trump's gag order is mostly upheld in the federal election subversion case. an appeals court admonishing the former president while giving him a green light to attack the special counsel, jack smith. also tonight, the new criminal indictment of hunter biden and the legal and political fall-out. the president's son accused of spending millions on a lavish lifestyle instead of paying his taxes. and the michigan gunman who killed four classmates at a school back in 2021 is now sentenced to life in prison without parole. the teenager hearing emotional statements from the victims' families and then telling the court, and i'm quoting him now, i am a really bad person. welcome to our viewers here in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." ♪ ♪ our top story tonight, donald trump gagged again. an appeals court agreeing the former president of the united states should be barred from public statements about witnesses and other key players in the federal election subversion case, but with some significant exceptions. cnn justice correspondent jessica schneider has more on the ruling. jessica, what does this mean for trump? >> well, wolf, it means the gag order against donald trump will, in fact, be in place moving forward, but the appeals court today saying the original gag order from district court judge tanya chutkan was too broad. specifically, the appeals court is removing restrictions when it comes to trump talking about special counsel jack smith. the appeals court really explained that jack smith is part of the justice department, that trump should be allowed to criticize public officials, and he should be able to express his views that this prosecution is politically motivated. so the appeals court here really trying to walk this fine line of protecting donald trump's first amendment free speech right, but also limiting just how far he can go in attacking witnesses and other court staffers and personnel as we have seen him already do. this is how the gag order will play out. trump will not be able to make public statements about potential witnesses in this case. he also can't make derogatory comments that would interfere in this case when it comes to the court staff, the special counsel staff or family members. of course, we saw donald trump speak out against special counsel jack smith's wife recently at one of his rallies. so trump will now be restricted from making any comments about her or other family members, though it is important to note there will be no restrictions on his speech about special counsel jack smith or the judge in this case or really the prosecution in general. so the appeals court in making this decision, they wrote this. they said, many of former president trump's public statements attacking witnesses, trial participants and court staff pose a danger to the integrity of these criminal proceedings. that danger is magnified by the predictable torrent of threats of retribution and violence that the district court found follows when mr. trump speaks out forcefully. wolf, tonight trump is saying his legal team will appeal, so the next step in this case would either be to appeal to the full appeals court here in dc, since today's decision was just from the three-judge panel, or the president's legal team could take this appeal directly to the supreme court. so presumably we'll see what they do in the coming days. wolf. >> jessica, thank you. jessica schneider reporting. i want to bring in cnn national correspondent. i also want to bring in the author of an important book entitled "tired of winning: donald trump and the end of the grand old party." elie you predicted that the gag order would be upheld. do you think the court truck the right balance? >> i do. i think they struck the nail on the head. any time the court is in position of dealing with a gag order they have to balance two competing concerns. i think the court does it in a detailed want. on one hand the court has to protect any defendant's very broad first amendment rights, and under the order as it now stands donald trump is free to criticize aggressively if necessary the judge, jack smith, doj, the charges against him. that's his right. on the other hand, the court has to balance the need for the district or the trial court here to protect the process, to protect the witnesses, the jury pool, and what trump cannot do is attack witnesses about the substance of their testimony or attack staff or court members or say things that might infect the jury pool. so i think the court of appeals really did an admirable job and i think they got it just right in striking that balance here. >> do you think it is likely the u.s. supreme court will review this decision? >> i do not think the supreme court will take this case up, wolf. yes, there's a constitutional element to it because we're talking about the first amendment, but the mere presence of a constitutional issue is not enough for the supreme court to take it. i think the supreme court will want to stay hands off. i don't think they will want to micromanage the minutia of the trial and i don't think there's anything about the court of appeals' opinion that's obviously wrong or screaming out for the supreme court to step in and fix it. i think they will pass, and if they do pass this will be the last word on the gag order. >> jonathan carl, trump slammed this decision on truth social. i want to get your reaction to part of his response. let me quote part of his response. people can speak violently or viciously against me or attack me in any form but i'm not allowed to respond in kind. as jessica reported, the order doesn't restrict him from going after the department of justice or jack smith for that matter. what is your reaction? >> or his political opponents or joe biden or -- i mean this is a very narrowly tailored gag order. i think that this decision by this appeals panel is a really good read. it goes through a reminder of the kinds of statements that trump was making that, in the words of this panel, had real-time, real-world consequences, statements that he was making about potential witnesses and how they received torrents of threats. we've seen this over and over again. we saw what happened in the new york civil case when trump not only went after the judge but went after the clerk, a court employee, said things about her that were flatly not true, and she ended up receiving several -- many, dozens a day of threats on her cellphone that people somehow got hold of. anti-semitic threats. look, i think it is not about silencing donald trump. in fact, this opinion goes chapter and verse to the importance of the first amendment but makes it clear you cannot hide behind the first amendment to make statements that are clearly not protected by the law. >> good point. kristen holmes, what are you hearing from your sources about the reaction from inside the trump world? >> well, look, there was some expectation this was going to be upheld or at least part would be upheld, but the big question now is whether or not donald trump can actually abide by it. i spoke to two senior advisors who said they think it is possible, that he has been briefed multiple times on what exactly he can and can't say and where exactly that line is. one advisor said that he is going to walk all the way up to the line but not cross it. again, as we've mentioned, he can go after jack smith, he can go after the department of justice. we know it is a big part of his campaign to be president, that he is being politically persecuted, and he is going to continue with that messaging. there is some concern among some allies when it comes to the witnesses he might have a harder time, particularly when it comes to perhaps getting some of that testimony or learning what these witnesses have said. that is going to be where it becomes more difficult for the former president. >> eli, the court pushed back that the criminal trial should be delayed until after the 2024 presidential election, saying that would, quote, create perverse incentives. what did you make of that? >> this is the buried headline of the ruling today. that is going to become monumentally important because donald trump is in the process of appealing the immunity motion. he is certainly going to try to get the trial date, currently set for march 2024, pushed back to after the selection. he is going to try anyway possible to do that. this is a signal and then some from the court of appeals that they're not going to be inclined to do that. if it is going to be delayed it probably will have to come from the u.s. supreme court, i is a tough shot to make. >> good point. jonathan, what will this election year look like if the dominant republican front-runner is stuck in a courtroom rather than on the campaign trail? >> well, i think what has happened as a result, we are already seeing this. i mean he has spent more days in court in new york in that civil case, days that he did not have to be in court. there's only, you know, one day, which when he testified. he doesn't need to be there, that he has spent actually on the campaign trail. as a result, people are seeing more of the coverage of his legal troubles than they are of donald trump as a candidate. i think this is actually one of the challenges that we all face in covering and trying to understand this election, is that people are not getting a real sense of donald trump, the candidate, of what he would be doing if he actually got into the white house again. what would his program be? what does he mean by retribution and revenge? what would he be doing as president? because, you know, so much of the coverage is in these courtrooms, and that's where he is going to be spending most of his time. >> yeah, that's a good point. excellent point. a real expert on trump. thanks to all of you, and a special congratulations to jonathan carol on his new book, "tired of winning: donald trump and the end of the grand old party." excellent, excellent read. check it out for sure. just ahead, israel dramatically ramps up its strikes on gaza and suggests it is bringing hamas to a, quote, breaking point. we will be right back. "the situauation room m wit wowolf blitzerer" brought t to chase. make more e of what isis yours.. israel is making new claims about its progress against hamas as the third month of war begins with a significant escalation of strikes on gaza. cnn's alex marquardt is joining us live from israel right now. alex, what is the latest? >> reporter: well, wolf, intense fighting going on. earlier today the idf said in the previous 24 hours they carried out some strikes on 450 different targets. that is the biggest number all across gaza since that fragile truce fell apart a week ago, exactly a week ago on friday. that's one of the biggest numbers we have seen since the war started exactly two months ago. we did hear from the defense minister of israel earlier today. he said that he is starting to see the signs of hamas beginning to break-in side gaza. much of the idf's focus, wolf, is on the second biggest city in gaza, where israel believes some of the most senior leaders of hamas are, and that is where israel is focusing a lot of its attention. the idf saying that they are going house to house, tunnel to tunnel, carrying out raise. elsewhere in gaza, in the north, wolf, we saw israeli troops raise the israeli flag in palestine square. that is a main intersection in gaza city, not too far incidentally from al shifa hospital which i think people will remember well. then, wolf, the idf also announcing that they tried to carry out a raid to rescue a hostage. that raid did not go well. the hostage was not rescued. two idf soldiers were severely injured. they have tried to carry out these rescue raids in the past. in october they were successful. they got a young female hostage out. of course, wolf, that comes as these hostage talks have ground to a halt. >> alex, the u.n. secretary general made a rare move today to raise the alarm about the situation in gaza right now, but how did that unfold? >> reporter: well, wolf, he invoked what is known as article 99, which is a very rare tool that the u.n. secretary general can invoke when there are threats to the maintenance of international peace and security. so what happened is there was a call for a vote at the security council for an immediate cease-fire. the security council has 15 members. 13 voted in favor of an immediate cease-fire. one, the uk, abstained. the united states was the only one to vote against. the u.s. vetoed this call for an immediate cease-fire, this resolution. they say that it was because hamas was not mentioned in this resolution. the attacks on october 7th. of course, wolf, the situation in gaza, the humanitarian situation is just growing increasingly dire by the hour. the hamas-controlled ministry of health says over 17,000 people have been killed. 85% of the overall population of gaza has been displaced, wolf. >> alex marquardt reporting from tel aviv. coming up, the new tax evasion charges against hunter biden and what they could mean potentially for the president of the united states. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ tonight president biden's son, hunter, is facing new charges, the most serious yet after his criminal indictment in a federal tax case. cnn's paula reid is covering the story for us. she is getting reaction as well. walk us through, paula, this indictment and some of the truly sensational details included. >> sensational indeed. these charges, wolf, are the result of a long-running investigation into hunter biden's finances, but now his father will be seeking reelection while fighting an impeachment bid from republicans and while his son is fighting to avoid prison in now two federal criminal cases. president biden ignored questions friday about the latest criminal charges filed against his son. >> reporter: any comment on the new charges against your son? >> those new charges laid out in a 56-page indictment, unsealed thursday. prosecutors allege hunter biden engaged in a four-year scheme to not pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. they allege the younger biden had money but spent it on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing and other items of a personal nature. in short, everything but his taxes. the case was supposed to be resolved with a plea deal that fell apart over the summer. >> i'm cooperating completely, and i'm absolutely certain, 100% certain that at the end of the investigation that i will be cleared. >> the case steps from hunter biden's lucrative overseas business dealings. he did eventually repay taxes he owed along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties and fees, but prosecutors say that when he did finally file his returns, he included false business deductions in order to reduce his tax liability. his lawyers claim prosecutors have bowed to political pressure to bring charges against the president's son. in a statement, his attorney, abby lowell, said if hunter's last name was anything other than biden the charges in delaware and now california would not have been brought. in a newly released podcast recorded before the indictment, biden said the pressure comes from republicans intent on undermining his father. >> they are trying to -- in their most illegitimate way, but rational way, they're trying to destroy a presidency. and so it is not about me, and in their most base 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. >> the indictment does not include any evidence linking these alleged crimes to president biden, but gop lawmakers continue to push forward with their impeachment inquiry and pursuing an interview with the president's son. >> my concern is that weiss may have indicted hunter biden to protect him from having to be deposed in the house oversight committee on wednesday. >> yeah, that doesn't really make any sense because hunter's team didn't use the indictment he was already facing to try to avoid that appearance next week. they have said they would be more than welcome there. they would be happy to sit down and answer questions, but it has to be public, something that the committee has so far rejected, insisting that a public appearance would only come after a behind-closed-doors interview. wolf, it is unclear if and when he will ever appear on the hill. it is also unclear when he will appear in federal court. his initial appearance has not yet been scheduled. >> paula reid reporting for us. excellent report, paula. thank you very much. i want to bring in our team of political experts to discuss. dana bash, i will start with you. you heard hunter biden before the charges actually came out speak about the toll on him and his dad, not just politically but personally. what impact will this have on president biden as he campaigns for reelection? >> well, it is already having an impact because it is very, very difficult for the president, for the president's reelection campaign to try to navigate what is very, very obviously, understandably personal for the president, and it is not just about the indictment and the allegations, the criminal allegations, both the new ones in california and also in delaware. it is about his addiction, and that was -- wolf, listening to hunter biden say, "they're trying to kill me," he doesn't mean that metaphorically. he means that literally because he is an addict, and he in his argument has been that the reason he didn't pay his taxes, the reason he spent so much money, over a million, maybe almost a million and a half dollars on all of these untoward things and more is because he was addicted to very horrible drugs, to crack. so what he is saying there is they're trying to get me, to get me off the wagon, which would destroy my father. you know, there, of course, are political reasons for this, and he did do things that were wrong. but from the perspective of hunter biden, from the perspective of his lawyers, not so much that it deserves this kind of attention, and that's why they say if his name was anything other than biden that he wouldn't be prosecuted to the degree that he is right now after that plea deal fell apart in july. >> interesting. david axelrod, the indictment as da dana just pointed out, paints a very damming indictment, charges against hunter biden. how does this reflect on the president of the united states? >> look, it does paint a damning portrait, and a lot of it was known already, wolf, both through other legal filings and through what hunter biden has said himself. the story of his addiction and some of the activities that flowed from it are very well-known, but it is important to note that it is about hunter biden. it is not about joe biden. there are a lot of people in this country who have children who have fallen to addiction, and despite two years of effort there's been no success in linking biden to any wrongdoing by hunter biden. so i think this is, as hunter described, as dana described, this is an emotional burden for the president and will be going forward. i don't think -- i think people can separate out joe from hunter. i don't think this issue is the political burden that perhaps some hope it will be. >> for the president, it is a very personal burden. >> absolutely, and i think that's serious. >> i totally agree. mark short, you know, it is interesting because as we're watching on this, trump keeps accusing the u.s. justice department, the federal government of political bias, but don't today's charges against president biden's son fly in the face of that? >> they might. i think it is probably too early to tell, wolf, to see where that investigation continues to go. but i think that a lot of this generates