>> for six years i have been a target of the unrelenting trump attack machine shouting where's hunter? well, here's my answer, i am here. >> all this just hours before the house is set to vote on launching a formal impeachment inquiry into president biden. meanwhile, for first time today, at the white house, the president is meeting in person with the families of american hostages taken on october 7th as israel wages its war against hamas. and breaking from the supreme court, it will hear a major case over a widely used abortion pill, we'll break down what is at stake. and millions of teslas under a software recall as the company warns of a defect in its auto pilot technology. we begin with breaking news involving president biden and his family. the president's son hunter apparently defying a subpoena to appear before the house oversight committee for a closed door deposition, but did appear on capitol hill this morning to repeat his demand for a public hearing and to blast the committee for how it has treated him. the younger biden also reiterating his father was never involved in any of his business dealings. >> let me state as clearly as i can, my father was not financially involved in my business, not as a practicing lawyer, not as a board member of burisma, not in my partnership with the chinese private businessman, not in my investments at home, nor abroad, and certainly not as an artist. >> this comes hours before the house is scheduled to vote on a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry into president biden. house republicans have been investigating whether the president has committed any impeachable offenses related to his family's business dealings. republicans say formalizing the inquiry will force the administration to be more responsive to their questions and their subpoenas. with us now to talk more about this, nbc news capitol hill correspondent ryan nobles, and nbc news white house correspondent monica alba. so defying a subpoena from the house oversight committee, he said no to a private meeting. what happens next? >> reporter: well, house republicans are pretty insistent that they're not going to accept his offer of a public hearing and that they issued a subpoena that specifically required him to appear least first behind closed doors and as a result, they are vowing to move quickly to contempt of congress charges against hunter biden. listen to what the house judiciary committee chairman jim jordan said about hunter biden's refusal to appear behind closed doors. >> we're disappointed he didn't show up. he was just across the way at the capitol. you think he could have come here and sat for questions. do it in an open format now, you get filibusters, speeches, you get all kinds of things. what we want is the facts and the way you get the facts in every single investigation i've been involved in is you bring people in for an interview, behind closed doors, where you can get those facts. >> reporter: so hunter biden and his legal team believe that if he were to come behind closed doors, that the committee could manipulate or take out of context some of the answers he gives in these questions behind closed doors and that that would give an unfair representation of his testimony. and republicans have countered eventually they'll release the entire transcript that would provide that context. and, you know, chairman jordan is correct that the way that these congressional investigations usually work is that there is a closed door deposition first and then the public hearing second. that's much of how the january 6th select committee conducted their business as well. regardless, hunter's legal team believes this gives them an opportunity to fight this in court, if it comes to that. and it does look as though that will be the next step, jose, as republicans are now vowing to move to this contempt of congress charge, which could likely happen sometime in the new year. jose? >> monica, how does the white house view what happened this morning right outside the capitol with hunter biden? >> reporter: i have to tell you, normally they are a little bit hesitant sometimes to weigh in on this, really referring the matter to hunter biden's personal attorneys or to the department of justice. as it continues its investigation. but an administration official is telling nbc news this morning that the view from the white house at least is that those public comments made by hunter biden were, quote, powerful and forceful in terms of really just stating plainly how he views this situation and his willingness, he organizes to answer questions in that open and public forum, which we know is, of course, the subject of this big debate about whether that will ever take place. what is notable also, what we should point out here, is that the president's re-election campaign, so his political arm to all of this, is also weighing in, more generally, on this expected impeachment inquiry vote, really calling out what they call former president min pushing for the impeachment inquiry trying to move forward, trying to make this larger political argument that that is why house republicans are continuing to press on this while not being able to provide any direct evidence from any of hunter biden who he himself admits engaged in decisions that were wrong, that he made mistakes on, but that there hasn't been a shred of evidence so far at the white house and the campaign argue that has emerged that links that to president joe biden, even though then he was vice president joe biden at the time of some of these allegations. so they continue to pivot back to that. but it was notable that hunter himself did refer to his father in remarks earlier today, speaking specifically to what his mother and father have both done for him as he continues on his path to recovery. listen to how he put it. >> during my battle with addiction, my parents were there for me. they literally saved my life. they held me in ways i will never be able to repay. >> reporter: the president and first lady have continually said throughout this process that they love their son, that they're proud of him, and they support him and really what i'm told by those close to the president is that this is a president who is approaching this as a father first, even though, of course, there are incredible political implications for hunter biden who is facing potentially two criminal trials in 2024 as his father seeks re-election. jose? >> so, ryan, on the impeachment inquiry, do republicans have the votes to push this through? >> reporter: i think it would be unlikely at this point, jose, if they bring something like this to the floor if they didn't have the votes. we heard have a lot of moderate republicans who represent districts that were won by president biden in 2020 who initially expressed some reluctance to move forward with the impeachment inquiry, who now say that they're prepared to vote for it. and so, the expectation is that it will be largely along party line vote tonight, but it will be enough to get the impeachment inquiry formalized. and this gives these investigators a little bit more heft when it comes to their subpoena of documents, by requesting interviews, particularly interviews like the one that they're trying to collect with hunter biden. if any of that is potentially challenged in court, to have this formalization by the full house gives them a little bit more weight when they make that argument. but it also sets up a degree of political risk for republicans as well, because now once you formalize an impeachment inquiry, the next step would be actual articles of impeachment and while there have been some republicans who were reluctant before saying they're willing to allow the investigation to move forward, there are still many that say that they do not believe the evidence warrants articles of impeachment quite yet. if the investigations are unable to uncover that very specific evidence and articles of impeachment never manifest itself, it could end up backfiring for them politically as they head into this election year with president biden seeking re-election, jose. >> ryan nobles and monica alba, thank you, both, so very much. happening right now as well for the first time since the october 7th massacre, president biden is meeting privately in person with family members of those american hostages taken in hamas' surprise attack. this comes as we're getting news from gaza that the bodies of two hostages were recovered in an operation by the idf. they are now 135 hostages believed still being held by hamas. 19 of whom are believed to be dead. and for the battleground, we have new video, the idf says it shows an israeli reservist firing on that they claim are two hamas fighters before he's hit by a grenade. the idf edited the footage and nbc news has been unable to verify the claims. in the biggest split since the start of the war, president biden shared his most vocal criticism of israel over the number of civilian casualties in gaza and israel's plans for what happens when hamas is removed from power. joining us now nbc news chief white house correspondent peter alexander at the white house and nbc news chief foreign correspondent richard engel from jerusalem. so, peter, what more can you tell us about the president's meeting right now? >> reporter: jose, we know that meeting is taking place as we speak behind closed doors. cameras are not being invited in the room. this is a private event, wasn't even on the public schedule for the president, but we are hearing from officials here that it is likely we would hear from some of those family members of the americans believed to be held hostage in gaza right now at the conclusion of their visit. a total of eight americans on that list of those unaccounted for at this time. among those in attendance, viva siegel, she was a hostage herself, as part of the temporary cease-fire after 51 days in captivity, held by hamas, she is here today to meet with the president as part of this visit on behalf of her husband keith siegel who remains a hostage. the two of them lived on one of the kibbutz near gaza, kfar oz. they will try to get another cease-fire, even if temporary right now, to help secure the release of their loved ones at this time. we have heard many of these families speak publicly to try to keep their stories in the headlines and this, jose, will be the first time they get to deliver their message face to face with the president after having met with him virtually in the past. >> and this meeting is happening right now. so the president also shared his starkest criticism of israel's plans. what did he have to say? >> he was speaking at an off camera event, and it showed a real rift between president biden and prime minister netanyahu. not the first rift that existed between the two. before this war, president biden did not invite netanyahu to the white house as past presidents have done, instead meeting him for the first time along the sidelines of the united nations. the president yesterday saying of the netanyahu government that it must change and specifically he said as you noted in the introduction of this conversation that israel right now was at risk or beginning to lose support from the global community because as the president described it, the indiscriminate bombing that is taking place right now. the president will be pressed on those comments the next time reporters get a chance to be with him. the description of what is taking place in gaza is indiscriminate bombing obviously demonstrates the president's dissatisfaction with the way that the white house is carrying -- excuse me that israel is carrying out this war so far. but the president publicly at least has said that israel has a right to defend itself, he said among other things about the netanyahu government that they basically are an obstacle to any long-term solution because they don't want, as he describes it, a two-state solution, where you have a palestinian state side by side with israel. jose? >> and, richard, we have reporting that the idf is now pumping sea water into some of the tunnels in gaza? >> reporter: yes. this has been confirmed and my understanding is that this has been happening for some time. the idea is to fill the tunnels with water to flush hamas militants out, to get them to leave those tunnels, so they can't launch surprise attacks, they can't pop up in buildings, come out on the streets and attack israeli troops. the tunnels are often described as a subway system, so, they snake underneath the gaza strip, according to israeli officials, about 500 kilometers, 300 miles of tunnels and there are many, many entrances to these tunnels. and often they are in the center of built up urban areas. it is not -- it sounds easier than it is. you have to take water, run pipes, run hoses, excuse me, from the mediterranean sea, pipe them into the tunnels, and it is a sandy area, so these tunnels are lined often with cement to support them, but they're not watertight. so, it is not necessarily, my understanding, a fully efficient process, even though that has begun in some areas. >> amazing. 300 miles plus of tunnels in such a small limited area. richard engel and peter alexander, thank you, both, so very much. next, two big announcements from the supreme court with big implications. the court saysments about a maj case about a widely used abortion bill. we'll break down what's at stake. plus, what the court said about the legal fate of defendants arrested at the u.s. capitol on the 6th of january. we're back in 60 seconds. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. s you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. so caramel swirl is always there for the taking. (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro, your husband deserves it! ♪ (mom) carolers? to tell me you want a new iphone? a better plan is verizon. (vo) it's your last chance to turn any iphone in any condition into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium and ipad and apple watch se - all on us. only on verizon. 15 past the hour. we are following breaking developments out of the supreme court this morning. today the nation's highest court announced that it will agree to hear arguments over whether mifepristone, the widely used abortion pill, can remain easily accessible. and the justices announced that they will decide whether a rioter arrested in the january 6th attack on the capitol can be charged with obstructing an official proceeding, which could impact former president trump's own legal battles. joining us now, nbc news senior legal correspondent laura jarrett and msnbc legal analyst barbara mcquaid, former u.s. attorney in michigan. what more can you tell us about the supreme court's announcements this morning? >> we have been tracking this abortion pill case for quite some time now. and it is really about all of the ways in which the fda tried to make this pill easier to get, by getting it through the mail, not having to go to your doctor's office and a lower court said all of those ways that the fda tried to make it easier to get are invalid, they're no good. as of right now, access to the pill hasn't changed at all because the supreme court put a stay on everything to maintain the status quo while this case has been working its way through the various courts of appeal and now up to the supreme court and so now, jose, now that they agreed to take the case, they will hear oral arguments as they do in most cases, and then sometime within the coming months, likely next spring or summer, they will issue their final ruling on the case. >> so, barbara, what do you read into the court deciding to take this case? >> well, it is difficult to know, jose, because this court has obviously been very hostile to abortion rights. but one of the things that is interesting here is the focus is on standing. and you may recall the time when this case went to the district court, there was a lot of hullabaloo about how these plaintiffs had standing. it is so speculative and yet we saw a district court and court of appeals honor those cases and decided on the merits. so, it could be that the court is simply going to reverse these decisions to say those plaintiffs never had standing at all to bring these cases in the first place. >> yeah, i mean, the way you're explaining it and i appreciate your being so clear on this, it does seem as though standing is pretty light here. >> yeah, you know, standing means there is a real genuine caseharmed by a policy, something like this fda approval. the idea that some day in the future i might beharmed versus someone who wants this drug and can't use it, it seems that the standing in this case was very thin and so it may be that that is simply why the court is looking at this. it may be that they want to look at this case on the merits in which case we could see all kinds of changes including one that adds to their interest in up ending the administrative state by overturning a decision of the food and drug administration. but i also think that messing with approval by the food and drug administration is risky because there is the research and development that goes into getting that fda approval. and so i think it could really cause chaos to say that courts can overrule the learned opinion of the fda. >> and, laura, regarding the january 6th case, more than 300 people charged with obstructing an official proceeding. what could this mean for his election interference trial? >> this is one that the former president's attorneys are going to be keeping their eye on very closely because it is the same charge that jack smith, the special counsel, who is prosecuting the election interference case against donald trump, it is one of the same charges that he has used against him. they want to see what exactly contours the supreme court might put on it, a lot of the low ert cour courts trying to figure out how to interpret the statute. some of the people that you're showing on your screen there were charged with trying to stop that vote count on january 6th. that was the obstruction of the official proceeding, but you have do it corruptly. the question is what does a prosecutor need to show corrupt intent? what does that look like? and the court has been grappling where that. that's what the supreme court is going to be looking at here. if they decide, the lower court has been getting it wrong, that doesn't mean jack smith's case goes away, but it has an effect on what he would need to prove against trump. that's why it matters. >> and, barbara, the u.s. appeals court in manhattan rejected trump's request for immunity in the e. jean carroll defamation suit. where does that leave trump? >> it means he's going forward to trial. it is interesting, jose, in this case, because the reason for the rejection is not on the merits, it is on the timeliness. they said he waited three years before asserting the immunity defense. the trial court said that was too long and he waved the right and now the court of appeals has affirmed that decision, which means the case can go to trial. i think the argument was on some flimsy legal ground anyway on the merits that when you defame someone about sexual assault, that is somehow within the scope of the president's duties. but either way, he brought the defense too late and the case will proceed to trial. >> laura jarrett and barbara mcquaid, thank you both so very much. appreciate it. coming up, republicans stand their ground in their demand for border reform as critically needed aid for two us allies hangs in the balance. we'll ask congresswoman teresa legar fernandez about where negotiations stand. and later, rudy giuliani back in court today for his civil trial related to false claims he made about two election workers. will he be taking the stand? you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports."