before congress about antisemitism on congress. >> specifically calling for the genocide of jews, does that institute bullying harassment? >> if it is directed and severe, it is harassment. >> so the answer is yes. >> it is a dependent decision. >> that's your testimony today? calling for the genocide of jews is depending upon the context? >> that was tuesday. and there was the clean-up attempt by liz magill on wednesday. >> in that moment i was focused on our university's longstanding policies aligned with the u.s. constitution which say that speech alone is not punishable. these policies need to be clarified and evaluated. >> that obviously was not enough and of course, she is now stepped down. so has the chair of the board of trustees at the university of pennsylvania. and we have team coverage on all of this. what's the latest? >> the developments have been swift-moving with liz magill announcing that she will be stepping down amid that growing chorus of calls. in light of the testimony she offered in washington this past tuesday. in a statement released by the university, we've learned that she is expected to remain tenured as faculty at penn and she has agreed to stay on at least until the interim president can potentially be appointed. for some context, she has been under growing scrutiny for her handling of antisemitism on campus. that testimony on tuesday was the last straw here. mainly referring, at least her inability to unequivocally say that any mention of genocide of jewish people would be against the code of conduct at the university. we should mention that we heard from other university officials tonight, including one that we'll talk about in a few moments, basically trying to paint a clearer picture of what he believed played out on tuesday, saying that pla gill was, quote, overprepared. that she was overlawyered, and essentially provided a legalistic answer to a moral question. what you have now is coming from the now former chair of upenn's board of trustees trying to explain what was an absolutely disastrous testimony that played out on tuesday. >> and let me go to matt egan. you've been reporting on the school being under tremendous pressure from donors. the donor community has been outraged over these comments. take us behind the scenes on that. >> a remarkable development this evening. at one of the nation's most prestigious schools. first, the board chair scott bok sent out a letter saying the president liz magill is out. then scott bok sent out a letter saying he's out, too. make no mistake. both these leaders were under pressure for months, as he just said. it was over issues of antisemitism on campus. but tuesday's hearing which can only be described as disastrous was the final straw. that hearing lasted for hours. but it really just came down to just the precious few minutes where the leaders of penn and harvard and m.i.t. struggled. they struggled to answer a question that many people would think would be easy to answer. does calls for genocide of jews, does that break the school's rules. and the leaders including magill, they fumbled that response. they did give kind of a legal answer. and that moment went viral on the internet. it just exploded. the back lash was so intense. we heard from the walmarton board of advisers, the wharton board of advisers. they called for an immediate leadership change at the school. more than 70 members of congress. it is hard to degree 70 members to agree on anything but they agreed on that. you have jon huntsman telling me wasn't even debatable whether or not she should leave. and you have one mega donor threatening to cancel a $100 million gift if a change wasn't made. now, scott bok was effusive in his praise of liz magill calling her a very good person, saying she's not in the slightest bit antisemitism. i want to read you one line from bok's statement that he said talking about the hearing, overprepared and overleft guard, given a hostile forum and high stakes, she provided a legalistic answer to a moral question. and that was wrong. it made for a dreadful 30-second sound bite in what was more than five hours of testimony. so jim, there you have it. you have both liz magill and scott bok stepping down after that disastrous hearing on tuesday. >> yeah. just a devastating afternoon for the university of pennsylvania. all right. thank you both. i want to bring in my guest from the university of penn. what's your response? >> i can't say i'm happy because it's hard to be happy about all the things that have been happening at the university. i do believe that liz magill couldn't continue being the president given the number of, say, mistakes that she and people that maybe lawyered her up. i think she lost the trust of the community of faculty, donors, students, of course, people have very complex opinions about the israeli-palestinian conflict. this is about something completely different. >> and i mean, the chair of the board, scott bok, tried to describe it as just a 30-second sound bite that did not go well for president magill. but we talked to a penn student in the last hour who has described a pretty hostile atmosphere on campus and this has been building for some time. how would you describe things? >> well, i definitely think that the sound bite during the hearings did not help. but she could have helped herself by issuing a less lawyered-up apology or explanation of what happened during the hearing. unfortunately, that, too, was kind of canned and i don't think anybody who heard that post, sort of post talk description felt that it was at all sincere. so i don't think it is fair to say it's just an unfortunate sound bite. we've all said things we did not mean. given the opportunity to clarify the situation, she did not do that. >> and how do you think this news will be received by students, by the faculty? what do you think? >> well, i think people have different opinions. and maybe that's the important bit. i understand that the lack of desire to unequivocally condemn genocide is coached within the frame of free speech. unfortunately, many people have written and spoken about this. it is hard to cast a university like upenn as very much pro free speech. speech tends to be limited in many different respects so i think people are probably going to have very different opinions, depending on where they stand politically and how they feel about israeli-palestinian conflict, et cetera. and that's a good thing. we should be having debates. but it shouldn't cross over into violence, into hate speech, et cetera. within the sort of norms of human behavior, i think people should differ on their opinions and have conversations. >> why do you think we saw the chair of the board scott bok resign in addition to the university's president? >> i'm not really privy to any of these discussions. i suspect that maybe there is a realization that they've waited a bit too long. that maybe with the number of, again, unfortunate, and in my opinion, incorrect moves, she could not have really governed and self-corrected the course. so i don't know if the idea to keep liz magill longer than she probably should have stayed came from bok and maybe that is why he decided to step down. i would be just guessing. >> all right. professor, thank you very much for your time tonight. we appreciate it. >> thank you. in the meantime, donald trump's disturbing comment about only being a dictator on day one is raising red flags for democracy. one person worried is the "atlantic's" david fromme. . another warning sign for president biden's bid for a second term in the oval office. for the first time in the poll's history, trump narrowly leads joe biden in the "wall street journal's" hypothetical general election match-up. this comes as donald trump is previewing what a second presidential term would look like. here's what he told fox news's sean hannity during a town hall earlier this week. >> under no circumstances, you are promising america tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody. >> except for day one. >> except for -- >> except for day one. >> meaning? >> i want to close the border and i want to drill, drill, drill. >> if there was any doubt about what trump meant, host sean hannity gave him a few chances to step back from those extreme words but trump did not do that. his allies are echoing that tone. >> we will go out and find the conspirators, not just the government but in the media. we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about american citizens, who helped joe biden rig presidential elections. we'll come after you. >> those recent comments from donald trump had president biden delivering one of his harshest warnings yet about the former president telling donors at a fund-raiser in california last night that, quote, the greatest threat trump poses is to our democracy. the president went on to slam trump's role in the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol saying, it's despicable, simply despicable. trump has not minced words when it comes to his plans for a presidential term. he's planned to go after his political enemies, establish mass detention camp think for undocumented immigrants and more. and the new issue says what a second trump term would look like if he wins in 2024. our next guest writes, a second trump presidency is the kind of shock that would overwhelm all other issues. it would mark the turn on to a dark path. one of these rips between before and after that a society can never reverse. even if the harm is contained, it can never be fully undone as the harm of january 6th, 2021 can never be undone. and david fromme joins me now. your article was titled, the danger ahead. how dangerous would this be? >> think of the first day of the trump presidency. the way that he wants to be a dictator. he takes the oath of office. four sets of indictments heading his way. two federal, to go with state. 91 counts. also the state of new york is pursuing a civil investigation that could result in the termination of all of his companies that he and his family would be banned from doing business in the state of new york forever. maybe those cases have already come to trial, some of them have. maybe he's had some convictions. but he is facing the prospect of a lifetime in prison as should he be taking the oath of office. what will he do about that? he has to, self-preservation, use the power of the presidency to shut down law enforcement. now, one problem. that's what richard nixon tried to do in 1974 and was forced out of office. it used to be the case it was a high crime and misdemeanor. something that made you resign if you used the power of the presidency to shut down law. but trump is campaigning on a promise to do just that. >> and what went through your mind when you said trump will hannity saying dictator on day one. >> he has a kind of curse or something. he's given the opportunity to tell a lay that would calm down some of his more normal supporters and he can't do it. he tells the truth. he reveal who he is. one of trump's few virtues in a way, he's not a hypocrite. he's not a hypocrite. he doesn't pretend to be a good person. he doesn't pretend to respect women. >> he revels in it. >> he doesn't pretend to be religious. he'll make these little jokes. he'll hold the bible upside down as some kind of devilry in him. he shows you had a he is. and he makes it very clear, to supporters and opponents. this is what you get if you go down this path. >> and i want to show another path from the article. trump operates so far outside the normal bounds of human behavior. never mind normal political behavior, that it is difficult to accept what he may actually do, even when he declares his intentions openly. this is what you're talking about. he's declaring his intentions pretty openly. >> yeah. you're in the watching punditry business. what would a second trump term mean for the energy industry? what would it mean for this industry or that industry? my reaction is, you're not thinking imaginatively enough. the energy industry? we are going to be plunged into a degree of chaos. the army will be getting orders to punish people who protest. those orders are probably illegal and it will confront every military leader with the question, do i obey the order from the president? which is probably illegal? or do i disobey which puts civil military relations into chaos. trump keeps invoking the insurrection act. that was passed during the first george washington administration when there were no police forces, no fbi. since then we have two centuries plus of laws governing what the military can and can't do. the military can't do the things donald trump has said he will order the military to do. >> yeah. he's certainly going to push thing. no question about it, if he gets back in. one. questions i had when i saw the atlantic come out with this treatment of what a trump second term would look like. it seems like, as a country we have a tough time having this conversation. and people around the country have a tough time coming to grips with the potential for real danger to our democracy if all of this comes to pass. do you think something has changed with that conversation? the president at this fund-raiser last night in california? talking about this in very stark terms. are we now starting to have this conversation that i think needed to be had? >> the great looming fact behind all of this is january 6th. you can't say what kind of president would he be? you know the answer to that. he did the worst thing a president could try to do. by violence and fraud to overturn an election to keep power for himself illegally. i don't know that there's a bigger thing. in a way, that's even bigger than shooting people on fifth avenue. he tried to overturn the constitution. when you say what kind of president will he be, we know. and the country is on notice. when people are weary of this conversation, you go around and around, and this is such a prosperous country. such a strong country. this is most of the time, such a safe country for most people. that it is hard for americans to imagine things going really wrong. so my article begins with an appeal. you have to think more imaginatively about the possibilities of politics. if you look back in the past, you see disruptions. when you look to the future, you think everything will be the same. >> one of the things you'll hear from folks who will push back on this notion that trump will act like a dictator and thing will be out of control and so on. they say the guardrails of democracy, they held. at the end of the first trump term and he was not able to overturn the election. he was not able to hang on to power. he left in disgrace on january 20th. what do you think of that? >> so the car comes creeking into the driveway and one fender is bashed up and one headlight is out and all the passengers are terrified because the driver was drunk. but no one is dead. and at that point the driver says, i'm going to have another drink and go for another ride. okay. i don't know that that is a good idea. guardrails held. january 6th. the peaceful transfer of power was interrupted. trump is going to be turning off law enforcement in his first term. what happens when the president tries to pardon himself for federal crimes? donald trump, this is one of the thing he has in his bag of tricks. he has said in the past, i have the right to pardon myself. if he has the right to pardon himself from a federal crime, the president can literally shoot someone in the white house and write a pardon. it means more amazingly, the vice president can shoot the president dead and write a pardon for himself because he's now the president. these are the debates we'll be having. not just debates. we'll have people in the streets. when they go in the streets, donald trump will try to tell the u.s. army, do something about that. keep them out of the streets. >> and i want to ask you. we showed some of the poll number. trump leading by 4 percentage points. that's not a huge news flash. these polls have been right around this general area for some time. when you put nikki haley against joe biden, she's way out in front of the president. according to this "wall street journal" poll and polls can be off, outliers and what not. why is it that, do you think, and you've worked in republican politics. you've worked in the bush white house. why is it that republicans are not looking at nikki haley in a way that perhaps should? if they want to win back the white house? >> i don't think that poll is personal to nikki haley. i don't think people know that much about her. i think what they're saying is it is time for a change. if you give us a normal alternative, whoever that person is, we're ready for a change. we had two years of, two term of barack obama. then we had one republican term but that term was a disaster. so we change presidents prematurely, we changed parties prematurely. we had a democratic president in 2020. that wasn't quite the right time. now we're ready for the normal rotation of office. if there is somebody normal, we will take it and she looks normal. that doesn't may not when you get to the moment where americans have to decide, trump-biden. coup, no coup. i am confident they will choose st constitution zblfl when you hear cache patel, when he says we're going after the press if we get back in. >> it's just a sign of how this new trump team. trump is much more aware that the people who have the kind of credentials he respects, he can't trust them. he can't trust people with proper legal credentials or proper military credentials. so he's accumulating freaks and weirdos. i don't know if any one in particular will be in for the second term but you can be sure it will be full of freaks and weirdos. >> there are so many in the republican party who don't want anything to do with donald trump in washington. people capable of running agencies. >> if only because when the president says, one of my plans is to start issuing illegal orders and i'm going to ask you to be the instrument for it, people think, i don't want to go to prison. there's a good chance the president may get away with it for the time being but i get immediately into trouble. so they want nothing to do with it. they have seen how the first trump term treated people like rex tillerson who were chewed up and spat out. they don't want a part of that. but the freaks and weirdos love it. >> and some of them got pardons. thank you. great conversation. in the meantime, 2024 gop candidates are storming across iowa with the caucuses now five weeks away. donald trump is not one of them. will that impact his lead onon e polls? we'l'll run the e numbers nenex. 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. plus, now through december 31st, eligible xfinity rewards members can get 25% off a storm ready wifi device. today presidential candidates on the republican side are campaigning all across iowa just over five weeks to go until the iowa caucuses. donald trump was not there. he's not there right now. but nikki haley and ron desantis continue to attack the former president, hoping to chip away at his runaway lead in the polls. >> what i know is you don't defeat democrat chaos with republican chaos. and that's what donald trump gives us. rightly or wrongly -- >> a great working relationship with him. but rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him. you know i'm right. chaos follows him. and we can't have a country in disarray in a world on fire and survive this chaos. >> it is important to point out that normally in an iowa caucus, you have five or six candidates that are running as conservatives and conservative voters are having to look through. that's not the case this year. i think you have donald trump who is obviously moved left. he's not even putting in the work to earn people's votes. >> and cnn data reporter harry enten joins us now to run the numbers. trump's rivals, they seem like they're planning to be the last candidates standing against donald trump. something we saw in the 2016 campaign that did not work out so well. is this a good idea this time around? what can you tell us? >> it's a horrible idea. it's a horrible idea. i mean, if you looked at the polling in 2016, it made much more sense. marco rubio, ted cruz actually beat trump in a one-on-one. we look at the same exact polling. one-on-one, trump against nikki haley, trump against desantis. you see trump easily beats both of them. desantis by 30 points. beats haley by 40 points. today it was the most promising sign that they recognize what's up. they have to go after the former president if they want to beat him. this idea that they can somehow be the last person standing doesn't make any sense looking at the numbers. and today is perhaps the first sign that maybe they're starting to recognize that. >> yeah. with that in mind, you would think the debates would have been a perfect chance to go after them. they did not do that with the exception, i suppose, of kriss kriss. >> that's exactly right. >> politico put these numbers together. how many times did they attack? you would have thought given the numbers in that first slide that they would have gone after trump the most. it didn't happen. they went after the other gop candidates more than double the times they went after donald trump. sometimes, jim, i watch politics and i go, am i taking crazy pills? am i the only one seeing what is so obvious from the numbers? and based upon this, i have to think that i am. these other republican candidates were given massive audiences on national television to break through and they decided, nah! we'll kick that can down the road and now we're only about a month away from the iowa caucuses and they're well down nationally. even in iowa, new hampshire, they're down 20, 30 points. something needs to change. maybe they're starting to recognize it but they have a long way to go to come back against donald trump. >> it was notable to hear nikki haley going after trump in that fashion. that was earlier today in iowa. we'll see perhaps she thinks to compete in iowa, she'll have to go after the former president. we'll see whether that changes the dynamic. i did want to ask but the house republican conference. they're looking to formally begin their impeachment inquiry into joe biden this coming week. does there appear to be an appetite for impeaching the former president? >> i was watching your last segment that shows joe biden trailing president trump. former president trump. one of numerous posts that show the former president leading the current president. what do you do in that situation? do you do something that's popular or unpopular? it seems to me the house gop conference is perfectly willing to try to take a chance that it is something that's unpopular. take a look. approval for impeaching joe biden. only 43% do. that's much closer to december of '98 when 36% approve. and the '98 mid terms were a disaster for republicans. democrats actually gained seats in the house. one of the few times the white house party gained seats. this doesn't look anything like the trump impeachment numbers which we saw. certainly nowhere near the nixon numbers. and i have to say, am i on crazy pills? what is going on? do the normal rules of politics no longer apply? what are these folks doing? they have a sitting president, a sitting duck. someone who is extremely unpopular. an approval rating of 37%. what are you going to do? do something potentially even more unpopular and allow him to come back in this presidential race? it's crazy to me. i just simply put don't understand it. they seem willing to do it and give the current president a boost up in the polls potentially. >> what did you make of the "wall street journal" poll showing nikki haley so far out in front of joe biden right now as opposed to where donald trump stands when we were talking to david frum, he was saying this is a more normal established republican. that's why that person is more popular than donald trump when it comes to a head to head match-up with joe biden. >> the generic republican leads the current president right now by high single digits. mid double digits. nikki haley is far better liked than the former president of the united states. but trump is the lead. so a lot of republican voters are willing to give it a shot. perhaps they'll regret it but they're willing to give it a shot. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. be sure to check out his podcast, margins of error. thanks so much. coming up, how hunter biden's attorney is reacting to the additional nine charges. as president biden hits the campaign trail this weekend, there is new legal trouble for his son hunter. a federal indictment on tax charges. at the same time, house republicans are set to vote on the impeachment inquiry into president biden and the defense attorney and former federal prosecutor is here to talk about this. let's get into the hunter biden case, this new one that has come forward. >> it seems a bit of an embarrassment that doj is pursuing this. >> embarrassment? >> yeah. the plea broke down. they were willing to give him misdemeanors on the tax issue and nothing has changed except for the fact that the plea broke down. most prosecutors would say when someone has paid back taxes and this is not an astronomical amount by these standards, they usually don't go after it criminally. they go after it civilly. the tax folks at the justice department, they want to achieve deterrence. to go after that, they go after usually hundreds of millions that have been evaded or celebrities. pete rose. hunter biden is only a celebrity because of his last name. >> and you mentioned hunter biden has paid back the taxes that he owed. he's apparently paid penalties as well. is it possible the judge will take that into consideration? or is it just that he didn't pay his taxes? spent it on things other than paying his taxes, which was laid out in that indictment. does the judge just look at it coldly and say no, you didn't pay your taxes. you are guilty of this. or does he or she take it into consideration? the fact that he paid them back? >> the paying back will only come into consideration perhaps at sentencing. on the face of it, if you didn't pay it, you didn't pay it. so you can bring a criminal charge. usually, prosecutors aren't that interested in doing it if there's been a payback unless there's something else egregious. the investigation has been going on for half a decade at this point. >> and there is a startling allegation that happened yesterday. i'm sure you saw when the house oversight committee chairman james comer was speaking about some of this to our jake tapper on cnn. let's talk about it on the other side. >> he may have indicted hunter biden to protect him from being deposed in the house overseat committee on wednesday. >> he indicted him to protect him. yes. the classic rubric. >> what this whole thing has been a cover-up. >> that's why he indicted him? to cover it up? >> well, look, you indict him on the least little thing. the gun charge? >> he's facing 17 additional years in prison. >> i guess he might wish that james comer is prosecuting the case. what do you make of that argument, indicting them to protect them? >> i'm not sure i know what that means. i understand what comer is saying. now that he's under indictment, hunter biden would have a stronger case to not testify but it is ironic. comer's own statements making it sound lake this is not much of a criminal case that shouldn't have been brought. >> and yet he's the one pushing for it. >> right. if anything, the special counsel has sort of caved to political pressure himself and wants to avoid being criticized further as having given a sweetheart deal. he's proverbially throwing the book at hunter biden. and donald trump is expected to testify on monday in this new york civil fraud trial. the president has been using some familiar language to discuss his legal troubles. >> this is a witch hunt. a disgrace to our country. i should be in iowa and new hampshire, south carolina. i shouldn't be sitting in a courthouse and i don't have to sit here. i can just do whatever i want to do. i want to make sure that you get the true story. >> we were talking to mary trump earlier in the program and she was describing donald trump's business holdings as the most important thing to him. and while we pay attention to all these other cases, this case is something that could really cut to the core of donald trump and really hurt him. what are your thoughts? how important is this day of testimony? >> i think the case is really important for him and i think that's partly why he wants to testify. based on the evidence, based on his own history of testifying, he is not going to save the case by testifying. if he goes on about political witch hunts, that will be meaningless. it is a bench trial. the judge has already determined that fraud exists. the judge has been very wise to allow this expert testimony, very highly paid professor who had a flameout on stand saying there is no fraud. not because it will change something but it protects the record on appeal. it shows that trump was given a full record to make of his innocence and that's good for the record on appeal. >> all right. we'll all be watching. thank you very much. and we'll have much more on the fallout at the university of pennsylvania. s the coming up. in case haven't been tuning up, both the president and the chair of the board of trustees resigning this afternoon as a reaction to what has been taking place. the heated criticism for the university president after her response on capitol hill this past week to questions about antisemitism on the campus of the university of pennsylvania. that's next. an icon, a trail blazer, billie jean king is all that and so much more as dana bash found out while recently spending some time with king talking about her life, her career, her fight against sexism. here's a look. >> first time. the u.s. open is the first of anything i know in this whole world that was equal for men and women. >> in 2023, 50 years later when u.s. women's singles champion coco gauff got the same prize money as the men's winner, a $3 million check, she knew who to thank. >> thank you. my goodness. >> you're an inspiration to us all. >> thank you, billie, for fighting for us. >> to be standing there at the u.s. open 50 years after you led the fight for equal pay. and to have a 19-year-old african american woman get a $3 million check and to thank you. >> it was awesome. that's when you know you did the right thing. that it was worth it. >> and dana bash joins us now. you spent time with billie jean king. i'm jealous. she is an icon. she is really cool. what stood out to you talking to her? >> so much. there are so many different layers to her. not just her history but in sort of who she is now. and in the series, we try to get beyond what people see with the lights on and figure out who they are. who people are in politics and in pop culture. in this case, sports. and what was interesting is how much she was determined from an early age to make a difference in the world. she picked up a tennis racket. she realized she was good at it. she thought, okay, it will be sports. but she said it could have been something else. it could have been politics. a lot of people tried to get her to run for office. actually, especially when she became so world famous. listen to what she said about why she didn't. >> of anything i know in this whole world equal of men and women -- >> that was -- >> no way! >> yes, that was holding me back. there's no way. are you kidding? i wouldn't have gotten up to bat. never mind get to first base. no way in 1970. are you kidding? no way. maybe i'll have to start thinking about it again. i don't know. i thought about it. >> what do you know now that you wish you knew 50 years ago? >> i didn't know who my authentic self was. and now i do. >> so what she was saying was, she couldn't have run for office, particularly back in the '70s when she became so famous. 90 million people watched that king-riggs match, the battle of the sexes. she changed not just women's sports but really, the world. >> she changed everything. >> she changed everything. and she said that she was, she was hiding. she was hiding the fact that she was gay. she wasn't really sure what to call it. she was married to a man at the time. and she said that there was no way she could go out and run for office or really do a lot of things that she wanted to do. and she's really candid about the toll that hiding took on her emotionally, mentally, physically. she developed an eating disorder and she talks about that and so much more. she is, she's so centered and she said that at 80, she turned 80 last month. that she has never been happier. >> yeah. and i have to wonder, where does she find the courage? where does that come from? >> she had really supportive parents. supportive parents, but as she says, not helicopter parents. she said she watches the parents had a are sort of on the court, on the sidelines these days, especially. and she said she wants them to just back off. her parents were very, very grounded and that rubbed off on her. and her brother who was a major league baseball player. >> what a family. incredible! i'm officially jealous. i have some fomo here. >> she's a news fan. i bet she's watching and she'll be happy to meet you, too. >> billie jean king. it airs tomorrow at 10:00 eastern and pacific. we'll be right back. you are live in the cnn newsroom. good evening. we begin with breaking news. the president of the university of pennsylvania liz magill resigned earlier this afternoon a short time ago. scott bok of the chair of upenn's board of trustees who supported liz magill announced he is stepping down effective immediately. the controversy began after the widely criticized testimony earlier this week on capitol hill about antisemitism and free speech