paid money on. that's tonight on news night. good evening. i'm abby phillip in washington. breaking don't, indicted again. the president's justice department charges the president's son with tax crimes. david wise accuses hunter biden of cheating the government out of $1.4 million that he owed. the justice department says that the president's son faces a maximum of 17 years in prison on nine felony counts. three counts tax evasion, assessment, three counts failure to file and pay taxes, and three counts filing a fraudulent tax return. now, minutes ago hunter biden's attorney responded to the special counsel's charges saying if hunter's last name was anything other than biden, the charges in delaware and now california would not have been brought. let's get over to evan perez. you broke the story that this was coming down the pipe. walk us through what that lengthy indictment says about where all of this money went. >> well, what the prosecutors do over these -- the course of 56 pages is that they detail what they say was an extravagant lifestyle. hunter biden was using a company he owned and making deductions for some of the -- for some of the expenses that he was using on his personal life. a lot of it is, obviously, very messy personal life that he has detailed during the time he said he was addicted to drugs. he was paying for escorts, paying for luxury clothing, he was paying for, you pointed out that, lamborghini that he had used, claimed a deduction for a $10,000 membership to a sex club. he also, according to prosecutors, spent $18,000, more than $188,000 on adult entertainment. there was money that he was paying for women that he was romantically involved with, including a woman who was pregnant with his child. so all of this they say was during a time that he should have been paying his taxes and instead was using it to fund they say was an extravagant lifestyle. you pointed out that had was something that according to his lawyer should have been wrapped up in a plea deal. of course, that fell apart spectacularly last summer over the course of the summer and so here we are. hunter biden's now facing charges in delaware for that gugun that he bought when he was prohibited from purchasing a firearm, and now he is facing these nine counts in los angeles over -- he has got two trials in the coming months. >> yeah. very serious charges here, evan. thank you very much for all of that. i want to bring in now david axle rod, cnn's senior political commentator and host of the of "the axe files" podcast to break all of this down. the consequences of this plully, which are very important. i mean, you can't get around the fact that this is the president's son and despite what his attorneys said this wouldn't have been a case if he were not a biden, do you think that that will pass muster or are these charges serious enough that -- it seems like they are legitimate. >> well, look, hunter biden was going to plead to some charges that, obviously, were related to the things that were in the indictment today. that plea bargain fell apart. so some of what's alleged here, he is not disputed. if you're asking me about the political consequences of it, the important thing that we should note is that this is hunter biden and not joe biden. and the republicans have tried very, very hard for the last couple of years to make the link a.j. that somehow the president was involved with his son's business, that he profited from his son's business. none of that has turned out to be true. they haven't turned up any evidence of it. but is it problemattical? this is not going to be welcome news at the white house. it may not be surprising news the white house since the plea bargain went down, but it's not going to be welcome news, of course. >> but to that point, i mean, if you're a republican and you are trying to make the case that the justice department is going easy on hunter biden, that there is some hidden nefarious thing that joe biden did related to hunter biden's misdeeds, this indictment seems to lay it squarely on hunter biden and also seems indicate the justice department is working. that might be something that the biden administration doesn't mind? >> well, pretty clearly there hasn't been interference here because the indictment was placed. and, in fact, david weiss, the special counsel who was then not the special counsel but was investigating this for five and a half years, told congress last fall that he had -- there was no interference with him, with the case, and he was doing what he thought was appropriate. there were issues about whether he could file cases in different venues because he was in delaware and so on, and this one is filed in los angeles. so that's a difference between now and when he wasn't the special counsel. but i expect that the republicans are going to try -- they will -- you know there is an impeachment move, the speaker said the other day that he is ready to move to an impeachment inquiry. i think donald trump is very much encouraging that because he wants offsetting penalties. and it's really important keep in focus that what donald trump is -- donald trump is on trial for things that donald trump did and apparently the house of representatives wants to impeach the president for things that he didn't do. >> a lengthy 50-something-page indictment against hunter biden. so far, over on capitol hill they have not brought this evidence to your point, that joe biden had anything to do with it. >> a point i want to make, people ask about the political implications of this. joe biden's a father, and i think there are emotional implications to this. he has lost two children. his son, obviously, struggled. that is -- for the indictment, reflects that. he went through a hard period in his life. and all off this is going to be going on in the middle of a presidential race while he is president of the united states and it's one more added burden. >> it very much is. david axlerod, thank you for joining us tonight. >> thank you. tonight a conversation between two lawmakers, one republican and one democrat, about some of the biggest issues of the day, and as we head into this election year our hope is that we get to have an honest debate about the direction that our country should follow. so we want to welcome this evening's news night debate. new york democrat jamaal bowman and new york republican mike lawler. thank you for joining us. before we get to the issues, i want to start with some news. the house just censured you, congressman bowman, today 214-191. the inciting incident was when the congressman set off a fire alarm had the middle of a fight to you a vert a government shutdown just a few weeks ago. congressman bowman, adam schiff, your colleague, when he was censured he said it was a badge of honor. do you think it's a badge of honor? >> it's another example of how the republican party is not serious about governing. they have no ideas. they have no policies. they can't inspire the american people. so they focused on censuring me, even though after the fire alarm incident i took full responsibility right away. the legal process is playing itself out and if all things go well, the case will be completely dismissed in january. i have to pay a fine. at the moment, it's not moving forward. so, you know, once again, the party is focused on censures and, you know, culture wars and messaging and not focused on governing for the american people. it's unfortunate. >> i should vnote you voted in favor of the censure. i should ask. i mean, he took responsibility just then and before. is that punishment even though the censure has no real consequences, but is that fitting to the crime that he committed here? >> yes. with all due respect to my colleague here, he pulled a fire alarm intentionally. he can try to say that it was not or that he made a mistake, he thought the fire alarm would open a door. he is a middle school principal. he understands the difference between a locked door and a fire alarm. he ran by seven capitol hill police officers after the alleged mistake and didn't say a word. he only spoke to them once a bolo went out and they found him and started inquiring about it. so with all due respect, this was not a mistake. it was intentional. the democrats were playing shenanigans that day doing single-line voting, single-file-line voting using paper cards rather than their electronic cards to delay the vote on a continuing resolution. and so there needs to be accountability. last week i took on a member of of my own party along with anthony deesposito. we introduced a resolution to expel george santos because he was unfit to serve. so if mr. bowman and others are happy to expel george santos, at the very least there should be accountability. a censure is saying you did wrong and that's what happened today. >> i don't want to belabor this point. as you can see, my republican colleague is trying to get into my head and articulate my state of mind despite my multiple consistent comments to the contrary, despite me not being charged for disrupting a congressional proceeding. and remember, this is a vote to keep the government open. so in a rush to get there, yes, i ran past many capital police officers -- >> but you deny this was an attempt to delay that? >> absolutely. >> i want to make a point. the video evidence speaks for itself. i don't need to get in your head. you threw the signs on the floor, tried opening the door, didn't open, you pulled the fire alarm. you ran by seven capitol hill police officers. that is not a mistake. it took you an hour to get to the floor to vote. don't say you were in a rush to vote when you weren't. >> let's get to the more important issues, please. again, to this point, only some of the video was released. not the entire video. so he is only speaking from a small percentage of what he saw. >> congressmen, stand by. we'll discuss the rise of antisemitism on college campuses as one university president's job is on the brink tonight. repe and, arguably, one of the most stunning episodes came when one of the candidates, vivek ramaswamy, invoked the great replacement theory on that stage. we have seen also these college presidents come before congress and they were asked to state unequivocally that calls for genocide are not acceptable on their college campuses. do you think both parties right now have a problem with antisemitism in their ranks? >> look, the vitriol and hatred that we are seeing across this country, the antisemitism on college campuses in the halls of congress is disgusting. and everyone should be held to account for it. the fact is that those college administrators should all are fired. every last one of them. they couldn't say that calling for the genocide of jews on their campuses violated their conduct. in fact, some said its context, it needs to turn into action. are you calling for the actual genocide of jews? you want them to be killed first before you take action on your campuses? i introduced a resolution on the house floor that made it very clear that israel has a right to exist. because if you look at the terrorist attack of october 7th, it's clear. hamas and its backer, iran, do not believe israel has a right to exist. they want to eliminate the jewish people. period. and so we need to be unequivocal and clear. there is no more moral equivalency here. hamas is a terrorist organization that has oppressed the palestinian people, that has used them as human shields. so if we want to combat antisemitism, not only do we need to take it on on our college campuses and the halls of congress, we need to make it very clear that terrorist organizations like hamas and it's funder and backer iran, that we do not support that at all, that we stand by israel, and very clear-eyed we believe this israel's right to exist. its right to defend itself and the right of the jewish people to practice their faith. >> first of all, if there is antisemitism in congress, it is coming from the republican party, not the democratic party. number one. number two, i introduced a resolution condemning the great replacement theory as a freshman in congress for the first time in history that had been done, and that resolution passed because we had a democratically controlled house. not one republican voted for my resolution condemning the great replacement theory. so, once again, they are not serious about addressing the issue of antisemitism. they are not serious about addressing the issue of racism or islamophobia. they are not serious about governing. absolutely we condemn the hamas attacks of october 7th. absolutely. absolutely -- >> then why did you vote against a resolution -- >> absolutely i made my statement condemning hamas. absolutely we condemn any calls for general ocide of our jewish brothers and sisters or any group of people. but what my colleague just did was conflate criticisms of israel with antisemitism, and that is incorrect. let me just finish this point. a criticism of a state, the state of israel, any other state, doesn't mean you criticize the people that that state claims to represent. really fighting antisemitism is doing the work in terms of education, engagement, connecting communities, and learning what it is and how to do something about it. >> i want to be specific here because one of the issues at hand here is the phrase from the river to the sea. right? this is something that was spoken by rasheda talib, chanted on some college campuses that. is a phrase that jewish people believe is a call for the genocide of jewish people. do you think that that should be something that is off limits in the halls of congress and on college campuses? >> it is not a phrase that i use. it is not something i subscribe to. and it is something that absolutely needs to be addressed -- >> do you believe it is a call for genocide? >> it's not a phrase i use because i know many of my jewish brothers and sisters believe that it is, so i don't want to encroach upon what they feel that is. and i don't even use the phrase. so what i'm saying is when we talk about dealing with antisemitism, condemnation of a phrase or an action is not enough. the republican party is looking to cut -- let me finish -- looking to cut the department of education. they are looking to cut the department of civil rights. they are looking to cut the departments where you actually address the issue of antisemitism, and then, lastly, we can't deal with antisemitism, in and of itself, without also addressing the issue of islamophobia. many of my muslim and arab and palestinian constituents and people all across the city, state, and country feel completely erased and dehumanized not only by the republican party, but by many members of congress, and we have to stop having one-sided conversations without the other because what happens is it continues to exacerbate antisemitism. >> i want to respond to that for a second. from the river to the sea is antisemitic, period. you sound like the college administrators the other day in the hearing trying to put context around it. there is no context for it. calling for the eradication of the jewish people is a genocide. and that is exactly what these folks are doing when they are chanting from the river to the sea, palestine will be free. i want the palestinian people to be free from their oppressors, hamas, the palestinian authority. hamas has used the palestinian people as human shields for years. killing them. using hospitals, using schools as a vehicle to launch attacks against israel. >> are you going to complete -- >> do not interrupt me. >> do not frame this conversation -- >> the palestinian authority -- >> has given hamas -- >> with all due respect -- >> pays palestinians -- the palestinian authority pays palestinians to kill jews. is that not wrong? >> of course. >> we passed the taylor forest act five years ago. this administration is failing to enforce that. in fact, giving the palestinian authority funding. hamas is a terrorist organization. if you want a ceasefire in gaza, there is a sump way. join me in calling for hamas to surrender. they should surrender right now, turn over all of the remaining hostages and they should free the palestinian people from their control. they have been the governing body in gaza for over 15 years. they have oppressed the palestinian people. >> you made your point. >> you said what israel is doing defending itself, you said they are committing a genocide in gaza. is that what you believe? >> do you believe -- some of your colleagues said what israel is doing in gaza is a genocide. >> it is a mass murder. it is a war crime. what is happening in gaza right now. you talk about hamas having control over the palestinians in gaza. there has been a blockade of gaza for several years. the people in gaza cannot leave one way or the other. the water, the food, the energy is controlled by israel. so do not say one side of it, hamas is controlling its own people. i agree but. the people of gaza do not want that. without leaving out the israel blockade. and why don't you ever speak about the occupation of the west bank and settlement expansion in the west bank in the number of 700,000 settlers right now? do you support a two-state solution? >> look, i would -- >> do you support a two-state solution? >> i would love to see a two-state solution, which is why i introduced the special envoy for the abraham accords -- >> have you -- >> which is why i introduced the special envoy -- >> do not -- you harm -- >> if you want to bring peace -- if you want a two-state solution and you want to bring peace between the palestinians and the israelis, you need to normalize relations between arab majority countries and israel. >> and the palestinians -- >> the way you do that if people accept the premise that israel has a right to exist. >> have you ever been to the west bank? >> i have been to jerusalem. >> have you been to the west bank? >> they have a right to exist -- >> let me -- >> see this is what happens. what do you mean -- >> you are speaking with a sense of authority as if you have been there. you have never been to the west bank. you have never been stopped at a checkpoint. you have never spoken to the people in the west bank in hebron, in ramallah, seen the water tanks at the top of their homes that they have to preserve just in case israel cuts of a of the water, man. >> let me follow up. >> honestly -- >> let me follow up. i want people to understand what you're talking about here. just in the span of weeks since october 7th, there has been a spike in settler violence against palestinians in the west bank, that the biden administration has been trying to address. do you believe that there should be more done by the israeli government to curb that in the interest of peace? >> well, there should be no civilian violence at all. we do not want innocent civilians getting harmed, getting killed, whether they be israelis or palestinians. i think the challenge in all of this is, you know, a lot of my colleagues call for a ceasefire, including jamal. there have been eight ceasefires in 15 years. each time violated by hamas. so if you are the israeli government and october 7th the largest slaughtering of jews since the holocaust, are you supposed to sit back and wait for it to happen again? >> it's collective punishment. >> this is what you sisi -- >> we have one -- >> hamas, hezbollah, iran believe israel does not have a right to exist. >> this is -- >> are you waiting for the full-on genocide to happen? >> this is -- >> are you waiting for them -- >> there are 1.8 million refugees in gaza. >> okay. >> this is collective punishment. immediately cut off -- >> they have been -- >> food, water, energy, starvation in gaza. >> they have been oppressed by their own government over 15 years. >> october 7th -- >> if you want -- >>