count one, terrorism causing death. the defendant shall serve life without the possibility of parole, credit for eight days served. counts two through five. homicide first degree, premeditated murder, juvenile defendant. the defendant shall serve the rest of his life without the possibility of parole with the michigan department of corrections, credit for eight days served. on counts 6 through 12, assault with intent to murder on each of the counts. defendant is sentenced to 18 years and nine months to 80 years with the michigan department of corrections, credit for eight days served. on counts 13 through 24 being felony firearm, the defendant is sentenced two years with the department of michigan with credit for 737 days served. counts 1 through 12 are concurrent to each other and counts 13 through 24 are concurrent to each other. count one is consecutive to count 13. count two is consecutive to count 14. count three is consecutive to count 15. count 4 is consecutive to count 16. count 5 is consecutive to count 17. count 6 is consecutive to count 18. count 7 is consecutive to count 19. count 8 is consecutive to count 20. count 9 is consecutive to count 21. count 10 is consecutive to count 22. count 11 is consecutive to count 23. and count 12 is consecutive to count 24. all of those consecutive counts are by reason of the felony firearms statute. is there a restitution here? >> there is not. >> restitution will be set in the amount of $20,781. state cost will be set in the amount of $1,632. we are not to have any contact with oxford high school or enter any, excuse me, enter oxford high school. you are not to have any contact whatsoever with the families, tate meyer, hannah, and justin. also you are not to have any contact with the following victims or their families. that being b.b. arthur, john acido, molly darnell, riley france, elijah mueller, kylie, aidan watson, and keegan gregory. and i will note that restitution is payable to the crime victims right compensation program. with that michigan department of corrections, did i miss anything? [ inaudible ] >> thank you. cost of $60,000. and $130, and did i miss anything else? >> dna testing is hereby ordered. thank you. with that, you're entitled to the application for appeal. if you are unable to retain the lawyer, the court will through appeal. the request must be filed 42 days after sentencing. your attorney is going to be handing you an appellate right's form. do you acknowledge you receive the appellate right's form? >> i have tendered that to my client. >> all right, thank you. >> all right, breaking news, where ethan crumbley, the teenager who killed four fellow students and wounded six others two years ago was just sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. this after a dramatic day in court where dozens of people delivered emotional victim impact statements. outside the courthouse in pontiac, michigan. gina, an incredibly emotional day in that courtroom? >> reporter: it really was and i do want to say once again, he was just sentenced, the defendant in this case to life in prison without any possibility of parole. and jay, legal history was just made in this case. according to the legal documents, this is a case of first impression in regard to sentencing. this defendant is the first one since the supreme court ruled in 2012, that for a juvenile, life in prison without parole is an extraordinary sentence only for the worst juvenile offender. this, ethan crumbley, is the first defendanigally sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. there were many that had been resentenced that early on that got life in prison without the possibility of parole. but this is the first time since 2012 that someone has been originally sentenced and received life without the possibility of parole. now saying that, today it was all about the victims. it is all about what they have gone through. they have stood silent for two years now. i've been there, and i've been to the hearings. as they said in a closing argument that they didn't understand in the sentence of all the due process rights for the defendants came out. but who cared about them? today, the caring was for them, and we heard the stories. i think we may have some sounds that we could show you the audience exactly what these family members of those that died, living, surviving victims that were shot, and family members, what they had to say. >> all right, thank you so much. the four innocent victims, they were all teenagers, madison baldwin, 17, tate, 16, justin chilling, 17, and hannah st. guilliana, 14 years old. joining us now a trial attorney. your reaction to the sentence? >> reporter: you know, jake, i'm not surprised. i spent the day watching all the victims in this case, the family members, those in the school on that day. they testified and they would read their victim impact statements to judge and understanding the impact of ethan crumbley's actions on this community, on the victim's families was truly gut wrenching. but more so than what the victims set forth in that courthouse today. we had already seen much of what was going to be the basis for the judge's decision on sentencing, back during the summer, during what is called a miller hearing. the miller hearing is the prerequisite for life in prison without the possibility of parole to be on the table. and so what the judge focused on in his ultimate decision and justification as they say is historic because of ethan crumbley's age, 15 at the time of the crime and 17 with the premeditation, the planning. there was a journal. he planned this. and he executed every single piece of his plan. that was largely where that judge had the focus in this sentencing today. and another thing that i do find, you know, to be something that we didn't know was going to happen. he spoke to the court, and he said no one could have stopped me, and he said i want to -- i want the sentence that all the victims are asking for. so again, the judge used that in his ultimate determination as we heard that from the bench. this will be life in prison without the possibility of parole. >> what do you think is going to happen with the case against ethan crumbley's parents, in their roles for allowing him to have guns, concerning their son and more? >> that is an excellent question because we know that case is coming up right around the corner and it is coming up in january. his parents are being charged with involuntary manslaughter. saying that not only did they see omissions that he had mental health issues, that they did not address and that they actually had an active role because they purchased the gun that ethan crumbley ultimately used in killing these four individuals and terrorizing the school on that day. so that is the piece of it that will be decided. and in general, an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for the active third person even when it is a parent. so usually these types of cases are child abuse and failure to lock up the firearm as we have seen those legal theories. and so this is different involving manslaughter, watching them from the bench. ethan himself said nothing could have stopped him. so how could they find this? that be a part of the parcel on the argument. but how the case turns out will be really something to watch because it is a novel legal theory. >> all right, thank you so much. turning to the national lead today and the united states struggling at the most basic levels to be condemned today near how they are searching for the suspect who beat and robbed a jewish man last night on the first night of hanukkah. the victim was wearing traditional religious garb when he stole their cell phone and called them an early jew. earlier today a suspect shot a gun in albany. he yelled free palestine before he was arrested. the violence also hit the muslim and arab communities in the u.s. this week. we saw video of them leaving the hospital in vermont. he is one of three palestinian students so tragically shot in vermont while speaking and wearing. he is now paralyzed from the chest down. it's awful. but we have to note, this has been a week of real attention to anti-semitism in america. this morning, they disassociated themselves from the leading organization and the islamic relations or care after the presiden care was discovered to have said this about the hamas attacks on october 7. >> the people of gaza only decided to break the siege. the roles of the concentration camp on october 7. and yes, i was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land and walk into their lands that they were not allowed to walk in. >> reporter: in a statement after his remarks became public, the president said he condemned violence against all civilians and claimed that the comments were taken out of context. and then you have the three presidents of the well respected, leaving the universities, now facing multiple calls of resign. the leaders of m.i.t., the university of pennsylvania, and harvard struggling to answer what seems like a fairly simple question from republican congresswoman elise stefanik of new york. >> doctor, at m.i.t., does calling for the genocide of jews violate the code of conduct? yes or not? >> you targeted individuals not making public statements. >> and now it does seem like yes would be the easy answer. yes as in it would be harassment if you were calling for the genocide of blanks or latinos or muslims or the community or immigrants or any other group one would hope. >> it's a decision, congresswoman. >> and does calling for the genocide of jews violate their rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no? >> it can be depending on the context. >> what is the context? >> targeted as an individual. targeted as an individual. >> the answer for most of us is obviously yes, calling for the genocide of any group would qualify as harassment on the college campus. now there are several reasons that i heard as to why the university president seems to struggle to answer that question. one is that language calling for the death of jews, especially in israel, has become normalized on far too many american campuses, just a few months ago, for example, and that featured several speakers. the other issue might have been the definition of genocide. a premise that was not included in many of the viral clips. >> and you understand that the use of the term in that context of the conflict is, indeed, a call for violent armed resistance against the state of israel including violence against civilians in the genocide of jews. are you aware of that? >> and now as that matter, he was providing one definition. it is a prevalent one, but was not providing the only definition, certainly providing one that when they hear calls to globalize and for that matter, one that a lot of haters use, and it is not the only definition. it's a word that means shaking off like the dog might shake off water. and in that world it means uprising, rebellion, revolution. three years ago on al jazeera's website, an essay was written called globalize it and it said across the globe from the u.s. to the middle east, rising out to reform to remove the militarized racist governments. now that said, there are contexts to these things. awaiting the article on the website is different than shutting down the dining hall. and chanting while you're trying to enjoy your lunch on the deadly attacks. both of which were protests of the west bank as they quickly turned violent and bloody. against palestinians and including acts of terrorism against israeli civilians in israeli buses and restaurants. so when students chant globalize, is every one of them wanting to bring violence and slaughters to jews around the world? i cannot imagine that to be the case. does it let them off the hook for using that term? and do they know how others take it? what about from that river to the sea? it will be free. and oh, you want to destroy israel. and is that what they mean? and they could actually name both the river and the sea. it hits the jordan river in that sea, by the way. maybe more time reading, less time. and standing on the do i think halls. it is not difficult to see why many jews who hear these terms would think that globalizing it means. especially after october. and while that might not be even chanting these terms means, it certainly is what a lot of folks hear. and that number one muslim american group in america celebrating on october 7. let's just say that doesn't help. and let's bring in the u.s. special, the monitor to combat anti-semitism around the world. and we really appreciate it. >> any place you go around the world, you'll hear from jews and they're worried about coming here to the united states. particularly to college campuses i would think these days. and canada or wherever that we hear about this university and i hear that they are taking them down. and is it worse now than before? >> it is worse now and more extensive and more prevasive. i heard it that i have been in rome and paris and the headquarters, i have been in germany. and i just got back from canada this morning and i heard from students and the people in the universities, in many different places throughout the world. it's a similar story. in canada, one young man told me he was on campus, and it was suppose to be a demonstration. and his jewish friends, they called them and said is it safe to come to campus? and in montreal on the outside. it's a little container, and contained the word of the watch word of judaism, god the lord is one. and it came in the way of identifying jews, jewish homes, and many students put it up on their doorway and to their office, etc., and certainly their homes. >> what do you tell people? is it safe? >> i can tell them that i'm sad and my heart is broken. i don't tell them yes or no and something that they only started to wear recently. and i don't want to go underground. but i've got security, i've got people that are watching out for me. and i don't know what to tell you. i had an interchange with the parents and friends who said to me i took my child out of the public schools because he was being harassed by the other students, some of them muslim and not of them not. you're a jew, etc. then i put them in the jewish school. and then hamas called for a global day of terror against the institution and i was afraid to send them to the jewish school. what should i do when i couldn't answer her because it is her child and not mine. >> and you see the anti-semitism as just not a threat to jews. which by the way, if that is all it was, it's bad enough. >> that's right. >> there shouldn't be a threat to anybody or to muslims or jews or the la tee knees, etc. but you'll see it as not just a threat, but the threat to democracy? >> i see it as a threat and i have been saying that since day one when i entered office. and anybody who buys into that myth, which is at the heart of anti-semitism has brought in to the motions that they control the world and the government and the jews, giving up on democracy. so that is one reason, i mean to be a matter of great concern. and i began to feel over the past month and that it is even more than just that. it is a threat to international and the national stability security. bad actors, bad countries, bad individuals, and the go's, people with different agendas. they have figured out that anti-semitism was a way of stirring up the pot of society. the welfare in democratic countries and western countries, european countries, other parts of the world. if we want to create a chaos and people against each other, that is a good tool. and so if you worry about it and that welfare of jews, worry about anti-semitism. if you worry about the welfare of democracy, worry about anti-semitism. if you're worried about the national security and the national ability of your country as this goes for not just the united states, but for france, for germany, for so many countries, from belgium, worry about that rise. >> and so whether it is the presidents having a difficult time, we explain the whole thing, but she was just asking about condemning genocide. i think the next followup might have been the tricky ones, but she framed that genocide thing pretty simply. or the difficulty that the world has had condemning all that by hamas, etc. what's going on? >> and it is a relative look and it is a justification. when it comes to those rates, when it comes to the mutilation of women and children and of families burning them alive that there is no but. there is no justification. it means that i'm going to justify it. it's bad and let's think of the other thing and that should be said in your position on the middle east crisis. you can take a variety of positions, but there should be no difficulty in condemning rapes, or children from parents, burning homes with people alive or condemning genocide. >> it's great to have you here. thank you so much. happy hanukkah to you with all those celebrating. >> when should colleges and universities step in when it comes to rhetoric on campuses crossing some sort of line? we are going to go more into that debate next. we're back with the discussion about the alarming rise of anti-semitism across the country and calls for university presidents to do more to reign in hateful speech. it's not an easy topic, that's the truth. let's bring in an expert at georgetown university and former president to brandice university. and also nico from rights and expressions, advocating for free speech. and so let me start with you, mr. lawrence, as a former university president. how do you see how the university presidents handled this? it seems it would be an easy question. calls for genocide and jews violate harassment policies? >> that one was an easy question. and by not getting that one right, they never got to the questions that really were about context. so just because i can't tell when it is dusk and dawn, it doesn't know when i know it's midnight. genocide is a midnight question. can you advocate for genocide on the campus? the answer to that has got to be no. that's a violation of your rules. had they said that, then they could have gotten into other questions. >> like the river of the sea. >> a lot of what's happening on campuses is really more about at best and ignorance at the worst. the way you solve ignorance is with education. >> you disagree? you think the genocide question they were right on? >> well, president magill said in her statement the next day that the university of pennsylvania's policies reflect constitutional and legal standards. there is no first amendment exception for an abstract call for genocide. i'll give you an example, drexel university, in 2018, we had a professor who calls for the genocide of all white people. >> he was joking, i remember this. >> he said all i want for christmas is a white genocide. >> he was making fun of the conservatives that think white genocide is a real thing? >> white nationalists who have a theory about white replacement, right? context does matter though. he was a white professor. this wasn't a target at anyone, and it was a joke, right? >> a bad joke, but yeah. >> so the question is what are your policies on genocide, right? on calling on genocide? the presidents were right. context does matter. now that's not to say that sometimes that calls for genocide won't meet the standards with lawless action, that they won't meet the standard for discriminatory action, by the way we have a legal standard for from a 1999 supreme court case from peer-on-peer harassment. but just abawi tract exception to the first amendment for the calls for genocide would on its face loop in that professor in philadelphia who tweeted out all i want for christmas is white genocide. >> the problem is you never get to that conversation that you're not willing to say there are certain things that on this campus, we're going to come down and we're going to come down on strongly. you look at the president of yale and what they put out today, that the statements like that, advocating for genocide, threaten my jewish students, and i'm going to come down on those. then that will allow the rest of the conversation to go on precisely the way you're talking about where context does happen. the mistake that the president has made is that they went right to context. then people know about that and understandably so. >> and i think that we could all agree that it was hand fisted. but if you give those in power on campus and the power to sensor the abstract calls for genocide. the first students that will be unbished for that are supporting israel's look into gaza as we would have folks saying it is an act of genocide and you have people from the river to the sea is a call for genocide and if you untie these standards from the law that you'll get just political calculation, so we see that all the time on college campuses where the double standards were right and there is hypocrisy. you have schools that will say like that and they say yoga is an act of cultural appropriation and that they are asking someone where they are from is a racist proaggression. so that is what aggravated a lot of people on the double standards. >> a part of this is that there is a very small group and we agree on this. maybe you wouldn't agree on this where you actually can prohibit speech. the more interesting category to me are those areas where speech will go forward, but the university ought to make strong statements opposed to the content, ought to make strong statements opposed to what is being said. a lot of candidates have been unwilling to do that and that is what you have now where a lot of what happened on the hearing, what they were saying to the presidents. do you care about these issues? do you want to do something about these issues? what came back is sort of. the right answer is we cared desperately about. >> they're trying to please even and they ended up pleasing no one. that's why you have them writing seven different statements. they don't know what those constitutional values are that we need to appeal to. >> when i do the trustee retreats. the first thing i talk to them about, what is the mission? >> and crack all these tough questions through the lens of what's the mission of this university? and because what you're trying to figure out is which way the wind is blowing. that's easy. the wind is blowing at gale force. >> and the important note on that, we're also at a time when universities have these micro aggression things, except there does seem to be a little carve out with the jewish students and what they're thinking. that's one of the other issues that a lot of people will care about. >> yeah, they see, for example, these carveouts for micro aggressions. they see emerson, college, for example, a student handing out stickers. and the president of the university issuing a statement to the entire campus community, accusing these students of anti-asian hate and bias, right? that accusing them -- >> what were they talking about? >> they were talking about the government of china. by the way the vice president of that student, was herself, asian. they're trying to follow all these different campus communities that are trying to pull them in different directions, but they don't know what the core values are. >> we can do three hours on this. thank you so much. i don't think we will come to a conclusion. >> not today. >> at least a civil conversation. we appreciate both of you. thank you so much. we know your president is going to be on bill mahr. that's on hbo max. after three long weeks, the ruling is in, ordering donald trump to keep his lips zipped when it comes to those in his federal eversion case. that decision this afternoon is coming up. the power goes out, and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book. who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up. plus, now through december 31st, eligible xfinity rewards members can get 25% off a storm ready wifi device. in our law and justice league, an appeal's court today largely upholding the gag order against former president donald trump in his federal election subversion case even as he campaigns to be elected to the presidency again. he is still barred from talking to witnesses as well as prosecutors, the court staff, and their family members. the court says the gag order does not apply to comments made about special counsel ejacsmith or the justice department or president biden. trump has already reacted on social media and said he will appeal. that's nice, thank you. you know, i dig the music. political attack ads are ramping up with 38 days until iowa's republican caucuses. a super pack backing ambassador nikki hailey has two out. one of them takes on ron desantis >> we're going to build the wall. >> what a phony. >> hm. as candidates make their way to iowa this weekend, chris christie is in new hampshire. the first state to hold a primary. omar jimenez is traveling with him as christie faces growing pressure to drop out of the 2024 race. >> i haven't had one donor, not one of my significant donors or any of my donors at all call me and say we should get out of this race. i've had one supporter call me and tell me to get out of this race. >> so at this point, there are no plans for you to go anywhere? >> omar, come january 23, you're going to see me here shaking hands until the polls close, and we are going to do very well in new hampshire. i'm not going anywhere. >> reporter: the motto is live free or die. but at this stage for chris christie, it may be do or die. >> it's game time now. >> reporter: for the past two days, christie has been touring college campuses in new hampshire, hoping to drive enthusiasm among some younger voters. >> your vote means more to me than any other state of the country this year. so that is why i'm here. >> our party has neglected college campuses and college voters over the course of the cycles, both in the statewide races and national races. >> reporter: with the campaign in full swing, a cnn university of new hampshire poll last month showed christie in third place in the granite state's gop primary at 14% behind donald trump at 42% and nikki haley at 20%. in the battle to emerge as the leading trump alternative, a strong finish here could send a critical message. >> after new hampshire, there has to be only one other republican candidate, not trump. >> reporter: and the picture now may not exactly match the picture in a month. >> so what we've seen historically in the new hampshire primary is upwards of 25% to a third that say they make up their mind on election day. efforts of 50% are undecided over the last weekend of the elections. so a lot can happen. >> reporter: the former new jersey governor is waving off suggestions he ends his bid and throw his support behind haley, even as he publicly defends her from attacks against rivals. >> this is a smart accomplished woman. you should stop insulting her. >> reporter: on the campaign trail, he stood by that. >> i'm a leader, but i respect her. >> reporter: he maintains it's respect, not retreat. >> we are both trying to beat the other one. >> are you and nikki haley able to coexist in this race without benefiting trump? >> of course. if nikki were to get out of this race tomorrow and tell all her voters to endorse me. do you think they would actually all come and vote for me? of course not. >> reporter: and the polls have not favored the former new jersey governor, there is only one poll he cares about. >> should we all give up because you guys took a poll? elections aren't determined by you. elections are determined by voters. not one person has voted yet. >> reporter: and obviously governor christie has spent a lot of time campaigning in new hampshire. so i asked him what's next? he specifically said michigan. why? because you don't have to register as a democrat or a republican to vote in that primary, meaning he's looking at potentially bringing people from the other side, but also some independence as well. >> all right. omar jimenez in new hampshire. coming up, an exclusive with sheryl sandberg after using her platform to call out hamas and its atrocities of war using sexual violence and rape against women and girls, and all those silent about hamas. stay with us. our world news now, two months to the day after the october 7th attack on israel. vice president kamala harris condemned the sexual assaults and rape saying it could never be used as a weapon of war. and we'll continue to do so. some women's rights advocates and the groups will remain shockingly silent to this day. prompting others to call them out including sheryl sandberg, the former chief officer of facebook and the co-founder of the non-profit. sandberg spoke this week at an assembly hosted by israel at the united nations. >> this goes beyond politics. we accepted the unacceptable. the question will be what's happening in the middle east. but what's happening to our humanity. >> sheryl sandberg joins the league right now and some of what we were about to discuss will be disturbing to listen to. how did we get to that point? where you felt as though you needed to step in and say what should be so obvious. >> and i think that it's not a good thing that it took all of us getting to this point, and i'm going to start by thanking you, jake because no one in mainstream was talking about this three weeks ago and you went on air. and you guys have been on this first. and i followed you, and i'm really, as a man, as an organization, i'm grateful. but it was deafening. and look, this is a very difficult political issue. and that's fine. anyone could have any view that they will want to have on what's happening in the middle east, but we need to be united in condemning mass rape. that's not something that there are two sides on and there are no two sides that should never be used as an act of war and that we need to condemn rape loudly and always wherever happens. israel, ethiopia, sudan, ukraine. rape is never justified. never. >> you noted with frustration how it's taken so long for so many women's organizations, feminist organizations to say something. planned parenthood finally released a statement saying planned parenthood, "unequivocally condemns the atrocities committed by hamas and rape as an act of war in any conflict. " why do you think it has taken so many women's organizations so long? to condemn these atrocities when the firsthand testimony and the physical evidence exists? >> well, that's why what we did at the u.n. is so important. so on monday at u.n. in a testimony, it is up there. i encourage anyone who has any doubt to watch it. and that you heard the firsthand accounts from people who are on the ground in israel and apologies, this is hard stuff to talk about. body after body that showed signs of the rape that they did. but severe genital and sexual mutilation that we heard testimony about girls, where there were nails in the private parts. and many bodies where their genitals were shot on the breast of the woman or shot or cut off while she was being raped while she was alive. please, watch the testimony because it is unequivocal what happened. you know, as the women's organizations, the human rights groups, it's only been 30 years when the rape was even considered or with this kind of evidence, staring us in the face, we threaten to undo decades of progress and an entire movement. any women's organization, thank you to planned parenthood for speaking out, reproductive freedom for all spoke out today, please speak out. it's not too late to use your voice. >> it doesn't mean you're taking a position in a war, it doesn't mean you're taking a position with a politician, talking about a horrific act. pushed to finally recognize rape as a weapon of war for the democratic republic of congo, and yugoslavia, the un is slow, that event at the un, we should note that was not an un event. it was israel hosting the event, and all those individuals providing the witness testimony. what happens if the un ultimately does not take the rapes, the mass rapes seriously? >> well, you're right. we hosted the event the un should have hosted. israel shouldn't have hosted that. we should have been invited to the succession at the un, but we were not. un women, were slow, it took them 55 days to speak out against the rape. that's in the face of how quickly they spoke out of the alarms of rumors of sexual violence and other event. we called on the event, of the un, every member of hamas of the rapes. make sure there's a full investigation and hold the terrorists accountable here. you're seeing more bipartisan support. condemning hamas for the attacks, but that shouldn't be unusual, that should be absolutely assumed. you can call for a palestinian state, you can have any opinion you can have within reason on this conflict, and still condemn rape. i think it's worth noting that we fall for the progress of the women's movement and the me two, we said believe women. all of the organizations said believe women. all of the people who said this, now is an opportunity to believe women. we have to decide who to believe. do we believe hamas spokes people? or do we look at the bodies of the women. these bodies tell us how the women spent the last moments of their lives. and that's devastating. one of the people, the witnesses a man stood there at the un and stood at the podium and said, he's standing there speaking for the women who are now gone and aren't able to scream about what happened to them. but he'll tell the world of what happened to them. it's time for the whole world to see this, and condemn them. anything else, it reduces our common humanity. it's completely not okay. >> yeah, and some of the skeptics, shall we call them, asking how many no firsthand testimony of the victims, is because all of them were either killed or kidnapped. and we worry about what's happening to those women in their teens, 20's and 30's. cheryl, tauch for your time -- thank you very much for your time and speaking out about this very very important issue. >> jake, and cnn, thank you for your leadership. you make a big difference here. please keep covering this until everyone condemns of what should be obvious. rape is never okay. >> thank you. the president's son, hunter biden facing new federal charges. up next, the top republican trying to tie his father, the president to his son's scandalous life. and a democrat, with the rebuttal, stay with us. welcome to the lead. hear from palestinians, essentially trapped in gaza, what do they really think of hamas and the conflict? plus, the state of texas, pushing back on a court order that allowed a woman to terminate a high risk pregnancy. the case challenges one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation. and leading this hour, hunter biden on republicans who want to tie his legal problems to his father. here's what we had to say a new podcast released today. >> they're trying to in their most illegitimate way but rational way they're trying to destroy a presidency. and it's not about me. their most based way, what they're trying to do is, they're trying to kill me. knowing that it will be a pain greater than my father could be able to handle. >> and informed source tells cnn that podcast was recorded before the prosecutors dropped nine new charges on hunter biden. the reaction to the new charges is the chairman of the house --