thanksgiving. while witnesses continue to stone wall investigators, the committee may soon have access to key documents regarding january 6th from the trump administration. documents the president has fought to shield. they should prepare to justify why the court even has the authority to hear the dispute in the first place with arguments in that case set for next tuesday. trump sought to assert executive privilege to block the committee from obtaining documents from the national archive regarding the attack on the capitol. joining me now is garrett haak, national reporter and msnbc contributor carol lenok, and american university professor cynthia miller. everybody, welcome. so more than 40 subpoenas so far, garrett. they have 200 interviews. they're trying to go broad and deep with this. what are they hoping to get. do they expect to get compliance with everybody but steve bannon? >> i think that's the hope, katy. but it will have to be born out over time. of course, mark meadows is probably the biggest other name. there might be other members of the president's former inner circle that could use his claims of privilege to strengthen their defense or at least run out the clock on testifying. but this latest round of subpoenas is a little more interesting because it focuses on the foot soldiers. it focuses on the people who were here at the capitol building itself, where we haven't seen an investigator exploration yet. this latest round targeting leaders of the oath keepers. it targets the proud boys. it targets some of the people that made up these violent militias, people who don't have any hope of calling themselves immune because of president trump's legal protections he might be able to provide or not depending on what a court says for other folks and they likely don't have to same resources to fight protracted legal battles. but they're keeping pretty close to the vest so far. >> there has been one public hearing so far. any others? >> the committee understands that ultimately they will have to put more out there. they are able to continue to essentially get some press coverage. they're able to keep the investigation going with these subpoenas telling us they're interviewing people, documents coming in. but the purpose of this committee is to expose what happened on that day, what we learned and how to prevent it. if you are a member of congress, there is no better or more effective way to do that than with open committee hearings. >> well, you get a lot of public attention and in some cases public outcry. let's talk about what the chairman has said about this last round of subpoenas. the select committee is ek soing information from individuals and organizations reportedly involved with planning the attack, with the violent mob that stormed the capitol on january 6th to overturn the results of the election. we believe the individuals and organizations we subpoenaed today have relevant information about how violence erupted at the capitol and the preparation leading up to this violent attack. so they are casting a wide net here, as i mentioned to garrett. the question is when they go this wide, are they going to be able to get enough answers? does it need to be narrower to get more specific answers in the time frame that they have? remember, with congress maybe changing hands next year, that's the expectation at least as of now. this committee doesn't have that much time to do quite a lot of work. >> i think you're right about the race to the -- to the finish and it feels silly, actually sometimes to talk about it being a race when the election for the midterms is next november. but this committee is trying to get its answers. it's trying to flush out the details of what is a narrative many of us how on television. but behind the scenes there is a lot more. what's crucial, katy, about the subpoenas this week, the monday and the tuesday batches, especially the oath keeper and proud boys subpoenas is this is an effort to get at the people who actually have been accused of planning the event. keep in mind that roger stone, who was in -- subpoenaed on monday, was being guarded as a -- by body guards, secure teams by oath keepers on january 5th, was in regular communication with oath keepers leaders and the people subpoenaed on tuesday are oath keepers who have been accused by the department of justice of preparing and planning the violence that unfolded that day. it's not a -- it's not a small six degrees of separation. it's zero degrees of separation. the people that they're seeking information for their membership were directly charged and accused with planning this attack and also being in regular communication with one of former president trump's most sort of controversial and loyal supporters, a self-described dirty trickster who did bad deeds for political gains. >> carroll, what's bewildering to me is how this has gotten so bipartisan. it's mostly democrats and republicans broadly in congress have painted it as a witch hunt. there is an effort underway to repaint what happened on january 6th as not that bad or completely conflated by the media or democrats or in some cases a false flag operation. i wonder in your conversations with lawmakers, regardless of what happens next year in the mid-terms and then in 2024, regardless of who wins, i wonder if they are mentally prepared or worried at all for what could come out of an electorate that doesn't decide to accept the results of a fair election and perpetuaing this idea that it's not a big deal to keep going with this lie that the election was stolen. >> well, it's such a smart question, katy, because actually we are seeing a lot of republicans who are privately saying, yeah, i know the election was not rigged but that's the line that we're sticking with right now, and i'm paraphrasing them, of course, but that's the line we're sticking with right now because the standard bearer of our party is donald trump, and we want every voter who supporting donald trump in order to keep our own jobs. now, that -- that mouse trap that they're stuck in, that loop that they're stuck in, they helped allow, enable, promote the big lie. and now they've got to keep parroting it in their view in order to keep in power. but i think two things are really interesting and going on here. one is that that -- that part that you have described so well, the gop sort of locked in this -- in this trap. but the second is fear. if republicans have anything to worry about it's how close this investigation is going to get to some of its own members. remember, the gop supporting trump. they were meeting to plan how they would stop the steal in late december. members who are leaders were in communication with donald trump on january 6th. kevin mccarthy among them. and the reveal that's going to come out of this could be very embarrassing and very striking. >> does anybody see this, carolyn, just one more on this, as an inflection point for our democracy, frankly. i know that sounds like a big question, but if you are going to perpetuate this lie, if you don't perpetuate the lie then donald trump is going to go after you. this is a pretty scary, slippery slope. >> i mean, i hesitate to use the phrase inflection point anymore because it feels like we use it every day, every week. i think you have hit something important, but it's, to me, having reported out a lot of what happened on january 6th, that inflection point has happened multiple times and perhaps most searingly, katy, it was the night of january 6th and the morning of january 7th. you had lindsey graham nearly crying saying we have been on a nice ride, me and donald trump, but it's over now because he saw what donald trump had promoted. you had mitch mcconnell, also incredibly loyal to the president essentially say, okay, this was an attack on our democracy. we need to certify this election and adamant that they would do it, that they would anoint the proper elected future president as the future president, joe biden. you had all sorts of individuals saying this was too scary. this is different. but on the morning of january 7th, that shift started all over again. that inflection point, which was, okay, he's -- he's our guy. we're going to have to stick with him and we're going to have to stick with something we don't actually believe. >> you know, i was listening to an interview that one of your colleges in the post did with mitch mcconnell, asking him whether he would vote to convict donald trump of impeachment had he still been in office? and mitch mcconnell refused, refused repeatedly, to answer that question. it tells you a lot about where he stands, even though he had very strong words the day of the insurrection and then after that on the -- on the senate floor when impeachment was happening. cynthia, let's talk about the records that donald trump is trying to keep out of the hands of congress. the federal appeals court is being, in my reading of it, pretty critical here of trump's effort. what's going to happen? >> well, they have put it on an expedited schedule to argue next week. it doesn't seem like an expedited schedule to most people, but in the world of appellate juris prudence, it's pretty quick. and i think most court really watchers think what's going to happen is they will order that the records are turned over. after all, the presidential records act is pretty clear that the sitting president gets to decide what records are released. and president biden has waived any privilege and said these records should be released. and the district court has also ruled the records be released. now the appellate court has said maybe we shouldn't be looking at this. maybe it should be up to the president and the national archives, and they have asked for briefing on whether or not they should even issue an opinion. so my guess is that shortly after the arguments next week the records are going to be released to congress or the trump people will try to stall some more and see if they can get the supreme court to issue a stay and they can brief it then because, after all, the general play book for the trump team is to just stall and try to hold it over until the congressional investigation is -- is over or is shut down by the republicans. >> you bring me to my next question. this is for cynthia miller. in the delay tactics, trump has used delay for pretty much every lawsuit that he's been involved in. is there a way that he can stretch this out and wait until potentially congress turns over control to the republican party? i say potentially because who knows what could happen between now and 2022. >> well, i wouldn't underestimate how long things can be stretched out. i mean, i do think we can see considerable delays here. but i also want to comment on the earlier question you raised about democracy in general and what this means. what it means to have not just the nation watching but the world watching because the u.s. was added this week, just a couple of days ago to a list of backsliding democracies for the first time. and, you know, that's a real red flag. it should be a wakeup call. and one of the reasons for that was because there is a refusal to accept credible election results. and, you know, along with voter suppression and rising political violence and other issues. but the longer we see these kind of antics go on, the refusal and the broader refusal of a populus toing a accept those election results, the more risk we are on a backsliding path that needs to be recovered from right now. >> well, the question is what do the promoters see as the end result here, and are they happy with that end result? it doesn't necessarily mean they will be the ones in power or the ones in charge get away from you quickly. cynthia, i should also mention your book. you are the awe thr of "hate in the homeland," the new global far right. thank you for joining us. carol and garrett, thank you for joining us. happy thanksgiving. and meanwhile, we are also on verdict watch in the trial of the three men accused of killing ahmaud arbery. and there are reasons to expect the jury might come back today. plus, another victim in wisconsin loses his life. an eight-year-old boy the latest in the investigation up there. and later, what medical experts are now warning ahead of the holidays as the number of those expected to travel has tripled from last year. d. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ as a dj, i know all about customization. that's why i love liberty mutual. they customize my car insurance, so i only pay for what i need. how about a throwback? ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ unleash the freshness... [upbeat music] still fresh ♪ in wash-scent booster ♪ downy unstopables jury deliberations are underway in the trial of the three men accused of killing ahmaud arbery. earlier today the jurors returned to the courtroom and asked to see the video of the shooting and to hear the audio of the 911 call placed by gregory mcmichael. they have now returned to deliberation. the panel of 11 white jurors and 1 black juror spent over six hours in deliberations yesterday afternoon f. the jury cannot come to a verdict today, the court will take a break for the thanksgiving holiday and then resume deliberations friday morning. joining me now is cal perry and ck, the chair of the rain you bush coalition. welcome to both of you. cal, the jury had some questions yesterday as well as the questions today. why specifically those videos and what could it signal? >> yeah. we're not sure why the videos -- they have seen these videos any number of times. i want to remind our viewers, we obscure these videos. it's an incredibly violent video. they wanted to see the high resolution video three times and the low resolution three times. as you said, they wanted to hear that 911 call. it was interesting because the judge said just put your arm up to the head of the jury when you are done hearing this 911 call. it was only 30 seconds of that 911 call. that 911 call made infamous really by the prosecution's closing arguments pointing to what was said on that call. as the call is made from the 911 operator, what is your emergency. you hear from greg mcmichael, there is a black man running down the street. this was a key part of the prosecution's closing. indications that maybe we're close to a verdict, yesterday at 5:30 p.m., the judge reached out to the jury and said, are you close to a verdict? they said they were. they stayed an extra hour, which is why a lot of people thought that maybe we were close. obviously with the holiday today, there was a lot of anticipation we could have a verdict. but we're standing by. the judge may let the jury go early today if they're not close to a verdict because of the holiday. that could be the other indication around 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. >> tell us what's going on behind you. who's there right now? >> these are going to be supporters of the family. the family is escorted in and out of the court by supporters. sometimes they are clergy. sometimes they are attorneys. this morning it was both. al sharpton, who is our colleague, ushered in the mother of ahmaud arbery. that is what you are seeing behind me. it is a small group today. again, all these chairs you see behind me in front of the courthouse, those are supporters for the family. i would say about two dozen folks. >> ck, you are from georgia. i know trials are particular to the particular prosecutors and defense attorneys but also the juries. tell us what we should know looking in from the outside. >> i think what is important, very important to note is that the citizens arrest law is something that's not -- was not well known at the time of ahmaud arbery's killing. and, so, that citizen's arrest law is being tried in this case. i think it is very interesting that the jury asked to look at the videos and asked to listen to the 911 call as well as the audio. all of those three pieces of evidence, if you will, point to the citizens arrest law, whether it is valid, and also point to the defense of self-defense under georgia law. those are three critical pieces of evidence. if i'm the defense right now, i'm feeling uneasy that the jurors wanted to listen to and see that evidence. and, so, either we've got descension in the room and somebody needs to be persuaded on one side or the other by that evidence or they have a lot more deliberation to go. either they're there with the verdict and someone just needed that extra little push by looking at that evidence or they are at the end of their rope and they're going -- for today and they will deliberate much longer. i think in georgia, this is really, really a critical time. there is so much at stake and so much that is under a microscope, especially the racial discrimination, the tensions between different groups in florida -- in georgia, and also the conscious of this state. that's what we are seeing through this trial involving the shooting and killing of ahmaud arbery. >> you know, cal, i noticed some movement behind you a moment ago. do we have some news out of the courtroom? >> we have some news out of the pool report. the pool report is indicated, indicating that there's been a verdict reach. i want to be clear about indicating because we haven't heard from the judge. we're watching the feed coming out of the court, and we're going to make sure. but that is the indication. again, i want to caution our viewers we will double check with the judge. there is a lot of rushing around. >> it seemed like they were moving towards something, so, cal, we will wait as you get more information on that. ck, i want to linger on the 911 call for just a moment longer because the prosecution really spent some time on that yesterday in the rebuttal talking about what the mcmichaels said on that 911 call. what is your emergency? there was a black man running down the street. a black man running down the street. she emphasized that. your emergency is there is a black man running down the street. knowing that the jury came back to hear that 911 call and, as cal just said, they raised their hands pretty quickly when they had heard enough, what does that say to you? >> that says to me that the defense should be feeling very uneasy because that is a piece of evidence that really exemplifies the racial anonymous and the fact that just like the prosecutor said this happened to ahmaud arbery because he was a black man. and i think that that is at the crux of their case. they didn't make a huge issue out of it, but the statements were made. and if you remove the component of a citizen's arrest, if you remove the self-defense, then all you have is a harmless, unarmed young black man who is running to save his life. so i think these pieces of evidence, that 911 call is critical to the prosecution's case and that the jury wanted to hear that again, to me, bodes well for the prosecution in this case. >> let's talk about race. the prosecution until maybe the last day. there was a lot of race -- racial components to this given the 911 call, the allegations of what was said over arbery's body after he was shot. was it a mistake not to bring race into this in a bigger way from the prosecution or was there -- was she working under a different strategy? >> well, the only strategy that i can think she was working under, which is an important strategy is her audience is a jury of 12 people. whatever we may feel outside of that group is not relevant to what the prosecution's argument was. she is tailoring her comments to that group of 12 people who are now sitting and possibly have a verdict in this case. one of those persons is african-american. you really would have to be slapped in the head to not realize that race permeates throughout this case. she chose, with 11 white jurors and 1 african-american juror not to make that a big issue because it quite frankly is obvious. but she chose to try this case on the evidence because you would reach the same conclusion based on the evidence there that race permeates throughout the case. but it would also reach a conclusion that the citizen's arrest now does not apply in this case or the notion of self-defense doesn't apply either. to reach that conclusion you really don't have to take into consideration race. but we do know that race permeates throughout every aspect of this case. so she probably didn't want to go too far with the obvious because she's really appealing to that panel of 12 people who will sit in deliberation and look at the evidence. and she wants a win. and, so, i think that's why she used that strategy and quite frankly it was so obvious that i don't think she needed to drive it home anymore than she did. >> so cal perry just mentioned a moment ago that there is a pool note -- that's the reporters that are in the courtroom that indicated there was a verdict. we have now seen that pool note. again, it is indicating there is a verdict so now we are going to wait and see when the court -- the judge announces or asks everybody to come back into the courtroom to hear that verdict. it might happen very quickly. we're going to wait on that. cal, the tension out there has got to be growing by the second. >> you know, it's smaller crowds than it has been, but i think you can expect those crowds to arrive. now that we know that they have reached a verdict, i think you can expect people to start arriving. the other thing that's going to happen, the judge said he would give quote, unquote fair warning to everybody. he will announce there has been a verdict reached. they will give everybody about an hour or so i would say to get set. you might see security preparations behind me. you will see folks get into place. phone calls made to family members. and then the jury will come in, at which point we will hear the verdicts on nine counts on three different defendants. they will go through each defendant and each of those nine counts. no word on when that will happen, but i would expect it in sort of the next hour. >> nine counts for each of the three defendants. they're accused of different varying degrees of different things. one of the defendants, william roddie bryan, ck, is not accused of pulling the trigger. his lawyer says he was just following along. he was just taping. he wasn't a party to any of this. the prosecutor said, no, he was a party to this. he was the one trying to coral ahmaud arbery in. she used a football metaphor. if you win the super bowl, everybody on the team gets a super bowl ring, even the ones that are sitting off on the sidelines. everybody gets a ring because everybody is involved, everybody is involved in that outcome. what are the chances that william roddie bryan gets a different sentence, that the jury sees it differently, sees his participation as lesser than the mcmichaels? >> i think there is a good chance they may see his participation somewhat lesser. but we have to remember that he did drive his vehicle. he did drive his truck. he did help to corner ahmaud arbery. he was part of this awful, terrible, oppressive picture that cornered and, as to use the words of travis mcmichael, that chased him down like a rat. and, so, he was part of the chasing down like a rat. so he can't really run away from that. he didn't pull the trigger. he didn't do perhaps as much as the mcmichaels did, but he was part of the picture. and without his involvement there may not have been the same outcome. i think that's what's critical. so he might get less charges. but i think if the jury is going to convict the mcmichaels, then i think mr. bryan will get convicted perhaps to a lessor degree, but he will still get convicted. >> let's go through all the felony counts. remember, there are nine counts. all men are charged. there is malice murder. felony murder, four counts of that. aggravated assault, two counts of that. false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit a felony. ck, the judge was very specific in reading the jury instructions yesterday. we watched them live here. it took quite a while. and he was very specific in how he laid out how to -- how to do a citizens' arrest, what you need to do to have a justified citizens arrest, what it means to falsely imprison somebody among other -- other explanations. talk to me about what the judge said and how that might influence the jury. did it undercut the defense? did it help the defense? >> i think what the judge did he did very well and that's what we expect of the judge. whether we agree with the instructions or not, we expect a judge to be as clear as he would or we can juxtapose that to the judge in the kyle rittenhouse trial. but this judge is clear and crisp. he read those instructions. i think that was helpful for the prosecution. i think to a degree it didn't undercut the defense because he explained, he went into great detail about what a citizen's arrest is. if you listen to what he was saying, it appeared the evidence doesn't support those elements could have been met. in addition to that when he talked about false imprisonment, what was false imprisonment? ahmaud arbery really had no options. he was cornered in, again, like a rat. he couldn't go anywhere. so that notion of false imprisonment was real. >> cal perry -- >> so i think it really benefits the prosecution. >> i'm sorry. cal perry, were you asking for us to come back to you? >> yeah, i was. i appreciate it. so i will read to you from the pool note. the prosecutors have entered the courtroom. they are standing quietly around their table. the family has arrived. marcus arbery sr. is here along with ben crump. the reverend al sharpton is here. the mother of ahmaud arbery. it is quiet and tense. any words have been kept to a whisper. the room is jam packed. people are squeezing in. folks are switching places and nervously clasping their hands together. the family have been waiting for this for so long. we talked about this as a 13-day trial. some of these jurors were part of this jury selection a month ago. this has been a long process for so many people. i think a lot of people will be eager to get on with this, katy. >> we have danny savalos. there you are, danny. nice to have you here. this is some relatively quick deliberation. >> not exactly. the vast majority of cases do resolve relatively quickly, usually within a day or so. the rittenhouse case was kind of an outlier, for me at least. in my experience, juries are not out for several days like that. but i suspect we may never know. the fact this is wednesday before thanksgiving, before black friday, before a long holiday weekend that that must have motivated the jury mightily. is that a particularly fair thing? maybe, maybe not. i expect there might have been some urgency as if to say, folks, we don't want to be back here friday or god forbid monday to deal with this. >> we don't have the audio from the courtroom just yet. you do see the defendants, travis mcmichael, gregory mchighle and william roddie bryan along with their attorneys. now the pledge has entered the courtroom. danny, the -- the judges -- i'm sorry. the defense attorneys, one in particular, the defense attorney for roddie bryan had been calling for a mistrial over and over and over again. is he trying to lay the ground work for an appeal? >> this might have been some high-level chess by making this reference -- >> he made it very specifically about race over and over again. >> right. and predictably the backlash led to 100 black pastors to congregate at the trial. he may be setting up for an argument on appeal that the atmosphere was circus like at this trial denying his client the right to a fair trial. the condition i use "circus-like" is what the supreme court used. but that trial was one in which the level of publicity went to the point that it denied a defendant a fair trial. it is very rare. >> cal, has it been circus-like out there? >> i'm sorry. say again. has it been what? >> circus-like out there as the defense attorney has been trying to claim? >> no. no. not at all. in fact, when we heard this from attorney goff about the new black panther party marching around the building, it was a few dozen people. but it was not a ruckus. it was not a circus. he's asked for a mistrial on every day i have been here and he's been desperate to connect what's happening outside the court inside the court frankly just from a reporting standpoint, we're talking about a few dozen people, certainly not the crowds we have seen in some of the crowds recently. i will mention to you, i know you don't have any audio, the judge did officially say a verdict has been reached. >> so a verdict has been reached. what you are seeing right now is the defendants have risen and so have their lawyers. the jury is coming in. so in a moment, we will hear the judge address the jury. and the jury will read out its decision. i believe we have some audio in there now. >> welcome back. madam foreperson, i understand you have reached a verdict as to each defendant. >> we have, your honor. >> please hand your verdict forms to the sheriff. all right. i will go ahead and address each one of those verdict forms separately. the first i have is the state of georgia versus travis mcmichael. mr. mcmichael, please stand. verdict is as follows: in the superior court, state of georgia, state of georgia versus travis mcmichael, case number cr 000433. jury verdict form. count one malice murder. we, the jury, find the defendant travis mcmichael guilty. i'm going to ask that whoever just made an outburst be removed from the court, please. as this court has indicated, i asked there be no outbursts in the court. i expect as much from the gallery. please respect the court's desire for this as we move forward. if you feel like you need to make a comment or otherwise demonstrate with respect to the verdict, i do ask that you step out of the courtroom now. count two, felony murder, we, the jury, find the defendant travis mcmichael guilty. count three, felony murder, we, the jury, find the defendant travis mcmichael guilty. count four, felony murder, we, the jury, find the defendant travis mcmichael guilty. count five, felony murder, we, the jury, find the defendant travis mcmichael guilty. count six, aggravated assault, we, the jury, find the defendant travis mcmichael guilty. count seven, aggravated assault, we the jury find the defendant guilty. count eight, false imprisonment, we, the jury, find the defendant travis mcmichael guilty. count nine, criminal attempt to commit a felony, we, the jury, find the defendant travis mcmichael dlt. dated this 24th day of november 2021, signed by the foreperson. have a seat. as to gregory mcmichael in the superior court of glen county state of georgia versus greg mcmichael case number 2000433, jury verdict form count one malice murder we, the jury, find the defendant greg michael not guilty. count two felony murder, we, the jury, find the defendant guilty. count three, felony murder, we, the jury, find the defendant greg mcmichael guilty. count four, felony murder, we, the jury, find the defendant greg mcmichael guilty. count five, felony murder, we, the jury, find the defendant greg mcmichael guilty. count six, aggravated assault, we, the jury, find the defendant greg mcmichael guilty. count seven aggravated assault, we, the jury, find the defendant, greg mcmichael, guilty. count eight, false imprisonment, we, the jury, find the defendant greg mcmichael guilty. count nine, criminal attempt to commit a felony, we the jury find the defendant greg mcmichael guilty. this 24th day of november 2021. signed by the foreperson. as to william r. bryan, in the superior court of glen county state of georgia, state of georgia, cr 20000433, jury verdict form. count one, malice murder, we, the jury, find the defendant william r. bryan not guilty. count two, felony murder, we the jury find the defendant william r. bryan not guilty. count three, felony murder, we, the jury, find the defendant william r. bryan guilty. count four, felony murder, we, the jury, find the defendant william r. bryan guilty. count five, felony murder, we the jury find the defendant william r. bryan guilty. count six, aggravated assault, we, the jury, find the defendant william r. bryan not guilty. count seven, aggravated assault, we, the jury, find the defendant william r. bryan guilty. count eight, false imprisonment, we, the jury, find the defendant william r. bryan guilty. count nine, criminal attempt to commit a felony, we, the jury, find the defendant william r. bryan guilty. signed this 24th day of november by the foreperson. go ahead and have a seat. read the verdicts and accepted the verdicts, anything from the state? >> no, your honor. nothing from the state. >> anything from the defense? >> we ask the jury to be polled, your honor. >> go ahead. all right. ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to ask each of you individually a set of two questions with respect to the verdicts that i have just read. if you could please respond when you hear your juror number. juror number 1, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, sir. >> juror number 2, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, sir. >> i can't -- okay. juror number 3, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then, and are these your verdicts now? >> yes. >> juror number 4, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then, and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, sir. >> juror number 5, you have heard the verdicts read. were those your verdicts then, and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, your honor. >> juror number 7, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, your honor. >> juror number 8, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then, and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, your honor. >> juror number 9, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then, and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, your honor. >> juror number 10, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then, and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, your honor. >> juror number 11, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then, and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, your honor. >> juror number 12, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then, and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, your honor. >> and juror 16, you have heard the verdicts read. were these your verdicts then, and are these your verdicts now? >> yes, sir. >> the jury has been polled. anything further from the defense? >> no, your honor. >> all right. ladies and gentlemen, what that means with the court having accepted your verdict is that your role in this case is now at an end. what we're going to do today is i'm going to have all of you, the panel and the three alternates go ahead and retire to the jury room. we will address a couple matters logistically with you in the jury room once we get done here. but before we do that and before i excuse you, i want to thank you publically for your service here in glenn county. it has been a long trial, and i appreciate the fact that you have been attentive. you have listened to the evidence. and that is what we ask in this court. it's a very simple ask in a very complex way. so it's appreciated. when we all got together -- i say we all got together. when we got together at different times, i said i was going to thank you a number of times and i was going to tell you i do truly appreciate your time here. hopefully you understand why i said that when we started. i do also hope that you got a little bit of an insight into what goes on in a trial and maybe understand a little bit more of how important it is for members of our community to come down and be part of this process and serve as jurors in this community. so thank you for that service. and i'll come address you all in just a moment. you are excused. >> all rise for the jury. >> all right. a lot to chew over on that. the big headline there, though, is that all three men were found guilty of felony murder. there was some differences in some of the counts there, but for travis mcmichael, the man who pulled the trigger, he was guilty on all nine counts, including malice murder. his father, greg mcmichael was not guilty on malice murder but then guilty on all of the other eight counts. william bryan was found not guilty on three counts and guilty on the others. hold on. i want to hear the judge one more time. >> with my schedule and the schedule here in glenn county, i will get back to everybody about some dates and see what works with respect to dates that should give everybody an opportunity to put together whatever evidence may be shown in aggravation from the state or mitigation from the defense. hopefully we'll get to that in the next couple of weeks. i'm make sure counsel knows what those dates are. that addresses the open matter then before the court. anything from the state before we adjourn? >> nothing further from the state, your honor. >> from travis mcmichael? >> no, your honor. >> from greg mcmichael? >> no, your honor. >> and from mr. bryan. >> no, your honor. >> the defendants are to remain in the custody of the sheriff and we are adjourned. thank you. >> so court is adjourned. you will see all three men being taken into custody, custody of the sheriff as the judge just said. again, all three men convicted of felony murder in the killing of ahmaud arbery. although, the counts differ for the three men. let's try to figure out what exactly happened there. danny, the big headline, travis mcmichael, the man who pulled the trig r, held the gun, pulled the trigger, found guilty of all nine counts. his father not found guilty of malice murder. that's count one. why would the jury decide that? >> that's an interesting result. what the jury is saying is that travis mcmichael committed felonies. those felonies resulted in the death of ahmaud arbery and that he intended at least with malice as that's defined in the law to shoot and kill ahmaud arbery. what the jury concluded apparently as to his father was that he was guilty of all the felonies, false imprisonment, threatening him with a gun and that those felonies caused the death of ahmaud arbery. although they concluded that he did not actually cause the death with malice. they may have been concluding that, hey, because only one person fired the gun, that's the person we're going to get with malice murder and everybody else they committed felonies and the resulting conduct was that somebody died. that's about all you need for felony murder. >> break down what happened with william bryan. he was found not guilty on three of the counts. >> yeah. i'm still playing catchup. he was the only one that had a path to acquittal because he never possessed a gun and there was evidence he didn't know until the last second that the other guys had guns. but from my count here and i think we will wait for the official tallies it makes sense in that if they weren't going to find father mcmichael guilty on the malice murder, then they probably weren't going to find bryan guilty of the malice murder. then you get to the count two and that was aggravated assault with a firearm. no surprise there because the jury likely concluded that he had no firearm. they could have concluded that he was a party to the guys that did have firearms, but in this case they must have concluded the agg assault was not something william bryan did. but when they got to the aggravated assault with a car, and that's scaring the heck out of somebody with a giant vehicle, that can be aggravated assault. and if that can be aggravated assault and if a death results, then you can have felony murder. so the jury did conclude that william roddie bryan was committing an aggravated assault. i thought that was a likely outcome, that they would either conclude that it would be a felony that led to death. >> explain felony murder. >> essentially an unintended murder that happens as a result of a dangerous felony. in this case there were several predicate felonies charged. they appear later in the indictment. false imprisonment, aggravated assault. that aggravated assault can be predicated on a firearm or a motor vehicle. a motor vehicle is a weapon that you can use to scare someone. false imprisonment in that they restrained ahmaud arbery's movement without privilege. that "without privilege" is the magic words, they concluded there was no citizens arrest here. >> there will be different sentencing for each of them. >> are you surprised as to the outcome of this? there was a lot made about the jury, the judge even said it appears that there was discrimination in how the defense was picking out jurors. it was an almost all white jury except for one member of the jury who was black. what is your reaction to this outcome? >> i was pleasantly surprised. i'm a firm believer, when the jury speaks, we have to listen. the jury has spoken in this case just as the jury spoke in the kyle rittenhouse case. i was not entirely surprised, but because the judge early on mentioned there was intentional discrimination, i was very cautious. i was cautiously optimistic. but the evidence was overwhelming that there was no citizens arrest and that they couldn't avail themselves of the self-defense defense. but having said that, juries have done a lot of different things in the past. so i was not completely surprised. i think this was a very sound, very serious jury. they looked at all the evidence. the distinctions that they made and what they found even of the defendants guilty on, and in the case of greg and mr. bryan, not finding them guilty on certain counts, indicates to me that they got it, they understood the law, and that the judge, as i said before, did an excellent job in breaking down and making very clear what the law is in georgia. but i have to say this, i must give kudos to the prosecutor. she did a phenomenal job, she annihilated the defenses beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury got it. they saw it. she didn't have to talk about race that much, because it was, like i said, so evident. so i think justice was served in this case. the jury spoke. and i think it was an outcome that it was a very, very justified outcome and a pleasant surprise. i know that ahmaud -- i've spoken to mr. arbery. i know mr. arbery's family is feeling that at least justice is served. they will never see their son. they sue the horrific views of what happened to him but at least there's modicum of justice served for acts of heinous crimes, violence, and a modern day lynching. >> we're watching outside, i know cal perry is there, if ahmaud arbery's mother speaks, we'll definitely bring that to you immediately. when we look at this case and we look at the events leading up to the men being arrested, they were not arrested initially for the killing of ahmaud arbery. it wasn't until, ck, a video that william roddie bryan took, was leaked to the press, that the men ended up getting arrested. there were questions about whether or not they could be tried fairly with a prosecutor in this district. talk to me about the steps that were taken to get to this prosecutor who you've just praised for getting, in your words, a fair and just outcome for the family of ahmaud arbery. >> absolutely. first of all we have to remember that at the scene of the heinous crimes, greg mcmichael called the prosecutor, the lead prosecutor, and asked what he should do, because he had been an investigator for her. and she directed him to go home and wash his hands, in other words, wash off the evidence and told the police to stand down. that's a huge problem, number one. so that prosecutor is now indicted, and she has her own trial i believe in february for obstruction of justice and corruption and things of that nature. so what we saw for a period of almost three months was lack of activity on the case. it was mr. arbery whose insistence to find out what happened to his child that led to a lot of investigations and a lot of people looking into this, and ultimately the prosecutor, lead prosecutor, who is facing her own trial in february, stepping down, and then appointing some other prosecutors who unfortunately were friendly to her. but it wasn't until gbi got involved, the george bureau of investigation, that we saw that prosecutors were brought in, and this team was assembled to try this case. so it's very unfortunate that it had to happen this way. i praise mr. arbery for his tenacity and for leaving no stones unturned. i praise ahmaud arbery's mother for not giving up, that family and the faith community for being with them, supporting them, and the two lawyers who stood out to represent the family, my national bar association members, ben croft, like me a past president of the bar association, and lee merritt, one of our outstanding, stellar members of the national bar association, there with the family seeking justice. i think all of those things together happened. >> thank god that video was leaked, otherwise this trial would not have happened, these men would not have been found guilty of the guilty of ahmaud arbery, and boy, were they found guilty. kristen, i'm just remembering that moment a couple of days ago with the defense attorney for greg mcmichael, laura hough, getting up there and trying to play on race with the jury, talking about ahmaud arbery's long, dirty toenails, and the gasps in the courtroom when she said that and ahmaud arbery's mother had to leave the courtroom, tripping as she tried to get out as quickly as she could. it seems as if that sort of race-baiting, as many have described it, backfired. >> absolutely it backfired, because i think at the end of the day we're talking about a young boy who lost his life. whether he had clean fingernails or dirty fingernails is completely irrelevant. there is a more artful way to state that -- and i think what she was going for, who really knows, but i think what she was going for is that he was not an avid runner. remember, the prosecution was not allowed to enter that into evidence. she wanted to say he had no reason being there, he wasn't there jogging through, he was there for a specific purpose, that specific purpose was to commit a burglary, and look, he had dirty toenails. but it's race-baiting and it certainly backfired particularly in the prosecutor's rebuttal, she was able to attack it head on. when you lose your jury, you get a guilty verdict, as a defense attorney. so i think it definitely was counterproductive for her to state that. >> chuck rosenberg, they've got a federal case, these three men, that they're facing, coming relatively quickly. >> that's exactly right, katy. there is in the fifth amendment of the constitution a prohibition against double jeopardy. you can't be tried for the same offense twice. but you have two different sovereigns. you have the state of georgia, the sovereign which tried the men for murder, successfully so. and you have the federal government, sovereign, which is going to try them for hate crimes. you don't see this very often, katy. but here i think it's entirely appropriate. the crime was so heinous, the evidence so compelling, and the federal interest in the case not fully vindicated because the state case was a murder case. the federal case will be predicated on hate crimes, on a civil rights violation. and so, completely appropriate here for the federal government to proceed even though they already have a conviction in state court. whatever happens in the federal system, these men are going to jail, very likely, for the rest of their lives. >> so what happens if they are found guilty federally? does that add time to their prison sentence? >> not practically. i mean, yes, and calculation will be life in the state system plus whatever they get in the federal system. as a practical matter, though, katy, it's not going to change things very much. you can't really serve life and then serve another sentence of life, you only have one life to live, and they'll live it in jail. it's the federal government's interest in prosecuting these men for hate crimes. i don't think it will change the resulting sentence, because the resulting sentence from the state conviction is going to be a very, very, very long time if not life for each of the three men. >> all right, everyone, big, big, day here, so let's reset what we know and where we are at the top of this hour. we're following breaking news in georgia, where a jury just reached a verdict in the case of the three men accused of killing ahmaud arbery. travis mcmichael, who pulled the trigger, was found guilty on all charges, all nine counts, including felony murder, malice murder, and aggravated assault. gregory mcmichael, his father, who drove the truck and called 911 after the shooting, was found not guilty of malice murder but guilty on all other charges. all other eight counts, including felony murder. william roddie bryan, who followed and filmed the