well, in houston tonight another family is grieving. a ninth victim has died from injuries she suffered during the crowd surge friday at travis scott performed at the astroworld festival. 22-year-old bharti shahani was her name. she attended the concert with her younger sister and a cousin. she'd been studying electronic systems engineering at texas a&m. her dad says she planned on taking over the family business after graduating in the spring. her mom says she was always thinking about everyone else.

and she says the first thing her daughter ever asked for was to go to this concert. she added, "why didn't i say no to her?" our thoughts are with her family and every family touched by this tragedy. the news continues. let's hand it over to chris for "cuomo prime time." chris? >> thanks, anderson. i'm chris cuomo and welcome to "prime time." happy veterans day. thank you to those who have served and all of the armed forces, you do it on our behalf and we know it. to the men and women currently serving, those who have retired, all of your families, because we know they make the sacrifice right along there with the enlisted, thank you to all of you. now, this is the first veterans day in 20 years that the u.s. doesn't have boots on the ground on foreign soil in any active war because the war in afghanistan is now over. but while our troops are no longer there, too many are dealing with all kinds of illnesses from their time

abroad. did you know 86% of those stationed in iraq and afghanistan were exposed to toxic burn pits? these are garbage fires filled with things that can throw off noxious chemicals. sometimes they have jet fuel as an accelerant thrown on them. you know, they're not allowed here, but our men and women spend hours and hours, they live, they sleep, sometimes they stand guard in front of these things for weeks, years. question. why would we make our veterans jump through all these hoops to prove the pits are the cause of their illness before paying for their treatment? shouldn't we pay for veterans' health care no matter what the cause? don't we owe them that? president biden took some good steps in the right direction. he announced a new series of actions today to make it easier for veterans to get help for burn pit and other illnesses. biden has said in the past that he thinks his late son beau, the brain cancer he had may have been linked to burn pits that he was exposed to during his service in iraq.

on this day let's not just speak our thanks. we have a problem with talking the talk but not walking the walk when it comes to our veterans. they are the best of us. it's on the rest of us to respect their service with action. again, happy veterans day. thank you for your service. now let's turn to the rittenhouse double homicide trial. nearing an end in kenosha, wisconsin. reminder, this is the trial for the 17-year-old killing two unarmed men and shooting a third armed man in the wake of the police shooting of jacob blake in 2020. it became symbolic of the nation's polarization over gun rights, racism, and police brutality. this trial has the nation similarly divided. in fact, the division found its way onto the witness stand in the form of an eyewitness who backed up rittenhouse's self-defense claim. here's some of the testimony. >> rosenbaum was also charging kyle from behind.

i saw it in real time. rosenbaum is lunging toward him very clearly and kyle fires. >> all eyewitnesses are not equal. why they say what they say matters and should be tested on the stand. the judge allowed that man to testify as an eyewitness without allowing the prosecution to tell the jury that the witness, drew hernandez, works for a fringe right website and has posted anti-blm content. >> does real america's voice have any sort of political bias or agenda or anything like that? >> what is the relevance? >> it goes to the bias of the witness, your honor. >> the bias in what respect? i assume that people -- as i -- in the beginning, this is not a political trial, and i don't know how you would isolate a

person's particular politics and determine that that person is going to evaluate the evidence one way or another. >> seriously? the judge doesn't know how someone's politics might shape how they describe the events? is it not odd that he paints a decidedly starker picture than others and of the video that we've seen in describing what rittenhouse was about and how he handled himself? this was the second day in a row of vexing attacks from the bench on the prosecution. there was nearly a mistrial yesterday when the lead prosecutor enraged the judge about his line of questioning and they had a couple more clashes today. >> i'm a little bit challenged when you say is there something that i'm seeing that drives the face that you're making? >> i -- >> go ahead. say what you want to say. >> i have to say, your honor, yesterday i was the target of your ire for disregarding your

orders. today the defense is disregarding your order. yesterday, as i said, i was under the court's ire. >> i don't want to talk about -- >> well, i think it's a fundamental fairness issue, your honor. >> all right. say what you want to say. >> if i'm being held to obey the court's orders i'm asking that the defense be held to that too. >> i am going to interrupt you. and i'm going to let you talk again. but i was talking yesterday about the constitution of the united states and how the supreme court has interpreted it for 50 years. >> maybe he's been on the bench too long. but the judge seems to have forgotten, seems to have forgotten that it's not about him. of course he's the referee of the trial. but we're going it talk to some big experts about whether or not this obviously goes beyond that and whether his decisions, let alone a lot of this discussion in front of the jury, may be coloring and prejudicing justice. so the jury's not going to know that that testimony came today

from someone with a clear prejudice. and surprise, that eyewitness helped confirm the version of events that rittenhouse portrayed on the stand wednesday when the judge refused to let the prosecution tell the jury that the accused had mentioned shooting looters at a blm protest some time before all this happened. instead the defendant painting himself as just wanting to help and then running for his life and cornered that night. he said he did not intend to kill anyone. now, this is key. didn't intend to kill anyone. but then he admitted that he used deadly force on purpose. question for the jury. can you knowingly use deadly force and not intend for someone to wind up dead? the only survivor of the shootings today said don't let any of those tears fool you. >> i think anytime you see your would-be murderer on the stand

it's emotional. to me it seemed like a child who had just gotten caught doing something that he wasn't supposed to, more upset that he was caught and less upset about what he had done. he murdered two men and he attempted to murder me. >> closing arguments are monday. there could be a verdict next week. will the jury believe the accused to be a victim or a vigilante? let's take it to the better minds. mark o'meara was george zimmerman's defense attorney in the infamous trayvon martin murder trial and helped get zimmerman acquitted. and laura coates, former federal prosecutor and cnn super duper senior legal analyst. it's good to have you both. first let's talk a little bit about the judge in these sidebars, although sometimes in the presence of the jury, and then where we think things stand. going after the prosecutor the way he does, not letting the

prosecutor ask rittenhouse about what he had said about shooting looters at blm protests in the past, and not getting to ask that witness about the place that he works and the politics behind it, fair or unfair? >> well, i think it is unfair. of course you don't want to put your thumb on the scale to aid prosecutors because of course there is already a lot of weight when you have a jurisdiction versus an individual. there's already a lot of things stacked against that defendant. but not putting the thumb on the scale is not the same thing as tying the prosecutor's arm behind their back when there are legitimate purposes for introducing certain aspects of evidence. now, arguably the prosecutor may have toed the line or crossed in some capacity. but the judge's pearl clutching was a little bit theatrical for me because there were some legitimate interests in allowing for the jurors to get the full context to test the credibility of the witnesses for whom the defense would like you to believe if the jury are the ultimate fact finders and assessors of credibility they

have to know the relevant information. and that includes any indication of bias. >> yeah. how is it bad to -- or how does it offend justice or offends the rules of trial practice to ask a witness about where they work and what their political predisposition is when they're giving eyewitness testimony that just happens to be conveniently all in favor of someone who meets with their political aims? it's to you, laura. >> is that -- well, as i say, on the one hand simply asking the question does not assume all of these political leanings. and the assessment of credibility in asking the person what they work and what the motivation was when they were posting certain material or making statements that were in support of extrajudicial statements, et cetera, that's relevant not to find out who this person voted for, and that's what the judge failed to understand here. nobody was asking who you voted for, what your politics were.

it was directly to the point of is there some reason for this jury to understand or to question whether your eyewitness testimony or your testimony here today is being shaped by whatever bias you might bring in. now, the jury may ultimately say you know, this has nothing to do with it. but that's for the jury to parse through and understand. and there was nothing inherently extra -- prejudicial against this defendant by having them say what's your background in the sense of how you came to this case. if it were one of his relatives, wouldn't we want to know that? certainly we would. >> yeah. listen, i totally get it. i was a little shocked by that, especially by someone who's such a veteran. this judge is the longest-serving member of the wisconsin bench. now, why am i only talking to laura? because i'm trying to get mark o'meara's audio back up. we're having a little communication issue there. so while we're trying to do that let's -- >> i thought you were just trying to talk to me, chris. i was enjoying the conversation. what do you mean? there was an audio issue? >> you are the upgrade. there's no question. but while we're trying to get

him, let you and i listen to -- and the audience some of drew hernandez. that's the witness that we're talking about. and how he characterized the events of that night. here's some of the testimony. >> yeah. >> your videos that you have captured of these incidents that you call riots, they're very slanted against the people who are rioting. you characterize them as antifa, black lives matter rioters. correct? >> because they are rioting in the footage. yes, absolutely. >> have you ever posted anything on social media? >> yes. >> in support of kyle ritte rittenhouse? >> one could argue yes. >> what did you make of that? >> one could argue yes. i'm always a little tickled by answers that are not yes or no because it undermines one's credibility. when you try to get too cheeky. again, things for jurors to understand and consider. because some things you build your credibility by simply conceding a point. we know this in front of a judge

or in front of a jury. but the idea of the footage is so important here because it's a very limited amount of footage, which is one of the reasons they wanted to have kyle rittenhouse actually testify for the defense because of course you want to give greater context to this than what's being told. also notice that the language that was used by this witness really echoes some of the earlier concerns, chris, that the judge allowed you to refer to the people who were victims not as victims but as rioters or looters or arsonists, building again an opportunity for the defense to characterize the level of aggression if any towards him and entitling him in his mind to use self-defense, let alone lethal force here. but ultimately, again, the idea of somebody answering these questions in front of the jury and narrating, the video should speak for itself. but also rittenhouse has spoken for himself. and you had other witnesses who were trying to buttress what he said. the question is whether the prosecution has done enough in

the beginning in their case and chief to head off, anticipate and undermine these claims. >> what's your gut on whether or not the prosecution has met its burden? >> you know, it's a very difficult case. and primarily because you cannot extract and divorce from the political, the sociological, the cultural, the everyday conversations that were happening at this time. remember, if you've seen the build-up, and we all have, from the time these shootings occurred up till now, we have seen kyle rittenhouse be embraced by certain spectrums of the media, by certain quiet chat rooms, there have been echo chambers and certain segments of our society that believe that his attempt to be in the presence of this protest was somehow a good thing, a usurpation of law enforcement ability, a supplement to what they could not do. now, the flip side, you see this as somebody who is an armed person in the middle of a chaotic situation.

and the idea of having an ar-15 there. and you look at this person, who we should of course note as you had marilyn moseby on last night talking about this very issue, somebody who is -- who could have been perceived as an active shooter approaching the police officers and being told go home, go home, go home. and he could. and so when you look at this case, it's very difficult to just look at this from the idea of was this person entitled to self-defense. there are so many different aspects of it. the jury is going to have to whittle that down. but the prosecution is facing a very uphill battle here because there's no one to be able to defend or say that mr. rosenbaum or his second victim who were both deceased, what they did. it's all through the lens and the eyes of the person who is now fighting for his life at trial because the two people who would be able to present testimony as to whether they felt in fear of their lives or they were trying to restrain his use of the weapon, they are now dead. and the only other person, the surviving member, has already

said that he himself was armed. so this jury is looking at this uphill battle probably seeing a little bit of the interactions and the tone of the courtroom and the eye toward the prosecution, and then you've got the idea of a young-looking white defendant in america who at a time we talk about the idea of the second amendment and gun rights, all of this is on the backdrop. the prosecution is having a very difficult time. >> laura coates, appreciate you. couldn't get mark o'meara's computer back up. we'll have him back obviously. thank you for carrying the burden for me. appreciate it. >> please. thank you. >> we're going to move. from what happened in the courtroom to those conversations that are going on around this country tonight. now, take laura's point the way it's intended. of course the jury doesn't make this decision on the basis of how they feel about whether rittenhouse was there or whether he's white or whether he's that. but the point is they're human beings. and it's hard to look at a situation with the facts and not put any feel into it.

now, let's take a look at those conversations around it and what this case means. we have two views for you. we have left and right in search of being reasonable. we're going to start with one of our most important voices on civil rights. why does he believe this case is about white supremacy and takes it to a new level? next.

ok, let's talk about those changes to your financial plan. bill, mary? hey... it's our former broker carl. carl, say hi to nina, our schwab financial consultant.

hm... i know how difficult these calls can be. not with schwab. nina made it easier to set up our financial plan. we can check in on it anytime. it changes when our goals change. planning can't be that easy. actually, it can be, carl. look forward to planning with schwab. schwab! ♪ why hide your skin if dupixent has your moderate-to-severe eczema or atopic dermatitis under control? hide my skin? not me.

by hitting eczema where it counts, dupixent helps heal your skin from within, keeping you one step ahead of eczema. and that means long-lasting clearer skin... and fast itch relief for adults. hide my skin? not me. by helping to control eczema with dupixent, you can show more with less eczema. don't use if you're allergic to dupixent. serious allergic reactions can occur including anaphylaxis, which is severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems, such as eye pain or vision changes, or a parasitic infection. if you take asthma medicines don't change or stop them without talking to your doctor. when you help heal your skin from within, you can change how your skin looks and feels. and that's the kind of change you notice. talk to your eczema specialist about dupixent, a breakthrough eczema treatment. theo is saving big holiday shopping at amazon. so now, he's free to become, thoughtful theo.

and he's got a gift for everyone. so thoughtful. some look at what's happening and see white vigilantes on trial in two courtrooms, wisconsin and georgia. you've got rittenhouse in one and you've got the ones who hunted down and killed ahmaud arbery in the other. the jurors are going to have to weigh the charges against both. they're going to have to do it in a vacuum. but we're not in the courtroom. and these verdicts are going to play in the real world, in the

larger cultural setting. and they're going to ask whether white fright is enough to justify taking a life. watch this moment in the arbery case today when a defense attorney objected to exactly who was watching the trial. >> we don't want any more black pastors coming in here or other -- jesse jackson, whoever was in here earlier this week, sitting with the victim's family trying to influence the jury in this case. and i'm not saying the state is even aware that mr. sharpton was in the courtroom. i certainly wasn't aware of it till last night. but i think the court can understand my concern about bringing people in who really don't have any ties to this case other than political interests. >> he also said sharpton's presence was intimidating the jury. my next guest is the former president and ceo of the naacp, cornell william brooks. professor, good to see you. professor, do you have your sound on? >> i do indeed. >> there you go.

we're good. i can't go 0 for 2. i lost somebody in the last segment. so professor, what do you make of defense counsel's protest about who is watching in court? >> you know, in a way this weaponizes the very presence of reverend sharpton or any black person. reverend sharpton is a minister. he's a black pastor, as it were. but he's a human being. all of us, i would argue, people who are black, white, latino, asian, we are tied to these cases as fellow citizens. and so to simply say that because a person is black, because they're a pastor, they now are intimidating a jury is quite simply ridiculous. black skin is not a weapon. >> so in georgia, in that trial you've got one member of the jury out of 12 is black.

the state is -- the number should have been about two or three for it to be equivalent to the reflection of society. georgia as a state only enacted a hate crime law after this situation. what does that tell you about the atmosphere of justice? >> what it suggests is that we are reactive. in other words, when there's a calamity, when there is a tragedy, in order to keep a lid on a boiling pot we respond reflexively. is enacting a hate crime statute in the wake of so many hate crimes and hashtags suggests that we are not appreciating the value of human life. the fact that you have one juror on who's black in the ahmaud arbery case and the fact that the judge admitted intentional discrimination on the part of defense counsel says all you need to know that people have a reason, our fellow citizens have

a reason to be distrustful, to be suspicious, to be concerned about the justice system in georgia and elsewhere when it comes to black lives. >> you know, in the kyle rittenhouse case and the immediate aftermath of the shootings, even though he didn't shoot any black people, he killed white people, he shot a third white person who was armed, it was treated as if he was the face of white hate. and on the right he was the face of white fright and of being victimized by this aggressive minority movement. do you believe one of those is the correct way to see him? >> what i believe is yes, i believe that kyle rittenhouse along with the murderers down in

brunswick, georgia literally represent not merely vigilantism, they represent the old-fashioned slave patrol. that is to say, white men who deputized themselves or were deputized by government to literally hunt down black people or white people who sympathize with black people and stood in the gap in terms of preserving and protecting black lives. so the fact that there were three white people who were shot in kenosha, two of whom died and all of whom were white, does not suggest in any way that this is

anything less than a racially infused and infected crime. in other words, white people are not safe from white supremacy. the fact of the matter is you have demonstrators who were protesting the fact that jacob blake was shot in the back seven times on his son's eighth birthday, the fact that you had all of these people in the area demonstrating, protesting, and we have this young man, 17 years of age, with an ak-47 who self-deputizes himself, self-appoints himself to go down and ostensibly, supposedly protect property. >> but what if the jury finds he was being chased, he turned around, somebody reached for the gun, he shot them? and he was justified. does that remove the onus? >> i don't think so. and the reason i say that is we can debate whether or not this is a plausible or in fact laughable defense. after all, this is somebody who posed with the proud boys. this is somebody who claims that he wants to save lives and serve as a medic but he didn't turn around to offer any aid to the people he shot. let's note that. against the backdrop of history,

which is to say a long line -- a long ugly legacy of literally white people appointing themselves to literally stand in the gap to protect white property, white lives to the detriment of black property and black lives or white people who sympathize with those concerns. so the point being is in terms of the jury and the court of public opinion kyle rittenhouse getting off sends a very, very ugly and disturbing message, which is to say that any of us can appoint ourselves to go out and gun down our fellow citizens and particularly white men. this is very disturbing, very unsettling, and the kind of thing that should be disquieting, should be disturbing to not merely black people but literally americans of any hue, any heritage because this is completely outrageous and inhumane and unjustified behavior. >> thank you, professor cornell william brooks.

pleasure. thank you for being on the show. >> good to be with you. as always. >> all right. now, look. as with everything else in our society right now, these things are seen very black and white. literally. and figuratively. the left see a villain in the defendant, a vigilante. but for the right they see a victim. and my next guest is praising the man presiding over the trial as his favorite judge ever. why? next. with their iconic grilled cheese? by saying yes. yes to new inventions! yes to clean and fresh ingredients! and yes to living life to the flavor-fullest. panera. live your yes. now $1 delivery. as a dj, i know all about customization. that's why i love liberty mutual. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪

watch: serena williams... wonder woman.... serena... wonder woman... serena... ace. ♪ ♪ get your tv together with the best of live and on demand. introducing directv stream. (tiger) this is the dimension of imagination. ♪ ♪ at fidelity, your dedicated advisor will work with you on a comprehensive wealth plan

across your full financial picture. a plan with tax-smart investing strategies designed to help you keep more of what you earn. this is the planning effect. your skin isn't just skin, it's a beautiful reflection of everything you've been through. that's why dove renews your skin's ceramides and strengthens it against dryness for softer, smoother skin you can lovingly embrace. renew the love for your skin with dove body wash.

moving is a handful. no kidding! fortunately, xfinity makes moving easy. easy? -easy? switch your xfinity services to your new address online in about a minute. that was easy. i know, right? and even save with special offers just for movers. really? yep! so while you handle that, you can keep your internet and all those shows you love, and save money while you're at it with special offers just for movers at xfinity.com/moving.

justice is blind. but the people observing it are not. and these trials like what happened with george floyd and then the derek chauvin trial, the police officer, guilty of his murder, they reverberate beyond the walls of the courthouse. and that's what we see with kyle rittenhouse, the bigger implications. certainly for the right and left. it's been completely politicized. now, we just talked to a civil rights activist who says in his eyes an acquittal would be a signal of a win for white supremacy. many on the right see this 180 degrees the other way, that this kid shouldn't even be on trial and that what he did was defend himself and he had the right to do that. my next guest says exactly that. and in fact believes that he

shouldn't be on trial and the prosecutors only did this because they caved to blm, black lives matter. let's bring in conservative radio host mark davis from 660 a.m., the answer in dallas-fort worth. it's good to see you. not to seem prejudicial, but one step sideways, this is veterans day. your father would have been 90 years old. he was a 20-year vet in the air force. thank you for his service and thank your family for it. >> man, thank you guys. you and the staff are clearly reading my twitter feed on a number of levels. and i so appreciate it. thank you, chris. >> all right. we're human first. now let's have the discussion here. do i have it right that you don't believe rittenhouse should be on trial, that you believe he did the right thing going there and that he did the right thing in the face of imminent threat of his own life? >> now that i've seen the evidence and what a crazy thing that is, waiting to see the evidence, i strongly encourage it, i believe this does belong on the list of events where -- and you'll see them often.

where something happens, somebody's in their home, they take some action in self-defense, a number of things that speak of self-defense, and the authorities look at this and they say you know, this really looks like self-defense and maybe we don't even prosecute in this case. i believe this smacks of exactly that. and you are also correct in giving voice to my suggestion that in taking just 48 hours to reach this decision that this prosecution, which is clearly flailing, is absolutely responding to the streets of kenosha, which were demanding, and a lot of voices many of whom you've been hearing tonight were just demanding this kid's head on a platter because to not do so would seem to be insensitive to the jacob blake shooting. >> what do you make of the professor's argument that this smacks of white men self-deputizing themselves, which is certainly what this kid did, for good reason, bad reason or no reason, and that it smacks of slave patrols and that he

went there because he didn't like what was happening -- >> oh, my gosh. >> -- that's what brought him there. and it's symptomatic of a problem in this country. >> i have such respect for professor brooks and his civil rights legacy and his diligence in looking at such things. and there's a long legacy going back to the '50s and '60s and all the way to the present time, racism is not dead. it hasn't been driven from our society. but civil rights activism in 2021, chris, far too often takes on the following metaphor. when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. and there is the notion of finding white supremacy absolutely everywhere. and when you find it everywhere, it makes it harder to find it anywhere. when everything is racist, nothing is racist and the real tragedy of a lot of this is it's just impossible to look at anything without the lens of race being just jammed in your direction. the professor and laura and her

analysis, which i appreciated as well at the top of the show, coming at this from a certain perspective, it's not really 180 degrees different for me because for that -- 180 degrees different from the professor would be for me to say i absolutely know race had nothing to do with this. i don't know anything of the kind. but i look for evidence of it. and i can't find any evidence of racial animus in anything kyle rittenhouse did. and it seems like that's just not a welcome perspective. >> why is going to a place that you're not from, joining up with the proud boys with an ar-15, not proof of going to a place looking to get into the mix? >> it is certainly possible that we have a 17-year-old young man here who had a case of junior g-man syndrome. and no kid of mine is going to arm up and, you know, go 30, 40 miles to do whatever, however altruistic and noble his intent may be, in the middle of a riot.

but that's not what kyle rittenhouse is on trial for. the fact of the matter is that he went. and we can like that or not like that. what is at issue in the trial is is he guilty of a homicidal act? and i think this jury's going to say no. and hopefully we can have the kind of peace and resolve we had there when derek chauvin, a very controversial trial, i looked at the chauvin trial and said you know, he needs to be convicted of something. i didn't know what but certainly something. it's a crazy revolutionary idea looking at these things on a case-by-case basis and taking our inherent biases and preconceived notions and maybe please god putting a pin in them and looking at the evidence. >> mark davis, i appreciate you. also, look, for all the talk about his affinity for proud boys and that, personally in reviewing the evidence i don't know who he was with. he was definitely with a group of white boys. i don't know if they had affiliation or not. the point stands that it is not part of the fact analysis of the trial. the jury's going to have to look at it. they are human beings. but they're going to have to look at what he did, why they

died, and whether or not what was a murder can be justified by self-defense as an affirmative defense. we'll see what they come up with, and then we'll deal with whatever that verdict means to the ongoing battles of division in this country. mark davis, appreciate you. >> that's how the system works. thank you, man. >> to the legal drama over the trump white house. now, this is not getting reported the right way. okay? a district court judge says no. they go back to the district court judge. she says no, i'm not stopping this. i just told you yesterday. they had to check those boxes. they go to the appellate court. the appellate court says hold on, national archive, don't give the documents on friday. don't. give us a second. it is not a decision on the merits. they're saying you have to pause so that we can try the appeal. that's all it is. i'm going to bring in norm eisen. but you've got to get this stuff right. okay? there has been no decision on the merits. they asked for a pause to decide. they had to do that. next.

people with moderate to severe psoriasis, or psoriatic arthritis, are rethinking the choices they make like the splash they create the way they exaggerate the surprises they initiate. otezla. it's a choice you can make. otezla is not an injection or a cream it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable, with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop.

some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. otezla. show more of you. >> man: what's my safelite story? my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

we have news. the latest turn in the trump legal saga and whether or not

he'll be able to keep these documents away from congress in their quest to understand what happened on january 6th. let's bring in cnn legal analyst norm eisen. he won, norm. he won. that's what i'm reading on twitter. trump won. they're not delivering the documents as planned tomorrow. >> well, chris, the -- twitter diploma of law is not the most valuable certificate. >> it's the best i got. >> in the land. what happened today is good news for getting these documents into the light of day. it's another success for the committee, and it's a very promising development. let me tell you why. as we talked about yesterday, the court has put in -- the appellate court has put in a short administrative stay. but rather than the months and years of delay, they have

together with that ordered extremely rapid briefing, not on another state to replace the administrative one but on the merits. all briefs are going to be due, and we're going to have oral argument before the end of november. chris, this case was filed on october 18th. that's extraordinary speed. it reflects the importance of the matter. we've got three brilliant jurists who will see through trump's phony claims. so anyone who doesn't think today was a good day for justice is misreading the legal tea leaves. >> two of the justices -- two of the judges are obama appointees. one is a biden appointee. and yet they granted the stay. so they're doing their job. now, the idea of what's going to happen here next, i had colleagues here at cnn say hey, i don't agree with cuomo that he doesn't see why the supreme court would take this. i think they will. and then i was getting beaten over the head by legal experts who gave me that understanding. they were saying hey, cuomo,

just because the supreme court hasn't reviewed something doesn't mean that it's interesting for their review. what do you think happens with this question if after the appellate court they try to get a grant -- a writ of certiorari from the supreme court? >> i don't think this is an attractive case for the supreme court, chris. the merits are lousy. this is not a close question. as judge chutkan said in the trial court, the united states only has one president at a time. it's donald trump no more. the president is joe biden. he makes these decisions. these claims that trump are making are nonsense. i think the d.c. circuit is going to give him the back of the hand. this panel is moving quickly because they want to get rid of this case. and i just think it is unlikely -- never say never.

but it's unlikely that the supreme court takes up these junk arguments. >> norm eisen, you are a gift. and now you will get many because your birthday is upon us. happy birthday, norm eisen. you've got the best hair in the business. so whatever -- >> thanks. >> -- age you are you've got hair that looks 22. thank you very much, counselor. i appreciate you. your insight is a gift. thank you for being a gift to this show. and i wish you the best for your birthday. >> appreciate it. >> all right. be well. when we come back, there's one issue that matters most to voters and that democrats in power are clearly sleeping on. the wizard of odds with a giant wake-up call. that face says wake up. next. this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to know you have a wealth plan that covers everything that's important to you. this is what it's like to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. making sure you have the right balance of risk and reward.

and helping you plan for future generations. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity. (man) go on, girl, go on and get help! [heartwarming music] (man) ah! (burke) smart dog. with farmers crashassist, our signal app can tell when you've been in a crash

and can send help, if you want it. get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

do you take aspirin? plain aspirin could be hurting your stomach. new vazalore is the first liquid-filled aspirin capsule clinically shown to cause fewer ulcers than plain aspirin. vazalore is designed to help protect... releasing aspirin after it leaves your stomach... where it is absorbed to give you the benefits of life saving aspirin... to help prevent another heart attack or stroke.

heart protection with your stomach in mind. try new liquid-filled vazalore. aspirin made amazing! we're carvana, the company who invented car vending machines and buying a car 100% online. now we've created a brand-new way for you to sell your car. whether it's a year old or a few years old. we wanna buy your car. so go to carvana and enter your license plate answer a few questions. and our techno wizardry calculates your car's value and gives you a real offer in seconds. when you're ready, we'll come to you, pay you on the spot and pick up your car, that's it. so ditch the old way of selling your car, and say hello to the new way at carvana. inflation means you pay more for stuff. yet for all politicians telling you what it means, almost none of them know what they are saying.

the amount of money that's available much how much they want to buy, demand, and how much there is for us to buy, supply. we collectively have more cash in our pockets than any time since the '80s. i know you are saying not me. i am saying there is a ton of money in the economy. that will affect things. as a whole we have been able to save more during the pandemic. i know you are saying not me. it's a very unequal distribution. i'm talking about the gross u amount of dollars, okay? that seems wrong because just today we've learned americans have never been more in debt. even though there is more money in circulation, with interest rates low, and buying up trillions in bonds during the pandemic, that money is not evenly disbursed. a situation made worse by the trump tax cut which comes with

an estimated $1.9 trillion cost. bottom line, all that extra money did not go to you. i get it. but it means your money won't go as far. we're still trying to buy a lot more stuff, a reality only expected to increase by around 7% as we head into the holidays. but as you know it takes longer for that stuff to get here now, right, with the supply chain problem. that situation didn't just start either. remember last year when the supply chain was so messed farmers were destroying their crops? meanwhile trump's trade war still in place to the tune of $106 billion paid by importers and passed onto fixes like making it more expenses to borrow and risk raising the cost of a mortgage which means fewer people buying homes and fewer jobs in areas like construction. that's the problem, okay? inflation comes on for a lot of reasons, and no matter what you do to fix it, you cause new ones. let's talk the politics with the wizard of odds.

harry henton, what do you got? >> look, i go on twitter a lot. people go oh, you know, inflation is not that bad. tell that to the american public because that this particular point what do we see? are things at the grocery store, every day items costing more? 83% say yes. have those increases caused hardship for your family? look at that, 70% of americans say at least some minor hardship. this is something americans are really feeling. when you ask them what are you extremely concerned about right now what do we see? we see inflation, number one. 53%. it's the only thing that gets a majority. we just passed this infrastructure package. just 27% of americans are extremely concerned about that. it's so low on the list i had to cut off the top six or seven down there and inflation is down there. >> we always say infrastructure everybody loves it except the voters. they want it, they don't like

the price tags. and it's just not an issue they usually vote on, and that's proven there. now, is inflation top at the list, harry, because it's being talked about so much and weaponized? >> i don't think so because the fact of the matter is part of that little poll i had on that first slide was from august. part of it was from august, part from october. this is something the american public has seen for a long period of time and it's taken time for the politicians to actually recognize that. and i think that result in virginia may have played some role in that. >> let's go to the next slide. inflation is the biggest issue. this is hurting biden. >> yeah. i mean, here it's part of the bigger economic issue, right? biden isn't doing enough about, and this is the top three issues listed. it's inflation at 60%. this is number one. it's the number one thing they're most concerned about. it's the number one thing biden -- they feel biden is not doing a good job on. and if you think for a second

voters aren't going to reward republicans because they think it's the best option, you only really get two. look at this. you see who would do a better job on inflation, look at this large gap. 45% say the republican party. just 21% say the democratic party. there are some voters in there who basically say neither or both. but this is one of the largest issue examples for republicans that are out there. and the fact is you can expect them to ride that hard over the next year especially heading into the mid-term election. >> boy, oh, boy, you know who's going to be talking about this? joe manchin because this was his big objection to the support payments. let's see how that plays in the democrat ranks and how they twied. appreciate you. >> where are the compliments about my nice hair. >> you have a good head of hair. it's not real, though. all right, we'll be right back with the hand-off.

as someone who resembles someone else, i appreciate that liberty mutual knows everyone's unique. that's why they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. oh, yeah. that's the spot. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ (tiger) this is the dimension of imagination. ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ with chase security features, guidance and convenience, banking feels good. chase. make more of what's yours.

this is elodia. she's a recording artist. 1 of 10 million people that comcast has connected to affordable internet in the last 10 years. and this is emmanuel, a future recording artist, and one of the millions of students we're connecting throughout the next 10. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students, past... and present, can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities.