jack smith's federal election case? and more good news on the economy -- what it means for the president and his 2024 strategy. then, the clock is ticking for congress to pass aid for ukraine and israel. what's the holdup in the senate, as some in the house secretly blow expelling another congressman. as the 11th hour gets underway on this friday night. ♪ ♪ ♪ greetings, everyone. i am symone sanders-townsend in for stephanie ruhle. tonight, a major ruling in donald trump's federal election interference case means the protective order is back on. a three judge appeals court panel mostly upheld the original order from the trial judge but they narrowed it down. it bans trump from attacking potential witnesses, court staff, and most prosecutors on the case. however, trump is allowed to criticize the charges. the justice department, and special counsel jack smith himself. the judges explain the decision writing, quote, trump's public statements posed a significant and imminent threat. but they also said, the district courts order, however, sweeps in more protective speech than is necessary. the former lead investigator on the january 6th committee said the judges had to thread the needle on this decision. >> i see the logic here, the former president is allowed to criticize the process, to criticize the motivation of the justice department. and now, after today's ruling by the appeals court jack smith himself, he can't however challenge the integrity or say anything intended to influence actual potential witnesses. that is key, right? it is the potential attempt to save things and put pressure upon or influence witnesses or unfairly disparage them. criticizing jack smith is criticizing the process and that will have a ripple effect on others. it is an imperfect balance, but the court is trying very much to protect the participants, and protect his free speech right. it makes that march 4th trial date increasingly firm. >> meanwhile, the former president's 250 million dollar civil fraud trial is winding down. he is expected to return to the witness stand on monday. today, and accounting expert testifying for the defense told the court that some of his nearly $900,000 in fees or paid by trump's save america political action committee. yesterday, he testified that he saw no evidence of fraud in trump's business. meanwhile, we are also following the latest legal developments involving hunter biden. the president's son was indicted on nine tax evasion charges on thursday, including three felony counts. now, the charges, of course, had nothing to do with president biden. hunter biden is also the target of house republicans who have been investigating him and who are pushing an impeachment inquiry into his father. biden's son spoke out about the attacks from republicans in a podcast recorded before his latest indictment and released today. >> as long as my dad is the president of the united states, they are not going to stop. they are trying to destroy a presidency. what they are trying to do is they are trying to kill me knowing that it will be a pain greater than my father could be able to handle. >> hunter biden was also indicted in september on federal gun charges as part of a special counsel's investigation. with that, let's bring in our lead off panel. eugene daniels, white house correspondent for politico. eugene scott, is also here, seeing a political reporter for axios. and paul butler is here, but not physically with us, and he's a former federal corruption prosecutor at the department of justice. paul, i'm going to start with you, my friend. our resident, lawyer. you know, the appeals court, they wrote this, quote, like any other criminal defendant, mr. trump has a constitutional right to speak. and his millions of supporters as well as his millions of detractors have a right to hear what he has to say. also like any other criminal defendant, mr. trump does not have an unlimited right to speak. so, paul, when it comes to donald trump, do you think that the appeals court struck the right balance with this particular ruling? >> i do. the court shot down his first amendment arguments, which is what he was arguing the loudest. remember, judge chutkan said when you are a criminal defendant, you don't get to use all the words. if this court basically said the same thing, it's said many of trump's statements threaten the integrity of the court. and the court also said that this is trump attacking torrent of threats of retribution and violence against that person. so, so far, in gag orders, trump is oh for two, the gag order in the new york fraud case is reinstated. and now in the federal election interference case, trump has been told that his violent rhetoric has no place in our criminal legal system. >> you know, eugene, hearing that from paul, some would say that, you know, judge tanya chutkan in the election interference case, she is the judge that made the original, stood for the original protective order. i wonder if today's ruling made her job harder. what do you think? >> i don't think so. i mean, much of what she ruled was upheld. her job is harder, trump's lawyers tried to keep him on track and make sure he does not say anything that violates that new order, this new revised gag order. >> i mean, eugene daniels, look, this ruling, this does allow donald trump to continue to attack jack smith. frankly, it's something he had been doing even while this ruling was in place. what does that mean for public impressions of this case? donald trump has a large microphone whether people like it or not. >> i think part of this a lot of this has already paid off. if you are someone who's gonna listen to donald trump talk about jack smith and then hate jack smith because of it, you are probably already gonna vote for donald trump, right? this is so much a part of the electorate as it is right now. they may not know all the details but they know what team they're supposed to be on. and i agree, i think the idea of donald trump not violating those gag orders, it's gonna be something very interesting to watch because he is not someone who has ever not, whoever wants to listen to a court when he's out there. and he doesn't, you know, read a speech. he's just out there talking, just talking. >> you don't know what he's gonna say yet. like, even if his lawyers are coaching him and his for, we know he will go off script. and he may go off script in a way that harms everybody. >> paul, let me bring you in here because my question is, we know he's gonna go out script. he rarely does, the former president. mike pence, and some of former president trump's officials, like bill barr, mark meadows his former chief of staff, they can all be witnesses in this case. they are not individuals whom are covered by the exception in this protective order. what's gonna happen if donald trump violates this order? do you think we will see -- what is a stronger penalty, i guess, is my question? >> cash money. it could be charged thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a day. and then, that may actually work. the judge also has the option of holding him in contempt. and then, there will be a separate criminal trial if he lost that trial, he could be locked up. i doubt it will get to that point. but sometimes with trump, money talks, especially since he's about to lose a whole lot of it in the new york fraud trial. >> well, let's turn to the new york fraud trial. donald trump is supposed to testify, again, on monday. paul, paul, why is he being brought back? >> because he wants to be brought back, because he's using this president campaign rally which is nothing to do with his civil case because he is a lousy witness. symone, he is taking the stand twice before in this trial. the first time was during the hearing when he was held in violation of a gag order. and in that hearing, trump testified for less than five minutes. and the judge said he wasn't credible and find him $5,000. the next time the prosecutors put him on the stand, the judge said that he was treating the courtroom like a campaign rally. and that was true. but then the judge let him go on because just like that campaign rallies, trump started to make all of these damaging admissions. he admitted. he looked up the financial things and made suggestions about them. so, i expect more of the same on monday. trump will talk about what a great businessman he is and how much bankers and lenders just love him. but none of that is relevant for the fraud that the judge has already found him liable for. symone, this is mainly about how much, how close to 250 million, or $300 million that laetitia james says taxpayers of new york -- how much of that trump has to come up with? >> eugene daniels, good reminder, this is about the money, that if he committed fraud. the judge has already said, honey, the front exists. this, eugene, feels like a taste of what we could be in when we get to the thick of campaign season next year. we talked about the march 4th, march 5th trial date, super tuesday. donald trump is gonna be in court at least in one of these cases. is this, was this argument normal? >> yes, 100%. people are already sick of it, and there's gonna be, they're gonna be even more sick of it next year. especially if he becomes the nominee of the republican party as it seems like he will. the thing that's really fascinating is by the end of march, about 70% of the delegates and the republican primary will be awarded. so, we will basically know who will be the nominee at that point. and if it's donald trump, he would still be running in and out of court cases. what is interesting when he is on stages, when he's in front of a judge, he's doing the same thing because for him, it's not about whether or not the judge believes him, or if there's if there's a jury that believes him. it's about the folks watching, right? it's about him talking about how he is being persecuted, and therefore, he is the only thing between you, the voter, and the deep state, and the doj coming after you. and that's something he's been doing for years. that is what he is focused on. >> all the more reason why i think it's more important that us, in the media apparatus, speak very clear about what is being very sad and what is true and what is a lie. i want to talk about hunter biden, eugene. today, this sprawling document was unveiled. there are no accusations against the president and that document. it's all about hunter biden, his taxes. he paid the taxes back, but it's a six-page indictment, okay? i encourage people to go look at it and read it. do you think that the white house or the campaign apparatus should be concerned. i have my thoughts about that, but what do you think? >> well, anytime hunter biden is in the news, quite frankly, it's not a great thing for the biden white house. if you are looking to win over voters who are already skeptical. the republicans have worked hard to put some things in the water that make voters uncomfortable with, you know, hunter biden's behavior, whether or not anything has been proven regarding the actual president or not, and it's not. we know that this is republicans right here. so, what you are gonna probably see is some people looking and paying attention, who maybe have turned off house republicans, because they're not politically motivated. however, we do know that hunter biden's lawyers have said that if his last name wasn't biden, these charges would not have been brought forward. >> his attorney was with my colleague katy tur, she did a really great interview getting him on the record as an exclusive. eugene, i think that there are, you saw the president come out recently and he was a little bit more, as i like to say, he had some righteous indignation's. he slammed the door. he said there's nothing there, he had a little bit more fire behind these accusations that he did, there is some impropriety. do you think that the white house believes that that is the tactic to take care? or is that just the president coming here, being a president, and saying what he thought needed to be said. >> it was joe biden leading joe biden. who is the administration or the campaign, for that matter changing tax at all when it comes to hunter biden. i think, i know -- they think a lot of this is baked in for the most part, right? that people who hunter biden was litigated in 2020, republicans try 2022, then tying him to his father as if they did something illegal hasn't worked so far. there hasn't been evidence. over and over and over again we saw james comer do an interview today on another network, and the anchor talking to him and realizing that they still haven't proven anything at this point. and so, the white house feels not good that president biden is being pulled untied and east high kinds of things, especially when you see house republicans hurdling toward voting on an impeachment inquiry sometime soon. >> reporter: eugene, you are really in the nitty-gritty, zylah to sayah, but what's going on in the house and house play not across the country in 2024. how do you think this affects or doesn't affect what house republicans are gonna do? they literally have zero evidence. when they last held some impeachment inquiries, their own witnesses, republican witnesses, came forward and said i don't think there's enough here for an impeachment inquiry. that seemed to me damning. how is this going to effect? >> this doesn't help their case, i mean, this is not anything that suggest very clearly that joe biden should not be president. we're talking about tax charges, for the most part. for his son, right? and not even when he was in the white house. this is not something that republicans are going to be able to stand on and make the case that this individual, the presidential -- should not be an office over. but they're gonna continue to push it forward and cause doubt among their voters, and hopefully, that will benefit republicans, you know, in 2024. that's what those in congress on capital are hoping. >> if you look at the numbers too, right, you're starting to see a lot of americans think, maybe something did go wrong. so it is -- there's been a question with me and my colleague -- wrote a story about this, the new tactic that hunter himself was taking, which is a little bit more aggressive. when it comes -- >> reporter: on a podcast! >> on a podcast. and that is causing a little bit of frustration in biden world, but some people are like, yes, but this should be happening. it should've happened earlier, because now you have, and sometimes 60% of people and upwards saying that maybe something improper or at least unethical happened between president biden and his son. whether there's evidence of that or not, the american people have been hearing that one sided conversation about that for the most part. >> reporter: paul, there is the political arena and then there is the legal arena. and as, you know, eugene scott alluded to, hunter's attorney says that the latest indictment is about his last name and that that has to do with political pressure being put on the special counsel. -- to say that the special counsel is a republican. what do you make of that claim? if hunter's last name was, you know, johnson, for lack of a better term, would these charges have been brought today? >> they would not have been. for the tax charges, before he was indicted, hunter paid back the taxes. we all know people who haven't paid their taxes for years and almost none of those people who get charged and criminal court. it's usually a civil matter. roger stone, one of donald trump's biggest supporters on $2 million in taxes, the irs to come to civil court and reached a settlement. so hunter is getting special treatment because his father is a president. he's been treated worse. because republicans are using him as a pawn. and they weaponized the special counsel to play along with their partisan agenda, but -- if biden is convicted of gun charges, he could face a sentence of up to 17 years. if he's convicted on the tax charges, he could get up to 25 years in prison. >> reporter: oh my. paul butler, thank you very much. eugene daniels, eugene scott, appreciate you all coming in tonight. coming up, everyone. another good jobs report and growing consuming sentiment. -- and susan del percio will be here on what it all means for president biden heading into 2024. and later, new reporting on some house republicans who are secretly considering expelling matt gaetz after george santos was ousted from congress. the 11th hour just getting underway on a friday night. (man) mm, hey, honey. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling. [upbeat music] ♪♪ ♪♪ new pork carnitas. only at el pollo loco. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. >> reporter: if you would've (♪♪) (♪♪) the new festive family meal. starting at $24. now celebrating at el pollo loco. said a year and a half ago what can we do to safely cool this economy but not tip ourselves into a recession, right, we've been a year and a half of rate hikes, which could suddenly have businesses say i'm not gonna hire, i'm not going to invest, or consumers stop spending. that didn't happen. so we're actually seeing that soft landing. it is a positive across the board, a really good report. >> reporter: stephanie m not be here tonight, but we have to note our expertise on the november jobs report. it was better than expected, with 199,000 jobs added and unemployment dropping to 3. 7%. president biden was in las vegas today talking about the strength of the economy. >> all told, we've created 14 million jobs since we took office, more than any president has created in all four years of term. wages are up more than inflation. the economy grew by 5% this last quarter. america is at its strongest growth and lowest inflation of any major economy in the world with more to do. we know the prices are still too high for too many things. that's why i'm fighting lower costs for prescription drugs. guess what? insulin, 400 bucks a month, guess what it is now? 35 bucks. >> reporter: joining me now, john allen, senior national politics reporter for nbc, basil -- former executive director of state democratic party. and susan del percio, veteran strategist an msnbc political analyst. let me start with you. i was struck by the presidents comments there, tou