throes of that addiction. two, that ag garland gave him the space and the authority to pursue and prosecute this case and three, that the united states judicial system is fair. >> no one in this country is above the law. everyone must be accountable for their actions. even this defendant. however, hunter biden should be no more accountable than any other citizen convicted of this same conduct. the prosecution has been and will continue to be committed to this principle. >> while many have said that this is a sad day for the bidens who like so many american families have grappled with the consequences of addiction, it is still a good day for the united

states. that this conviction is a prime example of the way our judicial system is supposed to work. even president biden saying in a statement that he would respect the outcome of this case, repeating what he told abc news last week. >> will you accept the jury's outcome, their verdict, no matter what it is? >> yes. >> have you ruled out a pardon for your son? >> yes. >> you have. >> his words striking not because just he's speaking about a doj prosecution of his own son, but because of how those words so completely contrast with what his opponent, now a convicted felon himself, continues to say about the u.s. courts. >> i just went through a rigged trial in new york. >> it's a rigged system and it's a terrible system, actually, but it's a rigged system. >> rigged. the whole system is rigged.

>> this was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. it's a rigged trial. a disgrace. >> mother teresa could not beat these judges. these judges are rigged. the whole thing is rigged. >> weaponized the department of justice. >> joining us now, sarah fitzpatrick. i'll get to the striking difference between president biden and former president trump in a moment, but i want to go inside that courtroom because this trial was so personal and painful for the biden family. he was found guilty of wrong doing. a felony charge on possessing a gun when he should not have. lying on a federal form to obtain that gun when he was an addict, but still, the details in this case as you know are really ugly and they're really sad. bring us into the courtroom when this verdict was read. >> reporter: absolutely. i would say sad is how you can describe pretty much every day

of this trial and i think for those members of the biden family in particular and some of those friends and family to have to sit there, i would ask them every day, what was it like to sit there and listen to those details and they would say it was incredibly sad. the verdict, when the verdict came in, it was all very, very fast and very silent in the courtroom. hunter biden came in shortly after we learned that a verdict had been reached. he sat at the defense table. kind of with his hands on the table or writing some notes and he just looked squarely at the jury as he heard those words, guilty, guilty, guilty. his defense didn't have any additional items to discuss nor did the prosecution and then the court was dismissed. in those moments after, he hugged, first, which i thought was really interesting. he first hugged the young associates working on his case. that sat behind him the entire trial, and thanked them for

their hard work. hugged his attorney. hugged david polanski, one of the attorneys that worked with him. really, really kind of gone every step of the way every day for months and months and months. then he was with his family. i spoke with several people that are with hunter in the moments after he left the courtroom. he was in the defense room and in the elevator going down. and they expressed that despite how sad this trial was, that hunter was optimistic, encouraging those around him, expressing gratitude to everyone who had worked so hard on the case and had been there in court and had really emphasized that you know, as is a biden family tradition, they continue moving forward. and so i think you know although there was sadness in court today, there was also optimism and i think people holding their heads high as they walked out of the court and that's what we expect to see in the months going forward.

>> dr. jill biden was there for much of the trial but couldn't get back into the courtroom for the verdict. she got held up at security. there was too long of a line and the verdict came down so fast. what do you know about when she was finally able to get in to see her son, hunter? >> reporter: i was actually in the hallway and saw her walk in. sunglasses on, looking at the floor, go into the defense room. what, we don't know exactly what transpired but people close to the family said that in this kind of really intimate, human moment inside the defense room before they kind of exited the court, that the moment that hunter kind of came closest to his voice cracking was when he thanked his parents and thanked them for their love and support and how much that has meant to him. not only during this trial, but kind of through all of these tribulations. during his addiction and beyond. so i think, then i saw the first lady, she exited the defense

room behind hunter and his wife, melissa biden. she had her sunglasses on, she was looking at the floor, and there was this moment where hunter kind of touched her back and said mom, and made sure she was the first one into the elevator before those doors closed. so she was there every day in spirit. she was very stoic. she was look at the jury. she was looking at hunter. she was hugging him and hugging other supporters. you could tell this was something she was taking very seriously. there were times i would look at her and she just appeared very deep in thought. we know from our reporting she has viewed, she's very protective of hunter and viewed this as a really important moment for her in her relationship with her son. that she be there, sitting behind him throughout this trial. >> she's not his birth mother. she died when he was very young, a horrible car accident that killed her and their infant

sister and severely injured beau and hunter, but dr. biden has been their mom since they were kids. and has been there for hunter biden throughout his life and certainly there during this trial. sarah, thank you very much. joining us now is nbc news white house correspondent, ali. the president was at a gun safety event today and i think it was expected that he would make some remark regarding this verdict but he didn't say anything. can you bring us into the white house and why the president didn't say anything in public beyond the statement that he released right after this verdict? >> yeah, the president now en route to wilmington, delaware to be with his son and the rest of the family. as you mentioned, the president ironically speaking at this previously scheduled event about gun control, about gun safety. this annual conference for the organization, every town for gun safety. an issue very personally close

to the president's heart. and of course, this is coming just hours after that verdict that his son was found guilty on all three of those charges. and as you mentioned, we somewhat expected potentially that he would react to that verdict. the president though sticking to his script. he was welcomed by a very warm crowd with the exception of brief interruption of a protester, but he notably did not react to this verdict. this was a very fiery and passionate roughly 20-minute speech by the president, but he left the statement he released today as the only reaction we have from him and that read in part, quote, as i said last week, i'm the president but i'm also a dad. he says jill and i love our son and we are so proud of the man he is today. he goes on to say as i also said last week, i'll accept the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as hunter considers an

appeal, jill and i will always be there for hunter and the rest of our family with our love and support. and you heard sarah mention that love and support that was on full display since the beginning of this trial. the president had been kept up on the latest developments of the trial while he was overseas last week and this weekend. he was not in attendance at any of the hearings for this trial, but we did see the first lady remarkably shuttling between france and wilmington, delaware, several times to support her stepson. you heard sarah also mention the emotional toll of that visible. she was wiping away tears at opponents during this trial. appearing hand in hand with hunter and the first family has said really since the beginning of this that this is a family affair. not a political one. that however is not stopping some of those closest to the biden family from being concerned about how this could potentially impact the president personally. especially with so many critical events coming up.

you have him traveling to italy for the g7 summit this week. he's participating in several high profile fundraisers with former president obama and others in the coming week and then of course, you have the first general election presidential debate with former president trump at the end of the month. and the election just five months away. so not just this verdict, the fallout from it, but also that second case in california that's set to begin in september for hunter biden as he faces tax evasion charges. those are really raising concerns about whether this could be a distraction or a challenge to the president's mental fitness and his emotional state. moving forward. >> thank you very much. joining us now, the atlantic staff writer and msnbc political contributor, and msnbc news chief political analyst, chuck todd. i said we were going to talk about the politics of this. i think we should. president biden in his statement to david after the verdict today as ali just read, but the words

he gave david muir about what could come from the verdict. such a striking contrast from what president trump says about the criminal justice system. >> absolutely. that's the most important aspect of this event. imagine if we got a different verdict. what the conversation should be. what the reputation of the justice department would look like to many americans. i looked at this and i still think our system is still the most remarkable on earth. you know, i challenge you to find another system where when that leader is actually in office, their son or daughter gets convicted of a crime. it's just not, only in america. only the american rule of law. only that sort of thing. so i do think that this was a good day for the system. good day for sort of america as an example of how the rule of

law should work no matter where you are in the world. and politically, look, i think you look at it. it's more, it's definitely a negative for trump. the contrast the how trump has behaved, how trump has treated the rule of law. trump is a native new yorker. he had native new yorkers find him guilty. hunter, a native delaware. many, many similarities here. i do wonder if most of this is baked in with voters and i don't know how much these issues in particular are moving those last few voters that are still up for grabs. i think in this sense, perhaps this neutralizes it or certainly puts more of the onus on trump to explain himself versus president biden. >> chuck and mark, we just got jury number ten on the phone from this trial so i want to go to this juror. hold on if you can.

thank you so much for joining us. can you bring us inside of the deliberation room? what was it like? >> when we got the case last night, i'll tell you, last night when the judge read us with rules and we went into the deliberation room, that's when it, for me, it got real. not that i didn't take everything serious. i took the whole case serious, but real is not the word. it's more like a lot. there's a pounding in my heart now. this is getting too real. >> it's because you're deciding somebody's fate. it's a heavy thing to do. decide someone's fate. >> exactly. and you know, as they, defense

wanted to put it that hunter biden was, he's in our hands now. we hold his life in our hands. no, we did not put his life into our hands. what hunter biden did, we had to decide whether he did it or didn't do it. that was our job. when we have no -- we don't have anything to do with the sentencing part of it. so we had no idea whether he'll do time or what the judge is going to impose on him. >> but you did decide he did what the prosecution alleged, which is that he knowingly made a false statement on a federal form to buy a gun then possessed the that gun while he was a drug addict. was the jury in agreement on this from the get go?

>> on one second, no. last night, we got the case rather late. so what we did when we first went into the jury room, we took a vote. let's take a vote now, see where we stand. okay. it was a split decision. six to six. if that tells you how we were all doing in the case. it wasn't like, okay, so, take me for instance. i was one of the ones that said not guilty. i didn't do it because i didn't -- i didn't do it because i thought -- i just said not guilty because i wanted to go

over all the evidence. give mr. biden his, the time he needed or we needed to decide what was going to happen. whether he was guilty or not guilty. make sense to you? >> initially, you said not guilty because you wanted to make sure that you guys when you got to that guilty verdict, that you were buttoned up. that you had reviewed all the evidence and that it convinced you. >> correct. >> how much did the jury form the instructions from the judge help you get to this verdict? >> oh, it was, instructions were very clear and very precise and they gave us the evidence for

reference. although we all took notes and so today, as we deliberated today, it was, i kind of felt like we reached a verdict pretty quickly. i don't know how -- of the courtroom, what was going on. how people were anticipating things were going. if they thought it was when we came back, if they thought it was a short time or long period of time. >> hunter biden had this gun for 11 days. it wasn't associated with any crime. do you think the charges should have been brought at all? >> yes. because of the form he filled

out. when he chose to mark no, that he was not using crack, it said are you a known, lawful drug add or an addict. those are the big questions that he hit no and that's where he lied. >> yeah. >> because the evidence showed that he had lied. >> he did lie. and you found him guilty of lying. was there any sympathy for him? addiction was such a huge part of this case. the prosecutors said this wasn't only about addiction. this was about what happens, the choices he made under that addiction. the criminal choices that hunter biden made, but addiction was a big part of the case and so many american families deal with it. >> it was. >> was there any sympathy in the courtroom for that addiction?

>> if there was sympathy with the jury as far as being a drug addict, that didn't come into play. it wasn't discussed. what was discussed was basically the fact of he actually did lie on that form and that was a felony. >> dr. jill biden, the first lady, was in the courtroom for much of the trial. did you ever look over at her? did you think about who hunter biden was? who his dad was? >> i looked over, yes. i did see mrs. biden. jill biden in the courtroom. i saw hunter's wife and i did look over and see hunter. but yes, i was aware. but like i told some reporters

earlier, when you go in there and you see that, then you've got to separate it. you've got to start listening to all the evidence and you've got to focus. you don't focus on who's in the courtroom. you've got to focus on listening to the defense and the prosecution. making a rash decision. so, you had to pay a lot of attention. >> you're asked as a juror to put your preconceptions and politics at the door. certainly in cases like this one. just as the jury in new york was asked to put their politics at the door for former president trump's trial. were you able to do that? >> absolutely. yes. i told reporters today that when hunter was on trial, we said

five days. of his trial. and then we went into, we were given the case yesterday. and today. and the whole time, and i told other reporters this, there was only one time during the whole trial that i ever even thought of president joe biden. and that hunter was the sitting president. there was one time when they had mentioned naomi, his daughter, was taking his truck up to new york and he was meeting her. and he was using his father's cadillac is what they said. and when they said his father's

cadillac, that, went, oh, wow. president joe biden's cadillac that he is using. and so that was actually the first time that i actually, i knew who hunter biden was but that was the first time that it actually sunk in, hey, this is the sitting president's son. >> so you've just done something that is integral to the way this country works. you sat in a jury and rendered a verdict based on the evidence presented to you. president biden today, this is how we started our show, president biden today said he would accept the verdict and wouldn't pardon his son. it's in contrast to the way former president trump has been talking about the u.s. justice system period and the doj. do you have confidence after this experience that u.s. courts

are fair and that every man is treated equally under the law? >> sitting on this trial, the first trial that i sat on, i would say yes. the system does work. and i got to know the jurors. the judge actually came in after the verdict was read in court and he came in and thanked us all for doing such a great job and leaving our alliances outside. >> one more question for you if you'll give me that. do you think, i know you're not involved with sentencing, that's not your role. do you think he should go to jail for this?

>> i've talked to many a reporter, i'll say the same. i do not think jail is what's the right thing for hunter. i say that because, you know, i don't know his, i don't know what his state of mind is right now. i don't know if hunter, i don't know when the last time hunter had a relapse. so hunter needs anything, he's going to need more therapy and if not -- if he's sober, staying sober. and that should be his main focus. as far as what other punishment

should be given, i don't know. maybe house arrest. i don't know. however the judge decides. will be the decision. >> juror number ten, thank you very much for joining us and helping us understand what it was like bringing us inside that deliberation room. i really appreciate it. >> you're welcome. >> thank you. >> chuck and mark still with us. mark, i think it's amazing to hear him say that after this experience, he believes in our justice system. >> you listen to a juror. someone who doesn't sit around thinking about politics all day like many of us do. and you get a sense of the pretty straight ahead, pretty no nonsense approach that jurors ideally should take. and what i really liked about that discussion was that towards the end, you brought up the

contrast with, well, not the contrast, but the trial of president trump. that was going on until recently. and he could have sort of used that as a jumping off point to get into politics. we assume everyone wants to weigh in at some point, but he really didn't and it really did sort of help i think focus the camera on the very minute, very factual interest of what it's like to sit on a jury, which he just experienced. so i really appreciated that and you know, obviously he's leaving the rest of us to speculate on whatever political fallout he has from that. >> i was wondering, curious whether i should ask him if he was a republican or democrat, but that's beside the point. it doesn't matter what you are once you get into that jury room. it should only matter what the evidence is in front of you. >> i would say that it is, it should be beside the point, but donald trump in particular has made it not beside the point.

he has said over and over and over again and his supporters have said over and over and over again this is a politicalized justice department which is dub rouse and unfounded but that's sort of what he's made this discussion about. we got a reminder that's not what this was about. and again, when obviously it involves a politician or politician's family when you were choosing jurors, obviously the counsel is going to be mindful of what inclinations or what politics are for the individual jurors if it's available. but here, it seemed pretty cut and dry. again, pretty no nonsense. >> and delaware's a blue state by the way. i don't know what the politics of that particular juror is, but this is a blue state that prosecuted a democratic president's son. i want to put up on the screen, chuck, some of the reaction we've been getting from republicans, lawmakers in particular. i think the question was how

could you say the justice system, the doj, is out to politicize prosecutions, out to get donald trump and doing the bidding of president biden when president biden's son was convicted by the doj. you have these statements on the screen. you have house speaker mike johnson saying every case is different and clearly the evidence was overwhelming here. i don't think that's the case in the trump trial and the cases that have been brought against them. hunter biden is a separate instance. you have senator mike lee who says and yet dems will point to his conviction as there's no law fair. james comer's plea deal smoked out. goode of virginia, biden was convicted of a crime. donald trump was railroaded by a

political prosecutor and a biased judge and clyde of georgia, the guilty verdict is nothing more than an attempt to create the illusion of justice. don't fall for it. chuck? >> when you're deep into your rhetoric, you have to find ways to rationalize, find something. you want something to be true, it's proven to be not true, so you have to come up with an explanation. how do you think conspiracy theories were invented? people had to come up with a crazy explanation in order to try to convince somebody that don't believe their lying eyes. look, there's a lot of investment in this grievance strategy. it's been good for -- in some ways, it's their political identity. what is comer and lee's identity other than sort of living in this weird soup they've been ruminating and helping to create over the years.

so i, in some ways, it's sort of typical politics. i think the reality is it a lot of, you know, and this is your interview with the jurors a reminder of this. most americans don't view everything as a political, through a political prism. most americans don't, right, and i do think that too often, people in our political universe, those in the media, the elected side, project their own what they would do in that situation rather than staring at the facts and it's a good reminder that citizens here, the private citizens here what they think matter a whole heck of a lot more than what somebody tweets. >> it's also not just about politics. not just about getting elected. going after the justice system, violence can happen. and this is what ag merrick garland wrote about in "the washington post" today and warning against what we just saw there on the screen.

warning against going after the doj and politicizing the doj. he talks about a california man who was convicted of threatening to bomb an fbi field office and that california man wrote threats to the fbi that said i can go on a mass murder spree. in fact, it would be very explainable by your actions. and forgive me for reading for a moment, but i think this is important from garland. he says these threats, heinous threat of violence, come in the form of conspiracy theories crafted and spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the judicial process itself. those include false claims that a case brought by a local district attorney and resolved by a jury verdict in a state trial was somehow controlled by the justice department. they come in the form of dangerous falsehoods about the fbi's operations that increase the risks faced by our agents. they come from the form of efforts to bully our career public servants by publicly sings ling them out. in the form of false claims that

the department is politicizing its work to somehow influence the outcome of an election. such claims are often made by those who are themselves attempting to politicize the department's work to influence the outcome of an election. we will not be intimidated by these attacks. it's not just people who are making threats, chuck and mark. we can go back to 2020. to the rally i went to outside of in pennsylvania. western pennsylvania. where i asked a man what he would do if donald trump didn't win because donald trump kept saying the only way i could lose if it was rigged and the guy said he would take up arms and what happened? a bunch of people took up arms and went to the capitol. either one of you jump in. >> well, look, i don't -- i think merrick garland's words matter a lot here, but i believe garland made some decisions that put the justice department in

this precarious position. he could have avoided this had he not delayed the january 6th investigation into donald trump and those around him. we're in this moment where timing wise because of how slow the justice department was to focus its january 6th investigation and i mean with all of it. do we have special counsels if this started a year earlier. are we in this situation of sort of these local prosecutors deciding to fill the vacuum that was created by the justice department? so, i think merrick garland's words matter a lot and he needs to be speaking up and defending the rule of law, but i do struggle to detach his own decision making early on in the first 18 months of his tenure there, where there's a lot of ways that politics can influence a justice department. sometimes fearing politics can

sometimes influence a decision to delay, slow, or whatever. so, you know, i'm just, i'm just being honest. i struggle with separating his decision making from that op-ed. because one of the reasons we're in this position arguably are based on decisions he made. >> it's a valid concern and a valid criticism. mark, what do you think? >> i agree with chuck 100% but i think these are two separate things. i think if it was a year and a half earlier, this would have been a different situation. but i think what he was talking about recently and also as we saw it play out in wilmington is that jurors and people who participate at the front lines in the day-to-day of the justice system should not be doing their work in fear of angry mobs driven by politicians and conspiracy theorists who make their lives very, very difficult

after the fact. in that sense, this is actually a very one sided thing. and you know, it's one thing that's worth pointing out is this jury i just talked to didn't sound terribly nervous about offending anyone. i think that's what attorney general garland was focusing on the last few days. obviously i take the larger point about the decision. >> compare that to the jurors in donald trump's case as we haven't heard from any of them because they do fear the threats to their own life. there's been attempts to docs sent online. gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us and sticking around and listening to that interview with the juror. i thought it was really interesting. mark and chuck, appreciate it. we've got much more of our coverage ahead. let's talk about the legal consequences here and whether hunter biden will actually face jail time. also, what's happening with the second trial he's facing which begins in september? don't go anywhere. s facing which begins in september? don't go anywhere.

(♪♪) this is a hot flash. this is a hot flash. but this is a not flash. for moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms due to menopause... ...veozah is the first and only prescription treatment that directly blocks a source of hot flashes and night sweats. with 100% hormone-free veozah... ...you can have fewer hot flashes... ...and more not flashes. veozah reduces the number and severity of hot flashes day and night. don't use veozah if you have cirrhosis, severe kidney problems, kidney failure, or take cyp1a2 inhibitors. increased liver blood test values may occur. your doctor will check them before and during treatment. most common side effects include stomach pain, diarrhea, difficulty sleeping, and back pain. ask your doctor about hormone-free veozah... ...and enjoy more not flashes. you could save on veozah. visit saveonveozah.com to learn more.

the all new godaddy airo helps you get your business online in minutes with the power of ai... ...with a perfect name, a great logo, and a beautiful website. just start with a domain, a few clicks, and you're in business. make now the future at godaddy.com/airo (vo) you've had thyroid eye disease for a long time. and you've lived with the damage it caused. and you're in business. but even after all these years, restoration is still possible. learn how at tedhelp.com.

her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for.

it only took three hours of deliberation for the delaware jury to come back with its decision. guilty on three felony charges for lying to buy a gun then possessing that gun. today's conviction could be the first. in september, david weiss will argue biden should be found guilty again when he stands trial for tax evasion in california. joining us now, msnbc legal

correspondent, lisa rubin, former assistant district attorney with the manhattan district attorney's office, and msnbc legal analyst, catherine christian, and msnbc legal analyst, barbara mcquaid. ladies, great to have you. lisa, talk about the verdict. very quickly, it came down within three hours and there was no hesitation. >> there wasn't hesitation although i think you saw some sadness. the juror you were talking to on the phone, when you asked him if he thought hunter should do jail time, he was clear he didn't think he should and yet he felt very much that the conviction was just and the charges should have been brought. so my guess is that there was some coalesce by the jurors. they quickly came to an understanding that where it came to knowingly and starting the question about whether he was a user or addict falsely, he in fact did so and yet, these are tragic circumstances.

>> prosecutor david weiss called this a good day. said that everybody should be treated fairly under the law. that hunter biden should get no more special treatment and no less special treatment than anybody else would get. when i heard that, i thought to myself, is he going to announce he's not going to ask for jail time. do you expect him to ask for jail time? >> i would hope he wouldn't. i think on the facts of this case, jail time would not be appropriate for this particular defendant as the juror said. i hope he gets therapy. i hope he continues in his therapy. yes, he lied on the form. that's why it was a quick verdict. a very easy decision, meaning the facts were there. they applied the law. it doesn't mean it's not a sad verdict because it's a very sad verdict, but the rule of law was upheld as the special prosecutor said because hunter biden isn't below or above the law. >> what's the likelihood he's going to appeal this?

>> i think it seems likely and i say that only because he did go to trail as opposed to entering a guilty plea here. the evidence was strong. i suppose they had some glimmer of hope of convincing the jury that hunter biden did not himself believe he was an addict of using drugs at the time he bought the gun, but the fact he went to trial as opposed to entering a guilty plea because of the admission of guilty, showing of remorse, a reduced prison time. it seems they are banking on some appellate issues and i'm guessing those issues might include some of the cases percolating along related to gun legislation. there was a case a couple of years ago and i don't think we've heard the last of the bruin case where the court said we should look to the history and tradition of the second amendment in deciding whether statutes that prohibit people

from possessing guns are constitutional. there's no history or tradition of preventing people who are drug users from possessing guns. it may be they plan to challenge the statute on that basis. >> and bruin was a new york case which basically the supreme court said there's no right for the state of new york and city of new york to say that you can't carry a gun. >> yes. it was a licensing case and in new york, it was you had to show a good reason that you should have a license and they said a better way to look at that is show a reason why someone can't have a license. a presumption that someone should be able to possess a handgun. i think although that case is not squarely on point with this case, it has caused a lot of other challenges around the country because of the language used in that case. i believe it was authored by clarence thomas where he talked about the history and tradition of the second amendment. some of those laws are up for

grabs these days. >> every single word is scrutinized and used for a number of cases. in california, he is facing tax evasion charges. does he now try to do another plea deal for this one or is that definitely going to go to trial? >> i think laura jarrett had it right saying a responsible lawyer presents him with that opportunity and sees what kind of deal he can cut knowing his client has a guilty conviction here. on the other hand, given his willingness to go to trial on this one, one of the things that signals is he didn't want a conviction in the first place because that would influence the sentencing in the second even if he pleads out, the federal prosecutors can't guarantee his sentence on the tax charges. so he may appeal this conviction and still go to trial on the second because of the interplay between the two. >> what is at issue here? he's paid back the taxes. >> he's paid back the taxes and they did actually offer these

prosecutors misdemeanors last year. the problem is it's not very sympathetic when you don't pay your taxes. this is a very different case in california than this one. >> and if it goes to trial, he's likely not going to get the same sympathy he got for this other stuff. it's hard to separate the politics, but when i was talking to that jury, i asked him a political question of whether politics came into play in the jury room and he told me no. >> i would tend to believe politics didn't come into play in the jury room. i would hope the same was true of the trump case that we saw. that politics didn't come into play. to the extent politics could have come into play in delaware, where the president is a favorite son, you would have thought that would have weighed against the conviction here. particularly with the first lady sitting in the courtroom and yet it didn't because it was clear as day that hunter biden did knowingly apply for and possess

a firearm and did so while he was an admitted drug addict. >> so it's up in the air on whether donald trump can vote where he's a convicted felon. in florida where he resides, they don't allow it, but the rules may not apply. what happens with hunter biden? can he now vote? barbara? >> i don't know. it would depend on the law of the state of delaware. each state has its own rules about these things. sometimes, it prohibits someone from voting only during the time they were incarcerated. sometimes people can apply to have their civil rights restored upon their release from prison. i would say it would depend on delaware law on what happens at his sentencing. >> every state is different. lisa, you know the answer. >> i do. because hunter, as far as i know, is a resident of california where you don't lose your voting rights until you're serving a prison sentence.

the same is true in new york. florida honors that law. as it stands now, neither biden nor trump will lose their voting rights until they're serving time. >> so that could happen with the next hunter biden case. we're just not sure yet. but he might appeal. so the likelihood he isn't able to vote is slim. >> and the same is true for donald trump. >> catherine, the way that president biden has dealt with this conviction versus the way that donald trump dealt with his in the other cases he's facing. president biden told david muir he would absolutely accept the verdict, whatever it was, and he would not pardon his son regardless. and today, he said the same thing in a statement. meanwhile, you know donald trump comes out and calls the justice system completely unfair. he's pardoned a bunch of criminals himself. it's also very much up in the air whether he might try to pardon himself if he is

president again. what do you think of that contrast? >> well, it's night and day. what president biden said, can you imagine pardoning your on son? he has the ability to do that. but that he said he's fine with the verdict. i'm sure he's not happy. he trusts the system and it's, he's going to accept that. and so it is the contrast of two different men. >> can i add something? may 24th before the last week of the trial, there was a twitter post where someone posted a picture of the trump family and said the family that gave up everything to save america and eric trump responded and we will do it again. i was struck in do it again. here is joe biden who has lost a son who served honorably in the armed forces who has said i will sacrifice my surviving son's future, allow him to serve a prison term if that's what's

determined. it's very different about the family that gave up everything to save america. >> one final one to you, i would love to get you on what merrick garland wrote in the "washington post," that the doj is not going to be intimidated, that the pollicization of the doj is a bad idea, and it's only leading to threats against individual agents and those who work for the doj. >> yes, these false accusations of the weaponization of the department of justice that get hurled any time the department charges someone that is politically unpopular in certain circles has damage to the long-term viability of the department of justice and the public confidence in it. and one of the things that i think merrick garland writes in that piece that is profound is the short-term gain is not worth the long-term cost it is going to have on our society. you might think this is going to help your guy get elected in the fall, but the harm that you are going to do to our country will last forever.

>> barbara, catherine, lisa, thank you for joining us. after this break, we're going to go to the supreme court. what justice alito was secretly recorded saying in a moment. as. and when you can breathe better, what isn't better? this is better. this is better. that's better. and that. even this. dupixent is an add-on treatment for specific types of moderate-to-severe asthma. it works with your asthma medicine to help improve lung function. that's pretty good! dupixent is not for sudden breathing problems. it's proven to help prevent asthma attacks. it can reduce or even eliminate oral steroids. and doesn't that make things better? dupixent can cause allergic reactions that can be severe. tell your doctor right away if you have rash, chest pain, worsening shortness of breath, tingling or numbness in your limbs. tell your doctor about new or worsening joint aches and pain or a parasitic infection. don't change or stop asthma medicines including steroids,

without talking to your doctor. when you can get more out of your lungs, you can du more with less asthma. and isn't that better? ask your doctor about dupixent, the most prescribed biologic in asthma. while i am a paid actor, and this is not a real company, there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. upwork is half the cost of our old recruiter and they have top-tier talent and everything from pr to project management because this is how we work now. power e*trade's award-winning trading app makes trading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools, and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley

♪ [suspenseful music] trains. [whoosh] ♪ trains that sense what isn't on the schedule. ♪ trains that use the power of dell ai and intel. ♪ to see hundreds of miles of tracks. ♪ [vroom] [train horn] [buzz] clearing the way, [whoosh] so you arrive exactly where you belong. supreme court justice samuel alito was captured on a hidden microphone telling a woman posing as a christian conservative as a supreme court gala that he agrees the country

should be returned to a place of, quote, godliness. >> one side or the other is going to win. i don't know. i mean, there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully. but it's difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised. they really can't be compromised. so it's not like you're going to split the difference. >> and that's what i'm saying. it's just, i think that the solution really is, like, winning the moral argument. people in this country who believe in god have got to keep fighting for that to return our country to a place of godliness. >> i agree with you. >> justice alito was speaking with lauren windsor, a progressive activist who provided the recordings to

"rolling stone" and he did not know he was being recorded. windsor also spoke with justice alito's wife. >> you know what i want? i want a sacred heart of jesus flag, because i have to look across the lagoon at the pride flag for the next month. >> they're persecuting you, and you're like a convenient stand-in for anybody who is religious. >> look at me, i'm german, from germany. my heritage is german. you come after me, i'm going to give it back to you. >> justice alito was not responded to a request for a comment. joining us, senior writer mark joseph stern. what do you make of these recordings and what does it say about justice alito's ability to be impartial? >> well, frankly i'm not sure that the recording of justice alito tells us anything we didn't already know about him. in an extraordinary and controversial speech in rome in 2022, shortly after he overturned roe v. wade, he

explained that he essentially views the world, and especially the united states, as a battle between the godly forces of christianity and the sort of heathen forces of secularism. and he derided the, quote, new moral code that had come to allegedly suppress the freedom of christians in america. his comments made at this recent event on a hidden microphone track with that closely, and they suggest that justice alito really views himself as a warrior in this battle. he does not purport to be a neutral observer, he's not just commenting. he himself wants to actively fight to promote christianity, and in the speech that i mentioned, he said it's not enough for us to make people respect religious freedom. we need to make people religious. we need to convert as many people as possible, because that's the only way that we can really protect religion. and i think, again, his comments

just a few weeks ago, they're right along those lines that this is a man who wants to be at the front line of the culture war, and in his own opinions on the supreme court often is. >> lauren windsor also spoke with chief justice roberts. here is what she asked him and here is what he responded with. >> you tonight think there's, like, a role for the court in, like, guiding us toward a more moral path? >> no, i think the role for the court is deciding the cases. if i start -- would you want me to be in charge of guiding us toward a more moral path? that's for the people we elect. that's not for lawyers. >> that's a real difference. she also asked chief justice roberts if he believes this is a christian nation. he said no, he doesn't believe that, that there are jews and muslims among us and he wouldn't call this a christian nation. does that give you more

confidence in chief justice roberts? >> i guess it gives me the same confidence, more than i have in justice alito. i think roberts acquitted himself really well and inadvertently provided a terrific rebuttal to justice alito. he said we need to leave these big disputes over morality to the legislative branches, to the people in democracy. we ourselves should not be wading in and deciding what is moral and right and what isn't. that is a 180-degree difference from what justice alito pro pounds, which is for him, as an unelected jurist, to essentially decree what is right and moral and write it into the law through a power that no one ever voted to give him. this is one of the least democratic positions in any democracy in the western world, and yet also one of the most powerful. so i think it's really great that we have these two statements side by side. i don't often say nice things about the chief, but i think he's exactly right and i wish he would say that to alito's face

rather than cowering in the background. >> you don't know if he says that to alito's face because we don't know what the conversations are behind closed doors at the supreme court because so little is known about the deliberations of the supreme court. >> that's absolutely true, i don't know. maybe we can just say it seems highly unlikely given the way that alito has been acting that the chief has been calling him into the office and giving him a talking to. the chief knows how to do that. he's done it with the liberals sometimes when they get out of order during oral arguments. sometimes he'll shame them from the bench for being too aggressive. he has not been doing that with alito. if he is doing it, he needs to step it up. >> there's no evidence that alito can be reined in. i appreciate it. that's going to do it for me. "deadline white house" starts right now.