good evening. next for joining us. we begin tonight with breaking news. new federal charges against the president's son hunter biden. they have not yet been made public. we learned of their existence just before air time and do not know the details, only that in addition to being the second set of charges he is facing, anything to do with the president's son is potentially significant, all the more so during a presidential campaign. hear with the latest cnn legal affairs correspondent paula reid. pa paula, what do you know about these charges? >> good evening, anderson. our colleague evan perez breaking the news that the justice department has filed a new criminal case against hunter biden. we don't know the specific charges because the court documents are not yet public. just a few weeks ago, we broke the news that the special counsel appointed to investigate the president's son david weiss has been using a los angeles-based grand jury to gather evidence about hunter biden's finances, specifically his taxes. now going back to 2018, the trump-appointed u.s. attorney has been investigating hunter biden's finances. hunter biden repeatedly missed irs deadlines to pay his taxes and eventually owed around $2 million. anderson, he did pay back what he owed, including $800,000 in penalties and fees, and this was all expected to be resolved as part of a plea deal where he would plead guilty to two misdemeanors. but over the summer, that plea deal fell apart. the u.s. attorney david weiss was then appointed a special counsel, and the investigation was revived. now the special counsel has already filed three gun charges against hunter biden in delaware. now hunter biden's lawyers insist that here the special counsel is bowing to pressure from republicans to charge the president's son with something. they do not believe that a criminal trial is the proper venue for these allegations, and they are confident on the gun charge that they will prevail at trial. anderson, again, it's unclear what charges have been filed in los angeles, but they previously told me that they believe that they bring this tax case not as a plea deal, but as a criminal trial, that they will win. >> paula stick around. i want to bring in david axelrod. david, a lot we don't know, but what impact do you think the new charges could have on the president's reelection campaign? >> well, look, house republicans have been trying for two years, anderson, to link the president to his son's activities. and that hasn't really panned out. there has been no financial gain shown for biden. so in that sense, this is about his son. it's not about him. but there is no doubt that supporters of president trump, who is facing four separate trials will try and conflate the two and muddy the waters to try and take some of the pressure off of himself. i think, anderson, the most significant impact is not on the president as a candidate or as president, it's as a father. these are -- these are burdens on a family. and you know you just did a depthful conversation with the president about grief. he has lost a lot in his life. he lost two children. i'm sure that this is a source of concern for him. and how that affects him as a candidate may be as important as what kind of impact it has on him politically, and what others do with it. >> he has obviously avoided openly talking about his son's legal troubles, especially as house republicans look to launch a formal impeachment inquiry. do you see him continuing to do that? >> i do. i do. you know, if i were him, i would speak of it. the only thing i would say, i'm concerned as father. i'm not thinking about this as a president. you know, i do think this will further ignite the house republicans who have been desperately eager to do this. i think president trump has probably urged them to do it, and now he has an ally in the new house speaker mike johnson. so this will be a log on the fire. the fire may not actually reach the door of the white house, but the republicans will try and depict it as such. >> paula, what is the process from here now that hunter biden faces new charges? will there be an arraignment in short order? >> sure. we'll see something similar to what we saw in delaware. first, we're waiting for the unsealing of these court documents. we can see the nature of the charges, and we would expect he would make his initial appearance, have an arraignment, likely next week probably. that would be the expected timing. and then i would expect that his lawyers would try to fight these charges the same way they are fighting the charges in delaware. so interesting, anld, over the last several months, we saa much more aggressive hunter biden. they brought on abbe lowell to make a much more forward leaning approach to his detractors. they expected the criminal case was going to be resolved with a plea deal, but now they're also facing now two criminal case, and they been very aggressive, very litigious, filing off lawsuits against detractors like rudy giuliani and his long-time friend and lawyer rob costello, sending letters to the hill demanding investigations into congress folks. so it has been a very different approach than what we had seen before with hunter biden. it was somewhat of a split with the white house to be more vocal, to be more forward leaning. we've seen in just the past few days hunter biden saying look, i'm not going to come up on the hill and do a deposition, unless you do it publicly, sort of engaging in this stalemate with republicans on the hill. i would expect that he and his attorneys will take just as aggressive a stance for this case, whatever it ends up being. >> david, you've been skeptical of the president's reelection prospects, not necessarily because of his son, more because of his age an his poll numbers. if we were ever to reconsider his candidacy, which as now he is not, do you think anything around his son would factor in or could factor in? >> i don't know, anderson. i have the strong sense that the president is full speed ahead, and that he is going to go through with this campaign. but as i said, this is more than a political burden. this is an emotional burden. and we'll see. but the family has always encouraged him, and i don't imagine they're going to discourage him now. i do think as paula suggests there is going to be a major effort to depict these as politically motivated charges. it's kind of ironic because you see both sides trying to do that. in that sense, this serves donald trump's purposes was he would love to muddy the waters and suggest that the whole system is a swamp and point fingers in a lot of different directions. so it's just one more thing that's going to make it a messy, a messy campaign. >> david axelrod, paula reid, thank you so much. now presidential politics. today the four republican candidates who debated in alabama last night were out on the campaign trail, trying to make the most of their performance. donald trump, who did not take part was in new york. he was in court for his civil fraud trial and complaining it was keeping him away from the campaign. >> it's called election interference. it's a sad day for our country that a thing like this can take place. i'm sitting in a courthouse instead of being in iowa where i should be. even though i'm leading by about 40 points. >> the former president in lower manhattan earlier today suggesting he was being kept unfairly off the campaign trail, which is just not true. this is a civil, not a criminal trial. he is under no obligation to attend, does not have to be there at all. yet this was his ninth time there. as for claiming it is interfering with his campaign, that doesn't appear to be true either. we know this because he said so himself. today in a campaign email moments before he spoke in that clip there, i quote, they'd rather have me in court rather than the campaign trail in iowa. but in some ways i will still be on the campaign trail today. he went on to say every time he shows up in court, voters see how badly they need him back in the white house. in short, he is not really implying this is part of his campaign. he is saying it and fundraising off of it. so of a two fer for him. it helps him campaign he believes and make money. for more on his day and upcoming testimony, kara scannell starts us off. let's talk what happened in court today. >> as you say, this was donald trump's ninth time attending. and the first time he has attended his defense case. and the witness that was on the stand today was their last expert witness. this was a professor of accounting from new york university. and this witness was unequivocal in giving donald trump exactly what he wanted to hear. his testimony today was that he said his review of the documents showed that there was absolutely no evidence of accounting fraud. he also said he found no material misstatements on the financial statements that are at the heart of this case. and the judge interjecting at one point, asking the professor if his testimony was at that the attorney general's lawsuit had no merit. he said absolutely, that's exactly what his testimony was. he went through a number of examples, saying again and again he saw no evidence of fraud. each for example the triplex apartment at trump tower that trump owned. when trump testified he acknowledged that that was at one point incorrect on his financial statements, saying it was three times the size it actually was. the professor today saying that was a mistake, an error, but he said it did not cute any fraud. now trump himself was pretty quiet inside the courtroom today. he seemed to be paying attention to the professor's accounting. outside he praised him, praised his testimony. he also criticized the new york attorney general. she shot back in a social media post saying that "we have already proven this massive scope of his fraud. no matter how much he lies, the facts don't." and the judge already found that the financial statements at the heart of this case have been fraudulently inflated. but trump's play here is for an appeal, and that is why we have seen this testimony, along with many other expert witnesses in the case and trump himself will be taking the stand on monday. >> and so let's talk about that. on monday, has he or his legal team given any indication as to what the testimony will entail? >> so his lawyers were out speaking today after court saying that trump is not afraid to testify in this case, that he is going to come in there with an open mind, willing to answer any questions. now you remember the last time he was on the stand when he was called by the new york attorney general's office. the judge had told one of trump's lawyers to control their client because trump was speaking as if he was at campaign and not answering the questions at issue. this time around, there will be much morley way because he will be asked questions by his own lawyers. so it really remains to be seen exactly how broad they're going to try to make his testimony and exactly what issues he'll talk about. but the judge is going to try to keep a rein on this testimony, anderson. >> kara scannell, thanks. with me legal analyst and former chief assistant manhattan district attorney karen magnifilo and david cay jo johnston. the president didn't have to be in court today, didn't have to show up. is there any legal importance in him being there in person? >> not at all. he chose to be here. don't forget, this is not a jury trial. this is a judge trial, a bench trial. and he didn't testify today. he didn't do anything in court. he was just an observer today. this was his choice to be there. >> does it not sort of show the judge how serious he is taking? is that impressing anything upon the judge, do you think? >> potentially i guess that could be something that the judge looks at is that he is taking it seriously. but i think the judge knows he is taking it seriously. >> and david, you heard that the nyu accounting professor testified for the defense today said the attorney general's claims of fraud had no merit. when asked about trump's company claiming his new york apartment was three times the size that it actually and therefore more valuable, he downplayed it saying it could have been inadvertent or accidental. do you think it was? >> no. because there is some email traffic showing that donald knew this with "forbes" magazine. and there were other problems donald has valued at 10, 20, 30 times what they're worth. so interestingly, donald, every time he values something, none of them come in below. they come in above. and above by a lot. i was frankly, very surprised of this very eminent accounting professor's testimony as an expert witness came out today. he was paid more than one-half million. >> he was paid $500,000 for his testimony today? >> well, that's what came out in court is the trumps have paid him over a half a million dollars. so i mean, that's not a normal expert witness you bring in who gets 25, 50,000, $60,000. that's a great deal of money. and there are clear badges of fraud in his statements. so that's what i find very surprising. >> does the fact that he is -- a respected professor, i guess, at nyu, or the fact that he has paid half a million dollars, does that influence the judge? >> the judge will take both those things into consideration. he is a respected professor with a good resume, and he's been a long-term professor. some of the things he did say were surprising. >> what? >> he is an expert, right. he is supposed to talk about expert accounting principles. but for him to then opine that there was no fraud here, that's up to the judge to decide, right. he can say what he thinks something is worth or what the equations are that should go into it. but how does he know whether something was a mistake, whether it was inadvertent. >> what the intent was. >> exactly. that's sort of the ultimate question that the judge is there to determine. to me that shows that he's biased frankly towards trump. as opposed to being an expert on the subject, which is what an expert is supposed to be, and to educate the judge on valuations and things like that. but he really has decided that there was no fraud here and that there was no criminal intent. and -- >> i'm wondering if the judge asking him directly about that, saying are you saying that the case has no merit indicates the judge also is raising that concern? >> potentially, yeah. i mean potentially maybe the judge wanted to see how far is he willing to go for trump, how far is he willing to say these things about trump. because it's not just about the mistake about the tripling the size of the penthouse apartment. it was also things like saying that mar-a-lago is commercial property or its residential property when it suited him, because you get more favorable insurance terms if it's one versus the other or loan terms if it's one versus the other, or saying in another building that all of the units were rented out when they weren't, because once again, that makes it more . at a certain point, it's not really necessarily just mistakes potentially, and that's what the judge is there to determine. >> david, what do you expect when the former president takes the stand monday? we heard what his testimony was like the last time. >> well, the first time around, this was the state questioning donald trump. now it will be his attorneys laying out their case. this is what we want you to understand, your honor. and what i'm looking forward to is the cross-examination of donald trump, how skillful will it be? asking things like you said mar-a-lago is worth $27 million. now you're saying it's worth half a billion, a billion dollars. things like that. and the cross-examination will be the most interesting part of this. we know the fundamental story they're going to put forward. i'm an honest man. i've never done anything in my life that's required me to apologize to anybody. >> david cay johnston, appreciate it. karen as well. a reminder, stay tuned for laura coates live tonight when her guest will be former attorney general eric holder. that's tonight 11:00 p.m. eastern right here on cnn. next for us, more breaking news. the latest in the fallout after the presidents of some of the country's most prestigious universities were asked by lawmakers to unequivocally condemn calls for the genocide of jews, and then appeared to equivocate. plus, the latest on the fighting in gaza and the progress israeli forces say they're making on the ground there. some mother breaking news. it comes on the first night of hanukkah. two months to the day hamas perpetrated the massacre of citizens, most of them jewish in israel, the board of supervisors at pennsylvania's warren business school tonight calling for a leadership change at u penn. the board's letter to university president liz magill part of her backlash to her congressional testimony along with other ivy school leaders about antisemitism on campus. >> ms. magill, at penn, does calling for the genocide of jews violate penn's rules or code of conduct? yes or no? >> if the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes. >> i am asking specifically calling for the genocide of jews, does that cute bullying or harassment? >> if it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment. >> so the answer is yes? >> it is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman. >> it's a context dependent decision? that's your testimony today, calling for the genocide of jews is depending on the context? that is not bullying or harassment? this is the easiest question to answer yes, ms. magill. >> presidents of three of the country's top schools, m.i.t., harvard, and the university of pennsylvania sharply questioned this week on capitol hill over antisemitic rhetoric on their campuses. now facing massive backlash for not taking a hard-line stance against calls for genocide. >> from the river to sea -- >> from the river to the sea! >> i have not heard calling for the genocide for jews on our campus. >> but you've heard chants for intifada. >> i've heard chants, which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the jewish people. >> reporter: so far no protesters held accountable. >> have any students been expelled or disciplined for bullying, harassment, or these actions that you're listing? >> i can assure you we have robust student disciplinary processes -- >> no, no, no. i did not asking your process. i asked if any students had been disciplined or removed from harvard as a result of the bullying and the harassment that's taken place based on their antisemitic views. >> after the hearing, the university of pennsylvania president liz magill attempted to clarify her remarks, issuing a video statement. >> when i was asked if the call for the genocide of jewish people on our campus would violate our policies, in that moment, i was focused on our university's long-standing policies aligned with the u.s. constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable. i was not focused on but i should have been. >> reporter: harvard's president claudine gay issued a written statement after the house committee hearing, in part saying calls for violence or genocide against the jewish community or any religious or ethnic group are vile. they have no place at harvard, and those who threaten our jewish students will be held to account. pennsylvania's democratic governor said u penn's magill failed at the most basic level. >> it shouldn't be hard, and there should be no nuance to that. she needed to give a one-word answer, and she failed to meet that test. >> reporter: the white house making clear on calls for genocide, there is no room for nuance. >> calls for genocide are unacceptable. it's vile, and it's counter to everything this country stands for. i can't believe i even have to say that. i