show hosted by anderson cooper and laura coates. you don't want to miss it, i'm going to they're watching as well. thank you for joining me tonight, we will be back tomorrow night, cnn news now with abby phillip starts right now. >> sex clubs, around lamborghini, plane tickets for an exotic dancer, all things hunter biden allegedly spent money on instead of paying his taxes. that is tonight on news nights. ♪ ♪ ♪ good evening, i'm abby philip in washington, breaking tonight, indicted again. the presidents justice department charges the president son with tax crimes. david weiss accuses hunter biden of cheating the government out of one point $4 million that he owed. the justice department says that the president son's faces a maximum of 17 years in prison on nine felony counts. three counts, tax evasion, assessment three counts failure to file and pay taxes and three counts of filing a fraudulent tax return. minutes ago, hunter biden's attorney responded to the special counsels charges saying that if hunter's last name was anything other than biden, the charges in delaware and now california would not have been brought. let's get right over to cnn's evan perez. evan, you broke the story that this was coming down the pipe. walk us through what this lengthy indictment says about where all of this money went. >> abby, what prosecutors do over the course of 56 pages is that they detail what they say was an extravagant lifestyle. hunter biden was using a company that he owns and making deductions for some of the expenses that he was using on his personal life. a lot of it is obviously a very messy personal life, but he has detailed during the time he said he was addicted to drugs. he was paying for escorts, he was paying for luxury clothing, he was paying for, you pointed out that lamborghini, he had used or he had claimed a deduction for 10,000 dollar membership to a sex club. he also, according to prosecutors, spent $188, 000, more than $108,000 on adult entertainment. money that he was paid for women that he was romantically involved with, including one woman who was pregnant with his child. so, all of this, they say, was during a time he should've been paying his taxes, and instead was using it to fund what they say was an extravagant lifestyle. he pointed out, abby, that this was something that, according to his lawyers, should have been wrapped up in a plea deal. that fell apart spectacularly last summer over the course of the summer, and so here we are. hunter biden is now facing charges in delaware for that gun he bought when he was prohibited from purchasing firearms and now he is facing these nine counts in los angeles. so, he's got two trials in the coming months. abby. >> very serious charges here evan. thank you very much for that. i want to bring in now they will axelrod, cnn senior political commentator and host of the acts files podcast to break all of this down and the consequences of this politically which are very important. you cannot get around the fact that this is the president son, and despite what his attorney said that this would not have been a case if he were not of biden, do you think that that will pass muster or are these charges serious enough that it seems like they are legitimate? >> well, look, hunter biden was going to plea to some charges that obviously we're really did to the things that were in the indictment and day. the free -- plea bargain fell apart. some of what is alleged here is that he has not disputed. if you are asking me about the political consequences of it, the important thing that we should note is that this is hunter biden and not joe biden. republicans have tried very very hard for the past couple of years to make the linkage that somehow the president was involved with his son's business that he's profited from. none of that had turned out to be true. they certainly have not turned of any evidence of it. but, is it's problematical? this is not going to be well -- this may not be surprising news that the plea bargain went down. but, it's not going to be new news, of course. >> at that point, if you're republican trying to make the case of the justice department is going easy on hunter biden, that there is some hidden enough areas thing that joe biden did related to hunter biden's misdeeds, this indictment seems to lay it squarely on hunter biden and also seems to indicate the justice department is working. that might very well be something the biden administration doesn't mine. >> there has not been interference here because indictment was placed. in fact, david weiss, the special counsel who was then not the special counsel but was investigating this for five and a half years told congress last fall that he -- there is no interference with the case and he was doing what he thought was appropriate. there were issues about whether he could file cases in different venues because he was in delaware and so on. this one is filed in lost angeles. so, that's the difference between now and when he was in the special counsel. abby, i expect that the republicans are going to try, you know there's an impeachment move, the speaker said the other day that he is ready to move to impeachment inquiry. i think donald trump is very much encouraging that because he wants offsetting penalties, and it is really important to keep in focus that with donald trump is on trial for things that donald trump did, and apparently, the house of representatives want to impeach the president for things that he did not do. >> a length and 50 something page indictment here against hunter biden, but so far, over on capitol hill, they haven't brought this evidence to your point that joe biden had anything to do with it. >> one point i want to make, people ask about the political implications of this, joe biden is a father, and i think there are emotional implications to this. he's lost two children, his son obviously struggles, that is of the indictment that reflects that. he went through a hard period in his life, and all of this is going to be going on in the middle of a presidential race while he's president of united states. one more added burden. >> it very much is. david axelrod, thank you very much as always for joining us tonight. tonight, a conversation between two lawmakers, one republican and one democrats about some of the biggest issues of the day. as we head into this election year, our hope is that we get to have an honest debate about the direction that our country should follow. so, we want to welcome this evening news night debate, new york democrat jamaal bowman, and new york republican mike lawler. thank you both for joining us. before we get to these issues, i want to start with some news. the house just censored you congressman bowman 214 to 291. the inciting incident was when the congressman said off the fire alarm in the middle of a fight to avert a government shutdown just a few weeks ago. congressman bowman, your colleague was centered and said that it was a badge of honor. do you think it's a badge of honor? >> it's another example of how the republican party is not serious about governing. they have no ideas, they have no policies, they cannot inspire the american people. so, they focused on censoring me even though after the fire alarm incident i took full responsibility right away, the legal process is playing itself out and if all things go well, the case will be completely dismissed in january. i have to pay a fine. at the moment, it is not moving forward. so, once again, the party is focused on centers and culture wars and the messaging, and not focus on governing for the american people. so, it's unfortunate. >> i should note, you voted in favor for the center. i guess i should ask, you took responsibility just then and before, is that punishments, even in the center has no real consequences, is that fitting to the crime that he committed? >> yes. with all due respect to my colleague here, he pulled a fire alarm intentionally. he can try to say that it was not or that he made a mistake and thought the far along would open a door, it's a middle school principal, he certainly understands the difference between a locked door and a fire alarm. he ran by seven capitol hill police officers after the alleged mistake and did not say a word. he only spoke to them once -- they went and found him and started inquiring about it. so, with all due respect, this was not a mistake. it was intentional. the democrats were playing shenanigans that day doing single line voting, single file line voting, using paper cards rather than their electronic cards to delay the vote on a continuing resolution. so, there needs to be accountability. last week, i took on a member of my own party along with anthony d'esposito, we introduced a resolution to expel george santos because he was unfit to serve. so, if mr. bowman and others are happy to expel george santos, at the very least there should be accountability, something saying you did wrong, and that's what happened today. >> -- as you can see, my republican colleague is trying to get into my head and articulate my state of mind despite my multiple comments to the contrary, despite not being charged for disrupting a congressional proceeding, and remember, this is a vote to keep the government open. so, in a rush to get there, iran past many capitol police officers. i was trying to get you. >> you unequivocally deny this was attempted to lay that though. >> absolutely. >> i just want to make a point, the video evidence speaks for itself. i don't need to get in your head. the video shows you through the signs on the floor, you tried opening the door didn't open you went and pulled the fire alarm. you ran by seven capitol hill police officers, that is on a mistake.e. it t took you anan hour, by y t, to g get to the e floor to g go. so, don'n't say you u are out of rushsh to go votote when youou wereren't. >> let's g get to the e more important t issues plelease. again, to o this pointnt, only e of the videoeo was releaeased. not the enentire videoeo. soso, he's onlnly speakingng fra small l percentagege of what h e sasaw. > congressmsman, standbdby, e will disiscuss the r rise of antisemimitism on cocollege campuseses as one ununiversity presididents job i is on the b k tonight. >> last night there was a republican primary debates and arguably one of the most stunning episodes came when one of the candidates, vivek ramaswamy, invoked the great replacement theory on that stage. we have seen also these called president come before congress, and they were asked to state, unequivocally, that calls for genocide or not acceptable on their college campuses. do you think both parties right now have a problem with antisemitism in the ranks? >> look, the vitriol and hatred that we are seeing across this country, the antisemitism on college campus-ism what's in the halls of campus is disgusting. everybody should be held to account for it. the fact is, those college administrators should all be fired, every last one of them. that they could not say that calling for genocide of jewish people on their campuses violated their conduct, in fact, some of them said it's context needs to turn into action. are you calling for the actual genocide of jewish people? do you want them to be killed first before you take action on your campuses? i introduced a resolution on the house floor, that made it very clear that israel has a right to exist. if you look at the terrorist attack of october 7th, it is clear, hamas and its backer iran do not believe israel has the right to exist. they want to eliminate the jewish people, period. so, we need to be unequivocal and clear. there is no moral equivalency here. this is good versus evil. hamas is a terrorist organization that has oppressed the palestinian people, that has used them as human shields. so, if we want to combat antisemitism, not only do we need to take it on on our college campuses and in the halls of campus, but, we need to make it very clear that terrorist organizations like hamas, and funder and backer iran, that we do not support that at all, that we stand by israel, and very clear eyed, we will even israel's right to exist, it's right to defend itself, and the right of the jewish people to practice their faith. >> first of all, if there is antisemitism in congress, it is coming from the republican party, not the democratic party, number one. number two, i introduced a resolution condemning the great replacement theory as a freshman in congress for the first time in history that had been done, and that resolution passed because we had a democratic-controlled house, not one republican voted for mike resolution condemning the great replacement theory. so, once again, they are not serious about addressing the issue of antisemitism. they are not serious about addressing the issue of racism. or islamophobia. they are not serious about governing, absolutely we condemn the hamas attacks of october 7th, absolutely, absolutely. -- >> why did you vote against the resolution? >> i have made my own statement condemning hamas. absolutely, we condemn any calls for genocide of our jewish brothers and sisters, or any group of people. but, what my colleague just did was conflate criticisms of israel with antisemitism, and that is incorrect. let me just finish this point. a criticism of a state, the state of israel and any other state, does not mean you criticize the people that that state claims to represent. really fighting antisemitism is doing the work in terms of education, gauge meant, connecting communities, and learning what it is and how to do something about it. i >> want to be specific here, one of the issues at hand here is this phrase from the river to the sea. this is something that was spoken by your colleague, it is something that is chanted on some of these college campuses. that is a freeze the jewish people believe is a call for genocide of jewish people. do you think that should be something that is off limits in the halls of congress and on college campuses? >> it is not a phrase i use, it is not something i subscribe to, and it is something that's absolutely needs to be addressed. >> do you think is a call for genocide? >> it is not a freeze i use because i know many of my jewish brothers and sisters believe that it is. so, i do not want to encroach upon what they feel that is, and i don't even use the phrase. so, what i am saying is when we talk about dealing wit h antisemitism, condemnation of a phrase or an action is not enough. the republican party is looking, let me finish, looking to cut the department of education. they're looking to cut the department of civil rights. they are looking to cut the departments where you actually address the issue of antisemitism, and then lastly, we cannot deal with antisemitism in it of itself without also addressing the issue of islamophobia. many of my muslim and arab and palestinian constituents and people all across the city state and country feel completely erased and dehumanized, not only by the republican party but by many members of congress, and we got to stop having one side of the conversation without the other, because what happens is that it continues to exasperate antisemitism. >> i want to respond to that for a second. from the river to the sea is antisemitic, period. you sound like the college administrators the other day in hearing trying to put context around it. there is no context for it. calling for the eradication of the jewish people is a genocide. that is exactly what these folks are doing when they are chanting from the river to the sea, palestine will be free. i want the palestinian people to be free, from their oppressors, hamas, the palestinian authority. hamas has used the palestinian people as human shields for years, killing then, using hospitals, using schools as a vehicle to launch attacks against israel. palestinian party -- >> do not try to frame this conversation! -- >> with all due respect. do i let you finish. >> the palestinian authority's pay palestinians to kill jewish people, is that not wrong? >> of course it's. wrong >> we have passed the taylor for sacked four years ago, this administration is failing to enforce that, in fact giving the palestinian authority's funding. hamas is a terrorist organization. if you want a cease-fire in gaza, there's a very simple way. join me in calling for hamas to surrender. they should surrender right now, they should turn over all of that remaining hostages, and they should free the palestinian people from their control. they have been the governing body in gaza for over 15 years. they have a pressed the palestinian people, but you said what israel is doing, defending itself, you said they're committing a genocide in gaza. is that what you believe? >> do you believe some of your colleagues have said that what israel is doing in gaza is a genocide? >> it is a mass murder, it is a war crime, what is happening in gaza right now. you talk about hamas having control over the palestinians in gaza. there has been a blockade of gaza for several years. the people in gaza cannot leave one way or the other. the water, the food, the energy, it's controlled by israel. so, do not say one side of its hamas is controlling its people and i agree with you the people of gaza do not want that. without leaving out that israel blockade. why don't you ever speak about the occupation of the west bank and several expansion in the west bank in a number of 700,000 settlers right now? do you support the two-state solution? >> look. -- >> do you support a two-state solution. >> i would love to see a two-state solution which is why i introduced the special envoy for the abraham -- >> have you condemned the occupation? >> this is why i introduced a special -- >> you harmed -- >> if you want to bring peace, if you want a two-state solution, and you want to bring peace between the palestinians and israelis, you need to normalize relations between arab majority countries and israel. >> and the palestinians. >> the only way you do that is that of people accepted simple premise. israel has the right to exist, and israel has the right to exist. i've been to jerusalem. >> have you been to the west bank? -- >> let me -- >> this is what happens -- >> what you mean with all due respect? you are speaking with a sense of authority as if you have been there. you have never been to the west bank. you have never been stopped at a checkpoint. you have never spoken to the people in the west bank in ramallah, you have not seen the types of the top of their homes that they have to preserve just in case israel comes off towards the man. -- >> let me follow up. -- >> you really believe -- >> let me follow up on that for a second because i want people to understand what you are talking about. just in the span of weeks since october 7th, there has been a spike in violence against palestinians in the west bank. but, the biden administration has been trying to address. do you believe that there should be more done by the israeli government to curve that in the interest of peace? >> no, there should be no civilian violence at all. we do not want innocent civilians getting harms, getting killed, whether they be israelis are palestinians. i think the challenge in all of this is that a lot of my colleagues called for a cease-fire including jamal. there have been eight cease-fires in 15 years, each time violated by hamas. so, if you are the israeli governor, and on october 7th, the largest slaughtering of jewish people since the holocaust, are you supposed to sit back and wait for it to happen again? >> it's disproportionate. it's collective punishment. >> jamal this is what -- >> its international law. we have 1. 8 million -- >> iran believed israel does not have a right to exist. are you waiting for the full on genocide to happ