thank you so much for being with us. that's going to wrap up this hour. i'm chris jansing. jose diaz-balart pix up breaking news coverage right now. >> good morning, 10:00 a.m. eastern, 7:00 a.m. pacific. we begin with breaking news in ukraine. the white house is now calling it an invasion by russia in eastern ukraine. and the ukrainian government says now is the time for swift sanctions from the eu to deter further russian aggression. we'll bring you the latest from ukraine. meanwhile in washington, sources tell nbc news that president biden has interviewed potential supreme court candidates. this just one week before the president's self-imposed deadline of announcing his nominee for the bench. and one week out from his state of the union address. and any moment now, closing arguments are set to begin in the federal trial of the three former police officer charged with violating george floyd's civil rights, after a month of

testimony. we begin this morning with growing fallout from russia's decisions to recognize two breakaway regions of eastern ukraine as independent states and send russian troops into those areas. german chancellor olaf schultz announced today that his government would stop the certification process for the nordstream 2 pipeline that would carry natural gas between russia and germany. a short time ago, russia's prime minister responded in a tweet, saying that europeans will soon end up paying much more for natural gas. despite that, the u.s. welcomed germany's move. and the white house says the u.s. will announce further measures of its own later today, for what deputy national security adviser john finer is now calling an invasion. >> we think this is yes, the beginning of an invasion. russia's latest invasion into ukraine. and you are already seeing the beginning of our response, that

we have said will be swift and severe. >> all of this comes one day after russian president vladimir putin signed decrees recognizing two areas in eastern ukraine held by russian-backed separatists, as independent state. there you see them right there. russia now says that recognition also includes territories held by ukraine forces. putin also announced in a speech he was sending russian troops in for what he called a peace-keeping mission. those moves effectively killed agreements aimed at ending the conflict in eastern ukraine. earlier today, the russian parliament backed putin's actions. these unmarked military vehicles were spotted overnight near the capitol of one of those regions. putin's moves also prompted a tense emergency meeting of the united states security council in which u.s. ambassador linda thomas greenfield called on the international community to get tough on russia. >> in this moment, no one can

stand on the sidelines. we must make it clear that an attack on ukraine is an attack on the sovereignty of every u.n. member state and the u.n. charter, and that it will be met with swift and severe chemical weapons -- consequences. >> the ukraine people said, we are not afraid of anything and anyone. and anthony blinken will meet with him today to talk about tougher sanctions. joining me now is richard engel in mariupol, ukraine, and kelly o'donnell joining us from frankfort, germany. retired lieutenant general ben honestly, now persian chair at the center for european policy analysis. richard, let me start with you. so russia is calling it a peacekeeping mission. they're recognizing these areas in ukraine. what is it that is being -- what

is this being called in ukraine? >> reporter: it is absolutely being called an invasion. and it is being called yet another invasion, in 2014, russian forces took over crimea, annexed crimea, made it part of russia. they also supported separatists who had been fighting an eight-year war. and then, now, just overnight, with that speech by vladimir putin and an issuing of formal decrees, russia is now recognizing the autonomy of those two areas. but i think it's important to go back to that map you just pulled up. and if one of your producers can pull up that map for a second. i think it is central to all of this. okay, right now, the pink area, those are the areas that the russians control. they are the areas that the separatists have had for about eight years. that pink zone is surrounded by trenches, so there is a fixed front line there. the brown area is the greater

donetsk and luhansk areas, the provinces. that includes the city of mariupol, where i am right now. russians do not control that area. russian separatists do not control those provinces. they are controlled by the ukrainian military and the ukrainian government. and right now russia is being somewhat vague about its recognition. will it -- is it recognizing sovereignty of over just the area that the separatists currently control, the pink areas, or also the brown areas, which are considerably larger and extend deep into ukrainian territory. and just recognizing those pink areas, the areas that are already in russian hands, frankly doesn't change much of the calculation, because ukrainian troops don't go into those areas. it's very difficult to move back and forth over the trench border. but if russia were to move here, where there are large numbers of ukrainian forces and try to take

this territory, then we're talking about conventional battles and we're talking about a traditional picture of an invasion of the country. and when he was pressed on this point this morning, putin chief spokesman, dmitry peskov, seemed vague. and he was asked many times, which boundaries are we talking about? and he said, well, they will be recognized in the boundaries in which they exist. and it's not sure if he meant, exist on paper or exist in practice. and when he was asked what about the city of mariupol, what about these areas, or these areas, he wouldn't clarify them. a lot of people are wondering if this is the early phase of an operation and will russia try to push beyond the areas it controls? >> and so, richard, going back to that map and i'm really glad that you give us the bigger, broader picture. so the pink areas and then the brown areas, but what -- there's a little yellow line there, richard. and it's the boundary between

russia and ukraine. and before 2014, there was no little pink area. it's important to say that that little yellow line is still a boundary line between russia and ukraine, regardless of what colors and separatist-held territory the russians want to talk about. these are two different countries. >> reporter: they are two different countries, and now they are potentially three different countries, if you listen to the russian interpretation. so crimea in the south, hanging into the black sea, has been annexed to russia. so as far as russia is concerned, that territory, also depicted on this map as brown, should be the same color as russia. ukraine considers that disputed territory and says that it is part of ukraine that is being temporarily occupied. the other areas are formally, according to most countries, not

recognized as autonomous in any way. they are considered occupied by russian-backed separatists and it was only russia and several russian allies that overnight decided to recognize those areas. but like i said, the danger here is we don't know exactly what russia has completely recognized. is it recognizing just the land that the separatists hold, the pink areas we were just talking about, home to about 2 million people, maybe 30,000 separatist fighters, several thousand russian troops already there previously, or the larger areas which are often collectively referred to as the donbas. you may have heard that term thrown around. that is the collective name for all of these areas, brown and pink. >> kelly, meanwhile, what do we know about what the white house is expected to announce later today, when it comes to further actions towards russia? >> reporter: well, we expect

there will be additional sanctions that will be described by the administration and part of what we're seeing is sort of an evolution in the biden response to what putin has done here. and so in the first hours, we saw sanctions aimed at those territories that putin has claimed, that are ukrainian territories, that he now wants as russian, and putting economic sanctions directed right in that area. so that people cannot do business and trade with those areas. so that's a first step. and then expect something broader. the u.s. also very supportive of the german move to stop the energy pipeline, nord stream 2. that is something that the u.s. has wanted to see happen and is supporting germany's decision to halt that pipeline. and so we expect some greater peace of the sanctions puzzle to come to fruition today. part of what we're seeing from the u.s. is measured response,

as we expect this is now a protracted kind of move from putin, not to sort of instantaneous invasion that people might have thought of, in terms of what happened with iraq, for example, in 2003, when there was the shock and awe campaign, and it was undeniable when war began. this appears to be a different phased-in approach, where vladimir putin has taken these initial steps and the u.s. wants to measure its response to that, and then still have more tools in the tool kit to respond going along. the u.s. has evolved a bit in the last 12 hours, over how they are defining this. they are officially referring to this as invasion. in the first hours, there were some questions among some senior officials about since russia had troops within this contested area that was, you know, territorial, sovereign ukraine, but an area that russia had placed troops in before, was that a substantial difference? now, no question any longer.

they're saying, this is an invasion, from official white house channels. so that has ramped things up. today, we expect that there will be some official new set of sanctions. what we don't yet know is what form that will take. will he hear from the president on that? we don't have anything on his public schedule yet to indicate that. will this be in the form of a paper statement or some additional thing? that's what we'll be looking for. obviously, the u.s. and all of the different departments and agencies involved in monitoring this are watching very close developments on the ground, so they can react, and deal with our allies and partners in realtime, as well. jose? >> yeah, it would seem that the surprise would be, if anyone was surprised by what happened, right? putin has been announcing this with details, filming his national city council, talking about this. clearly, this isn't czechoslovakia, 1968, where the tanks rolled in to the surprise of many people.

but what do you see happening there >> i have to say that kelly and richard both have done a terrific job of framing the situation and richard's use of the map to kind of remind us of russia, refusing to allow the oec special monitoring mission to do its job for almost eight years. these brave women and men from different countries were out there, risking their live, to try to monitor what was going on. but they were alls pushed away, threatened, their drones were often knocked down, but that was a good reminder to us of that we're doing well. and kelly is exactly right that this is now next phase of a long, drawn-out attempt, a plan by the kremlin to strangle ukraine by choking its economy, like a boa constrictor wrapped around the country of ukraine, using land forces, sea forces,

the constant threat and pressure of attack, but the long-term goal is always the collapse of the ukrainian government, by collapsing the economy. and this way they can do it and keep us wondering, is this an invasion, should we do sanctions? thankfully, germany and the uk took big steps today, and i was pretty sure the kremlin did not believe they would do it. and this is all a result of american diplomatic leadership. >> general, nord stream 2 wasn't even open yet, so there is no immediate effect on it, other than in the future, they will not be getting natural gas from russia. do you think that europe, the united states needs to do something more in the next hours, maybe days, just on this first step that putin has taken? because he's looking at how the world reacts to this one chess move. >> so i would disagree with you, jose, in that this doesn't really do anything. i know you mean in terms of stopping or disrupting gas flow.

you're right about that. but this is an earthquake. this is an earthquake. i mean, all of us, think about all of the commentary about with germany stop nord stream 2, will they do that? so huge political courage by chancellor schultz to go ahead and do it. and i think this is significant. and predictably, the kremlin has come back and said, okay, well, get ready, because the price of gas is going up, although, i thought for sure that he said this was not going to be a weaponization of gas a few months ago. we definitely have to keep this going. the kremlin, the practice is that they will stop and wait until we lose interest, like they did after the invasion in 2014. they wait until we lose interest and they keep going. the key will be, will they pull anybody out? and i certainly don't see any indication of that? >> and richard engel, what are you looking at in the next couple of hours, days? where is your focus going to be?

>> well, obviously, we're watching the number of troops that are around this country. there are still 190,000 troops around the country's borders. that is the most combat power that has been put on ukraine, it's been mobilized for many decades in europe. if russia starts pulling those troops back, i think that would be a sign, so far, there's no indication that they are pulling them back. so watching the troops on the border and watching for flare-ups on what is now the border between going back to the map, between pink and brown, on that trench border between ukrainian-held territory and the separatist-held area. because if violence flares there and you see ukrainian troops and the separatists who have now been officially recognized by moscow as an independent entity, and with moscow now saying that its troops there are peacekeepers, if we suddenly saw

a tremendous amount of fighting in there, russia could say, well, now ukraine has crossed some sort of rubicon and russia has no choice but to act. so i would say those are the two things that i'm watching. the internal flashpoint border and the wider military buildup. >> richard engel, kelly o'donnell, and lieutenant general ben hodges, thank you very much for being with me this morning. and from ukraine is a ukrainian journalist and researcher, a non-resident fellow at the center for european policy analysis. olga, thank you so much for being with me this morning. after putin's speech yesterday, you tweeted this. quote, if you want to know how ukrainians react to putin's speech, here's a glimpse. moms on facebook discussed putting stickers on their children's clothes when they go to school, indicating their blood type. tell us more about what ukrainians take away from putin's speech and what has happened since? >> well, this speech makes people very angry.

the main reaction is not one of fear, but of anger and also of determination. yet, i saw this debate on mom's groups and social media that the schools were actually issuing orders to the parents to put -- to prepare the stickers and the cards where they indicate the contacts of closest relatives and also the blood type, in case there's a bombardment of school, so the personnel is prepared to provide first aid. so this kind of gives you an idea of the situation and of the emotional situation in which the ukrainians have been living for months already. and while the speech, the putin speech yesterday, it wasn't actually something very surprising, because he'd basically repeated the talking points he made in his essay last year, in which he also wrote an -- that ukraine is an artificial state, basically denying ukraine's right to exist as a sovereign and independent state. and for many ukrainians, this is

not surprising. unfortunately, this rhetoric full of hatred and full of despial of ukrainians was coming out of the kremlin and of the kremlin propaganda since russia attacked in 2014. but what it makes, how it makes people feel. it doesn't make people feel frightened or fearful. on the contrary, it makes them more determined, more resilient, more united, as one friend of mine joked today, you know, the more putin tries to convince the world that ukraine and ukrainians don't exist, the more he creates more and more ukrainians. >> olga, the world for centuries has decided what ukraine is or what ukraine should not be, right? the hungarians decided that ukraine wasn't a country. the czars didn't think it was a country. certainly, putin doesn't think it's a country. but there is such a deep, rich

history, culture, and a determination for ukrainians to continue to thrive and to exist. >> yes. well, actually, kyiv, it was founded, you know, in the ninth century, so ukraine has a long history. and several centuries before moscow was established. so the fact that ukraine was denied its statehood doesn't deny the fact that the ukrainian nation and the ukrainian political nation has existed for a long time. and ukraine has been struggling for its independence for a long time, just in the 20th century, there were five attempts to proclaim ukraine's independence and four of those attempts were unsuccessful. and ended in thousands and millions of killed ukrainians. ukrainians were repressed in the soviet times, with artificial famine created by stalin during repressions against ukraine,

when ukraine artists and writers and poets were sent to gulags. the year when i was born in the mid-80s, a ukrainian died in a soviet gulag. so the repressive system, it existed until very recently and what putin does now, he kind of tries to recreate it. he succeeded in a certain degree. he included in belarus, with the help of his crony, lukashenko. and he's been trying also to impose this system to recreate it in ukraine, to recreate the rule, by former president kovich, who was kept in 2014. and when this attempt of controlling ukraine with soft power failed, putin used the military power and attacked ukraine and he's continuing to wage the war in ukraine with the

goal of bringing it back into russia's sphere of influence. but ukrainians have shown incredible, remarkable resilience and determination to oppose his plans and to fight for their country to remain free and independent and democratic, in the stark contrast to neighboring russia and belarus. >> olga, thank you very much for being with me, for your strength and for your voice. and let's keep in touch. thank you. >> thank you. coming up, as president joe biden grapples with the ukraine crisis, the clock is ticking on his search for a new supreme court nominee. and a verdict in the federal hate crimes trial of the three men convicted of killing ahmaud arbery. we'll go to the courthouse as soon as we get it. arbery we'll go to the courthouse as we'll go to the courthouse as soon as we get it.ne sec. doug blows a whistle. [a vulture squawks.] oh boy. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty♪

trelegy for copd. ♪ birds flyin' high ♪ ♪ you know how i feel ♪ (coughing) ♪ breeze driftin' on by ♪ ♪ you know how i feel ♪ copd may have gotten you here, but you decide what's next. start a new day with trelegy. ♪ ...feelin' good ♪ no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy. and save at trelegy.com.

men put their skin through a lot. day-in, day-out that's why dove men body wash has skin-strengthening nutrients and moisturizers that help rebuild your skin. dove men+care. smoother, healthier skin with every shower. how not to be a hero: because that's the last thing they need you to be. you don't have to save the day. you just have to navigate the world so that a foster child isn't doing it solo.

you just have to stand up for a kid who isn't fluent in bureaucracy, or maybe not in their own emotions. so show up, however you can, for the foster kids who need it most— at helpfosterchildren.com

24 past the hour. we are one week away from president biden's self-imposed deadline to announce his choice to replace justice stephen breyer on the supreme court. the president is also set to deliver the state of union address one week from tonight. sources tell nbc news that president biden has already interviewed candidates in recent days. all of this as washington and the world continues to monitor the latest out of ukraine and russia. joining me now, jake sherman, founder of punch bowl news and an nbc news political contributor and ashley parker, an nbc news political analyst.

talk about how washington is gearing up for the supreme court confirmation process. >> well, both sides in the senate are deep in research -- all three of the main candidates, i think you're seeing from senate republicans that there's not going to be a massive fight. they don't -- they know that they don't really have much in the way of options to block this supreme court nominee. and it's not going to fundamentally change the shape of the supreme court. that doesn't mean it's not going to be messy, it's not going to be tense at times, but i have to imagine that based on my reporting, that senate republicans are going to take it relatively easy. now, senate democrats have said, dick durbin, the senate judiciary chair has said that they'll try to move this within 40 days of it being announced. and as you noted, we are within that kind of red zone that they need to get this nominee announced in the next couple of days. and i would say this. from a practical and political point of view, announcing this so close to the state of the

union actually applies to biden's strengths. if he announces this at the end of the week or even over the weekend, he could have the state of the union as his first unbridled, uninterrupted opportunity to sell who this candidate is to the american people. less so to the senate, because we have to imagine that a lot of senators will need a personal touch when it comes to the supreme court, but i think it's probably a good opportunity for the president to introduce that candidate to the american people. >> and jake, there is the possibility, it may be slim or not, but there is a possibility that the candidate could receive some republican support. >> yeah, i think this candidate, whoever it is, we don't know who it is yet, we don't know their history and their story, although we know the main outlines of all of the histories and stories of all three candidates. but i would have to imagine that thereby republican support. i mean, susan collins, we have to keep in mind, republican of maine, has voted for every supreme court candidate besides amy coney barrett back in the trump administration. no matter who's in the white

house, she tends to vote for that supreme court nominee. we have to imagine at least that will continue, and then there's a handful of other names who might or might not consider the supreme court nominee. and partially, i would say, because of the historic nature of having the first black woman on the supreme court. >> and ashley, one week from tonight, the president will, indeed, be delivering his state of the union address. have we heard anything about how the president plans to address the major issues. the backdrop that he is going to be speaking next week with not only with russia, ukraine, but the situation here at home, how's the president focusing on that? >> well, to set the backdrop a little bit, there has been a lot of frustration with democrats in general about the white house's inability to message things, and make the decisions on messaging, especially that even democrats think are strategically unsound. but in a certain way, a lot of

these democrats that i have talked to are thrilled with the timing of the state of the union. and it's worth noting this was less a biden administration decision or something forced on them, as a result of covid and covid restrictions. but there is a real sense that having the state of the union a bit later, a bit later in the year, when voters are paying more attention, closer to this window, administration officials and allies say is really the critical time for how voters feel. and it's less even about the facts on the ground, but it's more about how voters feel about the facts on the ground, in kind of late spring, early summer, is going to be critical for the midterms. so this is a key moment for biden to tell a very positive story, on everything from, obviously, his supreme court nominee to where he thinks the company is headed, in terms of inflation, in terms of the infrastructure package he got passed, in terms of coming out of covid. and of course, it is hard to imagine now, that this thing,

not by his choice, but in the background of everything with russia and ukraine, will not be on the menu for that address to the nation. >> jake, have there been discussions in recent days about a bipartisan deal on the new sanctions? remember, we were talking just last week, two weeks ago, about the mother of all sanctions. where are those negotiations now? >> the senate left town last week, with a strongly worded statement and very little more. but in the last 24 or so who, we've seen a huge uptick in rhetoric from senate democrats, robert menendez, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, that sanctions need to come and need to come strong, hard, and now. the biden administration, to be clear, does have pretty significant sanction authority, that it could use without congress. but i have to imagine, i mean, i would bet a lot of money that when congress comes back into session, there's going to be renewed talk of a large-scale sanctions package, to give the administration at least some

more tools, if, and hopefully not when, but if russia moves farther into ukraine and moves towards the capitol of kyiv. so i have to, you know, there was a big dustup over the kind of the idea of pre-invasion sanctions and post-invasion sanctions. republicans wanted pre, the biden administration did not and wanted post-invasion sanctions. we're post-invasion now. soy really do have to imagine that the senate is going to come back with that in mind, and with the determination to get some sort of package through. >> jake sherman and ashley parker, thank you so much for being with me this morning. the jury in the federal hate crime trial of three white men convicted in the death of ahmaud arbery has come to a verdict. we are waiting for words on exactly what that verdict is. it's going to be read shortly. i want to bring in paul butler and georgetown school of law professor, former federal prosecutor, and nbc news legal analyst. it's always a pleasure to see you. let's talk about what it is that

we are going to be learning later today. >> so, jose, the prosecution has to prove that all three men used force and intimidated mr. arbery, because he was black. the prosecution introduced a mountain of evidence that these defendants had said racist things in personal media. and the defense is, yes, we said racist stuff, but we killed mr. arbery in self-defense. not because he was black. in the end, the question is whether the jury finds a close enough connection between the defendant's racist comments and their killing mr. arbery. >> paul, just that 911 call, when he said, he called in and he said, a black man running. that in and of itself, to someone that was looking at it from afar, seems pretty clear as to what their thoughts were,

right? so what does this jury need to be confirmed or to really understand when they're bringing, let's say, a verdict? >> so, sometimes, it's important for the law to name the thing. racism barely came up in the state trial, because the prosecutors didn't have to prove that to get their murder conviction, but the case has been seen by many as a modern-day lynching. and federal prosecutors made race the major issue. and to answer your question, jose, that's what they have to prove. if they lose, there will be questions about whether that prosecution is necessary, given all three defendants are all serving life terms. but if they -- if the prosecution prevails, that will be seen as a wise decision. >> so, paul, how is it legally

that racism is defined, legally? >> so, the prosecutor was careful to say in his closing statement, that it's called a hate crime, but the jury doesn't actually have to find that the three defendants hated mr. arbery. what the jury has to find is that their actions in hunting down and killing mr. arbery were motivated significantly by race. even if the jury finds, well, maybe the father and son, travis and gregory mcmichael qurnd that mr. arbery really was a particular, although there was no evidence that he was, that's why they did it. maybe he was not guilty. the law is as long as the anti-blackness is proven and that the jury finds that was a significant motivating factor for them to chase mr. arbery, and for them to suspect him and kill him, then that's enough for

a criminal conviction. >> and i'm just wondering, paul, how would a guilty verdict change these three killers' futures? >> that's a great question, jose. and the answer is, probably not much, in terms of the fact that two of the men, gregory and travis, will die in jail. their sentence in georgia without the possibility of parole. so the fact that if all three men are convicted, they're looking at life sentences, doesn't change the fact that they will all, are already now suffer life sentences. but for mr. bryant, there's a possibility that since he's not sentenced to life without parole in georgia, that he might eventually leave prison. the big deal here for the defendants is if they are convicted of a federal crime, then they get to -- they have the option of serving their time in federal prison. all prisons are wretched places,

so it's not that coherent to talk about a better prison, but federal prisons tend to be less-awful than state prisons. and the family of mr. arbery has indicated that they think that all three defendants should serve their sentences in state prison. that's going to be up to the judge, if, in fact, these three men are found guilty in this federal case. she will have the option of sentencing them to either federal prison or state prison again, if they're convicted in federal court. >> paul, thank you very much. i want to bring in ron allen, live outside the courthouse in brunswick. ron, what do we know? >> reporter: we know that the defendants, gregory and travis mcmichael have been found guilty of count one, which is arguably the most serious charge. interference with ahmaud arbery's civil rights. essentially, the jury agreed that they chased him and captured him and killed him because of the color of his

skin. that was the allegation made in the indictment, essentially. that this was happening because of his race. it wasn't a matter of whether or not they killed him or not, it was a question of motive. now, we're going through five different counts. we're up to count two. and that refers to the defendant, william brian. and i think we're about to hear the result of that, as well. but we're going through it person by person. there are five counts altogether. roughly eight decisions have to be made. so the first count, count one, the mcmichaels are both guilty. and that charge, that conviction carries a possible life in prison sentence with it. sentencing, of course, will come at some other time. and of course, we know that all three of these men were convicted in state court of murder and face life in prison. william brian is the only one who faces the possibility of parole after 30 years. but they are now facing more life sentences.

we just saw ahmaud arbery's mother and father go into the courtroom. we'll wait to see what their reaction is. i think they'll feel like they're getting some more accountability -- i'm sorry, what are we up to? i can't hear you. guilty. okay, so we have another guilty of -- in count two? they're all guilty of count four. so i'm hearing on two, three, four, they are all guilty. so count two involves william "roddy" bryant, interference with ahmaud arbery's civil rights. count three is the attempted kidnapping charge. and apparently, all three are guilty there as well. kidnapping, as you might imagine, doesn't necessarily mean holding somebody for ransom and all of that, like in the movies. it basically they were trying to obstruct him, trying to trap him, trying to prevent him from getting away.

remember, the defendant's claim that he were trying to make a citizen's arrest, that they were trying to -- they were responding to a suspect, they thought, but there was no evidence that arbery, although he had been seen in the neighborhood, had ever committed any kind of crime in the neighborhood. so we are up to -- through count four, they are guilty. count four is a firearms charge. it means -- it is travis mcmichael being found guilty of using a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. again, another federal charge. travis mcmichael, of course, is the defendant, the man who had the shotgun. who killed arbery at very close range, after a five-minute chase through the neighborhood. there was only one more charge -- one more count, and that is the firearm charge involving greg mcmichael. do we have that as well? that, we think, is coming. greg mcmichael, the older, father, was in the back of the pickup truck, you'll recall, and

he brandished his weapon and threatened arbery, as they were trying -- as he was riding in the pickup truck, that his son was driving. remember, this whole ordeal, captured much of it on videotape, that we've seen again and again, lasted about five minutes, that arbery was running through the neighborhood. the defendants saw him leaving a house that was under construction. it's unclear why he had stopped at that house. and even through two trials now, it's unclear. but what is clear is that during those stops in that house under construction, there's no evidence that arbery ever stole anything. in this case, the defendants, as was the case in the state court, the prosecution alleges that they made all kinds of racist assumptions about ahmaud arbery. their actions were based on the fact that he was black, the prosecutors argued, and they were full of what he -- what the

prosecutors described as racial hatred. during the course of the trial, there were text messages, social media posts, involving videos. there were conversations that the defendants had with coworkers and others that were laced with all kinds of racial slurs and racial rants. for example, william "roddy" bryant, one of the defendants, was upset because his daughter -- he's white -- his daughter was involved in some kind of relationship with a black man. and apparently, he said a number of things to -- on social media, texted other friends and neighbors, showing how angry he was about that. about this choice that his daughter made. gregory mcmichael, the older mcmichael, had a conversation with a coworker, where she had said something that she was dating a black man and he called her an expletive, for doing that. travis mcmichael had posted a number of things on social media, a lot of it on his facebook posts, facebook site,

that was for the neighborhood where they lived. and again, rants about videos that he saw online, other kinds of comments that were full of racial slurs and epithets, and that is what the prosecution used to build a case against the men. the defense argued that they shouldn't be held liable for things they said in the past or things that weren't necessarily pertaining to this particular situation. but, obviously, in this case, now, the jury did not agree with this. the prosecution also made a point of how after arbery was shot and laying there on the ground, that that, in fact, none of the men involved there did anything to try help him. they watched him bleed out. and there was a moment or some measure of time, some amount of time when he was still alive and gasping for air, and presumably, they did not help him at all. there was a line in the

prosecution's closing argument, where they said, for example, that the defendants saw arbery as less than human, even less than an animal, is the way that they -- the prosecutors described the defendant's attitude. so, again, just summing up where we are, there are five counts. the defendants are guilty of at least four of them. the fifth count, we don't know as of yet. the fifth count involves greg mcmichael and a firearm, using a firearm to commit a crime of violence. my guess is that we should hear that verdict soon. again, the allegation here is that mcmichael brandished his firearm and threatened arbery, while he was running through the neighborhood. so, again, the most serious charges, the most serious charges that these men faced was this interference with arbery's civil rights. to use a public street. essentially, he was jogging through the neighborhood, we know. it was 1:00 on a sunday afternoon.

something he did from time to time, and apparently, in this situation, the mcmichaels saw him running through the neighborhood, ran to their home, got their guns, jumped in the pickup truck, and started chasing after him. the third defendant, william bryan was at his home, saw this happening, and joined the chase and went after arbery as well. and of course, as we know, he used their pickup trucks to try to trap him and snare him. and eventually, they -- travis mcmichael shot and killed him at the end of this five-minute chase. again, jose, we're just waiting for the fifth count in this. we just -- i'm sorry, we're just hearing that it is guilty. the fifth count -- >> so all five. >> reporter: so they are guilty on all five counts. and they will face life sentences -- essential life sentences in prison again. >> ron allen doing an extraordinary job of sifting through live breaking news, in his ear, he's listening to these

conversations from the courtroom. thank you, ron, for being with me. paul butler, just your reaction to this? it seems like they were found guilty on all counts? >> so, jose, this trial was symbolic in a way because all three defendants are already serving life sentences, but it's hugely symbolic. emmett till was falsely accused in mississippi in the 1950s. he was hunted down and lynched by white supremacists. his killers were never brought to justice. no matter how it feels sometimes, we are not living in mississippi in the 1950s. so here are three white men who hunted down and killed a black man have been brought to justice in both state and federal court. in the eyes of the law, these three men are not only murderers, they are killers who were motivated by anti-blackness. if mr. arbery were white, with he would still be alive. and the jury just sent the

message that that is a federal crime. >> paul butler and ron allen, thank you very much for being with me on this breaking news story. still ahead, a look at the threat of cyber warfare. we'll talk to the man who wrote the book on russian hackers, next. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports." you're wat you're wat diaz-balart reports.ew baja turkey avocado with smashed avocado, oven-roasted turkey, and baja chipotle sauce. it's three great things together. wait! who else is known for nailing threes? hmm. can't think of anyone! subway keeps refreshing and re- looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? once-weekly ozempic® can help. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ♪ oh, oh, oh ♪ ozempic® is proven to lower a1c. most people who took ozempic® reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. and you may lose weight. adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. in adults also with known heart disease, ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events

such as heart attack, stroke, or death. ozempic® helped me get back in my type 2 diabetes zone. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. looking to get back in your type 2 diabetes zone? ask your health care provider today about once-weekly ozempic®. ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.

men put their skin through a lot. day-in, day-out that's why dove men body wash has skin-strengthening nutrients and moisturizers

that help rebuild your skin. dove men+care. smoother, healthier skin with every shower. 49 past the hour. president biden will speak on ukraine today at 2:00 p.m. 11:0. meanwhile, a key u.s. ally, poland, is calling for more reinforcement of nato's eastern flank after russia ordered troops into eastern ukraine. in recent weeks the u.s. has sent an additional 5,000 troops to poland, nearly doubling the u.s. presence in poland to around 9,000 troops. joining me now from poland near the border with ukraine, nbc news correspondent cal perry. great to see you. what more with you tell us about the situation on the ground where you are? >> reporter: you know, these forces are really serving now a dual purpose. you will remember and as you said 5,000 additional troops here to poland, doubling the american presence. again, we're reinforcing, at least the pentagon says we're reinforcing the commitment to

nato. these troops will not be going to ukraine, won't be facing off with russia and they will also be providing the possibility of support for any refugees that could come across the border from ukraine if there is some sort of wide-scale evasion. the pols have said they are preparing, starting to pick those sites. look, the 82nd airborne as part of the nato mountain national forces are used to dealing and working alongside polish troops. we were at a base today, and can you see it happening, communications, things going in. you could see the force there, and it's something that we've seen here. the troops have 80,000 troops across europe, and they are starting to shuffle them around as the threat in ukraine continues to loom. >> poland is very cognizant of russia's history with eastern europe. is there a concern in poland that this situation could very rapidly affect them directly? >> yes. i think it's a wait and see attitude right now.

when we read the reports yesterday about a possible russian list of dissidents, of journalists, that hit home here in poland. those things have happened here in poland and in the soviet union, the history exists there, and then you look at the macro, at the map. poland is the easternmost nato ally. if russia invades the ukraine, suddenly poland not only shares a border in the north with kaliningrad, for example, and then suddenly shares a bothered which has changed which is why you're hearing politicians here in europe wanting to shore up the border and want to move more troops towards that border which is partly why we've seen the president send the additional troops and worth reminding that the president has in the u.s. 8,500 troops on high alert that he can continue move over here to europe. >> cal perry, good to see you, my friend. >> the european union is set to activate its seiber rapid response team to defend itself against cyber attacks from russia. they have seen a message of potential cyber attacks set for

today. joining me now is clint watson, distinguished research fellow at the foreign policy research institute. he's also the author of "messing with the enemy, surviving in a social media world of hackers, terrorists, russians and fake news." clint, good morning. how significant is it for the eu to be activating its cyber team? >> i think it's a big deal, jose. when you look at really the cyber attack onion, what we've seen up to date is the core of those attacks which is in ukraine, as you mentioned. they are suffering cyber attacks almost daily, and that's part and parcel of the military plan. next up though is really europe and the european union. what you saw today with germany nord stream 2, by delaying, that one of the ways that russia can fight back essentially from their perspective against any potential sanctions or other supports to ukraine is these offensive cyber actions against the european union and particularly be quite worried about germany today. pulling out even wider -- yeah,

go ahead, jose. >> no, no, no, sorry, continue. that was fascinating. >> pulling out even wider, i think there's four big things to look at, communications, energy and infrastructure and then finance, and i think that's where it comes back to the u.s. we saw last year russia is a state that harbors a lot of criminals, and they can use that as a capability to do things like striking three ransom wear or looking for prockies, essentially, to do their dirty work. it's one of the rare ways that russia can strike out against the world whenever they have sanctions put against them. >> yeah, i mean, clint, i'm wondering, we know from looking over the past couple of weeks that russia is able to amass 150, 100,000 troops in the area pretty quickly. how big of a cyber army does russia yes. number two after china.

one, they have each intelligence service, the gru and the sbr and one other, essentially their domestic, and their military and their foreign intelligence service and each has a cyber or hacker component. you remember back to 2016 when they deployed them in a significant way against a lot of u.s. election targets. they have an amazing criminal underground which gives them the capability that when they want they can reach out and utilize it and then that's i think they can use it many times. you've seen it against the olympic committee in terms of switzerland, oftentimes in the uk and all across europe and the u.s. there will be random attacks that don't fit the modus operandi of criminal activity and they have sizeable capability but it's also quite sophisticated. when you compare russia against other nations, russia hackers are very talented. they have a lot of great skills and they are more aggressive so i think when you put all of that in total it's really the cyber force to be worried about. they will do things that china and iran might not do.

>> and so clint, you know, it's, again, easier to visualize for many of us how you can send defensive weapons to ukraine or offensive weapons to a country if you wish to support its defense from a foreign intervention, but how do we in the united states protect ourselves from that very substantial russian cyber army? >> that's right, jose. the real dilemma is how do you protect all the targets when they are not inside the government? we tend to think of government as war with governments, government's army, and the private sector is the big vulnerability. it's the dotcom world which is supposed to be protected, but actually it has to defend itself, and the way to do that is through public/private partnerships which you'll see all across the european union and the u.s. in the coming days. every information security associate which is known as an asac working together across all

business sectors and sharing what they find and relaying that to the eu and united kingdom which has a really good cyber security force. the information-sharing is critical, what does a russia attack look like, share that information in near realtime and increase possession so the entire ecosystem is protected. one bank can quickly spread to a breech somewhere else in the ecosystem and bring down entire networks so everyone knows they need to work together. it's just synchronizing all the operations very quickly now that we know that russia is in a very aggressive posture. >> clint, thank you so much for being with me this morning i want to go real quickly to outside the courtroom in georgia where ahmaud arbery, the family as well as the family's lawyers are speaking right now. >> attorney barbara -- bobby bernstein, attorney bernstein,

am i leaving anyone out and u.s. attorney general merrick garland but a special thanks to christian clark, the first black woman to lead the civil rights division of the united states department of justice. this was very important to her and fulfilling its historic role of saying liberty and justice for all. >> amen. >> yes, sir. yes, sir. >> thank you. >> and now, you know, these parents, marcus and wanda, i mean, almost two years now. you know, tomorrow will be the two-year mark for when their son, ahmaud arbery, was lynched

for jogging while black. and these parents join the fraternity that no parent want to be a member of, and with such dignity, they stood up for ahmad, to say that ahmad's life mattered. >> yes, yes. >> that ahmad arbery will be in the history books, not only for the state of georgia but for the united states of america. >> thank, god. >> wanda, marcus, i believe that this is the first time in the state of georgia's history where there has been a conviction for a federal hate crime, and you all did that, yes, sir.

you all did that. yes, sir you all did that [ applause ] >> this was because of wanda and because of marcus, so we'll take a few of your questions, but this moment really belongs to wanda cooper jones and marcus arbery. you will hear first from the queen, wanda cooper jones. all right. >> i want to first say thank you to everyone who stood by us for this fight for justice for ahmad. it's been a very long, stressful fight, but the members of the community, for the city of brunswick, the state of georgia, for the people who stood with us through the nation of the united states of america, we couldn't have -- we wouldn't have this