"the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. collins starts now. have a great weekend. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com tonight straight from the source, hunter biden claiming republicans are trying to kill him and destroy a presidency. how the president's son plans to fight back against nine new charges. his lawyer is with us tonight. donald trump, better watch what he says and who he attacks, after a federal gag order is mostly reinstated. and it has just happened in another red state with a near total abortion ban, a woman suing to terminate her pregnancy, this time at eight weeks. this a ground swell of these cases coming? i'm pamela brown, and this is "the source." ♪ good evening. kaitlan will be back with you on monday. tonight, president biden is dodging questions on the nine new tax-related charges against his son, hunter. and the white house is refusing to comment, only saying, mr. biden, quote, loves his son and supports him as he continues to rebuild his life. hunter, however, is lashing out at house republicans today, after his second indictment in three months w a bold claim, saying that they want to kill him to take down his father. >> they are trying to, in their most illegitimate way but rational way, they're trying to destroy a presidency. and so it's not about me. and 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. >> well, republicans have been relentless in their pursuit of hunter through their own investigations. but this indictment didn't come from the gop. it came from president biden's own justice department. a special counsel was appointed. the younger biden stands accused of engaging in a four year scheme to avoid paying $1.4 million in taxes on income and instead funding a lavish lifestyle, quote, various women, and nearly 200,000 on adult entertainment between 2016 and 2019. these charges in california are in addition to the gun-related charges filed in delaware. so, how does his team plan to fight all of this? let's get straight to "the source" with hunter biden's own attorney, abby lowell. thanks for being here. >> good to be here. >> i've been going back through the plea agreement, the statement of facts. didn't your client admit in open court to not paying the same amount of taxes for these exact years that are in the indictment? >> not exactly, pamela. in the plea agreement that was negotiated and filed back in june, what hunter was willing to do was to admit, like millions of americans, that he did not pay his taxes on time, that they were the taxes due. but that was only amount of a delay, not what happened today. let me put this in perspective, since you asked about the last. let me show you. on june 20th, the u.s. attorney in delaware thought after a five-year pain staking investigation, that the appropriate resolution was to file two misdemeanor late payment charges in a piece of paper that was barely two pages long. yesterday, that same u.s. attorney has now done a 56-page, nine-count indictment. no facts have changed from the years that he's been investigating, after five years. the law has not changed. so, what people need to stop and ask is, why was this okay in june and this is what he's doing now? the only change that has occurred has been the enormous pressure put on by republican members of congress, former president trump, in order to demand that something happen about hunter biden. that's what's different between then and yesterday. >> and it's certainly fair to make the point of the gap between the plea deal, the two misdemeanor charges, and the three felony charges, six misdemeanors in the indictment. as you well know -- and i know you've done countless plea deals for clients. if a defendant pleads guilty, the whole deal is to get leniency, as i'm sure you know. but this fell through. this plea deal fell through. do lawyers for hunter biden take any responsibility for not putting in writing in that plea deal that he would get immunity for any other charges moving forward? because that was one of the big sticking points of why this plea deal fell through. >> if you look back the five months ago when all this happened, there's blame that mostly falls on the part of the prosecutors. it was their paper. they wrote it. it was their design. it was their structure. and when the judge asked questions, rather than defending what they had agreed to, they ran away from it. but let's put in perspective what happened yesterday. where's the fairness, justice, and decency in this? the charges in this new tax indictment talk about a period where hunter was at the lowest ebb of his addiction. and like people in that regard -- and i know everybody in america either has somebody in their family or friends who suffers from addiction -- he certainly did things he's not proud of. wait. what happened since? he got himself sober in 2019. and he paid all the taxes that are owed in this indictment more than two years ago with interest and penalties. nobody in that position would be charged the way he was yesterday, nobody. >> you would admit as an attorney that having an addiction wouldn't absolve you of potential criminal acts. and the plea agreement that he agreed to does talk about the fact that in that four-year period, he made millions of dollars. he was doing business deals. he had several clients he was representing as a lawyer. so, if he was able to do that, why shouldn't he also, like every other american, pay his taxes on time? and in that plea deal -- i just want to read part of it for you to get your response -- which, again, he agreed to. biden continued to have substantial income and the ability to pay his tax liability. by late may, biden has spent almost the entire sum on personal expenses, including large cash withdrawals, payments to or on behalf of his children, credit card balances, and car payments for his porsche. he admitted in court -- >> he didn't admit in court. this was a piece of paper that didn't get filed because the prosecutor walked away from a deal. i want to point out, again, looking at what you just read from, every year millions of americans are late in their taxes. hunter, as part of his accepting responsibility, was willing to say, i did that. but the most important part of what you're not saying and what happened yesterday is that when he became sober, what is one of the first things he did? paid all of his taxes, paid the penalties and interest. and the most important thing is when people are in his position -- and you want to talk about what he did and every other american, who you say pay on time. when the irs says you made a mistake or you're late or you do something? do you know what they do? they audit you. they ask you questions. they ask you for backup. what did the government do in this case? they charged him in a 56-page, nine-count indictment with no notice and no warning. that's what's different. what's different is you, me, and the people you're saying would have been treated differently. and there's just a very easy explanation. i want to just go back to the basics. >> i want to pick this apart. >> yesterday, what happened in between? >> okay. >> all the republican pressure. >> and it's fair to make that point that this is politically motivated. as his defense attorney, look at this and look at that. a couple of things. you talked about he got sober, he paid it. the plea deal, it talks about in may 2019 he got sober, then passed the october extension deadline. november he started to pay it back. but the government is alleging he filed false tax returns. you're talking about the average american here. they wouldn't be treated this way. what about the more than 2,600 cases for similar crimes brought last year. i've got this case that i just printed out from two weeks ago in new jersey. it was a tax case, treated like a criminal matter, for less than the $1.4 million. >> the case you're talking about, i can tell you this. we have presented to the u.s. attorney and the justice department the statistics that you're looking at, i suppose. but more importantly, we went through the cases. i can tell you that in the district of delaware and other places, a person who has filed late, paid on when it was then paid in full with interest, et cetera, and had no other issues about them and made mistakes that both went to his advantage and went to his disadvantage, that same tax return that they're saying has deductions that shouldn't have been, has income that he should not have claimed as income. and when that happens, i am telling you, the result in the tax division of the u.s. department of justice is not to bring a stand alone misdemeanor count, let alone misdemeanor counts, let alone what they did yesterday. it is usually resolved in a civil fashion. one of the things we presented to the government when we met, when his prior lawyers met, was to point out an example. there is a partner at a law firm in washington, d.c. who didn't pay $7.8 million at all, never filed. and what happened to that partner a law firm? was allowed to resolve it civilly. there are all kinds of examples. again, i tell you. it doesn't matter what you and i think. what matters is what david weiss thought on june 20th. and david weiss thought a two-misdemeanor late payment was the way to resolve this case. >> in exchange for a guilty plea which is often a plea deal gets to leniency. i think that context is important for people. >> people would not go to jail pleading to a misdemeanor of late filing after they had already paid their taxes two years later. that just wouldn't happen. >> let me ask you this because certainly reading through the indictment, first of all, it relies a lot on his memoir. i'm wondering if you stand by everything he wrote in his memoir -- >> everything he wrote in his memoir? it's his memoir. this is what we will stand by -- >> i want to follow -- let me ask. it's his memoir, that's his accounting, you're not going to contest that. >> i don't know what part you refer to. >> the indictment, throughout the indictment -- >> how he was addicted, how he spent money lavishly, how he made the most unwise decisions about how he spent money, the junkies, the escorts. >> and spending millions of dollars -- >> do you know the difference between somebody who's addicted and somebody who makes bad choices -- >> are you going to get in front of a judge and argue about his addiction as defense. many people have addictions and they don't just get off the hook because of that addiction. >> actually, when willfulness -- >> make millions of dollars and do business those four years, are you saying he was addicted and high and out of his mind for four years straight and couldn't pay his taxes? >> i'm saying that in the period of time of this indictment, he was at the worst part of his addiction. i'm saying the priorities he made between spending money lavishly and figuring out how to get his taxes paid on time is a mistake he's made. but what's the result of those mistakes? the result of those mistakes in every other circumstances would not be a 56-page, nine-count indictment for somebody who paid their taxes in full two years before this indictment was brought in the circumstances. that's the bottom line. and more importantly, treating people same no matter what their name is is key. and i don't want to be harping on it, but i want you and all of your colleagues and people who think something bad happened that should be addressed, to have the u.s. attorney answer the question. why was two misdemeanors with the possibility of no jail with a plea agreement the right result in june, and why are nine counts about the same events, what he did yesterday? tell me what happened in between. >> we've covered that ground. >> chairman jordan, chairman smith, former president trump, that's the difference. >> you mentioned comer. i want to get to him. let's listen to what chairman comer said today in the wake of this latest indictment. >> and 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. >> yes. >> so, what do you say to that, and will hunter biden comply with the subpoena to testify? >> the day i can make sense of the things chairman comer says is the day i should be nominated for some great educational prize. if i understand what he's saying is that the special counsel, now used to be the u.s. attorney, decided to bring these counts to protect hunter biden in some fashion or another. if that's what he's saying, that almost is ridiculous coming out of his mouth as it is for me to repeat it. if he's saying that somehow the u.s. attorney did this to protect the u.s. attorney, i'd agree with the chairman. he's doing this because he took such unbearable pressure and heat and criticism on june when we did the deal that now he's going to show over and over again that he is not going to make another mistake that subjects him to that kind of political pressure. if that's what chairman comer means, i might agree with him. >> both parties went into court that day with a plea deal at hand ready to agree to it. the judge raised questions, and the mundt question was a big sticking point. >> it was the prosecutors who right after that -- >> it's the lawyer who usually defends their clients -- >> i want to be clear that the entity who said the deal is off. not that it was tweaked to deal with the judge's questions. but it was off. >> let me follow up on the question about will he show up for the congressional deposition on december 13th. >> are you asking about what's happening next week? >> yes. >> hunter and i and his add viss are thinking about what we exchanged with the committee and we'll make the decision. >> no decision yet as of right now. last question for you. you're making the argument that this is basically political persecution, that this is unfair for hunter biden, your client, because of his last name. should he be pardoned? will your client apply for a pardon? >> that is so far down the road to even remotely believe. it's not in the lexicon of what we're talking about. when we say political pressure, to put a finer point on it, in the district of delaware and most places, no person has ever been charged with the gun charges that hunter was charged with unless it was part of a crime, multiple guns, felony record. never happened. nobody who did what hunter did with the issues that he had at the time, who paid his taxes two years ago, and was part of this arrangement with the government has ever gone from one and a half pages of a misdemeanor to nine counts and 56 pages, including felonies. it just didn't happen. >> all right. i'm going to -- i'll let you read this case from a couple of weeks ago too, of other cases where an american didn't pay taxes and it was treated as a criminal matter. >> i'm not suggesting that there's none. but i'll tell you what, i'll come back after you give me your case and i'll show you how the cases that should be compared will show that the person who's being treated differently is not the person in your case, but hunter. >> all right. you're welcome back any time. thank you so much. appreciate it. up next, a second gag order is now back on donald trump with some tweaks. a federal appeals court ruling. what he says has real world consequences. and israel is finally talking more about those masses of men detained and stripped down to their underwear in gaza. where they've been taken. and we're going to talk to someone who says his brother was among them, and he says unfairly targeted. well, tonight donald trump once again told by a court he has to watch what comes out of his mouth and out of his keyboard. this ruling, in a federal case involving his attempt to overturn the election. in the end, trump can't talk about the prosecutors, the court staff, or their family members. he can still bad mouth jack myth, as well as criticize president biden and the department of justice. the court found, quote, mr. trump's documented pattern of speech pose a significant and imminent functioning to the trial process in this case. here to help us understand what this all means is shan wu. what do you make of the fact this is the second court in recent weeks to say, trump can't say what he wants to say about people outside of court. >> i think those courts are all getting it right. he shouldn't be able to say anything that he wants. and they're making a really good faith effort to try to balance the constitutional issue. i think there's a little bit too much controversy directed on the constitutional issue because that is not really a case about his first amendment right to speech. we're talking about his conduct outside the courtroom. it's inside in the evidence that should really count. and the fact that he is being told that he can't insult or intimidate people, that's normal to control a case. and, to me, he doesn't get extra first amendment rights just because he's running for president. it needs to be balanced, but there's nothing extra about that. >> the court notes that trump is running for office. but, quote, mr. trump is also an indicted criminal defendant, and he must stand trial in a courtroom under the same procedures that govern all other criminal defendants. that is what the rule of law means. is donald trump being treated like other defendants here? >> absolutely not. >> okay, okay. >> absolutely not. there are so many people who would already be in jail for any kind of this behavior. and it's not even really a traditional gag order. a real gag order would be nobody gets to say anything. in the shooting case in michigan, the parents are under a gag order, they couldn't even come to the sentencing hearing. that would be called for. but the courts have bent over backwards to make sure he gets to speak. and with all due respect to the circuit, i don't understand the carveout logically for him to attack jack smith. somehow, that's political. but if you say anything to a witness or staff of the court, that's not political. that's too fine a line. they should really just -- if they really want to treat him like everyone else, then quit talking about the case. >> they argue -- the judges argued in their filing -- that jack smith is a top government official, and he is up there aligned with the institution of doj. so, let's look ahead and look at monday. donald trump is expected to testify in this little fraud case against him and his company in new york. last time, things went off the rails at times. his own lawyer is telling him not to testify because of the gag order in that case. what are the pitfalls for him potentially? >> it's primarily that he's not very good on direct examination, which is friendly. he'll tend to meander some. if it's crossed, it's always tough for anyone to be cross-exacross examined. i think it's going to go poorly for him. the reason not to testify is you don't want to incriminate yourself. you don't want to be at odds with yourself, not the gag order. no one's going to say he's violating the gag order for testifying in this case. that doesn't make any sense. also he's testifying because it's a civil trial. you can draw an adverse inference from it. and i think he really wants to have a platform to speak this way. and it, kind of, dove tails in with his political strategy. >> shan wu, thank you so much for your insights. up next, it was a landmark victory in a post-roe america. now her state is trying to get that ruling overturned. plus, there's a new case cropping up in my home state of kentucky. we're going to discuss after the break. (singing )i'll be home for christmas you can plan on me. please have snow and mistletoe. and presents on the tree. kids at shriner's hospitals for children ar