transcript of those final four minutes, suggesting possible miscommunication between air traffic control and the planes. [ speaking in a non-english language ] cockpit audio confirms the tower telling to taxi to a holding point, giving the commercial flight clearance to land. the transcript and audio raising key questions. why was the coast guard plane in the wrong place? why did the japan airlines pilots fail to see the other aircraft and abort the landing, especially on a clear evening, with good visibility? mangled metal and melted plastic, a reminder of just how bad it could have been. and what is left of that airliner still sitting on runway c right now. just minutes ago, a team of investigators pulled up to the scene, including technicians from airbus, who are helping the japanese investigators comb through the wreckage, looking

for the cockpit voice recorder, which could provide crucial clues to what happened. we're waiting for comment about cnn reporting that those lights on the runway were not working. could the plane possibly have just moved a little too far on the runway creating this disaster? >> gosh, who knows? but what a miracle and how incredible those flight attendants. holy -- wow. thanks to all of you for being with us. we'll be back tomorrow live in iowa. iowa. "ac 360" starts now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com tonight on "360," there's breaking news. the former president tells the supreme court there's no 14th amendment case for keeping him off colorado's ballot and says the capitol attack was no insurrection. also breaking tonight, we've just gotten court documents expecting to reveal the names of nearly 200 people connected to the late sex trafficker, jeffrey epstein. and what u.s. officials are saying tonight about who might be responsible for the bomb blasts in iran that killed more

than 100 people at a memorial ceremony. thanks for joining us. we begin with breaking news in a story that, as we said at the top of last night's program, could reshape the presidential campaign and a lot more, including how a truly central part of the constitution is applied. late today, attorneys for the former president filed his u.s. supreme court appeal of the colorado supreme court decision barring him from the state's 2024 primary ballot. now, their filing underscores the stakes of the case, describing the colorado ruling as, quote, the first time in the history of the united states that the judiciary has prevented voters for casting ballots for the leading presidential party candidate. what more do we know about the appeal that they've made? >> anderson, one of the first things that the president's lawyers take on is the idea that he is an insurrectionist, which is something that the colorado supreme court had ruled. they say, he is not, that the january 6th attack was not an insurrection, and that the former president did not engage

in insurrection. they also say that the congress, not state courts, should be the ones that determine the eligibility for the presidency. they also say that the 14th amendment, the letter -- if you read the 14th amendment, section iii, it doesn't mention the office of the presidency, and it doesn't apply, they say, to the former president. i'll read you a little bit more of what they argue. they say that this colorado ruling, if allowed to stand, will mark the first time in the history of the united states that the judiciary has prevented voters from casting ballots for the leading major party presidential candidate. obviously that is what's at stake here, anderson. you have, perhaps for the first time ever, the supreme court is going to take up what exactly that language means in the 14th amendment, whether it does apply to the presidency. >> do we know when the court will say whether it's going to take the case and what a timeline for arguments and a decision could look like? >> we don't know right now.

they haven't really responded to any of this. but, look, there is no necessarily any urgency right now. for now, just by filing this appeal today, the former president's name will remain on the colorado ballot. so, the colorado secretary of state is going to certify the ballot in a couple of days on the 5th of january. and of course the voters don't go to the ballot boxes until march. so, somewhere between now and march, we might hear from the supreme court to settle this issue. >> and if the former president's disqualification from the main ballot, which he has appealed to a state court there, also eventually appealed to the u.s. supreme court, would that case and the ole kol case be combined? >> almost certainly. anderson, keep in mind, there's been a number of states this issue has popped up. you have had the opposite findings from courts in new hampshire, in michigan, in minnesota, for instance. and so these types of lawsuits

on the 14th amendment have been popping up. we now have one pending in oregon. so, between now and by the time for the supreme court decides this issue, you know, we're going to have perhaps a number of states where this issue will have been. so, that really does raise the chances that the supreme court will have to settle what is really a dispute at this moment between the states. >> evan perez, thanks very much. related news, cnn has learned that the former president is planning to attend arguments next week in his appeals court case on presidential immunity. the story was first reported by "the new york times." joining us is elliott williams, also former federal prosecutor, jessica roth. she currently teaches at new york kor doe za school of law. and maggie haberman, author of "confidence man: the making of donald trump and the breaking of america." jessica, what stands out you? >> -- did the colorado courts

get it wrong, in a sense presented as this one simple question. when you go on and read the filing, it encompasses at least ten other arguments that are all part of what the colorado court decided. so, it's really sort of a kitchen sink approach, as we were talking ability. i think the thing that is most, i think, compelling, and that the supreme court might find most persuasive, as a reason to take it up, is this argument that he's presented before, that if you allow the states, all 50 states, to make their own determination about whether or not he's qualified to be on the ballot for president, that that really invites chaos and that the supreme court should step in and really settle this question of whether or not actually the states even have the authority to make these determinations pursuant to the procedures set forth in state law. to me, that's the most compelling part of the presentation -- >> that's a rational argument. >> it's a rational argument, and it's an important question that the supreme court really should decide promptly, as we go forward in the election process

in all 50 states. >> maggie, how much do you think the former president is betting on favorable supreme court intervention, whether it's the issue of ballot qualification or immunity from prosecution? >> i think those are different cases. i don't think that his folks are particularly -- or he -- are particularly optimistic they're going to win on the presidential immunity. although, as you reported earlier, he is going to show up next week for arguments that he's not going to be able to be part of, but he will be there and create a spectacle. on the second one, his team feels more confident that the supreme court is going to go with him. he has said that himself, but he has also said to other people, and one of his lawyers confirmed this earlier today. he has said he's concerned the justices he appointed are going to be afraid of looking like they're taking his side politically and not doing that. some of that is because he has been very angry, as you know, that the justices haven't gone his way. they have gone his way on policy cases. they have not on his

election-related cases. >> why is he going to show up? and is it because it will create a spectacle? >> number one. number two, he sees himself as his own best defender and communicator right now. and he believes he can impact all of these things best. if he doesn't try on this particular issue, that he will regret it if it doesn't go his way. >> will he fund raise? he can also fund raise -- >> he fund raises off everything. i suspect this will not be an exemption. >> elliott, the former president's legal team, they're arguing they're filing his speech at the ellipse on january 6th called for peaceful protest. i just want to play some of what he said. >> we fight. we fight like hell. and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. i know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. >> so, as you know, the colorado supreme court found that the speech should not be protected

by the first amendment because it incited violence. how do you see it? >> well, i think, to reach the point of incitement, the tie between the statement and the violence has to be quite imminent. and that's a tricky legal question. you know, frankly i don't think it's in anybody's interest to start getting in the weeds of whether a statement was insurrection or incited insurrection or not. i think this picks up on jessica point from a moment ago about this whole idea of the kitchen sink in the president's brief, that the supreme court does not even have to touch the insurrection question because there are countless other ways to avoid getting into the quagmire of picking apart individual statements or lines from the president. what i think they try to do is reach some point of unanimity or near unanimity over one of these questions, over for instance, is the president an officer of the united states? is the president -- does he take the same oath as other people, therefore is he exempt from the provisions in the 14th amendment

that would apply here? because of how fraught and complicated and politically sensitive this insurrection question is and very difficult legally to sort out, i think they just avoid it altogether. and frankly it's probably more in the president's interest to say, look, forget insurrection, he's a candidate for office. and people who are speaking in the context of the political process generally are afforded more latitude to speak. >> maggie, when you look back, he talks about fighting, fight like hell. he used that term a lot. he does that. he uses the words that can be interpreted in multiple ways. that's part of his thing. >> yes. i mean, he often walks up to a line. the question is whether legally he crossed one. i think in terms of responsible behavior, there are a number of people who have described that speech as condemnable and contemptible. but that doesn't necessarily make it legally questionable. i think that's the issue here. >> we learned in the january 6th hearings that he knew there were

guns in the crowd. people had weapons. >> correct. he often tries to leave himself some kind of public out. >> jessica, there's also the matter of the separate appeal filed by the colorado gop. how does that differ from the arguments made by the former president's legal team? >> that's really interesting. the colorado gop made two of the same arguments trump has made in his brief, including whether he's an officer within meaning of section iii of the 14th amendment. and also whether or not the section iii of the 14th amendment is self-executing or whether congress has to enact legislation that authorizes states to make these determinations or some other way of determining whether or not he's disqualified by section iii. and then they made an additional point about whether their first amendment rights as a party were violated by the action here. but trump goes on to make these additional arguments, including whether or not he engaged in insurrection. the colorado republican party didn't raise that question. and so their petition, the only petition presented to the u.s. supreme court, wouldn't be

asking the court to actually review the determination of the colorado supreme court, affirming the ruling of the district court, that trump did engage in insurrection. now, i suspect the court will not grant sert on that question, that they will probably resolve the question on the issue of whether he's an officer under section iii and whether or not the section is self-executing. if they were to rule against trump on those two legal questions, then they actually would have to reach the question of whether he engaged in insurrection. i suspect that he raised those issues on appeal because he also wants to be contesting those determine neighs. and the colorado republicans didn't contest those. it's remains to be seen whether the court will grant krert on those additional questions and whether they will reach them if they take the case and how they resolve it. >> elliott, the former president's attorneys are arguing the so-called insurrectionist ban doesn't apply to the presidency and section iii of the 14th amendment does not specifically mention the presidency, which is

true. it says, officer of the united states. the count argument is, does it make any sense that the authors of the constitution would ban insurrectionists from holding virtually every other job in the government, both civil and military, and not the highest in the country. >> as a matter of plain language saying the president of the united states is not an officer of the united states is ludicrous. however, read the language of the constitution. and it is quite clear that they say, frankly, there's another provision in the constitution that says the president, comma, vice president, comma, and officers of the united states, suggesting that the term officer of the united states does not intend to apply to the president. again, it's one of these many areas in the law, in which our understanding of what terms mean and what the framers put on paper are completely different. now, this is, anderson, why we have a supreme court. it exists for the purpose of sorting out these complicated legal questions precipitate bid the mess the framers left us n. their wisdom, there are

ambiguities in the constitution. and they have to be sorted out. and this is precisely one of them. even if they don't touch this question, this is of critical importance to the american people and needs to be resolved. coming up next, what we are learning from court documents just unsealed about sex trafficker, jeffrey epstein, and his accomplice, ghislaine maxwell. later, we're live on the southern border, as the biden administration sues texas for arresting migrants..

in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet.

more breaking news tonight. tonight a federal court here in new york unsealed documents that are expected to contain the names of nearly 200 men and women connected in one way or another with the late sex trafficker jeffrey epstein and his accomplice ghislaine maxwell. they're from a 2015 lawsuit from some of the accusers. some of the names connected to

epstein are well known. at least one is a member of the royal family of england. >> so far a lot of this is information that we've already known. this is just 40 documents, just about under 1,000 pages. and our team is still combing through them. but what is contained within these documents are excerpts from depositions from the accuser in this case, virginia roberts due giuffre, and ghislaine maxwell. we've also seen depositions of household workers, but nothing that has been new or shocking at this point. there are references to some of these bold names we've known about, including prince andrew. that is someone who giuffre has accused of sexually assaulting her. there are references to him throughout these papers, as we have seen in the past. she sued him. they reached a settlement. he agreed to pay a, quote, substantial amount to a charity of her choice. but he has denied wrong doing.

there are references to bill clinton as someone who has flown on private jets. giuffre has not accused clinton of wrong doing. so, nothing yet that is, kind of, a blockbuster or that changes the dynamic or the history of what we know about epstein, but there's still more to come. >> more documents are still to be released? >> yeah, this is coming on a rolling basis. this is just the first traunch of this. there are 40 documents. we're expecting dozens more to come out over the next day or so, and we'll be going over there to see if we learn anything knew about the people in his universe or new allegations involved in these people. another deposition that came to light today is of this woman, joanna -- who told her story to a british publication more than a decade ago. this is the first time she worked for epstein.

this is the first time her deposition is unsealed. we might see other bits and pieces like that. but so far, nothing that hasn't been publicly out there or reported before. >> kara scannell, thanks so much. more now on the woman who helped epstein carry out the scheme and was convicted and is serving time in prison. >> reporter: ghislaine maxwell is the daughter of robert maxwell, a czech born newspaper tycoon, who died in 1991, after falling off his luxury yacht near the canary islands. following her father's death, ghislaine maxwell connected with jeffrey epstein, the disgraced fancier, who died by suicide in prison while awaiting trial on charges of sexually abusing young girls. maxwell was at the center of all of it, serving as epstein's

madam, recruiting young girls for epstein to abuse, even allegedly taking part in the abuse herself. >> maxwell was among epstein's closest associate and helped him exploit girls who were as young as 14 years old. >> reporter: maxwell herself was epstein's ex-girlfriend turned social companion. the couple reportedly split in the 1990s but remained close. in a 2003 profile in "vanity fa fair," epstein described maxwell as his best friend. farmer would not have stayed under epstein's roof had maxwell not assured her mother she would act as chaperon. >> maxwell enticed young girls, got them to trust her, then delivered them into the trap she and epstein set for them. she pretended to be a woman they could trust.

all the while, she was setting them up to be sexually abused by epstein, and in some cases by maxwell herself. >> reporter: multiple people, including two of maxwell's girlfriends say maxwell introduced epstein to affluent social circles. her own exclusive circle included the former first daughter, chelsea clinton. maxwell was not only invited to clinton's wedding, but also given access backstage at the clinton global summit in 2009. maxwell was photographed in 2000 with then future president donald trump, alongside, melania, who he was dating at the time, and jeffrey epstein. and there's this picture too. that's maxwell in the background of a photograph of prince andrew, which shows him with his arms around the waist of a young woman named virginia roberts, who today is virginia giuffre. she has alleged she was trafficked by epstein with the help of maxwell, then forced to have sex with his friends, including prince andrew, when

she was 17. the prince emphatically denied all of it. prince andrew settled with giuffre for an undisclosed amount. weeks earlier, buckingham palace stripped him of his royal titles and told him he could no longer use, his royal highness, in any official capacity. ghislaine maxwell disappeared from the public eye, but in july of 2020, he was arrested. she was later charged with six federal counts, including sex trafficking children, enticement of a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, and transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. she pleaded not guilty, but in her 2021 trial, a jury convicted her of five federal charges, including sex trafficking of a minor. ghislaine maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison. randi kaye, cnn, palm beach, florida. next, a live report from the southern border, as migrants

keep coming, and where house republicans visited today, with some of their colleagues vowing to block any bororder dedeal b e they don't't want to h help president biden. more a ahead. 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. big night for breaking news. late today the biden administration filed suit against the state of texas that issues the state law giving local law enforcement the authority to arrest migrants. in its filing the justice

department says the if ruling undercuts the federal government's exclusive authority to execute the law. republican lawmakers to a visit to eagle pass, texas. senate negotiators inched closer to agreement on immigration and border security legislation. this, while gop house members are vowing to block any deal that reaches them, saying they don't want to do anything that might help president biden. in addition today, the republican controlled house homeland security committee announced the first hearing in its impeachment proceedings against alejandro mayorkas. as for his boss, the white house put out a statement accusing republicans of hamstringing border security in the name of partisan demands. meantime, the migrants keep coming. >> reporter: migrants crossed the rio grande into the united states, as speaker of the house mike johnson looks on. during the republican's tour of the southern border.

to highlight a crisis he says the biden administration is doing nothing to fix. migrants have crossed into the united states by the thousands, more than 225,000 alone in december, the highest monthly surge recorded since the year 2000. >> america is at a breaking point, with record levels of illegal immigration. today we got a firsthand look at the damage and the chaos the border catastrophe is causing in all of our communities. >> we have a broken immigration system that is the one single fact everyone agrees. >> reporter: droves of migrants have come through this closing in eagle pass, texas, despite the miles of razor wire, shipping containers, and other borders built up along the border. republicans efforts to deter migration aren't working either. >> anybody that's walked or ridden a train car 3,000 miles and been robbed, beaten, and raped to make it to that side right there, do you think this

is going to stop them? the answer to that, as we already know, is a big no. >> reporter: the white house is increasingly facing pressure from both republicans and democratic mayors and governors on the need for real solutions to the immigration crisis. and the republican governor of texas keeps ramping up the pressure as well, transporting tens of thousands of migrants unannounced to urban cities in blue states, straining their resources. most migrants say they're just trying to escape the hardships they left behind. like kenny -- from ecuador, who says his country is plagued by violence and extortion. and this migrant, from liberia, who says he spent $15,000 to reach the u.s. border. >> the u.s. has been my dream country since i was a young kid. >> it's estimated that nearly 170 countries have people coming in and flowing across this border. >> reporter: in washington, d.c., senate leaders are working toward a possible deal to change current immigration law, including the possibility of expedited removals of migrants

who cross illegally, and tightening rules on granting asylum. the house speaker tells cnn's jake tapper, the problem cannot be solved by allocating more money to the border. >> these are policy choices that got us in this situation. what we're demanding is that the policies change. >> ed, what else did republican lawmakers have to say during their visit? >> well, you know what? we didn't hear any willingness to negotiate on any kind of immigration reform. many of the lawmakers i spoke with after the tour said that is not something they're considering. they want to focus on the bill that the house passed several months ago. and they're very concerned, anderson, and they don't believe that whatever the bipartisan group of senators is going to negotiate in the possible immigration border security bill would be negotiated, that it's going to reach anything close to what they want. and several of them also went on to say that they're willing to shut down the federal government if they don't get what they want in these border bill negotiations. >> ed lavandera, thanks very much. joining us now, the mayor of

eagle pass. mayor salinas, thank you for being with us. the meeting, was it productive? >> thank you for having me and i think it was productive. it's always good to have members of congress in eagle pass to see the situation, to see what's going on. what's more important is if we see actions come of these meetings. we've had a lot of people visiting here in eagle pass, but we want to see action. >> what kind of action do you want? >> i mean, as a mayor, what i've seen here, i see thousands of people coming in without consequence. so, what i want to see is a system where you detain people, and if they don't qualify for asylum, you deport them right away. right now what's happening is they detain people and they release them into an ngo in eagle pass, and then they're all

over in the u.s. we need an orderly system where you're deporting people that come here illegally and don't qualify for asylum immediately, instead of having this approach of come one, come all. that's what we've been seeing in eagle pass. a city of 27,000 people, and we don't have the resources to sustain this problem. >> i mean, the asylum system is completely off the rails. it's completely broken in this country. it will take years for the people who are crossing over today, some of whom will claim asylum, unless they can prove ultimately in a court that they were persecuted for some specific reason. if they're just economic migrants, that's not a legitimate claim of asylum. and yet they can be here for years, legally not able to work. it's such a broken system. there's not enough judges. it's ridiculous that it takes, you know, years and years, for even asylum claims to be heard. >> anderson, i agree. we need more immigration judges.

we need a system that's efficient. it's also not fair for people that have applied and they've been in the system five, six years, to come into the united states legally, for them to see people from venezuela, for instance, just cross the river, come on in to the united states, and they get to stay here? and yes, they're waiting for a hearing, but they might never show up to that asylum hearing. it's not fair for people that are doing it the right way. i get that comment from a lot of especially mexican people that have spent a lot of money trying to come here legally. and it's sad. >> cnn is reporting some house republicans may refuse to go along with any bipartisan senate compromise because they essentially wouldn't want to give president biden a win on immigration, particularly in an election year. would it trouble you if political fortunes were factored into what congress does? >> i mean, that's one of the issues, right? you have both political parties, and they can't come together to pass immigration reform. we've been talking about this for years, and you've got cities

like the city of eagle pass, a city that i love, an american city, being ignored by essentially both parties. and we have this situation going on, where you have thousands of people coming in to cities like eagle pass, texas. >> for your emergency services, for your local hospitals, it's got to be overwhelming. >> absolutely. right here in eagle pass, we have one hospital. it's been overwhelmed with people treating undocumented migrants. so, the residents here are frustrated. they go to the emergency room. it takes them eight, nine hours to be seen. we actually had to institute a no transport law here in town. people couldn't get transported because the hospital was full. we only have four ambulances here, so it's been a huge strain on our resources, huge. and you see it. >> sorry. i know in addition to meeting speaker johnson today, you spoke to secretary mayorkas.

what was your take away from that conversation? >> well, he's going to come visit on monday. i have been very vocal in saying that the administration needs to do more. and i understand that it takes congress, but i think that, as a president, as a vice president, as a secretary of homeland security, it starts with them and the messaging. when i speak to a lot of undocumented migrants, they're under the impression that they're being invited into the united states. and we need to make it clear that we're a nation of laws. you can't just come in here through the river in an illegal manner. there are laws on the books, and we should follow them. >> for migrants who are arriving now, when they get to eagle pass, where do they go? you said they go to an ngo. are they then essentially put on buses and then shipped all over the country? >> that's exactly what happens. they cross, they're processed, the border patrol takes their information, they're released to an ngo. then from that ngo, private

buses or state buses, they'll take them to san antonio or to sanctuary cities all over the united states. you have these people all over the u.s., and it's just a terrible, broken system that we have right now. >> yeah. major salinas, i appreciate you being with us. thank you. >> absolutely. thank you. thank you for having me. >> cnn's data reporter harry enten is here with new numbers on how americans see the issue. a lot of republicans have been arguing over the border wall. how do they see it? >> you know, the border wall -- president trump, when he ran the first time around, he's like, i'm going to build this border wall. and americans turned against it. there were americans who went out into the streets and protest against a border wall. take a look at perceptions of a border wall, support now versus support in 2017. look at this, support now up to 52% in a recent quinnipiac university poll. that's up 14 points from where we were back in february 2017. and the opposition has dropped tremendously, from the 50s down

into the mid 40s. and i've seen this across the polling data. and this, to me, is one of the biggest, sort of, signs of how much the immigration debate in this country has changed from the trump era, in which americans were far more in favor of immigration, to now when they very much turned against it. and it's not just republicans. it's voters in the middle of the electorate as well and voter who is, back in the 2020 election, were basically split on who they most trust on immigration. >> it goes beyond border states. what did google searches show? >> this, to me, is really interesting. if you look at google searches for migrants, you might think it may be, okay, the border states. it's no longer the border states. the two top states for searching are illinois and new york. and more than being illinois and new york -- we have the top five states up there -- they are all blue states. they're not just red states

anymore. this is something that is reaching into democratic communities as well. you live in new york with me. if you look at the local news, you consistently see the migrant crisis being portrayed and played out on local television. you have local mayors like brandon johnson in chicago and eric adams in new york talking about this issue. and it's something that is very much plaguing their mayoralships. >> what do immigrants who become u.s. citizens say about the issue? >> i think there are a lot of democrats hoping there may be a backlash and maybe they can benefit from it. if you look at the top issues according to immigrant voters, the economy is number one. immigration is way down on that list for top issues. more than that, if you ask, who do you trust more on immigration, either democrats or republicans? immigrant voters on this issue are split. this is not something that's working out for democratic voters. >> harry enten, thanks very much. >> thank you. coming up next, more than 100 people killed in two deadly blasts in iran, both bombings near the grave side of qassem

soleimani, who was killed four years ago today in a u.s. air strike. bombings raised concerns about the israel-hamas conflict, how it could erupt into a wider conflict. also new details on how a japan airlines crew got nearly 400 people off that burning jet to stay safety after it collided with the coast guard jet. new clues on whahat might hahavd toto the accidident.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

iranian officials say two separate bombings minutes apart in southern iran killed more than 100 pilgrims visiting the grave site of qassem soleimani. iran's supreme leader has warned

of a harsh response, fuelling fears of a wider war. u.s. officials are saying who they think could be responsible. more on that in a moment. the strike comes a day after a top hamas leader was killed in lebanon. >> reporter: scenes of chaos in the iranian city of kerman, an explosion sending crowds into disarray when a second blast rings out. thousands had gathered to mark the anniversary of the death of military commander qassem soleimani, who was killed by a u.s. air strike in baghdad four years ago. the twin blasts less than a mile from soleimani's grave, killing more than 100 and injuring many more. iranian officials say, this was a terror attack. state media reporting that one of the explosions was caused by a bomb inside a suitcase in a

car. soleimani was iran's revered top military general. this is -- on his supporters seen as a strike on the iranian regime, which has many enemies both inside and outside the country. in lebanon, the leader of iran hezbollah commemorated soleimani's death but also used his speech wednesday to condemn tuesday's killing of a top hamas official on his own soil. >> translator: yesterday's crime was large and dangerous. this crime will not be left without a response and punishment between us and our enemies, the time, and the battlefield. >> reporter: the strike in southern beirut targeted saleh arouri and several others. while a u.s. official tells cnn israel was behind the strike, israeli officials have so far

been careful not to publicly take responsibility. >> israel has not taken responsible for this attack, but whoever did it, it must be clear it was not an attack on the lebanese state. it was not an attack even on hezbollah. >> reporter: hezbollah perhaps not the target in israel's eyes, but the iran-backed group has long warned any attack on lebanese soil would trigger a response of equal severity on israeli territory. fighting between israel and hezbollah has been largely contained to lebanon's southern border region. but the brazen strike in beirut in the heart of hezbollah territory has raised fears among the united states and its allies that a full-scale war could break out between israel and the middle east's most powerful paramilitary force, all even more broadly across the region. >> what's the united states saying about who could be

responsible for the blasts in iran? >> well, anderson, no claim of responsibility at this state. but the current assessment in the u.s., according to a senior administration official, is that this incident has all the hallmarks of a terrorist attack, reminiscent of attacks by i.s.i.s. seen in the past. now, of course, we have seen a history of extremist sunni groups carrying out such attacks in iran. there is also the possibility of internal resistance groups. we have heard earlier this this evening, abraham reese pointed the finger at -- reached out to the israeli military. no comment from them on this. we did hear earlier today from state department spokesperson, matt miller, that the u.s. has no independent information asserting the u.s. had no involvement, and also saying that the u.s. has no reason to believe that israel was involved. of course this does come at a time of heightened tensions

between iran and israel. and between groups like hezbollah. mounting concern around potential for those tensions to escalate more broadly. but no clear claim of responsibility just yet. still very much a question mark over who was behind the attack and of course the possible motive. tonight from tokyo, there's new information of what may have caused a japan airlines jet liner to collide with a coast guard. five people and the coast guard aircraft were killed. records showed that red warning lights embedded in the taxi lights, lights designed to stop pilots from taxiing onto runways. those lights were broken. japanese officials released a transcript of the communication just before the collision. first, take a look at this.

[ screaming ] this is inside the japanese airline plane as it's on fire. just after the collision, the cabin crew told passengers to please cooperate. they had to yell directions and use a megaphone when the in-flight announcement system failed to work. all 379 people on the plane survived, evacuated down emergency chutes. it's easy to see how this could have been far worse. they're praising the actions of the crew and passengers for getting out quickly. cnn's richard quest joins us tonight. the timeline of the accident, more information has been released. >> we now know a lot more. for instance, the actual accident itself, we now know that the coast guard plane had been cleared to stop and hold. it had not been cleared for takeoff. but for whatever reason, it went on to the runway, and it sat on the runway for 40 seconds before being struck by the arriving

a350. so, we don't know why. was this because they didn't have the runway stoplights? but, anderson, that was known about. that wasn't a surprise. that's not, you know, a shock. that was in the notice to airmen that goes out from the airport. they knew those runway lights were not operational. why did they wait for 40 seconds on an active runway at that time? we also have learned the plane itself, the a350, it was evacuated quickly, but not in the speed we've heard before. the last person off the plane was the captain, and that was 18 minutes -- 18 -- i know, 18 minutes after. the megaphone that was used. that's normal in a sense. that is absolutely normal practice. come forward, come forward, the instructions they shout at people to do this. but the core question, which we do not know is why did that coast guard plane, having been

told to position and hold at c-5 go on to the runway. >> investigators are also obviously going to be going through the burned wreckage of the plane. >> yes. the burned wreckage will tell them the logistics in a sense, where was each plane vis-a-vis the other aircraft, what happened, how did this a350 handle this incident. don't forget, this is the first major fire of a carbon fiber aircraft. so they're going to be looking very closely. >> at how the fire itself spread? >> exactly. how did it spread, what were the strengths and weaknesses. >> it's incredible. >> 18 minutes apparently to get everybody off before the captain. >> yesterday we thought it was all in 90 seconds. >> most it would appear within 90 seconds. we don't -- there is some report that the coast guard captain is now saying he thought he was cleared for departure. and for to take off. but that doesn't square with what the voice recorder from air

traffic control says, which he clearly -- they clearly knew they had to hold. the one thing i'll say, in these incidents, it's always a chapter of incidents in accidents. there is never one thing. it's like dominoes, jenga, whatever you want. it only takes one little bit before the lot comes down. that's what we're seeing now. >> richard quest, thanks very much. coming up, how the presidential candidates are trying to gain some traction against the gop front-runner donald trump with the primary contest starting in less than two weeks. that's ahead.

ahead of his possible a attendance on his presidential immunity arguments, the former president is also expected to visit iowa this weekend. iowa caucuses are on january 15th. florida governor ron desantis is already in iowa. former south carolina governor nikki haley focusing on new hampshire today. both in a battle for political survival against the heavily favored former president. eva mckend has more on the final stretch of this primary fight. >> reporter: it's crunch time on the campaign trail, with 12 days until the voting begins.

>> what a crowd! >> former south carolina governor nikki haley making her pitch to new hampshire voters today. >> don't complain about what happens in a general election if you don't play in this primary. it matters. >> reporter: while florida governor ron desantis spent the day barnstorming iowa. >> this is all about who turns out. and if we turn out, this is going to be a really, really special night for us. >> reporter: desantis going all in on the hawkeye state, hoping a strong showing will fuel a campaign comeback. >> as your nominee, i will make sure that we win up and down the ballot all across the country, just like we did in florida. >> reporter: but haley is seeing fresh signs of report. how many of you are hearing me in a town hall setting for the first time? >> reporter: her campaign announcing it raised $24 million across her political operation in the fourth quarter of 2023. more than doubling her total over the previous three months. >> nikki has the momentum.

her numbers are surging. >> reporter: haley and desantis in a fierce battle for second, with donald trump the dominant front-runner. still, some new hampshire voters say they're looking to move on from the former president. >> i think a lot of people, even if they liked trump's policies, i don't think they liked the way he goes about his business. >> reporter: are you in the people group? describing? >> yeah, i guess i am. >> reporter: and during a stop in iowa today, republican chris garcia pressed desantis on why he hasn't more forcefully challenged trump. >> why haven't you gone directly after him? in my viewpoint, you're going pretty soft on him. >> i've articulated all the differences time and time again on the campaign trail. what the media wants is they want republican candidates who just kind of smear him personally and kind of do that. that's just not how i roll. >> reporter: haley and desantis both making the argument they are the republicans in the best position to deliver a win for

the party in 2024. haley pointing to shows showing her running ahead of biden. >> we can't afford another nail-biter of an election. you look at all of these polls head to head against biden. trump is right there head to head. i defeat biden by 17 points. >> reporter: while desantis is dismissing the polls and trump's general election chances. >> i don't think donald trump ultimately can win an election. i know fox news is going to say oh, he is winning this poll, he is winning this poll. the polls are garbage. >> i'm joined now by eve have a mckend from milford, new hampshire. what are the other candidates saying in their closing messages? >> well, anderson, chris christie, who also has a strong base of support here in this state, he's saying much of what governor desantis and nikki haley are saying. he is telling supporters don't look at these polls that has trump way out ahead, that there is still time for political surprises.

anderson? >> eva mckend, thank you so much. a programing note. cnn has back-to-back town halls tomorrow night live from des moines, iowa, first with governor desantis and then with nikki haley. they start at 9:00 p.m. eastern with moderator kaitlan collins and then erin burnett. again, that's tomorrow night. that's it for us. the news continues. "the source" starts now. tonight, straight from the source, donald trump's urgent appeal to the supreme court to get back on the ballot in colorado. the former president says january 6th wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, he didn't engage in it. also, names are dropping tonight, some big names in the long secret jeffrey epstein case files. who else has now been linked to the dead sex offender. and a mystery tonight after twin bombings have killed over 100 people in iran at a memorial for the man who was once known as iran's shadow commander who was killed in a u.s. air strike ordered by then president trump.