and that's what he told the jury. well, the jury did not buy it. and this is a very big win that cannot be understated for the prosecution. the jury has come back and said that in the charge of seditious conspiracy elmer stewart rhodes iii is guilty, and we are waiting on the next few people because now they'll go to the next four people who are charged with this same charge, which comes, by the way, with an up to 20-year maximum sentence. a maximum prison sentence of 20 yours. this is a big deal and a big win for the government, jake? >> sara, stick around, we need more reporting from you on the other four. there are obviously other charges, but as you note, this is a big deal. the justice department getting a guilty verdict in the seditious conspiracy trial of at least we have the verdict for stewart rhodes, the leader of the oath keepers, who has been found guilty of seditious conspiracy. what does that mean? let's bring in ellie, julia, and ronato. ellie, let me start with you. what does this mean to the average man, woman, child walking down t

you know, what will a jury do? where will a jury convict based on my evidence?of a situation, the convictions are a very strong science. it's good for justice, good for the country. it's a good sign for prosecutors. a loss here on this evidence with these facts is something that would have caused prosecutors to take a step back and to have concerns about where they're going next. there are more of these sorts of cases to try involving militias, but doj hasn't ventured, for instance, into the people working in the war rooms at the willard hotel, people who were making an effort to interfere. of course, folks inside of the white house. so this conviction i think gives people some confidence that juries will look at this evidence and convict. >> some of what you hear on the outside -- dangerous tossing around these terms. there's a novelty. a lot of movies about seditious conspiracy. does it start to lose its novelty when you have a trial yield this kind of result, joyce? >> well, thank goodness there aren't a lot of prosecutions or stories involving seditious cons

and told the jury to disregard it. so, even though the prosecutors were not allowed to tell the jury how they thought the murder happened, they still had a theory to present for the why. they were high school sweethearts. he had never abused her, to anyone's knowledge. he had no life insurance policy on her that he was trying to collect. what is the motive? >> fred was telling people, one being an employee of his, and another a close friend, that in fact the marriage had grown stale. that it was the same old, same old, between he and leslie. and that he did have a wandering eye. >> and according to the prosecution, his eye had wondered here. >> we were very good friends. >> fred's former assistant testified that fred called and texted her a lot outside of work. >> did that ever make you uncomfortable? >> a little bit. >> and once fred talk to her about leslie and divorce. >> he had just mentioned that their interests had grown apart. >> so, according to the prosecution team, fred picked an idealic spot out of nowhere t

the jury in washington, d. c., deliberated for three days, before delivering the verdict this afternoon. they found the three other oath keepers on trial with stewart rhodes and megs, not guilty of seditious conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. however, the jury did convict all five defendants of obstructing an official proceeding, as well as aiding and abetting. now, elmer rhodes was a leader and mastermind of this plot. after the 2020 election, he gathered a group of oath keepers in washington, d. c.. he wanted then-president, donald trump, to invoke the insurrection act, which would, he said, allow him to deputize his group as a kind of state sanctioned militia. rhodes was preparing, quite openly, to fight a civil war in order to keep donald trump in power against the will of the american people. and like i said, he did not hide his intentions. he said basically all of this himself in public. >> we have -- stationed outside of d. c. as a nuclear option, in case the attempt to r

the problem was the jury didn't want to believe.thing they don't want to believe. >> but, there was plenty of other evidence besides dna that the prosecution never showed the jury. like, the police interview with simpson. or, his emotional farewell note and the ensuing bronco chase. those were critical lost opportunities, says detective tomlin. >> i had a problem from day one because of evidence that they didn't want to put up. >> and, you prosecutors, what do you do? and they would say, don't worry, we have dna evidence. >> they didn't say that. they obviously implied that. we kept getting evidence, getting more and more evidence, and they weren't having anything to do with it. >> but, clark says, she was concerned that the broncos changed, since the police interview on the so-called suicide note might play sympathetically to the jury. >> i had to look for the most objective evidence i can. i can't go to them and say, this is what i think because any of these kind of dicey moves, and that's a dicey move didn't state that he gave th

juries are not stupid, they can see through the s, and this jury was very carefully. can see people flip. i've seen plenty of times when someone has said let me go to trial, see what happens. then when you're looking down the barrel of a 20-year sentence, that can change incentives. we don't know if that may happen. but if so we'll see what dominoes may fall. >> ryan, the other big news that we were just talking about with katelyn polantz, her reporting, is that former top trump aide stephen miller has now testified today before the federal grand jury investigating january 6th. and miller was really tight in there. he has first-hand knowledge on some key moments, preparation and intent of the speech, the intent of what donald trump was looking to do in presenting in giving his speech to his supporters who then turned around and then attacked the capitol. where do you see this going? >> so he is the kind of person who can get into the mindset of donald trump on january 6th. according to the select committee, he has a conversation with trump for over 25 minutes about th

we feel that we spent a lot of time, over a week, selecting a jury, which we thought was a fair juryn their verdict you can see they individually went through each defendant and each count and rendered separate decisions for each, which is what they're supposed to do. and they spent a lot of time doing that, several days. we feel we got a fair trial in that respect. however, as you know, and as you watched, there were things that the government presented in evidence that we objected to, which we feel shouldn't have come into evidence. there were things that we wanted to present that judge meta, though i think he did a fabulous job, he prevented us from presenting to the jury. so the jury didn't get everything they needed to get to weigh everything. they got a lot of evidence, they got tons. but there were things they were prevented from seeing from us, and witnesses we wanted to present that we were unable to. so based on that we don't think that part is fair. >> it was a remarkable trial. thank you both for joining us tonight. thank you for your honesty. >> thank you. >> we'll be ri

look at the jury?id of. you >> ogrod was shipped off to death row. five years later, he met tom lowenstein. >> he just had to dig and dig, he was relentless. >> in 2004, tom wrote a lengthy two part series for the philadelphia city paper, which included everything that he had learned about ogrod case. a series of attorneys took on that case pro bono. >> we had the benefit of a bit of journalistic work that have been done by tom lowenstein. >> but to build a strong argument for an appeal, with rollins and his team would have to do their own investigation. >> there is no physical evidence tying mr. ogrod to this crime. how he has presented himself throughout is that i am innocent, i did not commit this crime. >> it took them seven years, but by 2011 they had amassed thousands of pages, undermining the prosecutor's case, including affidavits from snitch john hall and his wife phyllis, laying out the scheme against ogrod. >> how oval were you at that moment? >> we are hopeful because we believed that there

dear members of the jury, you must agree that we can put pressure on your decision.w yuri malikov, the founder of gems, once told me in secret that it is impossible to sing this song better than gems. hmm me it seems now we are seeing, and great dogmas are collapsing, and you sang this song wonderfully in your fervently way. who determined that this would be the song everything i have in life, but when we chose the song, we really wanted it to be a song not about some modern performers breaking down on stage, and we really wanted a retro song specifically those songs on which we grew up is the song of our childhood and we chose gems and dear well, what do you say? i want to thank you for the fact that today, of course, i will say, honestly your past the performance was incredibly beautiful, but a little mesmerizingly frightening, because we froze the last time you sang the black raven and today. thank you very much for letting me go today. yes, and now you can breathe out for me, of course, this song is not a drinking song, that is , let's say it is in my, but the wo

a jury, though, would have other ideas. coming up a bombshell from the defense.ing him arguing that she was confronting her killer. >> that is when she was shot? >> absolutely. was this murder a hit at all? >> this is breaking me. >> when dateline continues. hen dateline continues is driven by eosinophils, which nucala helps reduce. nucala is a once-monthly add-on injection for severe eosinophilic asthma. nucala is not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala. we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's cra

well , now let's hear what the jury has to say in our studio. me that this whole song sounded for vanya dmitrienko well, in general, the body of sophins is inspired. van safina samiva from kyrgyzstan is waiting for your comments she sang really well, but i would be in your place. uh, search harder for songs , 'cause you can sing even harder more better. and so you are great well done uh, i congratulate you on this huge and good victory well, we continue and now an amazing girl who would like to be in the 19th century will enter this stage. hi all. my name is leilokhafizova. i am 12 years old. i am in the seventh grade, i came from sunny and beautiful tashkent at the competition. i represent my homeland in uzbekistan all my regular time. i pay attention to music, and i also study piano at a music school, my cherished dream is to write a song so that everyone is hearing from the competition. i expect a lot of emotions, as well as the continuation of communication with new year's friends , live correctly, make friends , communicate correctly, she k

but she has a sitting criminal grand jury for the november december term so if the special grand juryes with a little bit of turnaround in terms of creating the documents, we fani might be able to present an indictment as early as this year. again, that's all based on whatever she has enough to establish all of the elements for the charges. >> and quickly, before we go, is this the kind of presentation where all possible indictments will come out at once or there might be a set of indictments just for example against rudy giuliani and later indictments against someone else? >> again, i think that's a strategic decision. certainly if we see a recoup charge of any kind i can imagine that that would be all encompassing to allow the da to tell the full story and any buddies pardon it based on her allegations. but it's always possible to have separate indictments, particularly if you're looking to see if someone is interested in either flipping for the state or you want to provide them some immunity, so you create that suppression to be able to do so. >> former georgia district attorney gw

of course, there's also the da, also the grand jury in d.c.ws today that stephen miller testified to the january 6th federal grand jury. that i believe is the first bit of witnesses money before that federal granbury under the new special counsel, jack smith. and that also strikes me is significant because miller was very, very close to trump. >> he was very close to trump and he was also his speech writer. so, he knew exactly the intentions that we're going into the words that were being spoken that day and what the purpose was in those words. listen, you can see a lot of things about trump, but he is, quite frankly, like a master reiteration. he chooses his words very carefully because he's very savvy about the impact it's going to have on his audience. and so, understanding changes that he was making, but stephen miller saw happening. i think it'll get to what trump anticipated with transpire. you know, was just a crowd that just got out of control and he had no idea? or was that the point? >> that was my first thought to is that miller's,

so, dear jury. make your choice. ask. yes, vladimir.l. and we are not just facing some difficult choice. to be honest, we are confused. i will explain why. the fact is that all the numbers, but were presented to us with the participation of the stars of the first magnitude of this, firstly. ah, if we nominate someone now, then involuntarily a shadow may fall. ah, this earth. we would highly dislike this i wanted to, but even this is not the most important thing, but the most important thing is that they were all so magnificent today that it’s just, uh, it’s impossible for us to rate someone higher than someone below our own. yes, we are just a verb, how to evaluate. he won't come today. we didn't even rate them. we just expressed our impressions. and these impressions were relative to the duet and specific, and therefore we use our right, so to speak. veto. yes , the right of the jury. we would like to formally ask today. e everyone, so that we, uh, are allowed to the final admit all seven seven avatars seven heroes. what you are propos

the grand jury heard from hutchison today.avoid doing so, south carolina senator lindsey graham is slated to testify before the grand jury next week and former house newt gingrich the week after. lawyers indicated they're going to try to block that from happening. mark meadows has also been ordered by a court to testify at the end of the month but timing on that could change. how might the wrapping up of special grand jury proceedings in georgia affect the former president turned 2024 presidential candidate? about a year ago the brookings institution released a report with the known facts of the investigation in georgia, gathered from publicly available evidence. they published a second edition of that this week saying that trump is at substantial risk of criminal prosecution in fulton county. joining us now is the author, one of the authors of that report. she is the former district attorney of decap county georgia next to fulton county. she has known the d.a. for years. thank you for joining us this evening. >> my pleasure.

6th and that's not what the jury found. they clearly saw a plan in place. a plan that stewart rhodes followed and that is what the jury decided. you have to have literally two people to be involved in literally two people were charged with that seditious conspiracy and other charges. >> if you could stand by for us. i want to bring in. law enforcement director with others. just your reaction, here to these verdicts. >> i think it must win for the doj to get the must win for seditious conspiracy of the leader. i think the jury demonstrated they went over the evidence carefully, parsing it out. there are lesson for the doj and future prosecutions on the acquittal but it tells a lot about what may not be more easily grasped by juries. >> what do you think? >> for me, brianna , the important thing is the message this sends to the domestic extremist population . in that column, it sends a loud and clear message to other members of militia groups with people harboring similar grievances and people wrestling with the democratic pr

the jury is that he is worthy to fight for the main prize ladies and gentlemen of bhutan.ifter impossible to watch his performance without a smile going through life not annoying and helped him get to the finals. last week we were able to return 20 years ago, and i was able to feel like a participant in the legendary project zvezdnoe nome factory, you know, spring spring spring and a warm cold age, our fantasy house has not yet been very danceable, very fun, very incendiary. and here it is thanks to you. well done, it's nice when the bud says, yana, i grew up on your broadcasts. here you are, as always, krasava, i honestly want to tell you that the story does not end there. everything is just beginning ahead, we are waiting for a lot of interesting things. together we went all the way with a smile to the end. and i can't sleep at night when love songs are sung to the wave. happiness, and about the family fantasy is not around in me and in you. i'm as happy as anyone. i'm a lucky ticket. i'm happy. i won't be so happy. we will leave, someone knows, i myself don’t know where

jury, let them please me.ell us why you were tried for stealing and for stealing what batmobile batmenah. and by the way, a question. why don't you become some kind of foot problem, what's going on? ah, but i just lost the power of speech roza markovna not have we ever ridden a motorcycle? with a note of madness we go straight to the goal. people didn't shake their heads. you make me try really hard. i can be more dangerous at home, but i really like it. note. so we don't do eternity times markovna roza markovna well, rosa martina is, as always , magical, firstly, it's nice that roza markovna performed the composition of the madonna, that is, she remembers her classmate. clearly in better condition than anyone was talking about, why is such a very modest i wanted a more daring outfit, my bead, but today i'm holding on clearly answering. you're just so tough competition, but remember that in the quiet you know who's going on about the outfit. they even saw the telly there, that they didn’t know how the dance wa

we will now find out whether the members, the jury were right or wrong.citing moment comes and i say this phrase again, let all the hidden become clear. sergei bitch died generations favorite of millions sergei shukov all of you raise your hands up. sergei zhukov is a man who needs no introduction for a long time, because he is a legendary singer, musician, leader of the ruki vverkh group, to songs that more than one dances, generations of thousands of stadiums sing his hits in chorus, for more than 20 years of the earth, winner of countless music awards, sergey zhukov has many for years remains one of the most sought-after artists of the domestic scene, to be in someone else 's shoes, to try to change the personality - this, of course. ah, brilliant idea. it's very big a cool experiment to try to be a different person so that everyone understands ours, it’s just that he needs to put his soul in. everything that he did, performed, did. this is a huge professionalism of the whole team who make fantastic. i'm happy not because you were. because it's everyon

she then show the jury jan's life insurance policy. the payout was $500,000.y you could afford to live's lifestyle was to get that insurance policy. >> another piece of this puzzle was about to be presented in court, it had to do with raven second wife, vanessa pond. it turns out, vanessa and raven were not a match made in heaven. >> i was way too naive, way too naive. >> vanessa traveled from salt lake city to durham to testify, not for the defense, for the prosecution. >> she told the jury how her storybook romance with raven ended almost as quickly as a began. >> did you guys are you a lot? >> yes. >> at one point, vanessa said, raven became physical. >> he had me by the arms and he threw me up against the wall. he told me how much he hated me, and how much he didn't care if i died. right after that, he comes right down. i'm so sorry, i'm so sorry, i'm so sorry. >> according to vanessa, raven display that same moody, unpredictable behavior again -- >> their marriage lasted only three months. you think you escape something worse than just about three month m

and we're seeing courts now and the jury to say yes, this is a deliberate plan. and people should go to jail for it. >> jason, during the trial stewart rhodes and the others tried to make this argument the for the most part the oath keepers are just really patriotic, former veterans, who love the country. clearly that is not the case, at least for these five people. but is there any truth to that whatsoever. >> you know, i don't think so because, you have to look at the actions, there they are taking apart democracy. that wasn't offending freedom, that wasn't defending the democracy. those trying to stop the democratic process using violent intimidation and straight-up violence. and we've seen these practice runs happening start for buddy ranch for more specifically during the covid lockdowns we really saw different state capitals where it seemed to be, they are practice runs. and we heard stewart talk a quick reaction forces before, and there is no doubt that they had a cache of weapons close at hand. their explosives found. it's just his words and his actions a

a grand jury was convened to look at the case. friends were shocked that authorities could believe byron was anything but an innocent victim. >> it was ridiculous, that he would be this cold-blooded killer. like, really? he's a quiet, soft-spoken person. it -- i just didn't fathom it. >> while byron was free on bond, his friends, the langes, say he can't bear to go back to his own home. so they took him in. >> i could hear him in his room, many, many nights. i'm so sorry. i feel so bad. i didn't want to hurt anybody. i could hear him in there, crying. >> the case, quickly, became a big kroefrt in little falls, minnesota. >> did people take sides? >> absolutely. people became more opinionated about what happened. >> some people would come up to me. he's going to prison. he shouldn't have done that. and i said, well, you haven't heard the whole story. >> i think that byron's got a lot of support, in this area. >> bill anderson was byron's neighbor. the same one, who called authorities the day after the shootings. >> myself? would i

a jury is going to see all the evidence.d two of the five members of this group, one of them an associate of the group, for seditious conspiracy. the charge is very difficult. it's a rare charge, a charge we haven't seen against an american in about a decade, more than a decade. it's not something that the justice department would take lightly or anyone would take lightly. this, i think, really sends a message, particularly to the leadership of some of these groups. it was not a slam dunk. there were a lot of charges that the jury acquit ted some of the five defendants on as well. >> elliott, on this pro-two-pro approach of getting the people clean drinking water, what do you make of the strategy that we heard from the attorney general? >> you know, big picture, justice department is the only office in the government named after a value, securing justice for people. it's a very powerful tool of the justice department in its civil enforcement authority to seek these consent decrees. you see it in the civil rights context all

as evan describes they're still doing grand jury witnesses, serving subpoenas. that is an indication of an ongoing active investigation, doesn't mean indictments are imminent. these cases, the election case and the classified documents case and the presidential records case, these are cases that are complex. it doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be handled quickly. >> the attorney general can overrule any decision at the end, that would be unlikely. once you appointment a special counsel you usually give them wide lane. but who is jack smith? this in "the washington post," talented, enthusiastic, fearless. he will be enthusiastic and throw himself into it. you have this from the acting chief of the fbi who had some tension. the fbi public integrity tension with jack smith when he was the head of the justice department. it was understood the fastest way for a case to die was to give it to them. so republicans are already attacking this. saying special counsel, political witch hunt. who is he? >> you know, he is all of those things. public integrity, certainly

the jury did not buy it. the jury didn't buy it. they heard what he said, they listen to him, they listen to his defense. he is a former lawyer. he was disbarred, but he was a yale trained lawyer. and he got up there and said i don't think this was constitutional. i don't think biden or trump won. they did not buy it. and i think that's important to say that the doj really went after each and every person with the evidence they had on each and every person. this was not actually about donald trump. >> and laura, just let me say really quickly. i think that's a big distinction between this in the january 6th hearings, right. this, you have discreet actions, criminal actions what you can prove, right, and really make it stick, and not bring up the specter of trump, trump, trump did this, trump did that, really hang it on the people who did the crimes, right. that's why i think you and find these criminal trespass cases, other people try for doing what they did on january 6th. >> look, we've got 35 days left of this lame duck session b

clearly those words resonated with the jury.rdict shows each defendant found guilty and not guilty of different charges. a mixed -- i guess a mixed result. what do you make of that? >> yeah, it was a little odd in the sense that rhodes and his -- meggs, co conspirators were found guilty of the conspiracy charges and the others disrupted an official proceeding. those were the people that went into the capitol as opposed to rhodes staying outside the capitol. it shows a lot of deliberation, right? it shows that they didn't just go straight down the counts and vote guilty, guilty, guilty, guilty. they went through each and said, rhodes is the ring leader. he's guilty of the most serious charge. what's interesting to me, christine, too, is that they were all convicted of tampering with evidence afterwards which carries a hefty penalty as well, but more importantly actually than that, that's showing that the consciousness of guilt we call it in the law, show trying to cover up your social media, if you're trying to get rid of things

we don't know that many names of people who have gone before the grand jury but this grand jury has been hearing lots of things from top people around donald trump after the election and even on january 6th. so miller is one of those people who was inside the white house talking to the president, including on january 6th as the speech writer preparing that speech he gave to his supporters before they went to the capitol and rioted. the thing we know miller has talked about before because he spoke to the house select committee on it, was what trump wanted to put in the speech and whether trump was going to mention mike pence. it was one of those things that was in the speech, out of the speech. miller was involved in the discussions and that's one of the things the grand jury would likely want to know from him. what this respects with all the other people going into the grand jury as well. top pence advisers, trump advisers, miller now. those people are all the firewall around donald trump's presidency, and clearly the justice department with the special counsel are chipping away at that,

they are bringing witnesses before the grand jury. they're bringing information before the grand jury. the grand jury functions as a process to be able to eventually bring an indictment if they have the evidence to do it and so they obviously have made the judgment which is not a light one for prosecutors to make because usually they would like to be able to prosecute anyone that they think they have evidence to bring the crime against if it meets the particular pross skew electoral discretion and objectives of the justice department for a particular crime so they think he has information that's really important to the continuation and the resolution of their investigation. >> could this put more pressure on other trump insiders to cooperate with prosecutors? >> well, each person will be handled individually, so certainly the fact that he has gone through this process and that we're seeing this process work should, you know, potentially will indicate for other witnesses that this is the process the justice department and that the judg

he's gonna have to talk to the grand jury. he's gonna have to describes what he saw, what he knew about donald trump's awareness of the documents in existence, what he actually saw and witnessed in terms of any declassification efforts, and what he knew about efforts to relocate or conceal the boxes and the records within the boxes once that investigation started, once the issue had been subpoenaed. this is one more material fact witnesses that the government has lined up as part of this grand jury presentation to bring what i expect at some point in the next few months to be an indictment against donald trump for espionage. >> glenn, i imagine in your experience as a federal prosecutor with immunity deals that there are witnesses like kash patel, who get immunity and then go into the grand jury and still, somehow, try to cling to some kind of way of protecting their principal. some kind of way of trying to protect donald trump in this case. what do prosecutors do when they sense that is going on? >> we breathe a sigh of relie

and will that's what we saw the jury do.think that's important for the american public to see. >> a political reporter, all you see. elections and choices in everything. i can say that. elliott, stewart rhodes didn't actually enter the capitol on january 6th. he was on capitol grounds. talk about the larger impact of what that might mean for the greater investigation here. >> it is as if you went to law school. that's a question right out of first year criminal law. how one is charged and convicted of conspiracy. there has to be an agreement between two parties and what is called an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. you have to agree to do and it take a step to do it. he didn't have to step foot on the capitol for what was called a bloody revolution, stashing weapons in virginia, across the border, and on and on and on. organizing strike teams to come into the capitol. so no, one need not have set foot on the capitol. if you're the one, the puppeteer pulling the strings, and directing people, absolutely, you could

how do you convince the jury it is misapplied forensic evidence?it is really difficult to cross-examine your way out oft conviction. what we advocate for for a long time is governmental entity to do validation research and demonstrate it is not reliable. outside of the system because trying to assess out cents from nonsense doesn't work and i write about those failures. layering on top of that is a product problem of literacy in the legal community and our country generally. that's true for prosecutors and judges and juries so we are all in their talking about things we don't understand lawyers are supposed to y be biased on behaf of their side so you take this and put it in front of the jury and make it the story you want to tell and thus the problem of the value for the people using it is itll can be used to tell e story you want it to tell so you have to have upstream, too late want to get to trial. >> have you seen a corner versus medical examiner testified to convict individuals? one other question, forensic science department was discredited,

so the first hour of his testimony is sort of the honeymoon period with the jury.s trying to establish a rapport and trying to tell the jury a little bit about who he is or who he sees himself to be. i will say on the one handle mer stewart rhodes is coming across as a smart articulate person and witness but on the other hand he's also coming across as an arrogant self-important almost grandiose figure. it's remarkable because he's trying to give the jury a tutorial about how to police, how to conduct law enforcement operations, yet he's never been law enforcement. he also was saying that the oath keepers would go to protests and their presence would, quote, embarrass, his word, law enforcement that was working those sam protests because the oath keepers knew so much better and performed so much better, but i think the most remarkable bit of his testimony thus far was when his attorney asked him do you believe the vote was stolen, the election was stolen? he said i believe the election was invalid, unconstitutional, and he said even before we get to fraud, what the

and if he recanted in front of the grand jury, he's locked in.fixed the defense. >> other case, the january 6 emails, that were recently turned over to the january 6 committee, in those a lawyer for trump described supreme court justice clarence thomas as, quote, key to trump's plan to delay congress's certification of the 2020 election vote. just quoting here, we want to frame things so thomas could issue a stay or saying that georgia is in legitimate doubt here. that doesn't mean thomas would have done that necessarily, but that was at least their target as part of this plan. given that and given ginny thomas's role already, what do you make of thomas's decision thus far not to recuse himself from anything january 6 related? >> well, i think that the january 6 investigation is broad enough that you could probably divide it up reasonably. i think what this said is that should, for example, the eastman email conflict and disclosure to the january 6 committee come before the court, he would probably have to recuse simply because his name is in the

those points were made to the jury. what was not said is that rhodes was disbarred in 2015 for conduct violating the montana rules of professional conduct. that has not yet come in, but rhodes has not finished testifying. he will continue testifying on monday. sara sidner, cnn, washington. >>> san francisco's district attorney says the police and fbi have a, quote, successful interview with paul pelosi, the husband of us house speaker nancy pelosi shortly after he was attacked last friday in his home. the pros dutier tls cnn pelosi had good recall of the events that night and was able to convey those details to the investigators. he's back home after being in the hospital being treated for a skull frac jury and other injuries. on camera, nancy pelosi spoke for the first time on camera. here she is. >> thank you, thank you, thank you for your kind words, your prayers, and your good wishes for paul. it's going to be a long haul, and he will be well. so tragic what happened, but nonetheless, we have to be optimistic. he's

in terms of whether the jury itself changes our thinking. it doesn't change our thinking as much as validate what we've been presenting to the country which is, this wasn't some spontaneous riot getting out of control. or people being swept away by emotion. no, this was a plot conducted in advancend that used force that tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power. and i think, you know, this just highlights how premeditated it was. andte the testified that we've submitted to the public about the president's knowledge that these people werepr armed and dangerous, and, you know, as he said onas january 6th, he wante the f'ing mags taken down because they was fine with those people there with weapons because they weren't w there fo him. >> i'm anxious to see the reports of the committee when your work is done. there's been some reporting that focus is largely on president trump. given what we have with the oath keepers, their role in this, given the security apparatus and the secret service, and the sort of systemwide failures that led to janu

for the first time, a jury finding a conspiracy led to the mob attack on the capitol. the oath keepers had been accused of discussing possible civil war following the 2020 election. the plan to keep donald trump in power. the stash of weapons found in a hotel room just outside washington. pierre thomas with the breaking news. >>> also at this hour, the tornado watch in effect for multiple states. severe storms expected tonight. and where they're now bracing for potential long track tornadoes on the ground for a long time. and this system then moves right into the east. alerts in more than two kdozen rob marciano timing this out. >>> the race tonight to avert a crippling rail strike in this country just before christmas. and, of course, the potential impact on the economy as a whole. president biden with top leaders from both parties at the white house. can congress force the workers to accept the deal reached several weeks back? mary bruce tonight. >>> the major new clues this evening in the murders of two teenage girls in delphi, indiana. for the first time, what an u

as he sat out, with confidence, to tell the jury what happened.e said see you tonight, and actually gave me a big kiss. which i thought was odd. >> why did you think that was odd? >> because, in the last week, week and a half, we have been back and forth about 50 times on divorce. and so, it just let me know that we were back on the not divorce track. >> but by the time he did return to the house, that evening, said brett. things had changed. >> i couldn't figure out why she was, she was in a big hurry to get a divorce. which was something that had never happened before. i told her, we haven't really worked on our marriage very much. my angle in the discussion was, i'll give you a collaborative divorce. if we work on the marriage just 3 to 6 months. >> he said that vastly seem to agree to that, especially when he made it clear what she would do if she went forward with the divorce right then. >> basically, i told her if this goes to court that, that i was gonna do everything in my power to destroy her. >> brett told the jury, things that he had ne

afterjust eight | hours of deliberations, the jury hours of deliberations, the jury found jemma mitchelleen found guilty of— guilty of murder. a woman has been found guilty of the - guilty of murder. a woman has | been found guilty of the murder and decapitation of a friend she met in church. jemma mitchell killed me, and chong at her home in wembley last year before taking her headless body 200 miles away in a suitcase. body 200 miles away in a suitcase-— body 200 miles away in a suitcase. , ., ~ , ., , suitcase. deborah was 67 years old when she _ suitcase. deborah was 67 years old when she was _ suitcase. deborah was 67 years old when she was murdered i suitcase. deborah was 67 years old when she was murdered in | old when she was murdered in june _ old when she was murdered in june of— old when she was murdered in june of last year. today at the old bailey 30 a womanjemma mitchell— old bailey 30 a womanjemma mitchell has been found guilty of that— mitchell has been found guilty of that matter. deborah was born — of that matter. deborah was born in— of that matter. deborah was born in

this was a witch hunt by a democratic jury in washington, d.are people who sat for seven weeks and poured over testimony for three days, and when they were done, they didn't convict all, or acquit all, they went person by person by person. as a political reporter, i was thinking that it kind of reminds me of the midterm elections, because when we saw over the country, with people looking at candidates and voting for republicans for governor, and a democrat for senator. people made decisions based on what they saw and what they heard. i think that's exactly what we saw the jury do, and i think that is important for the american public to see. >> as a political reporter, that's all you see, those elections, the choice isn't everything. we can say that. elie, stewart rhodes did not enter the capitol on january 6th, but he was on capitol grounds. talk about the larger impact of what that might mean for the greater investigation here? >> it's almost as if you went to law school, because that's a question right out of first year criminal law, which i

when a year later svetlana was invited to the same competition, only as a member of the jury. accepted the invitation without hesitation. who better than her to know what is most important in serving yourself with a podium appearance. she is a different figure, too. everyone has a different age category, too. everyone is different. but it is precisely this kind of inner calmness, relaxation. this is femininity when a girl is standing in front of you. you understand that this is what comes out of it. then you read it, well, that's it, and there are no questions. the beauty contest brought together completely different participants. his motto. never mind. how old is the woman? what size clothes does she wear and what does she do? the main thing is she is on the podium and now she is a fashion designer angelica svetlana admits she judges responsibly and strictly because she herself understands what a long preparation any of the girls has to go through to get her crown on this stage, svetlana received the beauty queen in just 3 years. after i first tried my hand at modeling, and w

tried a bunch of cases, the jury was out longer than two days. multiple notes and then they convicted in the end. so i think the evidence is strong. >> my jury is really liked me, and justice, so i gotta tell you. >> -- >> i'm getting. it was always on a reasonable doubt. laura coats. >> despite not being as likable as laura coats, they still root for me. >> i will say, prosecutors respected, if i have a jury that's asking questions about clarifying, and definition that was the meat of my case. i'm worried about what i may have faltered, on but we will see, and everyone is extraordinarily likable, in court and out. there we go. look at the smile. >> i hope my family is watching. >> there, not my kids, no one watches me either in my family, but not personal, look, we are eight days away from what everyone is watching, that is a critical senate runoff in the state of georgia. and now we're learning that the former president, donald, trump he is not gonna appear in a campaign for herschel walker in georgia. plus, lava is flowing down the largest act

, we may have to start over again. >> then the case went to the jury.ther once again and prayed. her mother hugged prosecutor gail levine, who pursued escoto so ferociously. >> she is my hero. she is without a doubt my hero. >> 2 1/2 hours after the jury went out cell phones started buzzing in the courthouse. so many years after wendy's murder. now, in moments, her family would know. >> the years of waiting. the years of mourning her. all of a sudden we're told the verdict is in. before i got to the courtroom i was already crying. i was shaking. >> wendy's family members held their breath. escoto appeared to do the same as the judge instructed the clerk to read the verdict. >> we the jury in miami-dade county, florida this 22nd day of april 2014 find the defendant michel escoto guilty of first-degree premeditated murder. >> michel sat stone-faced in his chair, his lips downturned in a grimace, nodding. for the family there were more tears but of a different kind. now sorrow, mixed with relief and satisfaction. wendy's mother dropped to her knees and gav

afterjust eight hours of deliberations, the jury found jemma mitchell guilty of murder.found guilty of the murder and decapitation of a friend she met in church. jemma mitchell killed mee kuen chong at her home in wembley last year before taking her headless body 200 miles away, in a suitcase. deborah was 67—years—old when she was murdered in june of last year. today at the old bailey, 38—year—old womanjemma mitchell has been found guilty of that murder. deborah was born in malaysia. through her own hard work and initiative, she made a good life for herself, finally settling in london, where she was a much valued and loved member of her community. mitchell has never accepted responsibility for deborah's murder so there are questions which may remain unanswered. why she kept the body for over a fortnight, why she decapitated her, and why she deposited her remains in salcombe. but what we we do know is it that it was an evil act carried out by an evil woman, and the only motive, clearly, was one of financial gain. on friday the 28th of october, mitchell was back in court.

after all that, the jury took about one week to deliberate and today they returned a verdict. i found stewart rhodes and another oath keeper who ran the group's florida chapter a, group called kelly mags, found them both guilty seditious conspiracy. acquitted him of other two charges and found three other defendants not guilty of sedition. a split verdict in the most serious charge brought so far in the 900 plus criminal prosecutions january six insurrectionists. roads lawyers say they will appeal but as it stands roads may face up to 20 years in prison. this is a big moment in our country's history. it is the first time in 27 years that we have seen a successful sedition prosecution. and it has been 68 years since we have seen americans convicted of sedition. former members of the oath keepers go to trial next week on similar charges and in just a few weeks and other jury will have another chance to weigh in on a question of whether a different militia group is guilty of sedition for its actions on for its actions. what happened on january six was a violent action against the