>> THE REPORTERS ARE TRYING BUT SPECIAL COUNSEL DAVID WEISS CAME TO SAY WHAT HE WANTED TO SAY, THAT NO ONE IN THIS COUNTRY IS ABOVE THE LAW. AND JURORS WHO WORKED HARD ON THIS CASE FOUND HUNTER BIDEN GUILTY ON THREE COUNTS, TWO RELATED TO LYING ON A GOVERNMENT FORM, ONE ON OBTAINING A GUN WHILE HE WAS IN THE THROES OF ADDICTION OR UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS. AND HE MADE IT CLEAR, THIS WAS NOT A KALS THAT HE SAID IS ABOUT ADDICTION. IT WAS ABOUT THE ILLEGAL CHOICES THAT WERE MADE WHILE IN THE THROES OF ADDICTION. I WANT TO BRING IN MSNBC JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS, ANTHONY COLEY, SENIOR ADVISER TO MERRICK GARLAND. LISA RUBIN IS ALSO HERE ON-SET AND BACK WITH US. FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL, ANDREW WEISSMANN AND MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST CATHERINE CHRISTIAN. ANTHONY, I WANT TO START WITH YOU. I'M LOOKING AT SOME OF THE REACTION THAT WE JUST HEARD FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. THAT INCLUDES THIS FROM ANDREW CLYDE. HUNTER BIDEN'S VERDICT IS AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF EQUAL JUSTICE. DON'T FALL FOR IT. ERIC BURLESON FROM MISSOURI. WHILE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, HE, MEANING JOE BIDEN -- OR HUNTER BIDEN -- NEEDS TO ANSWER FOR THE MANY CRIMES HE AND HIS FATHER HAVE COMMITTED. BOB GOODE, HUNTER BIDEN IS CONVICTED OF AN ACTUAL CRIME. DONALD TRUMP WAS RAILROADED BY A POLITICAL PROSECUTOR AND A BIAS JUDGE. I CAN GO ON AND ON AND ON. AND I WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION AS YOU WATCHED SOMEBODY WHO PUT A GOOD BIT OF HIS LIFE ON HOLD TO BECOME THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR IN THIS CASE. THE JURORS, WHO PUT THEIR LIVES ON HOLD, TO ADJUDICATE, HELP COME TO A DECISION IN THIS CASE AND LISTENED VERY CAREFULLY. DID, FRANKLY, WHAT THE PROSECUTOR ASKED THEM TO DO, IGNORE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING OUT THERE WATCHING, WHICH INCLUDED THE SITTING FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES. AND CAME TO WHAT THEY BELIEVED WAS A JUSTICE VERDICT. I WANT TO GET YOUR REACTION TO WHAT THE REACTION HAS BEEN FROM THE RIGHT. >> WELL, CHRIS, I WAS AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MADE TWO OUT OF THE THREE SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS. HE DID SO IN EACH OF THE INSTANCES TO REASSURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT WHATEVER DECISION WAS APPROPRIATE, THAT IT WAS UNDISPUTEDLY DETERMINED BY FACTS AND THE LAW. THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE. AND TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO, SOME ARE SAYING THIS WAS A POLITICAL PROSECUTION, IF THIS WERE A POLITICAL PROSECUTION, THEN DAVID WEISS WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THESE CHARGES WHEN HE WAS A TRUMP-ERA U.S. ATTORNEY. THIS IS WHAT FOLLOWING THE FACTS AND FOLLOWING THE LAW LOOKS LIKE. BUT I'M GOING TO STEP BACK AND DO BIG PICTURE FOR A MOMENT. IF WE REALLY WANT TO -- WE REALLY WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW THIS IS REALLY GOING OVER, I'M MINDFUL THAT HUNTER BIDEN IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. JOE BIDEN IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. AND I'M MORE CONCERNED, QUITE FRANKLY, AND THANKFUL, FOR HIS REACTION TO THIS CASE. HE'S REACTED, NUMBER ONE, AS A FATHER. WE WOULD ALL BE SO LUCKY, CHRIS, IF WE HAD A FATHER WHO LOVED US UNCONDITIONALLY, DESPITE ALL OF OUR FLAWS, THROUGH THE UPS AND DOWNS OF WHATEVER PROBLEMS WE FACE IN OUR LIVES. AND THEN, AS PRESIDENT, WHAT IS SO STRIKING, AND ANDREW WEISSMANN ALLUDED TO THIS A COUPLE MOMENTS AGO, JOE BIDEN SAID HE WILL NOT PARDON HIS SON. TO ME, THAT REBUILDS THE CHARACTER OF A MAN. AND IT ALSO REBUILDS HIS RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW. IN ANOTHER WORLD, BEFORE DONALD TRUMP ENTERED THE SCENE, ALL OF THESE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN, THE QUOTES YOU JUST MENTIONED, THEY WOULD RESPECT THE RULE OF LAW. IT'S A SHAME THAT SO MANY PEOPLE SPEAKING OUT IN THIS WAY. WHAT'S DISHEARTENING IS SO MANY MODERATE AND CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS WHO SAY THEY ARE PRO-DEMOCRACY AND PRO-CONSTITUTION, THEY REMAIN SILENT WHILE OTHES ON THE RIGHT, ARE SPEAKING OUT IN THIS WAY. THAT'S DISHEARTENING TO ME. THEIR SILENCE IN THIS MOMENT, AGAINST THESE ATTACKS, IS A SIGN OF COMPLICITY. >> LISA, THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THAT DAVID WEISS SAID. NO ONE IS MORE ACCOUNTABLE THAN ANY OTHER CITIZEN. THERE'S PEOPLE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS WHO WOULD ARGUE, THAT'S NOT TRUE. MOST CASES, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CATHERINE -- MOST CASES ARE NOT BROUGHT TO TRIAL. MOST CASES ARE, IN FACT, FINISHED WITH A PLEA AGREEMENT OF SOME SORT, WHICH IS WHERE THIS ONE SEEMED TO BE HEADED. IS THIS A CASE WHERE SOMEONE WAS NO MORE ACCOUNTABLE THAN ANYONE ELSE? >> I'M NOT SURE THAT'S HISTORICALLY ACCURATE. AT LEAST WHEN WE THINK OF WHO HAS BEEN CHARGED AND BROUGHT TO A JURY VERDICT ON CHARGES LIKE THESE. THESE ARE RARELY CHARGES THAT ARE BROUGHT ON A STANDALONE BASIS. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTED LAST WEEK, OF PEOPLE THAT ARE APPLYING FOR GUN PERMITS, LESS THAN ONE-TENTH OF 1% OF PEOPLE WHO APPLY FOR GUN PERMITS ARE DENIED THOSE ON THE BASIS OF THE ANSWER OF THE QUESTION AT ISSUE HERE. ARE YOU A USER OF OR ARE YOU ADDICTED TO A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, A NARCOTIC, A STIMULANT. THAT SHOWS HOW RARELY PEOPLE ARE DENIED TO OWN A GUN ON THE BASIS OF THIS QUESTION. I THINK THE POINT THAT DAVID WEISS IS TRYING TO MAKE, IS ABOUT THE SENTENCING ABOUT THIS CONVICTION. I THINK WHAT HE IS TRYING TO CONVEY TO PEOPLE IS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO FOR BLOOD HERE. WE'RE GOING TO BE PROPORTIONAL. EVEN THOUGH WE BROUGHT THIS CASE, TO TRIAL. WHEN IT BECOMES TIME TO SENTENCE HUNTER BIDEN, WE'RE GOING TO BE MEASURED, PROPORTIONAL AND TAKE ACCOUNT HOW THESE CHARGES ARE TRADITIONALLY PUNISHED IN OUR SYSTEM. IF SOMEONE GETS THEM THROUGH A PLEA OR JURY VERDICT, WE'RE GOING TO BE MEASURED APPROPRIATE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY TO SENTENCE THIS GUY TO TEN YEARS, WHICH IS THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM. WE'RE GOING TO THINK OF THE OTHER FACTORS THAT WOULD GO INTO A SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION, UNDER THE FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES, THAT MIGHT KNOCK HIM DOWN TO A YEAR OR LESS, OR A RECOMMENDATION OF NO JAIL TIME AT ALL. HUNTER BIDEN IS NOW MARRIED. HE'S REPORTEDLY CLEAN. HE'S RAISING A YOUNG SON. AND HE IS TRYING TO MAKE HIS LIVING AS AN ARTIST. BY ALL ACCOUNTS, HIS LIFE TODAY IS REMARKABLY DIFFERENT THAN THE LIFE HE WAS LEADING AT THE TIME THAT LED TO THESE CHARGES. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT DAVID WEISS WAS TRYING TO CONVEY IN HIS STATEMENTS TODAY. >> I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER AFFECT OF THIS, CATHERINE, WHICH IS REMORSE. THAT MAY BE PART OF IT, CERTAINLY WHEN THE CONVERSATIONS HAVE WITH THE PROBATIONS OFFICER. I WANT TO ASK YOU THE IDEA OF PROPORTION. ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT IN THE CASE OF DONALD TRUMP IS, HE'S 77 YEARS OLD. HE HAS NO CRIMINAL RECORD. IT WAS A NONVIOLENT CRIME. WHAT WOULD THE CONSIDERATIONS HERE BE CONSIDERED FOR A SENTENCE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE INCARCERATION? >> WELL, AS LISA SAID, IT WOULD BE PENALIZING GOING FOR THE TRIAL, WHEN LAST YEAR THEY OFFERED HIM A DIVERSION PROGRAM. THE ONLY THING THAT HAS CHANGED FROM LAST YEAR TODAY, HE'S AN ARTIST, HE'S A FATHER, HE'S STILL, FROM ALL APPEARANCES, IN RECOVERY. HE IS STILL AN ADDICT, IN REHABILITATION. HE'S NOT USING ANYMORE. SO -- AND I THINK HE'S 54 YEARS OLD. HE'S NOT A KID. THOSE FOR ME, ARGUE WHY THERE SHOULD NOT BE AN INCARCERATION SENTENCE FROM THE FACTS. >> THE STATEMENT FROM ABBE LOWELL IS JUST RESPECTING THE VERDICT, RESPECTING THE PROCESS. THROUGH ALL THIS, HE SAYS HUNTER -- THROUGH ALL THAT HUNTER HAS BEEN THROUGH IN HIS RECOVERY, INCLUDING THIS TRIAL, HE HAS FELT GRATEFUL FOR AND BLESSED BY THE LOVE AND SUPPORT OF HIS FAMILY. THAT ECHOES WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAID. IT ECHOES WHAT WE SAW IN THE FIRST LADY, WHAT WE SAW IN FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS WHO SHOWED UP DAY AFTER DAY IN COURT. USUALLY, WE EXPECT AN APPEAL. ARE THERE STRONG GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL THAT YOU SEE AT ALL, ANDREW, IN THIS CASE? >> QUICKLY, I WANT TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT DAVID WEISS SAID THAT I TOOK NOTE OF. HE SAID, I'M NOT TAKING QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF TWO THINGS -- HE SAID, THERE IS ANOTHER TRIAL. AND HE SAID, AND INVESTIGATION. THAT ISSUE OF WHETHER THERE WAS A SPENDING INVESTIGATION, IS PART OF WHAT SCUTTLED THE PLEA DEAL A YEAR AGO. THERE WAS A KERFUFFLE WHERE THE DEFENSE SAID THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE BUYING COMPLETE PEACE IF THEY PLED GUILTY TO RESOLVE EVERYTHING. AND DAVID WEISS' OFFICE SAID, NO, THERE'S STILL AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION. HIS LANGUAGE WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE IT DIDN'T PRECLUDE THAT ONGOING INVESTIGATION. AND WE HEARD REPUBLICANS TALK ABOUT A FOREIGN AGENT REGISTRATION ACT INVESTIGATION. I PROSECUTED THAT STATUTE. I HAVE TO SAY, IT'S A SERIOUS MATTER. BUT IT DOESN'T CARRY WITH IT ANY SENTENCING GUIDELINE THAT WOULD BE REMOTELY COMPARABLE TO THE CRIMES THAT ARE CHARGED IN THE SEPTEMBER CASE OR THE ONES HE WAS JUST CONVICTED OF. THAT WAS JUST A NOTE TO ME. ON THE ISSUE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I THINK THE MAIN ISSUE ON APPEAL IS GOING TO BE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THESE PROVISIONS, WHERE A NUMBER OF CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES AND ANALYSTS HAVE THE VIEW THESE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS, ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE USING DRUGS OR HAD AN ADDICTION, EVEN IF THAT WAS A TERM THAT WAS SUFFICIENTLY DEFINED AND NOT VAGUE, AN ISSUE THAT LISA HAS FLAGGED FOR US, THAT ISSUE IS ONE THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO PRECLUDE YOU FROM OWNING A GUN, THEY SAY IS PROTECTED UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT. AND AMY CONEY BARRETT HAS ISSUED A DECISION AND OPINED ON THIS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, PRIOR TO BECOMING A JUSTICE ON THE SUPREME COURT, VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THAT ARGUMENT. THAT YOU HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO OWN A FIREARM. THAT'S A PURE LEGAL ISSUE. YOU MAY SEE A MARRIAGE OF HUNTER BIDEN'S DEFENSE TEAM AND CONSERVATIVE JURISTS AND THINKERS. NOT A NATURAL ALLIANCE. BUT IF YOU THINK THE STATUTE IS
