breaking news. at least 21 people injured, including one in critical condition after an explosion at a hotel in downtown fort worth, texas. just look at this. this is texas you're looking at. this is the blast, how powerful it was. rubble filling the street outside the sandman hotel. 26 rooms inside were occupied at the time of the explosion. eyewitnesses telling cnn it sounded like fireworks. the fort worth "star telegram" said people came out of the hotel with blood on their faces no. report of deaths, but we don't know. this was apparently a type of gas explosion and that construction work was being done. what sparked the exmotion and the full details. aftermath are still under investigation. thank you so much for joining us tonight. "ac 360" with anderson begins right now.

tonight on "$360, the" the latest moves and the former president's attempt to avoid any accountability in january 6 in two cases that could make any president immune from anything they do in office and alexandria ocasio-cortez on her calls for clarence thomas to recuse himself from the former president's appeal to stay on the colorado pat skwuks and reports of loose bolts on boeing max 9s. there's still very few answers how it happened we begin tonight for joining us in the former president's push to pick any criminal charges against him disappear. he'll in washington tomorrow in court by choice, we should add, as a federal appeals panel hears oral arguments on his claim of presidential immunity in the january 6 case. today he filed a similar immunity claim on similar state charges in georgia. now if they go his way,

especially in the federal case, it could make him and any former president legally unaccountable for any crime they might commit while in office. it's the same notion another former president once drew scorn for embracing. >> when the president does it, that means it is not illegal. >> by definition. >> exactly. >> former president nixon said in 1977 is what the current former president is claiming now and what the courtser never ful decided back then. perhaps because richard nixon was never indicted and he was held politically accountable including helms of his own party. during the second trumpism people the most republicans refused to. thom tillis tet, quote, the ultimate accountabilty is through the criminal justice system and if republicans were reluctant to impose any political consequences on the former president they are more so now during his campaign to

retake the white house. i want to play something that trum said about those convicted and serving time for their crimes on january 6. >> they ought to release the j6 hostages. they have suffered enough. they ought to release them. i call them hostages. some people call them priss nifrlts call them hostages. release the j-6 hostages, joe. release them, joe. can you do it real's, joe. >> they are not hostages and he knows that. he's certainly done this before trying to turn convicted violent felons into martyrs, but now far from condemning him some republicans are actually using the same term. >> i have concerns about the treatment of january 6 hostages. i have concerns. we have a role in congress of oversight over our treatments of prisoners. >> that was congresswoman election stef nick, chair of the house republican congress, the fourth ranking republican in congress, and that's what political accountability looks

like within that party. it's the kind of criminal accountability or lack of it that the former president is asking the courts to give him now. joining us now conservative lawyer and "atlantic monthly" contributor george conway. when you heart former president first of all using the word hostages referring to people who committed crimes on january 6, what do you think? >> oh, it's completely obscene. i mean, the notion that these people who tried to overthrow the government at his behest, that tried to end constitutional democracy in america and who are being prosecuted, who were indicted by federal grand juries for their crimes against the united states, to say that they are hostages is just definitionally absurd and morally obscene and the notion that people accept that, that he's not drummed out of public life for saying something like that and that people like elise stefanik parrot his lies is just one more condemnation,

self-condemnation of the republican party. i just don't know how much lower they can go is as we mentioned, the former president's lawyers going to argue tomorrow that his actions after the 2020 election were all covered by presidential immunity. how do you think this is going to play snout. >> i don't think it's going to play out very well for the former president tomorrow. i think one of the basic guidelines i've always had in watching arguments of any sort in court, particularly appellate arguments, is the sued that gets the most questions is probably the one going to get the short end of the stick in the ruling at the end, and i -- i anticipate most of the questions will be directed at the trump and his lawyers and how you can possibly justify giving a president who is sworn to uphold the laws of the united states and the constitution of the united states, how that person can be above the law and anything can be lawful just because the president says so, like the clip that you played of president nixon as he asserted. no one has ever bought that.

it's completely inconsistent with our constitutional tradition, and there's just no way that a court is going to accept that. >> the former president is attending the oral arguments tomorrow. do you think that's purely for fund fund raising purposes and he knows that's where cameras will be and he'll make a statement before, after or both or is there a legal strategy at play here in terms of some sort of maybe impact on judges? >> no. i don't think there's a legal strategy in play, and that's certainly that i think he's too small-mined to be able to think that through. i think what he's doing is he's seeking maximum attention. he's a narcissist. he thinks somehow that his presence can persuade people generally. i think that he's -- you know, i think he want to put on a show tomorrow, and i think he wants to put on a show that he's somehow being politically persecuted and that he's unfair lit victim of a witch hunt which we've heard thousands of times.

you know, he preble will raise money off of it, but i don't think it's going have any legal effect on how this proceeding goes. >> he makes the argument, well, i have to go to court. i can't be on the campaign trail when he actually doesn't have to be in court tomorrow. the former president's attorneys also filed motions today in the election fraud case in janet, again, claiming the indictment should be barred under presidential immunity. if the claims of immunity are ultimately upheld on the federal legal what, impact would that have on a state court case like this one? >> well, i think it would -- the state court case would follow, and i think that if he's -- if his presidential immunity claim is defeated in the united states court of appeals in the district of columbia circuit in a matter of days that will shut down the immunity case in the georgia case and i don't think -- i think the real question will be will the supreme court bother to take either one of those cases, and i think it's quite possible it will take the d.c. circuit case, but it's also quite possible that they may not

knowing that the trial is upcoming and knowing that they can review any immount claims he loses this time around after he's convicted and sentenced. >> if the federal appeals court or the u.s. supreme court agree with the former president's interpretation of presidential immunity, just long term what implications, what effect does have on the presidency long snerm. >> it would have more of an impact. it would have a devastating and dangerous impact on our constitutional tradition and on the rule of law. i mean, if you look at -- if you talk to students, scholars of authoritarianism they will tell you that authoritarian governance is the governance of criminals. it's the governance of criminal mobs, and an essential element of that is immunity or impunity and the ability to break the law and to make the law whatever the leader wants it to be, and not

only is this immunity, this criminal immunity for basically any action relating to his job that he seeks not consistent with our constitutional traditions. it would be an essential element for an authoritarian regime, so i don't think there's any chance it will be accepted, and even if some kind of criminal immunity were accepted by the courts, it certainly wouldn't cover the conduct he engaged in here which was basically antithetical to his duties as president of the united states, so in the sufficiently recommend which is the case that he's relying on, the only immunity that a president gets is for actions that occur within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility. here he was way outside the outer perimeter. he was actually undermining his duties. >> how long do you think it will take for the court to rule? >> i think it will be a matter of days. i think the court of appeals obviously knows what the

timetable is here, obviously notes importance. they said highly expedited schedule to hear this case at all tomorrow, and i think they are going to act swiftly after that. i don't think there's any question how they will route. i think they will rule quickly, and i think the parties, the united states and donald trump, will be back preparing for this trial and i think the trial is probably going to go off in april if not shortly soon thereafter. >> you wrote a piece for "the atlantic" on the u.s. supreme court's recent announcement they will review the colorado supreme court's decision that the former president is ineligible to serve of under secretary 3 of the 14th amendment. >> as i pointed out in "the atlantic" piece what was really odd the petition was it didn't point out particular errors and focus on specific errors in the decision of the -- alleged errors in the decision of the

colorado supreme court. when you draft one of these document, what you're supposed to do is set forth the questions one by one on the inside cover that you say that the questions of law that you say the lower court go the wrong, and here they justcism my put one question, basically was donald trump improperly disqualified, and that's not the normal way you to things, and i think there are a couple of reasons, why and i think the most important reason is that when you ask that question, people say, oh, yeah, he should be allowed on the ballot because they are not really familiar with the idea of the provision in the cons to us that bars insurrectionists from holding public office, but when you break it down to the legal and factual issues involved, who is subject to section 3 of the 14th amendment, is there some kind necessity for congressional legislation to enforce it and did donald trump engage with insurrection, he loses when you

actually break down the questions -- the case into its sub questions the way lawyers and judges are supposed to do. >> george wonway, appreciate it. >> thank you. as we noted,er time this has come up the former president's appearance in court is not mandatory. he's alone is choosing to go. he has chosen to take himself off the campaign trail even though he saido wise this weekend in a campaign email saying, quote, twice in this final week i will reportedly be forced off the campaign trail and into the courtrooms for phony witch-hunts in both new york and washington, d.c. again, that's not true. as we said, he's choosing to go to d.c. tomorrow and new york later this week for another hearing into his real estate business. the reality is the courtroom is the campaign trail for him. senior data reporter harry enten is here to show us why. how has the president's former polling changed with these court case snds. >> if you go back ten months ago this was a campaign for presidency on the republican side. donald trump was ahead and ron desantis was at least within 20

points, within striking distance. i could show you examples of the second place person coming to win with desantis' polling. donald trump has a clear majority of the vote, north of 60% and up 50 points over ron desantis, the largest lead ever for a non-incumbent in the primary and if you look at the polling more generally speaking republicans actually say that these indictments have made them more likely to vote for the president instead of less likely and that's backed up by the polling data that shows trump's wide is expanding ever wider nationally. >> he's been fund raising off this, too. >> absolutely he's been fund-raising off of this. it's not just the polls where his numbers have gone up. his two best fund-raising days so far, one when he appeared in new york in the court and the other one was the day his mug shot was taken. he raised millions dollars each of those days and more than that his fund-raising quarters in the second and third quarter of last

year he was raising $35 million, $45 million in that third quarter. in the first quarter he raised less than $20 million. in fact, there were some real questions as to whether or not ron desantis could be the fund-raising juggernaut and outraise drew. at this particular point what these indictment have done and what appearing in court has done more than anything else has choked off the oxygen from those other candidates and have supercharged, put the trump campaign on steroids. he has so much money and he's able to pay his legal bills as well? what about beyond the primary? >> we've been talking about the primary but beyond the primary, amongst republicans this is one of the most interesting poll questions that i founding right? it's not just that republicans believe it's more likely i'll vote for him in the primary. they actually believe it makes him more electable in the general election as well. they say he's more likely to beat joe biden because of these charges, not less likely and here's the thing, anderson.

i'm not sure they are necessarily wrong, because if you look pre-indictment the general election polls joe biden had a two-point need nationally among registered voters. today donald trump has a two-point lead. not that trump has seen his numbers go up in the primary, they have gone up in the job election as well. voters say they claim to care about the charges in the general electorate but overall in the polls it's not showing. >> thanks very much. >> president biden amplifying his attacks on the former president as a threat to democracy and how is that landing with voters. also tonight the upcoming supreme court case and whether justice thomas should recuse himself from the case in keeping the former president off the ballot and i'll speak with congresswoman acourt who says he should and troubling concerns over the boeing g airliners includuding the onone that l lo chununk of fuselagage at 16,000 feet. wewe'll be rigight back.

this weekend repeated his strange claim that the civil war could have been averted by negotiation. speaking today at mother emmanuel ame church in charleston, south carolina, president biden called him out on civil war history and compared trump supporters with former confederates who embrace what had has become known as the lost cause. >> once again, there's some in this country trying to turn a loss into a lie, a lie which if allowed to live will once again bring terrible damage to this

country. this time the lie is about the 2020 election. >> again today, as he did friday, mr. biden made threats to democracy a central theme of his remarks. again tonight the question is how is the case he's making being received? joining us two cnn political contributors, former south carolina state lawmakers bakari sellers and former trump campaign adviser david irvine. president biden speaking to black voters in south carolina hitting on this message that his predecessor is a threat to democracy, comparing his supporters to defeated confederates embracing the lost cause. in your view is that a trat which have that will resonate with voters? >> actually i think it will, and i think it's not just the messaging about the lost cause or the confederacy of the civil war, but it's actually the act of meeting voters where they are. i hear my good friend david chuckling in the background but let mow give you a point of personal privilege really quick and teach for one moment. he was at mother of emmanuel ame church where we had one of the

most devastating massacres in the history of the united states. he was just a few hundred yards away from where the first slaves entered the country. he was on hallowed ground speaking hallowed words to an audience that could absorb what he's saying and more importantly ones he'll need in order to win the election. i know people get caught up in what he may say but it was about where he was and the venue and it was about the fact that he was meeting voters where they were. today was a god day for the biden campaign, one that they can build upon. >> was today a good day for the biden campaign? >> i agree with bacarri in terms of the location and the messaging. if -- if the president -- if president biden doesn't have african-americans from young african-americans to old african-americans and they are not a monolithic voting block, younger african americans skew for progressive and older ones skew more conservative but he needs every african american voter to turn out for him, not for them not vote for trump but

to vote out in support of biden because if he doesn't he'll definitely loose. >> the former president was out over the weekend make bidsary claims that the civil war could have been negotiated, that he can solve the war in ukraine in a day. the doj and fbi have been weaponized against him. he's claiming -- he's calling convicted insurrectionists hostages, do you think he risks playing into president biden's hands with that kind of rhetoric? >> look, anderson, i've said this repeatedly and i will continue to say this. the only one that can beat krump in 2024 is drew, and if he shifts and pivots his focus on to things that, you know, president biden should be talking about, the things that people are talking about around their kitchen table, economic issues and insurance and whether they can pay their mortgage and whether they can get a mortgage, those are things people in america want to talk about and are concerned about and whether it's president biden looking backwards or president trump looking backwards, i don't think most americans want to focus on that. they want to focus prospectively

about what their futures look like >> to the point that david made about black voters, republican senator tim scott released this video today saying that president biden's numbers with all minority groups are dropping and people of color are lose confidence in him. what are your concerns about the support he's receiving from black voters or the lack of it? >> so, i think my analysis is this, anderson. this race is not just joe biden versus donald trump. that's where people miss the mark. this race is joe biden versus trump versus the couch and the couch is actually a very, very successful candidate in the united states of america, literally runs no ads but year after year more and more people are choosing the couch. joe biden has to make sure that voters want to come out for him. plaque vote remembers tired, tired in this country, particularly black women from carrying the democratic party and not feeling the benefit of that whether it's in the gas tanks, in their pockets or where they can send their children to school.

what joe biden has to say look our administration has done these things. whether or not it's ketanji brown jackson or kamala harris or the wage gap or unemployment for black folks, he's done these things, he just needs to get out and share the message. ended up on a good note, a goss pell song where he talked about the fact that god wouldn't bring thus far to leave us. it was a message of hope and faith and that's what voters need to hear, particularly black voters that are the backbone of the democratic party. >> biden continues to focus on trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, saying today losers are taught to concede when they lose and he's a loser. i mean, how do you think the former president is taking that tonight? do you think -- >> i think he's probably taking it pretty well. it's like rubbing salt in the wound, anderson. i'm sure he hates it. i'm sure trump hates it, and that's why he punches back with the weaponized doj.

when i'm president again i'm going to indict, you know, i'm going to indict joe biden, you know, and he punches pack. listen, i don't think it's useful. i think it's, again, i think that people want to hear -- americans want to hear how is my life going to be better if you're president. that's what they want to hear. past rhetoric, the couch wins it a lot of time both on rope can and democratic tickets so people need to get off the couch and get involved and candidates need to make them want to get off the couch and get involved with a message of, you know, of optimism. we can do better as a country in lots of ways. let's hear about it. >> when he was speaking about the recent school shooting in perry, iowa, the president said it was horrible and we have to get over it. that kind language i guess may help him win the republican nomination, how do you see it playing in the general election? >> i mean, it turns away white college educated women, for example. it turns away the independent voters. i mean, hell, it should turn

away some people who have a level of conscience. donald trump doesn't do well when it comes to like sensible things that people should have, like basic empathy, like emotions. he doesn't possess those character traits. i think are some people who have an affinity for a donald trump economy. we can argue those policy. he always wants to go off topic and talk about slavery and weaponize the doj. in perry, iowa, for example, we have to get over that. david would tell you if they can keep him on message he would have a better chance to be president of the united states. >> yeah. >> but if he has to show some type of emotion, i would argue that the man is emotionally stunned but i'm not a doctor. >> voters know this about donald trump. it's into the secret the they have seen the guy before, so, you know, knowing all that, and he's still leading biden, what does that say?

>> yeah. thank you both. coming up, we'll be joined by congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez to discuss why she and seven of her house colleagues are demanding justice clarence thomas recuse himself from deciding whether the former president is eligible for colorado's primary pat. also breaking news on that alaska airlines flight. a secondarily says it has uncovered similar issues with the same model boeing aircraft. details on that ahead.

you heard york conway earlier discuss the supreme court's decision to review when colorado's high court can toss the former president from the state's primary ballot as an insurrectionist. oral arguments are schedule for one month from today. in advance, eight house democrats have sent a letter to justice clarence thomas saying he should recuse himself, in large part because of the actions of his wife in connection to the january 6 rally and subsequent riot. quoting from the letter, not only did your wife attend the january 6 rally, but she was instrumental in planning it and bringing the insurrectionists to the capitol. it's unthinkable you could be deciding whether an event an event your wife organized could

prevent someone from being an insurrection unfortunate. >> why do you think he should recuse himself? >> i think it's very clear. clarence thomas and rather his wife ginny participated in oat vents of january 6 and what's going before the supreme court is a judgment of an event his wife has participated in, that his wuf has been investigated by the january 1 committee and qualifies as an insurrection and clarence thomas' decision on that, one way or another, and overall the court's decision on that would directly implicate his wife, and so this is one of the most classic textbook conflicts of interest, and it would frankly be a scandal if he did not recuse himself. >> do you think he actually will? he did recuse himself in the case regarding john eastman,

never really explaining why he recused himself. >> yes, and his wife, you know, one of the -- one of the documents that donald trump actually tried to prevent from coming to the january 6th committee were documents that showed ginny thomas in communication with john eastman. clarence thomas did not really elaborate as to why he recused himself but he recused himself in the case with respect to john eastman. his wife had actively been involved in communication with him pressing john eastman and press mark meadows, donald trump's chief of staff at the time and also continues to maintain that the 2020 election was stolen despite a complete lack of evidence thereof, and so, you know, i think our hope is that clarence thomas has shown that he is willing to recuse himself from a case. this is one of the most direct implications that he has with respect to, you know, perhaps -- one of any of the cases that's coming before the court.

>> do you worry that he might not just because you have written this letter? you have called for his impeachment before. you have been very tough on clarence thomas. >> well, we have called for him to recuse himself in all cases related to january 6. he has in the past, and frankly this -- this truly is not even about partisan point-scoring. this is about the -- this is about the integrity of the court, and to not recuse one self from the case where one is so -- where justice is so deeply involved would have larger ramifications not just for clarence thomas but for the supreme court oversglaul do you think it sets a bad precedent that a justice has to recuse himself based on something his awi awife has been alleged to be involved with? >> i think a justice's spouse

was involved in a ruling by the supreme court, that's well within the professional bounds of conflict of injury and it's not a troubling precedent. i think the precedent has been set that if something so personal would affect a justice that they would recuse themselves from a ruling. >> do you believe the former president is going to be put on trial in any of these trials before the election? do you believe that there will be some opportunity for him to be judged by a jury of his peers? >> you know, i think that's real up to the courts and to the court system. as we know, he has a lot of different legal matters up in the courts. some of those potentially criminal or particularly with his colleagues as well. others are civil. we are going to have to see how the courts really, you know, make their way through all of this, but this is the most pressing question that we have, and especially when it comes to

this argument of complete and total immunity. >> can you foresee a circumstance in which the supreme court would say that the president is immune? >> if the supreme court does come to that conclusion, it would have profound and destabilizing impacts on the presidency and for the country. >> not just for this former president but for history? >> but for all presidents to come, you know, and -- and to say that any president, as soon as you are owe elected, that you can commit any crime whatsoever related to anything, personal or, you know, related to whether it's interpersonal or larger, whether it's fraud, violence, whatever it may be, to say that no matter what happens you can not be held accountable in a court of law is an extremely, extremely destabilizing position and finding for the entire country that would have deeply, deeply damaging ramifications. >> the move by republicans on

impeachment in the house, do you think it's inevitable that they will move to impeach the president? >> you know, they -- they are certainly trying. what we're seeing though is that they can't even name what they would impeach the president for. we're seeing this -- this case has come right before the house ore sight committee over which i'm the vice chair -- vice ranking member to ranking member raskin, and we have had countless closed door sessions, closed dore depositions. we've had open door hearings about this, and the republican party cannot even name what the crime is that they are alleging the president or frankly anybody else that they are trying to investigate to have committed, and impeachment is one of the most serious procedures that we have in this country, and it has to tie directly to a crime or misdemeanor or some other direct action that we find completely

incompatible with the presidency, and they have not opinion able to name it. what is it? and what are they investigating the president for, and they don't have an answer because the president has not done anything impeachable that they have been able to prove, and so what they are using and what they are doing is taking impeachment and taking all of the most serious procedures that we have as a country, and they are learning to use it for political -- they are politically weaponizing it for an election purpose, for a political purpose, and in doing so they are putting the people of this country, everyday americans, absolutely at the bottom of the barrel, and they are putting themselves first. it's the selfishness that really endangers this country. it endangers our electoral process and our legal process the it's deeply cynical, and it's done to re-elect themselves and line their own pockets. >> congresswoman, appreciate your time. >> of course. >> thank you. still to come, breaking news on that section of a plane that blew off of a boeing aircraft

flown by aclass airlines. the issue may now extend to a secondararily as well.l. we'll bebe right bacack.

breaking news to report. three days after a boeing 737 max-9 flown by alaska airlines lost a door plug mid-flight leaving a refrigerator-sized hole in the cabin, united airlines reports that it found loose bolts on the door plugs of an undisclosed numbers of it own

boeing 737 max-9s. the faa grounded 179 of those aircraft on saturday. united says in a statement that inspections uncord insulation issues, including, quote, belts that needed additional tightening. now remarkably the national transportation safety board announced today they had located the door plug that blew off from the alaska airlines plane. it landed, it was found in someone's back-yard in portland, oregon. investigators are currently examining a pressurization fail light that went off three times the previous month, including the day before the accident. it's unclear whether that's related to the accident. earlier i spoke to the ntsb chair jennifer hamdi who is leading the investigation. >> united airlines said it found loose door bolts on an undisclosed number of its 77-max-9 aircraft and have cancelled 187 flights since saturday. what do you say to the flying public right now who may be

worried? >> well, we have received those reports from united. we've heard from boeing about those reports as well. we are checking with alaska to see what they are finding in their inspections, but rate now we're really focused on what happened in this event. as far as flying, these planes are grounded, and aviation is very safe. the u.s. airspace is the safest in the world, but we need to keep it that way which means when events like this happen, it's our duty at the ntsb to launch an investigation to determine what happened, why it happened so we prevent it from happening again. >> at this point have you been able to determine what caused this incident? >> it's too early. we've been on scene for a few days. we just found the door plug this morning fort natalie. we asked the community for their help to find that door plug, and

somebody found it, a teacher found it in his backyard? that's remarkable. >> so we picked it up this morning, and we are evaluating that right now. >> now that you've found the door plug, what does the door plug, what can that tell you? >> quite a lot. it really was the missing piece in the investigation. we're able to look at all the components on this door plug, all the fittings, all -- any sort of structures that may remain. any sort of bolts or washers that may, or nuts that may reside on the door surround structure as well as the door plug itself. it's going to help our metallurgists and our materials engineers determine how this

door came off and was expelled from the aircraft. >> on the alaska air flight, do you know why no one was sitting in the seat closest to the door sflug was that jut a coincidence? >> it was a coincidence and quite frankly a miracle. this plane has 178 seats. 171 were occupied, and just by happenstance there was no one in 26a and 28 will have b. >> if there had been, would they have been sucked out? >> it's possible certainly that there could have been some really catastrophic consequences to those individuals that were closest to the door frame. >> how damaging is it to the investigation, or limiting, that you don't have a cockpit voice recorder? i understand the information was o'ridden of a just two hours. i didn't realize it gets overridden so quickly. >> yeah, it's really disappointing. the ntsb has been urging the faa

to extend the cvr -- the cockpit voice recording recording hours from two hours to 25 hours. >> why is it overridden so quickly? that seems crazy. >> that's the federal regulation which is what we have been urging for years for faa to change. here's what i'll say. they just put out a notice of proposed rule-making to extend it to 25 hours, but only for newly manufactured airplanes. there are hundreds of airplanes out there that will last 30, 40, 50 years. it isry dick thousands have some for two hours and others for 25 hours. the 25-hour rule should all airplanes, retro fit and new. i spoke directly to the faa administrator and said we were

going to raise this in this investigation because we're really disappointed. we're very disappointed. there were significant communications issues between what was going on in the cockpit and the friendlight attendants e cabin. the flight attendants had no idea what was happening in the cook pitt at the time and there's a lot of chaos in such an event, and we need to have all that national, not just for investigation, but to make sure we're getting to the right answers and recommending the right safety change. >> yeah, i mean, it seems like this is potentially crucial evidence in all of these cases. >> absolutely. >> jennifer hamdi, i appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> thank you so, anderson. next, the new action taken today against christian ziegler who was suspended last month as the chair of florida's republican party as he faces a sex scandal and accusations of breaking the state's video voyeurism laws.

florida has ousted a chairman, christian ziegler, as he faces a sex sandal that shattered the public reputation of both he and his wife. last week, it was revealed sarasota police are looking at whether mr. ziegler broke florida's video voyeurism laws when he secretly taped an encounter with the woman accusing him of rape. he claimed the act was consensual and showed authorities a video. the woman had a previous tea-way encounter with his wife and him. he says he's done nothing wrong. his wife has not been accused of a rhyme. more from carlos suarez. what happened today and what's been the reaction from florida republicans? >> anderson, christian ziegler's fate with the florida republican

party has been sealed for some time now. and in the end, the vote wasn't even close. we're talking about 199-3 to remove him as chair of the state party. for weeks now, top officials across the state of florida from governor ron desantis to senator marco rubio and rick scott and congressman matt gaetz who was in town for the meeting here in tallahassee wanted to see ziegler step aside since the details of the sex scandal broke back in early october. the allegations that ziegler sexually assaulted a woman that he had a previous consensual seshual encounter with, along with his wife, bridget ziegler, the cofounder of the moms for liberty group. now, anderson, it is important to note here that christian ziegler has not been criminally charged and he said that the sex with the woman was consensual. now, party officials told me after the vote that they really just want to move past this sex scandal. they admit that some of their

fund-raising efforts have taken a bit of a hit, but because we're in a 2024 presidential election cycle, and we have the florida legislative session which gets under way tomorrow, they're ready to move beyond christian ziegler. >> and what about his wife, bridget ziegler? we said in the intro, admitted to this three-way with her husband and the same woman, the sarasota county school board passed a resolution calling on her to resign. has she done that? >> reporter: anderson, she has not. and she's given no indication that she plans on stepping aside anytime soon. i asked some of the very same republican party officials today whether they believe that bridget ziegler should give up her school board seat considering the allegations against her husband. and the couple's behavior, and just about every single party official i spoke to said they didn't want to touch the subject, in fact the only person in the state of florida that can remove her from her school board seat is governor ron desantis.

and anderson, so far, he has given no indication that she should step aside. >> carlos, thanks very much. next, the latest on an explosion and fire at a hotel in downtown ft. worth, texas. we'l'll be rightht back.

we have more breaking news. an explosion and fire at a hotel in ft. worth, texas. 26 rooms were occupied when it happened. the force of the blast causing part of the building to crash into the streets. at least 21 people were injured with one in critical condition. no reports of fatalities at the scene. investigators expect the explosion was caused by a gas leak. federal authorities are also looking into it. a federal law enforcement source tells cnn there is no indication the incident is criminal in nature. the news continues. i'll see you tomorrow. the source with kaitlan collins starts now. >> tonight, straight from the source, new word from the pentagon about the growing scandal surrounding the secret hospitalization of the defense secretary. lloyd austin rushed to walter reed, put in the icu, yet the president himself was not told for days. also tonight,