we are watching live pictures from tel aviv, israel. secretary of state, antony blinken set to speak after

critical meetings with officials on the next phase of the war amid growing concerns of a whiting conflict. we will bring you his remarks when they began. and in the meantime in the u.s., a critical question, two presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution? that is the unprecedented question before the federal courts. this morning, donald trump's attorney, and his lawyer from the special counsel's team making their opposing cases. over the course of an hour, a judge appealed the panel hearing, heated arguments and hypotheticals ranging from president ordering political assassinations to courts being powerless to review presidential actions. >> this is part of trump's legal effort to get his federal election subversion charges thrown out. the former president was there for the proceedings and so a special counsel, jack smith. the judges are now set to huddle and they will get their written ruling at some point soon. the ultimate answer will be headed to the supreme court. let's get some insight from cnn -- and paula reed.

they were at the courthouse this morning. there was just now along with cnn legal analyst, kayleig cordero. paul, it let start with. you walk us through the trump team's argument because it seems to be shifting a bit. >> it's an evolution,. boris here they're arguing he doesn't necessarily have absolute immunity. a president can be prosecuted, after he is impeached and convicted through the political process. now, these judges came armed with some wild hypotheticals to test this argument. let's take a listen to that. >> could a president order seal team six to assassinate a political rival? that is an official act in order to seal team six? >> he would have to be impeached and convicted before the pro-criminal prosecution. >> but there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that? >> -- against matheson and our constitution and the plain language of the judgment closs, they all clearly suppose that

what the founders were concerned about was not -- >> yes or no question? could a president who ordered seal team six to assassinate a political rival, who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution? >> if you were impeached and convicted first. >> so your answer is no. >> my answer is a qualified yes. >> so a lawyer that represents seals texted me and assured me that this is not an order that would have been followed. but the special counsel rejected this argument. they said you can't have any sort of justice relying on a political process like this. they also rejected the trump team's argument that if you don't grant this quasi-absolute immunity that you're going to open pandora's box. for example, president biden could be prosecuted for what's going on at the border. said the special counsel, they said. know there are charges here because the conduct is unprecedented. it is extraordinary. they also pointed to the investigations during the clinton administration and said, look criminal charges were not

brought there. it doesn't mean we're gonna open this-for-tat. but really this argument, you know, that you can assassinate your political rival if congress is cool with it, that was pretty wild. >> if he seemed to be saying that this was opening pandora's box, the special counsel seem to be saying no, you're setting a standard that should be followed. and they were describing the same thing in very different terms. evan, you are in the courtroom. it seems like it was a pretty wild day. what was it like? >> it was very interesting to me that certainly the illusion that we've seen in the arguments from the trump team, but also you know, in some ways, the things you hear the former president talk, about the idea that if he takes office he's going to be convicting -- or president biden could be prosecuted. there was an exchange -- between hug judge henderson, raising this idea of the pandora's box, the idea that it would be opening the floodgates to future prosecutions of

former presidents. james -- special counsel lawyer who had the arguments, respond to that, listen. >> this notion that we're all the sudden going to see a floodgate. i think the careful investigations in the clinton era, they did not result in any charges. the fact that this investigation did doesn't reflect that we are going to see a sea change of vindictive -for-tat prosecutions in the future. it reflects the fundamentally unprecedented nature of the criminal charges here. >> during that conversation, that back and forth, you saw trump taking very very furious notes. there are times when he was doing that during this proceeding. >> when it comes to the legal perspective, carrie, it seems like both sides are arguing that there is potentially a dangerous precedent that could be said if either side prevails. >> it's important because this case is not just about former

president donald trump. this case is about the presidency. and the powers of the presidency. i think i will give you one reason why the judges on this panel may have used that really, what seems like outrageous example of the seal team six conducting a political assassination. what they're trying to show is that the use of a president commander-in-chief power is actually when the president has the most authority that would normally be unchallenged. and so they're trying to show that the exercise of that particular authority still has a limit for being out of bounds and potentially could involve prosecutorial prop conduct. >> what about the argument that trump's lawyers made that he was acting on january 6th as president in the interest of electoral integrity? obviously we know that these claims about widespread election interference are bogus. but if his intent was to secure the election, does that carry any weight with these judges?

>> that goes to the heart of whether or not the conduct that is alleged here falls under an immunity claim. so normally a president has wide authority conduct their presidential activities. what the former presidents team is arguing is that his work, his activities in this particular factual scenario where presidential activities and that is exactly what the prosecutors, the justice department, is saying, it's not true. that that's the heart of this case overall. the thing is >> it's really in the american ethos that no one is above the law. paula, that includes presidents. so to that point, it is really the crux of what you are hearing the special counsel argue here. and broadly speaking, americans understand that. >> one of the reasons a lot of people were critical of trump prevailing today is because we've heard from other courts, other judges, the trial court level, judge tanya chutkan said

look, we can't give presidents a get of jail free pass. his works. no one is above the law. and also there's been other decisions, similar unrelated issues in this court of appeals that found he is not immune from civil liability. and this question of what he was up to around january 6th, whether it was an official duty or something outside of that, it's also something the former white house chief of staff has lost that argument that what they were doing was related to their official work and should be protected. most people agree, the presidency, yes, you should be entitled to certain protections. but it's likely not going to be blanket. >> the other aspect of this that i found fascinating is that the defense is simultaneously arguing that prosecuting trump would amount to double jeopardy. because of his impeachment. >> right. and weirdness of the argument, it just got absurd to a point where what they're saying is, because he was acquitted by the senate that therefore he can't be prosecuted. however, judge pan cornered him

into acknowledging that, it okay, if he was convicted by the senate now he could be tried in the criminal court, which is odd for you to say that that's not a double jeopardy. it's just one of those arguments that is one of their weakest arguments to try to make in this case. also what was interesting, we didn't hear a lot of the political question. the question of whether the former president was doing was electioneering or taking care of his own political future. it is something that other judges have delved into. these judges didn't seem to ask that question here. >> it is unprecedented of a question in a way, talking about the conviction by the senate and then whether you can proceed with a court process against the president. what kind of thing is there in the american legal system that is similar to that? >> there isn't. in this case, and that's why i view this particular case and

the arguments being made by the former president as the weakest of all the legal arguments that he is making in various cases. but his lawyer was suggesting today, there has to be an impeachment and conviction first before criminal process, there just is not a sound basis in the constitution, in federal statute, in precedent, to make that particular argument. it is a really odd putting together of impeachment, which is a political process. even though it kind of looks like a legal proceeding, in terms of argument and lawyers and the pageantry of, it it's inherently a political process, not a legal process. >> that point, part of the argument during trump's impeachment from senate republicans that voted against convicting him made its way into the discussion today. let's play a quick soundbite from former senate majority leader, -- sorry, senate minority leader,

mitch mcconnell. >> president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. as an ordinary citizen. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation. and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. >> does that weigh into the discussion between the judges and ultimately make it decisions? >> i don't think the particular comments made by a politician on the floor will factor into their consideration of the case. but the concept is applicable. what mitch mcconnell is talking about is the functioning of the rule of law. that, at some point, even a former president can be accountable under the law. and whether that is not through the impeachment process but through the criminal justice system or the civil legal system, there has to be some way for former president to be

accountable. >> carrie? evan? paula? i appreciate the conversation. thanks so much. >> plenty more news to come on new, central including new cnn polling showing nikki haley surging in new hampshire, cutting donald trump's lead to single digits. it also comes as the former president ramps up his attacks on nikki haley. >> and today, boeing is holding an all hands safety meeting. today's -- in-flight blowout led to the grounding of dozens of 737s max 9 jets. the latest on the investigation, coming up.

nikki haley got some good polling news today. the former south carolina governor house cut into donald trump's lead in the new hampshire republican primary race. that is according to a new cnn poll conducted by the university of new hampshire. the former president now leading only in the double

digits. rather, the single digits. look, trump still holding meaningful lead over haley, 39% of likely gop voters opting for the former president new hampshire compared to haley starting to. the rest of the field lagging far behind. chris christie a, 12 ramaswamy and desantis in the single digits. former arkansas governor, asa hutchins, in hash marks the poll. shows that haley has momentum. look at this, she has climbed 12 points in just a few months since november. that support appears to be drifting from some of her rivals. you see a slump for trump as well as christy and desantis down four points. who is behind the surge? it is undeclared voters. haley is up 18 points with that group. since november. trump is actually down seven. and yet, when it comes to conservative voters, trump actually leads haley by some 40 percentage points. 16 and 20. they're the inverse is true

when it comes to moderates. haley is up 42 points. when it comes to those voters. now, how many folks in the grand state can still be persuaded to switch candidates? among likely republican voters, 80% of trump supporters say they are definitely decided. compare that healy supporters, they are at 54%. but here is the key part. this is what hailie's team is banking on. just 45% of new hampshire republicans say that they are backing other candidates and that they are decided on that. that means the door still open for potential upset in the -- >> pretty interesting to watch here. let's discuss this further with cnn political commentator, karen finney. a former senior adviser to the democratic national committee and also, charlie dent, former republican congressman for pennsylvania. charlie, how significant is it that nikki haley is now within single digits of trump in new hampshire? >> it is enormously significant

because nikki haley is clearly surging. she has momentum in new hampshire. that is not surprising. we expect trump to win in iowa and new hampshire, it often goes a different way. but these unaffiliated voters in new hampshire will make a difference and frankly, new hampshire is in a much better state then iowa which reflects evangelical support more than anything else. i don't think nikki haley -- she's well positioned to. when i'm not saying she will. but she is well within striking distance. if i were the trump campaign i would be more than a little nervous right now. >> what do you think, watching this movie véliz? >> absolutely. it says to donors that she is a good investment, which will help her stay in the contest longer. it's going to get harder for rhonda scientist and chris christie who are so much farther behind, both in iowa and new hampshire, to continue to make the argument to donors to say, contribute to me while i try to keep fighting this. fight for her means she can turn around and say, look what

happens when i am in this race. so absolutely agree with charlie that it is having quite a big meaning for her. >> when it comes to this translating potentially in other places, haley obviously doing well with independent voters as we just showed. but that is unique to new hampshire. does this potentially carry momentum for moving forward? >> well, i think it may. obviously we are moving on to south carolina, her home state. trump is very strong there. i think it gives her a surge of momentum going into super tuesday. again, each state has different rules about who can vote in the primaries, but what will happen is that a lot of the vote, the non-trump vote may consolidate around hailie. i could see desantis probably dropping. out i mean, iowa is going to be this do or die. chris christie will probably stay in for a while longer. it really looks like there could be a consolidation of the vote. so this all accrues to haley's benefit. whether not the momentum will

surge in super tuesday, with successful outcomes, you may see -- it bodes well for her. >> i think we're getting a taste today of what it is like to watch trump navigate between his court dates and these key political dates. and i wonder, as you see that, karen, what you are thinking about -- how we're talking about how significant it is the nikki haley is making this move. how do you see that changing things potentially as we get into super tuesday? >> two dynamics at play. number, one he's made this is centerpiece of his narrative. i am your retribution. i am taking these hits for you because i am here to protect our way of life. so it feeds into his core narrative. it's almost like a campaign event, the way he has made it when he comes out and speak softer. at the same, time we know from the new york times poll that some voters are starting to pay attention and have expressed concern that well, if he is convicted, maybe i better have

a backup. and so maybe for those voters they are taking another look at someone like nikki haley who, they think, just in case something happens to trump, who is trying to lock up the nomination by super tuesday, maybe i ought to keep an eye out for somebody else. >> karen in, charlie we have to pause the conversation. we want to get straight to the middle east because secretary of state, antony blinken, is on a whirlwind tour of the region. here he is speaking from tel aviv. >> important progress has been made to increase the amount of gate -- aid can into gaza. nonetheless, 90% of gaza's population continues to have -- food insecurity according to the united nations. for children, the effects of long periods without sufficient food can have lifelong consequences. as i underscored in our meeting today, more food, water, medicine, other essential goods need to get into gaza and once they're in gaza they need to

get more effectively to people who need them. israel needs to do everything it can to remove any obstacles from crossings to other parts of gaza, improving deconfliction procedures to ensure that the aid can move safely and securely, which is a critical part of that. the united nations is playing an indispensable role in addressing the immense humanitarian needs in gaza. there is simply no alternative. u.n. personnel and other aid workers in gaza are demonstrating extraordinary courage by continuing to rely on lifesaving services, in what are extremely challenging conditions. i spoke last night with the u.n.'s new senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator for gaza, about all of these efforts that are underway. now, this is someone i work very closely with a few years ago when she led the u.n. mission. it destroyed the assad regime's chemical weapons in syria. so i can say from experience she has what it takes to get

this job done. she has america's full support, she must have israel's as well. today we also discussed the position of israel's military campaign in gaza. we consider to offer our best advice for how israel can achieve its essential goal of ensuring that october 7th never be repeated. and we believe israel has achieved significant progress for the subjective. israel's campaign moves to a lower intensity phase in gaza, and as the idf skills down its forces there, we agreed on a plan to carry out an assessment mission. it will determine what needs to be done to allow displaced palestinians to return safely to homes in the north. now, this is not going to happen overnight. there are serious security infrastructure and humanitarian challenges. but the mission will start a process that evaluates these obstacles and how they can be overcome.

in today's meetings i was also crystal clear. palestinian civilians must be able to return home as soon as conditions allow. they must not be pressed to leave gaza. as i told the prime minister, the united states unequivocal-y rejects any proposals advocating for the resettlement of palestinians outside of gaza. the prime minister reaffirmed to me today that this is not the policy of his real government. we also spoke about intentions on israel's northern border with lebanon. where hezbollah continues to launch daily rocket attacks on israel. as i told the war cabinet and other senior officials, the united states stands with israel in assuring its northern border is secure. we are fully committed to -- diplomatic solutions that avoids escalation and allows families to return to their homes live securely in northern israel and also in southern lebanon. finally, we continue to discuss how to build a more durable peace and security for israel

within the region. as i told the prime minister, every partner that i met on the strip said that they are ready to support a lasting solution that ends the long running cycle of violence and ensures israel's security. but they underscored that this can only come through a regional approach, that includes a pathway to a palestinian state. these goals are attainable, but only if they are pursued together. this crisis clarifies, you can't have one without the other. you can't chief either go without integrated regional approach. to make this possible, israel must be partner to palestinian leaders who are willing to leave their people living side by side in peace with israel and -- as neighbors. israel must stop taking steps that undercut palestinians ability to govern themselves effectively. settler violence carried out with, impunity salmon expansion,

demolitions, infections, all make it harder. not easier for israel to achieve lasting. peace and security >>. the palestinian authority also has a responsibility to reform themselves, to improve its governance, issues i plan to raise with president abbas when we meet tomorrow. if israel wants its arab neighbors to make the tough decisions necessary to ensure its lasting security, israeli leaders will have to make hard decisions themselves. when president biden addressed the people of israel, days after october 7th attack, he made a simple pledge. united states has israel's back. today, tomorrow, always. the friendship when our nations is truly amazing. it is our unique bond and americas enduring commitment to the people of israel allows when demands that we are as forthright as possible in the moments where the stakes are

highest, when the choices matter the most. this is one of those moments. i will happily take some questions. >> the first question goes to simon luis with reuters. >> thank you. mister secretary, the future of the gaza strip has been a theme of your trip while you've been visiting regional countries. i wonder, today, were you able to do any progress on closing the gap between arab leaders and israel on specific security reconstruction and governance arrangements for gaza? and you talked before leaving saudi arabia's today about the need for a practical pathway to palestinian state hood as part of efforts towards regional integration. obviously that has come up today in your meetings with the cabinet. has prime minister netanyahu

changed his mind? is he still opposed to the creation of a separate palestinian state? or have you managed to convince him or get a guarantee that this is something that can happen? >> so one of the things that i heard clearly on this trip, these two questions are actually joined. many countries in the region are prepared to invest in a number of ways, to invest when the conflict of gaza is over. in its reconstruction, in his security, supporting palestinians in their governance. but it is essential to them that they're also be a clear pathway to the realization of palestinian political rights and a palestinian state. and i think the view they have

expressed is that critical to ending once and for all a cycle of violence that has only repeated itself, is through the realization of a palestinian political right. that is a very clear message that i heard everywhere i went. just as i heard, again, a convicted not only to be engaged in the future of gaza but also to take the steps necessary, make the commitments necessary, provide the assurances necessary to give israel confident dense in its security.hing that is new and powerful in recent years. which is the willingness, the commitment, of many neighboring countries, not only to live with israel in peace but also, genuinely have our region more integrated in which everyone can feel secure, including

israel. so i think also here, potentially a powerful opportunity for the future, we it's difficult to get, they're hard decisions, hard choices need to be made. but you can see that possibility. i'm not going to speak for the prime minister or anyone in the israeli government about their views, i can just share our own. we also want to share what we heard from countries in the region. >> for the next question, suleman saw with calm news. >> thank, you mister secretary, for taking questions. i will be fast. the israeli government is refusing to transfer the p.a.'s money and the -- said yesterday there are 2 million not sees in gaza and i won't give money to not cease just like the u.s. won't give money to al-qaeda. i would like to have your comment on that. the second question is, the

cabinet said that they're refusing to let gazans go back to north gaza. is that something that you agreed on with your israeli counterparts? thank you very much. >> so first, with regard to the palestinian authority revenues. these are their revenues. they should have, them they should have them in order to be able to make sure they can pay their people that are providing essential services, including doing essential work in the west bank, the palestinian authority security forces, who are playing important role in trying to keep peace, security, stability in the west bank, something profoundly in israel's interests. so we believe that those revenues should be released to them. again, their revenues and they are being used to do something important. and when it comes to the future governance of gaza. when the conflict is, over of

course people need to be paid. they need to be able to do the work necessary to administer gaza. to do the other things that are critical once the conflict ends. in terms of palestinians and moving back to northern gaza, as i spoke earlier, we have an agreement of the u.n. will conduct an assessment to determine the conditions necessary for people to move back home. there are a lot of really challenging important issues to deal with including things like unexploded ordinance, booby traps another explosives that have been left by hamas. infrastructure questions, proper support, all of those things are going to be evaluated by the united nations pursuing the agreement. and as soon as conditions allow we want to see people moved back to their homes.

we've been very clear about the necessity of doing that when conditions allow. and making sure that people who want to go back and go back. >> we'll mauldin with the wall street journal. >> reporter: thank you so much. i want to ask, we have heard voices, some israeli political leaders talking about the threat of iran in the region and of course it's proxy to hezbollah and the houthis. they have been active around this conflict. you are bringing a message to the region of de-escalation. is your message of de-escalation heard and agreed with when you spoke to your israeli counterparts and political leaders who say -- we have not seen that in the last few days. there have been strikes on hezbollah that appear to be an

escalation. do you support that? is the u.s. and its partners prepared to take a strike against the houthis because of the continued action in around the red sea? >> thanks, will. one thing we have heard clearly, every place we've gone, including in israel, is that escalation is in no one's interest. no one is seeking, and no one wants to see other people in this conflict. and more than that, as i have already shared, we have countries around the region that are using their relationships, using their influence, to make sure that that doesn't happen. we had extensive discussions about that today, as we had on other days of this trip. and here we focused particularly on the situation in northern israel. and it is clear to me from these conversations a few things. first, we strongly support the

proposition that israelis need to know security so that they can return to their homes in northern israel. 80,000 or so israelis have been forced from their homes because of insecurity from southern lebanon, rocket attacks, other threats posed by hezbollah. equally, we believe, and the government of israel believes, that a diplomatic path is the best way to achieve the security. that's exactly what we will continue to pursue. that is what the government said today and that is what we are focused on. more broadly, we have a number of actions being taken by the houthis, by other iranian proxies, iraq, syria, with that threatens stability.

and it threatens the potential for conflict. and we are determined that we will not see exhalation, and we've made that very clear. but of course, if our personnel, our forces are threatened or attacked, we will take appropriate steps. we will respond. we will protect them, we have demonstrated that and in the recent past, we will again if we have to. we have talked already about the threat the houthis pose. that is a threat not to us directly, or to israel, it's a threat to the entire international community because they've been attacking shipping through the red sea that is vital to providing 50% of global commerce every day. these attacks have had very negative effects for countries around the world in terms of forcing ships to root around the red sea, taking longer

routes, more expensive, more time, insurance rates go up, prices for food, medicine, energy, whatever is being shipped are going up. and more broadly, it is a threat to the principle of freedom of navigation that every country has a stake. in that's why more than 40 countries joined us in contending the who the actions. that's why other countries have joined us and making clear that if this continues there are going to be consequences. but no one's looking to create a conflict or to escalate the conflict. on the contrary. we are seeking to prevent that from happening. but we also have to uphold basic principles of international law. , including freedom of navigation and we have to make sure that our own personnel, when they're under threat, are being protected. >> [inaudible] >> look, i will not speculate on what will happen in the future. we want to make clear that if these actions by the houthis continue there will be consequences. won't say anything about what they will be. >> the final question, al

jazeera. >> reporter: thank you. -- first, [inaudible] secretary blinken, thank you for expressing your deep sadness about the tragedy of our colleague, al jazeera reporter in gaza. he has lost his wife and three sons and his -- grandchildren and israeli bombardment of the house, they fled from the center of gaza city, displaced to the southern gaza strip in the 25th of october. two days or three days ago he lost his eldest son, hamza, who was a journalist in the al jazeera media network and was killed in an israeli airstrike that hit a civilian car in rafah. 110 for journalists have been killed so far by the israeli army in gaza. more than 20,000 civilians were

killed and tens of thousands were injured and hundreds of thousands were displaced from their homes that no longer exist. the situation of the israeli citizens is also difficult. tens of thousands were displaced from the gaza -- and the border with lebanon. and hundreds of civilians were killed in that hamas attack on the civilians in october. there is many -- from both sides, as you know. my question, why do you, as a superpower and as a leading force in the international community -- the israeli government to cease-fire in gaza, and respect the united nation resolution indicated the peaceful solution in the state of both sides continuing -- blood by more blood.

my second question is related to the matter of normalization. we is the usa really busy with the matter, do you think mr. blinken that the option exists or is it just and to escape from the solution of the palestinian question? and -- netanyahu to agree with the american position in order to change his extreme government. and what is the rule for the arab nations or countries as you mentioned before in gaza? it is it just to contribute to the reconstruction? or do they have to rule it? >> thank you. >> let me say, again, at the onset, the loss -- the losses that your colleagues suffered are unimaginable.

and i have deep condolences for what he has suffered. i can't even begin to fully imagine it. what he has gone through. as i said, again, the other day, to the journalists who have lost their lives, who have been injured in gaza, we feel very strongly for them as well. and the essential work they do is more vital than ever. we want this war to end as soon as possible. there has been far too much loss of life, far too much suffering. but it is -- it's legitimate objectives of ensuring that october 7th can never happen again. and we believe they are making considerable progress towards the goal. at the same time, i think it's important to remember that

everyone has choices to make. that includes hamas. hamas could have ended this one october 8th by not hiding behind civilians. by putting down its weapons, by surrendering, by releasing the hostages. if none of the suffering would have happened if hamas had not did what it did on october 7th and had it made different decisions thereafter. so it's very important to keep that in perspective and again, this could end tomorrow if hamas makes those decisions. we will continue, as we've done, to give the israelis are best

advice about conducting this war in a manner that achieves the objective to make sure that october 7th can't be repeated. when does better by protecting civilians and making sure that people get the assistance that they need. with regards to normalization, there is a core interest in pursuing that. integration of the region is something that virtually all the countries i visited on the strip want to pursue. some of them have already taken vital steps to do it. others are interested in doing the same. but it is equally clear that that is not in substitute for or at the expense of a political horizon for the palestinians, a palestinian

state. on the contrary, that peace has to be a part of any integration efforts, any normalization efforts. that was also very clear in my conversations during the course of this trip, including in saudi arabia. thank you. >> that was secretary of state, antony blinken, speaking in tel aviv. a critical stop on his whirlwind tour of the middle east. we have general mark kimmitt joining us now. there is so many important things he said, just a touch on a few of them, where he said, you know, first off, and this is before we dipped into it, he said the charge of genocide against israel's merit-less. he's referring to south africa bringing a case to the hague, having to do with that. but i think the most critical part of what he said had to do with the return of palestinians to northern gaza. he was saying there is going to be a u.n. assessment mission to see how palestinians can safely do that, he said he was crystal

clear. and i think using those words, you know, he's very specific when he says palestinian civilians must be allowed to return home as soon as safely -- as soon as safely possible. and they will not, they should not be leaving gaza as someone in the far-right in israel said. >> first of, alternative gaza, simply because no country will accept them. second, they do have legitimate right to no longer be internally displaced people but to go back to their homes. there are some people in the far right of the israeli government that don't believe that this is the final time to cleanse gaza of, quote, palestinians. but that just won't happen. i feel like we would cut off funding to israel before we allowed them t and eliminate all the people that are legitimately living there. >> another aspect to the question and answer period i thought was fascinating, tony blinken was asked straight up

whether in his conversation with benjamin netanyahu he got a sense that netanyahu supports a two-state solution. something the united states and the west has been pushing for for decades now. that is to potentially ease the conflict long term. he did not specifically say what he gathered from netanyahu. in fact, he said something to be effective, i'm not going to share netanyahu's perspective on this. he did harp on the fact that there was support in the region by partners to the united states for a two-state solution and he specifically mentioned that they had offered security guarantees to israel in order to facilitate that. what are the security guarantees looking like? is it something you believe netanyahu may buy into? >> i don't think. so the real issue of that question is not about security guarantees. it's about governance. who will govern in gaza? the united --

it's clear that the israeli position is that mahmoud abbas will not governed, the plo will not govern. there has to be some sort -- excuse me, gaza. there has to be some sort of other formulation before netanyahu will buy into it. that generally will be the trickiest part. humanitarian aid, probably solvable problem. resettlement into their homes, probably a solvable problem. but nobody has come up with a good formulation at this point for who will govern gaza postwar. >> it seems like he was going in with some hard truths. is israel really having no plan for what they're going to do with gaza? of flooding subsidize? and what is gonna happen with israel? they don't to incentivize what happened on october 7th, that's the way they see, it towds a twe solution, what is the message they're sending to hamas? they got something, right? out of what they did. but to tony blinken's point, he

is trying to say that if you want to ease tensions and move towards a future, there has to be a two-state solution. that is where everyone who he has spoken to on this trip is demanding more political rights for palestinians. how is it possible that israel can be moved on that by the u.s.? >> the security guarantees by the u.s. would have to be that, if gaza attacks again, we will come to your eight. because that is the hard -- on the israeli side. the israeli side says, how do we prevent october 7th from happening again? how do we know we're not going to have a third infinite up? a fourth? a fifth? there has to be some sort of solution so we don't have to go through another october 7th every year. >> okay, great to have your perspective on this. it is such a critical time. thank you so much. >> and severe weather hitting florida, we're keeping an eye on this. the governor there declaring a state of emergency as suspected

tornadoes touched down in the panhandle in the states -- of the state. there are cities like tampa and orlando that are under tornado watches right now. the latest on the damage after a quick break.

my sport propels me forward. contra costa college saw potential in me that i didn't know i had. focus. determination. drive. contra costa college helped me blaze the trail. now i'm a comet, and there's no stopping me. come on, this is your shot. take it. join the team at contra costa college. start today at contracosta.edu

a punishing storm wreaking havoc across the u.s. today. reports of multiple tornadoes touching down in the florida panhandle. there is video that shows

houses teetering, what at this, we do know now that some injuries have been reported. >> emergency responder say they're seeing significant damage around panama city beach. cnn meteorologist, chad myers, tracking all of this for us. chad, where the storms now? >> eastern georgia, parts of south and north carolina, moving into northern and western florida. a new tornado watch was just issued, including tampa and orlando. this is the area that we're really concerned with at this point. along this line of weather here, on the northside, you showed pictures earlier of the blizzard. back in nebraska, colorado, iowa, kansas, parts of texas, it is the same storm, just the cold side of that storm. but the severe weather -- probably a couple are on -- you need to keep your radio on or make sure you have some way of finding out what is going on in your area. if you are west of -- you are in the clear. if you're east of that line you

still have the potential for some weather still going on. there will be whether throughout the afternoon. tornado watches are in effect, in parts of florida. this is going to be the area that we are still seeing in the pink boxes. some of thes are rotating. when they rotate on the radar, on the doppler, we can see that -- the wind speeds are going in different directions. now, most of the radar warnings were put out today. there are not that many people out there looking for these tornadoes. most of these are indicated by that spin on the radar. a lot of rain still to come up to don't northeast, on off a lot of snow still on the ground in the northeast that is going to melt in this rain. there is potential for severe weather for the rest of today as we move farther towards the northeast, we will see the rain into parts of new york, all the way into new england. watch out for the storm drains

that are already clogged by the snow. that water is not going to get into those trains very quickly. it is going to start to fill up the roadways. we are going to see the flash flooding possible up to parts of new england, with the rain and the melting snow. >> a lot to be on the lookout for. chad myers from the cnn weather. thank you so much. >> it's the briefing we've been waiting for. the pentagon has explaining to do. they are going to take questions and there are a lot of them after the failed disclosure of secretary -- hospitalizations. the secretary of defense hospitalized. they didn't tell the white house for days. the handling of this sparked backlash from both sides of the aisle, b briefing usus live in e next houour. ststay with usus.