All right, Leo, your first response.

My first response is I go back to the Harris-Faulkner-Leo trail segment about six months ago.

When you asked me that question, is there any way that plea deal could be stopped?

I said, the judge.

The judge played a major role in the rule of law by saying, I'm not going to agree to this plea deal, had questions, and that's why we're here today.

The American public needs to know that.

That is the rule of law, and I applaud the judge.

She did an outstanding job in following the rule of law.

Andrew, do they appeal?

What does this look like?

Because September is going to be here in a heartbeat, and you've got that tax fraud trial, which you say is stronger than this.

Well, Hunter got exactly what he was asking for.

He wanted this trial, he got it, and he got a big guilty verdict because what he did over the years, his actions and his words that provided the evidence for that.

What he, I think, has done through this is left open the possibility of an appeal.

The Second Amendment issues related to having this kind of drug addiction or drug use at the time of buying or possessing a gun is not necessarily settled law through the Supreme Court.

So I see this going through an appellate channel where they're challenging the underlying basis of the law, not his conduct itself.

Aren't they looking at that right now?

I mean, I know the U.S.

Supreme Court has a lot on its plate.

I don't know if they'll get to that one.

There's various versions, not this exact question before them right now, but the issue of whether guns and gun possession is more consistent with preventing people who have a mental illness versus people who are on alcohol.

Alcohol itself, typically not something that prohibits gun possession or ownership, but mental illness may be.

So the Supreme Court is looking deep into exactly when the Second Amendment can be essentially revoked from an individual with regard to their mental condition or the substances that they use.

Jonathan Turley, if you're still with us, I'm going to ask you about what this does overall to the tenor in the United States.

I mean, this case was very different than how former President Trump was treated in a lot of different ways.

Two different cases, so we can understand some of it, but not all of it.

He's still under a gag order.

Well, this was a very fair judge, in my view.

She ruled for the defense and for the prosecutors on different issues.

She went right down the middle of the road.

And I think, in the end, justice was done here.

This jury was able to overcome a nullification strategy.

I think part of the problem was that Abby Lowell, the defense attorney, put forward a bunch of defenses in the opening statement that collapsed within 48 hours.

The prosecutors did an and they methodically took apart each of these defenses in front of the jury.

And when you pursue a nullification strategy, it can go too far sometimes.

It can make the jury feel like they're being treated as chumps.

And I think that here the jury followed their instructions, did their duty.

Jonathan, excuse me.

We're seeing the first lady, Jill Biden, walk into the courthouse.

So it's taken a little bit longer for all of the family members to reassemble.

We saw Hunter Biden go a few minutes ago back into the courthouse.

But we knew that once a verdict had been reached, at least he would return and maybe even all of that family.

Previously, we saw Joe Biden's brother, James, go in, too.

So they are reassembling ahead of the reading of this verdict.

Jonathan, finish your thought.

Well, you know, that was an interesting moment to have the first lady come in, because I'm sure the prosecutors were not happy with having this array of Biden family members, very famous figures behind Hunter.

It reminded this jury that this is Biden town.

You know, this is Wilmington.

This is where the Bidens reside.

And it says a lot about the jurors, that they overcame that.

There was obvious sympathy for the defendant.

I had sympathy for the defendant.

When you hear his account of his struggle with drugs, you can't be anything but empathetic.

But there was also an unavoidable series of criminal acts in all of this.

And by saying things like, he might not have checked the box, or he had a moment of sobriety, or maybe he was just using alcohol, really, I think, might have insulted some of the jurors.

The way that Lowell made it sound is that the question meant, are you doing drugs while you're purchasing this weapon?

Right, while you fill out the form.

He narrowed it so much.

Right, right.

Right.

And what the witness has told, right down to his ex-girlfriend, who was the wife, now widow of his brother, Beau, was just how extensive that drug use was around about the time that he bought that gun.

And she knew how bad it was.

Let's just remember, she knew how bad it was.

That's who went to search the truck for paraphernalia and came up with the gun.