coy wire looks good in a hat. >> i wear them. i have fashionable hats. he needs it. mine is to be as suave as i can pull off. the federal appeals court has held up a gag order in trump's subbed a version case. hunter biden is now facing new criminal charges. the legal jeopardy he's now in and what the white house is now saying. dozens of lawmakers are calling for the presidents of three universities to step down after their testimony in an anti-semitism hearing this week. the mounting pressure they're facing despite attempts to walk back some of their comments. convicted murderer ethan crumbley will spend the rest of his life in prison. what he told the court. millions are nafacing storm today. we begin with the run-ups of primary votes of the 2024 election cycle. former president trump is facing his own legal troubles. on friday a federal appeals court ruled a gag order barring trump from attacking certain witnesses and prosecutors will largely remain in place. of course, trump immediately responded, vowing to keep up the fight to get that gag order removed. president biden is campaigning for the first time in a while. hunter biden is accused of a four-year tax evasion, spending millions of drugs, escorts, and exotic cars. this comes as hunter biden is pressured to testify in a congressional hearing. james comer told special council he believes biden was indicted to shield him. paula reid has more. >> reporter: president biden ignored questions friday about the latest criminal charges against his son. >> any new comments about the charges against your son? >> reporter: the new charges laid out in a 56-page indictment unsealed thursday. it alleges hunter biden engaged a four-year scheme to not pay $1.4 million in taxes. they allege that hunter biden had the money but spent it on escorts, drugs, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature, in short, everything but his taxes. the case was supposed to be resolved in a plea deal that fell apart over the summer. >> i'm 100% certain at the end of the investigation i will be cleared. >> reporter: the case stems from hunter biden's lieu kra did business dealings. he did eventually repay taxes he owed along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties and fees, but prosecutors say 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 abbe lowell said the charges would not have been bought. biden says the pressure comes from the republicans' intent to undermine his father. >> they're trying in the most illegitimate way but rational way, they're trying to destroy a presidency, so it's not about me. in their most base way what they're trying to do is they're trying to kill me, knowing it will be a pain greater than my father could be able to handle. >> reporter: 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 committee hearing on wednesday. >> reporter: that theory doesn't pass muster because hunter biden was already facing charges in delaware. now, certain members of that committee are insisting that first he has to do a deposition in private before they would agree to a public hearing. so they appear to be at a stalemate. it's unclear whenever he even appear on the hill and when he'll make his first appearance in court. that has not yet been scheduled o it in california. president biden is trying to keep the focus on the campaign and not his son's legal troubles. speaking in las vegas on friday, biden touted his progress on infrastructure reforms while tarnishing trump's promises when he was president. >> cnn's camilla dechalus has more. what has been the response? >> reporter: at this time, white house officials say they will not comment on the latest charges brought against hunter. but yesterday karine jean-pierre had this to say. take a listen. >> the president has said this before and will continue to say, which is he loves his son and supports him as he continues to rebuild his life. i'm going to be careful to not comment on this and refer you to the department of justice or my colleagues at the white house. i'm not going beyond what the president has said over and over again. he's proud of his son. >> reporter: now, biden is facing several political challenges as he runs for re-election, and now with the justice department filing additional charges against his son, that's going to be another political obstacle biden will have to navigate as he runs his next election. joining me now, former manhattan prosecutor jeremy saland. bind faces several charges here. as paula reid reports, hunter biden has paid the back taxes, he has paid the penalties. are these typical charges, all of them, any of them, considering that he's made the government whole? he's paid what he owes? >> i think a lot of people would be surprised even when it's clear there's been a kr50i78, people are often allowed to pay off those monies, and when they do, and the penalties, as biden has done, they're often not prosecuted. that can't be they can't be or shouldn't be, but they're not. it's a little surprising. he's been caught. the evidence seems strong, and if you look at the central district of california, which i just happened to take a look, there are other crimes in similar dollar amounts that have been prosecuted for tax laws. >> so some truth to what abbe lowell says. i'll ask you from a legal context. when the chair of the house and oversight accountability committee says that he is concerns that maybe these charges were filed to protect hunter biden from testifying, is there any validity you see in that? >> no, i don't think so. i think one could argue that, you know, weiss -- special council felt pressured he had to move forward on this case. remember, there was already a deal that was in place that fell through. i don't think that's a fair statement. >> when these go to -- if they go to trial as one would imagine they would, does the at one point the existence of a plea deal play into a potential defense? >> well, you know, i think that is part of the defense now. whether that's an evidentiary or factual defense, it's a legal defense, and i think it's something that biden's team is going to confront the special prosecution and special counsel with to say this should have been in place. i think that's more of an issue now, not necessarily the testimony at trial. that would be a little different. let's move on to donald trump about the federal subversion case and the upholding largely of the gag order. trump is now barred from attacking court staff, the prosecutor's special staff, but he can still target jack smith. explain why. >> well, first of all, it was a battle between the first amendment and trump's right to free speech as weltl as making sure the process was fair. there's a card out for jack smith. there's an allowance for trump to get on his pulpit to say this is a political witch hunt. he e has wide latitude, very broad as to jack smith, but it's limited. witnesses are fair game, but -- there's an asterisk here -- but trump cannot attack them in their role as wngss in his cases. so there's a difference. it's a win for donald trump, but also a win for the judicial process. it's not a home run by any stretch, but it gives trump some latitude. i would say this. even though he has a leash, even though trump pushes it and pushes it, i would not be shocked if he ruins this as well. >> that's interesting because the appeals court says trump cannot attack the court staff or jack smith's staff for the purpose it could spread violence for these people. wouldn't the concern of violence be valid as it relates to those witnesses even if it has nothing to do with the election subversion case? >> that's a fair conclusion, victor, but at the same time, there's a first amendment right, and the appellate court said, you know, there is an interest by the public to hear donald trump speak and share his thoughts as a presidential candidate. for example, before it was pence. that was someone he was running against. how do you get donald trump to say something opposing in the election? it's that tight line and tightrope. again, i would not be shocked. >> he's cooperating in georgia and with prosecutors in nevada, michigan, wisconsin. arizona has reached out as well. how crucial is he to the state cases? >> well, you know, we have to learn a lot more about these fake elector cases in some of the other cases, and some, we understand, have been presented to the grand jury. i think it was nevada. obviously he's crucial. obviously he's an element. is he the biggest fish, for example, a giuliani? obviously not. he has exposure in those cases. why would you say i'm going to plead and work with the prosecution, in one case only to allow myself to be vulnerable. so he no doubt has information. whether he's that fly on the wall and knows everything, we'll find out. he absolutely has value and knows something, otherwise he would be cooperating or contacted by these offices. still to come, the u.s. just vetoed a resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in gaza. coming up, the world leaders condemning the decision. also, angry students are demanding action after congressional testimony about elite presidents and now jobs and a million dollar donation are on the line. this morning the united states finds itself in the hot seat as it single-handedly vetoed a single resolution for a cease-fire for peace in gaza. the u.s. defends its stance, arguing the resolution was disconnected from ground realities and it could empower hamas to repeat their october 7th attacks on israel. now, israel's u.n. ambassador believes peace can only be achieved by eliminating hamas. i want to go to retired air force colonel cedric leighton. i want to read you the comments from the u.n. ambassador. he had remarks for antonio gu terrace for revokinging that u.s. charter. he said this. israel's defensive war against hamas, a designated terrorist organization, was a catalyst. the irony is it could only be achieved once hamas is eliminated, not one minute before. do you agree the only option for peace is to eliminate hamas? >> well, i don't think it's a realistic way forward unfortunately for the israelis because when you look at the way in which hamas has set it up and look at all the different things hamas has done within gaza and how they permeate society, it becomes impossible to eliminate this organization nation. unfortunately it's radicalized, and, of course, what they did on october 7th was completely out of bounds when it comes to loss of war and military operations. hamas says israel is certainly in its rights to defend itself and in essence to counter hamas' efforts, on the other hand, israel's efforts to destroy hamas is not going to lead with their expectations. it's going to take a long time to root out the military leadership of hamas, can sh is the goal of the netanyahu government, but it's almost impossible to eradicate the idea. that's what it's all about. >> you have to beat them militarily, but also how do you beat them ideologically or destroy them. regarding the u.n. security council vote, 13 voted for this immediate cease-fire in gaza. the u.s. vetoed it. the uk abstained. i think the count right now is 17,500 or so civilians who have been killed in gaza. this is according to the gaza ministry of health. are you concerned or what are your thoughts on the optics that the u.s. seems to grow more and more isolated on the international stage in its support for israel? >> that's always been a difficult path for the united states. in many cases through the last decades, we have supported israel and we were the only ones to support israel, so i think it's not uncharted territory for the united states, but in this particular case, the resolution would have been better if it had also condemned hamas's attacks. as far as the isolation in this particular situation, it's going to be a bit of a problem, there's no question about it. but it's also important for the united states to stand in a position where it can be in essence a bridge. we kind of saw that in action during the hostage negotiations, which were partially successful in releasing the hostages. that's the kind of thing the united states has to be able to do in this case and has to be very careful when it comes to its diplomatic efforts. >> right. and before we go, i want to get your assessment and reaction to these images that have been all over social media, these mass detentions by the idf of the men in gaza. you can see them stripped down to their underwear, blindfolded, kneeling. depending on who you're talking to, they're either hamas leaders or civilians. listen to what we're hearing. >> suspected terrorists. let's remember these are military-age men who were found in areas that civilians were supposed to have evacuated over a month ago and where we've seen dense fighting between israeli soldiers and hamas fighters. >> they're just civilians who were there with their families trying to survive. my brother has seizures and they have him naked in the street and they put him on the beach in the winter, naked, taking pictures of him, verifying who he is, and released him after they roughed him up a little bit. >> what do you make of these competing claims? by the way, the gentleman you heard there is a director here from the u.s. and he said he recognized many of those people in these images including his own brother and his 13-year-old nerv nerv nephew who he says are civilians and have nothing to do with hamas. >> i think one of the problems is when israeli moved into areas like this and gaza and packed neighborhoods, they have dragged everybody out who is a military age male. unfortunately they have captured those folks who are innocent, who have nothing to do with hamas. the efforts by israelis are definitely heavy-handed. dragnets like this are not uncommon. u.s. has done similar things in iraq and afghanistan. it's not surprising, but very unfortunate not ohm for the israelis but certainly the people who are innocent that they've captured in this manner. there are people who very much support hamas or are actively engaged in fighting the israelis, so it's a very difficult choice the israelis have right now. after contentious testimony on anti-semitism on campus, three college presidents are being asked to quit. turning up the pressure, that's next. more than 7,000 u.s. lawmakers are calling for presidents to step down. they're accused of not doing enough to protect you wish students. >> in fact, two students filed a lawsuit against the ivy league and says it violates their civil rights act. >> reporter: university of pennsylvania president liz magill. >> that question had no ambiguity. >> reporter: under increasing pressure to resign after what critics call a disastrous testimony on capitol hill this week, featuring this tense exchange. >> i'm asking specifically calling for the genocide of jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment? >> the direct place of it is harassment. >> is that a yes? >> it's a context-driven situation. >> reporter: despite an attempt to clear it up in a statement. >> i want to be clear, a call for it is threatening. >> i think liz magill needs to step down. she has failed the jewish students at penn. >> reporter: the presidents at harvard and mit also facing calls to step down after similar remarks during their testimonies. now the board of advisers at the university of business school-wharton is calling for a change of leadership and a man has threatened to withdraw $1 million donations. they want to investigate the university. some students want magill to stay put who said her great grandparents were murdered. she should talk with us. why hasn't that conversation happened? that is the next step. >> represent a coalition of jewish students and allies of a lot of diverse backgrounds. this is an issue of lives lost and that is the position we're taking right now. >> reporter: he has this message for fellow jewish students who feel threatened by pro-palestinian protesters. >> there are students who see a flag and fear for their safety where others hear a call of freedom and people have told us to feel afraid. it is our job to say we stand for safety and liberation of all people. jewish safety and palestinian safety are intertwined. >> reporter: meanwhile harvard's president apologized saying words matter and sayinging she should have had the presence of mind over what she calls her guiding truth a that threats against jewish students have no place at harvard and will never go unchallenged. >> joining us now for analysis is alex. i want to take a step back in time and what we heard from the presidents of these elite university ts, specifically liz magill, the president of upenn. obviously she's under more pressure than her various counterparts. she was asking if calling for the genocide of jews would down come down to bullying and harassment. she said it depends on context and if speech turns into misconduct, it can mean harassment, yes. >> what did you make of her testimony and why people are calling it disastrous? >> well, you know, i thought it was absolutely correct and absolutely disastrous at the same time. it's correct because she's reiterated the first amendment law, but she's doing it in a lawyerly way and a glib way. of course, we're not seeing the whole hearing, but college students on campus see it a different way. >> let's play a part of her walk-back video she released, liz magill, on wednesday. here it is. >> i was not focused on what i should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. it's evil, plain and simple. >> so your thoughts. too little, too late? should these presidents, especially liz magill, resign? >> well, look. what was really on display on tuesday was the blatant hypocrisy, the double standards the college presidents are engaging right now, cloaking themselves in the first amendment saying, gosh, it depends on the context when 364 days a year they're policing professors expressing conservative views. on those things they've been unequivocal and now all of a sudden people see them answering a question most think are simle and they're looking at their free speech policies. to be clear, free speech policies are good abstract calls for violence or genocide or talking about war, those are protected by the first amend and by penn's policies. penn and mit and harvard also have other policies that protect students from discriminatory harassment, truth threats, it sightment, those things are on the books. but this is one of those things where it really does matter. that's what the lawtells us. the supreme court says when you're looking at incitement, you have to look at the facts. you have to look at the context because as a free society, as a democracy, we want debate about these incredibly important issues to be as robust as possible. >> context always matters, of course. i want to read the upenn code of conduct and it reads in part -- the content of students' speech or expression is not a basis for disciplinary action. students' speech may be subject to discipline when it violates applicable laws or school regulations or policies. liz magill says, look, we're going to reevaluate our policy. do you think this kind of hate speech should be banned on college campus