thursday. susan del percio, thanks to you as well. and to everyone else on this breaking news edition of "andrea mitchell reports." remember, follow us on social media at mitchell reports and you can rewatch the best parts of the show anytime on youtube, just go to msnbc.com/andrea. chris jansing reports starts right now. good day. i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. it is a 57-page court ruling that could alter the course of american history. at its core, it sends one message over and over and over again, donald trump is not immune from federal prosecution. no one, not even a current or former president of the united states, is above the law. but that may not be the final word. the supreme court still has a chance to weigh in. but will they? and what does all this mean for trump's multiple criminal trials and the chance that any of them

are decided before election day? plus, any minute now, president biden will be weighing in on the border bill, a last ditch effort to turn it into law. but, on the hill, is it already a lost cause? so we'll get to that, we start with the breaking news, the d.c. circuit court unanimously rejecting donald trump's claims of immunity from federal prosecution, declaring them to be contrary to the constitution and america's founding principles. this is a massive legal blow to the former president, in and of itself, but moves the d.c. election interference case closer to a trial, at least bombly. potentially. in the opinion, they said, we cannot accept forum president trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power, the recognition and implementation of election results. and, in fact, they say, it would be a striking paradox if the president, who alone is vested

with the constitutional duty to take care of that the laws be faithfully executed were the sole officer capable of defying the laws with impunity. i want to bring in ken dilanian, who has been digging into this opinion, vaughn hillyard is tracking the response from the trump campaign, barbara mcquaid is a former u.s. attorney in michigan, lisa rubin and barbara are both msnbc legal analysts. >> this ruling is the work of a bipartisan three-judge panel, consisting two of democratic appointees and one republican appointee. and in this unanimous unsigned opinion, these judges systematically demolish all of former president trump's arguments for why he should be immune from this prosecution and why presidents in general can't be prosecuted. and in doing that, the judges offered a little bit of a civics lesson, starting with the fundamental principle that in the united states, no one including a president is above the law.

remember, that in oral arguments, mr. trump's lawyers contended even a president who ordered the navy s.e.a.l.s to kill a political enemy could not be prosecuted unless he was first impeached and convicted by the senate. the judges here rejected that notion, writing that it would collapse our system of separated powers, by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches. and they also spoke specifically to president trump's alleged conduct in the election case itself, calling his alleged efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. they said they cannot accept former president trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamentalal check on executive power, the recognition and implementation of election results. it is worth noting this is first time an appeals court has ever considered the question of whether a former president can be prosecuted, because no former president has ever before been indicted. so, they are making new law

here. the judges gave mr. trump until monday to ask the supreme court to hear this case. he can also ask the full d.c. circuit to rehear it, though there is no guarantee that would happen. if the supreme court decides not to take the case, the trial schedule in judge chutkan's court could be back on track pretty quickly. if the high court does agree to hear it, that could delay things considerably tee depending how quickly the court moves. >> as you read this opinion, who do you think is key here and what is your sense do you think the supreme court will take it or say let it stand? >> i think it depends on the justices and whether they want to wade into this. if they do, their time it is as important as almost anything else because if the justices decide, for example, they don't have the time or want to rush briefing here, they could hold this case over until the next term of the supreme court that

begins next october. that is practically a guarantee, just by pushing off the review until october and beyond, but no trial could happen before the november 2024 election. but you asked me about timing and what happens next. i think aside from the substance of this opinion, one of the most interesting things that this panel did was essentially say to donald trump, while an appellant usually has two options, a rehearing en banc from all the active judges on a circuit rather than the three-judge panel or go straight to the supreme court. what they have said to him is you can ask for that rehearing en banc, but if you do that, we're not going to stop the case from going forward and going back to judge chutkan for pretrial proceedings and scheduling of the trial. if by monday you ask the supreme court to take the case, we'll hold off. so, it is essentially saying to trump, if you want to take all of the procedure that you're entitled to, really we're not going to stand in judge chutkan's way.

>> all right, barbara, at one point the circuit court quotes the supreme court and the case is u.s. v. lee, in which it says, quote, no man in this country is so high that he is above the law. no officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. all the officers of the government from the highest to the lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. if the supreme court does take this up, do you see any path, any argument for them to come up with a different opinion than that? >> i really don't. if you read this opinion, you can see this is not a controversial proposition. no one is above the law. i talked about separation of powers, it talks about checks and balances, and if you allowed a president to go unaddressed, unchecked, with his conduct, it would completely disrupt the entire structure of our constitutional form of government. so, even if the supreme court takes this up, there is no way they come out the other way. so the only reason to take this up would be to put the highest

court of the land on this decision. >> do you think they might choose to do that, because it is obviously so important and unprecedented? >> i think they have to take a very pragmatic approach, that to do that would be very important, historically for the country, to lay this issue to rest. however, in taking the time to do that, they could interfere with the very prosecution they are seeking to permit. and so i hope that there are pragmatists on the court, i imagine elena kagan saying, we got to get this thing decided, we don't need to put our stamp on it, let's get going. >> all right, vaughn, i understand there is some new reaction from donald trump, what is he saying? >> reporter: right. in the last few minutes he's posted on his social media account his first statement directly from himself, after this appeals court ruling. i'll read you part of it. quote, a president of the united states must have full immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for

the good of our country. a nation destroying ruling like this cannot be allowed to stand. quote, he goes on to say, so bad and so dangerous for our nation, save presidential immunity. just a bit ago his spokesman said, yes, in fact, trump and his legal team will appeal this ruling. exactly where they will be appealing it has not been determined at this time. but i think it is worth noting when we're talking about the political context of this, and presidential immunity, you will recall that donald trump has repeatedly over the course of the last year suggested and asserted if he were to get back to the white house in 2025, he would direct a special prosecutor to investigate joe biden, which runs counter to the very argument he's now claiming here through this proceeding. and in terms of the other part of the politics of this, voters are voting here today and while the caucus results out of nevada on thursday are going to be what ultimately dictates the delegates coming out of nevada, donald trump continues to roll to the likely gop nomination

while his legal team works on trying to find his way out of these felony counts he's facing. >> which, lisa, brings us back to the question of timing, right? the timing is everything. whether or not there is even a case that comes to a decision that goes to trial and there is a jury and they come to a verdict before the election, and part of the reason this becomes even more important is our nbc news poll that came out just this week, but also it affirms other polls, there are people who change their minds about voting for donald trump are considering donald trump if he were to be convicted of something. where do you see this going? what is the most likely outcome here? is it just impossible to predict? >> it is really impossible to predict, but there are some bread crumbs. it is always been a long held assumption in the political domain that presidents are not absolutely immune. if presidents were absolutely

immune, gerald ford would have had no reason to pardon richard nixon. you can look to more contemporary supreme court history. in 2020, cy vance, the then manhattan district attorney was trying to subpoena tax records from mazars. that's the case that went all the way up to the supreme court because donald trump said as a sitting president, he wasn't just immune from prosecution, he was even immune from a criminal subpoena from a state law enforcement officer. he lost that 7-2, only two justices dissented from that. and in that decision, you may see the kernel of how the current supreme court might feel about presidential immunity. i think it is possible that this court says as barb was talking about, justice kagan, the ultimate pragmatist, there isn't enough time to allow for a trial, even if we would like to affirm this decision with a reasoned one of our own. we don't have to take this case,

there isn't what we call a circuit split, meaning two different federal courts of appeals taking different positions on the same issue. it is not necessary. we have 57 pages from a federal appeals court, explaining what their outcome is in diligent ways. that's possible. however, this is also the same supreme court that sat on the petition in the dobbs case that overturned roe and they told the public, we're holding this over for conference, we're going to -- week by week, we haven't decided what we're going to do with the case, according to "the new york times," that isn't what they did, they had already decided to hear the case, they just didn't want the public to know that. and so, this is a long way of saying i'm not sure what the supreme court is going to do, and even if they tell us that they're waiting, i don't trust necessarily that that is in fact what they're doing. they could have an agreement among themselves next week to hold this case over to october, and we the public may not know it. >> all right. barbara, at one point, talking

about just how detailed this decision is, at one point the judge weighed in on the charges against donald trump. and they wrote this, former president trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. he allegedly injected himself into a process in which the president has no role. the counting and certifying of the electoral college votes, thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of congress. why go there and, again, unanimously? >> i think one point that they're making there is to rebut the claims that we see donald trump make in his legal pleading and social media posts and fund-raising appeals. he's taken the view that as the president, it is his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. and so what he's said is i have

a duty as president to make sure that election was fair and to stop the steal. that was my duty as the president. all i was doing was doing my duty. and no, the president has no role whatsoever in administering elections. that is for the states. and they're counted in congress. that is -- there is no role for the president there. so you can imagine some case where the president is acting in his capacity in his official duties. that might be a blurrier line. in this instance, because the president has no role here, whatsoever, he was most certainly not taking care that -- to see that the laws be faithfully executed. >> so the implications for all four criminal cases here are tremendous. but, lisa, to you on the outstanding civil case that is still out there, this is the one where we are waiting for a decision, and honestly the future of donald trump, his family business, in new york, is at stake. a new development that just came

in, as we were going on the air, tell us about it. >> so judge arthur engoron is presiding over the trump civil fraud trial, the trial i've been attending or did attend this fall. went on for 11 weeks. closing arguments were on january 11th. judge engoron said he would render a decision, approximately by january 31st and then last week the court system said it will take him until mid-february. last week "the new york times" announced, you know, nobody else reported it for the first time, that allen weisselberg may have perjured himself on the stand in that civil fraud trial where he was not only a witness, but is one of several individual defendants. they didn't say exactly why or how he perjured himself, they conjectured about it. and now arthur engoron said i saw that "new york times" article, if somebody perjured themselves in my courtroom during this trial where i haven't entered an opinion yet, i would like to know more about that. please give me more information so that i can take that into

consideration as i render my decision here about the future not only of the trump empire, but how much money can be clawed back from the individual participants. and that includes, chris, allen weisselberg, who had a $2 million severance agreement with the trump organization after he was sentenced for criminal tax fraud in another case to which he pled guilty, they gave him this $2 million severance agreement, that was raised during the trial as somewhat suspect. now the attorney general's office says, you know what, we want that $2 million back, whatever portion of it you already have, that's part of that $370 million that they're asking judge engoron to award to them. so this is relevant in that civil case, as well as to potential future developments with respect to mr. weisselberg's own criminal future. >> relevant, but presumably could also delay february when we hear a decision? >> potentially we'll know if the office of court of administration for new york tells us it will take him more

time. we haven't heard that so far. >> on a very big day of breaking news, thanks to all of you. we're going to have much more on this throughout the hour. plus, in 60 seconds, congressman jared moskowitz will join with us reaction to this ruling. you're watching "chris jansing reports" only on msnbc. you're watching "chrisan jsing reports" only on msnbc alice loves the scent of gain so much, she wished there was a way to make it last longer. say hello to your fairy godmother alice and long-lasting gain scent beads. part of the irresistible scent collection from gain! power e*trade's easy-to-use tools, like dynamic charting and risk-reward analysis, help make trading feel effortless. and its customizable scans with social sentiment help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. pain hits fast. so get relief fast. only tylenol rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast for fast pain relief. and now, get max strength topical pain relief precisely where you need it.

with new tylenol precise. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric prebecause it helps need it. with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust. we're back with more of that breaking news out of washington, d.c. the federal appeals court there ruling that former president trump does not have immunity from prosecution in the 2020 election interference case. in their opinion, the judge said, the judges said former president trump's stance would collapse our system of separated by -- of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches. presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that as to the president the congress could not legislate, the executive could not prosecute, and the judiciary

could not review. we cannot accept that the office of the presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. joining us now, democratic congressman jared moskowitz of florida. worth noting, congressman, you have a law degree. what is your reaction -- i'm sorry, we may have some other breaking news. what is it? we have to go to president biden who is talking about the border bill, hoping to save it. let's listen. >> -- he's not for it. he would rather weaponize this issue than actually solve it. so for the last 24 hours, he's done nothing, i'm told, but reach out to republicans in the house and senate and threaten them and try to intimidate them to vote against this proposal. looks like they're caving. frankly they owe it to the american people to show some spine and do what they know to be right. so i want to tell the american

people what's in this bill. and why everyone from "the wall street journal" to the border patrol, to the chamber of commerce, the united states chamber of commerce, support this bill. because it is going to make the country safer, make the border more secure, and treat people more humanely and fairly, and make legal immigration more efficient and consistent with the values of our nation and our international treaty obligations. it would finally provide the funding that i have repeatedly requested, most recently in october, to actually secure the border. that includes an additional 1,500 border agents and officers, to secure the border, to physically secure it. in addition, 100 cutting edge machines to detect and stop fentanyl at the southwest border. we have that capacity. and an additional 100 additional immigration judges to help reduce the year long asylum

backlog and show up for asylum, judge is supposed to talk to you, takes a year to get that discussion going. this bill would also establish new efficient and fair process for the government to consider an asylum claim for those arriving at the border. today the process can take five to seven years as you all know. show up at the borborder, get a bracelet, told to come back when called, in the country, that's too long and it is not rational. with a new policies in this bill, and the addition of 4,300 more asylum officers, who spent hours, i might add, with each immigrant to consider their claims, whether they qualify, will be able to reduce that process to six months, not five to seven years. this bipartisan bill will also expedite work permits so those who are here and who qualify can begin work more quickly.

that's something that our governors, our mayors, our business leaders have been asking before and asking them for. all across the country they have been asking for this. they'll also create more opportunities for families to come together for business, to hire additional workers, and for first time in 30 years, first time in 30 years, this bipartisan legislation increases the number of immigrant visas for people legally able to come to this country through ports of entry. and ensures for the first time that vulnerable unaccompanied young children have legal representation at the border. this bill would also give me as president the emergency authority to temporary shut down the border when it becomes overwhelmed. the numbers we're talking are over 5,000 people trying to get in, in one day. the bill, if the bill were law today, it would qualify to be shut down right now. bottom line is this bipartisan

bill is a win for america, because it makes important fixes to our broken immigration system. and it is the toughest, fairest law that ever has been proposed relative to the border. now, it doesn't address everything i wanted. for example, we still need a path for documentation or those who are already here. and we're not walking away from true immigration reform, including permanent protections and a pathway to citizenship for young dreamers who came here had they were children. and who have been good citizens and contribute so much to our country. but the reforms of this bill are essential for making our border more orderly, more humane, and more secure. that's why the border patrol unit, which, by the way, endorsed donald trump in the 2020 election, endorses this bill. these are the people whose job it is to secure the border, every single solitary day. they don't just show up for photo-opes like some members of congress. they're there to do their job. this is the risk -- many of them

risk their lives doing every single day. and they decided, they decided, the border patrol decided, this gives them the tools they need to do the job. more personnel across the bord, this also is why the u.s. chamber of commerce endorses this bill. because they know this bill is not just good for the border, it is also good for american business. and for the american economy. and it is why "the wall street journal" endorsed the bill with the headline this morning which reads, quote, a border security bill worth passing, the senate has reforms trump never came close to getting. that's the quote from "the journal." this bill would also address two other important priorities. first, provides urgent funding for ukraine. i'm wearing my ukraine tie, my ukraine pin, which i've been wearing because they're in dire straits right now, defending themselves against the russian onslaught. brutal conquest. the clock is ticking.

every week, every month that passes, without new aid to ukraine means fewer artillery shells, fewer defense systems. just what putin wants. ukrainians are fighting bravely. many look around the room here followed me in this for a long time. i pulled together a coalition where 50 nations support them, on the phone talking to these leaders. we unify the nato, remember we first came to office, nato was -- they're all together. and actually increased the size of nato. we can't walk away now. that's what putin is betting on. supporting this bill is standing up to putin. opposing this bill is playing into his hands. as i said before, the stakes on this fight extend well beyond ukraine. if we don't stop putin's

appetite for power and control in ukraine, he won't limit himself to just ukraine. and the cost for america and our allies and partners will rise. for those republicans in congress who think they can oppose funding for ukraine and not be held accountable, history is watching. history is watching. this critical moment will never be forgotten. the position of the maga republicans can be characterized by "the new york times" headline. first headline reads, trump first, putin second, america third. that cannot pertain. this bipartisan agreement also provides israel with what it needs to protect its people and defend itself against hamas terrorists and will provide the necessary life saving humanitarian assistance for the palestinian people. by opposing this bill, they're denying aid to the people who

are really suffering and desperately need help. there is more work to get this done, over the finish line and i want to be clear, doing nothing is not an option. republicans have to decide, for years they said they want to secure the border. now they have the strongest border bill this country has ever seen. we're seeing statements about how many oppose the bill now. look, i understand the former president is desperately trying to stop this bill, because it is not -- he's not interested in solving the border problem. he wants a political issue to run against me. and i've all but said that across the board, no one denies that. america wants a solution that puts an end to the empty political rhetoric which has failed to do anything for so long. we have to get the resources to the border to get the job done. so republicans have to decide, who do they serve? donald trump or the american

people. are they here to solve problems or just weaponize those problems for political purposes? i know my answer. i serve the american people. i'm here to solve problems. just months ago that republicans are asking for this exact bill to deal with the border, to provide support for ukraine and israel. and now -- and now it is here. and they're saying, never mind, never mind. folks, we got to move past this toxic politics. it is time to stop playing games with the world, waiting and watching, and, by the way, the world is waiting and the world is watching. they are waiting and watching what we're going to do. we can't continue the petty partisan politics get in the way of our responsibility. we're a great nation. it is not acting like a great nation. so i'm calling on congress to pass this bill and get it to my

desk immediately. if the bill fails, i want to be absolutely clear about something, the american people are going to know why it failed. i'll be taking this issue to the country. and the voters are going to know it is not just a -- just at the moment we're going to secure the border and fund these other programs. trump and the maga republicans said no. because they're afraid of donald trump. afraid of donald trump. every day between now and november the american people are going to know that the only reason the border is not secure is donald trump. and his maga republican friends. it is time for republicans in the congress to show a little courage. to show a little spine. to make it clear to the american people that you work for them, not for anyone else. i know who i work for. i work for the american people. in moments like this, we have to remember who in god's name we are. we're the united states of

america. and you heard me say it many times, there is nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together. we're right on the verge of doing it together. i hope, i hope and pray that they find reason to reconsider blowing this up. may god bless you all, and my god protect our troops. folks, you're going to ask me questions, hang on a second, i'm going to be back on thursday, i don't want to prejudice what may be going on in negotiations now. so i'm not going to answering any questions. i'll be back thursday to stand here with you and answer all the questions you want about this issue. thank you. [ inaudible ] >> this indirectly has a lot to do with the hostage deal and what is going on in the middle east, the decision on what we do relative to israel, the decision with what we do in terms of

american funding of whether we're going to engage with the situation in ukraine. it all goes to the question of american power. and it all goes to does america keep its word, does america move forward? there is some movement and i don't want to -- i'll choose my words -- there is some movement, there has been a response from -- there has been a response from the opposition, but -- yes, i'm sorry -- from hamas, but it seems to be a little over the top. we're not sure where it is. there is a continuing negotiation right now. >> if this bill fails, would you consider supporting something separate that just addresses israel or ukraine?

>> i'm not going to concede that now. we need it all. the rest of the world is looking at us and they really are. >> that's just part of what has been a lot of breaking news obviously president biden making a last ditch argument after republicans in the senate jumped ship on supporting a border deal. they thought they had one. but now doesn't look good at all. we also just learned we have a verdict in the jennifer crumbley involuntary manslaughter case. we're waiting to hear what that is. we will bring that to you as soon as we have it. let's go to nbc's aaron gilchrist who is covering the white house. look, this was a president very pointedly, essentially suggesting that what this bill would do that now it looks like you're going to toss aside is what we all agree needs to be done. it is going to give us new border agents to secure the border, it is going to stop fentanyl from coming in, it is going to mean more immigration judges, new asylum officers so

instead of taking five to seven years, it takes six months. but, is that a political point he's making, aaron, or are folks you're hearing from in the white house really thinking there is some chance to still save this bill? >> reporter: well, that's the president's hope, i think, from what we heard from him today that obviously as you noted he laid out what's in this bill, that would -- he says would improve what is happening at the border, fix, start to repair issues at the border, create a border that is more orderly, humane and secure, he said. but i think it is worth noting that in his comments today, he laid the resistance to this bill that has been proposed squarely at the feet of donald trump. he took -- he took a moment to point out this is an issue he's going to campaign on. he's going to take to the american people, he said and asked the question of republicans saying they have to decide who do they serve. the president calling on republicans in the house and in the senate to decide whether they serve donald trump, who he said the president said is

weaponizing this issue rather than trying to resolve it, and adding that he has even been reaching out to republicans, the president says he's been told in the last 24 hours to threaten them in a way, not to support this bill. and that's creating a part of the resistance that we're seeing. the president indicating he will continue to push for this, he with ill continue to push for the measure that is in front of him and noting that the idea that israel be pulled out of this larger supplemental and have its own funding package as the house proposed is not something he's willing to give in on, to concede to at this moment. >> aaron gilchrist at the white house, we just heard from the president of the united states. thank you. now to that other breaking news, a jury has just reached a verdict in the jennifer crumbley involuntary manslaughter trial. nbc's adrienne broaddus is outside the courthouse for us in pontiac, michigan. paul butler, former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst, also back with me is msnbc's lisa rubin.

adrienne, what do we know? >> reporter: well, we know we got the 15-minute warning at 1:13 and it has been 15 minutes so we should hear that verdict from members of the jury at any minute. this after two days of deliberation. on friday, we heard the closing argument. the members of the jury are six men, six women, one black person. yesterday we know they had two questions, there were no questions from members of the jury today. you see on your screen right now, jennifer crumbley walking into the courthouse, where she will learn her fate. she is facing four counts of involuntary manslaughter. and there was a question from members of the jury yesterday about the definition of involuntary manslaughter. there was also a question about how the shooter obtained the gun. and for those of you who may not be familiar with this trial, prosecutors laid out a case, and showed evidence, tried to make the case that jennifer crumbley who you see on the screen now,

was grossly negligent, leading to the deaths of those four students who were killed at oxford high school in 2021 back in pontiac, michigan. and we don't say those students names enough. we're talking about justin shilling, tait mere, hannah st. julianna and madison baldwin. the prosecutor even laying out why they believe jennifer crumbley acted grossly negligent, because a day before the shooting, she received a message from school leaders, teachers were concerned that ethan crumbley was looking up ammunition on his cell phone, the day of the shooting, jennifer crumbley and her husband james who is expected to go on trial next month, were called to the school because of a disturbing drawing that had an image of a gun and blood and the message, the thoughts won't stop, please help me, on a work sheet. but jennifer crumbley chose to leave her son in school that day

instead of taking him home. by contrast, the defense has argued that jennifer crumbley had no way of preventing what happened at oxford high school that day, that her son's actions were not foreseeable. so any minute we should learn whether or not jennifer crumbley will be found guilty of these four counts of involuntary manslaughter. no matter the outcome, the prosecutor said on friday a guilty verdict or even a nonguilty verdict does not change the pain for the parents of those four students who lost their lives. chris? >> all right, so if found guilty, she is facing up to 15 years in prison. and $7500 fine per charge. the bigger question here, paul, is what precedent this might set to say that a parent, and these were the arguments made by a prosecutor, who either didn't see that the gun was stored properly, that there wasn't enough due care to store the firearm in a way that might have

prevented her son from gaining access to it and the ammunition, but also did she fail to perform a legal duty to the students who were killed by neglecting to exercise reasonable care and stop her son from committing this shooting. talk about the importance of this case, paul butler. >> such an important question, chris, because the crumbleys, mr. crumbley is being charged in a different trial that will happen later, they're first parents to face homicide charges for a school shooting by a child. this case wouldn't have any formal legal precedent in the sense that it would be binding in terms of law and other courts. but it would embolden some prosecutors when their case in which a child has committed harm to go after the parents. and the jury would have to find that the parents -- in their son's mental health and providing them with the weapon

makes them responsible in part for the four deaths. >> as we look at this -- let's listen. the judge is on the bench. >> are you ready for the jury? >> yes. >> let me ask -- when the jury reads their verdict after that, remain seated. >> i really want the audience to stay seated after that. [ inaudible ]

>> all rise for the jury. >> you may be seated. >> i understand you have a verdict. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> are you the foreperson? >> i am. >> could you believe deliver your verdict? >> individually? >> sure. >> okay. on count one of involuntary manslaughter, as to madisyn baldwin, we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. on count two of involuntary manslaughter, in regard to tate

myr, we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. on count three as to involuntary manslaughter, regarding hannah conner st. julianna, we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. and in count four, of involuntary manslaughter, against joseph shilling, we find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. >> thank you, forewoman, you may be seated. >> jury seat number two, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury seat number three, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury seat number five, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury seat number six, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury seat number seven, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury seat number eight, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury seat number 11, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes, jury seat number 12, was that and is your verdict? >> yes. >> jury seat number 13, was that and is that your verdict?

>> yes. >> jury seat number 14, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes. >> jury seat number 16, was that and is that your verdict? >> yes. >> thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. we all know this is one of the hardest things you've ever done. i'm going ask you to return to the jury room, the two remaining alternates will be joining you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> all rise for the jury. >> you may be seated. >> for sentencing. >> that should be fine, judge,

thank you. >> i'm going to ask everyone to remain seated. all right. >> all rise. >> you may be seated.

>> and so you saw it, jennifer crumbley leaving the courtroom in handcuffs, found guilty on all four charges of involuntary manslaughter. her son, ethan, had pled guilty to the murders of four of his fellow students. i want to say their names again, because it is important for people to remember what was lost here. madisyn baldwin, tate myr, hannah st. julianna and justin shilling. i want to bring back adrienne broaddus, paul butler, lisa rubin. lisa, it was interesting to me when we looked at this jury, of the 17, 11 said they were parents, more than half had experiences with guns or had been exposed to guns. this was a verdict, given by people who know what it is to be a mom or dad, who know what it

is to be around guns, and they found unanimously that she is guilty on all counts. >> and given two options by the prosecutors, and they didn't have to all agree on the theory of her guilt for involuntary manslaughter, they could find she was grossly negligent in the storage of the guns that were used to commit the murder, or they could find that she failed to exercise reasonable care as a parent with respect to failing to prevent the shooting.options. i think one thing that also struck me, chris, was as they were reading the verdict and each of them took responsibility for saying it was their verdict, i heard a fairly even distribution of men and women in that jury too. so, this is the jury of her peers, to which jennifer crumbley was entitled and yet there was plenty of evidence

that she was inattentive to her son's mental health struggles, put aside the fact that the gun was stored in an irresponsible way, this was a woman whose son was sending her texts saying he heard demons in the house and she ignored him for two days. there was plenty for this jury to hang their hat on in terms of this was a family whose son was having a clear mental health struggle, it had been documented, brought to their attention by their son and school officials and nonetheless, they gave their minor son a gun and neglected the fact that he was very palpably crying out for help saying he saw visions and hallucinations and demons. if that's not a son who is asking for help, i don't know what is. this is a jury who is saying, those four deaths and the injuries to multiple others could have been prevented if this woman had been the kind of

parent that her son and those students more importantly deserved. >> and the impact of this, adrienne, that we have talked about, why it is so important for potentially other cases going forward, not the least of which is her husband's own prosecution which is upcoming, we saw folks shaking hands as they walked out of the courtroom, i don't know if you were able to see it, if those were prosecutors, but clearly they are well aware of what was at stake, beyond jennifer crumbley in this case. >> so much is at stake, i've been trading messages with survivors from the shooting as well as a representative of some of the families, vin johnson represents at least multiple victims, those who are deceased and some who survived, and a spokesperson from his office telling me this is great news. even though it is great news for his clients, it is a sense of justice, but as a prosecutor laid out, this does not change

or erase the pain for the parents or the families whose children were killed or the pain for law enforcement who responded over the course of this dynamic trial we heard from 21 witnesses, a number of members of law enforcement who still have images burned in their memory from what they saw when they responded. my colleague selena has been inside the courtroom over the course of this entire trial, and she just shared with us because she is still in the courtroom right now, that the prosecuting attorney karen mcdonald said thank so much individually to the parents who were in that courtroom and she hugged each member of the prosecution time and we're also told that craig shilling, that is the father of justin, hugged that -- members of the prosecution team, just showing his gratitude. think about this, when these charges were announced back in 2021, this community was

divided. there was some folks here who said that prosecutor mcdonald was doing this for political gain. and then you had families and survivors who were hurting, who wanted some form of accountability. well, today, this is their form of accountability. and moving forward, the country is watching. this could mean so much instate. this is the first time a parent has been not only charged, but now convicted for their child's actions, their child who carried out a mass school shooting. yes, we have seen parents charged for shootings, but never before a mass school shooting. so does this mean parents will have to check their child's phone? if you have a child and they take a bat and break the window of a stranger's car, will that parent be held responsible? that is the question at hand. chris? >> paul, let me pick up on that. what does this tell us? where does this go? exactly what kind of case does it set a precedent for?

is it only for school shootings? >> no. so, chris, there was a critique of this prosecution, the critique was that mrs. crumbley, especially, was really being prosecuted for being a bad mother. so, when these four people were tragically killed and seven others were shot, but fortunately survived, mr. and mrs. crumbley were at work. and now they're being held responsible for manslaughter. i think what is unique about this case is as lisa has pointed out, the evidence was particularly compelling. so, ethan texted his friend that he was struggling and his parents would not take him to a doctor. he said his mother thought that he was on drugs, and she wasn't concerned about his mental health. so, i think in a case like this, where you have a proven record of a child essentially crying out for help, and the parents

not intervening in any way, that, yeah, those parents are subject to being charged with manslaughter. but, we don't see a lot of cases, fortunately, with facts like this. we should also point out that even the teachers and other people who work with ethan at the school were shocked he was the shooter. they didn't think that he was the kind of young man who could do something like this. and so while there was certainly signs that he was struggling, ty found that those signs were evident enough to his mother that it's fair to hold him accountable for those four deaths. >> you know, it's interesting, lisa. just to remind folks if they don't remember. jennifer crumbley was the only witness for the defense so their defense hung on what she had to say. but is it also about just

believability? is that what's at stake here? is it the argument in the closing that her lawyer made? one of the things that struck me. her lawyer said these are people who had two guns in the house for months where nothing ever happened with those guns. well probably in most cases common sensically unless the gun was bought last minute, the guns had been around and nobody dies until you aim them at an innocent human being. i wonder what you make if they had any other option to put her on the stand and essentially make her the only defense witness. >> they could have not put her on the stand and they may have done some real damage if she was not credible. she was asked essentially did you believe your son was struggling and they went through all that he was. he had a grandparent who had passed away. a pet that passed away. only one friend that he saw outside of school.

that friend very abruptly moved away. he was struggling with poor grades. she said not with standing all of those things, she didn't think he was having mental health struggles. when confronted with texts about the demons in the house, she said they had a house ghost and it was a family joke. might jurors held that against her? absolutely. i think the more damning evidence, the phone records and text messages. the fact the school called the parents and confronted them with the drawings. those are the things that i think jurors are really more liable to remember when they're considering their verdict and holding someone accountable. and i think in terms of the message that this sends, look, we've had a gun culture in this country that has been increasingly liberalized in terms of on the front end, what it takes to get a gun. and maybe verdicts and prosecutions like this are a way of exerting some more control over gun culture in this country

at the back end by deterring people. by asking them to think twice before they make themselves their own jennifer crumbley. is your freedom and liberty worth risking if your child gets his or her hands on your guns and commits a heinous crime like this? i would guess that there is some population of people in this country who would answer that country no. and maybe in that way, karen mcdonald has just accomplished something for our country. >> paul butler, are there prosecutors around the country looking at bringing cases they never thought they would consider before? >> yeah, so in this case, ethan was charged as an adult and he's sentenced to life without parole. but when you have tragedies like school shootings, often there's a sense that other people played a role and those other people should be held accountable. not just for school shootings, but any kind of violent crime

committed by a child. often the parents are looked at. so i think this case will embolden prosecutors in those cases to think about not only charging the child but also going after the adults in his life who are responsible for them. but there are always other kinds of considerations. in this case, both parents were called to the school and told not to leave ethan alone but they had to go to work. and so they took ethan back to school after he had done these very concerning google searches. they said they took him back to school because they thought that he would be safest there. obviously in retrospect, that was a tragically bad decision, but this case involves so many different factors not just the tragedy of a school shooting, but also parents who were struggling themselves. certainly doesn't justify what they did, but puts it in a

different context. >> i also want to bring in david jolly. david, you're also a lawyer. you also know a lot about one school shooting in particular and that is parkland. and i wonder when we talk about a jury of our peers, if this jury might be representative of a shift. maybe not a seismic shift, but a shift in the way that many americans look at guns. look at children or teenagers having access to guns, that that might send a message if not this case, but if there are more, to congress to understand that the idea that someone like ethan crumbley should have access to guns, that his parents are going to be held solely responsible for keeping them out of his hands. might look at legislating a little bit differently or is this probably pie in the sky?

>> i'm not sure we'll see a federal response particularly with republicans in control of the house right now. but we can't look past the fact that this is a critically important and necessary land marc case when it comes to gun violence prevention. there's no real celebrating in a moment like this the number of lives lost. the number of families wrecked. frankly, there's a hue of sadness around watching the crumbley family now, likely all three of them facing prison. but this was a necessary ruling and i think it's important to recognize the behavior for which mrs. crumbley was held accountable is that of gross negligence. a reckless disregard for the safety ultimately of the victims of her son's shooting. that she knew she should have taken additional actions and refused to do so and in that vein, chris, this is a real victory for the gun violence

prevention community and one i'm sure we'll see other prosecutors try to pursue under different state law. this has always been one of the issues when it comes to gun violence. the lax culture around so many of these shootings when it comes to the acceptance of guns and gun ownership and access to guns on demand and then when it comes to the responsibility of parents over minors who are still in very developmental stages and particularly those facing critical emotional or mental health challenges. there's nothing to celebrate today, but this is a critical landmark ruling and i think a necessary ruling to move the country forward towards greater gun violence prevention. >> to what extent it does, i want to bring in the president of brady united against violence, chris brown. your reaction to this verdict and what the implications are do you think? >> i agree with the comments of former congressman jolly.

this is not a cause for celebration. we have children killed at school. seven additional folks who were injure and we can't get those lives back. at the same time, the evidence clearly established absolutely gross negligence by jennifer crumbley here and i think that some of the things that i had other survivors, parents who have lost children in people's homes where safe storage didn't happen. obviously in this particular instance, jennifer crumbley and her husband providing this gun, illegally by the way, to her son. they feel very strongly that the way we prevent these kinds of senseless deaths and injuries is safe storage. really, this case is a victory for safe storage across this country. if every american who owned a gun safely stored their gun, we would cut gun violence in half

tomorrow. so making sure that's an emphasis is important. jennifer crumbley would have a life if she safely stored firearms. >> tell us what that means in your view and your experience and your knowledge. what does it mean because different laws read differently in different states. the best practice from a legal standpoint, that's one thing, but talk to any gun owner in in country, especially those who grew up with firearms and ask them what that means. that means storing a gun that is not loaded in a safe and storing ammunition separately and ensuring if you have children in the home, anyone who's at risk in the home, and that could be older americans in the home. it could be any range of individuals. that that is secured firearm

storage that the access to that is not a combination that's known to the individuals in that household. i have to add in this particular case what we're dealing with is a classic straw purchase. which is unlawful. what happened here is you had an at risk individual in the home who had talked about wanting to undertake a school shooting and the reaction of those parents was to, the evidence showed, the father go out and purchase a gun on behalf of the son. that is an illegal straw purchase. so there are multiple things that happened here which both violate the law and the norms of conduct i think we as parents, i'm a mom of two daughters, we should be expecting from other parents from all across this country. it's a victory for that standard of conduct, which is to protect our children. >>