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. >> tonight on 360, the supreme

court might soon decide an issue that could mean criminal charges against the former president simply vanished. so why is he telling the court, hey, not so fast when it comes to taking up the case? also tonight, was the colorado supreme court right to boot him off the ballot under the 14th amendment? we can ask the voters. plus, just in time for christmas, a judge rules that the women rudy giuliani defamed with his election lies can start trying to collect that nearly 100 and $50 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 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 think any defendant facing charges the white be invalidated would want asap, except perhaps this defended, 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 of the former president is an insurrectionist and does not belong in the

states primary ballot. president biden was asked abou t that today. >> is trump an insurrectionist, sir? >> i think it's self evident. whether the 14th amendment says, but it certainly supports insurrection. no question about it. none. zero. >> all right, so more on that in the trump legal team's request on the presidential immunity request i'm joined by jessica schneider. jessica, what more can you tell us about treating trump's resistance to the immunity case getting him before the supreme court soon as possible? >> a lot of resistance from trump's legal team. they want this legal process to play out. they don't want the supreme court to stay in, to step into

this, and they are filing today they said the special counsel is seeking to embroil this court in a partisan rush to judgment. this is all part of the legal trump team play book. what they're trying to do is the 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 actually to win reelection, he could ultimately get his doj to dismiss these charges here. the lower court here found that trump was not immune from this criminal prosecution. and even though they lost at the lower court level, they still want this appeals process to paint play out. the d.c. circuit court of appeals is scheduled to hear the arguments on january 9th. trump's team wants to keep that in place because that would push the supreme court hearing this off into later. the special counsel wants this to go immediately to the supreme court. >> a lot before the supreme court. on that note, what happens next in the colorado supreme court case that trum p

has said he's going to appeal? >> the next deadline for the colorado supreme court is 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 have heard from sources, our team has, the 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. 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 is actually on the ballot, depending on what the supreme court decides to do here. >> you are one busy leyla lady. jessica schneider, thanks, and we'll see you later on the show with another story. joining us now, federal prosecutor and whitewater independent counsel robert grazers council for then

president trump and his first impeachment trial. also with us, cnn senior legal analyst former federal prosecutor elie honig. great to see you both. robert, i will start with you. you are highly critical of the colorado supreme court decision, you pointed out that section three of the 14th amendment doesn't mention the presidency. but the following question is, what would be the logic of the amendment prohibiting all others insurrectionists from holding office but not the presidency? >> 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 of whether an officer of the united states is limited to just appointed officials as opposed to all officials under our united states government. the answer is, it is limited to appointed officials, generally speaking, and that's for some reason to vary from that. that is 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 through the knighted states in other places of the constitution, you say so. for example you don't impeach members of congress. you can only remove them by operation of the house or the senate. that was a case that came were before the supreme court quite a long time ago. and it is generally thought that officers

therefore should be limited only two appointed officials, not elected officials, because the president is an elected official. generally speaking the default position should be that he is not covered by that language. in any event, section three of the 14th amendment doesn't explicitly cover the president of united states. and frankly there is a better reason why but supreme court should have stayed out of this and that is that section through the 14th amendment is not self executing. one of the reasons you get into problems involving well, what should the standard be in determining whether the president is, quote unquote, engaged in insurrection, what kind of proceeding should that entail? that is all left to congress. congress acted in this area in the 18 70s and ultimately it repealed what was a procedure to determine whether or not somebody had supported insurrection by virtue of being a confederate. there was a rich 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 to, 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 43 decision deciding to keep somebody off an election ballot. that should be voters to decide. >> on that note, what we brought about jack smith not charging the former president with insurrection, eliahna bring you in, the text of the member does not say that someone needs to be convicted of, it merely that they engaged in it. how do you think the supreme court may interpret that language? >> 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. i disagree with him on whether the term an officer of the united states includes the president. these are 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 united states including the president. and also just logically, if you're going to have a provision in the constitution this is anyone who engages in insurrection cancer for future office, it would be bizarre if the highest office was exempt from that. i do agree with bob, though that we have a serious due process problem here. because the 14th amendment itself says that congress, in section five, 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? isn't a jury? is it a judge? the only law that is still on the books, as bob said, the congress have ever passed, is a criminal law, criminalizing insurrection which specifically says if a person is charged and convicted with this he is disqualified. that has not happened here. instead colorado tried to sort of take this state level proceeding that is not really made for this type of insurrection determination and force a square peg into a round hole. i think that violates donald trump's due process rights, and i think the supreme court's gonna reverse. >> so robert, as you know, it's every state prerogative how they won their elections. why couldn't why shouldn't state courts have a say on who is qualified to be on the ballot? and then it's relevant to every other state, it gets kicked up to the supreme court, which is

happening now. why is that process objectionable to you? >> with regard to simple things, i think you're probably right. the qualifications for office for the presidency of the night and states are relatively simple and our set forth in the constitution as the person over 35 years of age, and they've been 14 years a resident in the 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, as john mccain, was he eligible to be president because he was born in the panama canal canal zone when his father was an admiral serving there? the answer seems to be pretty clearly yes. he's a natural born u.s. citizen just as if he had been born actually on the territory of united states. ted cruz, that issue came up. that's a little more complicated, but ultimately the

thinking was he also qualifies as a natural born u.s. citizen. again, on simple things, you leave it to the states. there would be a gathering consensus. what is a very bad look, i think we can all agree, is if a state supreme court in a split decision 4 to 3, likely 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 could all agree, that could 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. 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 will be decided on a nonpartisan basis or a bipartisan basis. it's something approaching unanimity. i would like to

think this could be decided -- >> all right, i want to go to another case before the supreme court, and that is the case about whether trump has immunity from when he was president against jack smith's case. you saw it today don trump's lawyers asked the supreme court not to intervene, at least not now in jack smith ruling on whether he has immunity and actions around january six. i wonder what you think, elaine. if donald trump wasn't running for presidency, would he still be making the

case in the supreme court to slow down the process? and you think they were ineffective in poking holes in jack smith's argument? >> i just finished reading don trump's teams breathe and it's quite effective. and here's why. the one who is asking for extraordinary relief outside the normal channel is jack smith. because ordinarily when you lose a new district court is donald drunk ham, 99% of the time you're move is to appeal to the intermediate report. let's jacks mitt saying let's skip that, identifies a weak space in jack smith's. argument jack smith would say in quarter in his brief 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 well, delay is bad and speed is good and we need speed because of the important because we don't want to live. donald trump's team quite effectively says that's not a specific reason. they have to give a specific reason, that's just vague, you shouldn't grant that unless they say the specific reason. and i think trump's team knows full where there's no way interject smith will ever acknowledge that if the election. i think jack smith is counting on and hoping the supreme court will read between the lines and get the win quake hair. but i think it's a coin toss as to whether the supreme court does with this one. >> they're big on jack smith not immediately admitting that, which would look political. which jacks mitt would not want. robert ray, thank you, elie honig, see you very soon along with jessica schneider on how rudy giuliani's got worse tonight. also up next, what colorado voters are telling -- about the colorado ruling.

iceland's dangerous volcano, just ahead on three 60 .

well at the top of the program, you heard them on the support

ruling that he is an insurrectionist. and before the break, a legal panel had plenty to say and right now what a group of colorado lawyers made out of. this our gary tuchman did the asking. >> this coffee shop, in douglas county goes by the simple lane of coffee. and it is here where we have a simple question for customers. do you think it's a good thing that the colorado supreme court did that? >> you know, i'm not the biggest fan of trump, but i don't think the 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 should get in that position to control votes for certain candidates. >> but we did find this

democrat who says that's precisely what this court needed to do. >> i think it's a great decision. i think that when you try to overturn an election you don't get to run again. we have a 14th amendment for a reason. >> back inside coffee, lori loyal trump supporter doesn't take the decision seriously. she thinks it's the supreme court taking trump of the primary ballot is a result of game playing. >> what do you think they're playing again? and not doing their job? >> part of the game. >> what's that game? >> not being honest. >> do you think that trump has been honest? >> for the most part, yeah. >> her friend concurs. she says she feels -- >> outrage. absolute outrage. >> 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. >> but elle gray believes 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 the ruling that

he engaged in insurrection, yes. >> so do you think it was the right thing to do? >> for my state, yes. >> keith raymond has voted for donald trump twice and says this time around he supporting chris christie. his opinion is more nuanced. >> it's a complicated issue, but the law is law in the supreme court is stating it, we have to abide by it. it doesn't mean i'm a fan of it. >> many coloradans are digesting the court ruling. the varied opinions in the shop about donald trump symbolic of countless discussions in the state and this country. this woman is a democrat. >> i think what he did was unacceptable for our country and he should face the consequences for that. >> jake herman is a republican. >> i think if that was a legitimate thing, if he was part of an insurrection he would've been arrested. he wasn't arrested. >> all right, gary tuchman joins us now for the colorado supreme court in denver. so gary, did any of the trump supporters say they would switch the support to another g gop candidate if trump's name is not on the ballot? >> 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 was off the ballot. instead what we heard from several of them is that they

would write in trump's name. but under the terms of the decision by the court, the right and vote for donald trump will 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 of the former president somehow only makes him stronger. joining us now, to cnn political commentators, former illinois republican congressman january six committee member adam kinzinger, and the former white house communications director. congressman, do you think the supreme court should uphold colorado ruling, and 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 up to their decision. it's funny, i keep going back and forth in my opinion on this and i'm like i guess everyone expects politicians and former politicians to have a solid opinion. but it's nuanced. then the one hand i look at it and say the 14th amendment covers him, our committee, and one of the guys talking in the focus

group, the former president was arrested for january six, let's be clear. he hasn't been convicted yet. and so i look at that and i go, well, we showed it was an insurrection. i fully believe it was an insurrection. and he violated that he violated. at the same time politically as a politician now i do think that it's probably not going to hurt him. i don't think it 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 you lost one more time. >> it still remains to be seen whether it will help or hurt him. by the former president frequently tells his supporters that the system is rigged against him, no justice system has been weaponized against him. do you expect the colorado ruling to have much effect on the primary in the short term, other than just energizing trump supporters? >> i'm not sure it has a huge impact on the prime primary, those who are with him o r

against him. certainly if it were to state would be radioactive in a general election. colorado, ten electoral votes, a state the win for biden and will likely be in the blue column but i don't think it is a major impact there. but i'm with adam on this. i'm very conflicted. i think the republicans are pretty split on this issue. i very much agree that donald trump incited an insurrection. i think the department of justice will hold him accountable for that. but at the same time there is a danger here. many of his supporters wrongly have believed after 2020 that the system was taking their votes. it wasn't counting the votes. our elections were rigged. that was false. this will give them a concrete example that they can point to where they will say the system decided to ignore my vote. and decided to throw out a vote that i cast. it will frame it is disenfranchising disenfranchisement. iraqi presidents here. but i want to be clear, this is one person's fault, donald trump's. >> the bottom line, though, the doj, jack smith, didn't charge trump with incitement. the january six committee clearly laid out the evidence to make their case, not doj. does that just fuel the critics of this colorado decision to say look, he hasn't even been charged with this. >> yeah, and i think, look, everybody is going to have their opinions, but one thing, as alyssa, said the trump does really well, he's a perpetual professional constant victim. this is a guy that occupied the most powerful position in the world and he had at one point the senate and house with him, and yet he still was unable to

go after this, quote unquote, deep state of this institution that is going after him and everything. he's the only one standing between the government and his voters. he has done that well. honestly, though, i think america, maybe not the gop per se, but america is kind of sick of this victim mentality, victimhood, this might whining, this complaining. so this will add to that. and while it may not hurt him in the primary, the more he winds and complains and bellyache, so 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 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 courts intervening in the battle over whether presidential immunity protects them from prosecution in connection with january six. do you think it's in trump's interest to drag out some of the legal disputes? whether gag orders, immunity,? if he's a nominee or do you think it could actually backfire? >> oh no. don trump's pure strategy perhaps the only legal strategy he has his delay delay delay. he wants to see all of these cases, whether fulton county, the two department investigations, he would like to see them actually go on beyond the election day, the general election, it's modern possibility that they would with you peels boss and so on. he is running for president, for retribution and stay out of jail. that simply yet. he needs to buy as much time as he can in the coming months, and he's going to use every delay tactic he can in the delay system. >> congressman, do you believe

the former president will stand trial before next november? do you think he's gonna be successful running out the clock here? >> it really is a coin flip. i hope he does stand trial, because i think it's important for disinformation, some of which we were able to get out of the committee, much more to come, particularly also request for documents case, who knows when that's gonna get going. but the american people need t o

see this. there's a lot of evidence, a lot of information that i think the american people deserve to have before them when they go to the ballot they can vote. because the president, the former president has made a very clear as alyssa say. he wants the way 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 in the political enemies. if he wins he can, yes, have the department of justice just call off the case. he has the power

to do that. or if he has 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. frankly his supporters were true that on. but it would be devastating for self governance in this country. >> all right, adam kinzinger, alyssa farah griffin, thank you so much. more breaking news now. potentially back breaking news from judit rudy giuliani tonight less than a week after a jury awarded to election workers 100 $50 million in damages for defaming them and earning their lives, the judge in that case said that the bail

is payable immediately, righ t now. a busy night for cnn jessica schneider who's back with the details along with cnn legal analyst elie honig. what canmore can you tell us about this ruling, jessica? >> this is the judge 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 and other in other states. typically it's a 30-day waiting period. but this judge has issued a 13-page opinion explaining all the reasons why these women don't have to wait to that up to 140 million-dollar verdict. we saw the verdict come down on friday, and 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 saying, just how broke he is. he's put at least one of his properties up for sale, his new york apartment. so these women, presumably, want to get moving fast to seize or get the money from some of these assets. the judge tonight giving them a green light to do this very quickly. >> so what did the judge say, then, about giuliani's supposed financial problems? >> she was scathing against giuliani and his lawyers. she talked about a number of. things she said, look, giuliani hasn't so that he won't try to conceal his assets. that's why i want to get things moving

more quickly that 30-day period. she also said that he previously disregarded orders for payments. she owes money to lawyers that they repeatedly talked about. they talked about how broke giuliani's. that he can even pay his legal bills. so she cited all of. this and then she said this. she said such claims of giuliani's, quote, financial difficulties, no matter how many times repeated publicly, she says it's difficult to square with the fact that giuliani affords this spokesperson. so she's pointing out numerous ways that giuliani seems to be able to still spend money yet another ways claim that he is flat broke. so she is using those as a reasoning for why these women should be able to go after him immediately for this nearly 150 million-dollar verdict. >> so then, elie, how do ruby freeman and shaye moss go about collecting what they can? as you noted, he's putting his

apartment in new york up for sale. can they take all the proceeds from the sale of that apartment? what can they do here? >> it's a couple-step process. first of all, the attorneys for the plaintiffs have to identify the assets. they've also said publicly they've been in the process of doing that. any good plaintiffs lawyers are doing that. then you essentially attach the assets. it's like putting a lean on it. so if rudy giuliani goes to sell that apartment, it will be known to any buyer, hey, there are people who have a claim to this money, and then it will prevent rudy from getting rid of it. and ultimately rudy is going to own miss moss and miss freeman his lawyers, potentially dominion and other people who sued him, we were money than he has. what you have to do that is bring the parties together and they have to split it, essentially, proportionally based on who is owed how much. this ruling is really unusual and it shows just how deeply this judge distrusts rudy giuliani. she is not willing to give himim even a fefew days off gracace period n normally gigiv. with very y good causese when yu readad that ruliling. >> all rigight, elie h honig, jessica a schneider.r. and justt aheaead israel's's back at t the tatable for hohostage negogotias there e as familieies protestett enough i is being dodone. we hae dedetails on i israel's sisignit new w proposal, , up next.

i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this, it restores a lot of faith in humanity.

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

reporter barak ravid, also a cnn analyst, joins us now. barack, what more can you tell us about this offer from israel and what details? >> so, this offer was proposed during a meeting on monday in warsaw with the cia director bill burns the prime minister of qatar shahab abdullah -- and chief of the agency burnett. we're not came to the meeting for the first time, i think, with an israeli proposal to try and relaunch those talks that were basically nonexistent since the collapse of the cease-fire. and the main to two issues, the two main elements of this proposal is first that israel proposes a one-week pause in the fighting in return for a release of something around 40 hostages that hamas is holding, mainly the women that remain in captivity and men over the age of 60 and hostages that are sick or seriously wounded and israelis 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 of three israeli hostages played any role in israel's decision to make this offer? >> no doubt. no doubt. there is more than one israeli official told me that the fact that we saw enduring one week, two meetings between the director of mossad and the qatari prime minister is not only in order to move towards a deal but also to try and sort of cool down the protests inside israel by families of hostages in the general public who wants to see the hostages back. so there is no doubt that domestic reasons also lead to the fact that israel for the first time presented such a proposal.

>> right. and had they ever had a proposal before that was like this where they were offered a one-week pause? >> i think what is different this time is that if we look at the previous teal, israel got 80 hostages out of gaza, and in return it gave one week pause. this time we are looking at 40 hostages, and again, when we pause. so hamas gets the same number of days of cease-fire in return for half the number of hostages. i think that if hamas will say tomorrow that it wants

to go back to the negotiation table but it wants more days of pause, i am pretty sure that israel would be ready to talk about it. >> you reported that hamas is possess the israel position the hamas about stop its attacks before negotiations woul d

resume. is that something israel has shown willingness to agree to? >> i don't think so. the director of mossad, when the prime minister of qatar told him that this was the hamas position, the director of mossad said that's great, we really agree, there is only two things we ask in return, first that hamas will give up the weapons and second that it will turn in their leadership. so as you see, it's kind of a nonstarter. 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 are 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 deaeal. wht do youou know abouout any effofs from the w white housese here? >> i thihink the maiain thing he isis the invololvement of f cia director b bill burns.s. he is really i involved. h he is not t there for,r, just to s say okaye sentnt somebody.y. he is invnvo. and i wowouldn't be e surprisedf wewe would seeee in the nenext w days preresident bididen speakig toto the emir r of qatar o or sesecretary blblinken speaeakino the prprime ministster of qataty the way,y, there wasas a deal ty announced d between ththe u.s. d venenezuela on t the releasese f hostages, , prisoners,s, and qar was s the countrtry that mededid this deaeal. and i t think it matterers because e it shows, ,, how muchch the u.s. . and qatare close whenen it comes s to such sensititive negotitiations. anai think it's's going to o give the qatariris a lot ofof credit inin washshington goioing forwardrd.o when it t comes to t the situatn inin gaza. >> no dodoubt. barakak ravid, tk you so mucuch. up nextxt, the newest t threat fromom iceland's volclcanic eruptption and whwhaa nearby towown is goingng throug. we'l'll be rightht back. statayh us.

tonight in iceland even as the long -- militia, authorities are warning of a new threat from the volcano which began at

erupting three days ago. they say new events could open up, releasing more smoke and dangerous gases. that another 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. >> 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 gonna allow us to the actual fissures where the eruption i s happening. i'd say wear a mile, maybe a little less than a mile away

from it. now, things have come down a little bit, but the same time, of course, the danger is still there. authorities fear there could be new events that might open up pop-up and that more lava could be gushing to the surface, and then could be coming to the surface in fountains like we've seen over the past day and a half. well things have gotten a bit more muted, certainly, the danger is not over. and the early stages of the eruption, a wall of lava spewing hundreds of feet into the air. well that has subsided somewhat, the underground magma tunnel remains active and dangerous. >> too dangerous. and of course, the magma that's coming up is 120 0 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 remains cordoned off. critical infrastructure in

danger. the world famous blue lagoon hot springs, closed. here's another reason why the situation is so dangerous. you see over there, it's the volcanic activity. if we pan over and destructition

-- well this is the reality for britney watts, an ohio woman who has not been charged with felony, abuse of a corpse. in how high, o fortunes are legal until fetal by ability which is generally considered to be around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. now, her case is highlighting the extent to which prosecutors can charge a woman whose pregnancy has ended, whether by abortion or miscarriage. cnn's whitney wild has the details, we want to warn you, some of what you're about to hear is disturbing. >> after the death of her 22 -week old fetus, britney watts felt distraught, heartbroken, empty. according to texts she sent to local television station wjw. a coronal report and 9-1-1 call, obtained by cnn, detail 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 with a baby. >> in mid september, she visited st. joseph's multiple times, and was told her water broke and her fetus would not survive. medical staff recommended watts be induced into labor, the report says, at first, she declined medical care. later, she returned to the hospital intending to give birth. according to a washington post interview with watts attorney, watts waited eight hours to give birth, as doctors and officials considered whether inducing her would violate ohio 's abortion laws. watts went home. two days later, she miscarried into a toilet. watts returned to the hospital a third time after her miscarriage, where hospital staff called police. >> it is a very early pregnancy, if it was fertilized, i am certain is not now alive. >> investigators found the

fetus, still stuck in the toilet at watts home. what's now faces a felony charge for abuse of a corpse, the corners report states the fetus died in utero. at a recent hearing across -- describe the case like this. >> the this isn't how the child died, when the child died, it's the fact that the baby was put into a toilet. >> what attorney told cnn in a statement, there is no law and ohio that requires a mother suffering a miscarriage to bury or cremate those remains. women miscarry into toilets every day. bioethicist katie watson called a 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 up heated debate over criminalizing pregnancy outcomes, including 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. >> abortion rights group, ohio physicians for reproductive rights, is urging prosecutors to drop the case. the group's cofounder, -- told cnn, the risk to other women facing non viable pregnancy's is enormous. >> the criminalization of a pregnancy outcomes further stigmatize both abortion and pregnancy. the but it certainly, particularly affects communities that are black and brown. and it creates a bigger discrepancy, 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. you know, you don't get to decide if you're pregnant, and when you're gonna 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. it hinges on this word,

sensibility. i can read you the exact language. it says no person except as authorized by law shall treat a human corpse in a way that would outrage reasonable community sensibilities. again, as you heard, britney watts attorney says that there is no law that required her to do anything specific with those fetal remains. we reached out to the prosecutors in this case, they declined to comment on the substantive facts of the case. they did submit to us a lengthy press release, a lengthy statement, that basically just detailed what has happened in this case. important to note, this now case is now with a grand jury. about one out of five cases there, the grand jury returns no indictment. that was in the statement 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 britney watts case. but said only out of patient privacy they were declining to comment. and then s stressed ththat cared sasafety of ththeir patienents s their hihighest concncern. pamela? >> briritney wild,d, thank youo. wewe'll be rigight back.