♪ ♪ ♪ our breaking news tonight. u.s. led airstrikes tonight against houthi rebels in yemen. this video released by rebel run al nasir a tv. allegedly shows the moment of the bombardment in yemen's capital [sound of artillery] president biden saying that he ordered the assault in response to unprecedented houthi attacks on ships in the red sea. the strikes coming as the world tries to keep the israel-hamas war from spilling into a much

wider conflict. the latest from the region is coming up on cnn. but first, why do we keep giving donald trump exactly what he wants. tonight on laura coates live. but ♪ ♪ ♪ donald j j trump got exactly what he wanted today. and i mean again. a giant megaphone to call the 370 million dollar civil suit against him, say it with me, we all know the phrase, a witch hunt. but >> as you know, this is an unconstitutional witch hunt. its election interference at the highest level. but >> then in the courtroom, right in front of the very judge who is going to decide just how much he has to pay. again this is not a jury trial. no dye audience, he's talking to the person who is going to

decide how much he has's fraud case. so maybe you want to want your words, saying, quote, this was a political witch hunt, what's happened here sir is a fraud on me. and that is donald trump's closing argument. the world of bach, or the 370 million dollar box stop here. now i want to bring in former trump attorney michael cohen. he is the host of the podcast, mea culpa and political beat down. he is also the author of revenge, how donald trump weaponized the u.s. department of justice against his critics. michael thank you for joining me today. what a week, and what a day it has already been. it was today, trump speaking out during closing arguments calling the prosecution a fraud, a witch and. things we've all heard before. despite of course the judge, saying he needs to stick to only the facts. then the judge, ultimately telling trump's attorney to

control his client. i mean talk about the drama. what did you think in those? moments [laughter] >> look i have never seen donald look so preoccupied. i mean he has the face of the defeated man on the verge of a nervous breakdown. i mean, it's why he blames everyone but himself for destroying his father's business. and no matter how many times alina hobbs, or kris kise, or any of these others regurgitate his talking points. or they're denigration of me. the one thing that donald knows is that the bill is coming and that he cannot afford to pay it. >> well they certainly mention you. i mean trump's lawyers calling you, i think the phrase was, a serial liar, in court. they attack your credibility. one would say what else is new when it comes to this sort of thing. but what is your response of being so integral to this entire event? >> well, i don't really have a comment for it.

i certainly did not ask for it. i testified before the house oversight committee truthfully. the only thing that they can do, again is to continue to denigrate me and try to impugn my credibility. so far everything that i have said has turned out to be accurate. this very much like the manhattan district direct attorney case is predicated on documentary evidence as well as corroborating testimony. which they have. it is why i say that the bill is coming and he cannot afford it. what is going to happen in the criminal trial, again we have the same sort of documentary evidence and the corroborating testimony of others. and, like this one i believe the donald trump is going to find himself on the wrong side of the decision. >> i mean there is obviously the different standards, there is beyond a reasonable doubt of course in a criminal context, and a different standard here in a civil case. but you have a bench, trial

it's not a jury it's a bench trial. the judge we already know has been antagonized. he has tried to tell them to control this. person he has already found fraud. you know trump's business dealings, like no one else. so what has been your response to the argument from trump's lawyers. look, come on no one was harmed, here there are no victims here in this alleged fraud what do you say to that? >> well, think of it no different than if somebody goes into rob a bank and then they get scooped and they run. they still are going to get charged with robbing, or attempted robbery of a bank. what their argument is, is childish to be honest with you. it is not predicated on law. it is basically, an excuse. which is exactly what donald is good for. he is all about the excuse. make up whatever excuses that he can in order to try to convince, who, his supporters?

that he is right, he is the victim, nobody else has been heard, the law is the law. he broke the law and now he's going to be held accountable. >> you have to wonder if that is what a deflection in trying to tell you, take this shiny object over here and focus on that instead of what's in front of you. it all comes down to so many people will think about donald trump, i think very wealthy people, i think about washington d.c., or new york, or any of these major areas will think. this much must be how the rich operate, this kind of thing must be done all the time. that is certainly what he has been articulating. and that what he has been doing is not in any way wrong. you've seen behind the scenes the actions that were taken, the way in which he moves from professionally. is this in line with what he is always done in front of you? >> well, again, we are in a totally different scenario now. when i was at the trump corporation, remember i was

there for over a decade. donald trump was not president of the united states. the decisions that he made only affected the trump corporation. and those of us that were employed by it. now the things that he is doing effect not just the united states of america, and all of its citizens, but it also affects the world as well. it is a totally different ball game. and the fact that he is now being held accountable for the issues, or the crimes that have been alleged. it is not accurate when he tries to say, well everyone does it. again, it is pure deflection from donald. it is him, once again trying to be the victim and to portray himself as the victim of -- this is the best part, the biden witch hunt. because now it's the biden witch hunt. or it's the weaponization of the justice department by the biden administration. it is pure deflection.

it is exactly what donald trump did when he was president. it is what he says he is going to do when he, or god forbid when he becomes president again. he is going to weaponize the justice department to go against any critic of him or his political enemies. >> i have to ask you michael before we go. he has gotten off the campaign trail to be seen at these different court hearings. whether it is the court of appeals in washington to see, and you and i, know you are a lawyer, you know full well that most defendants are not going to go to the actual court of appeals argument in instances like this. a trial is very different, but he made a point of being there. he has made a point of showing up in new york, for this a.g. civil trod fraud trial. what do you think is his strategy? is it all about, i'm here, i will confront, this i'm not afraid? or is it just another campaign stop for him?

what do you make of his decision to keep doing it? >> it's a combination of both laura. first it's a projection of strength that he is trying to demonstrate. he knows that he is weak. and so, when your week you want to project strength. i'm not afraid, i'm going to stand up to judge engoron. no you're not, you are a defendant in a case sitting at the defendants table. trust me i know what it feels like, which is why i said that donald is extremely preoccupied in his head right now. and it looks like he's on the verge of a nervous breakdown. >> michael cohen, thank you so much. >> it's always good to see you. now i want to bring in former trump attorney tim parlatore. tim thank you for being here. first of all, what a week, what a day. some thought that there was some word that he might do more speaking today inside the courtroom. and i'm sure you and i agree,

the notion of a defendant speaking in that context is highly problematic. but -- to me it there was not a whole lot of conversation about the damages. that is what the judge is going to decide on. not whether it was fraudulent, he's already done that. now it's about how much is it going to cost you. the penalties here. the penalties in this case. why were they spending more time focused on what the range that that the attorney general lisa james was speaking about? >> i think the difference, whether you're talking about 2:40, or three 60 or whatever. i think ultimately those are figures that are so far outside of the bounds that is going to be collectible anyways. so it doesn't really matter as much. i think what they are looking to do is to really build the record on appeal. and so i think the more that he is antagonizing the judge to where the judge makes more mistakes in his decision.

one thing is for certain, you can't claim that he didn't preserve these issues for the appeal. he has raised all these objections to the witch hunt and everything else. >> if you don't write, bite that apple at trial forget it in appeal. you can't raise those issues. you have to have said it in the courtroom. so talk to me more about that part, the actual penalties. why are they so high in the sky to you in terms of being able to be collected, or actually ruled on that would stick? >> i think that ultimately what we are talking about is penalties that are essentially going to be taking buildings away. it's going to be shutting down the corporation entirely. and once you liquidate all of those assets are there going to be enough to even satisfy the judgment? i don't know the answer to that. and so -- >> but they do have people who get judgments against them who bank accounts don't seem to support that. you hear of all co-sorts of

high penalties involving cases with other damages. alex jones for example, rudy giuliani is another example. is that for the audience, is that the decision about what you can afford and then they said that price? >> once you get above a certain amount really, damages are supposed to be tied to the actual loss. and so here really should go to deutsche bank and say how much did you actually lose through this long that you gave that you got paid back on. but >> they would say nothing. that's donald trump's claim that there is no victim. here >> exactly, and so that's why you could very easily say that the damages, here in therefore the judgment should be zero. when you get into numbers like this a lot of times it's more of a statement than it is an actual legal judgment. it is sending a message of, we don't like this type of behavior and that's why you are going to have this type of high judgment. the same thing with giuliani judgment. i mean that is a number that you don't normally see in any

defamation case. and i don't think they would've been able to show a specific monetary loss of that amount. but juries and judges they will sometimes give those higher amounts. more as a message. and then, is that something that's going to withstand an appeal. when you think about it chris kais, the attorney, he is not a trial attorney he's an appellate attorney. and so one of the reasons why he's here is just a practice case for an appeal. >> talk to me about the council that's there. who is, do you think, you've been's attorney before. who is controlling this. is the dog wagging the, tail or is the tail wagging the dog? >> when it comes to this case i think that in large respect it has been kind of on land for a while. i know earlier on when ron for shed he was on it, he was handling it appropriately. a course he unfortunately passed way. but within lina hobbs handling

discovery, that's not something where i think anybody was really at the wheel. and so now you get into this trial where it does seem to me to be kind of a combination of building a record for the appeal, and putting out things into the media that are helpful to the campaign. >> the court of public opinion versus the appellate court. we see a lot of focus on the actual trial or. judge >> exactly, there is nothing that i've seen that indicates that they are trying to convince this trial judge to rule in their favor. if anything it seems like they are trying to convince this trial judge to get so mad that he makes bigger mistakes for the appeal. >> hopefully it's not his first time at the rodeo. and being poked as the bear will still lead to a cooler head prevailing. thank you so much, the judge as i mentioned has already found trump liable for fraud in this case. but the question still comes for so many of us asking, is

all of this normal so to speak in business. i'm going to ask an expert, shark tanks kevin o'leary. is next and still to come. the u.s. and allies attacking houthi targets in yemen, what will it mean that president biden is getting in deeper in the arab world as the israel-hamas war rages on. ♪ ♪ ♪

the multi million dollar question. tonight will donald trump be barred from new york's luxury real estate business and forced to pay up to 300 and $70 million, and provide financial records. here to break it down short tank judge and president of o'leary ventures -- some call a mr., wonderful column kevin o'leary tonight. kevin thank you so much for being here today. i have to ask you, look some

people look at all of this and they say, is this what happens in business what trump has said he has done or is accused of being done. you've been doing real estate for decades. does this case strike he was owed? >> well let's leave out trump for a minute, and let's leave out politics and just talk about what happens in real estate development anywhere. if you're a developer you have got a building on the block, anywhere in america. it's worth let's say $500 million. you want to build a building right beside it. you go to the bank and say, this building is worth $500 million, i would like to burrow construction financing loan against this asset and i want you to tell me that it's worth 500 million to. the bank negotiates with you and he's they say no we think it's worth 400 million. you fight it out. you're always trying to show your assets in the brightest light with the sunshine you could possibly determine for them. you want them to be worth the very most, because you're only going to get a 40 or 50% loan

to value as it's called. you boiled at money, in case of the 500 million dollar asset, maybe you get 200 and $50 million, and then you build a new building with the construction finance long. so that's what this case is all about. by the way, forget about trump. every single real estate developer everywhere on earth does this. they always talk about their acid being one of the lot, and the bank says no. that's just the way it is. so in this case, what i'm trying to figure out, and i'm not pro, conned, i don't care about the politics. who lost money? nobody. the bank got paid back the construction finance loan, and a new building was billed. if you are going to sue this case and when, you've got to sue every real estate developer everywhere. this is all they do. this is what they do all day long every day. so i don't think this thing will ever sofi of appeal regardless of what the fine. is this doesn't even make

sense. look i know trump has got a lot of problems in other indictments and everything else. but the is. if you are real estate developer you're watching this in your saying what is this, this is ridiculous? >> the thing is most people who are in this world are not real estate developers. so they don't necessarily know that this is the way, that things are done. even if it might be according to the law. the question about who owes this, money i've heard this argument, he's raised this, argument others of raised this argument who is the victim here. how about the fact that you can get a tax benefit for having overvalued, or for having a different value that's normal. doesn't that deprive the state of revenue, is that enough do you think? >> [laughter] i know you're laughing, but rich people problems are different in my. world go ahead >> i mean i get it i get it, i totally get it. and you're making a valid point. but it's humorous in the sense that, you have to sue every

single real estate developer here in miami, in chicago, in los angeles, in detroit, in dallas. this is what they do every day. this is what the real estate game is all about. it's getting construction financing against stabilized assets. where the building is least, out everybody is renting, it you've got offices, were apartments in it. it's called a stable asset. you value it, and you go to the bank and say, this acid is worth 500 million. and i want to borrow 250 million against. it and the bank, always negotiate with you. everybody understands how this works. that's why i think it's going to be very very hard to make this stick in reality later. this does not -- have all the things that trump is being accused of, and being litigated, four and indicted for. this is not his problem. this is not his problem. he has got much worse problems than this. this is for real estate

developers, this is a joke. >> it's fascinating to me to hear this perspective because you don't often hear it from that particular angle. of course you wonder if everyone is doing, it and one would have to sue everybody. does that mean that we are going to have a bigger prosecutors office, or that the laws have the change to make it so that you can't do this. what is the solution here you? get punished for, it or you shouldn't do, it or should be okay? >> the first question, is everybody doing it, in real estate yes. everybody is doing it. not only domestically but all around the, world this is how it works okay. now you don't want to be donald trump and get embroiled in what looks like, i mean it looks to me like in this presidential race. and i'm not in favor of this. that the courts are being used to try and sway voters on both sides of the equation. i don't understand why we are trying to impeach biden. what a waste of time.

and his son and all this stuff, and all of this litigation on trump hasn't moved the needle for either of these candidates. people don't care about this noise anymore. and it's obvious when you look at these poll results. so why keep doing it? let the voters vote, and decide on the merits. >> i would rather heal policy, i would rather not hear about trump's real estate woes in new york. i would like to hear his tax, plan i want to hear security at the border, i would like to hear foreign policy from both of these candidates so i can make a decision as a voter on which of these people should be president. and the rest of this stuff is just horrific noise. when in america do we sue sitting presidents and former presidents? we've never done this before. this is really bad for the american brand. this is, it feels like venezuela to me or something. this is nuts. i would rather -- we are so close to the, election we are months away let's talk policy. give me some meat on the bone. this stuff is getting too crazy.

>> oh bless your heart mr. wonderful. you want to know the policy in politics. what a washington d.c. that would, be it would be wonderful wouldn't it. nice to see, you thank you so much, i really appreciate hearing your perspective because i lean into it mr. wonderful. thank you so much. up next a big escalation in the middle east. the united states and its allies launching airstrikes against iran-backed militants in yemen. will it lead to a wider war. we will break it all down, we're going to the magic wall, you will see later that the kernel is there. ♪ ♪ ♪

to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi

and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. i think he's having a midlife crisis join the mi'm not.of people taking back their privacy you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is. breaking news tonight.

u.s. led airstrikes against multiple houthi targets in yemen. president biden tonight calling this a direct response to unprecedented attacks by the houthis against international ships in the red sea. biden warning the u.s. will not hesitate to take further action to protect international commerce. to discuss what these stakes really mean. retired colonel cedric leighton, i'm so glad that you're here, i want to start with the basics for a second because everyone does not have the same level of familiarity as you do in your expertise. who are the hutus that we're talking? about >> laura i think this is really important because the houthis are group, some people think of them as an ethnic group did not really an ethnic group, but they were iran back rebel group in yemen. who emerged in the 1990s out of the yemeni civil war at that time. at that they control basically

two thirds of the country in the northern part, and the western part of the country. so you're taking that over from the central government, you almost have to look at them as though they're a quasi-governmental in or operation. they belong to a branch of she is. mom and like i said they control most of northern western yemen as. we'll >> get to the air that we're talking about this red sea region. >> this is it right, here this is what we're talking about. this is the part of yemen that they generally control right here, in the northern area and the western area right. here especially around the port of l. who died, and the capital of some of these are the areas that they really take a large measure in because what they're doing is using the mountainous terrain to cover a lot of what they do they're also using it in order to launch attacks right across here, what we're talking about here is. the very narrow area about 20 or 25 miles wide where all the

shipping goes through to the red sea and the indian ocean, of course it goes up to the suez canal. so where they are as a very strategic area in terms of international coming through here this is an important. area >> exactly, you know they've got about 12% of all national trade goes through here, that's why it's so critically important and that's why it's become so important for the u.s. and its allies to really make sure that none of this commerce is interrupted. let's talk about some of the targets here. issue where has the strike hit, what they've done is they've gone through and they've looked at from an intelligence perspective, what is being used the. go after the radar, systems drawn storage the sites in the, as well as the cruise missile storage and launch. sites they've got all of these kinds of weapons they've used all of these weapons to go after the shipping in the red sea area and in the straight. that is why these were the targets that they struck in the strike this. evening >> what do we use

assets and weapons to do? so >> what we used are these, basically based on the uss eisenhower's carrier strike group we have fighter jets f/a18e's the british bought their own jets. we used a week to launch a tomahawk missile and we used those missiles to strike very precisely at those targets that we mentioned earlier because these are the kinds of weapons that we need to protect our power whenever we need to ensure that we can move commerce from one point to another. we want to protect that calm merson we also want to protect our own military aspects. >> it's a very coordinated attack, it's not knee-jerk reaction done at the end of the day. >> no this is something that was thoroughly planned, it was executed like a valet. and it moved in a way that was done under very precise timing conditions, and very well orchestrated by the naval commanders in that region. >> it's really so important to think, about just going back to this area and how strategic it really is, thank you so much for your expertise you broke

down very. well thank you >> the question of course is what could these strikes mean for president biden, who you know it is already facing a lot of pressure over the war between israel and hamamas. we'll talklk about it t next. ♪ ♪ ♪

breaking news, u.s. and coalition forces hit more than 60, 60 targets at 16 16 militant locations in yemen tonight. that includes u.s. air forces central commander. i want to guided now with commentator karen finney. also here is mike lyon, host of the, can we please talk, podcast. so mike can we please talk about that for a?

second it's very, i really like it, complete please talk? let me ask you both. there is already a lot of pressure mounting tonight when it comes to the decision to launch these strikes. you have a number of, progressive house democrats that are pushing back. there's no progression al approval. this is already one of several different, wars or several different military actions we're involved in. what do you say about the impact on biden's decision? >> look, the situation from what we know so far was getting out of control in terms of the attacks, the issues around some of the shipping routes and the danger. look i think, secretary of state antony blinken in his trip was actually trying to say, let's not let this get out of control, let's not let this -- obviously it seems that that was not going to be an option. unfortunately. i think the president had to take decisive action and in particularly having built a coalition, i think that's the other important factor here

that other countries were engaged in this action with us. >> when you think about it, we're in an election year i'm sure you guys realize. here we are. no it's a it's a thing -- 299 days away, think about it he's the commander-in-chief. right that's one of his titles the commander in chief. part of that role is not just kissing babies and going to pancake breakfasts in pardoning turkeys. there is a lot to the president of the united states. and yet right now we are in the midst of a focus on the republican candidates because the iowa caucus is coming up. when you look at this this is clearly going to be part of the discussion that they mansion. and they might go on attack. >> 100 percent they are going to go on attack. i can already see the fox news panels being set up. forget about my former employer for a second. if you think about the messaging standpoint of this, the secretary of defense is hospitalized of course, we wish him well. but it kind of speaks to, where is president biden involved in all of this. he's not communicating with the secretary of defense -- you heard nikki haley say that

a, lot in the debate she keeps bringing that up. this attack without the approval of congress another talking point that they can start to hammer home as they get through. i know we are going to talk a little bit about campaign trails and stuff like. that these next ten days are very pivotal. january 24th were all going to wake up and be, like okay now we know what's going to happen on the gop side. it doesn't help that the president has these two wars, were not involved in the militarily, but these two wars, these actions of the last couple of weeks. it is not how -- >> can we talk about that, too and we talk about the [laughter] on that point, we are going to know pretty soon in this month. >> we're not going to. >> oh. >> you don't think by january 20? fourth. >> okay i'm sorry, i'm sorry, i'm sorry. it shades of 2016. having run against donald trump. all of these people who are like, conventional wisdom says. are you crazy? have you paid attention to when donald trump is in the race? >> i think his point, is we are going to know the iowa caucuses in new hampshire. >> but that's not the whole

shebang. we are going to, no thank god, will probably be done with ramaswamy. >> oh yes him, yes him saying he's not gonna be on the ballot in colorado. i was like my man you're not making it -- to but the biggest thing is in all seriousness. through the fox news poll on december 18th. would you caucus for donald? trump 83% said yes. 83%. i'm not a math major. but if he wins iowa or desantis has spent 100 and $50 million according to nikki haley yesterday. and you can go to desantis's website to check out that. she spent $15 million in december. he's putting all his chips in the back skit. if he doesn't win, when he finishes in third, when he finishes in third and trump wins. now we're going to go to new hampshire, we are gonna know by the 24th i think. >> nikki haley is doing better in new hampshire though, she has after that south carolina which of course was the governor of that state. >> so a couple of things, now let's just pull out the big table here. so you're right, with desantis if he doesn't do well in iowa,

it's very hard to make a case to donors to continue to support him, to keep it going. i think ultimately that is part of what chris christie was facing. nikki haley on the other hand, if she does well, for second place in iowa. does well in new hampshire. i think the question, be if trump beats or in south carolina i think that's very problematic for her. at the same, time it does seem that she is galvanizing donor support. there have been -- so i think what that means is. she could try to stay in. trump is trying to lock this thing up by super tuesday in march. he has done some things in california by working behind the scenes to change the rules so that it's winners take all and not proportional. he's done some things in nevada, working the rules to make it so wrong desantis super pac can't -- so he's trying to work at the same time. we do still have these legal cases unfolding.

and we don't yet know, really the jack smith case is going to be the one. we don't know what's going to come out of that and how we are going to feel about it, even moderate voters and independent voters. >> that was the focus of chris christie's, campaign in many respects -- those indictments and criminal he's now out of the race. does him getting out of the race. -- we saw john king posting recently on his instagram page about 64% said they would vote for nikki haley. so i'm not going to do this math inwards 39% to 32. he leaves so hopefully they go to him. but i think push back a little bit on it so we've got iowa coming up, we're going to know how republican voters feel an eyewall, we already. no >> evangelical. >> and evangelical voters could. point now, new hampshire more moderate independents, libertarians and board was.

then we've got nevada, then we've got south carolina. so we've got four pivotal points. i think by january 27, i think we will truly know that donald trump will clearly run away with this, or donald trump has got some competition and it's in the form of nikki haley. i think that's going to play better for her for south carolina. if you remember john casey won ohio. and i mean i don't want to bring. up >> no i'm just. say >> you have folks that were representative of those, states they won those states. >> but there are multiple criminal indictments, 40 i don't know trying to overthrow the government just to. >> say okay i agree. >> america -- that was karen finney and -- i hope you enjoyed that, nightcap it was wonderful. >> i agree you're welcome. >> next the other quarter appearance that happen today. now there is a date where hunter biden's trial on tax charges. plus a heated exchange followed this comment from gop congresswoman nancy nay's,

aimed right at hunter biden. >> you are the epitome of white privilege, coming into the oversight committee, spitting in our, face ignoring a congressional subpoena to be deposed. ♪ ♪ ♪

tonight hunter biden pleading not guilty to nine federal charges for allegedly failing to pay more than $1 million in tax in a -- irs. this follows his, well, surprise appearance on capitol hill this week, joining me now democratic congresswoman

jasmine crockett of texas, she's a member of the house oversight committee. congresswoman, thank you for being here tonight. i have to tell, you i have never seen someone so triggering to members of the house as hunter biden was yesterday when he appeared, oh my god, that was shocking. >> yes it was shocking for all, of us but definitely the other side of the aisle lost it. they did not know what to do. we were having a markup on the fact that hunter won't show, up and hunter showed, up and then they are like wait a, minute we do not want to hear from him. that is not the way we are going to do. it they just did not know what to do. >> that is so crazy to me. if you want to hear from, him and he is, there he is saying has to be in public, what is he afraid of, maybe you know with good reason, because you are on this committee? >> yes, no, listen, you are a lawyer, so you understand this. they want to hold him and content, and usually when we are looking to hold someone in contempt, it is someone who's literally spinning in the face of a subpoena. it is someone who's completely trying to ignore it.

and they have not tried to work with his team. he is under -- you just talked about, it he has criminal charges pending against him. you would think that a reasonable committee that was just looking for information will try to work with him and his attorneys to make sure they are accommodating if they are just looking for the truth. but they are not. what they want to say hey, we conducted this deposition behind closed doors, then go out and lie to the people like they normally do, and hunter said what we are not going to do is that. i will come in, i will testify under oath, but it has to be done in the light, in the public. >> he would be a political pawn, but his meeting in many respects but out there as a poster child of something that the republicans want to use. what are they hoping to gain? >> i don't, know i think they want to embarrass the president. i think it is all it is about. for them everything is about this upcoming presidential election, and they're trying to do everything they can to make it look as if trump is this amazing person, like they talk about the fact that trump's

children came in, they did not talk about the fact that half of trump's children were actually a part of the administration. so yes, they needed to come, in because not only are you his children, but you are appointed persons in the government. so you have a different duty than somebody who is just the presidents child. so they do not know how to distinguish where they fail or want to be honest with the american people, and distinguish -- but you know, listen, i just like to make things plain and i think i have made it very plain yesterday as to why no one in their right mind, in his position, would want to come in behind closed doors, and trust them to be the upstanding members that we are used to having and congress. these are the same republicans that have ousted their speaker who now has resigned. these are the same republicans that can barely keep the government open. these are the same republicans who haven't passed any bills accession long. >> let me play the voice of one republican, congressman nancy mace who summed up her impression of hunter biden as

one of privilege. take a listen to this. >> you are the epitome of white privilege, coming into the oversight, criminal spending an hour, faith ignoring a congressional subpoena to be deposed. >> it was a spit in the face at least of mine as a black woman for you to talk about what white privilege looks like, especially from that side of the aisle, and let me quote your now ousted speaker in what he had to say about the republican party, and your lack of diversity. when you look at the democrats, they actually look like america. when i look at my party, we look like the most restrictive country club in america. >> i come from a district where black men have been killed by law enforcement, tased to death in our jails, and i have stood with those black families because i know the differences that they see day today in their life. i try to do the best that i can. >> what is your reaction? >> why did you not play the part about harriet tubman?

>> there was not enough time to go into everything, congresswoman. >> she went to harriet up men. listen, i don't know where nancy was doing, i don't know, but i don't expect nancy mace specifically to try to school somebody about white privilege. if she wants to school someone about white privilege, she may need to talk to her colleagues on her side of the aisle, and tell them what it looks like. because she admitted she would do things that the other members on the side of her aisle will not telling you everything you need to know. now this isn't to say that hunter does or doesn't have white privilege, but this is not the type of circumstance we are looking at. we are saying that, because it is not on that level. to sit there and say that when one of the few black colleagues she has on her side of the aisle was only sitting a few seats from her, and knowing that we had so many amazing black members on the other side of the aisle, to try and do that at that time was just wrong and really offensive,

especially since we know they have no interest in equity, they have no interest in looking out for anybody but old white men as it relates to the policies they are pushing, whether it is pushing back on our freedoms as it relates to -- supporting the lack of dei, supporting getting rid of affirmative action. did not talk to me about white privilege when this is what your party is up to. >> i think you may have just given the definition of lip service. thank you so much, congresswoman jasmine crockett, a pleasure, truly. before we go, be sure to check out my appearance on sofia bush's work and progress podcast. you can listen whenever and wherever you get your podcast. thank you for watching. our coverage continues.