tonight on three 60 breaking news. just days after the secretary of state kicked him off the the

ballots, the former president takes her to court, i'll get a reaction tonight. also, chris christie joins me with the iowa caucus is growing closer, and many challengers seemingly grow slimmer. -- and you've likely seen the japanese -- five people were killed on the smaller plane that hit, new details tonight on how every single one of the nearly 400 people on the airline got out alive. good evening, thanks for joining us. we begin with breaking news, the start of the year which will be unlike any in american political, legal, and history. a former president running for office, again facing 91 federal and state felony charges, also facing two civil trials, and fighting efforts in several states to remove him from the ballot. that's where we start tonight, with his attorneys late today asking a court to overturn maine secretary of state shana bellows's decision to remove him from the ballot because of his role in the january 6th insurrection. we are also waiting for his appeal on a similar case in colorado, in a filing tonight on the question of whether a former president can even be prosecuted for actions taken while in office. in addition, the former president is also spinning

fresh conspiracies about his legal troubles online. all of this with the iowa caucus is now less than two weeks away. well welcome to 2024. we're going to speak with one of his challenges shortly, former -- u.s. attorney chris christie joins us here. but first, the main case, cnn's paula reid starts us off. >> so what more do we know about the former presidents appeal? >> tonight, they are attacking the secretary of state of maine, shana bellis. she is a delicate, but the process in maine is that the first stop for any questions about whether someone is on the ballot, going to the secretary of state. now in their appeal tonight, they argue that she was quote, a biased decision-maker, who should've recused herself, had no legal authority, made multiple errors of law, and acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. and anderson, her decision was based on section three of the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. now that is part of the constitution, and who should enforce it. while these questions have been litigated now across multiple

states. in colorado and maine, they offered to remove trump from the ballot, but the other states, largely on procedural grounds, without getting into the merits, have kept him on the ballot. but they've also left open the possibility that this could be litigated through the general election. so anderson, unless the supreme court really steps in here and provides some guidance to the states on the meaning of this section, this is an issue that could hang over the entire 2024 race. >> when do we expect trump to file his appeal in the colorado case? >> well anderson, i've been on the phone for a large part of the day, trying to get an answer to that very question. what i can tell you is that it's been two weeks since colorado's supreme court removed trump from the ballot. and in that decision, they gave a deadline of january 4th, for an appeal to beef out. they said look, if someone files an appeal here, then this will be state, he will appear on the primary ballot until the supreme court weighs in. now trump has not filed his appeal, but the republican party of colorado has filed an

appeal, and that has been recognized as staying the case. it is expected that he will appear on the primary ballot. he is also expected to file his own appeal in that case, but it is unclear when. now again, two weeks have passed by, that's a lot of time. because while many people do expect the supreme court will weigh in here. anderson, it's not clear how quickly they will do that. and there is pressure building to give some clarity, at least, before super tuesday. >> paula reid, thanks very much. -- main secretary of state, secretary ballast. now what is your response to this appeal from the trump team, particularly the accusation of bias against you? >> well good evening. first and foremost, people need to understand that this is the appropriate process. it's for mr. trump to file and appear in the superior court. this process was initiated when five registered maine voters brought a challenge to mr. trump's qualifications, after we approved his signatures for the ballot. under main law, those challenges were entitled, as president trump, to a hearing. an administrative hearing, of

which i was under obligated by the law to appear and have a decision. now, the next step is the superior court, which trump has filed what tonight, now in regards to the accusations of bias, it's really important to note, my sole obligation is the oath i swore to uphold the constitution, and to follow main election laws. i was duty bound by main election laws, it which require this process of holding a hearing and making a decision, to ensure that every candidate on a primary ballot meets the qualifications of the office they seek. i did my duty, now it goes to the court, that's why i stayed effectively suspended my decision pending court appeal. and i will uphold whatever the courts determine is appropriate. >> so, they are claim that you had no authority under any main statute to consider the federal constitutional issues presented by the challenges in this case. you say, it's simply not true? >> exactly.

article one of the constitution delegates to the state authority to administer elections. and state legislature's main delegate that authority to the secretary of state, which the main legislature has done. under title 21 a, for the legal case at home, and under that process, i am prohibited, whether it's placing an 18 -year-old on the ballot or a non-citizen on the ballot, or someone who has served two terms like barack obama or george w. bush, or someone who has not meet the constitutional qualifications for the office. and section three of the 14th amendment is not an option. constitutional qualifications are not and -- i was duty bound to hold that hearing and issue a decision. and that will determine. >> the former president though, is saying that he is also taken issue with the process, claim he was not given adequate time an opportunity to present a defense. >> that is not correct. so, this is very clear in my 34-page opinion, which is on the main secretary of state website for those who may wish

to read. so this hearing followed the process under main law, the administrative procedure act, which mandates, and i quote that all parties present, be able to present evidence and arguments on all issues. and at the hearing, to call and examine witnesses, to make oral cross-examination of any person present and testifying. mr. trump was afforded those opportunities at the hearing. >> so, how quickly do you think this would make its way through maine's court system? and, would you be opposed to the u.s. supreme court intervene sooner rather than later? >> we would welcome the u.s. supreme court making a ruling. i will uphold whatever the courts determine, and acting quickly to resolve this, i think it is in the best interest. that being said, our process in maine, as it goes through the superior court, mr. trump has filed that appeal tonight, the

supreme area court, under statute, must rule by january 17th, and then it can go to the main supreme judicial court, and then to the u.s. supreme court. we are on a very compressed timeline, and that was part of the requirements under statute. i was required once the challengers filed that challenge, within five days of certifying the signatures, they had to file the challenge within five days, i had to hold a hearing within five days, and issue a decision with a wake of the conclusion of the hearing. >> madam secretary, i appreciate your time tonight, thank you. >> thank you. >> with us now, cnn contributor former nixon white house counsel john dean, also former federal prosecutor, jessica roth, she is currently teaching at cardoza law school here in new york. do you buy what she says, legally? >> i thought the way that she laid out what her responsibility is and authority is under mains law, was very persuasive. and i read her opinion, it was lengthy, thorough opinion, which is also quite persuasive on what the authority is that's

delegated to her under main law, to make decisions about who actually is qualified to be on the ballot once there has been a challenged launch, as there was here. and so, what she has said is that she is required to determine whether somebody in fact is qualified, and that includes the requirements or the disqualifications under section three of the 14th amendment. so she did hold the hearing that was provided by maine law, and she sets forth in her opinion as she repeated tonight, she provided the process that statute required to the former president, and to the other side during that. and there is no suggestion of what in particular he was deprived of the opportunity to present by way of evidence or argument. she gave him every opportunity, including to supplement the end of the hearing. so i haven't seen anything persuasive from the trump side about how he was deprived of the opportunity to present specific evidence or arguments before her. the larger question that looms here, as in colorado and all the other states is, under the u.s. constitution, to states, whether it's delegated to the

secretary of state in maine or to state court, have the authority to make these determinations under their state law of who is qualified or not? those are questions of the u. s. supreme court is going to have to decide. >> and john, do you believe the former presidents argument that the main secretary of state doesn't have that legal authority? >> it's, it's not clear at all, and she does not have that authority. in fact under the main law, it's clear she does, as the professor pointed out. and trump really is just throwing everything he has to see if anything will stick. it's that kind of very brief, very broad attack on her decision-making. so i don't really expect it to go very far, the superior -- it's will probably go to the supreme court of maine, to resolve some of the issues. if the u.s. supreme court doesn't intervene first. >> i mean section three of the 14th amendment. i mean, the sticking point of this is, it does not specifically mentioned the president as one of the, one of

the officers prohibited from seeking office. reasons why the trial level court in colorado found that trump was not disqualified. the colorado supreme court disagreed with. that. >> i mean do you, where do you stand on this? because the argument is well, they mention all these other people who it doesn't seem that the president would be somebody who could not do it, but it doesn't specifically say that. >> there are very persuasive arguments actually, the presidency is covered. and there are two parts of section three that are implicated here, in terms of the person who takes the oath as the president, whether that qualifies as an office covered by section three, and in the office of presidency in terms of what you can then be elected to. i am persuaded by the arguments that the presidency is encompassed within that section. but of course, there are so many other legal questions involved as well, including what is the definition of insurrection, for purposes of section three?

did trump, as a factual matter and a legal matter, engage in insurrection, however that is defined? and then also, this question of do states and the state, courts the secretary of state, have the authority to make those determinations? or is that something that only, let's say, federal courts can decide after a conviction for insurrection, and pursuant to legislation enacted by congress. these are all open, novel, legal questions. and as the secretary of state said, the u.s. supreme court really needs to settle those. but in the meantime, the decision makers who are authorized by their states laws to make these decisions, they have to act, they have to make those decisions in the interim. >> and john, i'm sure you saw the ghost of u.s. the nixon covering over the question of whether trump has immunity for basically anything he did while president. how do you expect this particular supreme court would rule on that? >> i don't think this supreme court wants to face that issue, frankly, and they might try to avoid it. i see no basis for the kind of immunity that trump is calling for, it would be unprecedented, it would be contrary to the rule of law.

it would redefine the american presidency, and it would have made nixon an innocent man. so, i just don't think it's going to go anywhere. it's an over broad attack on the rule of law. so, my feeling is this supreme court is not going to buy. it. >> do you think so, jessica? >> i think that on the law, on the merits, that the supreme court should rule against trump 's claim of presidential immunity from criminal prosecutions. in terms of a prediction of whether this court will rule that, unless comfortable saying that that is actually how they will cover it? >> do you think they will take it though? >> yes i, think they will take. it. >> jessica, thank you so much, appreciated. john dean as well, jessica roth. coming up next, chris christie's take on all, this and his role as the former presidents only full-throated critic in the republican primaries at this point. later, another breaking story, more federal corruption allegations against new jersey

democratic senator bob menendez.

tonight's breaking news, the former president appealing made valid decisions, on the legal docket this week, he's also expected to file papers on his presidential appeal of immunity. that, in a whole string of other legal milestones are coming up even as the iowa caucus and new hampshire primary draw closer. with me, not one of the challenges, former new jersey governor and former prosecutor chris christie. i wonder what you make of the main secretary of state's argument about what she did, and the trump filing? >> look, i think that there is an interesting legal argument to be made here. i think that the problem is as a practical matter, excluding people from the ballot in this way is going to cause even more toll molt than an already really divided country. that's what i've said all along, i don't want to be interpreted cause it's not as a support of donald trump, as i'm sure you can probably tell. but it's the idea that the voters should be making this

call. and when you have something that's as indecisive as what her argument was, i think, i think it's hard to have courts do it. but we're going to see, it's going to go to the u.s. supreme court know at some, point they're going to decide. >> and that's the legal argument about whether the president has immunity for any -- >> outrageous, it's a ridiculous. yeah i, i think it's going to be dismissed really quickly. i don't think he has any legal basis. >> do you think the supreme court will take it up? >> i think they may just even give you the back of their hand, and just deny it and just say forget it, and go with the lower court rulings. because i just don't believe that there is any real argument. i mean, think about the practicality of it. a president could literally do anything, and if he wasn't impeached and removed for it, he escapes all types of criminal or civil legal liability. it doesn't make any sense. >> ambassador haley has said that she would pardon donald trump, because in her word, what's in the best interest of the country in not letting an 80 year old man sit in jail that continues to divide the

country. what's the best thing for the country, it would be to pardon seek and move on as a country. >> well i mean that's just her doing what she does, which is she doesn't want to offend anyone. the fact is she knows better, as a governor. you can't make these decisions on pardons before you hear what the trial is, what the evidence is. >> you made the point in the past though, that a pardon requires remorse, it requires an acknowledgment of what you did was wrong. >> yeah, acceptance of responsibility is what a pardon requires. he will never accept responsibility, he never, has he never will. so look, she's pandering. and look. >> she's running to be vice president? >> i think should be more than happy to take. it and, my evidence for that, anderson, is that she won't say she wouldn't. now i mean, ron desantis has said under no circumstance has he taken, i've said under no circumstances when i take it. why won't she say it? i mean, i think the only, reason you've watched politics long enough to know. when one of us doesn't rule something else, they ruling it in. and this is the problem with her now, is that she wants to be everything to everybody. and what's been exposed with

the slavery question last week exposes a much bigger problem. if you want to beat donald trump, you have to take him on. when is that coming? you can't say you're going to pardon him, you can't refuse to deny you'd be his vice president. >> they are running attack ads right now putting haley and desantis against each other. >> that's why i said on the debate stage in the fourth debate that these guys are pretending that the race is between them. i mean, what is this, the race for second place? what is going on between desantis and haley right now is the race for 2028. that's what it is, they are both trying to position themselves best for 2028. and i think that former years of either donald trump or joe biden as president will be disastrous for this country. we have to win now. >> i want to play a little bit about what governor chris sununu of new hampshire said, he endorsed haley, but what he

said about your candidacy over the weekend. >> chris christie is a friend, but his race is absolute dead and. he is going say everything he can. this is a two person race, it's between trump and nikki haley, everyone understands that. he knows his voters want to see trump defeated they are all coming over to nikki haley. in fact, the only person that wants chris christie to stay in the race is donald trump. >> whenever somebody says, he's my friend, but, i'm always wondering. >> yeah, what's gonna happen. well the nice thing he stuck in, right. look, it's, since chris started two to work for nikki haley and become an employee of nikki haley, he's not the same chris sununu anymore. chris sununu, as you'll recall, was one the most vocal donald trump critics in this country. in fact, he went to one of those big media events in washington d. c., and used incredible obscenity is that i can't repeat on the air here to describe what he thought of donald trump's mental state, if you remember. this is a guy who has said donald trump is unfit, all things that his candidate is unwilling to say. chris sununu has said that the states should decide abortions, nikki haley is in favor of a six-week ban. he's abandoned that as well. i mean, the shame of this is that chris has now abandoned his principles, in order to try

to get himself some political favor inside of his own state. so look, i get it, i understand what he is doing. >> you don't think he's perturbed because -- he thinks she is the one who can win? >> no, i don't think that. you know, i think he picked her based on a set of pulling at that moment. but if you face your choice, which is what i believe you should do, who do you think is the person who can really beat donald trump, and who wants to beat donald trump? i've asked governor sununu, what indication does he have that she wants to beat donald trump? and by the way, how does chris sununu defend what she said on the civil war? you know, i don't understand that. i mean look, at the end of it, she gave an answer that is typical of someone who's been pandering to a certain constituency in south carolina for most of his political career. if you go back anderson, to what she said when she ran for governor in 2010, she said the civil war was an argument between change and tradition. what's that tradition? enslaving people, i think it's

between right and wrong. and our party was founded on that basis. >> i saw that video, she points out she took down the confederate flag. >> she took it from one part of the state house grounds, and she put it in the museum. congratulations, okay. i'm not saying she is a racist, let's be clear. she is not, i've known her for 13 years, there's not a racist bone in her body. what she is is a pander, and in this context, that's just as bad. >> bob menendez, you clearly know him. >> yeah, i do. >> i mean, a watch? i mean the price of. >> lucky is. >> >> if the allegations are true, the price of bribing somebody. >> anderson, when i was u.s. attorney for seven years in new jersey, one of the things that shocked me the most was how cheaply you could buy a politician. i mean, $5,000 in cash in and philip could get most elected officials. >> is that right? >> oh yeah. i mean, it was amazing to me. when the fbi would say to me, let's start with $5, 000, i would say, who would throw their entire life away for five grand? so when you look at bob

menendez, let's make this clear, he has been a completely unethical, and principled politician, for the entire time i've known him. and i've known him now for over 20 years. he's never had any principles. think about what he said after he got a hung jury in the last trial. he went out and said i know all the people out there who are trying to dig my political grave, and i know who you, are and i will remember. i mean, this is a guy who wasn't grateful over the fact that he had just dodged a bullet. and his conduct afterwards indicates it's exactly what he meant. he went right back to, according to the indictment, committing crimes. and selling out of this country, as the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee. look, the thing i'm disappointed in the democratic party is, at least the republicans removed george santos.

where are the democrats in the united states senate for removing this guy? this is now a second superseding indictment, so it's a third set of charges, where he was using his position of leadership and intelligence information in the united states senate to enrich himself and his wife. i don't understand how chuck schumer can't go to mitch mcconnell right now and say look, we need to have a vote to kick him out. because to have him in there, and to have access to that kind of information, who knows what he's doing now to try to pay his legal fees? >> governor chris christie, thank you. >> thanks anderson. >> more on senator menendez, coming up. also, claudine gay was the first black woman to serve as president of harvard, but after her disastrous appearance on capitol hill, and allegations of plagiarism, she is out after only six months on the job. details on her downfall, next.

to duckduckgo on all your devie duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud

join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. after weeks of controversy over testimony on capitol hill about antisemitism at harvard, and a separate affair involving allegations of plagiarism, claudine gay says she now plans to step down as president of harvard university. she was only on the job for six months. she is the second ivy league president to resign in the wake of congressional testimony last month that critics believe did not speak out sufficiently enough against antisemitic harassment. she later tried to make up for what she failed to say on capitol hill, but the damage was done. in a letter she released that, she called the decision to resign, quote, difficult beyond words. she also said the controversy at subject her to quote, personal attacks and threats fueled by racial animus. miguel marquez has more. >> multiple allegations of plagiarism, over the past three weeks in harvard president

claudine gay's writing came to life, with eightht of her papaps found toto have inststances of , accordining to the free beacon. conservative media have been unearthing them in gay's past works. one example, an entire paragraph was lifted almost verbatim for 1997 ph. d. dissertation, without citation. another example, first reported monday, several sentences from a 1999 book appeared in a 2001 article written by gay, but she failed to use quotation marks or site the work into passages. the plagiarism accusations came amid controversy, over gay's handling of antisemitic incidences on harvard's campus. any widely criticized her congressional hearing about it on december -- , along with the presidents in upenn, gave an answer that was widely considered to legal, and completely tone-deaf. >> so, the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of jews violates harvard code of conduct, correct? >> again, it depends on the context. >> fallout from the hearing, also resulted in the resignation of upenn's president liz mcgill.

house republican caucus leader elise stefanik wasting no time responding to today's events. >> as a harvard graduate myself, we have seen a failure of leadership from claudine gay, a failure of moral leadership. this accountability would not have happened were it not for that congressional hearing. >> stefanik underscoring that her investigation will continue. gay's tenure as president was the shortest in harvard's nearly 400 year history. she was also the school's first black president, and only the second woman at the helm. in a letter to the harvard community this afternoon, gay wrote that her exit came with a heavy heart. it has become clear that it is in the best interest of harvard for me to resign, so that our community can navigate this moment of extraordinary challenges, and focus on the institution, rather than any individual. harvard announced late today that -- who currently serves as -- >> reporter: at the university, will step in as interim president, while acknowledging gay's commitment to the school. it is with that overarching consideration in mind that we have accepted gay's the

resignation, the harvard leadership wrote. adding, we do so with sorrow. >> and -- joins us now. what more did harvard say about its decision to accept her resignation. >> that she will stay on the faculty at harvard. they also said that the source close to dtor gay told our matt egathat she had made the decision to resign last week, fore this latest -- claims of plagiarism came out. so all of this was sort of in the work. but look, the university clearly felt torn by this. they said that she suffered enormously, just racist vitriol coming her way via phone calls and emails. they felt very badly for her,

she will stay on at harvard. and they say that the search for a new president will oak or in due course. >> miguel marquez, thanks very much. earlier, you had former new jersey governor call -- bob menendez a, quote, completely unethical, and principled politician. that's in the wake of more legal trouble for the embattled democratic senator, with prosecutors alleging that new superseding indictment that senator menendez's bribery and extortion schemes went on longer than prosecutors had originally believed. kara -- joins us with the details. so what are the newest allegations? >> so not only did it go on longer than they believe, but also involve a second foreign country. >> not just egypt? >> not just egypt, which was the basis of the first indictment. now they're alleging that -- took steps that were favorable to qatar, and they allege that he did this to help in new jersey real estate developer who was a co-defendant in this case, obtain multi million dollars investment from the qatari investment fund. and so, among the things the prosecutors allege menendez did

is that they say that he set up introductions between a member of the qatari royal family in this developer, and that he then heaped praise on the qataris, and then encrypted messages, text messages to the developer saying that i'm about to issue this press release, and you should tell the qataris. and then prosecutors allege that the qataris did learn that this favorable praise what's coming. and then in addition, when this developer was going to london, going to be with one of the qatari investors to try to seal this deal, menendez reached out to the qataris, imploring on him that he thought would be great that if they are able to work this out. so this, is all part of the scheme that prosecutors say menendez did in order to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars and bribes. >> are they saying what he got from the qataris, or from this part of the scheme? >> so in this part of the scheme, they are saying that he got tickets for formula 1 grand

prix races in 2022 and 2023, which menendez had requested and given to a relative of his. that doesn't sound like that's a lot of money, but they also say that the developer had given menendez gold bars. this is part of the broader egyptian scheme as well. and then you know, there was a suggestion that he was also offered a watch that could have been worth as much as $24,000. but the indictment doesn't say whether or not menendez had received that. >> and what kind of, i mean, what kind of response has the senator made? >> so nothing from the senator himself yet tonight, though he has vigorously defended himself. his attorney, adam -- , did issue a statement saying that the senator had acted appropriately. saying, despite what they had touted in press releases, the government does not have the proof to back up any of the old or new allegations against senator menendez. what they have instead is a string of baseless assumptions, and bizarre conjectures based on routine lawful contacts

between the senator and his constituents, or foreign officials. menendez took part in this scheme while he's on the senate floor intelligence committee, for most of the time, including in 2023. he was chairman of that committee, and he still is receiving classified information. he has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and he is said to go to trial in may. >> kara scannell, thanks so much, appreciated. just ahead, a major global against hamas, after a strike and peru, lebanon has killed one of its senior leaders. israel, not taking responsibility, details of the strike ahead. and later, deadly car crash after a new year's -- concert in upstate new york killed two people. authorities working on a motive for the now deceased suspect, who purchased canisters filled with gasoline prior to the crash.

so far, israel is not taking any official responsibilities for the images you see here. a strike in the south beirut today, that -- ahmad says killed one of its top officials, as well as the members of the organization. -- is the most senior member of hamas killed since the october 7th terror attack. he is one of the founders of hamas's military wing, and has been designated terrorist by the u.s. since 2015. after the strike, israel's finance minister wrote on social media that all enemies of israel would, in their words, perish. joined now by the new york times magazines ronan bergman, author of rise and kill first, the secret history of israel's targeted assassinations. ronan, do you think hamas was taken by surprise by what

happened today? >> yes. for two great reasons. one is the location, the second was the timing. the location is the -- quarter of beirut, this is the stronghold of hezbollah, a -- not a member of -- in which the palestinians -- and iran and others, the houthis are also members. but hezbollah are hosting hamas. is the -- re-locators from -- to beirut for exactly the reason, -- for israel. and i think that they believe that israel would not dare or -- . long ago, -- the rules of the game were drawn between israel and hezbollah, to which israel can attack -- in syria, kill iranians in lebanon, or in syria, but not killing hezbollah organizations. in fact after benjamin netanyahu, -- threatened to kill exactly the

same mr. -- , in august before the attack. on the background of -- with hamas, hezbollah said we would not accept this, this is a crossing of a red line. so this is -- i think the hamas leaders believe that as long as hamas is holding israeli hostages, they are safe, and israel would not go through this long quest of killing them, as it swore and vowed to do until this is over. and apparently, they were wrong, and israel went through. this >> it is, it's worth noting the precision of this attack. i mean it was i believe three people in that apartment, all of them linked together, not killing, as far as we know, any lebanese civilians. that's critical, isn't it? >> yeah i think that, israel did not accept responsibility, though u.s. officials told the new york times, my colleague eric schmidt, that it was israel, and israel update the

u.s. that it was behind -- it was only the first of many future -- but they say that someone took a very good care that no lebanese or hezbollah would disappear, trying to signal to a small, it's not about you, it's not about -- israel or hezbollah, it's about israel and hamas. trying to lower the tension existing anywhere. and i think that those, but the people in israel who fear and believe and say that this is the -- inside beirut, and put some pressure on countries like the u.s. and france, who are trying to make it between israel and hezbollah, to find a political solution to the tension there. and basically signaling that

this could arrive to beirut. and it has left the side of the -- off. >> what was the role of the senior leader? he played a big role in the west bank, didn't he? >> yes. so he was the deputy, politically, the deputy of israel. but his role was the military commander of the west bank. so the equivalent of the -- the one military commander, most wanted by israel. israeli intelligence printed, imitated what the u.s. military had, with pictures of hamas leaders. he's the joker, just to give a hint of how important he was. he was the -- for hamas. he was in charge of trying to inflame the west bank, and he was at the core of the military activities and the funneling of military gear and equipment and funding from iran to hamas. and hamas would not be in the position to attack israel the way he is without it. >> does this impact hostage negotiations? >> hamas already said it's severe. it was severe, any kind of negotiation following that. and i assume that this will affect the negotiations. i think and hope of course hamas would not do anything horrible to the hostages. but i think in the long run, hamas is not running those negotiations. not because it likes israel, or wants to bring fever to israel.

it has interest to reach some kind of a final set of negotiations on the hostages. that they would go back, and it would be within hamas's interest to finalize it and stop the israeli occupation and ongoing invasion inside gaza. and if there's a will from hamas, there will be a will from israel. both sides now have an interest to reach hostages, and have a final retreat of israeli soldiers from gaza. >> thank you so much for your

reporting. appreciate it. now that the investigation in this deadly crash that killed -- and upstate new york. the 35-year-old suspect who caused the deadly crash has died. police and fbi investigating a possible motive. tonight, this photo of the girlfriend boyfriend who died was released. 28-year-old justine accuse and 29-year-old joshua or. -- joins us now with details. what the investigation stand? >> translator: it's a big mystery, and there's a lot of questions as to why this individual chose this area, 90 minutes from syracuse, to go there.

and it's very clear there's been some planning. he got to the area around wednesday, he was in a hotel, he then rented a car. he drove his own car, but then he went ahead and rented a car. this suv that he used in this attack. he bought gas, these gasoline canisters and he filled them with gas. so he spent several days planning this. but it's not entirely clear yet to authorities why he was targeting this theater, where this concert was going on. why this area? family members of this individual, they've been cooperating with police. they say that he's been suffering from some mental illness, so perhaps there's some motive there. but certainly there still a lot more work for authorities to do here. but it certainly raise a lot of concern and fears of terrorism coming into the new years eve night. so far, authorities say they have no indication that this is any kind of terrorism. >> what do we know about the victims? >> the victims are best

friends. they went to this concert, they were there celebrating, the parents, family members said they loved music. the artist, joshua's, or his 29. interestingly enough, family says he was an advocate for those struggling with mental illness. justine accuse who was 28, she was an artist, she loved music. and the families say that they found peace in the fact that they were together. the best friends were together in their last moments. and the other thing they were saying is that in many ways they are heroes. because they prevented a worse attack. something worse could have happened here, had they not been in that car, in the uber that they had hired to take them home. in a way, that coruscated many of the people from getting hurt. so it was just the family, really remarkable statements here for the families tonight. >> our thoughts are with them. >> a lot of questions here as to why this happened. >> appreciate it. thank you. two planes collided and burst into flames at an airport in tokyo. five people killed on a japanese coast guard plane that was supposed to deliver earthquake supplies.

all 379 people survived, the latest in how they got all those people off so quickly, coming up.

>> an airport in tokyo, investigators are trying to determine why a japan airlines plane collided with the japanese coast guard aircraft that was helping with the earthquake relief efforts. both planes burst into flames at the moment of impact. you see the passenger plane cleaned -- finally stopped until the flames spread even further. inside the air bus a350, passengers stayed calm, amazingly, as the cabin filled with smoke's. they said they had 90 minutes to get off the flame, which they did. all passengers and crew members including eight children under the age of two safely evacuated. passengers said some exits weren't working, everyone went down an emergencies shoot near the florent. dozen survivors had non life-threatening injured. five people on the coast guard plane were killed and were

hospitalized with injuries. japan airlines says its crew was cleared to land by air traffic control before the collision, cnn's richard quest joins us now with more. it's just extraordinary, this whole thing. >> extraordinary. let's look at the pictures and go through it. you see, first of all, the way in which the air bus, the a350 hits the dash eight. now, you know, at night time, would they have seen that plane on the runway? the dash had been cleared to go to the runway, they've been cleared. what they have seen it? i don't know. it's a very small aircraft, the a350 is a very large aircraft. it's almost impossible to be able to say in that regard. then you've got the plane careening down the runway, and you've got the cabin starting to fill up with smoke. this is the terrifying part. >> and we see inside, they can actually see the fire. >> and what's interesting, of course, is everything in the aircraft, part of the aircraft, is made to be nonflammable. so it's not going to burn itself. but of course, you've got the people with the duty free, you've got the bags, so the plane will set on fire. but the nature and structure of the aircraft is it won't burn very fast in its own right. interestingly, you say about the number of exits. some people say that that 90

seconds that you talk about is the international standard. you have to be able to evacuate an aircraft within 90 seconds, with half the exits in operable. >> oh, really? >> yes. now in this case, they were deliberately not using the rear exits, because that was where they feared the fire was. remember, behind the engine. so they didn't want to use those rear exits. everybody was funneled through to the front, and i can be blasé and say this is how it supposed to be. this is the system at work. but just like the miracle in the hudson, that's how it supposed to be. >> the fact that people remained calm, didn't try to stop to grab baggage or put on their shoes. >> that is absolutely -- >> there have been past incidents where people have died, because people stopped to get bags.

>> people stop to get bags, people stop to get their passport, their phone, the one famous incident of somebody taking video, getting the phone out to take some snaps. no, i think what happened here, it's japan and its well ordered, well structured. but i think here you have a very clear direction, the flames were not in the cabin during that evacuation, the smoke was there but was not overwhelming, none of which detracts from the fact that they got everybody off exactly as the regulators. you know, when they do these tests, these are famous tests passport, their phone, the one famous incident of somebody taking video, getting the phone out to take some snaps. no, i think what happened here, it's japan and its well ordered, well structured. but i think here you have a very clear direction, the flames were not in the cabin during that evacuation, the smoke was there but was not overwhelming, none of which detracts from the fact that they got everybody off exactly as the regulators. you know, when they do these

tests, these are famous tests where they put everybody on a plane and then they throw them down the emergency exits quite quickly. when they do them, the a350 is a famous one. you gotta be careful, because people break legs. >> you just think how long it takes to board an aircraft. >> flames, smoke, noise, somebody other front shouting, get down! come off! you'll be off in 90 seconds. >> richard quest, thank. you the coast guard plane involved in that collision were helping out with earthquake collision efforts. -- at least 62 people are now confirmed dead. cnn's anna co-montgomery joins us now from the quake zone. what if you've been seeing there? >> reporter: hi anderson. so we just experienced one of the very powerful aftershocks. of course, there was a really shocking unofficial earthquake on new year's day, but ever since, locals here in ishikawa prefecture have been able to sleep because of these very powerful aftershocks. i -- was woken up many times last night because of these tremors. the locals here who call this place home, we experienced that initial 7. 5 earthquake. this is just compounded the trauma for them. we spoke to several survivors at a nearby evacuation center, and one woman told me how every

time an aftershock happens, she gets brought back to that moment. that moment when she thought she and her children were going to die. she says that she starts to shake, that she can't eat, that she can't sleep. and we know that these aftershocks aren't going to happen anytime soon. we literally just experienced one. and authorities have warned that a really large one could happen any day now, in the coming days. now, i just want to show you why tens of thousands of people have been taking shelter at these centers, rather than going home. we are just outside what we think used to be a warehouse, but as you can see, the roof has come down. all of these walls have collapsed, the furniture inside is just completely destroyed. completely wrecked. and, you know, these traditional wooden japanese homes don't stand a chance when it comes to an earthquake of this magnitude. that's why tens of thousands of people are taking shelter at these centers. but they're running out of essential items, like diapers. they don't have running water, there is no central heating. so they're crying out to authorities for any assistance that they can get. now, the death toll is currently in the 60s, but japanese authorities here -- this could be much much higher

as the window to find people in the cold shortens, and as incoming rain could lead to landslides. >> or they're still people missing? >> yes, there are still people missing. japanese authorities are currently trying to find those people missing. last we heard, last we confirmed at cnn, 120 people are still stuck underneath their homes. now, a lot of japanese self-defense forces have been dispatched and are trying to find these people stuck in their homes. they're trying to cut through the wood, trying to cut through these homes. but of course, it's just been very difficult, because all the roads leading to the worst affected areas have been blocked, have been destroyed by this powerful earthquake. so the japanese prime minister has dispatched all means necessary to try to get these people out. but again, because it's so cold here, because incoming rain could mean landslides, we don't know how many people are going to survive. we don't know if we can get to that.