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 to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. and good evening, thanks 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 airtime, 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 show so during the presidential campaign. here is the latest, cnn chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid. paula, what do you know that these charges? >> good evening anderson. well 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 as special counsel, and the investigation was revived. and 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 vowing to pressure from republicans to charge the president's son with something. they do not believe that a criminal trial is a proper venue for these allegations, and they are confident on the gun charge that they will prevail at trial. anderson, again, it's unclear exactly what charges have been filed in los angeles. but they previously told me that they believe that they would 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 cnn senior political commentator former obama senior advisor david axelrod. dave it obviously a lot we don't know. but what impact you think these new charges could potentially 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, and 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 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 am 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 wha do. >> he's 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 is, i am concerned as a father, i'm not thinking about this as 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. >> and paula, what's the process from here, now that hunter biden faces new charges? what to be an arraignment in short order? >> short, we will see something similar to what we are waiting to see in delaware. first we are waiting to see the unsealing of the court documents, we are waiting to see the nature of the charges. and we expect to hear his -- have an arraignment, likely next week probably, that would be the expected timing. and then, i would expect that his lawyers will try to fight these charges the same way they are fighting the charges in delaware. it's been interesting, anderson. over the last several months, we've seen a much more aggressive hunter biden. he, along with his attorney kevin morris, they brought on abbe lowell, of course a very prominent attorney, to take a much more forward leaning approach to his detractors. now, they expect that the criminal case was gonna be resolved with a plea deal. but now, they are also facing now two criminal cases. and they have been very aggressive, very litigious, filing off lawsuits against detractors like rudy giuliani and his longtime friend and lawyer rob costello, sending letters to the hill, demanding investigations into congress, congress folks. so it has been a very different approach than what we had seen before with hunter biden, if there was someone 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 is 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 as a stance, whatever it ends up being. >> david, i mean, you've been skeptical of the president's reelection prospects, not because of his son, but because of his age and poll numbers. but if he were ever to reconsider his candidacy, which as of now, he has not, do you think anything around his son would factor in, or could factor in? >> well, i don't know anderson. i have a strong sense that the president's full speed ahead, and that he is going to go through with this campaign. but as i've said, this is more than a political burden, this is an emotional burden. and we will 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 that there's gonna be a major effort to depict these as politically motivated charges. and so, you know it's kind of ironic, because you see both sides trying to do that. in that sense, this serves, this serves donald trump's purposes, because 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 messy campaign. >> yeah, david axelrod, paula reid, thanks so much. now to presidential politics, today, the four republican candidates who were 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 could 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, and doesn't have to be there at all. yet, this was his ninth time there. as for his claim that it's interfering with his campaign, that doesn't appear to be true either. we know this because he has said so himself. today in a campaign email, which went out just moments before he spoke in that clip there. i quote from you now. he said, they'd rather have me in court than on the campaign trail in iowa, with the first vote only 39 days away. but in some ways, i will still be on the campaign trail today. he went on to say that every time he shows up in court, voters see how badly they need him back in the white house. in short he's not really implying that this is part of his campaign, he is saying, and he is fundraising off of it. so, it's sort of a twofer for him. it helps him campaign, he believes, and make money. for more on his day, and his upcoming testimony on monday, ss off. so, let's talk about what happened in court today. >> yes, so as you said, 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 sent his review of the documents showed that there was absolutely no evidence of accounting fraud. he also said that he found no material miss statements 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 that the attorney general's lawsuit had no merit. and the professor said, absolutely, that was exactly what his testimony was. so he went through a number of examples, saying again and again that he saw no evidence of fraud. even for example, the triplex apartment at trump tower that trump owns. when trump testified, he acknowledged that that was at one point incorrect on his financial statements, saying it was three times the size that it actually was. the professor today saying that that was an error but it did not constitute any fraud. now trump himself was pretty quiet inside the courtroom today, he seems to be paying attention to the professors accounting. outside he praised him, praised his testimony, also criticized the new york attorney general. she shot back at a social media post, saying that we have already proven this massive scope of his fraud. no matter how much he lies, the facts vote. and as a reminder, the judge has already found that the financial statement 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 yeah, 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. so you remember the last time he was on the stand, when he was called to the new york attorney generals office. the judge had told one of trump's lawyers to control their client, because trump was speaking as if he was at a campaign, and not answering the questions at issue. this time around, there will be much more leeway, because he will be asked questions by his own lawyers. so, it really remains to be seen exactly how broad they are going to try to make his testimony, and exactly what issues he will talk about. but the judge is going to try to keep a rain on his testimony, anderson. >> kara scannell, thanks. with me now, cnn legal analyst and that -- karen free -- and. also, investigative journalist and trump -- syracuse university law lecturer david cay johnston. so karen i mean, 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. let's not 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. so he was just an observer today. this was his choice to be there. does it not sort of showing the judge how serious he is taking it? i mean is it impressing anything on upon the judge do you think? >> potentially i guess that could be something that the judge looks at, as though he is taking it seriously. but i think the judge knows he is taking it seriously. >> and david, you heard the nyu accounting professor testifying 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 actually is, and they are far more valuable, he downplayed it, saying it could've been inadvertently accidental. do you think it was? >> no, because there's some email traffic showing that donald knew this with forbes magazine. and there were other properties donald has valued at ten, 20, 30 times what they're worth. so, interestingly, 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, this very eminent accounting professors testimony, as an expert witness by the way come up today, he was paid more than one half of 1 million dollars. >> he was paid $500,000 for us testimony today? >> well, that's what came out in court. the trumps had paid him over a half 1 million dollars. so, i mean that's not the normal expert witness you bring in, who gets 25, 50,000, $60,000. that's a great deal of money. and there are clear batches of fraud in those statements. so that's what i find very surprising. >> karen does the fact that he is a respected professor i guess at nyu, or the fact that he has paid half 1 million dollars, does that influence the judge? >> i mean, the judge will take both those things into consideration. i mean he is a respected professor with a good resume, and he has been a long term professor. some of the things he did say were surprising. >> like what? >> he is an expert, right, he is supposed to talk about export accounting principles. but for him to then opine that there was no fraud here, that's up to the judge to decide. he can say what he thinks something is worth, or what he thinks the equations are that should go into it. but how does he know whether something was a mistake, whether it is inverted. >> what the intent was? >> exactly. i mean that's sort of the ultimate question of the judge is there to determine. and to me, that shows that he is biased, frankly towards trump. he really believes, as opposed to being just an expert on the subject, which is what an expert is supposed to be. and to educate the judge on valuations of things like that. but he really has decided that there is no fraud here, and that there is no criminal intent. and i, don't. >> i'm wondering if the judge asked 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 is 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 it's residential property, when it suits them. because you get more favorable insurance terms of its one versus the, other or loan terms of its 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 valuable. you know, at a certain point, it's not 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? i mean, we saw him, 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 it will be. asking him about things like well, you said mar-a-lago two -- was worth 27 million, now you're saying it's worth half a billion, a billion dollars. things like that. in the cross-examination i think will be the much more 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. >> -- thank you, -- as well. quick reminder to stay tuned for laura coates live tonight, when -- a former attorney general eric holder, that's night 11 pm, eastern here on cnn. next for us, more breaking news. the latest in the follow after president 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 are making on the ground there. >> news that, it comes on the first night of hanukkah, and two months in the day since hamas perpetrated the mass massacre of civilians, most of them jewish in israel. the board of advisers at the university of pennsylvania -- wharton business school tonight calling for a leadership change at upenn. the -- ford's letter to university president -- part of the backlash to her congressional testimony, along with other ivy league presidents on the subject of antisemitism on campus. miguel marquez has more. >> miss mcgill, 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? >> i am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of jews. does that constitute bullying or harassment? >> if it is directed and severe and pervasive, it is harassment. >> so the answer is yes? >> it is a context defended decision, congresswoman. >> it is a context dependant decision? that is your testimony, calling for the genocide of jews depends on the context? that is not bullying or harassment? this is the easiest question to answer yes, miss mcgill? >> 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 the sea. >> from the river to the sea. >> i have not heard calling for the genocide of jews. >> but you've heard chance for intifada? >> i've heard chants which can be antisemitic, depending on the context, when calling for the elimination of the jewish people. >> so far, no protesters held accountable. >> have any students been expelled or disciplined for bullying, harassment, or these actions that you are listing? >> i can assure you, we have robust student disciplinary process? >> no, no, i didn't ask about your processes. i asked if any students have been disciplined or removed from harvard as a result of the bullying and harassment that has taken place, based on theier antisemimitic views. >> after the hearing, university of pennsylvania president liz mcgill attempted to clarify her remarks, issuing a video statement. >> when i was asked if a call for the genocide of jewish people