think, take a lot of the -- the naysayers, that will give them a chance to reconsider. >> gives them a stake in it. >> yeah. >> one of these days, this spot we're standing in will be relevant because of the offshore power. what is the elevator pitch for offshore electricity generation. >> that it will be cheap, power and these wind turbines will be miles and miles offshore so you don't want to see them. people don't want to think about energy. when they flip on the switch they want reliability and they want the lights to come on and not pay an arm and a leg for it and that is into the future, but we're not there yet. >> my thanks to secretary granholm for her time and allowing me to tag along on her tour. >> the arraignment of the parents of the high school shooter is expected to take

place within the hour. these parents were fugitives. they were found in detroit late last night. they are going to be brought to at least the first stage of justice. we will bring that to you live. another hour of "velshi" begins right now. good morning. it is saturday, december 4th. i'm ali velshi and a very, very busy morning it is including in michigan where overnight the parents of the alleged shooter at the oxford high school in michigan were taken into custody. they were, it appears, appearing to evade the law. they were found in detroit after a 911 call came in. they are in police custody. they will be appearing before a judge, we believe, within the next hour and we will have full coverage of that right here on msnbc. additionally, omicron is here as of this morning. at least ten states have detected omicron within their borders. this new strain of the coronavirus that the world health organization calls a variant of concern is spreading

quickly in southern africa. it's got the world on high alert. we'll tell you what you need to been it. meanwhile, new revelations regarding the january 6th insurrection. donald trump was reportedly on the phone with his aides on the morning of the capitol riot actively plotting to stop joe biden from becoming president. >> an hours long interview with a key figure, georgia secretary of state raffensperger. he will join me on the program. the erosion of abortion rights in america will not go unnoticed and the supreme court heard arguments on wednesday in the case of jobs v. jackson, women's health organization. many are sounding the alarm after a majority of supreme court justices signalled that they are willing to uphold the mississippi law at the center of this case which seeks to ban abortion after 15 weeks. that is far earlier than the

24-week standard that was set by roe v. wade which is roughly the point where a fetus can survive outside of the womb. opponents of abortion rights have spent the last five decades set the precedent set by roe v. wade and the supreme court's new justices appointed by the twice-impeached former president gives them the chance of doing just that. justice sonia sotomayor has taken notice of it, too. >> the newest ban that mississippi has put in place, the six-week ban, the senate sponsor said we're doing this because we have new justices on the supreme court. will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?

i -- i don't see how it is possible. >> now it will likely take months before the justices announce their decision. in the meantime, states are already preparing for a post-roe america. missouri republicans are already preparing to push new anti-abortion measures. states like washington, meanwhile, are bracing for an influx of patients after witnessing what happened when texas', and they're still overwhelming other states' clinics because of it. a brand new law in texas went into effect this week that further restricts women's access to medication abortion. if roe does get overturned more than other states ban abortion outright it could happen quickly because a number of states have something called trigger laws on the books that will allow them to outlaw abortion as soon as possible, but this is about much more than just abortion rights. in a brief filed by 154 economists and researchers in

support of mississippi's abortion providers, they wrote, quote, abortion legalization had large effects on women's education, labor force participation, occupation and earnings. this one choice can have far-reaching consequences for a woman that will affect her health, finances and her opportunities. abortion gives women the autonomy to decide and plan what's best for themselves and their future or as solicitor general elizabeth prelogar argued on wednesday, it's about women's liberty. >> if this court renounces the liberty interest recognized in roe and reaffirmed in casey, it would be an unprecedented contraction of individual rights and a stark departure from principles of stare decisis. the court has never revoked a right so fundamental to so many americans and so central for their ability to participate fully and equally in society. the court should not overrule the central component of women's

liberty. >> joining me now is nancy northrop, the president and ceo of the center of reproductive right which is is representing the mississippi abortion provider, many of you know it as the pink house that went before the supreme court earlier this week. good morning, nancy. thank you for being with us. i sort of want to ask you before i ask you important policy matters about abortion where your head is on all of this. what are you thinking? there are people sounding the alarm that this might be it for abortion rights over the last 50 years. >> as you summed up in your reporting it was tough questions from the conservative justices on the court which did indicate skepticism and perhaps the desire to overturn roe versus waited, and as the solicitor general said, that would be unprecedented in terms of taking away an individual liberty and one that one in four women in the united states does make a decision in her lifetime to end a pregnancy. the concern is high, but i would say that the points that justice

sotomayor as well as justice kagan and justice breyer said that the court's integrity is on the line. will the court survive this if they take a right unprecedented that is so important to women's liberty? the justices will be talking about that in their conference. even though the questions from some of the conservative justices were challenging in terms of what they thought about roe they will have to weigh what this means for the integrity of the court if they have a change of composition and a change of outcome. that's not the way the rule of law works. >> that's a serious conversation about the viability of the court and the court in this particular case is thinking about the viability of the fetus. the supreme court has signaled, as you said, in some questioning this week that it may uphold mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion. that's about nine weeks recallier than the broadly accepted 24-week ban on abortion. is there some middle ground that the court might be looking for

on this or is this binary? >> well, it was clear both from the solicitor general's argument and the argument by our lawyer in the courtroom as well as granted by the state of mississippi that you can't uphold mississippi's law without overturning roe versus wade. there will be no stopping ground. they'll say 15 weeks in mississippi now. mississippi passed a six-week ban and they'll be back in court and they've made their argumentsal read they the six-week ban should be upheld. as you pointed out, about half the states in the united states are poised to ban abortion entirely. so what has made the protecting the right clear was a very, very clear line that the court set in roe versus wade. we had 30 years ago planned parenthood versus casey. they reaffirmed the viability line and so if the court upholds the mississippi law it will be reversing roe, and it's going to mean that, you know, the

floodgates open for restrictions all over the country. >> nancy, good to see you. thank you for bringing us up to speed. nancy northrop is the ceo. she clerked for justice sonia sotomayor when she was a judge on the u.s. court of appeals on it is 2nd circuit. i want to start there, melissa. i want to start with the comments from justice sotomayor who has suggested something that many of us think, but we don't have the legal language or learning to express it that way and that is does -- what is the danger of the court appearing to do something political because there is this conservative majority and something conservatives have wanted done for a long time. what's the danger of the court being out of step on public opinion on the criminalization of abortion? >> ali, i think it's more just that the court is out of step with where the majority of

americans are. if we were to overrule roe versus wade this time when the question has come before the court before, years before, in fact, and we haven't, it would give the strong impression that the only reason this decision is different is because the court itself is different, and that would raise questions about what has made the court different? the court has been made different because we've a poipded new justices who are pretty clear in theira know ti pathy for a worgz rights. this isn't about law and rather about politics and more mritization of the proes and and the politicization of the court. i think when she made that remark about the stench and whether the court could survive the strefrn of being hopelessly mired politics, it was an overture to her colleague chief justice john roberts who perhaps more than anyone else is concerned about the court's institutional legitimacy because the court is unlike any other branch. it's not like congress. it's not like the president. it lacks the power of the purse.

it lacks the power of the sword. the only way the court can compel us to obey what it says is that we believe that what the court is doing is legitimate. >> you tweeted something that justice clarence thomas said earlier this week. you said justice thomas saying the quiet part out loud. substantive due process rights originate in the discredited lochner doctrine. what does that mean to us non-legal people? >> justice clarence thomas has been pretty stalwart and staunch on this. he said this ever since he joined the court in 1991. he does not believe that the 14th amendment provides a fundamental right to liberties that are not explicitly enumerated in constitutional text. among the liberties that we recognize that are not in constitutional text include the right to marry and the right to privacy which is both the right to access contraception and the

right to abortion, and so justice thomas has made very clear, he doesn't believe that any of those rights are constitutionally recognized because they are not tethered to the text of the constitution, so my point in that tweet was that this is about abortion, but justice thomas has been laying the seeds for his entire career that all of these thing, the right to marry, the right to interracial marriage, the right to same-sex marriage and the right to contraception. all of this is not in the constitution and that means it is not recognized as a fundamental right that should be protected so all of these things are imperiled if it fails. >> pros iffor melissa murray is a professor at nyu school of law and she was a former clerk for justice sonia sotomayor for the second circuit. we appreciate your time. we are awaiting the arraign chlt of the parents of the alleged michigan school shooter. they've been charged with involuntary manslaughter for giving access to the gun that killed four students.

we'll bring you that arraignment when it happens. a second time this week a trump ally is invoking the fifth. we have more questions than answers at the moment and an infectious disease expert will help us to bring new clarity to this new strain. you can always spot a first time gain flings user. ♪ nurse mariyam sabo knows a moment this pure... ...demands a lotion this pure. new gold bond pure moisture lotion. 24-hour hydration. no parabens, dyes, or fragrances. gold bond. champion your skin.

♪ limu emu... & doug ♪ ♪ superpowers from a spider bite? i could use some help showing the world how liberty mutual customizes their car insurance so they only pay for what they need. (gasps) ♪ did it work? only pay for what you need ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ spider-man no way home in theaters december 17th deon, hand it over. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ now how does that make you feel? like a part of me is missing. gabrielle? this old spice fiji hand and body lotion has me smoother than ever. that's what it does.

new vicks convenience pack. dayquil severe for you... and daily vicks super c for me. vicks super c is a daily supplement with vitamin c and b vitamins to help energize and replenish. dayquil severe is a max strength daytime, coughing, power through your day, medicine. new from vicks.

just a programming note, keep tuned to the channel. we're expecting to see the patients of the alleged michigan shooter at their arraignment very soon. we will bring that to you as it happens. remember, this is a wild case. while you were sleeping the parents of the alleged shooter were literally hunted down by police and found. they appeared to be running away from justice. they were supposed to be arraigned yesterday afternoon. their lawyer said they were going to turn themselves in and next, they were found in detroit not near where they live. so they'll be arraigned today as accomplices in the crimes that

their son is charged with, the murders that their son is charged with, but first, a few recalcitrant allies of the failed former president are refusing to cooperate with the house select committee's january 6th investigation and now the panel is calling their bluff. this week the committee is holding jeffrey clark, to in contempt of the congress for not complying with subpoena orders. despite that vote the committee is giving clark yet another chance to testify. he was suppose to do that today, but his deposition was postponed until december 16th, due to, quote, a medical condition according to the panel. clark's lawyer says when he does appear before the committee he intends to invoke -- >> if you say you haven't done anything wrong and on the other hand you want to assert the 5th

amendment in terms of self-prosecution it's saying that you have something to hide. so we're going to give him an opportunity to do it. a lot of other people have come before the committee. they have done what's right. they have talked to us and we thanked them for it. >> attorney john eastman, this man, another ally of the twice impeached ex president who tried to help him overturn the election results also pleaded the 5th. dr. eastman has a reasonable fear that any statements he makes pursuant to the subpoena will be used to mount a criminal investigation against him, end quote. despite holdouts like clark, eastman and bannon who didn't even show up for his testimony, they is interviewed 250 people and most have appeared voluntarily including the georgia secretary of state raffensperger. he spoke for four hours about the phone call he received from trump pressuring him to find

enough votes to overturn biden's victory in that state. i'm joined by the man himself, brad raffensperger, he's the secretary of state and author of "integrity counts." thank you for taking time to join us. >> good morning, ali. >> let's talk about the scope of your interview with the january 6th committee. how much can you tell us about the kind of conversation it was and why you asked and what you told them. >> i won't go into specifics and i still have a transcript and that will be released at some point, but obviously, my conversations with president trump are out there and people can read the transcript and they can come to their own conclusions. they asked us about the post-election results of november 2020, and i just responded that everything in my letter to congress on january 6th is still factually correct except in january 6th i did say there was two dead people and we found two more. so now we found four dead people

versus the 10,000 alleged by the trump surrogates. >> obviously, the public has only heard a little bit of testimony in front of that committee. most of it's been private. how do you characterize the questions and things that you were asked? did it seem to be a fair hearing? did it seem politicized to you? >> i thought it was a fair hearing. i had questions both from the democrat attorney's side and also the republican side, and generally the republican attorney was asking more of the questions -- the questioning of me, i thought they were fair, broad and we dug up, and i talked about the details surrounding 2020 all of the way up to today. >> i want to ask you detail about georgia. this the atlanta journal constitution" reported that, quote, election data showed 52% of all absentee application rejections was caused by voters

that it was too late for the voting rekwoirmentes left in march. few people vetted because of the deadline. 26% of thoed when submitted the ballot requests on to the deadline went on to cast builts on lksz day upon you were very clear of rebuffing donald trump's claims in voter fraud in georgia, but you do support restrictions that appeared to some to make it arter to vet. how did on you square that in? the previous law had this little deadline. ? i was never going to be a not chapper question. with 11 days and you can make your application and the county receives it, they can process it and you can send your ballot back in and that's about how many days it takes. it does go to the voter education, and it's the first time this has been put in effect

and so our office will be doing voter education. i know the county election directors will be doing that and both political parties to know that voters are aware of new deadlines and that ranges from 11 days, 10 days, nine days and more than the four days we had. we want to make sure that votes aren't disenfranchised and that's why they selected 11 days. >> you say that and i actually believe you and your behave wror and your aks have demonstrated that you believe that. do you think all republicans share that view that there are some voters that they don't want disenfranchised because a lot of these laws across the country look like they're looking to disenfranchise particular groups of voters, typically those who would vote for democrats. >> well, sb-202 that we just passed this last year has other good measures. that's a great way for voters to stay happy. no one likes long lines and we now moved to a component of a

photo i.d. for absentee ballots for confidence and texas has kopied us and we're following a model and it's a partisan and bipartisan way to do it with security and i want to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to vote with the appropriate boundaries of security so everyone knows that it has been a fair account and that's been important also. ? you point out in your book and the things you said that after the election that elections in georgia before the law was passed were fundamentally fair. >> with photo i.d. we've had in place for years and it's a way to identify voters. i did stand up the absentee ballot fund task force because we had a huge increase last year during the pandemic. now we're seeing that more voters are going back to voting in-person and we'll be back to our historical average probably 10%, versus 6%. it's never been easier to vote

in georgia and we want to make sure we have at appropriate guardrails and i'll stand up and fight to make sure it's republicans. >> you'll keep fighting, even if they're against you. >> i have, haven't i? >> brad raffensperger, secretary of state of georgia and author of "integrity counts." the parents of the alleged oxford high school shooter ethan crumbley. we'll bring you that when it starts. we're expecting that very soon. okay, we're not gonna ask for discounts on floor models, demos or displays. shopping malls can be a big trigger for young homeowners turning into their parents. you ever think about the storage operation a place like this must rely on? -no. they just sell candles, and they're making overhead?

you know what kind of fish those are? -no. -eh, don't be coy. [ laughs ] [ sniffs, clears throat ] koi fish. it can be overwhelming. think a second. have we seen this shirt before? progressive can't save you from becoming your parents. but we can save you money when you bundle home and auto with us. but you know what? i'm still gonna get it. ♪♪ this flag isn't backwards. it's facing this way because it's moving forward. ♪♪ just like the men and women who wear it on their uniforms and the country it represents. they're all only meant to move one direction which is why we fly it this way on the flanks of the all-new grand wagoneer. moving boldly and unstoppably forward. instantly clear everyday congestion with vicks sinex saline. for fast drug free relief vicks sinex. instantly clear everyday congestion. and try vicks sinex children's saline. safe and gentle relief for children's noses. (vo) t-mobile for business helps small business owners

prosper during their most important time of year. when you switch to t-mobile and bring your own device, we'll pay off your phone up to $1000. you can keep your phone. keep your number. and get your employees connected on the largest and fastest 5g network. plus, we give you $200 in facebook ads on us! so you can reach more customers, create more opportunities, and finish this year strong. visit your local t-mobile store today.

♪♪ ♪ in a matter of minutes we're expecting to see the parents of the alleged michigan school shooter at their arraignment, not their son's. the arraignment will be virtual. we'll bring that to you as it happens. meanwhile, nbc news is reporting another milestone of the coronavirus pandemic. as of this morning the united

states has now eclipsed 49 million total covid-19 cases resulting in more than 790,000 deaths. this grim marker comes ten days after we hit 48 million cases. also overnight we learned that several more states have now confirmed cases of the omicron covid variant, georgia, new jersey, utah are the latest to bring it to 11. louisiana has what it reveals is a probable case according to the state's department of health. there is still much we need to learn about this new variant, including whether it causes more severe illness and if vaccines and other drugs will be against it. joining me is dr. nahid bhadelia for approximately see and research. she's also an msnbc medical contributor. nahid, good to see you again. omicron is still new. confirmed cases popping up almost every hour, it seems like. the world health organization

has labelled it a variant of concern. what are you looking at because you have experience with these things. what are you looking at that makes you worried about it? >> yeah. i think first and foremost, ali, what we talked about last week and the mutations on this virus are concerning because we've seen them on prior variants that are more transmissible and there has been more immunization and this particular one has the mutations on one and whether they work together to make the virus more fit and more able to cause more damage or do they not? maybe it doesn't outcompete delta. over the last week there is a signal in the noise that you're seeing this increasing number of cases -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you. i thought we'd have more time to talk, but this arraignment is beginning right now, we will continue our conversation nahid bhadelia for emerging infectious diseases and policy research. i'm sorry for the introduction, but we are going to the arraignment. we are seeing images from the

courtroom right now. the parents charged in connection with this week's horrifying school shooting in michigan have been captured. what a remarkable thing to say. the parents have been captured after an hours-long search. james and jennifer crumbley are being arraigned right now in court. let's listen in. >> judge nicholson, that is everybody i had in the waiting room. >> i just want to make sure that the connection is good with everybody? i'm going to go ahead and call the name out and respond verbally if you can hear me okay. the first thing i'll start with defense council, muriel lehman and shannon smith in court. >> yes, your honor. >> good morning, judge. mark priest from the prosecutor's office, can you hear the court? >> i can. >> from pretrial services, can you-the court. >> jennifer crumbley, can you hear the court? >> yes, i can.

>> james crumbley is being set up there. james crumbley, can you hear and see the court? >> yes. >> okay. karen mcdonald, can you see and hear the court? >> good morning, judge. >> we're all set. i'm going go ahead and call these cases separately. i'm going to call starting with people versus jennifer crumbley docket 20100652. can i have appearance on the record starting with the prosecutor. >> karen mcdonald. >> i'm shannon smith on behalf of jennifer crumbley. >> good morning, your honor. mar el lehman on behalf of james crumbley. >> i do want to address one issue first, miss lehman and miss smith you are practicing in

the same firm, is that correct? >> your honor, that's correct. we have spoken to both of our clients about conflicts of interest. we have had in-depth conversations with them. mar el lehman and i are representing both of them. we are representing james and jennifer and the conflict of interest question or issue has been very much discussed and resolved and we believe at this time ethically and professionally, we can continue on in this fashion. >> okay. as you know, pursuant to mcr 6.005 subsection f1 you must state on the record the reasons that you believe joint representation in all probability will not cause a conflict of interest. so please state that for the record in accordance with the court rules. >> thank you, your honor. after reviewing the circumstances and facts of the case, and one of the things i need to make clear is that the

media has very much been saturated with cherry picked facts, but when we have talked to our clients in depth and learned all of the circumstances of the case which obviously are covered by attorney-client privilege, there is not a conflict of interest between what happened. without -- i cannot divulge to you the specific reasons, but there is not a conflict of interest between the parents, their defense and their defense strategy. >> prosecutor, any comments or statements you want to make relative to any potential conflicts of interest? >> your honor, i -- you know, i'm not sure that there's any facts that have been placed on the record that meets the standard. i'm not saying i object, but i'm not sure that we have satisfied the court rule, but if he has

something. >> i am required to inquire as to each defendant, as well. >> jennifer crumbley, do you have any objection to miss lehman and miss smith representing both you and mr. crumbley for this case recognizing that they come from the same firm and they will be representing both of you? >> i have no object, your honor. >> mr. crumbley, likewise for you, do you have any objection to both miss lehman and miss smith representing both you and miss crumbley as it relates to this particular case? >> no objection, your honor. >> do either of you have any questions or concerns about a potential conflict of interest, mr. crumbley? >> no. >> miss crumbley? >> no. >> okay. at this point the court is satisfied that the -- both of the defendants are comfortable

with both attorneys representing them in this case. the attorneys have indicated on the record that they do not believe that there is a conflict of interest that they have spoken with both defendants in depth relative to any potential conflict of interest and whether or not the representation may jeopardize the right of each defendant to have the undivided loyalty of their lawyers. therefore the court will allow them to appear for purposes of the arraignment today on behalf of both defendants. >> thank you, your honor. >> now in terms of the arraignment, jennifer crumbley, i will arraign you first so if you please make sure that you get close to that microphone so that we can hear you. if at any time you cannot hear or see me, please put your hand up. we will stop the proceedings and try to figure out what's going on. do you understand that you are charged with the felony counts, count one involuntary manslaughter which is punishable

by up to 15 years in prison and/or to a $7,500 fine and mandatory dna for the death of madisyn baldwin. do you understand that that is the charge for count one? >> mr. crumbley -- >> i understand. >> do you understand that you are charged in count two for the death of tate myre, involuntary manslaughter which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and/or to a $7,500 fine and mandatory drn? . >> i understand. >> do you understand that you are charged in count three for the death of hana st. juliana with involuntary manslaughter which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison have and/or $7,500 fine along with mandatory dna testing? >> i understand. >> do you understand that you are charged with count four for the death of justin schilling

with involuntary manslaughter punishable by up to 15 years in prison or up to $7,500 fine along with mandatory dna testing? >> i understand. >> do you understand that you do have the right to plead guilty or not guilty to all those counts? >> i understand. >> and do you understand that you do have a right to trial either by jury or by judge and you will have the opportunity to call witnesses on your behalf and are to remain silent and you are to presume innocent until proven guilty. >> are you on probation or parole for any other offense? [ inaudible ] >> ma'am, i'll ask the question again. are you on probation or parole for any other offense? >> no. >> and how are you pleading to count one?

>> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count two? >> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count three? >> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count four? >> not guilty. >> the court will enter the pleas of not guilty for you for all four counts. the court will set the probable cause conference which is going to be on december 14th. what time did we have that one? that is december 14th at 1:15 p.m. the preliminary examination is scheduled for december 22nd at 9:45 a.m. those will be in-person hearings. >> your honor, just as a note for a file, are you assigned for the purpose of exam or pre-exam

or is it a different judge within the court? >> it is me. >> okay. perfect. thank you. thank you. >> i'm going to address that in a minute. i'm going to go ahead and arraign mr. james crumbley first. >> thank you. >> james crumbley, can you see and hear the court okay? >> yes. >> and do you understand, sir, that you are charged in count one for the death of madisyn baldwin of involuntary manslaughter which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and/or to a $7,500 fine and mandatory dna testing? >> i understand. >> do you understand in count two you are charged with the death of tate myre for the involuntary manslaughter which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and/or $7,500 fine and dna testing. >> i understand. >> do you understand that you are charged in count three for death of hana st. juliana

punishable for up to 15 years in prison and/or a $7,500 fine. >> i understand. >> do you understand you area charged with the death of justin shilling punishable up to 15 years in prison and/or a $7,500 fine and mandatory dna testing? >> i understand. >> do you understand you have the right to plead guilty or not guilty to all of those charges? >> i understand. >> do you understand you have a right to a trial either by jury or by judge and at that trial you would have the opportunity to call the witnesses on your behalf, confront witnesses that have been called against you and/or to remain silent and that you will be proven guilt or not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, do you understand those trial rights? >> understand. >> are youa probation or parole for any other offense? >> no. >> how are you pleading to count one? >> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count two?

>> not guilty. >> how are you pleading to count three? >> not guilty. >> and how are you pleading to count four? >> not guilty. >> again, the court will accept the plea of not guilty for all four counts. your case will also be scheduled for a probable cause conference on december 14th at 1:15 and a preliminary examination on december 22nd at 9:45 a.m. at this point i will address -- first, i'd like to hear from pre-trial services. >> thank you, your honor, jeffrey from pre-trial services. she requested to speak with her attorney and no references were contacted and little background information is available. she is 43 years old and married and listed address with the jail is 112 east street in oxford, michigan. she does have a prior criminal history. she is not currently on probation or parole and just a

prior documented history of violence. the charges against the defendant are severe and those charges issued by the court along with the co-defendant failed to turn themselves into authority, while every defendant is afford the presumption of innocence and the purpose of bail is to ensure the safety of the community. they have agreed through their attorney to turn themselves in, and however, instead they fled. based on the defendant's attempts to flee, prosecution pre-trial services has concerns for appearance and the safety of the public. it is our recommend that they be released on recognizance of bail and not appropriate in this case for the appearance of public safety. if the defendant is released the following conditions are recommended. pretrial services supervision with gps tethered prior to release and allowed to leave for work if employed and medical appointments and return visited and not to have any contact with

witnesses, victims or return to oxford high school, not to possess a firearms and have to return firearms in that have not been confiscated. >> thank you. who is going to speak on behalf of the prosecutor's office? >> i am, your honor. >> go ahead. >> i am sure you've read pursuant to 6.106, bond should be set with the likelihood of conviction first. the likelihood of conviction is strong. your honor, we know from the facts that were presented at the swear to that the crumbleys, mr. crumbley purchased this weapon for his son, and that on the 27th, mrs. crumbley went to the shooting range with her son, posted on social media saying that it was a mother-son day, and that she was -- she bought a weapon for her -- a gun for her baby for christmas. it's also clear from the facts

that he had total access to this weapon and that it was for him. success, on the 29th, both defendants were aware that he was searching ammunition on his phone at school instead of reacting to that as a concerned parent and worried about safety, mrs. crumbley texted lol, i am not mad. just next time don't get caught. and then, obviously, on this very tragic day, on the 30th, they were called to the school and about their son's drawing which literally depicted threats and acts of violence and instead of disclosing to the school that he had full access to this weapon, they chose not to take their son home. they chose not to tell anybody that he might be dangerous when it was clear, and they had every likelihood that he was, and instead they left. furthermore, after the active

shooting announcement went out, mrs. crumbley texted her son "ethan, don't do it" and mr. crumbley went to his home purposely to search for this weapon because he was afraid his son had the weapon and was, in fact, shooting people and hurting them which as we know is exactly what happened. your honor, this is a very serious, horrible, terrible murder and shooting, and it has affected the entire community. these two individuals could have stopped it, and they had every reason to know that he was dangerous and they gave him a weapon, and they didn't secure it, and they allowed him free access to it. furthermore, your honor, the purpose of bond is to secure further court appearances and yesterday they were charged with these counts of man slaut --

involuntary manslaughter. your honor, the communication between mrs. smith and the prosecutor's office was a text message that was sent to me and was not replied to, and we don't have an obligation to cooperate and there are good reasons for that. i think the fact that the events that played out show the reasons for that. now mrs. smith clearly, her clients did not tell her the truth because her representation was they wanted to turn themselves in and that they were on their way to do that. however, they didn't turn themselves in and we were told they were out of town except that yesterday morning they withdrew $4,000 from an atm in rochester hills, very close to where they could have turned themselves in with no evidence and no efforts on behalf of law enforcement. instead, they fled and sought multiple attempts to hide their

location and were eventually tracked down after they parked their car somewhere, a witness saw it, and the entire fugitive apprehension team with multiple other law enforcement agencies went into a vacant building and searched it from top to bottom and these two individuals were found locked somewhere in a room hiding. these are not people that we can be assured will return to court on their own, and then lastly, pursuant to mcr 6.106 we also should consider or the court should consider whether or not they are members of the community to vouch. there are none here. in fact, there are none here because there's not one person in that community that will vouch for these two defendants. so i'm asking that you set a $500,000 bond for both defendants. >> let's -- i'd like to hear from the attorneys, and please address bond as it relates to

jennifer crumbley first, please. >> your honor, the first thing i need to do is to respond to the prosecution's comments about our contact with their office. on thursday night i texted karen mcdonald and told her my office was representing the office was representing the crumbley and i wanted to speak with her. she did text back and said we could talk first thing friday morning. first thing friday morning i texted ms. mcdonald. i group texted ms. mcdonald. i called her office, and i talked to her personal secretary, explained who i was, the circumstances, and that i needed to speak with ms. mcdonald. marielle laymen also called ms. mcdonald in the morning. we called the prosecutor's office throughout the day and never got a call back. we were going to make arrangements to have our clients turn themselves in. i was in a trial in circuit court in front of judge saven

all day yesterday. ms. laymen was traveling on a plane from florida to michigan. the prosecutor's office, instead of getting back to us in this any way, decided to have a press conference and as ms. mcdonald admitted, try to find a way to surprise our clients and catch them offguard, when it was so unnecessary. and last night and throughout the day we were in contact with our clients. they were scared, they were terrified, they were not at home, they were figuring out what to do, getting finances in order. and the last text messages we had with them and phone calls we had with them, our plan was to drive to the district court this morning because arraignments were supposed to start at 8:30 for any county arraignment. and we had plans to meet them at 7:30, to text the fugitive

apprehension team to get to the court by 8:30 so they could be arraigned first thing. those were plans we made and solidified and we did not announce it, because unlike the prosecution, we weren't attempting to make this a media -- a media spectacle. this case is absolutely the saddest, most tragic worst case imaginable. there is absolutely no doubt. but our clients were absolutely going to turn themselves in. it was just a matter of logistics. and all the prosecution had to do was communicate with me about it. and we tried multiple times. all right. that being said, with respect to ms. crumbley, she is 43 years old as pretrial services told you. she has been employed as the director of a large company -- director of marketing.

she is a -- she grew up in clarkston prior to living in oxford where they've owned their home since 2015. she lived in lake orup. she has never been in serious trouble with the law. she does have a drunk driving conviction back from when she was in college. any conviction on ms. crumbley's record is a misdemeanor and is old. ms. crumbley has retained my office and marielle, obviously. she would not have done that had she planned to not turn herself in and fight these charges. i'm quite certain they would not have paid my office money and taken those steps if they were not going to fight these charges. when it comes to the seriousness of the offense, when you listen to the prosecution's facts they're presenting, which are incomplete, very incomplete, it does sound like an absolutely

egregious wrong doing on the part of mr. and mrs. crumbley that they gave their child a gun and encouraged him to do this. that's not the case. and mrs. crumbley is presumed innocent. and i ask this court to note that full discovery has not been available and that the court is only aware of the facts the prosecution has presented. but that gun was actually locked. so when the prosecution is stating that this child had free access to a gun, that is just absolutely not true. and we need an opportunity to fight this case in court and not in the court of public opinion. we need the opportunity to have our client's constitutional rights to being presumed innocent protected. and this court is going to see, in the exam in particular, that there is far more going on than what this court has been made aware of. for that reason, your honor, i

would ask this court to send bond keeping all of that in mind. our clients would absolutely be avail themselves to a gps tetter. they would absolutely obey all the conditions listed by pre-trial services. this case does not warrant a $500,000 bond. i would ask this court, in light of the criminal history, the limited facts presented to order that the bond be set at $50,000, or $100,000 if this court believes it needs to be more. our clients are going to fight these charges. our clients are just as devastated as everyone else. bond has to come from a place of legal soundness, not emotional reaction. which has driven this entire case. and it is emotionally charged. it is emotionally the worst thing i have ever been involved

with and seen. there's no doubt it is the worst thing the crumbleys have ever been involved with and seen. and there is just so much going on here and we ask the court to set a reasonable bond. >> any additional comments as it relates to james crumbley? >> yes, your honor. james is 45 years old. he has a prior conviction from 2004, again similar to jennifer crumbley, any convictions that he has, we believe they were misdemeanors he doesn't have any substance abuse issues. he's diabetic, requires two types of insulin. he was gainfully employed. he's been in michigan since -- he and jennifer moved up here several, several years ago. as for the seriousness of the charges, as ms. smith has stated, the facts that have been presented by ms. mcdonald and her office have been cherry

picked to further her narrative of making an example of mr. and mrs. crumbley which she freely said she was doing yesterday in her press conference. i contacted ms. mcdonald's office to notify her of mine and ms. smith's availability. she chose not to call us back. i was also in communication with law enforcement, as was ms. smith. they knew we were planning to bring mr. and mrs. crumbley in, they knew we were in communication with them, contrary to what was in the media. they hired our office on thursday. we are prepared to defend this case. they are absolutely taking this case seriously. they are devastated by the events in the oxford incident. this is not something that's being taken lightly by them or us, your honor. i agree with ms. smith, $500,000 is not warranted in this case. the charges are very serious, but as the court is aware, they are allegations as ms. smith

stated both of our clients are innocent unless proven guilty. from what we know, your honor, the facts are not what they've been presented to the court and to the public. so i again echo what ms. smith indicated, our clients are more than happy to have a gps tether, be on pretrial services super vision. i'm requested a $50,000 bond. but mr. crumbley is not a flight risk. they were never fleeing prosecution. i want to make that very clear with the court. we had been in communication with the prosecutor's office and law enforcement and our clients they were not fleeing prosecution, contrary to the media reports. i'm asking that they have a $50,000 or $100,000 bond with gps tether and pretrial super

vision service. >> i agree with mrs. smith on one thing. the court hasn't heard all the facts neither has the public because i have a duty not to release those facts because she is correct, her client and mr. crumbley have an absolute -- we have a burden and these are merely allegations. so i agree. i just want to point out, nobody needs permission -- these defendants did not need my permission and they didn't need law enforcement permission to go to the court and turn themselves in, go to the police department, the sheriff's department and turn themselves in. i agree mrs. smith was perhaps in trial, she had a break from 11:45 to 2:45, and i can't imagine why they were surprised the whole country knew these charges were coming. lastly, to suggest that anyone is somehow using this incident to create press. there's a lot of attention here because four children were

murdered and seven others were injured. and that is on the mind of every single person in this country. so i would ask that you impose the $500,000 cash surety on each of the defendants, your honor. >> thank you. so in terms of the court is required to comply with mcr 1.016. the purpose of bond is to ensure that the defendants appear in court for all necessary court appearances as well as to take into consideration any risk to public safety. the charges are very, very serious, no question about that. there's -- the court does have some concern about the flight risk along with the public safety given the circumstances that occurred yesterday and the fact that the defendants did have to be apprehended in order to appear for purposes of arraignment. the court did indicated yesterday it would conduct an arraignment at 4:00 p.m. -- >> your honor if i may -- >> the