tonight, where is alexei navalny? a question he and his family and his top aide, frequent guests on "out front," they're asking now, pounding the table, saying for 15 days we don't know where alexei navalny is or what's happening to him. navalny leaving a russian penal colony just over two weeks ago. his team is concerned he's been transferred to a distant and worse penal colony, but they don't know if he's alive or not. the wife of a critic had this warning about prison transfers. >> the next step is the transfer. and this is a very dangerous period. they tend to lose prisoners

during transfer. >> tomorrow night, navalny's daughter, dasha, will be "out front." wewe'll see yoyou thenen. thanksks for joining us. thanksks for joining us. anderson starts now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com tonight on "360," the supreme court might soon decide an issue that could make criminal charges against the former president simply vanish. so, why is he telling the court, hey, not so fast when it comes to taking up the case? also tonight, was colorado supreme court right to boot him off the ballot under the 14th amendment? we're going to ask the voters. just in time for christmas, a judge rules that rudy giuliani defamed with his election lies can start trying to collect that nearly $150 million he owes them right now. good evening. i'm pamela brown in for anderson tonight. first up, why the former president's legal team today asked the supreme court not to bypass an appeals court and quickly take up the question of whether he enjoys legal immunity for his actions as president.

a decision you would think any defendant facing charges, which might be invalidated, would want asap, except for this defendant, who is running for president. we're going to talk in a moment with our legal panel about that and how the supreme court should handle last night's unprecedented colorado supreme court ruling that the former president is an insurrectionist and does not belong on the state's primary ballot. president biden was asked about that today. >> is trump an insurrectionist, sir? >> well, i think certainly it's self-evident. you saw it all. whether the 14th amendment applies, we'll let the court apply that decision. but he certainly supported an insurrection. no question on that. none, zero. >> for more on that and the trump legal team's question, i'm joined by jessica schneider. what more can you tell us about team trump's resistance to give in to immunity. >> a lot of resistance from

trump's legal team today. they want this appeals process to play out. they do not want the supreme court to stay in -- to step into this. in their filing today, they said the special counsel is seeking to embroil this court in a partisan rush to judgment. and this is all part of the trump legal team playbook. they want to slow walk this because what they're trying to do is right now is trial is scheduled for march 4th. if they can keep pushing that trial date back, that increases the chance that this trial would start maybe after an election. and of course if trump were to actually win re-election, he could ultimately get his doj to dismiss these charges here because the lower court here found that trump was not immune from this criminal prosecution. and even though they lost at that lower court level, they still want this appeals process to play out. the d.c. circuit of appeals is scheduled to hear the arguments on january 9th. trump's team wants to keep that in place because that would, sort of, push the supreme court hearing this off until later whereas the special counsel wants this to go immediately

before the supreme court. >> a lot before the supreme court before this election dealing with trump. on that note, what happens next in the colorado supreme court case trump said he is going to appeal? >> the next deadline is really january 4th. they said trump's name needs to be taken off the ballot, but they paused that ruling until at least january 4th. they say if trump files an appeal to the u.s. supreme court by january 4th, their ruling won't go into effect. we heard from sources, our team has, that trump's team is going to file an appeal to the u.s. supreme court, probably not this week, likely sometime next week. they will likely do it before january 4th. and that's a crucial date because one day later is when the colorado secretary of state has to certify the primary ballot. so, because of that tight timing here, it looks like trump's name will likely be on the primary ballot. and then this challenge, as it moves forward, it would really only affect the general election ballot, which if trump is the nominee, we would see if his name was on the ballot depending

on what the supreme court decides to do here. >> you are one busy lady, you and the rest of the justice team. we'll see you later on in the show in another story. joining us now, former federal prosecutor robert wray who served as counsel for then president trump in his first impeachment trial. and cnn legal analyst elie honig. great to see you both. robert, i want to start with you. you were critical of the colorado supreme court decision. you pointed the fact that section three doesn't specifically mention the presidency. but the follow-up question is, what would be the logic of the amendment's authors from prohibiting every job in the government, civil and -- but not the presidency. how would that make sense? >> because the presidency is unique. it is uniquely dealt with in other places in the constitution. chief justice roberts has already spoken to the question about whether an officer of the united states is limited to just

appointed officials as opposed to all officials under our united states government. and the answer is, it's limited to appointed officials generally speaking, unless there's some reason to vary from that, which means if you want to cover, for example, members of congress, the constitution explicitly says so. and if you want to cover the president or the vice president of the united states, in other places in the constitution, you explicitly say so. so, for example, you don't impeach members of congress. you can only remove them by operation of either the house or the senate. that was the case that came before the supreme court quite a long time ago. and it's generally thought that officers therefore should be limited only to appointed officials, not elected officials, because the president's an elected official generally speaking. the default position should be that he's not covered by that

language. in any event, section iii of the 14th amendment doesn't explicitly cover the president of the united states. and frankly, i think there's a better reason why the colorado supreme court should have stayed out of this. and that is that section iii of the 14th amendment is not self-executing. and one of the reasons you get into problems involving, well, what should the standard be in determining whether or not the president is quote, unquote engaged in insurrection, what kind of proceeding should that entail, that's all left to congress. congress acted in this area in the 1870s and ultimately it repealed what was a procedure to determine whether or not somebody had supported insurrection by virtue of being a confederate. and there was a writ that was required to be issued in order to deal with precisely that question. alternatively, congress can pass a criminal law, which it has, to indicate that someone engaged in insurrection can be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned.

it's notable here that jack smith explicitly declined to bring insurrection charges. that should have been a clue to the colorado supreme court to stay out of this. they chose not. and i think probably what should be recognized is that we all ought to be able to agree that it is not a particularly good look to have judges in a 4-3 decision deciding to keep somebody off of an election ballot. that should be for the voters to decide, not for judges. >> what you just brought up about jack smith not charging the former president with insurrection. elie, i want to bring you in on this. the text of the 14th amendment, section iii, does not say that someone needs to be convicted of it, merely that they engaged in it. how do you think a supreme court may interpret that language? >> so, i think the supreme court is going to take this case, and i think the supreme court is going to reverse the colorado supreme court. i halfway agree with bob. i halfway disagree with bob. i disagree with him on whether

the term an officer of the united states includes the president. there's, sort of, linguistic exercises you can do either way. i think it's worth noting all seven justices didn't have a problem with all officers of the united states, including the president. logically, if you're going to have a provision in the constitution that says, anyone who engages in insurrection can't serve for future office, it would be bizarre if the highest office was exempt from that. i do agree with bob though -- yeah. oh. i do agree with bob that we have a serious due process problem here because the 14th amendment itself says that congress, in section v, congress has to pass laws that tell us how this works. who gets to decide who engaged in insurrection? is it a court? is it congress? is it a jury? is it a judge? the only law that's still on the books is the criminal law, criminalizing insurrection, which says if a person is charged and convicted with this, he's disqualified. that has not happened here. colorado tried to, sort of, take this state level proceeding that's not really made for this

type of insurrection determination and force a square peg into a round hole. and i think that violates donald trump's due process rights. and i think the u.s. supreme court is going to reverse because of that. >> robert, as you know in this country, it's every state's prerogative how they run their elections. why shouldn't state courts have a say in who's qualified to be on the ballot? if it's a question that's relevant to every other state, it gets kicked up to the u.s. supreme court, which is what's happening now? why is that process objectionable to you? >> well, with regard to simple things, i think you're probably right there. you know, the qualifications for office for the presidency of the united states are relatively simple and are set forth in the constitution, is the person over 35 years of age? have they been 14 years a resident of a state? is the person a natural born u.s. citizen? on the natural born u.s. citizen issue, that's created a few wrinkles along the way. for example, is john mccain, was he eligible to be president because he was born in the

panama canal zone when his father was an admiral serving there? the answer seemed to be pretty clearly yes that he's a natural born u.s. citizen, just as if he'd been born actually on the territory of the united states. ted cruz, that issue came up. that's a little bit more complicated. but ultimately the thinking is he also qualifies as a natural born u.s. citizen. on simple things, you leave it to the states. there will be a gathering consensus. what's a very bad look, i think we all can agree, is if a state supreme court in a split decision 4-3, which is likely one that could be replicated anywhere else in the country, gets to decide whether somebody is or isn't an insurrectionist and therefore disqualified from the ballot. i think we can all agree that really ought to be something that is a thing decided with guidance from congress, where we can get a single answer nationally about what the results should be. now, ultimately here it's going to be left to the united states supreme court to decide that.

i think they will take the case. i think they will decide it. and hopefully it'll be decided on a non-partisan basis or a bipartisan basis in something approaching unanimity. i would like to think that this is something that could be decided 9-0. >> all right. i want to go to another case before the supreme court, and that is this case about whether trump has immunity from when he was president against jack smith's case. and you saw today that donald trump's lawyers asked the supreme court not to intervene, at least not now, in jack smith's quest on ruling of whether he does have presidential immunity in his actions on and around january 6th. if trump wasn't running for re-election to the presidency, do you think they would still be making this process to the supreme court to slow down the process? and do you think they were effective in poking holes in jack smith's argument? >> i just finished reading donald trump's -- and it's quite effective. here's why, pam.

we have to remember, the one who's asking for extraordinary relief here outside the normal channel is jack smith. ordinarily, when you lose in the district court, as donald trump had, 99% of the time, you appeal to the intermediate court of appeals. jack smith is saying, let's skip that and go right to the supreme court. and donald trump's team identifies a real weakness in jack smith's position which is this. jack smith will not say that the reason he wants to speed this up is because he wants to try donald trump before the election. instead, what jack smith gives us in his brief is a bunch of vague gibberish where he says, delay is bad and speed is good and we need speed because it's important because we don't want delay. donald trump's team effectively says, that's not a specific reason. they have to give a specific reason. that's vague. you shouldn't grant it unless they say the specific reason. i think trump's team knows jack smith will never affirm it's about the election. i think jack smith's team will

get the wink wink here, but i think it's a coin toss as to what the supreme court does on this. >> they're banking on jack smith not admitting that because it would look political, which would be what jack smith would not want. robert ray, thank you, elie honig, thank you. i'll see you sooner on this other breaking news about rudy giuliani whose financial troubles just got worse tonight. also up next what colorado voters are telling gary tuchman about the ballot ruling. and the newest threat from iceland still erupting and still a dangerous volcano just ahead on "360."

. at the top of the program you heard president biden rule in that the former president is an insurrectionist. before the break, our legal panel had plenty to say. and right now, what a group of colorado voters make of all of this. our gary tuchman did the asking. >> reporter: this coffee shop in colorado goes by the simple name of coffee. and it's here we have a simple question for customers. tell me your gut feeling. do you think it's a good thing the colorado supreme court did that or not a good thing? >> you know, i'm not the biggest fan of trump, but i don't think people should be taken off the ballot necessarily. >> this man is a political independent in a very republican

county. so, here in the county seat of castle rock, it's easy to find loyal trump republicans who feel the same as this man. >> what do you think of the supreme court decision? >> i think it's unfair. >> how come? >> the government shouldn't get in that position to control votes for certain candidates. >> reporter: but we did find this democrat who says that's precisely what the court needed to do. >> i think it's a great decision. i think when you try to overturn an election, you don't get to run again. you know, we have a 14th amendment for a reason. >> reporter: back inside coffee, loyal trump supporter, tony -- doesn't take this decision seriously. she thinks the supreme court taking trump off the primary ballot is a result of game playing. >> why do you think they're playing a game and not doing their job? >> because they're part of the game. >> reporter: what's that game? >> not being honest. >> reporter: but you think that trump has been honest? >> for the most part, yeah. >> reporter: her friend concurs,

saying that she feels -- >> outrage. absolute outrage. >> reporter: why are you outraged? >> they're going to take away our choice based on their personal beliefs because i don't believe they're speaking for the people. >> reporter: but elle gray believes the justices are. she's an independent, who has voted for donald trump, but says she won't be voting for him again if he ends up back on the ballot. >> i agree with their ruling that he engaged in insurrection, yes. >> reporter: so do you think it was the right thing to do? >> for my state, yes. >> reporter: keith raymond has voted for donald trump twice, but says he's supporting chris christie. >> oits complicated, but if the law is a law and the supreme court is stating it, we have to abide by it. >> reporter: many coloradans are still adjusting to the court ruling. the varied opinions about donald trump symbolic of countless discussions in this state and this country. kelsie nistal is a democrat.

>> i think what he did is unacceptable for our country, and he should face the consequences for that. >> reporter: jake herman is a republican. >> i think if that was a legitimate thing that happened, if he was part of an insurrection, he would have been arrested. he wasn't arrested. >> gary tuchman joins us now from the colorado supreme court in denver. did any of the trump supporters say they would switch their support to another gop candidate if trump's name is not on the ballot? >> reporter: at least on this day, we did not talk to any fervent trump supporters who said they would pick a different republican candidate on primary day, which is march 5th, by the way, if trump is off the ballot. instead, what we heard for several of them is that they would write in trump's name. but under the terms of this decision by the court, a write-in vote for donald trump would not count. >> all right. gary tuchman, thank you so much for that. more now on the politics and the notion, which pollster frank luntz raised on this program

last night that anything the legal system throws at the former president somehow only makes him stronger. joining us now, former illinois republican congressman and january 6th committee member adam kinzinger and alyssa farah griffin, who served as the former president's white house communications director. congressman, do you think the supreme court should uphold the colorado ruling? and do you think it actually would? two different questions. >> it doesn't seem like they're going to, from what i'm hearing. they may. who knows? i think it's really up to their decision. it's funny. i'm like -- i keep going back and forth on my opinion on this, and i'm like, i guess everyone expects politicians and former politicians to have a solid opinion. on one hand, the 14th amendment covers him. our committee -- to one of the guys talking in the focus group, the former president was arrested for january 6th. let's be clear. he hasn't been convicted yet. i look at that and i go, look, we showed it was an insurrection. i fully believe it was an

insurrection. and if he violated that, he violated that. he should be kicked off. at the same time politically, as a politician now, i do think it's probably not going to hurt him. i don't think it necessarily will help him. it's not going to hurt him. and i frankly would love to see him lose at the ballot box. he's a loser who keeps losing and i wouldn't mind if he lost one more time. >> it still remains to be seen whether it will help/hurt him. alyssa, the former president frequently tells his supporters that the system is rigged against him, that the justice system is being weaponized against him? do you skexpect the colorado ruling to have a big impact? >> i'm not sure it has a huge impact. those who are with trump are with him. those who are opposed to him are opposed. certainly if it were to say, it would be radioactive. colorado went for biden and likely will be in the blue column. i don't think it has a major impact there. but i'm with adam on this.

i'm very conflicted. i think republicans are split on this. i agree donald trump incited an insurrection. i think the department of justice will hold him accountable for that. at the same time, there's a danger here. many of his supporters wrongingly believed after 2020 the system was taking their votes, was not counting their votes, that our elections were rigged. that was false. this will give them a concrete example they can point to where they say, the system decided to ignore my vote. they decided to throw out a vote i cast and will frame it as disenfranchisement. this is one person's fault and one person's fault only. donald trump's. >> the bottom line though, congressman, is that doj, you know, jack smith didn't charge trump with incitement, right? the january 6th committee clearly laid out the evidence to make their case, not doj. that just fuelled the critics of this colorado decision to say, look, he hasn't even been charged with this?

>> yeah, i mean, look, everybody's going to have their opinion. but one thing, as alyssa said, that trump does really well, he is a perpetual, professional, constant victim. i mean, this is the guy that occupied the most powerful position in the world, and he had at one point the senate and the house with him, and yet he still was unable to go after this quote, unquote deep state and this institution that's going after him and everything. he's the only one standing between the government and his voters. he's done that well. honestly, though, i think -- i think america -- maybe not the gop per se, but america is, kind of, sick of this victim mentality, this victimhood, this whining, this complaining. so, this will add to that. so, while it may not hurt him in the primary, the more he whines and complains and bellyaches, i do think it's going to make a difference around the edges in the general election. which this is so close that any kind of a difference around the

edge could be positive for joe biden or if it goes the other way, for donald trump. >> alyssa, we saw this move today by trump's lawyers to stave off, for now, the supreme court intervening in the battle over whether presidential immunity protects him from prosecution in connection with january 6th. do you believe it's in trump's interest to drag out these legal disputes whether it's immunity, gag orders, 14th amendment as long as he can perhaps into the general election season if he's the nominee, or do you think that could backfire? >> oh, no. donald trump's pure strategy and perhaps the only real legal strategy he has is delay, delay, delay. he wants to see all these cases, whether it's fulton county, the two department of justice investigations, he would like to see them go on beyond the election day, the general election. and it's not an impossibility that they would with an appeals process and so on. he is running for president for retribution and to stay out of jail. that's simply it, and he needs to buy as much time as he can in the coming months. and he's going to use every

delay tactic that he can in the legal system. >> congressman, do you believe the president, the former president, i should say, will actually stand trial in one or more of the federal cases against him before next november? or do you think he's going to be successful running out the clock here? >> i mean, it really is -- it's a coin flip. i hope he does stand trial because i think it's important for this information that, you know, some of which we were able to get out of the committee, much more to come, particularly also request with the documents case -- who knows where that's going to end up going. but the american people need to see this. there's a lot of evidence, there's a lot of information that i think the american people deserve to have before them when they go to the ballot and make a vote. the former president has made it very clear, as alyssa said, he wants to win for vengeance. he said, i am your vengeance. and he wants to win to exonerate himself. he's not talking about the future of this country. he doesn't have great ideas. he's just talking about getting back at his political enemies.

and if he wins, he can, yes, have the department of justice simply call off the case. he has the power to do that. or if he's already been convicted, he can pardon himself. and i have a hard time thinking that he doesn't have the power to pardon himself. and he would do that. and frankly his supporters would cheer that on. but it would be devastating for self-governance in this country. >> adam kinzinger, alyssa farah griffin, thank you so much. more breaking news, potentially back breaking news for rudy giuliani. tonight, less than a week after a jury awarded two 2020 georgia election workers nearly $150 million in damages, the judge in that case said the bill is payable immediately, right now. a busy night for cnn. jessica schneider, who is back with the details, along with cnn senior analyst elie honig. >> this is the judge in the case of the defamation case now saying that ruby freeman and shaye moss, they do not have to wait the typical 30 days to begin going after rudy

giuliani's assets in other states. typically it's a 30-day waiting period. but this judge tonight has issued this 13-page opinion explaining all the reasons why these women don't have to wait to go after that $148 million verdict. we saw the verdict come down on friday. and today, just a few days later, they've asked this judge, hey, we want to start going after the money immediately. they're probably very worried about what they will actually see from this judgment. we've heard rudy giuliani repeatedly say, his lawyers repeatedly say, just how broke he is. he's put at least one of his properties up for sale, his new york apartment. so, these women want to move fast to get the money from some of these assets, the judge tonight giving them the green light to do this very quickly. >> what did the judge say about giuliani's financial problems? >> she was very scathing against giuliani and his lawyers. she talked about a number of things. she said, look, rudy giuliani hasn't said here that he won't try to conceal his assets.

that's why i want to get things moving more quickly in the 30-day period. she also said he previously disregarded orders for payment. he owes money to his lawyers. they've talked about how broke rudy giuliani is that he can't even pay his legal bills. she cited all of this. she said such claims of giuliani's, quote, financial difficulties, no matter how many times repeated publicly, it's difficult to square with the fact that giuliani affords this spokesperson. she's pointing out numerous ways that giuliani seems to be able to spend money yet in other ways claim he's flat broke. she's using those as reasoning for why sheez women should be able to go after him immediately for this nearly $150 million verdict. >> how do ruby freeman and shaye moss go about collecting what they can from giuliani? he's putting his apartment in new york up for sale. could they take all the proceeds from the sale of that apartment? what can they do here?

>> so, it's a couple-step process, pam. first of all, the attorneys for the plaintiffs have to identify the assets. they've said publicly they've been in the process of doing that. then you essentially attach the assets. it's like putting a lien on it. if for example rudy giuliani goes to sell that apartment, it will be known to any buyer, there's people who have a claim to this money. and it will prevent rudy from getting rid of it. and ultimately rudy is going to owe ms. moss, ms. freeman, his lawyers, other people who have sued him, way more money than he has. you have to bring the parties together and they have to split it proportionally, based on who's owed how much. this ruling is really unusual, pam, and it shows how deeply this judge distrusts rudy giuliani. she is not willing to give him even a few days of a grace period that's normally given. and a very good cause when you read that ruling. >> elie honig, jessica schneider, thank you so much. just ahead, israel is back at the table for hostage

negotiations, as families protest that not enough is being done. we're going to have details on israrael's s significantnt new prproposal up p next.

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

for the third time this week, a u.n. vote on a resolution to suspend fighting in gaza and allow in more humanitarian aid was once again delayed. president biden says, u.s. support for the resolution is still unresolved. and this comes with israel proposing a new hostage deal and israeli officials facing intensifying pressure to rescue the remaining captives. axios reporter joins us now.

what more can you tell us about this offer from israel and what it entails? >> so, this offer was proposed during a meeting on monday in warsaw with the cia director, bill burr, the prime minister of qatar, and the chief of the agency, david -- and he came to the meeting for the first time with an israeli proposal to try and relaunch those talks that were basically non-existent since the collapse of the ceasefire. and the main -- the two main issues -- or the two main elements of this proposal is first that israel proposes a one-week pause in the fighting in return for release of something around 40 hostages that hamas is holding, the women remaining in captivity, men over 60, and hostages that are sick or seriously wounded. and israel is willing to release

palestinian prisoners who committed more serious crimes than the one it released in the previous deal. >> so, do you know if the fallout from the idf's accidental killing three israeli hostages played any role in israel's decision to make this offer? >> no doubt. no doubt. and, you know, there's more than one israeli official who told me that the fact that we saw doing one week, two meetings, between the director mossad and the qatari prime minister, is not only to move toward a deal, but it's also to try and, sort of, cool down the protests inside israel by families of hostages and the general public who wants to see the hostages back. so, there's no doubt that domestic reasons also led to the fact that israel, for the first time, presented such a proposal. >> right. and have they ever had a

proposal before that was like this where -- week pause? >> i think what's different this time is that if we look at the previous deal, israel got 80 hostages out of gaza. and in return, it gave one-week pause. this time, we're looking at 40 hostages and, again, one-week pause. so, basically hamas gets the same number of days of ceasefire in return for half the number of hostages. and i think that's if hamas will say tomorrow that it wants to go back to the negotiation table but it wants more days of pause, i'm pretty sure that israel would be ready to talk about it. >> you reported that hamas' position is that israel must stop its attacks before any hostage negotiations could resume. is that something israel has shown any willingness to agree

to? >> i don't think so. and, you know, the director mossad, when the prime minister of qatar told him this is the hamas position, director mossad said, that's great. there are only two things we ask in return. first that hamas will give up the weapons and second turn in the leadership. as you see, it's, kind of, a non-starter. but the question is whether hamas will be ready at some point to go back to the table. for now, israel did not get a formal response from hamas yet for its proposal. and israeli officials expect this will happen by the end of the week. we will see if hamas is willing to move or they're sticking to their positions and unwilling to go back to the table before the war ends. >> president biden said today that the u.s. is pushing israel and hamas to reach a deal. what do you know about any efforts by the white house here? >> so, i think the main thing

here is the involvement of cia director bill burns. he is really involved. he's not just there for, you know, just to say, okay, we'll send somebody. he's involved. and i wouldn't be surprised if we will see in the next few days president biden speaking to the amir of qatar or secretary blinken speaking to the prime minister of qatar. by the way, there was a deal today announced between the u.s. and venezuela on the release of hostages, prisoners, and qatar was the country that mediated this deal. i think it matters because it shows, again, how much the u.s. and qatar are close when it comes to such sensitive negotiations. and i think it's going to give the qataris a lot of credit in washington going forward. also when it comes to the situation in gaza. >> yeah, no doubt.

barack rah bead, thank you so much. up next the newest threat from iceland's volcanic c eruptn and what t the nearerest town i going g through. we'll be r right back.k. stay witith us.

well, tonight in iceland, even as the lava flow diminishes, authorities are warning of a new threat from a volcano which began erupting three days ago. new vents could open up

releasing more smoke and dangerous gases. that and other potential dangers mean people who have been evacuated from a nearby fishing village can't return home yet. cnn's fred pleitgen has the latest. >> reporter: up close, as the earth spews fountains of lava, south iceland remains in a state of emergency, as the volcanic eruption continues. this is as close as the icelandic authorities are going to allow us to the actual fissure, to where the eruption is happening. we're about a mile from it. things have calmed down, but the da danger is still there. authorities fear more vents might open up, pop up, and more lava could be coming to the surface in fountains like we've seen over the past day and a half. so, while things have gotten a little bit more muted, certainly the danger is not over. in the early stages of the eruption, a wall of lava spewing hundreds of feet into the air.

while it has subsided somewhat, the underground magma tunnel remains active and dangerous. >> still dangerous, of course, and the magma that is coming up is around 1,200 degrees hot when it comes to the surface. and it takes a long time for the surface to cool down. >> reporter: the area around the eruption zone remained cordoned off, critical infrastructure in danger, the world famous blue lagoon hot springs closed. here's another reason the situation is so dangerous. you see over there is the volcanic activity. if we pan over in this direction, over there is a geothermal power plant that's extremely important for the electricity here in this area. the authorities are trying to protect that power plant by building a berm against lava flows. >> we have this eruption, but i think it has proven wise that the town was evacuated in november.

we have been buying flats for the residents, so now we have 70 flats that people can move into before christmas, which is the most people who are in most dire need of housing. >> reporter: leaving many residents wondering if they will ever see their homes again. and pamela, the authorities here say they are going to let people go back to their houses for maybe an hour or two starting tomorrow, but they're not going to allow people to stay there. they believe if there is another eruption, that it could happen fast. in fact, they say for the first time they detected major seismic activity on monday, they only had about 90 minutes warning time, not enough time for a large-scale evacuation. >> certainly. fred pleitgen, thank you so much. just ahead, the potential dangers of pregnancy in a post-roe america. an ohio woman was charged with a crime after having a miscarriage. we're going to have her story up next.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch

mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. so, imagine at 21 weeks and five days pregnant, you're told the fetus you're carrying will not survive. that is any expecting mom's worse nightmare. and you're urged to receive what amounts to an abortion. eventually you miscarry in your bathroom after days of trying to

receive care. this happened to melanie watson. in ohio, abortions are legal until fetal viability, which is generally considered to be around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. and her case is highlighting the extent to which prosecutors can charge a woman whose pregnancy has ended, whether by abortion or miscarriage. whitney wild has the details. and we want to warn you, some of what you are about to hear is disturbing. >> reporter: after the death of her 22-week-old fetus, brittney watts felt distraught, heart broken, empty, according to texts she sent to local television station wjw. a coroner's report and 911 call obtained by cnn details the days before and after the miscarriage that led to her arrest and felony charge. >> i had a mother who had a delivery at home and came in without the baby. >> reporter: in mid september watts visit the hospital multiple times and was told her

water broke and her fetus would not survive. medical staff recommended watts be induced into labor. at first she declined medical care, but later returned to the hospital intending to give birth. according to a "washington post" interview, watts waited eight hours to give birth, as doctors and officials decided whether it would violate ohio laws. she miscarried into a toilet. she returned to the hospital a third time after her miscarriage, where hospital staff called police. >> if it was born alive, i am certain it is not now alive. >> reporter: investigators found the fetus, still stuck in the toilet at watts' home. watts face ace felony charge for abuse of the corpse. the coroner's report states the fetus died in utero. >> the issue isn't how the child died, when the child died. it's the fact that the baby was

put into a toilet. >> reporter: watts' attorney said there is no law in ohio that requires a woman suffering a miscarriage -- katie watson called the criminal charge absurd. >> i think this is an example of a woman violating feelings rules. she didn't perform sadness, and she didn't perform respect in a way that the prosecutors could recognize. so, they chose to punish her with the prosecution. >> watts' case has set off criminal debate over miscarriages. >> this is about misunderstanding miscarriage and how it works. it's about misunderstanding the psychological and psychiatric reactions that some people have during and after a miscarriage. >> reporter: abortion rights group ohio physicians for reproductive rights is urging prosecutors to drop the case. the group's cofounder, dr. marcella -- told cnn the risk to

other women facing non-viable pregnancies is enormous. >> the criminalization of her pregnancy outcomes further stigmatizes both abortion and pregnancy. but it certainly particularly affects communities that are black and brown. and it creates a bigger discrepancy, and it doesn't allow them to feel safe. >> whitney wild joins us now. i still can't get over what that prosecutor said and what you just showed in the story. it's, like, you don't get to decide if you're pregnant and when you're going to have a miscarriage -- where would he expect that to happen? what more can you tell us about the wording of the ohio law that's at issue here? >> pamela, it's extremely vague, and it really hinges on this word, sensibility. it says no person, except as authorized by law, should treat

a human corpse in a way that would outrage reasonable community sensibilities. brittney watts' attorney says there is no law that required her to do anything specific with those fetal remains. we have reached out to the kprus investors in this case. they've declined to comment on the substantive facts on the case. they did submit a lengthy statement that detailed what has happened in this case. this case is now with a grand jury. in about one out of five cases there, the grand jury returns no indictment. that was in the statement from the county prosecutors there. meanwhile, we also reached out to the hospital, st. joseph hospital. they released a very brief statement, did not, again, comment on the details of the brittney watts case, but said only out of patient privacy they were declining to comment. and then stressed that care and safety of their patients is their highest concern, pamela. >> whitney wild, thank you. we'll be right back.

the news continues. "the source" with kaitlan "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com