january 6. he didn't answer that question, as far as i could hear. but in terms of how the justice department is seeing this case, katy, it's very clear that while they've been reluctant in the past to bring these kinds of charges, because they don't want to weigh in generally in what is seen as political disputes between congress and the executive branch, in this case they thought it was beyond the pale. he didn't even show up. he completely blew off a congressional subpoena and they felt like the rule of law needed to be upheld here, and merrick garland said as much in a statement when he announced this indictment, katy. >> make an example of him. steve bannon on free speech. the insurrection on the capitol that turned violent and they want to know what steve bannon knew about what was going to happen on that day. ken delaney, matt miller, thank you so much. let's go back to the courtroom where the prosecution is laying out its close arguments against kyle rittenhouse. >> the rest of the video is the crowd being warded off by gas launched by the police. they launched tear gas which affects the defendant, it affects ryan bals, it affects harris. that group runs away from the street, away from any protesters. at no point in that video do you hear any threat that joseph rosenbaum makes. it's not there. trust me, if the defense had it, they would play it for you. now, they want you to believe that that threat is made, and they also want you to believe that it was something that the defendant took into account when he decided to kill joseph rosenbaum. a question that occurred to me is how would that defendant even know who he is? joseph was wearing a red shirt and a blue bandana. but by the time he was killed, he has no shirt on, no bandana. this is a defendant that no one has met before. he is one of 100 people in a crowd, and yet we're expected to believe that in a split second, the defendant remembers this guy? i don't believe so. so then the video i just showed you picks off -- leaves off at about 11:35 p.m. the police have moved the protesters south of 60th street. they've tear gassed the crowd and there is no protesters left. 59th street is no longer in any danger. there wasn't much danger to begin with. there wasn't anything left there to protect. but by this point, there is no more danger. as law enforcement comes through, you've heard this video where they tell the defendant and his group, we appreciate you and hand them out bottles of water. as long as you stay on that private property, yeah. no one is saying you don't have the right to stay on private property and protect private property. what people are saying, what the crowd is saying is stay there. don't go out looking for trouble. the defendant hears this message from the police and takes it the wrong way. he thinks, oh, well, now i'm junior policeman. i can go run around stopping crime. but i asked him and i asked some other witnesses if the police are there on the scene, and the protesters are gone, go home. why are you still here? shouldn't have been here in the first place. but why are you still sticking around? and, interestingly enough, one of the questions i've always had in the back of my mind is what's the end game here? when is this crew going to be done and decide it's time to leave? right after the defendant kills anthony huber and comes back, they all flee like rats off a sinking ship. but it's boring at 59th street. there is no protesters. there's no action. so the defendant decides about 11:35 p.m. to cross the police line and go looking for trouble. he knows at this point he's entering a hostile crowd. he's seen this crowd, he knows what they're like. that's why he has to yell "friendly" to them because he knows they're not going to see him and think he's friendly. and he knows he's got to have ryan balch with him, some kind of buddy to protect him. he is immediately confronted by the man with the yellow pants who said, you just pointed your gun at me. and the defendant said, yeah, i did. he admits that. now, what's interesting to me is they want you to believe this never happened, they want you to believe this guy in the yellow pants made it up or is lying, but he's just standing there by the side of the road minding his own business when the defendant happens to walk up to him. do you think he just sat there and thought, i'm going to make up a lie about this guy on the spur of the moment? or did it really happen? and is it consistent with everything else you've seen about the defendant? does he look like the sort of guy that would point a gun at someone for standing on a car? does he strike you as the kind of guy that would threaten deadly force to protect property? because that's what happened. the man in the yellow pants says it happened, the defendant agrees. then he comes into the trial and says, i was being sarcastic, like he's a little 17-year-old and he wants to get out of it. shortly after that, the defendant loses track of his protector, ryan balch. so now he's in a position where he knows that he's surrounded by people that consider him a threat. he knows that he's not supposed to go anywhere without ryan balch. he knows he's supposed to go back to 59th street. and he does. he tries. he walks up to the police line. he says, i work there, that's my business, which isn't true, but whatever. and they won't let him through. now, ryan balch makes it on through shortly thereafter. but the defendant gives up. he could go one block in either direction and make it back easily if he wants to, but he stops and decides, you know what, i'm going to stay here and maybe see what's going to happen. so then he talks to these people with fire extinguishers, and he's going to go down to 63rd street, and he asks one of them to come along. and they say no. now, at this point, he doesn't have ryan balch, he knows he's supposed to go back, he knows he's supposed to have a buddy, and yet he decides to go it alone. he decides to run down to 63rd street or walk down to 63rd street. doesn't know if that first group is still there, doesn't know if he's still needed, but he can't wait to take this opportunity to go down and confront people. because he thinks he's some sort of cop, some sort of law enforcement agent, some sort of junior cadet who is out there with a responsibility to fight crime. nobody asked him to do that. nobody gave him the right. nobody deputized him. ryan balch said, the police told me you're going to deal with them. they hand him bottles of water and tell him he's appreciated. as he crosses, the defendant is throwing rocks. what is the message the defendant takes from this? the wrong message. now i have power, i have the gun, i'm going to confront these bad guys. i'm going to stick my nose in things. so what does he do when he gets down to 63rd street? the first thing he does, we showed it to you at the very beginning, that drone video. he grabs that gun and points it at someone to protect property. points it at the zominskys, because why, they're about to mess with some sort of fire? they're not threatening anyone's lives. he doesn't need to protect anyone. he doesn't need to protect himself. he's pointing a gun b