Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Law School Dean: "Nothing Has Prepared Me For The Anti-Semitism I See"; Netanyahu Opposes Ceasefire In Gaza Unless Hamas Frees Hostages; Deepfake Nudes of New Jersey High School Students Cause Uproar; Virginia Election Could Be Key 2024 Bellwether. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired November 04, 2023 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:40]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Generational divide. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

When it comes to supporting Israel, America is seeing a significant split. Thousands protesting in D.C. today to demand both a ceasefire in the Israel Gaza war and an end to U.S. aid to Israel. In many cities and on many campuses, missing persons style posters created by Israeli artists to support the hostages being torn down. The President of Israel, Isaac Herzog, wrote this in the "New York Times," "Professors and students at American colleges make speeches and sign statements justifying terrorism, even glorifying it." And then, "It would have been unthinkable to hear such moral confusion uttered after the September 11 attacks or after bombings in London, Barcelona and Baghdad."

So, what's different this time? Why the troubling rise in anti- Semitism data suggests it's generational? By way of example, according to new polling from Quinnipiac, half of registered voters in the U.S. approve of Israel's response to the October 7 attack, while 35 percent disapprove. But among voters 18 to 34, those numbers flip, 32 percent approve, 52 percent disapprove. An earlier Quinnipiac poll found that while 10 percent of Americans hold Israel more responsible for the outbreak of violence, among 18 to 34 year olds, that number basically doubles to 19 percent. And only 55 percent of them blame Hamas.

The founder and CEO of another poll, Harris X, Dritan Nesho blamed some of Gen Z's opinions on its relatively uninformed views of the conflict. Nesho told PolitiFact they, quote, "don't have a clear distinction between Hamas the terrorist organization and the Palestinian national movement."

Last month, a Berkeley Law Professor, Steven Davidoff Solomon, outraged some on the campus with this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Don't hire my anti-Semitic law students. In it, Solomon recounts that last year the student organization Law Students for Justice in Palestine, asked other student groups to adopt a bylaw that bans supporters of Israel from speaking at events and 11 other groups adopted it. He wrote this, "The student conduct at Berkeley is part of the broader attitude against Jews on university campuses that made last week's massacre possible. It's shameful and has been tolerated for too long. It's time for the adults to take over, and that includes law firms looking for graduates to hire."

In response, more than 200 Alumni signed an open letter to the law schools Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who will join me here in just a moment, he's a constitutional law scholar who happens to be Jewish. The letter urged Chemerinsky to publicly address the harm done by the article and to uphold freedom of speech for all students. Chemerinsky sent an email affirming the school's commitment to freedom of speech, including language that others find offensive, even deeply offensive. A couple of weeks later, perhaps he changed his mind when he published an op-ed of his own in the LA Times called, Nothing has prepared me for the anti-Semitism I see on college campuses now.

He wrote these words, "There has been enough silence and enough tolerance of anti-Semitism on college campuses. I call on my fellow university administrators to speak out and denounce the celebrations of Hamas, and the blatant anti-Semitism that is being voiced."

Just this past Wednesday, more than two dozen major law firms sent out a letter to the deans of 14 of the nation's top ranked law schools. It said this, "As educators at institutions of higher learning, it's imperative that you provide your students with the tools and guidance to engage in the free exchange of ideas, even on emotionally charged issues, in a manner that affirms the values we all hold dear and rejects unreservedly, that which is antithetical to those values. There's no room for anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, or any other form of violence, hatred or bigotry on your campuses, in your workplaces or our communities. "

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. Should a student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process?

[16:05:03]

Erwin Chemerinsky joins me now. As mentioned, he's the dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. His latest book, "Worse than Nothing, The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism."

Professor, great to have you back. Here's the question. Where is the line? Today there are these large protests, is it defensible to march for Palestinian rights? Is it defensible to burn an American or Israeli flag? And what about advocating from the river to the sea?

ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, DEAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, SCHOOL OF LAW: All of that is clearly protected by the First Amendment is the right to advocate for Palestinian rights, this the right to defend what Israel is doing. The Supreme Court has said there's a right to burn an American flag, so there's officer right to burn an Israeli flag. There's the right to chant from the river to the stake. All of this is being protected by the First Amendment.

SMERCONISH: OK. A colleague of yours suggested to prospective employers that they asked students to what organizations have you belong? Is that an appropriate question?

CHEMERINSKY: I don't think it's an appropriate question when it's put that way. I'm uncomfortable with law firms using students feature ideology as a basis for denial of jobs. Professor Solomon has the right to express his views, but they're not the views of the law school. We're committed to helping every student find a job.

SMERCONISH: I referenced the letter that was sent to the law deans from so called big law. I'm sure you're familiar with it. I read one paragraph aloud. What's your take on that?

CHEMERINSKY: I certainly agree with the law firms in condemning anti- Semitism and condemning Islamophobia. Unnatural from the letter with the law firms are asking the law schools to do.

SMERCONISH: Well, are you concerned about chilling speech on campuses? I mean, blatant anti-Semitism, I would argue, needs to be called out, and perpetrators of it held accountable. We can have a conversation, I guess, we are having a conversation as to what that actually looks like. But at what point does big law go too far? And might the schools go too far, and students feel like they can't show up and even witness an event on campus for learning purposes?

CHEMERINSKY: Students can say what they wish, but law firms can decide that expression of certain views don't reflect what they weren't present within the firm. Imagine that a student were in this rally or on a blog to express just horrible white supremacist views. In the law firm, there's higher that person says, we don't want someone with those views in our firm, the student had the right to express white supremacy and the law firm has the right to say, but that's not what we want within our firm. So, students have free speech rights, but law schools can't protect them from the consequences of their expression.

SMERCONISH: Does my analysis, my summary of the polling data at the outset of this program on the subject of a generational divide, does that comport with your observation and your experience? You've been around students for many, many years, you're an astute observer.

CHEMERINSKY: Yes, it very much corresponds with what I see every day, within my law school, within like campus. At campus across the country, there is a deep divide between a group of students who believe that Israel shouldn't exist at all, and to celebrate what Hamas did, and a group of students who deeply believe in the importance of Israel and condemn what Hamas did is terrorism. I don't know how to find a bridge between those students.

SMERCONISH: How much of that is due to a misunderstanding of the facts on the ground? I shared at the outset of the program a quote from an individual who runs one of the polls who said he's not so sure that they distinguish properly between being supportive of Palestinian rights and the actions of Hamas on 10/7, how do you see that?

CHEMERINSKY: I very much agree with that statement. I think my students who celebrated what Hamas did equate Hamas with Palestinian rights. And I think there is generally among students a lack of historical awareness. This week was the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which said that there would be a Jewish state where Israel's located. My guess is that few of my students have ever heard of the Balfour Declaration. SMERCONISH: Professor Chemerinsky, in the piece that you authored that I read from aloud, you spoke of your own experience and some of the anti-Semitism to which you've been exposed. Expand on that.

CHEMERINSKY: I certainly seen within my law school and my campus celebration what Hamas did. Also a week yesterday, there was an Instagram post of me with military makeup saying that I had taken an indefinite leave from the law school to join the IDF. I held a town hall which had been previously scheduled and the students said to me, the only way that you could feel safe in the law school was to get rid of the Zionists in the law school, which I took is to get rid of the Jews in the law school.

[16:10:07]

SMERCONISH: And what's your response to that? How do you deal with that?

CHEMERINSKY: Respond directly. Of course, we can't get rid of -- with the law school those with any viewpoint. But I also said response, I consider myself a Zionist since that I support the existence of Israel. And many Jewish students when they wrote me afterwards and said, they wish they had spoken out, but in the environment, it was difficult. But I do want to make clear, there's a great difference of opinion within the law school and on the campus of all caps (ph).

I don't want anyone to get the impression that the viewpoint of that student is representative of most or even a significant minority of the students.

SMERCONISH: How are you -- final question, how are you answering my poll question today? Should a student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process?

CHEMERINSKY: The difficulty that -- depends what the political speech. If it was to expresses white's supremacy as hiring process, I think students celebrates what Hamas did on October 7, I understand why law firms want to consider that as well. But also I wouldn't want law firms to decide who to hire based on whether to support Biden or Trump.

SMERCONISH: Professor, appreciate your sentiments as always. Thank you for being here, Erwin Chemerinsky. He just answered the poll question of the day at smerconish.com. I don't think that he likes that it's a binary choice, but it is what it is. Go vote. Should a student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process?

From the world of Twitter, Katherine (ph), what do we have? Make sure you're hitting me up during the course of the program on social media. It's not about the political religious beliefs of an employee, but if those beliefs will disrupt the operation of the workplace, says Ed Hudley. By the way, Ed, I don't think this is a conversation limited to just big law. Right?

We could be having this about any employers. Like, where is the line of when it matters? Keep voting. I'll give you the results as they stand at the end of the hour.

Up ahead, mutual dehumanization. That's what Pulitzer Prize winning "New York Times" columnist Nicholas Kristof says he recently saw on the ground in Israel, the worst he says he's ever seen. And with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly rejecting U.S. pleas for humanitarian pause comes the prospect of a prolonged war, which Kristof says will only make things worse, Nicholas Kristof will join me in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:16:21]

SMERCONISH: In Israel, despite calls by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and others for humanitarian pause in the fighting to allow relief to reach the citizens of Gaza, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday there would be no ceasefire until the hostages are released. CNN is reporting that U.S. officials are anticipating a new phase in the coming days in which Israel decreases the scale of its air campaign and focuses on a more tactical ground operation.

Joining me now was Nicholas Kristof, two time Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the "New York Times." His latest piece, losing hope in the West Bank.

Nicholas, nice to see you. I'm looking at the front page of today's "New York Times" above the fold. And the headline is the conventional wisdom, Israel rebuffs Blinken's plea for war pause. But now I'm going to put up on the screen what Axios is reporting. They say what actually took place is this, that Blinken had a message according to one U.S. and two Israeli officials, "We don't want you to stop, but help us help you get more time."

How do you read the tea leaves? What do you think really is being said between American representatives and the Israelis?

NICHOLAS KRISTOF, COLUMNIST, "NEW YORK TIMES": So, maybe not surprisingly, I tend to think that the "Times" got it right, that -- I think that the White House and Tony Blinken have felt increasing pressure and have wanted to have a genuine humanitarian pause and, you know, not some kind of lasting ceasefire, but some period where people would be able to move out of Northern Gaza safely. I think they'd like to see more fuel imports into Gaza and some relief, partly to take the pressure off of Israel and off of the United States for its role in this. And I think, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu, you know, pretty much stiffed Tony Blinken pretty directly.

SMERCONISH: In other words, you're suspect of the alternative version, which is this is becoming a domestic issue in the United States, maybe 100,000 in Washington, D.C. today. So publicly, the administration, you know, tries to put guardrails on the Israeli ground incursion, but privately says we understand this is what you've got to do. Nicholas Kristof, a little suspicious of that analysis.

KRISTOF: Yes, I am. I do think that the administration would welcome a humanitarian pause at this point. And, you know, I think it's also -- you know, my read of it was that President Biden was really very, very deeply moved by the October 7 attacks, and by what Hamas did, and that lined up so directly behind Netanyahu, that afterward, they really tried to walk it back a little bit. I think they've also been moved since then by, you know, these extraordinary scenes from Gaza and cried -- and I think they were also struck by the outrage from Cairo, from Jordan, et cetera and the refusal of leaders there to meet with President Biden. And so I think they've been trying to be a little more balanced in their approach and I think that's part of the reason for the call for humanitarian pause.

SMERCONISH: I highlighted something that you wrote recently, I'll put it on the screen and read it aloud. Quote, "I don't think this is politically sustainable for Israel, or morally sustainable for America as we provide weapons used to kill and maim civilians. Nor do I believe it will be effective at protecting Israel." Expand on those words.

KRISTOF: Look, you know, what happened on October 7 was a catastrophe, it was a war crime. The response in Israel's interest and morally is not to engage in war crimes to repay war crimes. And Israel has every right to go after Hamas, but right now, what we've been seeing in Gaza is entire blocks being leveled in a way that is not, you know, is not surgical at all. I think the U.N., last I saw, had lost 72 staff members. A child is being killed in Gaza on average for more than three weeks now, once every 10 minutes.

[16:20:43]

And, you know, the idea is this is going to go on for months and months. I don't think that that is morally appropriate. I don't think that that is protecting Israel. And I think it is right for the Biden administration to put pressure on Israel to try to take in a more surgical approach directly to Hamas rather than, you know, kicking out entire city blocks.

SMERCONISH: In 1982, a younger Nicholas Kristof backpacking through the Middle East meets a pair of Palestinian men who are contemporaries in the West Bank. You write about this, it's a really compelling piece. You enjoyed their company, they enjoyed yours. Forty plus years later, you wonder, are they alive? You found them, track them down and just spoke with them.

Thankfully, everybody's still alive and healthy. What did you learn?

KRISTOF: It was really poignant. I had had no communication with these guys, and but found them. We had lunch together, they invited me to visit their refugee camp where I visited their homes originally. And what struck me was that they had been full of ambition, full of hope. And over the years, over the decades, they've lost that.

They both hope to engage in graduate school abroad. And neither was able to do that because of crackdowns, difficulty getting exit permission from the West Bank. They originally had been able to drive to, you know, to the beach in Tel Aviv, traveled all around. And then, you know, because of understandable security concerns and there were, you know, there were suicide bombings. So, there were -- the barrier was put up, the checkpoints were put up.

Now, Mahmoud (ph) can't easily go visit his doctor. It's still in the West Bank. To get to them, I had to drive, take an Israeli taxi, leave it at a berm, walk over it and then take a Palestinian taxi. I couldn't even get into the camp this time. And they just conveyed the sense of hopelessness for themselves, for their kids, for their grandkids, I felt very poignantly was a real loss of freedom of dignity.

And I think in many ways representative of the larger tragedy of what has happened to Palestinians and underlines the broader risk of an explosion on the West Bank.

SMERCONISH: I'm going to put in my social media, "Losing Hope in the West Bank," by Nicholas Kristof. It's a must read. Thank you for coming back. We appreciate it.

KRISTOF: Good to see you.

SMERCONISH: You too. More social media reaction now. Katherine, what do we have? From the world of X, I believe. Why are we calling for a ceasefire when we should be demanding a release of the hostages. Are innocent civilians any less human to you simply because they are Jewish?

I hope, Elana, that that's not directed at me. I agree with you that not enough of this conversation has been hostage driven. That needs to be the priority. And I hope that they're all alive and safe and come back.

I want to remind you, make sure you're going to smerconish.com and answering today's poll question. I will be really interested at the end of the hour to see how this is going. Should a student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process?

Up ahead, it's possible for AI to be utilized as a force for good. This week, we saw how it helped build a new, quote unquote. "New Beatles song," but I'm more concerned about its darker potential like the story of a New Jersey High School where the boys used AI to create deep fake nudes of their classmates. I'll talk about that, with one of the teens whose image was altered.

And a reminder sign up at smerconish.com for the free daily newsletter, you'll see some work from Pulitzer Prize winning award winning editorial cartoonists like Jack Ohman. Check that out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:28:55]

SMERCONISH: To me, the biggest story about AI this week was not the president issuing an executive order to curtail it or the meeting on Capitol Hill with Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg trying to get a handle on it or how it was utilized to finish that new Beatles song. Instead it was the story out of New Jersey, about how male students at the Westfield high school were sharing fake nude photographs of their fellow female students doctored from actual online pictures using AI. There are currently no federal laws in the United States against the creation of sharing non-consensual, deep fake pornography. A recent study found the number of pornographic deep fakes online roughly doubled every six months from 2018 to 2020. And that 96 percent of deep fakes are sexually explicit and feature women who didn't consent to the videos.

The incident in Westfield took place over the summer, but officials only learned about it on October 20. The school implemented an investigation and sent out an e-mail asking if a parent or guardian thinks their child is a victim of a criminal act related to the incident to report it to the local police.

[16:30:00]

In a local Facebook group in Westfield some parents call to punish whoever had created the images. Other saw it as a forgivable youthful transgression.

In a statement to CNN, the school said -- quote -- "We aren't able to provide specific details on the number of students involved and any disciplinary actions imposed, as matters involving students are confidential."

Joining me now is one of those targeted, 14-year-old Francesca Mani, and her mother Dorota. Francesca, thank you so much for being here. Sorry that this happened to you. How did you learn of it? I read the "Wall Street Journal" Julie Jargon piece and it said that on a particular day in school the boys just started to act weird.

FRANCESCA MANI, WESTFIELD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT: Yes. So, the day before I found out they were -- no girl knew what was happening but we knew the boys knew something. And the next day I was called down to the principal's office to be confirmed as one of many students of the AI incident. And I'm not going to lie, after I left the office, I was crying.

As I was walking the hallways, I saw a group of boys laughing at a group of girls who were crying and that's when I realized I shouldn't be sad but I should be mad. So, I came home and I told my mom and I said, we need to do something about this because this is not fair to the girls and this is not OK.

SMERCONISH: Francesca, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think you've seen the images. Do you nevertheless know how many girls were similarly victimized and do you know who was responsible?

FRANCESCA MANI: I know who was responsible, and it has been rumored that there are over 34 girls to be involved in this.

SMERCONISH: Mom, Dorota, I'm going to put something on the screen from that "Wall Street Journal" piece and then I'll ask for a reaction. I'll read it out loud. It says the following, "Even among parents, there is no consensus. In a local Facebook group, some called for harsh punishment for whoever created the images. Others deemed it a youthful transgression that should be forgiven." How do you see it, Dorota?

DOROTA MANI, PARENT OF WESTFIELD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT: Listen, I've heard over and over that, boys will be boys. And, I agree, boys will be boys, girls will be girls. That being said there's right and wrong. There's legal and illegal.

In this situation, you know, there were some boys or a boy -- that's to be, you know, determined -- who created without consent of the girls inappropriate images. At the same time when this transpired -- I'm speaking, you know, from Francesca's history, there were multiple boys that reached out to support her and say, listen, how can I -- how can we help you? This is not OK. You know, we feel so bad. What is there for us to do to make it better?

You know, many of them walked her home. So yes, boys will be boys, but there's also right and wrong, legal and illegal.

SMERCONISH: Francesca, do you think that this should be best dealt with by the school or by local law enforcement, the police?

FRANCESCA MANI: I think it should be both. I think the school should contribute to helping this -- helping make all the girls more comfortable in our school because so many girls don't feel comfortable knowing that he's walking our hallways. And I also think there should be a law inputted against AI to protect everyone from this.

SMERCONISH: So, Francesca, if you know who was responsible, I presume that others in school know this is the guy. Has anything happened to him as far as you know so far?

FRANCESCA MANI: Not really. There is -- not really, no.

SMERCONISH: Dorota, has there been any communication among the parents, meaning of the girls victimized and the parents or parent, whatever the situation may be, of the young man that you think was responsible for this?

DOROTA MANI: Absolutely. So, multiple mothers, I think, over 100 reached out to me. I mean, only the ones who were outraged in the way how Westfield High conducted the investigation, and how they treated this incident. And also, moms of previous incidents that were just brushed off and not taken seriously. So, I listen. Nobody listen to them, so I listened.

I had no contact with the other side. I know the name as per what my daughter told me and the principal of the school informed me there was one boy. Later on, we found out there could be multiple boys as per Westfield leader, but none of those parents contacted us.

SMERCONISH: So, Francesca, has the boy apologized to you?

FRANCESCA MANI: No, he has not.

SMERCONISH: Hmm. What would you do if he did?

FRANCESCA MANI: I don't know. I think I would stay quiet and -- I don't think -- I just don't think it's right what he did.

[16:35:08]

SMERCONISH: Right. Well, it's indefensible what he did, right?

FRANCESCA MANI: Yes.

DOROTA MANI: You know, if I may add something. I'm so proud of my daughter. She's advocating for herself and the other girls. She's urging me to make sure there are other laws in place for New Jersey. So, Senator Bramnick is behind our back and making sure that whatever is right now on the table will be pushed this November, making sure that New Jersey children are safe.

She also wrote a letter to President Biden asking him to urge other governors to make sure that there are laws in place to protect our children. So, I think this issue is more complex than just Westfield High School, and this is our time and opportunity to treat it as a teachable platform, to shed light of the importance of this issue.

SMERCONISH; Francesca, good luck to you.

FRANCESCA MANI: Thank you so much.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Dorota.

DOROTA MANI: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: Checking in on social media reaction. Catherine, what do we have? From the world of X.

Pornography has done irrevocable damaged to developing young minds and screwed up plenty of adults as well.

Yes, it's just too prevalent. I mean, it used to have to be hard to find, right? Now, it's just the touch of a button. I think it has also impacted relationships and expectations of young men because it's so widely available that they have an unrealistic, well, I've said it, expectation of what life's all about.

Still to come, if the GOP captures both Houses in Virginia on Tuesday, Governor Glenn Youngkin could be empowered to pass his proposed 15- week abortion ban. One key race pits Republican David Owen against Democrat Susanna Gibson. You'll remember she made national news this fall after she streamed sexual acts with her husband online. Will that scandal ultimately hurt or help her candidacy and her party's hopes for the state?

I also want to remind you, go vote at Smerconish.com on today's poll question. Tell me, should a student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process?

Please subscribe to our free daily newsletter. You'll love it. You'll also see the work of legendary cartoonists like Rob Rogers. Check that out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:41:30]

SMERCONISH: All eyes on Virginia, reliably blue from 2012 to 2020 the commonwealth was swept by the GOP in 2021. Many are now looking to Old Dominion for signs of what's to come nationally in to 2024.

This Tuesday is Election Day, although it's an off-cycle election year in terms of national politics control of state legislatures has become just as impactful on where the country is heading, which is why 538 is calling Virginia maybe the most important. The AP reports an unprecedented $46 million was raised by both parties last month.

All 140 seats in the Virginia legislature up for grabs. The Senate where the Democrats hold a slim lead and the House of Delegates which the GOP controls after flipping seven seats two years ago. A sweep would clear the way for GOP Governor Glenn Youngkin who won with just a hair more than 50 percent of the vote to implement conservative policies including his proposed 15-week abortion ban.

One key race in the state, the 57th House district, it made national news for an unusual reason. The candidates are Republican David Owen, former home builder, and Democrat Susanna Gibson, a nurse practitioner. The race was upended in September when it was revealed that Gibson performed sex acts with her husband for a live private online audience encouraging viewers to pay them with tips for a specific request.

Gibson denounced the sharing of the videos as both an invasion of privacy and -- quote -- "the worst gutter politics." Her attorney, Daniel Watkins, told CNN that sharing the videos violated the state's revenge porn statute and many women have rallied to support her.

Nevertheless, the GOP mailed out thousands of fliers capitalizing on the scandal, labeled explicit material, and warning do not open if you are under the age of 18. Inside were censored quotes and screenshots from Gibson's livestream.

Recently, Gibson has been out canvassing even in the snow. Will all of this hurt or help her and the party's hopes to block the GOP's takeover in Virginia?

Joining me now to discuss is Charlotte Rene Woods, state politics reporter for the "Richmond Times-Dispatch." Charlotte, first let's talk about the state generally. What are the issues that seem to be generating the most interest?

CHARLOTTE RENE WOODS, STATE POLITICS REPORTER, RICHMOND TIMES- DISPATCH: Well, that depends on which political party you ask. I think something that goes across, you know, totally non-partisan is concerns about inflation. We're all feeling the rising cost of living, gas, groceries. So, that's obviously on voters' minds this year. Both parties have talked about ways to help combat that from the state level. There's obviously no one magic wand.

Abortion is, as you mentioned, a very big one. Democrats have vowed to protect our current state law, which allows abortion -- most abortions up to 26 weeks and bans most abortions afterward. And then the Republicans have largely coalesced around Governor Glenn Youngkin backed proposal to allow abortion -- most abortions up to 15 weeks and then ban most abortions afterwards with some exceptions that doesn't include fetal anomalies.

So those are kind of two of the biggest things. And then also partisan control because as you mentioned all 140 seats are on the ballot, but only about a dozen are truly competitive to include Owen and Gibson's district. So, a lot of money -- this is a very expensive general assembly election this year.

Just this morning President Joe Biden actually endorsed a handful of Democratic candidates. Usually, I feel like presidents -- you know, they'll boost governors in Congress but not necessarily statehouses.

[16:45:00]

So, that just shows the national attention that Virginia has.

SMERCONISH: Charlotte, how has Gibson handled this issue? I mean, is she out campaigning? I showed that one image of her door knocking but how visible has she been? And is there any sign as to whether it helps or hurts her?

WOODS: She has definitely laid a little bit low after the news broke in September. But she has been out and about canvassing. She popped up at an event with Senator Louise Lucas who is our president pro tempore of the Senate right now. Basically, the most powerful -- second most powerful woman in the Senate behind Lieutenant Governor Winsome Sears. And right after the news broke, Louise Lucas immediately was supporting and tweeting about Gibson.

Gibson has been running ads. She has been stressing her commitment to lowering prescription drug costs, to protecting the current abortion law. She aligns with a lot of her party on, you know, environmental protections, LGBTQ community protections. So, yes, she has still been out and about, it's just been a little more subdued. So, yes.

SMERCONISH: Another Virginia journalist, Samantha Willis from the "Virginia Mercury," wrote this. I'll put it on the screen and read it aloud.

"The question is, why should it matter that this married mom engaged in consensual sex with her husband and invited others to watch online? There's nothing illegal about adults live streaming sexual acts and there's no evidence Gibson or her husband were coerced into doing so. I smell more than a whiff of misogyny in the social media comments circulating like wildfire about Gibson, and sadly, women appear to be some of the chief water bearers."

I mean, the question is one of people saying this was poor judgement on her part, soliciting tips for the acts that were being streamed. On the other hand, that opinion that I just shared with you is one that says she's the victim here and she, of course, claims that she's a victim of revenge porn of sorts. How do you think it comes out? WOODS: I actually explored in my own article shortly after the news broke about -- you know, I spoke with some political analysts, strategists, gender studies professors who were asserting there's a bit of a double standard here. Plenty of men have weathered sex scandal storms before Susanna Gibson. She's not the first candidate to go through something like this. She won't be the last.

A Democratic strategist even told me, you know, in this modern technology era, there's going to be more candidates down the line in the future that have, you know, dabbled on OnlyFans, or I learned about Chaturbate through reporting on this. And it is a unique situation where, you know, it's consensual sex online with her husband. I don't think they wanted the audience to be as big as it has become. Now that it's leaked -- but she is campaigning to be a public figure now so it's out there.

SMERCONISH: Am I -- am I being -- am I being melodramatic if I say given the thin margin in the House of Delegates, like control of the state legislature in Virginia could be determined by this race in the 57th?

WOODS: Perhaps just because it is among a dozen races that will -- any single one of these dozen races could be one of the flippable deciding votes on partisan control of each chamber, what, you know, the Republicans will be able to achieve, what the Democrats can be the, you know, the brick wall, they call themselves, especially in the Senate right now.

So, you know -- and I think for voters, at this point, they're probably more concerned if you have an "R" or "D" behind your name. How much do I care about abortion being the center of this? But -- and, you know, some people will probably be a little turned off by this sex scandal. They'll have to overlook it. May not vote for her for it. But some people actually probably will see her as more relatable and probably vote for her because of this. And as you mentioned from the Samantha Willis editorial, the sexism and double standards.

SMERCONISH: Something to keep an eye on for Tuesday night. Thank you so much. Appreciate your being here, Charlotte.

WOODS: Thank you for having me.

SMERCONISH: Quick social media reaction from the world of X. This woman chose to have a porn platform -- own it.

I think she kind of is owning it, right? She's saying, you know, it has been used against her in a way that is revenge porn. Look, I don't and I wouldn't believe any polls on this anyway. You really don't poll in a Virginia House of Delegates race.

So, if there were data out there, I still wouldn't believe it because it's one of those circumstances that when people go and close that curtain, then they're going to vote their conscience on this, and then we're going to finding out. It would be very interesting to see the results. Still to come, the final results of the poll question today at Smerconish.com. Should the student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process? Again, when you're there sign up for the newsletter. Great cartoonist like two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Steve Breen, little commentary on the World Series. By the way, take a close look at the ball, reminiscent of our youth, right?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:54:28]

SMERCONISH: So, that's where the poll stands as of this moment in time. Should a student's political speech be considered by prospective employers during the hiring process? More than 28,000 have voted, 70/30 saying, yes. The poll question will remain up. Continue to vote.

I'm surprised by the margin. I'm not surprised by the outcome. I thought it would have been a closer margin than 70/30.

Here's some of your social media reaction as it came in during the course of the program. What do we have?

Scary result. Despite my outrage over the attack on Jews on October 7, and my sadness at seeing so many Palestinian children suffering, applying a litmus test in political speech at hiring is a slippery slope, so says Joseph Schifano.

[16:55:07]

I like the way Erwin Chemerinsky handled it. He said it depends on the speech. Now, I put this in the context of the speech on campus right now relative to Israel and Gaza. And Professor Chemerinsky said, you know, if there's someone openly expressing anti-Semitism and I'm a law firm I don't want them in my ranks. In fact, I wouldn't want them in any business, right?

By the same token political speech would also mean, hey, who did you vote for in 2020? And that's where I agree with your point about the slippery slope.

Quickly, one more social media reaction. Sorry. I took up so much time, didn't I?

Perhaps the generational divide is because older folks have lived through decades of this conflict and young folks, well, they just think they know everything because they've seen it on TikTok.

No, doubt TikTok is having a big influence on American youth and how they see the Middle East. Before I go, programming note. We want to welcome our new veteran Saturday colleagues starting with today's premiers. We will be followed in the morning by the Chris Wallace show, 10:00 a.m. Eastern, and Christiane Amanpour's "THE AMANPOUR HOUR" at 11:00 Eastern. Catch them next or catch up with them online.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)