happening now, breaking news. a full house of representatives just formalized the impeachment inquiry of president biden as republicans seek to move the probe forward. the vote coming hours after hunter biden defied a gop subpoena to testify behind closed doors, accusing republicans of lying over and over about him and his father. also breaking, a federal judge is pausing donald trump's interference case. the order could delay trump's scheduled march trial date, potentially pushing it closer to election day. and president biden meets with the families of american hostages held by hamas amid new fractures in his relationship with the israeli prime minister netanyahu over the war in gaza. welcome to our viewers here in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." let's get to the breaking news. house republicans putting an official stamp on their impeachment inquiry of president biden just moments ago in the midst of a subpoena showdown with his son, hunter biden. melanie is following it for us on capitol hill. give us the very latest. >> there was a big vote in the house moments ago. the house republican conference voted to formally authorize their impeachment inquiry into president biden potentially bringing them one step closer to eventually impeaching the president. every single house republican voted in support of this so that is a big win for leadership. this inquiry has been going on for months after kevin mccarthy opened this inquiry back in september. at the time, they didn't have the votes to be able to authorize this inquiry. speaker mccarthy at the time opted to just forgo that step but a key turning point in recent weeks was this white house letter that said they don't view this letter as legitimate because there wasn't a formal vote on the house floor. so the republicans hoping to strengthen their hand in court with this vote today and hoping to show momentum for what has been a struggle for them with their impeachment probe. but it is far from certain that republicans are going to have the votes to impeach the president. they have struggled to prove they have profited off his son's deals or took any actions because of those deals. so that is why we have key swing district republicans they are not sold yet on articles of impeachment. >> what's the next step for house republicans in their investigation of hunter biden? >> the chairmans of the committees are planning to start contempt proceedings for hunter after he refused to appear for a closed door deposition this morning, but he said he was willing to testify publicly and just didn't want his testimony to be selectively cherry picked and leaked bey the republican committee. he did appear for some remarks and addressed the trpress outsi the capitol today. >> i've been the target of the unrelenting trump attack machine shouting, where's hunter. well, here's my answer. i am here. there's no evidence to support the allegations that my father was financially involved in my business because it did not happen. i am here to testify at a public hearing today to answer any of the committee's legitimate questions. >> so some pretty forceful and remarkable remarks there from the president's son. we haven't heard a lot from at least publicly. but the showdown now set to escalate between hunter biden and republicans on capitol hill in the days and weeks ahead. >> thank you very much. let's get to the breaking news now in donald trump's federal election interference case. the judge ordering a pause until major appeals play out potentially delaying trump's march trial date. here's kaitlyn. why is the judge making this move? >> wolf, essentially, she has to. she doesn't really have another option because in donald trump's criminal case before he goes to trial, the courts have to figure out two things. if donald trump can even be tried. he was already tried by the senate. is that double jeopardy now that he's charged again in a criminal court of law? so they have to decide that. and also, they have to decide a question about presidential immunity. is donald trump protected from being charged with any crime for something he did while he was president. something he may argue was part of his role as the president of the united states. now, all of this is up in the air. there's a lot of wheels turning in the courts right now. what's happening at the trial level before judge chutkan in washington, d.c. is trump essentially wanted her to pause everything. the justice department said no, we're doing a bunch with appeals. they're going to the supreme court. they're trying to get an order very quickly. determining what is happening here and what judge chutkan said is the trial date is still standing. it's still march 4th but that doesn't mean that the rest of the things that are happening in this case don't have to pause. while the supreme court determines if they want to do anything, what the appeals court above her might do and so now essentially all of the things that donald trump's lawyers would have to do to show up in court to determine to get to trial, they're not going to have to do that right now. but there's still a gag order over trump and bail conditions and this case still exists and the trial date still is in march. >> very interesting. the supreme court meanwhile is taking up a different issue that could potentially impact trump's criminal charges. tell us about that. >> right. the issue that the supreme court decided to take today is a question of how the justice department uses the charge of obstruction. criminal obstruction against january 6th rioters and other people. so donald trump is one of the people charged with this particular crime. obstruction of the official proceeding that happened on january 6th at congress. but in this case, there is a violent rioter who has gone through the appeals process and now is before the supreme court asking them to look at whether the justice department even can charge people with obstructing the official proceeding of congress as it relates to what happened on january 6th. so whatever the supreme court does there, it very much could affect trump because they're going to be medicating on the use of this law and what happened in that capitol riot. obviously not just the rioters themselves are people that are being looked at. so whatever they say could very much impact his case. >> thank you. let's bring in our legal and political analysts right now. elliot williams, how significant is this order from judge chutkan acknowledging she no longer has jurisdiction over parts of this case? >> significant but the right move. kaitlyn touched on this a little bit. it would be impossible or grossly unwise for a judge to move forward with a case that might have some sort of big legal problem in it. even if it doesn't have a legal problem in it, you have to give an appellate court a higher court the opportunity to at least consider, have considered the questions that are outstanding in the case. so she sort of had to do this. it would have been a pretty profound mistake if she would have allowed the trial to proceed and learned from an appeal court that the whole thing should have never happened in the first place. most judges i think would have taken the same step. we've talked about this over the months. this was sort of inevitable. >> interesting. elie honig, how long could it take for the appeals process to play out and what are the chances it begins in march as scheduled? >> wolf, i think this makes it highly unlikely that the march 4th, 2024 trial date holds. here's why. judge chutkan has ruled correctly that i can't do anything while this immunity issue is making its way through the appeals courts. if we think about how long that could take, even if this goes at the fastest pace, even if the supreme court grants direct review, even if they expedite it, we're looking at a final decision from the supreme court i think at the earliest in february. and you can't come back from that then restart and deal with all the complicated issues that you have to deal with. pretrial discovery, pretrial motions in february then start a trial three weeks later on march 4th. i think as a practical matter, this is going to require the judge to move the date back. >> gloria borger, trump's attorneys are arguing against an expedited appeals process writing, i'm quoting, this proposed schedule would require tones around support staff to work around the clock through the holidays disrupting family and travel plans. it is as if the special counsel quote growled with his grinch fingers nervously drumming, i just keep christmas from coming but how. >> it's hard to believe that's in a legal brief, but there you go. now we've seen it. look, they want to delay. the rest of the brief was talking about how there shouldn't be a rush to judgment. this is an important case. and you need to have give, give the time for the counsel to do their jobs. and for due deliberation, et cetera, et cetera. so look, the trump team as we've been saying over and over again is about delay. so that was, you know, just part of their argument, i guess, wolf. but there's no doubt where they're headed on this and judge chutkan's ruling today you know, is good news for them. very good news for them. >> very creative legal writing, i must say. elliot, let's turn to this other significant legal development for trump today. the u.s. supreme court saying it will consider whether a federal obstruction law is being properly used in the january 6th cases. how does this potentially impact jack smith's federal election subversion case? >> it's not uncommon for provisions of laws to be taken up to the supreme court. partly because laws are written in a somewhat open ended and vague way and lawyers, prosecutor, defense attorneys apply individual cases to laws as they've been written. as in so many areas related to donald trump and january 6th, this has never really been tested. sort of the scope of the obstruction law. the particular law as it was crafted was written in the context of financial fraud to be quite honest. and certainly there may be questions as to its application here. now, the court may well rule that all of these obstruction cases related to january 6th can still go forward, but as we were saying earlier, the only entity that can decide that is the supreme court. it's not even for the lawyers in the case to decide. so it could have a profound impact on the case and we'll have to see how the court decides it. >> what are special counsel jack smith's options here? >> well, wolf, i see three options for jack smith here. none of them great by the way. the first option is to go ahead, try the case. two of the four counts that he has charged donald trump with could be in jeopardy with this supreme court ruling. so option one, try the case, hope for the best then hope the supreme court doesn't throw out those cases. but it could be that the supreme court has to come back and say that trial was no good. we have o tto throw it out. two, jack smith could drop the obstr obstruction charges, plead on the others. i think that would be a sign of weakness. then option three is to wait until the supreme court rules so then he'll know and try the case but now we're back to the timing issue but it wouldn't surprise me to see doj ask the court to expedite this one so they can get a ruling from the supreme court, know if they're on firm ground then try the case. >> gloria, if this case is pushed back to possibly 2025, that's a big win for donald trump, right? >> oh, it's what they want. of course. you know, because the thinking goes that if donald trump were to be elected president of the united states, then he could just get the charges dropped. he could fire jack smith for example. and then the public would not have had the opportunity to hear any of this evidence. and so i think you know this is their goal. to put it off after the election. >> interesting. all right, guys, thank you very much. we're awatching all these important developments. just ahead, the u.s. supreme court will consider restricting access nationwide to a widely use abortion drug. we're going to take a closer look at the potential impact over a year after the high court's bombshell decision to overturn roe versus wade. the u.s. supreme court has just announced it will hear its biggest abortion case since overturning roe v. wade. the issue, whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug. >> the supreme court says it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug. mifepristone, when taken with another drug, is one of the most commonly used methods of abortion in the u.s. >> has this abortion drug been on the market for more than two decades? >> yes. 23 years, i think. >> and has it been used by millions of women during that period? >> many millions. >> right now, the drug remains available nationwide. the supreme court put on hold lower court rulings that would impose restrictions that abortion opponents would like. >> i am concerned because more than half of the abortions in this country are medical, medicinal, and these drugs have been legal in our country for years. >> last year, the conservative leaning court overturned roe v. wade, altering the landscape of abortion rights in the u.s. now, more than half of states outlaw or severely restrict the procedure. by agreeing to take up the case on mifepristone, the court will once again wade into the abortion debate. a decision, which is expected by july, could put the justices in the middle of a presidential election. >> thank you. >> where abortion has become a hot issue. >> i'm pro-life. i believe in creating a culture of life. >> now you have to tremendous power to negotiate something and something will be negotiated because we have to bring our country together on this issue. >> court got roe right 50 years ago and i believe congress should restore the protections of roe v. wade once and for all. >> abortion battles are also heating up at the state level. this week, the texas supreme court ruled against a woman who sued for right to an abortion just hours after she fled the state to get her procedure. >> there's no outcome here that i take home my healthy baby girl, you know? so, it's hard, you know? >> and this week, the arizona supreme court heard arguments from abortion opponents who want to revert back to an 1864 state law banning nearly all abortions. >> abortion is healthcare. and what that mean s is that court's decision will have a profound impact on the ability of pregnant people in arizona to access that. >> arizona and new mexico are also hearing arguments this week on abortion restrictions and in michigan, govthe governor signe bill to repeal a state insurance coverage requirement. >> let's protect the freedom to make your own decisions without interference from politicians and let's get it done. >> and the decision will come this summer in the middle of the presidential campaign season. no matter what they decide, this case will impact millions of americans but, wolf, it will be especially important for the presidential front-runners. >> certainly will. thank you very much. coming up, cnn's dana bash just dove into the abortion issue, trump, and much more, with republican presidential candidate who just scored one of the most coveted endorsements of this race. nikki haley. that's coming up next. nikki haley hit the campaign trail today with the new hampshire governor after picking up his key endorsement. earlier, both sat down for a joint interview with dana bash. dana's joining us now from concord, new hampshire. you pressed the former u.n. ambassador on donald trump's fitness for office. tell us about that. >> that's right, wolf. earlier this week, she was asked in a different interview about donald trump. whether or not he was fit for office. and she said yes. she does think he is fit nfor office. he shouldn't be president but he is fit to be president. when i asked her about that, i asked her to clarify that, wolf. she suggested that she was talking about his mental capacity. his physical abilities. and then i asked this follow up question. so when you say fit to be president, that he is, you're talking about his age and his mental capacity. other people, particularly people here in new hampshire who are looking for somebody other than donald trump, don't think he's fit because of his approach. because of his personality. because of his policies. do you think in those areas he's fit to be president? >> i don't look at the personal side of things as much i look at the -- >> what about democracy? >> the reason that i'm running is because after i saw the fall of afghanistan, after i saw inflation going through the roof, after i saw us lose the midterms so terribly, that's when i said we have to run. when i look at the situation, the economy under trump was it good? yes. but he put us at $8 trillion in debt to do it and we're all paying the price for that. i look at the fact i don't want a president who's going to praise dictators by saying kim jong-un is his friend or celebrating the 70th anniversary of the chinese communist party ar saying hezbollah is smart. with me, i have a different approach. no drama. no vendettas. no whining. >> pretty tough there on trump when it comes to some fundamental policies and pronouncements like what he said about hezbollah after october 7th. still, she said that she understands, wolf, that there are people here in new hampshire and around the country who don't think that she is tough enough on donald trump. those who don't like him. and those who do like him. they think she goes too easy on him. >> interesting. i know you also asked her about the u.s. supreme court now taking up the biggest abortion case since dobbs. tell us about that. >> well, we talked generally about abortion and the notion that she says that she agrees with the fact that states are dealing with abortion. i asked her about that case, wolf, in texas where a young mother of two, pregnant, sued to try to get an abortion because the health of the fetus she was told was fatal. and i asked her about that. she said that women need to be treated more humanely. and so again, i followed up on what that means when it comes to abortion policy. >> how do you turn that compassion you talk about, humanizing, into policy? because it just for example, if you have state's rights, which you both believe in on this issue, what do you say to a woman in a state like that who she was able to leave, who doesn't have the means to leave? >> i think what you're going to see happen in texas is in some other states that went on the pro-life side. okay, when you have the exceptions of rape, incest, life of the mother, medical conditions like texas had the medical side of it, is there going to be more detailed on it. they're going to say how can we make sure -- >> should they? >> they should. they should look at when the situation between the doctor and the woman sees something that's k dangerous, that might prevent her from having more babies or might be damaging to her body or something. i think you're going to see that play out. when you do something in a state, it's never perfect right off the bat. you learn how to tweak it. i think all these states need to tweak it in a way that our number one goal is how do you save as many babies as possible and support as many moms as possible. >> dana, excellent interview, indeed. thank you. i want to bring in two of our political experts now. you heard nikki haley criticizing trump on policy. how did you read that? >> listen, i think it's about as far as she's going to go. if you look at where the candidates in this race going up against trump are most critical of him, somebody like chris christie, it really isn't doing any good, right? don