well, there's new legal trouble for hunter biden and there is warnings about a second term. tonight on laura coates live. breaking news tonight, there are new charges and they are criminal charges filed against the president's son. nine counts including -- for taxes, vision of assessment, and falsified loan tax returns. this is a 56-page indictment and it accuses hunter biden of evading federal taxes on millions of dollars while spending money on extravagant lifestyle that includes hotels and exotic cars and more than 188,000 bucks of what they described as adult entertainment. now, remember, a plea deal fell apart in july and now president joe biden will be campaigning

for a second turn while his son, who -- now is fighting to avoid conviction in the federal tax case. meanwhile, an avalanche of warnings as election day on the horizon less than a year away. there are many warnings that a second trump presidency could throw everything out the window. we heard from trump himself, by the, way something different when sean hannity asked him the other night if he could promise never to abuse power as, well, retribution. >> he says, you're not gonna be a dictator are you? i said no, other than day one. we're closing the border and were drilling, drilling, drilling. after that i'm not a dictator. okay, big question tonight, are there any guardrails left? well, here tonight someone who may have those answers. joining me now is eric holder,

former u.s. attorney general under president obama. i'm so glad that you're here, actually served as a prosecutor while you are the attorney general, so it's so good to see you again. there's a lot that has happened, though, since those moments, and there is some new news tonight before we get into all that we want to talk about tonight. there's new news about hunter biden, as you well know,, there is now an additional indictment. this time it is a new, nine count indictment against him. it includes three felony counts, refusing to pay taxes in california, and he's accused, broadly, of a four-year scheme. this one into avoid paying one point $9 million. this comes after, of course, that plea offer and plea deal blew up in court. this is really troubling for him, in particular. is it not? it's difficult, the plea deal looked like it was going to resolve everything, when that plea deal fell apart he became pretty clear because of the issues that they're going to be two separate indictments. so this indictment, i think, was expected, although i've not had the chance to review the

indictment. nobody wants to be under felony indictment into different places. so, for him personally, this is something that's going to be very difficult. >> reporter: he's been talking, many have been using him as the center of an argument. on the one hand, they talk about a two tiered justice system. you, of course, the former attorney general has a unique insight into how the justice system really works. but, also he saying, look, i'm being targeted. it's a continuation of a larger discussion about the weaponization of the government. you heard this a lot. when you see a case like this, it's hunter biden an example of a witch hunt or a justice being at least pursued? >> it's interesting, i'm not sure i'd call it a witch hunt and spoken to former colleagues, both republican and democrat, who were at united states attorneys and asked them, you have these facts in your office would you had brought this case? the answer to part of person was no. this is not a case that we would have brought. there would've been some kind of resolution along the lines

that were suggested in the possible plea agreement. i think that he is being targeted, but treated a bit differently because it really is. there is a political component of this case, which is not to say that the special prosecutor, mr. weiss, is doing anything interview inappropriate, but there's political pressure that exists in this case that you would not see with other members. >> reporter: the pressure being that if he does not pursue the, case based on the last name of hunter, he must be trying to do a favor for joe biden? is that the assumption? >> something along those lines. you had whistleblowers who claim that, even in spite of the fact that there were indictments brought, that not all that the investigators wanted to have done was in fact. done that was refuted by the attorney general, by mr. weiss himself. i don't know if there's any proof of that, but there is no question that there is political, it is a political component to this. >> reporter: it's interesting because as you mentioned, why sent letters to congress, also addresse tsuggest that the whistleblower did not

share his concern or that they may be added to something to it or mate embellishment. it is very clear, initially, about why he was doing what he was doing. now this has been brought, still, the political component of this is very, very evident for so many people. one of the reasons why hunter biden is saying, look, if you want me to testify at congress, in front of, you ain't got to be done in front of a camera with the american people can hear because there is the assumption that you won't twist my words or cherry-pick. do you have concerns about the pushback that congress is giving to have a complete -- behind closed doors, rather in front of the camera conversation? >> if i were hunter biden's lawyers want him interacting with congress at all. because who knows what he will, say they're what questions will be asked. he is facing charges in a criminal setting, so i wouldn't want him testifying before congress. but, to the extent that he's going to do that, we're interacting with congress, i think that is inclination was probably right. let's put this out in front of the american people, let's not

have something done behind closed doors where words can be twisted, excerpts can be -- let's put it all out there for everyone to see. >> reporter: part of the details of this new indictment are likely things that no one wants to talk about in front of the camera, some of the details here about how he spent the money. instead of paying hush taxes on the allegations, allegedly spent the money on $10,000 to purchase a membership in a sex club, paying somebody approximately $6,000 for tax like buying food, alcohol, and underwear. the figures go on in terms of what he chose to allegedly pay instead of taxes. do you think that contributes to the perception that this is a tarring and feathering in the public square, or these type of details that are necessary to include in this indictment? >> once you decide you're going to bring an indictment, you want to bring the strongest case you possibly can, bring a case that is going to have the greatest appeal to a jury so that you can get a conviction and those kinds of facts are

the kinds of things that any prosecutor would want to include an indictment to argue before the jury. this is not some kind of ordinary, run-of-the-mill tax case that this was abuse of the tax system. that is why those things were included in there. >> you are bombarded with all of these conversations politically speaking that to tell you that the government is weaponized, to tell you that there is this two tiered system of justice, which, by the way, there's no secret in america that we do have, perhaps, the two different tracks. the haves and have-nots. this is not new news, the way they're talking about now is just to suggest that the department of justice is used for retribution. that if you are a political appointee of the president of the united states, as you were under president obama, then you would be the -- when you hear those statements it must offend you to think about the legacy of the department that you ran? >> yeah, it's just not true. the justice department, by and large, and there have been exceptions, it is really an

institution that is anti political, there is politically neutral, that really just follows the facts and law and makes determinations on that basis. when the justice department does not to do that, that was when the justice department gets into trouble. the attorney generals are certainly part of the presidents cabinet, but they are different. i remember when i was being confirmed, patrick leahy was in the judiciary committee and said you're not going to be the secretary of justice, you're going to be the attorney general of the united states and you're different than the other cabinet members. given the power that the justice department has, it must always remain neutral in its determinations, try to push out of consideration and political considerations. i think that merrick garland certainly has done that. there are only where exceptions were i think that has not been the case, john mitchell under richard nixon, i would say that bill barr under donald trump certainly let political things get into the determinations that they made. >> reporter: i keep hearing the political discussion about, in very broad terms at times, a threat to our democracy.

but what you described is very specific and it is nuanced and needs to be fleshed out more because who was the attorney general of the united states has a direct effect on so many factors. can you just describe, a little bit, interim's of the role and how it would transform? if an attorney general we're not looking at things purely from the facts, of purely from the evidentiary burden and how to meet it. but, instead, taking directives on who to prosecute from the president of the united states? >> sure, if the president told a compliant attorney general, i don't like what this congressman said about me or did to me over the course of the last two or three years, whatever, open an investigation on that person. that attorney general could tell a compliant united states attorney to just do that, talk to a compliant fbi director who could be placed by the president to open an investigation and to just look through that person's life and look for anything that you can possibly find. who is to say, what you find in

any person's life that might run afoul of the law, and even beyond that. the fact, the mere fact of an investigation of a person who is a public figure can be reputation ruining, it can be politically damaging, not even if you find anything, it just the fact that the investigation itself exists. if you've got the full weight of the justice department, a full weight of the president, full weight of the fbi focusing on somebody like that, that can be extremely damaging into not only that person individually, but to our democracy rich large. >> reporter: you have an investigation actively right now. some investigations that are out there, politically, that is exactly the point that you described. just enough seed planting let something flourish. i'm not gonna tell you everything, but here are some seeds, up with them over, there and you decide what to do with it. some would look at this issue in terms of hunter biden in particular and say, well, there have been species planted. reputationally it doesn't just damage, him we are less than a year away from a presidential election. does it damage joe biden to

have these indictments against his side specifically? >> that remains to be seen. the charges are against hunter biden. i've seen no indication that there is any kind of connection between the president and the actions for which his son has been charged. it doesn't mean, however, that donald trump or republicans are not going to try to draw those connections. they have tried to weaponize, i think, the justice department in ways that is inconsistent with the best -- of the department. we'll have to see how successful they, are but again, i don't think there is any proof, any proof at this point that there is a connection between the allegations involving hunter biden and his father, the president of the united states. >> reporter: when you look at the process of getting not only appointed by confirming attorney general, there is the possibility, sneakily, that one could have a series of acting attorney generals who need not get the full stamp of approval from congress. is that possible here in any of these positions? >> sure, we've seen the former president do exactly that.

he made that determination. wait a minute, i need not to send people up to the senate to get confirmed, i can put them in acting positions and we saw a whole bunch of people in a variety of executive branches who are acting and who have, virtually, the full power of any attorney general who might be confirmed. so, that is another way in which he can get around these american norms that have always kept the justice department to separate and apart from politics. >> politics is out there, and one surefire way to address it is through voting, right? democracy is not just in the voting, it's in the counting, and when you count the number of people in different districts, who is there, not, excluded, you might add up to a lot of gerrymandering in this country. voting rights has been and continues to be a very big, passionate project for you. i served in the voting rights section, and served along and underneath, and i look at this and say what must eric holder be thinking when you see the voting rights act of 1965

chopped away from the section five and getting that formula that doses which states have to have a preclearance? now to section two and saying, only private litigant can bring these cases, no longer the naacp, for example, or the different agencies. only doj can bring that, not private litigants. what do you say to that? >> i am concerned about what has been done to the voting acts of 1960, five which is the crown jewel of the civil rights movement. in 2013 there was the shelby county case, shelburne counties that took away the preclearance authority that the justice department out. a really stunning blow to the justice department. now, out of the eighth circuit, there is a, this new series that apparently has been found 58 years into the existence of the voting right act, never seen before, that says only the justice department can bring cases under section two as opposed to a private litigant. there have been about 185

successful cases brought under section two, only 15 brought by the united states department of justice. about 90% of the successful section two cases have been brought by private litigant. if you look at the legislative history of the voting rights act they talk about these cases being brought by the government, as well as privately begins. you had a trump appointed judge in the eighth circuit in arkansas to say that he brought out this before any of the parties raised it. can they actually bring these cases. now, the latest incident raises the possibility and then two judges in the eighth circuit said that we agree. inconsistent with what the fifth circuit said, i guess just a few weeks before that. inconsistent with what to other circuits said about the ability of private litigants to bring these cases. so, i am very concerned about what they are trying to do to section two, one of the few remaining and vital parts of the voting rights act of 1965. >> reporter: georgia is on everyone's mind for a reason. one reason, today, is that the

republican controlled legislator passed a new congressional map. this might sound similar to other cases as well. this is after a judge found that the prior one violated the voting rights act as well. critics say that it's not in line with its orders, so i'm -- you that can't be a sustainable promise? >> this is, in some, ways a sordid repeat of the history that we've seen in the south before where the executive branches in legislators in the south just ignored court orders. we saw, we won a case in allen, the alabama case that said there is racial gerrymandering in alabama, and we saw legislation there try to ignore the united states supreme court which is a very conservative united states supreme court. they have been slapped down again. we saw the same thing in georgia where the federal courts have said that you have racial gerrymanders here, both at the congressional level and at the state level, as well.

now, they have tried to construct a system that shrinks the number of opportunity zones that black people have, opportunity districts for black people to express themselves. inconsistent, again, with what the courts have said. so, we have to be vigilant, we have to have the courts on the side of the law and we have to try to make sure that those in the legislative and executive branches don't do things that george wallace did back in the 1960s and less dramatics did in the 1960s. it is a sordid and painful and distasteful history that republicans in the southern states are, apparently, comfortable with. >> reporter: i mean, tacking districts, cracking them to dilute the voting strength, this is all going on in our country. it is really scary time to think about these legislators saying, it's easier to ask for forgiveness then forgiveness. it it puts them on a difficult pass.

i want to ask you about the alarming rise of antisemitism to-ism across the country, especially on college campuses. -- we will be back in a moment. >> let me be clear, when are targeted because of their beliefs or identity, and when israel is singled out because of anti jewish hatred that is antisemitism and it must be condemned. and condemned unequivocally and without context.

>> tonight, the president of the university of pennsylvania's job may be on the line. there are serious calls for her to resign from that contentious congressional hearing about antisemitism on college campuses.

the leaders of harvard, and mighty, and you pan are under and facing intense scrutiny from business leaders, donors, members of congress, and now even the white house. here is what pen president liz mcgill had to say just on tuesday. >> ms. mcgill, at penn does calling for the genocide of violate pens rules or code of conduct. yes or no? >> if the speech turns into conduct it can be harassment, yes. >> i am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of jewish people, does that conduct constitute bullying or harassment? >> if it is directed or severe and pervasive it is harassment. >> the answer is? yes >> it is a context dependent decision. >> reporter: after that hearing mcgill released a video statement attempting to clarify by what she meant by all that context. >> i was not focused on, but i

should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. it is evil, plain and simple. >> reporter: not sure if it's a daylight and $1 short, we'll have to wait and. c but former attorney general eric holder is back with us right now. i want to ask you about the nature of these hedging conversations or the minefield people seem to be walking on, even when it is cases that seem to be quite clear. is this about the battle of free speech? is that what is happening right now, or are people just unwilling to answer that yes or nos? >> there is a free speech component to it, but the way in which the question was posed to those presidents was a pretty easy, i think, and answer. anytime that anybody is advocating for the killing of any group based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, that has to run

afoul of some kind of norm, some kind of rule, some kind of prohibition that i hope would exist at our institutions of higher education. so, i'm not sure why they answered the way in which they did, but i think that their answers could have been a lot more clear. >> reporter: now the ramifications of all of this, of course, calls for women -- resignation, but it's also about a larger conversation happening nationally and, frankly, globally what we're talking about these issues because hate related speed can turn into hate related crimes and the general atmosphere of terror, as well. tonight, there is a 28-year-old man in custody after allegedly saying, free palestine. but also firing two shots from a shotgun outside an albany synagogue. i'm wondering from you with the rise of these kinds of attacks. we've seen from director wray, he talked about an exponential increase in antisemitic crimes and islamophobic crimes and hate crimes, more broadly. is there a way to address and

prosecute in an eye towards deterrence? >> it is all about deterrence. people cannot do the kinds of things that this 28-year-old allegedly did to go out sight a synagogue, fire a gun, that is a person that needs to be held responsible and made an example of. if people are allowed to do these things and go unpunished, you will see repetition of those kinds of incidents. but it also means that people in positions of power have to watch the language that they use. and you can be against the positions of the netanyahu government, but you don't have to go as far as some have gone with regard to things that, i think, move into antisemitism. our national leaders, more generally, when it comes to hate filled speech and trying to demonize certain people, certain groups of people, trying to set us upon each other. all that leads to an atmosphere, environment in which hate has a

chance to grow and in which loan wolves become energized. i think that any former prosecutor, i am sure director wray would tell, you the thing that really worries you are the lone wolf who get energized. maybe that 28-year-old who heard somebody say something and decides that he wants to take some kind of action. those are the things that give me concern. this is not a problem that cropped up overnight. >> ten years ago, talking to the atl, you had that speech to them talking about how it would be naive to suggest that it is all done. antisemitism, any sort of bigotry is done. that was ten years ago and we are still here. >> right, these are problems along the making will take some time to. resolve but there are problems that are subject-able to solutions. we're talking about man-made problems that i think are sub septal to man-made and woman made solutions. if we talk to one another, if we get to understand each other, if we respect each other, we can disagree with one another and we try to do so in an appropriate way. >> reporter: a pleasure to have you here and pick your brain.

thank you so much, general holder. >> thank you for having me. a texas woman having to sue to get an abortion, saying that her pregnancy is threatening her life. first, a judge ruled in her favor, but then the state attorney general weighed in. we will tell you what happened, next.

well, tonight, a texas judge has sided with a woman who sued to get an abortion for her high-risk pregnancy. kate cox, who with 20 weeks pregnant, filed a lawsuit saying that her on board baby has a genetic condition and carrying the child to term

could threaten her own life. cox -- tries in the 18, a chromosome anomaly that typically is fail before or soon after birth. the texas a.g., ken paxton, is now threatening legal consequences for any doctor involved in providing the abortion if mrs. cox goes forward with it. he claims that she failed to show that she qualifies for the, quote unquote, medical emergency exception with the strict abortion ban after six weeks of pregnancy. the law defines a medical emergency as a life-threatening, physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as a certified by a physician, a place of the women in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of major bodily function and was less an abortion is performed. i want to bring in judge gordon, who is a retired california's theory or court judge. judge, thank you for being here

this evening. when we heard stories about this, in many ways, it was contemplated right after the dobbs decision and even before, at what might ultimately happen. and then one thing that people point at is this idea of a definition of a medical emergency. who gets to decide that and who should it be. here, it is a judge making the decision, not just the doctor or the woman. is that what ought to happen here? >> well, first of all, these kinds of issues, i think, shouldn't even be in the courts. it should be between a woman and her physician, but that is not the case in texas and many other states. so it becomes a question of fact. here, mrs. cox came to court and said will you please restrain the state of texas from banning an abortion for me, this is a narrowly-focused case and so the judge did what judges are supposed to do.

the judge held an evidentiary hearing on this request for a restraining order and the states attorney, the attorney general, had an opportunity and did present evidence and miss cox presented the testimony of her own physician who gave a medical evaluation, saying that this should be a medical exception because her life is at stake. literally life and death. so, what the judge did was consider everything and came to a conclusion based on the facts and the law. as a result, said that the state of texas, in this narrow instance, should be restrained from keeping her from getting an abortion. i will tell you, laura, the most outrageous thing about this hearing, and you mentioned it very briefly, you have two key players here. judge gamble, who i found to be quite courageous, and mr. paxton, who i found to be entirely egregious.

the judge made a valid order, and that order is valid because it has not been overturned or reversed by an appellate court. even though the judge issued a valid order, this man, mr. paxton, threatened and continues to threaten and prosecute anybody who follows the judges order. the doctor, it could be the person who drives her to the hospital to have the procedure, he is basically threatening everyone and my view, this is obstruction. it amounts to obstruction for which he should be held accountable. this man needs to be disciplined immediately for standing in the way of implementing the judges order. >> reporter: it's such a methodical produce that you have taken and, just looking at it through a different order, about a non controversial topic. the idea that a judges order would not be followed for so many would seem egregious on its face, but yet you enter into the controversy of abortion itself and the

terminology of how one comes to this conclusion. judge, i want to focus on the vagueness for a judge to look at this statute, it talks about medical emergencies. you say that the testimony of her own doctor came in. you are a lawyer, you are a judge, you are not, i am assuming, somebody who is a medical doctor as well who is relying on that aspect of your career. the vagueness of that term presents a lot of problems. is it to deter those from even endeavoring to try, or is it supposed to be broad enough to enable more medical emergencies to be found? >> well, i think, first of all, that this legislation and the definition of medical emergency in texas, it was done by people who were inept. they were in a rush to do what they could to control women's bodies and came up with this language. so, the judge, given this language, it is the law, has to do her best to interpret that

law. and she did. we know that she did her best because she issued findings, she made findings of fact. there is no jury here, so the judge is both the jury as well. it made facts and said, okay, these are the facts. this is who i believe and then said that i will apply the law to this. now, there may be, an instance in this in texas where it is going to go up on appeal in terms of getting more clarity on what medical emergency means. but, i really think that the language is not that vague. i think the judge found, correctly, that miss cox fits that definition. her life is at stake and also, as the judge made a finding, in the possibility of her, again, being able to have children's jeopardized if she is not permitted to go forward with the abortion. for mr. paxton and others who claim that they are pro-life, then why are they standing in the way of this woman who may not be able to give life again as a result of not being able

to get an abortion? >> reporter: so thought-provoking to think about this. judge, one of the main issues i see is that you have people who will say two things. one, she should just go out of state than, if she has an issue with us. if she wants medical care in her own state. number one, number two, this is just one person. you cannot decide issues like this, i would assume, on a case by case k basis and have a universal standard applied. really important conversation tonight. thank you so much. >> sure, thank you. an american is being held in venezuela and it has been more than six weeks. his family claims that they were extorted for thousands of dollars to secure his release. the family joins me next.

i want to bring all your attention to an american who's being held in venezuela. you see him right there. his name is savoie right and it was arrested on october 24th and is now being charged with terrorism related offenses according to the attorney. but here's the catch. his family said that he is being wrongfully detained and it's not just that. they're also claiming they have been extorted for thousands of dollars in attempt to secure his release. so what is being done to get him home? well, as of now not much. that's because if this hour the venn u.s. government and venezuela's autocratic ruler is, trying to take over parts of his oil rich neighbor ghana,

decides on florida. now the state department has labeled venezuela with a level for travel advisory saying quote to not travel to venezuela, due to crime, civil unrest, kidnapping and the arbitrary enforcement of local laws and quote. now other countries on that list include iraq, iran, russia, somalia, north korea, yemen, syria. now it's critical to know that savoie right, he's not a celebrity, he's not an athlete, perhaps he's not even known to either of you. he's not a journalist. he's just a regular american who according to his family was seemingly in the wrong place at the wrong time. his family joins me now. his father's mother aaron stewart and his father and his sister, thank you for joining me this evening. this must be a particularly scary time to think about where he is, what could be happening

and what would come next. erin, if i could begin with you. are you in touch with savoie at all. do you know how he's being held, how he's being treated there right now? >> thank you laura first of all for having us on. we really appreciate it and bringing light to this situation. it's horrific, there's no words for this, it's devastating, it's a nightmare beyond description. we do know that savoi is being held to d.c. i.e. and much of the government intelligence. we do know that he is not being treated well. that's after he's been passed around from government facility to facility after being extorted and we do know that the conditions there are extreme. we do know that savoi had passed out due to the abuse and the neglect and was taken to a

medical facility. we know it's just a horrific situation for him. >> when you talk about the abuse and all that's going on, perhaps elephant in the room, our concerns is that this is a black man in this country, in this particular system. and you have particular concerns that this is a black man in this prison and in this government custody. why do you raise that? >> yeah, that's one we all kind of know the inclination of one being a black male in the american prison system let alone south america. so our main concern is not just a treatment. we realize that since savoi has been custody, we really have been given the run around of so many different levels, with the venezuelan government as well as our own. has savoi lately been treated as a second-class hostage by both government officials.

and as you mentioned earlier, he's a normal guy. he's our family. two other people, you might be not be anything, but tua sees everything. and it's imperative that we bring light to the situation. life matters, his safety matters and we want to make sure that he is given the same treatment as other celebrities, that other people who've got liberated very quickly. we want to bring attention to this, and we were really pushing and calling for savoi to be designated as being wrongfully detained. we know that they're currently negotiations in process and we need him to be a part of that. >> the warnings against going define as venezuela may have -- he was there in that particular location. it does not change the fact that you want him home and it doesn't change the fact that he is now facing terrorism charges. he's accused of conspiring with venezuelan opposition members. you and i have spoken about this.

does that sound aaron like your son, rose it like your brother? >> that is not my son. my son is a six foot ten gentle giant with the kindest heart and spirit. free spirit, loving spirit, loves life, loves people, loves culture. that's why he was there, he fell in love with south america. fluent in spanish and portuguese and english, fell in love with venezuela. so the fact that they have now, savoi was kidnapped. he was kidnapped and has been held for ransom. we have been extorted multiple times. >> all he's been in government custody, and not only that he was interrogated, he was tested, he was cleared and not but one but two facilities in there moving forward with the deportation process at which time the military intelligence intervened and have now turned him into a political prisoner,

which is just one of the many points in the livingston act of the crew toria that he meets which would make him eligible for the designation to be wrongly detained. it's imperative that we give back the due process. this human rights are being violated on a daily basis in venezuela and we know that. so we are pleading with the state department do everything that they can in their power. it's imperative that secretary of state antony blinken sees his case and reviews it as soon as possible. savoi must be included his life must matter, and we will do everything in our power to make sure that that happens. most recently, brian nichols who is a, he actually included savoi in a press non fronts as a wrongfully detained native american. he can see how blatantly obvious it has been that he's been kidnapped, but we sometimes still have to prove that to our government.

what is so obvious? we have provided them the information, all the evidence, all of the receipts, all of the sources, all of the tax. we've shown them how his human rights been accessed. he has not been allowed access to his attorney, was put into a forced disappearance for four weeks, where no one could contact him, no one knew worry was in solitary confinement. everyone is still somehow done founded. >> bureaucracy. >> about whether or now he meets this criteria. it's so obvious. >> sorry, man i didn't want to cut you off, excuse me i do apologize. people are wondering what the state department is set to, a source spokesman for the saying that they were aware of that savoi was arrested in venezuela, but for privacy and safety and operational reasons, we do not

always make wrongful detention laces come, or discuss any details of internal deliberative processes. well aaron, ma is a, i certainly think you are being made aware of all that could be done to help your brother and your son. thank you so much for joining me tonight. i am so sorry to hear what's going on. >> thank you so much for your time and thank you for caring. we appreciate you so much. >> thank you so much. we'll be right back.

well we started the new program today with new charges against the current president signed and will finish up with this charges against the previous president. donald trump is set to take the stand in his court over a billion civil fraud trial monday in new york city but instead of you spoke as minute side the court launching a very familiar refrain. >> there's not a judge in the country the is not judging the country they would've taken this case. >> while, if you had it on your bingo card you win, it also seems to be the free space that's always mentioned. and while former president may want to take the stand, his lawyer while they may have a different idea. >> he still wants to take the stand even though my advice is at this point you should never take the stand with a gag order. but he is so firmly against what is happening in this court.

>> we are going to cover it all here on cnn. thank you for watching, ourr coveverage contitinues.