even a bigger long shot. this is her best chance. >> she is not supposed to appear in court today, and it's not clear how long it could take the panel of three judges to reach an opinion, and it could be days, weeks or even months. we know previously the prosecution has called her claim meritless. >> thank you. that's going to do it for us this hour. i will be back at noon today in for andrea mitchell. josé diaz-balart picks up our coverage right now. stphoepts ♪ ♪ good morning, it's 11:00 a.m. eastern, and 8:00 a.m. pacific. 12 jurors are now deliberating for a second day. hunter biden is charged with lying about his illegal drug uses when purchasing a gun in

2018. he has pleaded not guilty on all counts. joining us now, justice and intelligence correspondent, ken dilanian, and a defense attorney that represented three employees in an administration. >> reporter: the jury has had the case today for about two hours. they had it yesterday just for about an hour, so three hours total of deliberations. obviously we don't know anything about what is going on inside the jury room. it's secret. we know the jury forewoman had a sister with issues with a drug problem and watched the evening news. that's all we know about it. the prosecution strongly made the case they established beyond a reasonable doubt that hunter biden was a drug user when he

purchased that gun and owned it for 11 days. the defense trying to poke holes in the story and suggest that there's doubt about whether he was using drugs during the period on or around that period when he bought and owned that gun. that's where it stands, josé. >> over the last course of the trial, the defense argued there was no evidence hunter biden was using drugs when he bought the gun, and the jury instructions say they do not have to determine he was using drugs the day he bought the gun but just that he was addicted to a controlled substance during that time. how will this affect the verdict? >> i think they are going for a hung jury here, at the least, if not an acquittal, and you have to show reasonable doubt. you have people in their family with addiction problems and

alcoholism, and there's going to be sympathy for hunter biden. if hunter biden knowingly did not think that he, in fact, was an addict at the time or that he didn't do drugs right around that time period, even though there's a dispute about what the proper instructions should be, you may have a hung jury. you may have people with that sympathy, and this deliberation could be going on for quite some time. >> the issue is -- >> can you hear me? >> ken, do we have a verdict? >> we have a verdict, josé. that's all i know at this point. we just saw a flury of journalists running towards the courthouse and we have determined that the judge has been told that there's a verdict. stand by. we will get it to you as soon as we have it. >> okay. so we will stand by and just stay with me. go ahead. >> so much of my theory for

deliberations going on for quite sometime. >> what does that tell you? >> usually a quick verdict favors the government, but it's hard to say here. with a short trial, it was not a lengthy trial like donald trump's trial, and -- so we do not know -- they have been out for about three hours. it's a pretty quick verdict. >> okay. so back to ken. the process is, we don't have cameras and there are no microphones in there, and what is the process for finding this information out? >> reporter: we have elaborate plans, josé, that should remain confidential. we have many plans to get the verdict to you as quickly as possible. three hours is unexpectedly short, but at the same time, this was not a complicated case, right, in terms of what the

government had to prove, the elements of the charges. it was simple. they had to prove that he was a user or addicted to, and not just addicted but an illegal user of is also an option of drugs around the time, the period he bought the gun, but not on the day or the week he owned the gun, and there's evidence of that, and it's not disputed hunter biden was addicted to cocaine before he bought the gun, and then he called himself an addict to friends and family, and what was contested in the trial is is there evidence he used drugs in the period he bought the gun, and it's not clear that matters about that. the prosecution argued it didn't matter. they also argued that, in fact, he was using drugs, even a day or two days after he purchased

that gun, and there are text messages to that fact and those are not definitive. the jury back here with a verdict within three hours of deliberation, and that's normally good for the government but who knows. we will find out when we do. >> of course, ken, standing by with you. meanwhile, jeff, talk to us about these three charges. we are showing there on the screen these three counts against hunter biden. can you find of go down each one of those and what they mean and what the possible probable, you know, sentences could be if someone is found guilty on any or all of these? >> sure, we have hunter biden arriving right now. >> excuse me? >> sorry, jeff, this is just live, and we are all watching this together. so hold for just a second. it looks as though somebody is arriving. you can see there that

there's -- looks like hunter biden. >> reporter: we believe that's hunter biden. >> yep, hunter biden is now arriving to the courtroom -- to the courthouse. clearly that's one of the requirements, right, jeff? so meanwhile, jeff, if you could, talk to us about these three counts. >> joe, false statements on a firearms purchase is a criminal violation, obviously. but i have to tell you, josé, these kinds of cases are not frequently brought, and sometimes they're put together with an armed robbery as well and if you are found guilty of them, i think it would be unlikely that he would receive jail time. most of the time, just like the diversion he plead guilty to,

most of the time judges put defendants in a rehab center and try to rectify the underlying problem. unless something political comes in here, and i don't think it has, i think the judge has run a fair trial, generally biden, as a defendant, if convicted, would not get jail time. >> so either -- and these are all -- we are looking at the three counts, right? maximum prison sentence on one, ten years, and the third one also ten years, and they would not be concurrent if, jeff? >> well, they could be concurrent. they could be consecutive. based on hunter biden's background, i think the judge may really cut him a break here. he has not been convicted yet, so let's see what the verdict is. we're just speculating.

i have to tell you that if he's convicted, i would imagine his presentence interview would be a lot longer than donald trump's presentence interview, because generally those interviews take quite sometime and it's a thorough background investigation of the defendant who has been convicted, including health issues, employment history and drug tests. certainly with hunter biden, there would be drug tests and period drug tests indefinitely, probably. >> ken, it's important to say that this case and this trial is being carried out because there was an agreement earlier that fell through. >> reporter: yeah, that's right, josé. there's a lot of legal experts who wonder why we are here. as jeff said, this is a case that is rarely brought as a standalone charge. under that plea agreement,

hunter biden was going to enter into a diversion agreement where there wouldn't be a felony conviction on his record in connection with the case if he satisfied the terms of the agreement. it was linked with the other case against him, which is the tax evasion and tax fraud case. he's facing a trial on that, also felonies, and under those charges he was going to be pleading to a misdemeanor, and no jail time, and it fell apart over a disagreement on whether that granted hunter biden immunity for other conduct including foreign lobbying violations, and the judge raised questions about it. they went back to negotiating. this is where it gets loss. the judge scratched the plea agreement on that day, and at the end of the day hunter biden's team would not agree to the terms that the prosecution was offering.

our understanding, our reporting was most of that was on the table, a no-jail deal, and hunter biden's team was concerned it didn't hold him harmless by other investigations by the justice department, and they decided to take their chances and we will find out if that was a smart decision. it has been a year since that plea agreement fell apart. there has been no signs of any other federal investigations of the conduct of hunter biden, and they decided they couldn't live with the terms of the agreement and they decided to go to trial. here we are, we will find out very soon whether or not that was a good decision, josé. >> jeff, walk us through what is happening right now, vis-a-vis, inside that courtroom. we saw hunter biden just coming in, literally minutes ago. what is the process we can expect now? >> sure, the process is the

council be seated with the defendant, and the jury will enter the courtroom and the judge will ask if you have a verdict, and the foreperson will say yes, and it will be handed to the judge and the judge will give it back to the court clerk and then the foreperson will read it. probably if the defendant is convicted, they will want to poll the jury, which it means you ask each jury individually if they agree with the verdict, and then there's the verdict and the jury is let go, and presumably there's confidential confidentiality there, and then the judge will warn them about that. if he's acquitted, it's not clear what could happen.

once the jury is let go, the judge will set a sentencing date. 99.9% sure hunter biden would not be incarcerated pending sentencing. they would schedule a time for a presentence interview, and sentencing will take place probably in two months or so. >> ken, what do we know about those jury members? you mentioned a little at the beginning of our conversation, one of them. what else do we know about the jury members? >> reporter: you know, josé, i have to tell you i don't have that information in front of me. we have sort of basic demographic information about the jury and i don't have it in front of me so i can't share it for you. >> i apologize for asking about something i didn't know you didn't have the information on that, and i want to apologize to you for that, ken.

the process that we see here, and this is what -- as much as we do know about it, six men, six women, two members own or previously owned firearms, and three members with family members who own or previously owned firearms, and four members of a close friend or family member that struggled with drug or alcohol addiction, which is what ken was telling us at the beginning of the conversation, and one member works for the u.s. secret service, and one watches cbs evening news regularly. jeff, with that information, if you are a defense attorney working with and for hunter biden, how do you focus on those jury members and what do you focus on those jury members, or can you? >> well, you clearly look at them when they come back in the courtroom and see who makes eye contact, who doesn't. really, it's hard to say. i have to tell you as a defense attorney, and i am sure the

defendant feels the pressure, but this is a very pressurized moment, because you know the verdict is coming in. you have no clue what the verdict will be. you know there's a verdict. you know it's not a hung jury. you know there's a possibility of jail time for a defendant and the defense counsel feels it at this point. >> ken, would you agree with him? >> reporter: yeah, 100%. this is, you know -- and particularly when we have a special counsel, they have one case at this point, and that's all they have been focusing on, the hunter biden case. there's two cases, the gun case and the tax case, and this is what they devoted their professional lives to doing,

hunter biden, and some say there's a lot at stake for the prosecution, and a lot at stake for the defense attorneys, and abby lowell has a reputation as a gun-slinging attorney, and she has decided to go guns blazing in defense of hunter biden, and a strategy not just in this case, but in the congressional investigations, he's been firing with both barrels. today is the moment of truth here. he took a chance here trying to raise reasonable doubt on a case that they thought was pretty straightforward and the evidence the government had was overwhelming, and we will see if that gamble succeeded today. >> and today -- >> sorry, jeff, sorry to

interrupt, but i want to bring in a white house correspondent, aaron gilchrist. ken? >> count one, guilty. count two, the jury finds hunter biden guilty. and on count three, which is possession of a firearm by a drug user or drug addict, guilty. hunter biden has just been found guilty on all three of the counts against him. ken? >> reporter: yeah, i have to say, i mean, that's not a surprising verdict, particularly after three hours of jury deliberations. there's a lot of questions here about whether there would be -- nobody predicted an acquittal, but a hung jury, whether there would be one juror that held out

being sympathetic that nobody was harmed by this gun, and now we see the jury has adopted the view of the prosecutors, that hunter biden knowingly violated the law when he purchased a handgun while using drugs, and now he's going to live with the consequences that this is a felony conviction. as jeff said, it's extremely unlikely that hunter biden will be incarcerated by the judge today. what is more likely, she will set a sentencing date two to three months from now and he will have to do an interview with the probation department. right now a big moment for hunter biden and for the president of the united states and the first lady. the first lady has been here for many days of the trial. she's not here today. again, hunter biden found guilty on all three counts of the felony gun charges, josé. >> aaron, the first lady has been by hunter biden's side

almost every day, including flying back from france to be by his side. is there any reaction by the white house or by the biden family? >> we're still waiting for that reaction to come in. obviously it has only been a few seconds that was read, and ken noted, as you said, the first lady had been in court for most of the proceedings over the course of the last week, and she was there on day one setting behind her stepson and only missed court on thursday when she was overseas in france with the president on d-day commemorations to be back in court on friday, and then returning to france on saturday to continue with the state dinner in that country. but the family in a significant way has been behind hunter biden, really, from day one. we know obviously today his wife was there with him. we believe his aunt may have been in the room as well. other members of the family had been present in court throughout

the week. president biden's part, he committed to not really talking about this case. he's saying in a statement last week on the first day of jury selection in the case that he was not going to comment on something that was part of the work of the justice department. he did, though, during an interview with abc news last week saying he would accept the outcome from this jury. now with these three guilty verdicts from the jury, we would expect that president biden will stand by that. he was asked directly if he ruled out pardoning his son, and he said yes to that question, pardoning his son was not something he was going to be doing. and at this point we wait to see if there's more reaction from the president in the form of a statement, and the president has said that he loves his son, that he and the first lady love their son, and they are proud of him and the person he has become, referencing his ability to

combat a drug addiction and to seemingly come out on the other side a better person. at this point, josé, we will wait to see if we hear more from the president. >> thank you, aaron. misty, 3 1/2 hours of deliberations over two days. what did you think? >> once i heard the verdict was in i suspected it would be guilty. keep in mind, the charges themselves very technical. prosecutors made the argument, do not leave the common sense at the door. you are looking at all this evidence of drug use during this time, the critical timeframe, october 2018. that's not to say the defense didn't raise very clever arguments to really poke holes in that, and the jury went with the prosecution's case and turned around very quickly. we were actually here just in the last hour saying, well, we don't expect anything until this

afternoon. it seems the jurors were pretty much on the same page here and came back with the guilty verdict. >> we understand first lady jill biden recently headed into the courthouse. there we have the images of her heading into the courthouse. >> as of now, it's not likely that hunter biden will be taken into custody or anything like that. what is going to happen is there's going to be a sentencing hearing. it will be scheduled down the road. in the interim, both sides, the prosecution and defense will submit briefs that will basically present the argument as to what the penalty should be for that sentencing phase. so again, we're talking about a case that is not typically charged, where the gun was not used in any other crimes, where this was not a case of a felon

in possession. that's usually where you see these charges. we are also talking about something that happened in 2018. there's not a violent history in between. all of those factors are taken into account as to whether or not the defendant in this case, hunter biden, is actually taken into custody in the interim or released on their own recognizance, which is what i would expect to happen here. then the pathway to the sentencing hearing will begin. >> jeff, what options after the sentencing hearing gets underway, which as we understand it has not been set as of right now, but jeff, what are hunter biden's options going forward as far as appealing and et cetera going forward? >> he certainly has a right to appeal the verdict. when he meets with the probation office, if he intends to appeal the verdict it will go to how

much remorse he shows, and on the other hand, he cannot deny and has not denied that he's an addict or was an addict, and that's certainly something he will discuss with the probation office. i have to say as a side note, josé, jill biden was in court most of the time in the front row. >> uh-huh. >> defense counsel also encourage to have family members support them, and here you have the first lady and the jurors disregarded it really and found him guilty. it could be that it doesn't really have much of an impact on a jury. >> it's also back to the role and responsibility of a jury and the sacred responsibility that they have to carry out in their -- during their duties as a member of the jury. i want to bring in a former fbi, andrew weissmann.

he's now an msnbc legal analyst. andrew, what are your thoughts? >> yeah, i'm less interested in the particulars of the case. this is a gun charge. the proof was overwhelming. i agree with your other panelists that it's rarely charged, in my experience of over 21 years at the department, i never saw a case like this brought. it would normally be a felon in possession of a gun that would be charged. i am more interested in what it tells us about the rule of law in this country in two ways. one, the son of the sitting president was pretty quickly tried. he was given due process and he was found guilty. and you have the current president, the father of the defendant, making it absolutely clear that he is not pardoning him, that he could have ordered

at any time his justice department to get rid of the case and he did not do that. he said he's not planning on pardoning him as well. i really think that if you look at the case, what is the big picture here? it's not a drug addict that possessed a gun for two weeks. it's that you have a president of the united states who is living embodiment of the rule of law even respect to his only living son. you can really contrast that to the former president's denigration of the rule of law, anytime he's found guilty in a criminal case or found liable in a civil case, he says the system is rigged against him. i think that that, to me, is the really strong contrast between the two uses of the criminal

system, and i think it's speaking to me very loudly about the impact and the import of this case. >> what an interesting observation, andrew. i am just wondering, jeff, your thoughts on that. there really is a very clear contrast in so many ways to these two different people, to these two different candidates, and we're talking about donald trump and joe biden. there's also so much about the questioning of the american judicial system? >> i agree with andrew, but i also would extrapolate on that that merrick garland appointed a special counsel here to prosecute a case, and it's very rare this type of case gets prosecuted, and he basically stepped out of the way politically. in terms of the comparison, i mean, look at the circus that took place in new york with the

a.g.'s trial, alvin bragg's trial, and what was happening on the court steps and what was being said adversely against witnesses and jurors and in violation of a gag order. you had none of that here. justice was done in both cases to the extent that jurors take their role very seriously. both defendants were found guilty, but the manner in which it occurred was completely different. you have threats on the judge in new york. you have threats on his daughter. you have jurors who are concerned. you know, it's a completely different scenario. >> also with us now, is former senator claire mccaskill and chief political analyst, chuck

todd. i was just curious as to how you see the impact of this? >> yeah, you know, contrast is everywhere. i hope that those voters that will make a difference, particularly in the swing states, are paying attention to the contrast. you had donald trump giving a speech over the weekend that was bizarre, a rant about sharks and nonsense. then you had president biden at a cemetery in france celebrating those heroes that gave their lives to fight tyranny and support freedom of the world. now here's another contrast. as andrew pointed out, and others have pointed out, you have a president who doesn't interfere, doesn't pardon his friends, doesn't lambast the rule of law even though he had the power to stop this prosecution against his own son. i have to tell you, i understand

the heartbreak that joe biden and his entire family must be feeling. this is an addict who admitted his addiction in the most public ways and to go through what he went through over the last week, to have it so painfully brought out on the stand. once again, joe biden sat quietly and let the rule of law operate. of course, there will be no pardon here, which joe biden could do. he could pardon his son. it's a real contrast between these two men and how they view what many would argue, and i would certainly argue, is that the most important institution in our country, and that's that the law applies to everybody and it's fair and done by jurors from the community who weigh the evidence, the facts that aren't political, just facts. i want to make one other point. there's another irony about the prosecution, and that's the law

itself that he was prosecuted under. it's certainly true that people generally are not prosecuted under this statute unless it's in connection with other wrong doing, but it's also true that many other republicans, and one could argue that most trump supporters don't even think this law should exist. they do not believe anybody should have to sell the federal government anything when they buy a gun. they think it's none of the government's business who they are or what they are doing if they want to purchase the gun under the second amendment. there's that on top of that. i have noticed the republicans have not spent a lot of time on this trial over the last week. in fact, some republicans, including tray gowdy that works for fox news said this is a case that should not have been brought, and even lindsay graham said this is not a case that should have been brought, and i feel bad for the family, but the

facts are the facts and the evidence is the evidence and he was convicted as he should have been. >> and the politicalization that has been talked about, and what about the broader and more distant view of the political impact this may have going forward? >> i want to pull back even more here. there are not many countries in the world where the son or daughter of said country would get prosecuted in their judicial system. this is how different america is. i do think that this is a really good day for the american system, okay, that, you know what, it really does try to operate -- nobody says it's perfect. we have plenty of flawed individuals in the judicial branch and we learn more and more about them every day, some

days. and the system itself, the whole idea of it, today in that sense was a good day. think about this, he got convicted by a jury in delaware. okay? biden is the first -- they are arguably the most well-known family in the state of delaware, and perhaps responsible for so many things that delaware has from the government today. the location of this guilty verdict, i think, mattered. as somebody pointed out earlier, with the first lady of the united states, you know, that's putting certainly a -- perhaps some people would have thought that's trying to put a finger on the scale in a place like delaware and that didn't matter. we should step back and realize our system is different. there's a fairness to it where we do aspire that nobody is above the law. it's possible that there's a contrast here that the public may see how trump and his partisans handle the rule of law

versus biden and how his partisans handle the rule of law. this is one of those cases where i don't think it's brought if biden is not president of the united states. this is one of those things where if biden had chosen not to run in 2018, i doubt hunter biden's ever prosecuted for something like this. in some ways, we may look back on this and say he was held more accountable because of who he is, and not less accountable because of who he is. >> chuck, as we are listening, we are -- sorry to interrupt. we are watching the live pictures of hunter biden, i believe, with the first lady, and hunter biden's current wife, heading into this, you know, suv. >> uh-huh. >> i am just wondering, and maybe, you know, i don't know, misty, he's out. >> right. absolutely. so the question was, would the

judge remand him until sentencing. as predicted, that was not the case. under these circumstances, it would be unlikely. again, focusing on other cases that have similar types of charges. well, there aren't many. these charges alone are often not brought in isolation without something more. another point of focus. we're talking about the year 2018. it's now 2024. if you had somebody who had a criminal history in the interim, well, yes, being remanded would be a different story. in this case, this was the likely outcome. now, the judge likely read instructions and said you will have to return for the sentencing, and sentencing will be scheduled down the road. of course, it's a conditional release meaning the defendant is obligated to come back for the hearing. no surprise here that the judge chose not to remand hunter biden, meaning he was taken into custody and would be in jail in

the interim from this point to sentencing. this was the likely outcome that he would be released with those conditions that he return at the given time. >> chuck todd, sorry to have interrupted you on your thought there, but it's, no doubt, there's always the political prism to so many things, especially when we are in an election year. how do you see this playing out? >> look, i think some of this stuff is more priced in than not politically. i don't, you know -- i go back and who are the small slice of voters left, who are the persuadable voters left? are the concerns about the guardrail of our democracy, is that an argument to the voters left, and you can find polling to support either side of the argument. i will say this, i think oddly

enough, let's do this exercise. imagine if he were not guilty on all these charges. i don't know if that politically would have been good for biden, because it would have been arguments of bias, and it would have been it was a delaware jury and all of these things. in order to understand the current dynamics, i think you have to say to yourself, what would have been the response had the verdict been different? in this case it feels as if it's either neutral or a slight -- you would assume a slight net -- i hate to use the word positive here in this circumstance, but politically it would go to the benefit of biden versus the benefit of trump. >> i am just wondering, claire, you know, everything boils down to individuals, men, women and children that are affected in so many different ways and on so many different levels, but, claire, we are in an election

year, so do you think this will be something we will be hearing over and over again by some? >> i don't think the prosecution of hunter biden helps donald trump at all. there's not a family in america that hasn't been touched by addiction. there's not a family in america that doesn't know someone who has travelled this path and has struggled, and many have lost their loved ones. i think it's very obvious, and hunter biden made it obvious that he was an addict and made very poor choices while he was actively using. he's in recovery now, and i think most of america would support him in that. they have seen a father and a mother love him unconditionally, which is what we all strive for, right? particularly when somebody we love has a problem like hunter biden. i don't think it helps trump

that hunter biden has been convicted of this, and it helps joe biden because the rule of law applies to everybody in the country, without making stuff up, and attacking judges and court personnel, that contrast matters, especially to the voters who are not highly engaged. those are the voters who will make a decision, probably sometime in september, october, whether they will vote for joe biden again, change their mind this time, or maybe for the first time vote against donald trump. >> i also want to bring in nbc's mike memoli who was inside the courthouse. mike, what did you see? what did you learn? >> reporter: josé, the speed at which this verdict was delivered after the parties were informed that there was a verdict was so fast that some of hunter biden's closest friends and family did not have time to get into the courtroom to join him for the dramatic moment. i was on the ground floor myself

of the courthouse with his uncle and one of his closest friends when we saw some of our colleagues running out of the courthouse to deliver the news of the guilty verdict. i was upstairs when we saw the first lady, dr. jill biden, arrive long after the parties left the courtroom. that's how fast this happened. it speaks to how difficult this is, the first lady was wearing sunglasses, and his aunt, the president's sister, one of his closest confidants as well was also left outside the courtroom for the third itself. she walked past me as she came outside, and her face wearing the emotion of the moment. this is a family that has been through it all. this president began his political career in delaware with an upset victory at 29 years old, only several weeks

later to lose his first wife and infant daughter to a car accident, and then president biden going through his own medical struggles in the 1980s, and the family was embraced by this state, this small state, as chuck was describing it. especially in 2015, after the loss of beau biden, the president's oldest son, the sitting attorney general. now this family has to go through a different form of hardship at this time. the president and first lady have talked so often about the pride they have in hunter, seeing him go through this battle through drug addiction, which was exacerbated after his brother's death, but to have rebuilt his life, and now you see the first lady joining her son to leave here to return to their home a few miles from here to take stock of what this

means. the judge did not immediately, obviously, issue any sentencing. it's standard practice here for about 120 days between when the verdict is delivered and when the sentencing is underway. we should also note, josé, this is all part of what was supposed to be a plea agreement reached with the government that fell apart in the same courtroom with the same judge just last year, and now after being found guilty on these three counts, he faces additional counts related to tax evasion, and that will be an additional strain on the family going forward. >> i am being told here, and i am almost going to read it srur baiten, the oversight chairman from kentucky, his reactions hunter biden's sweetheart plea deal was smoked out after scrutiny by a federal judge,

going on and on about that this is a step towards accountability but until the department of justice department investigates all of the biden's peddling schemes, the department officials will continue to cover up for the big guy, joe biden. the role of the special prosecutors in the federal government, it's also an unusual one. >> well, it is, but i would say here where you are talking about a prosecution and first an investigation of the son of the sitting president, it seems like a particularly appropriate way to have a special counsel. in other words, you want to remove the sitting attorney general from sort of day-to-day oversight of that, because

obviously the sitting attorney general was appointed by joe biden. as much as joe biden and the attorney general are saying they are not going to pardon the son of the sitting president, they are not doing him any favors, that it's the appropriate for the appearance of justice that you have a special counsel. it doesn't mean the special counsel acts always appropriately, and it doesn't mean that this is a prosecution that is warranted. it doesn't mean that this is a prosecution that it will ultimately stand up on appeal. as claire said, and i want to underscore that, there's a challenge that conservative members of congress and conservative judges, including amy coney barrett just before she was on the supreme court have raised to these kinds of statutes as to whether they are

infringing on the second amendment right to bear arms. i personally don't agree with that, and that's neither here nor there. some believe the statute is one subject to attack, and you are sure to see that as an appellant challenge that hunter biden brings, and it will bring an interesting issue, because you will have conservative judges needing to do this, but in a circumstance where they might find the particular defendant asking for relief not one they are looking to help, but the principle should apply to everybody, whether it was hunter biden or if his name was hunter trump. if the law is constitutional, it's constitutional for everybody, and if it's unconstitutional, it's

unconstitutional for everybody. this is a day where the sitting president's son was held to account. there was extremely strong evidence and the trial was overseen by a judge that by all accounts was fair and held a very exspa dishious trial. it was not one that was put off, and you did not see the kinds of shenanigans of the former president, where one has seen the light of day and the other three are bogged down. here the trial of the son of the sitting president has gone forthwith no interference by the department of justice or any political official. back to claire's point, there's such a huge contrast in not just style, but in substance and in

the way in which people are viewing their responsibilities as citizens in dealing with the justice system and accepting the fate of that jury and a judge after them being afforded due process. that is, when you think of the big picture of how to think about what is going on, and how the rest of the world thinks about what is going on here, you have two fundamentally different views about our institutions and what it means to be a rule of law country. >> yeah. i would love to hear our msnbc legal correspondent, lisa ruben's thoughts on that. i am so glad you bring this up, because there are things that do have almost infinite weight, and one of the things is what you have been talking about. i am wondering, lisa, what is your reaction to this? >> i have a few, josé.

one of them is the evolving cultural meaning of the word addiction worked against hunter biden. what i mean by that, we now have an understanding by americans is addiction is something somebody wrestles with over the course of their life no matter how long they were in treatment or how long they were sober, and many will refer to themselves as an addict, even if the treatment, for example, ended 20 years ago, and i am thinking of a colleague that wrote a piece to that extent for msnbc.com the other day. and the way hunter biden filled out the shop might have worked against him, and the form asked

him that question, and he answered no, and the jury could have been thinking that that answer could not have been true even as hunter biden and abby lowell argued had not been using during the month of october of 2018, but he was a person that struggled with alcohol and drug addiction for years off and on. his own daughter testified about going to see him in los angeles while in treatment, and seeing him in brooklyn earlier that year when she was not sure whether or not he was using, and yet this is a jury that consisted of several people who admitted that members of their family or other people close to them struggled with addiction. i think our understanding of what it means to be addicted to drugs is something that could have perversely worked against hunter biden even if members of the jury were hugely sympathetic to him. the other thing that strikes me is, of course, this is the son of the sitting president who

when interviewed last week said he would not pardon his sole surviving son. i gasps when i heard that, because it contrasts so remarkably with former president trump who pardoned 112 people in his last year in office, many of who obtained those pardons by hiring close to people lobbying for him, and many of those are still in the political spears of influence, like roger stone or manafort or steve bannon who ha second and unrelated series of federal crimes. the contrast between joe biden saying that if his son were convicted, he would serve whatever sentence the judge saw

appropriate, and he would not be rescued by his father, as contrasted with donald trump who continues to rail against the department of justice as having played a hand in the prosecution of him when there's no evidence of that. in fact, the department of justice told jim jordan earlier this week that they searched their email communications and found no record of any communication between anyone in the leadership of the department and in the manhattan district attorney's office. trump continues to say that the law has been weaponized against him. there couldn't be a sharper contrast between these two men across a variety of areas, but certainly with respect to how they feel about the importance of the rule of law and what they are themselves willing to sacrifice in defense of that. >> jeff, the issue of presidential pardons has such a controversial history, not just with recent presidents, but

going way back in time. i'm wondering, jeff, how you see the steps going forward for appellate challenges for hunter biden. >> i agree with the argument that the second amendment will be raised. i would like to say something else as a defense counsel. sometimes, this could be harsh, and i don't flow how the rest of the panel feels about it, the conviction could benefit hunter biden. he will be drug tested in the future. he will probably be sent to rehab. it's almost like alcoholics who go to aa the rest of their lives. he will constantly be scrutinized. maybe that's good for him. because he may be clean now, but who knows when he is under pressure and so forth. sometimes a conviction may not be the worst thing in the world. i don't know how his parents feel about that. but as a defense counsel and having seen defendants -- there

is alcoholism and addiction in many families, includes donald trump's. this is a conviction, but it may not be the worst thing in the world. >> what do you see, jeff, as a defense attorney, his next steps being specifically on appellate issues? >> what would happen is there's a sentencing in 120 days. he has a right to note an appeal. he would note an appeal. it would go up to the circuit court. it would go up to the appellate court and could go up to supreme court, because the second amendment is a critical issue that's scrutinized by the courts. there's a lot of dispute over enforcing the second amendment. obviously, there's a lot of conservatives would do not like fact you have to fill out a gun form and answer questions when obtaining a firearm.

that would probably be the most critical issue that i can see being raised in the appeal. >> fascinaing to watch. i want to bring in sarah fitzgerald, who was inside the courtroom. take us there when the verdict was read. >> reporter: it was an incredibly dramatic scene, but also it was -- it all happened so quickly and in such -- without any fanfare. i was sitting in the courtroom as hunter biden walked into the courtroom, as soon as we -- after a period of time after we heard the verdict was coming. he went to the defense table, sat in his chair. he leaned forward on his elbows with his hands on the table or scribbled notes. the jury came in, they read the verdict. he sat looking directly at the jury. a very stoic face, eyes wide open. he heard the three answers, guilty, guilty, guilty.

he didn't appear to show any emotion. there was a slight nod. he kind of sat there, listened to the prosecutors and defense said they are no further issues. they discussed that sentencing would happen in about 120 days. then the jury exited the room. he turned to -- i thought it was interesting. he first turned to the younger associate on his legal team that had sat behind him throughout the trial. he hugged them and thanked them for their work. he then hugged his attorney and he hugged his other attorney on the other side. then he pursed his lips, walked out into the aisle of the courtroom, where he kissed his wife. he embraced some of the family supporters there. then he walked out hand in hand with melissa and the first -- out into the hallway. we saw him exit with his wife and the first lady behind him

with sunglasses. >> sarah fitzgerald, thank you so much for taking us inside that courtroom. i really appreciate it. thank you. i want to wrap up with your thoughts, claire and chuck. your thoughts as we wrap up this hour. >> well, there's a reason why jill biden had sunglasses on. she was probably crying. there's another contrast for you. we have two first ladies, a former and a current. people that they purport to love, members of their family, were accused of crimes that did involve moral failings. in one trial, the sitting first lady showed up for her show, her loved one. the other trial, melania was awol. she was not there to support donald trump in connection with his moral failings in terms of

his affair with a porn star just after she had given birth to their only child. i think that's another contrast that probably will sit with america in a way that will remind people the stark differences between the way these two men view the world and view their responsibilities as president. >> chuck, your thoughts? >> you know, to pick up on something claire was saying there, if biden lost something with the american people over the last few years, it's that reminder that he is sort of the opposite of trump on empathy. he is the opposite of trump on some of these things. i think this verdict, their reaction to it, versus how the trumps have reacted to the rule of law, certainly i think presents that character contrast. with a group of voters who are not -- those that are not happy

with their choices, i think to try to figure out who this politically benefits, i would think this. it hurts trump, hard stop. you don't know if these help biden. but it hurts trump because his rhetoric about a rigged system works against him when he look at the supposed advantages that the bidens had in this case. it was a person that was appointed by merrick garland as claire pointed out. joe bide. >> hannah: -- biden had the ability to stop this. this was a delaware jury who the bidens have won -- many a biden has won an election in the state. are registered voters. that still showed you the rule of law was able to stay above the political fray.

the most important thing is the american system. i challenge you to find me another country where the leader's son or daughter at the moment would be prosecuted like this the way it happened here. >> no, no, chuck, i have thought about that. there have been instances throughout the world -- brazil, where presidents or former presidents have been sent to prison. it's the almost unique nature of the trial by jury in the united states, not unique that there are trial by juries in other countries, uk, canada, but it's the unique aspect of who can have access to trial by jury. that's so unusual in so many ways. i'm thinking, misty, you deal with that every single day in your career. the importance of trial by jury.

>> the importance of trial by jury that a jury of your peers will make a determination. they will take the evidence that's in the courtroom, nothing outside of that, and apply the law. it's not left to a single individual to determine someone's fate. it's a jury of your peers. it's the system that ensures justice for all, no matter who you are. >> yeah. again, you can see that in other countries, but the level in which in this country one has the right to have a trial by jury is just so unique and it's so special. i want to thank claire and chuck and misty and our other guests, jeff, ken. so many of you that were with us this hour. i thank you for the privilege of your time. that wraps up this hour. ana cabrera picks up more coverage right now.