involved in my business, not as a practicing lawyer, not as an own of burisma and not as a businessman, not in my investment at home or abroad and certainly not as an artist. during my battle with addiction my parents were there for me. they literally saved my life. they helped me in ways that i will never be able to repay and of course, they would never expect me to, but in the depths of my addiction i was extremely irresponsible with my finances, but to suggest that is grounds for an impeachment inquiry is beyond the absurd. it's shameless. there is no evidence to support the allegations that my father was financially involved in my business because it did not happen.

james comer, jim jordan, jason smith and their colleagues have distorted the facts by cherry picking lines from a bank statement, manipulating texts i sent, editing the testimony of my friends and former business partners and misstating personal information that was stolen from me. there is no fairness or decency in what these republicans are doing. they have lied over and over about every aspect of my personal and professional life, so much so that their lies have become the facts by too many people. >> where is hunter? here i am says hunter biden from the steps of the u.s. capitol.

we are covering every angle including waiting on the response from the republicans about whether they will take his testimony. cnn's evan perez was right there listening to hunter biden and let's start with him, evan. that is more than what we've heard to date from hunter on this subject. >> absolutely, john. look, it was an extraordinary thing to come to the steps here on the senate side of the capitol, and not on the house side where the house republicans have been waiting for him at 9:30 to do the closed-door testimony. here he spoke more forcefully and confrontationally really about these allegations that republicans have been making. a lot of this stuff has been done on paper and by republican members of congress who are essentially twisting some of the things that huntser says were in some of the evidence that they've obtained and some of the documents they've obtained and here he confronts a lot of that saying that they were mocking his addiction, his struggles with addiction.

his -- problems he had with his finances and also trying to use this, really, to try to take down his father. he said the same committee chairmen have engaged in political interference in what has already been a five-year investigation of me and what he's referring to there is that he believes that the only reason why he's facing nine counts in los angeles on tax charges, gun charge in the state of delaware and federal charges in delaware is because republicans have put so much pressure on the justice department and have collapsed this plea deal that he had arranged with the justice department. as a result, he is facing trial, the possibility of going on trial next year in two jurisdictions. of course, we have not heard a lot of this from hunter personally before. so this was a very meaningful thing, obviously, to have him come here on the steps of the capitol to address these allegations and the fact is, you

know, the republicans have these claims that there's evidence, but they've not actually produced any of it to prove that the president, his father, actually benefitted from any of these financial dealings that huntser biden had in ukraine and in -- and in china, so now, john, we expect that the republicans will go through in their threat which is to hold them in contempt perhaps as soon as today or begin that process, but at this point, hunter biden is speaking more for the first time, more fulsome comments we've heard from him in personal terms about his struggles and about the political impact that this is all happening? >> evan perez, right there outside of capitol hill on the steps of the capitol right now. paula reid, let me bring you in on this, as well. what do you think are you hearing is the strategy here from hunter and his legal team

in what we just saw? >> well, kate, over the last year we've been reporting how huntser biden along with his lawyers abbe lowell and kevin morris have been employing a much more aggressive strategy when it comes to huntser's detractors. here, republicans wanted hunter biden on the hill. they got him, but they didn't exactly get the testimony that they were hoping for. instead, they got this rare, public statement from the president's son that was quite personal. he talked about his a dicddicti the impact that's had on his life and the impact it's had, and the investigations and the impact that those have had on his family and he blasted republicans saying, quote, they have no fairness, no decency. he reminded us that they showed naked pictures of him at an oversight hearing. he said they have taken the light of his dad's love and turned it into, quote, darkness

and with the capitol behind him, he said i'm here. today republicans wanted him to sit for a closed-door deposition and he said he would answer questions, but will only do so publicly. this is part of the more aggressive strategy. he's sort of trying to call their bluff. i agree with evan, even though he showed up today and even though he will face contempt and getting his story out there that doesn't happen that often especially not from him directly. we'll see how republicans respond to this. i expect they will likely bring up the criminal charges that hunter is facing from the biden justice department and then likely talk about how they wanted and subpoenaed him for a closed-door deposition which is not what he did, but it will probably take him a while to figure out exactly how to respond to this unexpected move. >> absolutely. paula reid there.

thank you so much. stick around with us. we are hearing from a ranking house member right now, jamie raskin hearing and i think we'll go to him to see if we have reaction. >> -- their own republican witness are, from what he has seen there are not grounds for an impeachment inquiry or rather, impeachment in general of president biden, but that has not deterred the republican side from continuing to try to force through a completely groundless and unsubstantiated and i won't even call it an investigation. i just call it an exercise in futility. when we've seen from this deposition, chairman comer himself told hunter biden, you choose, whichever you choose, come in public and come in private. hunter biden in an attempt to

clear his name from what has been happening publicly has stated that he is willing to testify to the public. but because it's been debunked, exposed and consistently covered and exposed as having falsehoods they decided that they will take back and rescind their offer of a public investigation and will only allow it to happen in private and they will not even commit to making any of these transcripts or have had a track history of not making these transcripts public either. so we know what's happening here. they have -- they have devised a story that they cannot substantiate with facts and so they've decided that they want to invent their own take without evidence and they want to ensure that that evidence remains behind closed doors and away from public view. we will not accept this. the american people deserve better, and we also deserve better than this enormous waste

of time and resources. we have more priorities as a country. we need to lower the cost of health care. we need to tackle the housing crisis and we need to do far more. >> you are listening to alejandra ocasio-cortez. she is basically defending not just hunter biden, but the bidens basically saying this is a witch hunt and they have found no evidence, the republicans on this committee. let us now go to lauren fox because we have just heard this remarkable statement from hunter biden. i think that cannot be overstated. this is the son of a president, from hunter biden standing outside of the congressional hearing that he's supposed to be in and making she's really making she's emotional statements and in no uncertain terms. have you heard from house republicans because while he was talking he was expected to be

giving a deposition behind closed doors to that committee. >> yeah. we are still awaiting the chairman to come out and discuss what they heard about huntered bien and he could be held in contempt of the congress, but you heard from hunter biden. he said if you want to talk to me and ask questions in a public setting. i am willing to do it. i am here today. i'm happy to answer your es core fight over whether or not this was going to happen privately or publicly in a public hearing that was at the core and really the intent of this major fight that we've seen on capitol hill. i think it's a major question right now what house republicans plan to do after this. i also think it's a major question of how this would be perceived given the fact that you have someone who is saying i want to come forward publicly and i'm willing to answer your questions publicly.

are republicans going to argue that that is not going to move forward with? obviously. they wanted this closed-door deposition and i think that is a major question and the other question is how some moderate republicans may view this today. there is a vote expected to happen later today in the house of representatives to formalize an impeachment inquiry to republicans. many on the fence have argued they have to move forward because they think more evidence needs to be gathered and they think that this bolsters their argument in court if they have a formal vote on the floor of the house today. i think it will be really interesting to ask some of those members who are running in states and districts that biden wanted in 2020 and what they think about this moment, as well. so it's not just the chairmen who are leading the investigation that will be crucial to hear from, but how other republicans on the hill are perceiving this today. >> all right. we will be waiting to hear from

whom of you get on the line about what they're going to do next. thank you so much to you, lauren fox on capitol hill and to our evan perez and paula reid. >> joining us now is laura risen through donald trump's first impeachment trial. norm, you heard what hunter biden said. what do you think of his statement clearly crafted with the help of his attorney abbe lowell whom you know well. >> well, number one, i do think what he said as a matter of substance is accurate. house republicans have tried and tried and spent the past ten months attempting to connect joe biden financially to hunter's business, and on all of these issues, loans, the law firm, the business in ukraine with a

private chinese businessman, they failed. some of these allegations that they've looked at that have not panned out go back to the first impeachment that i worked on that joe biden somehow ousted a ukrainian prosecutor wrongly. no. that was the unanimous consent position to get rid of mr. shoken of the european union and the united states of america. the idea originateded there. so and it's been so inadequate that there's really not a legal predicate. there's not a basis to open an impeachment inquiry and there is a big bipartisan report kate, with a former gop federal judge, a former gop member of congress who said look, they haven't met the threshold. so i have to agree with hunt or

th that. >> with the issue of the behind closed doors deposition, do you think it was the right move that they clearly are not doing that today? >> well, from a legal perspective, indicating a willingness to negotiate and putting an exclamation point on that by coming to the hill and saying i'm here probably helps insulate hunter from the legal consequences. it's called the accommodation process and we went through it in the impeachment -- >> norm, hold on one second. we will hear a response right now from the oversight committee chairman james comer. >> this has been a serious, credible, transparent investigation from day one. we published four bank memorandums. we've had countless press conferences and this is an investigation about public

corruption at the highest levels, and concerning to an overwhelming majority of americans. we have specific questions in there, and i think we'll allow you in there to see the piles and piles of documents, of bank statements and e-mails of text messages that we worked very hard on in this committee over the last eight or nine months. we expect to depose the president's son and then we will be more than happy to have a public period with him. with that, i'll turn it over to chairman jordan. >> will echo what the chairman said. we are disappointed that he didn't show up and he was across the way at the capitol. you would think he would come and answer questions and if you do in an open format and you will do filibusters and 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 is you bring people in for an interview, behind closed doors where you can get those facts and then as the chairman said we'd love for him to come public.

mr. biden's counsel and the white house have both argued that the reason he couldn't come for a deposition was because there wasn't a formal vote for an impeachment inquiry. well, that's going to happen in a few hours. we think it will pass. we think the house of representatives will go on record with the power that solely resides in the house to say we are in an official impeachment phase of the oversight and when that happens we'll see what their excuse is then. they should have been here today, but once we take that vote, we expect him to come in for his interview, for his deposition and frankly, we will also, i think, look at contempt proceedings as we move forward. with that we'll take your questions. >> why not call his bluff? he's here and not wanting to sit for a deaf sposition. >> every one of them from clear back to the irs targeting conservatives to benghazi, to the impeachment -- every one you do it in a way where they come in for private -- this is what the democrats did.

don junior had to testify twice in a deposition setting, two different committees, but somehow that doesn't apply to the biden family in that's not how it works in the country and it's supposed to be the same treatment, the equal treatment under the law. >> mr. biden said his father had no involvement in his business dealings period. how do you respond? >> that's not what devin archer said, telephone calls, we know what happened in burisma and ukraine from the december 4th to december 9th timeframe where he goes and leverages and conditions that the american tax money on the firing of the prosecutor who was looking into executives of the very company hunter biden was on the board of. we know those facts. >> joe biden said he never met to any of these people or talked to any of these people and that was the narrative and he met with and talked to every sing w le one of them. so the president hasn't been honest about the association with his people who have been wiring millions and millions of dollars to hunter biden and the

biden family. every american has a simple question, what did the bidens do to receive tens of millions from around the world. >> can you answer the question that you found no evidence of criminal conduct. >> we found some very serious evidence that you -- >> no, no, no. the checks, there are two checks to joe biden. >> the money to give joe biden was through influx peddling. >> those checks that you shared -- >> no, no, no. >> loan repayments that we all saw. >> we showed you the loan documents. >> you don't understand the loan documents. i do. if you pay me back $240,000 for a loan repayment i should have a check going to you for $240,000. >> joe biden's attorneys inventing -- >> the law firm that represented the shale companies. >> you think those lawyers -- >> well, what do you think? you're defending him.

>> that's a very serious crime. >> are you positive that that money came from joe biden? are you positive? >> look, we have a lot of questions. next question. >> are you going forward with contempt? >> there's a process you have to follow. we have to file a report and we will begin looking at that both lawyers for the community will move in that direction and congress asked you to come, and you're supposed to come and testify. >> the last thing, we also found checks from one of hunter biden's shale companies that were going into an account for joe biden. >> that was a loan -- for $1800. >> hunter biden will have an opportunity to explain that. >> those were e-mails that you guys leaked from hunter biden's laptop. >> i would like to have asked hunter biden about the violation. sex trafficking women. >> thank you very much. >> you don't seem to care about that, though. >> when congress asks you to

come testify you are supposed to come testify. when congress asks you to, you're supposed to come testify and that from jim jordan. jim jordan also defied a subpoena himself coming from the january 6th congressional committee. we'll have adam kinzinger on later in the show and he can speak directly to that, but you're hearing there, republicans responding to hunter biden. let me bring back norm eisen. what we are hearing now is a lot of public statements and this fight is going to continue, and i just heard chairman comer say we have piles of questions in documents there only going as far to say i think we're going to get you in there to see it. where do you think this goes next? >> well, chairman comer, chairman jordan got some pretty tough questioning from the press. they were not able to answer this key question, kate.

in all of those piles of bank statements and financial records, where is the connection of joe biden to any of the alleged wrongdoing? there's been no financial connection. they talked about the loans, but those were do you cumented transactions and they had the burisma matter that we were talking about, but that is just wrong, kate, that that has been looked at for years and the request to fire that prosecutor, that chairman jordan was talking about, came from the european union and the united states of america. are we now to suppose that hunter biden influenced the european union to do that? come on. so as a legal matter to quick points number one, there's no predicate. it's a low bar, but there has to be some factual predicate.

they're not impeaching hunter biden. they're impeaching joe biden, and number two, this is what you and i were talking about when the press availability began. you heard them back peddling a little bit on whether they will go immediately to contempt for hunter. that's because they made an offer, he made a counteroffer. he showed up. legally, that's known as the accommodation process. as long as huntser is attempting to negotiate, so the story will continue. >> absolutely. norm, thank you for stick around and walking us through this. you have more experience than all of these goings on in these negotiations than a lot of folks. clearly, a lot going on, let's see who makes the next move and what happens next on capitol hill. hunter biden responding as the impeachment inquiry looks like it's about to be formalized with a vote today on the house floor from house republicans.

we'll be right back after this.

this morning the battle for abortion access is intensifying. the supreme court says it will consider whether to restrict one of the most widely used abortion drugs even in states where the procedure is still allowed. it comes as states like arizona consider reverting to a near-total ban which dates back to 1864 or upholding the 15-week ban that went into effect last year. two other state supreme courts, new mexico and wyoming also are preparing to weigh the issue. the subsequent state laws after

the supreme court overturned roe versus wade had a direct and in some cases immediate impact on many women including our next guest. with me now to discuss all of this is allie philips. she's a democratic candidate in the house of representatives. she was forced to spend thousands of dollars and go outside of her state in her case. first of all, thank you so much for coming and telling your story. can you tell me what happened when you became pregnant with your second child? >> yeah. absolutely. thank you so much for having me on this morning. my husband and i, we wanted to expand our family so we were excited to find out we were pregnant in november last year, and everything was going fine up until our routine anatomy scan in february last year and i was 19 weeks pregnant and we got the news that no parent really wants

to hear. our daughter, we were going to name her miley rose. we found out she had multiple fatal fetal a nominees to the point she was deemed incompatible with life outside the womb and inside the womb and knowing that tennessee had made that trigger ban into effect just the year before, i knew that i wasn't going to be able to get care in tennessee, but still, i asked my doctor what are my options and she said i could get an abortion, but i would have to look out of state due to tennessee's ban or i could continue my pregnancy and put myself at miscarriage or she would put into hospice care to pass shortly after. the more i stayed pregnant, the worse my daughter was going to become, and more high risk i would become. it didn't make sense to risk my life when my unborn daughter wasn't going to make it anyway.

>> at some point you met with your state representative as you're going through this, jeff burkhart to ask him for help to create legislation to prevent this for another woman going through this terrible time, extremely emotional and devastating. how did he respond? >> about like you would think a pro-life republican would. it was very -- very laxed in his care and concern for what happened to me. one of the things that truly just took me off guard was he interrupted me mid-sentence and was, like, wait a second you already have a daughter. i said yes, she was 5 at the time and then he said, well i'm just a guy, but i always thought that only the first pregnancies went bad and i was, like, the first one can go bad, yeah, but it could be any pregnancy, and along with that he has a daughter not too much younger than me, and i tried to humanize

my situation to him and say, you know, if your daughter was going through what i went through what would your advice be? what would you say to your daughter. he said you're not going to like my answer. i was, like, i still want to hear. he said the way he grew up was that he would tell his daughter he thinks she should continue her pregnancy even if it's putting her life at risk. he said that's just how i grew up and it was at that moment when it solidified for me that these representatives don't even care about their own family, how will they care about the constituents and citizens around the state. >> that lacked compassion, and i'm sorry that you went through that. what a horrible thing to have to listen to. i do want to ask you, lastly about some of the things that have happened and the supreme court has said it will take up this notion of the drug mifepristone and whether or not it is legal in this country. it is one of the most widely used drugs for women who are either having abortions or miscarriages. what is your take on this

decision by the supreme court which could mean that it reverses it, that that drug is no longer available to women. >> it is devastating. i saw the news as soon as it broke, and my jaw just dropped. we knew that something like this was coming. it just -- it's hard when you actually see it happening in real time. mifepristone is such a vital medication for so many people across this country, and it helps terminate pregnancies from ten weeks and under. a lot of women don't even know they're pregnant at that point and the women who do know they're pregnant and know they don't want to continue their pregnancy or pregnant against their will or whatever the case may be, this medication is so important and it needs to be accessible and honestly, i'm scared to see what's going to happen. i feel like we know what the ruling is going to be and i'm trying to mentally prepare myself for a bigger battle in

2024, but i just -- there's a string of hope -- there's a small string of hope that these supreme court justices will understand that the majority of americans need and want access to this medication and just abortion care in general. >> allie philips, thank you very much for sharing your deeply personal story with us and good luck in your race. appreciate your time. thank you so much. >> obviously, that has huge implications. we are following the breaking news on abortion at the supreme court. also a different case the supreme court just agreed to hear on january 6th that could have major implications for donald trump and hunter biden's dramatic appearance on capitol hill. more fallout from that. so what happens next?

loving this pay bump in our allowance. wonder where mom and dad got the extra money? maybe they won the lottery? maybe they inherited a fortune? maybe buried treasure? maybe it fell off a truck? maybe they heard that xfinity customers can save hundreds when they buy one unlimted line and get one free. now i can buy that electric scooter! i'm starting a private-equity fund that specializes in midcap. you do you. visit xfinitymobile.com today.

developments in two stories that are in and of themselves, but also have implications for the political season. number one, we saw hunter biden go to capitol hill, offer to testify publicly before a house committee. this as part of the impeachment inquiry interest president biden. he offered to testify publicly. the house committee has refused, that's one major breaking news story. the other is the supreme court just agreed to hear a case on restricting mifepristone, a

widely used abortion drug. a decision could come as soon as july which means abortion front and center once again in the election season. with us now, laura barron lopez for pbs news hour and lahnee chen. hunter biden shows up on capitol hill and offers to testify and then we heard from democrats with a more forceful defense of hunter biden than we have seen to date. what do you make of this move? >> well, i think that hunter biden is certainly trying to show that he's willing to talk to republicans, but in the public domain, in front of cameras and in front of everyone because what we have seen in the past with the depositions that have happened regarding this impeachment investigation is that there are selective information that comes out of the depositions before a whole picture comes out that sometimes these house republicans

including chairman comer have decided to selectively pick different elements of the deposition even if the full deposition disputes what they are trying to claim which is that there is a connection between hunter biden's business dealings and president biden. we've seen them do that when hunter biden's former business partners have come to be deposed before the house committee and they have actually also said that there is no connection between what hunter biden's business dealings were. we are seeing hunter go a bit on the offensive now. >> so lahnee, there expected to be a full impeachment inquiry and formalized in a full house vote later today. there are several house republicans who are in biden districts who seem to be willing to vote for this inquiry, but are under a fair amount of pressure going forward about how they treat it. how do you think they will respond to the continued struggle that we heard from chairman james comer there and

others for them to directly tie what hunter biden may have done wrong to impeachable actions by president biden? well, the risk here john is in districts where president biden won last time around, the question is what will be the focus of the campaign this coming year? is it going to be on issues like the economy and immigration where we know from recent public opinion research that the public has some challenges with where president biden is and president biden's records on these issues or is it on legal matters where frankly, the terrain is much more difficult. so i think for these highouse republicans, yes, it probably shores up their political base and it is probably important to some who are looking at this situation, but in the longer term, if you talk about winning

independent voters or winning democrats over, one does wonder whether this inquiry distracts from the issues where republicans could potentially be stronger and where i think the president and the democrats are frankly much more vulnerable. >> lahnee, as long as we're talking about what would be a more potent issue on the election and what about the supreme court now saying they will weigh in on restricting mifepristone nationwide. abortion, every time it has been on the ballot since the court overturned roe versus wade, it has seemed to benefit democrats there. >> well, and john, the timing on this very similar to what we saw with the dobbs decision in terms of seeing some, hearing initially some sense of where the case will go in the spring and it is a potent issue for democrats, and i think it is the only issue to go back to the survey research. it is the only issue where i think democrats have going into

this election cycle a significant, political advantage, at least again, if you believe the numbers. and so democrats will want to push this campaign and this election toward that issue which they know they can use particularly with the female voters, with independent voters and republicans will want to push it toward the economy and immigration where they believe they have an advantage, but there is no question that the timing of this supreme court case potential decision in the fall has significant ramifications for the 2024 elections and not just at the presidential level, but down ticket, as well. lahnee chen, thanks to both of you. we should note on "inside politics," nikki haley will sit down with new hampshire governor chris sun unu who just endorsed her. we haven't heard much from nikki haley and this is an important opportunity especially given the news that's just fallen in the last hour. kate? >> also coming up for us, the

supreme court now says it's going to take an appeal by a man involved with the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol centering on the obstruction charge that the justice department has used in many of these january 6th cases. what does this mean? we'll be right back.

this just in to cnn. the supreme court now says it

will take up the appeal from a man involved with the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. this centers on questions about the federal obstruction law used in january 6th prosecution, a charge that's also been levied against donald trump. cnn's john baskupik joins us now. tell us about what this is about. >> this has been a busy morning on the supreme court where they told us one of the very last cases it will be taking for its term and it's going to take a case that's directly related to claims brought by people charged in the january 6th 2021 insurrection and this case involves trying to get clarity of a catch-all provision of the federal obstruction law which makes it a crime for anyone to obstruct an official proceeding and it is brought by a man, joseph fisher, who said the broad statute should not apply here and the court has agreed to

come in at the request of the federal government to try to clarify it. now, kate, i can tell you this kind of thing can affect many, many cases. we don't know at all if it would affect donald trump's but it would affect other cases for sure and we know donald trump's case is also back at the supreme court as jack smith this week has asked the supreme court to intervene in a key question in his defense with the election subversion claims brought by special counsel jack smith. kate? >> multiple aspects around what happened on that day now before the supreme court. this will be a very interesting one with this january 6th rioter now that that appeal is getting up to the justices. joan, thank you. sara? >> just ahead, the idea takes on a new approach to try and triple hamas' tunnel network in gaza. what it hopes seawater will do to the terrorists' underground

maze. that's comoming up.

new this morning, cnn has learned that hamas is not responding to efforts to get hostage negotiations back on track. also new this morning the idf says at least nine soldiers were killed overnight in northern gaza. operations around this area right here and that is the biggest loss of life in a single incident for israeli forces since the ground offensive began. on top of that we have learned from u.s. officials that the israelis had begun flooding the tunnels. here is video of the tunnels and begun flooding the tunnels with seawater to discuss what that

means is retired major general james spdr "spider" marks. >> what's significant is and let's zero in on this area and let's assume this is the area where they'll start the tunnels and they've cleared this area in gaza and the idf is in here and they're confident that the tunnels do not hold hostages which is key, but the other thing you want to do is deny the capability that these tunnels have provided hamas for years. you want to deny that to them and the way you do that you fill them up with water both for the israelis and hamas. the israelis can direct forces in other locations to conduct other missions. it's economy of force in this area. you can then maneuver forces to other areas. you still have to keep eyes on that and you can maneuver that around. >> once you flood the tunnels and we have a diagram here of what the tunnels might look

like. once you do flood this how long is it unusable? >> i would imagine if you flood it appropriately this will be unusable for months if not permanently, you will start to damage the architecture, the support structure in each one of these tunnels and look at this, we are down to almost 300 feet below ground. i would hate to be the guy on duty down here, this is where you've got to cop dunduct the f how am -- >> why use water rather than go in with troops? >> i would assume that troops have gone in to a certain level to assess that there are no hostages there, that it can be denied to hamas and then you put the water in there so you can then shift. the water will serve the purpose of what the presence of soldiers will for a time. spider always a pleasure. thanks for being here. >> great john. great to see the major general in here in person.

all right. coming up, dramatic developments happening on capitol hill. the house oversight chair saying they are beginning to look at contempt charges for hunter biden despite hunter biden's offer to testify publicly. he came out in front of the steps to say so. hear what hunter biden had to say in his defense and in his father's defense. that's ahead.