Tonight on 360, there's breaking news. The former president tells the Supreme Court there's no 14th Amendment case for keeping him off Colorado's ballot and says the Capitol attack was no insurrection. Also breaking tonight, we've just gotten court documents expected to reveal the names of nearly 200 people connected to the late sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein. I'll tell you what we're finding so far.
And what U.S. officials are saying tonight about who might be responsible for the bomb blast in Iran to kill more than 100 people at a memorial ceremony for a notorious terror mastermind. Good evening. Thanks for joining us.
We begin with breaking news in a story that as we said at the top of the last night's program could reshape the presidential campaign and a whole lot more, including how a truly central part of the Constitution is applied. Late today, attorneys for the former president filed his U.S. Supreme Court appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court decision barring him from the state's 2024 primary ballot. Now, they're filing underscores the stakes of the case, describing the Colorado ruling as, quote, the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major party presidential candidate.
As soon as having the president joins us now with more. So what do we know about the appeal that they've made? Well, Anderson, one of the first things that the president's lawyers take on is the idea that he is an insurrectionist, which is something that the Colorado Supreme Court had ruled. They say he is not that the the gender-six attack was not an insurrection and that the former president did not engage in insurrection.
They also say that the Congress, not state courts, should be the ones that determine the eligibility for the presidency. They also say that the 14th Amendment, the letter, if you read the 14th Amendment Section 3, it doesn't mention the office of the presidency. And it doesn't apply, they say, to the former president. I'll read you a little bit more of what they argue.
They say that this Colorado ruling, if allowed to stand, will mark the first time in the history of the United States that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major party presidential candidate. And obviously, that's what is at stake here, Anderson. You have perhaps for the first time ever. The Supreme Court is going to take up what exactly that language means in the 14th Amendment, whether it does apply to the presidency.
And do we know when the court will say whether it's going to take the case and what a timeline for argument and a decision could look like? Well, we don't know right now. They haven't really responded to any of this. But look, there is no necessarily any urgency right now.
For now, just by filing this appeal today, the former president's name will remain on the Colorado ballot. And so the Colorado Secretary of State is going to certify the ballot in a couple of days on the 5th of January. And of course, the voters don't go to the ballot boxes until March. So somewhere between now and March, we might hear from the Supreme Court to settle this issue.
And if the former president's disqualification from the main ballot, which he has appealed to a state court there, is also eventually appealed to the US Supreme Court, would that case and the Colorado case be combined? Almost certainly. And, Anderson, keep in mind that there's been a number of states where this issue has popped up. You have had the opposite findings from courts in New Hampshire, in Michigan, in Minnesota, for instance.
And so these types of lawsuits on the 14th Amendment have been popping up. We now have one pending in Oregon. So between now and by the time the Supreme Court decides this issue, we're going to have perhaps a number of states where this issue will have been. And so that really does raise the chances that the Supreme Court will have to settle what is really a dispute at this moment between the states.
And, Preston, thanks very much. And related news scene and has learned that the former president is planning to attend arguments next weekend as a appeals court case on presidential immunity. The story was first reported by The New York Times, joining us, as seen in legal analyst and former deputy assistant Attorney General Elliot Williams, also former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth. She currently teaches at New York's Cordosia School of Law and Maggie Haberman, seen in political analyst.
At times as senior political correspondent, author of the great book Confidence Man, The Making of Donald Trump, and The Breaking of America. Jessica, what stands out to you about the president? It's really? Well, he throws a lot into this brief.
I mean, it's presented as one question presented of do the Colorado courts get this wrong? So sort of, in a sense, presented as this one simple question. But when you actually go on and read the filing, it encompasses at least 10 other arguments that are all part of what the Colorado court decided. So it's really sort of a kitchen sink approach as we were talking about.
I think the thing that is most, I think, compelling and that the Supreme Court most might find most persuasive as a reason to take it up is this argument that he's presented before. That if you allow the states, all 50 states, to make their own determination about whether or not he's qualified to be on the ballot for president, that that really invites chaos and that the Supreme Court should step in and really settle this question of whether or not actually the states even have the authority to make these determinations pursuant to the procedure set forth in state law. To me, that's the most compelling part of the presentation. That's a rational argument.
What is a rational argument? It's an important question that the Supreme Court really should decide promptly as we go forward in the election process in all 50 states. Maggie, how much do you think the former president is betting on favorable Supreme Court intervention, whether it's the issue of ballot qualification or immunity for prosecution? I think those are different cases.
I don't think that his folks are particularly optimistic. Or he or particularly optimistic that they're going to win on the presidential immunity. Although, as you said, I reported earlier that he is going to show up next week for arguments that he's not going to be able to be part of, but he will be there and it will create a spectacle. Certainly, on this question, which is a separate one, his team feels more confident that the Supreme Court's going to go with him.
He has said that himself, but he has also said to other people in one of his lawyers confirm this reporting earlier today. He has said to some people he's concerned that the justices, who he appointed, are going to be afraid of looking like they're taking his side politically and not doing that. And some of that is because he isn't very angry, as you know, at the justices, he appointed that they haven't gone his way. They've gone his way on policy matters on a number of cases.
They have not on his election-related cases. Why is he going to show up? And is it simply because it will create a spectrum? Number one, number two, he sees himself as his own best defender and communicator right now, and he believes that he can impact all of these things best and that if he hasn't tried, as it's been described to me, by people who have spoken to him, on this particular issue that he will regret it, if it doesn't go as way.
Will he fundraise it? I mean, he can also fundraise it. He fundraises off everything. He fundraises off everything.
I suspect it will not be an exception. Elliott, the former president's legal team, they're arguing, they're filing that his speech at the ellipse on January 6 called for peaceful protests. I just want to play some of what he said. We fight.
We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building, de-peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. So as you know, there's a Colorado Supreme Court found that the speech should not be protected by the First Amendment because it incited violence.
How do you see it? I think to reach the point of incitement, the tie between the statement and the violence has to be quite imminent. And that's a tricky legal question. Well, frankly, I don't think it's in anybody's interest to start getting in the weeds of whether a statement was insurrection or an incite insurrection or not.
And I think this picks up on Jessica's point from a moment ago about this whole idea of the kitchen sink in the President's brief, that the Supreme Court does not even have to touch the insurrection question because there are countless other ways to avoid getting into the quagmire of picking apart individual statements or lines from the President. What I think they try to do is reach some point of unanimity or near unanimity over one of these questions over, for instance, is the President and Officer of the United States? Does he take the same oath as other people, therefore, as he exempt from the provisions in the 14th Amendment that would apply here? Because of how fraught and complicated and politically sensitive this insurrection question is and very difficult legally to sort out, I think they just avoided it altogether.
And frankly, it's probably more of the President's interest and of course, it's just saying, well, look, for get insurrection, he's a candidate for office and people who are speaking in the context of the political process generally are afforded more latitude to speak. When you look back that speech, I mean, he talks about fighting in Fyla Cal and he used that term a lot. He does that. He uses the words that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
And that's part of his thing. Yes, I mean, he often walks up to a line, the question is whether legally he crossed one, I think, in terms of responsible behavior. And there are a number of people who have described that speech as condemnable and condemnable. But that doesn't necessarily make it legally questionable.
I think that's the issue here. Especially since we learned in the January six hearings that he knew that there were guns in the crowd, people had webbed. Correct. He often tries to leave himself some kind of public out.
And I think that's what folks like the main Secretary of State were looking at. And Jessica, there's also the amount of the separate appeal filed by the Colorado GOP. How does that differ from the arguments made by the former President? Yes, and that's really interesting.
The Colorado GOP made two of the same arguments that Trump has made in his brief, including whether he is an officer within the meeting of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. And also whether or not the Section 3 of the Amendment is self-executing or whether Congress essentially has to enact legislation that authorizes states to make these determinations or some other way of determining whether or not he's disqualified by Section 3. And then they made an additional point about whether their First Amendment rights as a party were violated by the action here. But Trump goes on to make these additional arguments, including whether or not he engaged in insurrection.
The Colorado Republican Party didn't raise that question. And so the only petition presented to the US Supreme Court wouldn't be asking the court to actually review the determination of the Colorado Supreme Court affirming the ruling of the district court that Trump did engage in insurrection. Now, I suspect the court will not grant cert on that question that they will probably resolve this question on the issue of whether he's an officer under Section 3 and whether or not the section is self-executing. But if they were to rule against Trump on those two legal questions, then they actually would have to reach the question of whether he engaged in insurrection.
I suspect that he raised those issues on appeal because he also wants to be contesting those determinations. The Colorado Republicans didn't contest those. So it remains to be seen whether the court will grant cert on those additional questions and whether they will reach them if they take the case and how they ultimately resolve it. You referenced this earlier.
The former president's attorney is arguing that the so-called insurrectionist ban doesn't apply to the presidency. And the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not specifically mention the presidency, which is true. It says, officer of the United States. The counter argument is, does make any sense that the author's constitution would ban insurrection as from holding virtually every other job in the government, both civil and military and not the highest office in the country.
Right. It's sort of preposterous as a matter of plain language. You and I talking saying that the president of the United States is not an officer of the United States. It's ludicrous.
However, read the language of the Constitution. And it is quite clear that they say, frankly, there's another provision that says the president, comma, vice president, comma, and officers of the United States suggesting that the term office of the United States does not intend to apply to the president. Again, it's one of these many areas in the law in which our understanding of what terms mean and what the framers put on paper are completely different. Now, this is, and I said, why we have a Supreme Court.
It exists for the purpose of sorting out these complicated legal questions. Frankly, precipitated by the mess that the framers left us. In their wisdom, there are ambiguities in the Constitution and they have to be sorted out. And this is precisely one of them.
And even if they don't touch this question, as Trump says in his brief, of critical importance to the American people, and needs to be resolved. I'll let you just go around, thank you, everyone. Thanks. Coming up next, what we are learning from court documents just unsealed about sex, traffic, or jeffrey Epstein, and his accomplice, Jolene Maxwell.
Later, we're alive in the Southern border, as the Biden administration suits Texas for arresting migrants. Senators get closer to a border deal, and some House Republicans start ending to block any compromise. I'm CNN tech reporter Claire Duffy. This week on the podcast in terms of service, the idea of riding in a car with no driver can feel daunting.
And this technology raises questions about safety and the future of transportation. That's why I'm here with Nicole Gabel, head of business development and strategic partnerships at WeMo. We've always been about safety. No distracted driving, no drunk driving.
WeMo follows the rules of the road. Listen to CNN's terms of service, wherever you get your podcasts. Craig Ferguson is going coast to coast to unpack what it really means to be an American today. What could possibly go wrong?
Craig Ferguson, American on purpose. New episodes now streaming on the CNN app. Go to cnn.com slash watch to subscribe or log in with your TV and who was convicted of being Epstein's co-conspirator in this sex trafficking operation. We've also seen some depositions of some household workers, but nothing that has been, you know, new or shocking at this point.
There are references to some of these bold names that we've known about, including Prince Andrew. That is someone who Jufrei has accused of sexually assaulting her. There are references to him throughout these papers, as we have seen in the past. Now, she sued him, they reached a settlement.
He agreed to pay a quote substantial amount to a charity of her choice, but he has denied any wrongdoing. There's also so far in the document he looked at references to Bill Clinton. He is someone whose name has come up as someone who has flown on Epstein's private jets. Now, Jufrei is not accusing Clinton of any wrongdoing.
He in the past has said, yes, he did fly on Epstein's planes, but he never went to his island in the Caribbean that he owned where a lot of this sexual abuse had taken place. So nothing yet that is kind of a blockbuster or that changes the dynamic or the history we know about Epstein, but there's still more to come. And so more documents are still to be released? Yeah, I mean, this is coming on a rolling basis.
And this is just the first tranche of this, which is just 40 documents. We are expecting dozens more to come out over the next day or so. And we'll be going through those to see if we learn anything new about the people that are in his universe or new allegations involved in these people. I mean, another deposition that came to light today is one of this woman Joanna Schosberg, who had told her story to a British publication more than a decade ago, but this is the first time she'd worked for Epstein.
This is the first time that her deposition is unsealed so people could read it for themselves instead of reading her interview and that publication. So we might see other bits and pieces like that, but so far nothing that hasn't been publicly out there or reported before. All right, Caris Guillen, thanks very much. We're now on the woman who helped Epstein carry out his scheme and was convicted on five counts, including sex trafficking a minor and is currently serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison.
Bernie Kaye has more. Gileane Maxwell was born in 1961 and grew up in the English countryside in the town of Oxfordshire. She's the daughter of Robert Maxwell, a Czech born newspaper tycoon who died in 1991 after falling off his luxury yacht near the Canary Islands. Following her father's death, Gileane Maxwell connected with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier who died by suicide in prison back in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal charges of sexually abusing young girls and running a sex trafficking ring.
He pleaded not guilty. Maxwell was at the center of all of it, serving as Epstein's madam, recruiting young girls for Epstein to abuse, even allegedly taking part in the abuse herself. Maxwell was among Epstein's closest associates and helped him exploit girls who were as young, as 14 years old. Maxwell herself was Epstein's ex-girlfriend and turned social companion.
The couple reportedly split in the 1990s but remained close. In a 2003 profile in Vanity Fair magazine, Epstein described Maxwell as his best friend. In an interview from 2002, alleged Epstein victim Annie Farmer said she would never have stayed under Epstein's roof had it not been for the fact Maxwell assured her mother she would act as chaperone. Maxwell enticed minor girls, got them to trust her, then delivered them into the trap that she and Epstein had set for them.
She pretended to be a woman they could trust all the while she was setting them up to be sexually abused by Epstein. And in some cases, by Maxwell herself. Multiple people, including two of Maxwell's girlfriend, say Maxwell introduced Epstein to affluent social circles. Her own exclusive circle included the former first daughter, Chelsea Clinton.
Eyewitness accounts say Maxwell was not only invited to Clinton's wedding but also given access backstage at the Clinton Global Initiative Summit back in 2009. Maxwell was also photographed in 2000 with then future president Donald Trump, alongside him Melania, who he was dating at the time, and Jeffrey Epstein. And there's this picture too. That's Maxwell in the background of a photograph of Prince Andrew, which shows him with his arms around the waist of a young woman named Virginia Roberts, who today is Virginia Jufrey.
She has alleged she was trafficked by Epstein with the help of Maxwell, then forced to have sex with his friends, including Prince Andrew when she was 17. The Prince emphatically denied all of it. In 2022, Prince Andrew settled with Jufrey for an undisclosed amount, and a US district judge agreed to dismiss her lawsuit against him. Weeks earlier, Buckingham Palace stripped him of his military titles.
And according to a royal source, told him he could no longer use his royal highness in any official capacity. Gileain Maxwell seemed to disappear from the public eye after Epstein was arrested, but in July of 2020, while in New Hampshire, she was arrested. She was later charged with six federal counts, including sex trafficking children, and Tyson to a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex, and transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. She pleaded not guilty, but at her 2021 trial, a jury convicted her of five federal charges, including sex trafficking of a minor.
Gileain Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. Randy K, CNN, Palm Beach, Florida. An extra live report from the Southern border is migrants keep coming, and where House Republicans visited today with some of their colleagues vowing to block any border deal because they don't want to do anything that might end up helping President Biden. More ahead.
Big night for breaking news. Late today, the Biden administration filed suit against the state of Texas at issue the new state law giving local law enforcement authority to arrest migrants. In its filing, the Justice Department says the measure undercuts the federal government's, quote, exclusive authority to enforce immigration law. And this cap today that began with House Speaker Mike Johnson, leading delegation of Republican lawmakers to a visit to Eagle Pass, Texas, as that was happening in Washington Senate negotiators in closure to some kind of an agreement on immigration and border security legislation.
This was while some GOP House members are vowing to block any deal that reaches them, telling CNN's Monoraju they don't want to do anything that might help President Biden. In addition today, the Republican controlled House Homeland Security Committee announced the first hearing in its impeachment proceedings against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. As for his boss, the president, the White House, put out a statement today accusing House Republicans, quote, hamstraining our border security in the name of extreme parties and demands. In the time of the border, the migrants keep coming.
CNN said, 11-derets there. Migrants crossed the Rio Grande into the United States as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson looks on during the Republicans tour of the Southern border. To highlight a crisis, he says the Biden administration is doing nothing to fix. Migrants have crossed into the United States by the thousands, more than 225,000 alone in December.
The highest monthly surge recorded since the year 2000. America is at a breaking point with record levels of illegal immigration. We have a first-hand look at the damage and the chaos, the border catastrophe is causing in all of our communities. We have a broken immigration system that is the one single fact about which everyone agrees.
Droves of migrants have come through this crossing in Eagle Pass, Texas, despite the miles of razor wire, shipping containers and other barriers built up along the border. A former Democratic state lawmaker in Eagle Pass, Texas says Republicans' efforts to deter migration aren't working either. Anybody that's walked or ridden a train car 3,000 miles and been robbed, beaten and raped, to make it to that side right there, do you think this is going to stop them? And the answer to that, as we already know, is a big no.
The White House is increasingly facing pressure from both Republicans and Democratic mayors and governors on the need for real solutions to the immigration crisis. And the Republican governor of Texas keeps ramping up the pressure as well, transporting tens of thousands of migrants unannounced to urban cities and blue states, straining their resources. Most migrants say they're just trying to escape the hardships they left behind. Why do you say it's a good time?
Like Kenny Contreras from Ecuador, who says his country is plagued by violence and extortion. And this migrant from Liberia, who says he spent $15,000 to reach the US border. The US have been my dream country since I was all yonkate. It's estimated that nearly 170 countries have people coming in and flowing across this border.
Meanwhile, in Washington, DC, Senate leaders are working toward a possible deal to change current immigration law, including the possibility of expedited removals of migrants who cross illegally and tighten rules on granting asylum. The House Speaker tells CNN's Jake Tapper the problem cannot be solved by allocating more money to the border. These are policy choices. They got us in this situation.
What we're demanding is that the policies change. And what else did Republican lawmakers have to say during their visit? Well, you know what? We didn't hear any willingness to negotiate on.
It's any kind of immigration reform. And many of the lawmakers I spoke with after the tour said that that is not something that they're considering. They want to focus on the bill that the House passed several months ago. And they're very concerned, Anderson, and they don't believe that whatever the bipartisan group of senators is going to negotiate in a possible immigration, a border security bill wouldn't be negotiated.
That it's going to reach anything close to what they want. And several of them also went on to say that they're willing to shut down the federal government if they don't get what they want in these border bill negotiations. All right, I'd love and Aaron, thanks very much. Join us now at the mayor of Eagle Pass, Orlando, Salinas.
Salinas, thank you for being with us. The visit by Speaker Johnson's delegation, was it productive? Thank you for having me, first of all. And I think it was productive.
It's always good to have members of Congress here in Eagle Pass to see the situation, to see what's going on. But what's more important is if we see actual actions come of these meetings. We've had a lot of people visiting here in Eagle Pass, but we want to see action right now. What kind of action do you want?
I mean, as a mayor, what I've seen here, I see thousands of people coming in without consequence. So what I want to see is a system where you detain people. And if they don't qualify for asylum, you deport them right away. Right now what's happening is that they detain people and they release them into an NGO here in Eagle Pass, and then they're all over in the US.
We need an orderly system where you're deporting people that come here illegally and don't qualify for asylum immediately instead of having this approach of come one, come all. That's what we've been seeing here in Eagle Pass, a city of 27,000 people. And we don't have the resources to sustain this problem. I mean, the asylum system is completely off the rails.
It's completely broken in this country. And it will take years for the people who are crossing over today, some of whom will claim asylum, unless they can prove, ultimately in a court, that they were persecuted for some specific reason. If they're just economic migrants, that's not a claim, a legitimate claim of asylum. And yet they can be here for years, legally not able to work.
It's such a broken system. There's not enough judges, it's ridiculous, and it takes years and years for even asylum claims to be heard. Anderson, I agree. We need more immigration judges.
We need a system that's efficient. It's also not fair for people that have applied, and they've been in the system five, six years, to come into the United States legally, for them to see people from Venezuela, for instance, just cross the river, come on in to the United States, and they get to stay here, and yes, they're waiting for a hearing, but they might never show up to that asylum hearing. It's not fair for people that are doing it the right way. I get that comment from a lot of, especially Mexican people that have spent a lot of money trying to come here legally.
And it's sad. Sinena's reporting some House Republicans may refuse to go along with any bipartisan Senate compromise, because they essentially wouldn't want to get President Biden to win on immigration, particularly in election year. Would it trouble you if political fortunes were factored into what Congress does? I mean, that's one of the issues, right?
That you have both political parties, and they can't come together to pass immigration reform. We've been talking about this for years, and you've got cities like the city of Eagle Pass, a city that I love, an American city, being ignored by essentially both parties, and we have this situation going on, where you have thousands of people coming in to cities like Eagle Pass, Texas. And for your emergency services, for your local hospitals, it's got to be overwhelming. Absolutely.
Right here in Eagle Pass, we have one hospital. It's been overwhelmed with people trading undocumented migrants. So the residents here are frustrated. They go to the emergency room.
It takes them eight, nine hours to be seen. We actually had to institute a no transport law here in town. People couldn't get transported because the hospital is full. We only have four ambulances here.
So it's been a huge strain on our resources. Huge. And you see it. Sorry, I know in addition to meeting speaker Johnson today, you spoke to Secretary Mayorkas.
What would your takeaway from that conversation? Well, he's going to come visit on Monday. I have been very vocal in saying that the administration needs to do more. And I understand that it takes Congress.
But I think that as a president, as a vice president, as a secretary of Homeland Security, it starts with them and the messaging. When I speak to a lot of undocumented migrants, they're under the impression that they're being invited into the United States. And we need to make it clear that we're a nation of laws. You can't just come in here through the river in an illegal manner.
There's laws on the books, and we should follow them. And for migrants who are arriving now, and when they get to Eagle Pass, where do they go? You said they go to an NGO, and then are they then essentially put on buses and just shift all over the country? That's exactly what happens.
They cross their process. The Border Patrol takes their information. They're released to an NGO. Then from that NGO, private buses or state buses, they'll take an San Antonio or two sanctuary cities all over the United States.
Then you have these people all over the US, and it's just a terrible, broken system that we have right now. Yeah, there's something else. I appreciate you being with us. Thank you.
Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Seeing your data reporter Harry Antson is with me here.
He's got some new numbers on how Americans see the issue. Obviously, a lot of Republicans have been arguing over the border wall. How do they see it? You know, the border wall, President Trump when he ran the first time around, he's like, I'm going to build this border wall.
And Americans turned against it, right? There were, in fact, Americans who went out in the streets and protested against the border wall. Take a look at perceptions of a border wall support now versus support back in 2017. Look at this.
Support now up to 52% in a recent Quinnipiac University poll. That's at 14 points from where we were back in February in 2017. And the opposition has dropped tremendously. It's dropped from the 50s down into the mid-40s.
And I've seen this across the polling data. And this to me is one of the biggest sort of signs of how much the immigration debate in this country has changed in the Trump era in which Americans were far more in favor of immigration to now in a very much turned against it. And it's not just Republicans. It's voters in the middle of the electorate as well.
And voters who, back in the 2020 election, were basically split on who they most trust in immigration by in their Trump. Now, overwhelmingly favor Trump on immigration. And the board, you know, concerned about the border guys, it goes far beyond just border states. What do Google searches show?
Yeah, this to me is really interesting. Because if you look at Google searches for migrants, right, you might think that it may be OK the border states. But it's no longer the cases the border states. The two top states for searches are, in fact, Illinois and New York.
And more than just being Illinois and New York, the top five states up there, they are all blue states. They're not just red states anymore. This is something that is reaching a democratic community as well. I mean, you live in here in New York with me.
If you look at the local news, you consistently see the migrant crisis being portrayed and played out on local television. You have local mayors like Brandon Johnson in Chicago and Eric Adams in New York talking about this issue. And it's something that is very much plaguing their mayoral ships. And what do immigrants who become your citizens say about the issue?
Yeah, I think there are a lot of Democrats who are hoping, perhaps there might be a backlash and maybe they could benefit from it. But if you look at the top issues according to immigrant voters, in fact, the economy is number one. Immigration is way down on that list for top issues. And more than that, if you ask, who do you trust most immigration, either Democrats or Republicans?
In fact, immigrant voters on this issue are split. So this is not something that's working out for democratic voters, even if I can't constituency, you might think it would. All right, and thanks very much for coming up. Thanks for coming up next.
More than 100 people killed in two deadly blasts in Iran, both bombings near the gravesite of former Iranian military commander, Cosmo Solmani, who was killed four years ago today in a US airstrike. The bombings raised news concerns, of course, by the Israel-Hamas conflict, how it could erupt into a wider conflict, a lot more on that ahead. Also new details on how a Japan Airlines crew got nearly 400 people off that burning jot into safety after colliding with the Japanese Coast Guard aircraft helping out with earthquake relief. New clues also on what might have led to the accident.
Iranian officials say two separate bombings, minutes apart in southern Iran, killed more than 100 pilgrims visiting the gravesite of Cosmo Solmani, who was the top military commander, killed in a US airstrike exactly four years ago today. Iran's supreme leader has warned of a quote, harsh response, feeling fears, of course, of a wider regional war. There's been no claim of responsibility, but US officials tonight are saying who they think could be responsible. More than that in a moment.
The strike comes a day after a top Hamas leader was killed in Lebanon, not of a share, has the details. Scenes of chaos in the Iranian city of Kermond, an explosion sending crowns into disarray when a second blast rings out. Thousands had gathered to mark the anniversary of the death of military commander, Carson Solmani, who was killed by a US airstrike in Baghdad four years ago. The twin blasts less than a mile from Solmani's grave, killing more than 100 and injuring many more.
Iranian officials say this was a terror attack, state media reporting that one of the explosions was caused by a bomb inside a suitcase in a car. Solmani was Iran's revered top military general. This attack on his supporters seen as a strike against the Iranian regime, which has many enemies, both inside and outside the country. In Lebanon, the leader of Iran backed as one look commemorated Solmani's death, but also used his speech on Wednesday to condemn Tuesday's killing of a top Hamas official on his own soil.
And so we must see a way better view. Yesterday's crime was large and dangerous. This crime will not be left without a response and punishment between us and our enemies, their time and the battlefield. The strike in southern Beirut targeted Salah al-Aruri and several others in which Hamas has described as a cowardly assassination.
And while a US official tells CNN that Israel was behind the strike, Israeli officials have so far been careful not to publicly take responsibility. Israel has not taken responsibility for this attack, but whoever did it, it must be clear that this was not an attack on the Lebanese state, it was not an attack even on Hezbollah. Hezbollah perhaps not the target in Israel's eyes, but the Iran-backed group has long warned that any attack on Lebanese soil would trigger a response of equal severity on Israeli territory. From the outset of a war between Israel and Hamas, fighting between Israel and Hezbollah has been largely contained to Lebanon's southern border region.
But the brazen strike in Beirut, in the heart of Hezbollah territory, has raised fears among the United States and its allies that a false-scale war could break out between Israel and the Middle East's most powerful paramilitary force, or even more broadly across the region. Now to be sure, this is now from Beirut. What's the United States saying about who could be responsible for the blast in Iran? Well, the kind of there's been no claim of responsibility at this state, but the current assessment in the US, according to a senior administration official, is that this incident has all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack, reminiscent of attacks by ISIS seen in the past.
Now, of course, we have seen a history of extremist Sunni groups carrying out such attacks in Iran. There is also the possibility of internal resistance groups. We have heard earlier this evening, from Iran's President, Abraham Raisi, who had pointed the finger of the Israeli swirly at Israel, warning that the response from Iran would be severe and regrettable. Now, CNN has reached out to the Israeli military.
No comment from them on this. We did hear earlier today from State Department's folks, President Matt Miller, who said the US has no independent information asserting that the US had no involvement, and also saying that the US has no reason to believe that Israel was involved. But of course, this does come at a time of heightened tensions between Israel and Iran, and indeed, between Israel and Iran-backed groups, like Hezbollah, in Lebanon, of course, mounting concern around the potential for those tensions to escalate. More broadly, but again, no clear claim of responsibility just yet.
Still, very much a question mark of who was behind the attack, and of course, the fossil motive. Not to be sure. Thank you very much. Tonight from Tokyo, there's new information on what may have caused in Japan Airlines jetliner to collide with the Japanese Coast Guard plane, helping the earthquake relief efforts.
The Airbus A350 became a fireball in the runway before finally coming to a stop. Five people on the Coast Guard aircraft were killed. Records showed that red warning lights embedded in the taxiway lights stopped, which were lights designed to stop pilots from mistakenly taxing on attack of runways. Those lights were broken and not working for several days.
Also, Japanese officials released a transcript of the air traffic control communication just before the collision. We'll have more of that in a moment. But first, take a look at this. It was inside the Japanese airline plane as it's on fire.
Just after the collision, the cabin crew told passengers to please cooperate. They had to yell directions and use a megaphone to direct people to get off the burning plane when the inflight announcement system failed to work. Due to their actions, all 379 people on board the plane survived, evacuated down emergency shoots. When you look at the burn wreckage, safety experts say it's easy to see how this could have been far worse.
And they're praising the actions of the crew and passengers for getting out quickly. The scene at which the request joins us tonight. So the timeline of the accident more information has been released. Oh, yes, we now know a lot more.
For instance, the actual accident itself. We now know that the Coast Guard plane had been cleared to stop and hold. It had not been cleared for takeoff. But for whatever reason, it went on to the runway and it sat on the runway for 40 seconds before being struck by the arriving A350.
So we don't know why. Was this? Was it because they didn't have the runway stoplights? But Anderson, that was known about.
That wasn't a surprise. That's not a shock. That was in the notice to airman that goes out from the airport. They knew those runway lights were not operational.
And why did they wait for 40 seconds on an active runway at that time? We also have learned the plane itself, the A350. It was evacuated quickly, but not in the speed we've heard before. The last person off the plane was the captain and that was 18 minutes.
I know, 18 minutes after. The megaphone that was used, that's normal in a sense. That is absolutely normal practice. Come forward, come forward.
Don't do it. The instructions that they shout at people to do this. But the core question, which we do not know, is why did that Coast Guard plane having been told to position and hold at C5. Go on to the runway.
Investigators are going to be going through the burn wreckage at the point. Yes, the burn wreckage will tell them the logistics in a sense. Where was each plane vis-à-vis the other aircraft? What happened?
How did this A350 handle this incident? Don't forget, this is the first major fire of a carbon fibre aircraft. So they're going to be looking very closely. How did the fire itself spread?
Exactly. How did it spread? What were the strengths and weaknesses? Look at it, you can see it now.
It's off the runway. 18 minutes apparently to get everybody off it. Or at least before the captain. Yesterday we thought it was all in 90 seconds.
Most of them would have been within 90 seconds. We don't. There's some report that the Coast Guard captain is now saying he thought he was cleared for departure, but that doesn't square with what the voice recorder from air traffic control says, which is he clearly knew they had to hold. The one thing I'll say, in these incidents, it's always a chapter of incidents and accidents.
There's never one thing. And you have to be like a domino's, jenga, whatever you want. And it only takes one little bit. Although a lot comes down and that's what we're seeing now.
Thank you very much. Coming up, how the Republican presidential candidate's a 20-year-old against the GOP front runner, Donald Trump, with the primary contest starting in less than two weeks. That's ahead. Ahead of his possible attendance, next week's appeals court hearing on his presidential immunity arguments, the former president is also expected to visit Iowa this weekend.
Iowa caucuses are on January 15th. Florida governor Ron DeSantis is already in Iowa, former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley focusing on New Hampshire today, both in a battle for political survival against the heavily favored former president. Even Ken has more on the final stretch of this primary fight. It's crunch time on the campaign trail with 12 days until the voting begins.
What a crowd. Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley making her pitch to New Hampshire voters today. Don't complain about what happens in a general election if you don't play in this primary. It matters.
The Florida governor Ron DeSantis spent the day barnstorming Iowa. This is all about who turns out and if we turn out, you know, this is going to be a really, really special night for us. DeSantis going all in on the Hawkeye State, hoping a strong showing will fuel a campaign comeback. As your nominee, I will make sure that we win up and down the ballot all across the country, just like we did in Florida.
But Haley has seen fresh signs of support. How many of you are hearing me in a town hall setting for the first time? Her campaign announcing it raised $24 million across her political operation in the fourth quarter of 2023, more than doubling her total over the previous three months. He has the momentum her numbers are surging.
Haley and DeSantis in a fierce battle for second, but Donald Trump, the dominant front runner. Still, some New Hampshire voters say they're looking to move on from the former president. I think a lot of people, even if they liked Trump's policies, I don't think they liked the way he goes about his business. Are you in the people group describing?
Yeah, I guess I am. And during a stop in Iowa today, Republican Chris Garcia pressed DeSantis on why he hasn't more forcefully challenged Trump. Why haven't you gone directly at it? In 90 point, uh, I've articulated all the differences time and time again on the campaign trial.
What the media wants is they want Republican candidates to just kind of like smear him personally and kind of do that. That's just not how I roll. Haley and DeSantis both making the argument they are the Republicans in the best position to deliver a win for the party in 2024. Haley pointing to polls showing her running ahead of Biden.
We can't afford another nail-biter of an election. You look at all of these polls head to head against Biden. Trump is right there, head to head. I defeat Biden by 17 points.
While DeSantis is dismissing the polls and Trump's general election chances. I don't think Donald Trump ultimately can win an election. I know Fox News is going to say, oh, he's winning this poll. He's winning this poll.
This poll is regarded. I'm trying to buy you him. Ken from Milford, New Hampshire. So what are the other candidates saying in their closing messages?
Well, Anderson, Chris Christie, who also has a strong base of support here in this state, he's saying much of what Governor DeSantis and Nikki Haley's saying. He's telling supporters don't look at these polls that has Trump way out ahead, that there's still time for political surprises. Anderson, thank you so much for programming. No, it's seen it has back to back down polls tomorrow night.
Live from Des Moines, Iowa first with Governor Ron DeSantis then with Nikki Haley. They started at 9 p.m. Eastern with moderator Caitlin Collins then Aaron Burnett. Again, that's tomorrow night.
Sit for us. The news continues. The source starts now. From the descendants of history makers involved in the Louisiana Purchase to the Lewis and Clark Expedition, discover the untold stories of American expansion in the CNN original series this land premiering June 7th on CNN.
Hey, I'm Anderson Cooper. On my podcast, all there is, we explore grief and loss in all its complexities. As Ken Burns said on an earlier podcast, the half life of grief is endless. Mariska Hargatey knows that very well.
Jane Mansfield was killed in a car crash in 1967. Mariska was in the car with her. After decades spent coming to terms with her past and wanting to learn more about the mother she doesn't remember, Mariska has made a remarkable documentary called My Mom Jane. Our vulnerability is our greatest strength and our greatest connector.
And so in telling the story, I don't feel vulnerable. I feel free. We all have a story and you never know what somebody else carries. Talking grief, building community.
That's what the podcast is all about. This is all there is. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcast.