>> SO MUCH TO TICK THROUGH. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING US THAT. LET'S BRING IN LAURA JARRETT, LISA RUBIN, CATHERINE CHRISTIAN. THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US ON THIS BREAKING NEWS DAY. LISA, GIVE ME YOUR REACTION TO THE GUILTY VERDICT ON ALL THREE COUNTS. >> IT'S NOT A SURPRISE. YET, THERE'S SOMETHING UNBELIEVABLY TRAGIC ABOUT THE ENTIRE TRAJECTORY OF THE CASE. NOT ONLY IS HUNTER BIDEN WHO IS SOMEONE WHO PUBLICLY STRUGGLED WITH ADDICTION, BUT THE WAY IN WHICH THE CHARGES CAME ABOUT WAS THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE GUN, 11 DAYS AFTER HE PURCHASED IT, THE GUN WAS TOSSED BY HIS THEN GIRLFRIEND AND SISTER-IN-LAW, THE WIDOW OF BEAU, IN A TRASH CAN. WHEN HE REALIZED THAT'S WHERE HIS GUN HAD GONE, HE IMMEDIATELY TOOK STEPS FOR IT TO BE RETRIEVED. THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO THE CHARGES AT ISSUE HERE. LET'S THINK ABOUT THE PLEA DEAL AND HOW IT UNRAVELED. HUNTER BIDEN HAD A DIVERSION AGREEMENT ON GUN CHARGES AND A DEFERRED PROSECUTION ON TAX CHARGES THAT WERE INTERWOVEN TOGETHER. THE REASON IT FELL APART IS BECAUSE THE JUDGE, WHO PRESIDED OVER THIS TRIAL, SAID IT WASN'T APPROPRIATE FOR HER TO BE THE PERSON IN THE FIRST INSTANCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER HUNTER WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DIVERSION AGREEMENT. PROSECUTORS AND HUNTER BIDEN'S LAWYER BOTH WANTED THAT. WHY? FOR REASONS THAT WERE UNSPOKEN, BECAUSE THERE WAS A FEAR THAT IF JOE BIDEN WERE NOT RE-ELECTED AND FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP WERE TO BE ELECTED, A REPUBLICAN LED DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COULD SEEK TO FIND HIM IN NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEAL. THAT'S WHY THEY WANTED THE JUDGE TO SUPERVISE IT. SHE SAID, THAT'S NOT MY JOB. THAT'S HOW IT FELL APART. THAT'S WHAT LED TO TODAY'S INDICTMENT AND THEN TRIAL AND, OF COURSE, CONVICTION. NOT AT ALL SURPRISING, BUT STILL NONETHELESS, A REAL TRAGEDY. >> A LOT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT HOW UNUSUAL THIS CASE WAS. THE FACT THAT HUNTER BIDEN HAD THIS GUN FOR 11 DAYS, NEVER FIRED IT, IT WASN'T USED TO CARRY OUT ANOTHER CRIME OF SOME SORT. WHAT'S YOUR BIG TAKEAWAY WITH THIS VERDICT TODAY AND WHERE WE ARE? >> EXACTLY WHAT LISA SAID. A YEAR AGO, THE SAME PROSECUTORS WERE OFFERING HIM A DIVERSION PROGRAM FOR TWO YEARS AND THEN CHARGES DISMISSED. I THINK IT WOULD BE AN OUTRAGE IF A YEAR LATER, IT'S CALLED THE TRIAL PENALTY, HE WILL BE PENALIZED FOR GOING TO TRIAL AND GET INCARCERATION. HE IS A VERY SAD FIGURE, AS ARE MANY PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTRY, AND HE WILL NOW BE, WHEN HE IS SENTENCED, A CONVICTED FELON. THERE'S NO NEED TO INCARCERATE HIM. HE WILL -- HE SHOULD GET THE SAME DIVERSION PROGRAM. ONCE AN ADDICT, ALWAYS AN ADDICT. I'M ASSUMING HE IS IN RECOVERY. IT WILL HELP HIM. THAT'S THE SAD PART IS THAT HE WENT TO TRIAL. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MIRACLE IF THERE WAS AN ACQUITTAL. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE JURY DOING NULLIFICATION, SAYING WE ARE SYMPATHETIC TO HIM, WHICH YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO. BUT SOME DO THAT. IT'S NOT AN UNFAIR VERDICT. THEY FOLLOWED THE LAW. BUT IT'S A SAD VERDICT. >> LAURA, KEN OUTLINED WHAT'S NEXT. AS YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE, WHAT IS POINT A TO POINT B? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WHAT DOES THIS VERDICT NOW MEAN FOR HUNTER BIDEN? >> HE IS IN MORE LEGAL JEOPARDY COMING IN A FEW MONTHS IN SEPTEMBER ON THE HEELS OF THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. HE IS FACING NINE COUNTS FOR TAX RELATED CHARGES, INCLUDING TAX EVASION AND FILING A FALSE RETURN. DIDN'T PAY HIS TAXES TO THE TUNE OF $1.4 MILLION ON TIME. HIS ATTORNEYS WILL TELL YOU, THEY PAID IT ALL BACK. LEGALLY, DOESN'T MATTER. HE IS STILL FACING SERIOUS JEOPARDIES THERE. ALL OF WHICH WOULD HAVE GONE AWAY IF HE HAD BEEN ABLE TO SECURE THIS PLEA DEAL. HIS LAWYES AND THE PROSECUTORS WERE NOT AT A MEETING OF THE MINDS. HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE UNIVERSAL. PROSECUTORS SAID, NOT SO FAST. THE JUDGE SAID, ARE YOU SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE PLEADING GUILTY TO? HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND. IT ALL FELL APART. HE IS GOING TO FACE THIS OTHER TRIAL. HE CAN PLEAD GUILTY TODAY TO THOSE CHARGES. >> HE COULD STILL GO FORWARD WITH A PLEA DEAL? >> YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PRESENT THAT TO HIM. SEEING HOW THIS WENT TODAY, HE NEEDS TO THINK THROUGH WHETHER HE NEEDS TO PLEAD GUILTY TO THOSE CHARGES. I'M NOT SUGGESTING HE SHOULD. I'M NOT SUGGESTING HE WILL. HIS LAWYERS ARE GOING TO COUNCIL HIM SERIOUSLY ABOUT WHETHER HE NEEDS TO HAVE A PLEA AS IT RELATES TO THE CHARGES IN SEPTEMBER. ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO COME OUT. IF WE THINK THE EVIDENCE WAS BAD IN THIS TRIAL, WAIT UNTIL SEPTEMBER WHERE THEY WILL HEAR ABOUT ALL THE THINGS HE WAS SPENDING MONEY ON, NOT HIS TAXES. >> STAY WITH US. LET ME BRING IN FBI -- FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL ANDREW WEISSMANN. WAS THERE ANYTHING HUNTER BIDEN'S ATTORNEYS COULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY THAT MIGHT HAVE MADE THEIR DEFENSE STRONGER? >> NO. THE FACTS HERE WERE VERY STRONG FOR THE STATE. I THINK THAT BASICALLY THIS WAS A CASE WHERE THEY HAD TO HOPE FOR JURY NULLIFICATION. I THINK THAT WHAT YOU ARE SEEING TODAY AND WHAT WE SAW IN NEW YORK IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRUMP CRIMINAL CASE IS JURORS DOING THEIR JOB. IT'S A TESTAMENT TO OUR JURY SYSTEM AND TO THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY THAT IN BOTH SITUATIONS JURORS HEARD THE FACTS, THEY WEIGHED CREDIBILITY, AND MADE DECISIONS, AND IT DIDN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE DEALING WITH A FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY A FAR MORE SERIOUS CRIME, OR YOU ARE DEALING WITH THE SON OF THE PRESIDENT. THESE ARE JURORS WHO DID THEIR DUTY AND THE RULE OF LAW HELD IN BOTH SITUATIONS. AS TO WHAT HUNTER BIDEN'S LAWYER COULD DO HERE OR COULD DO IN THE TAX CASE, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH LAURA THAT THE TAX CASE WILL HAVE VERY SALACIOUS FACTS. IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN IF THERE'S A BETTER DEFENSE TO THOSE CHARGES. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A QUESTION FOR ME AS TO WHY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS GUN CHARGE THESE THREE GUN CHARGES HERE, WHY THERE WASN'T A PLEA WORKED OUT AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THESE CHARGES. I KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE STATUTES. IT MAY BE THAT'S THE REASON HUNTER BIDEN DIDN'T JUST PLEAD STRAIGHT UP TO THE INDICTMENT. THE FACTS HERE WERE TRULY OVERWHELMING. IT'S NOT SURPRISING THAT HE WAS CONVICTED. I DON'T THINK IT
