♪ ♪ ♪

the immunity argument, donald trump and his legal team argue he cannot berocuted for anything he did while president, but can they persuade some skeptical judges and free him from one legal threat as he tries to win the white house for a second term? plus, playing catch-up. nikki haley inching closer to donald trump's lead in polls in one key state, but if you look at the numbers it shows the former president has reason to be confident just days before the caucuses in iowa. smashing records and scaring scientists, 2023 is the warmest year in recorded history and our planet is on the verge of reaching a potentially catastrophic threshold. we are following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to cnn news central.

♪ ♪ ♪ today, we are one step closer to a historic ruling on presidential immunity. currently a glaring constitutional loose and, and tying it up is going to have huge ramifications for donald trump's criminal cases. and for any legal exposure that future presidents might face. this morning, a panel of three judges heard arguments over whether presidents can face prosecution for actions they took while in office. the special counsel says yes, but trump's attorneys mostly say no. >> after an hour of oral arguments, the judges will get to hash out and eventually rode out the decision. that is what they will be doing, a decision that will likely end up in front of the supreme court. hearing and he's now with us here. evan, first take us through the arguments that were laid out here today. >> reporter: the crux of the

argument from the former president and his legal team is that he can't be prosecuted because he has absolute immunity. so there was an interesting moment, for a bunch of them, in this hearing where the judges were testing the limits of that. they were giving hypotheticals, what kind of orders a former president or president could give, and still not be prosecuted for them. here is one in which the judge is simply asking a pretty wild hypothetical, of someone getting assassinated under the order of the president. take a listen. >> can a president ordered seal team six to assassinate a political rival? that is it an official act in order to seal team six. >> he would have to be, and speedily, the, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution. >> so there would be no criminal prosecution or criminal liability for that? >> [inaudible]

and the plain language of the impeachment judgment caused all clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was not -- >> i asked you a yes or no question. could a president who ordered seal team six to assassinate a political rival, who's not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution? >> if he were impeached and convicted first. >> so your answer is no? >> my answer is qualified yes. >> reporter: you can see where the former president's legal team is being pushed to see the limits of that immunity. the other thing that they were arguing today is that because he was impeached, but acquitted by the senate, that he cannot be prosecuted again. in essence a double jeopardy argument. now, the justice department's side, you know, one of the things you will hear them pushing back on is this idea that just because they are doing this prosecution, that

any president could be prosecuted for other things. what the prosecutor for special counsel jack smith's team, what he was arguing was we haven't been here before because we've never had a president to do these things. take a listen. >> never in our nation's history has a president claimed that immunity from criminal prosecution extends beyond his time in office. the president has a unique constitutional role, but he is not above the law. >> reporter: breonna, at the other argument they made right here is pushing back on this idea of immunity simply because he was acquitted by the senate. of course, the impeachment proceedings are a political proceeding and not a criminal proceeding is what they argue. >> it was so interesting to hear the judge there, because she's really pointing out an

absurdity in a way of what they are arguing. tell us a bit about these three randomly selected judges. >> reporter: she was one of the most active in trying to draw out those hypotheticals. judge child a judge or pan both democratic nominees. they are appointees by both obama and biden to this appeals court. judge karen henderson is a republican appointee and one of the things she was doing was to sort of draw out this question of our reopening pandora's box? she was trying to see what the limits of what the trump argument was on this. >> that is key there. evan, thank you so much for taking us through that. we appreciate it. boris? let's get some perspective now with cnn chief legal correspondent paula reid and national security attorney bradley moss. he is a partner at the law office of -- let's start with you, paula. the judges and special counsel pointed out that trump's legal argument today evolved.

is that a good sign? >> [laughter] look, it can be a good idea to switch up your argument depending on what you are seeing in other courts. the judges you were advocating before, go with your strongest argument, but what happened here is they have backed themselves into an unusual place. here they are arguing the former president does not enjoy absolute immunity, but instead he can only be prosecuted if he is impeached and convicted in a political process. the judges came armed with some pretty spicy hypotheticals including this one about seal team six, where they got to a place where they are effectively saying, yes the president can assassinate a political rival as long as congress is cool with it. i mean that is not really a winning legal argument. so, yes, they have changed up what they are arguing. where they ended up in the oral argument did not seem to be a strong place, but even former members of trump's legal team, most experts agree that he's unlikely to win the day on this immunity issue. >> bradley, they sounded pretty skeptical here when listening to them.

what did you think? >> yeah. it was interesting to hear the seal team six argument because we have heard that come across various networks. what is the extent of what is immunity and how does it play out? imagining that. all the trump legal pundits, all the trump friendly political officials out there, are you ready to give joe biden that kind of power right now? he could just say, forget it, call off the election. there's been too much fraud. you know, the entire republican party is a national security threat. i am executing every republican official. so long as there's no want to impeach or convict him he is immune from prosecution. are you ready to give the incumbent president that kind of immunity from accountability? it was a ludicrous argument. it's going to fail, at least in the d.c. circuit. >> very fascinating. bradley, depaul's point a moment ago, they are also arguing that trump shouldn't face prosecution because it would amount to double jeopardy. but that seems to be a

contradiction because they are saying that if he was -- if he carried out some sanctioned assassination via seal team six, then it must be congress who must prosecute him, and then a criminal court, but they are also arguing that he cannot be tried in criminal court because congress already acquitted him during his impeachment. how does that make sense? >> it doesn't. it doesn't at all. part of this got brought up as to what some different trump lawyers during that second impeachment had argued, saying you can't even convict him here before the senate. there is no jurisdiction. he is no longer president. this has to be thrown out. of course, there's always criminal processes that could be used against him post presidency. just trying to survive the moment with these different sets of legal teams each time trump gets into trouble. they are never thinking about the next problem. they are stuck here with the idea of basically if in fact the impeachment judgment clause does not argue what they say it

does, which is that congress has to convict him first, then the entire rest of the immunity argument falls apart at what they've said means nothing. >> looking at past presidential action, take a look at this. >> to authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a pandora's box from which this nation may [inaudible] could george w. bush be prosecuted for the destruction of an official proceeding, for allegedly giving false information to congress, to induce the nation to go to war in iraq under false pretenses? could president obama be potentially charged with murder for allegedly authorizing drone strikes targeting u.s. citizens located abroad? >> paula, apples to apples here? apples to karma flourished? >> [laughter] this is an issue that has to be disposed of. what are the limits here? the thing i think most lawyers would see with that list is

these were things that were clearly done in that presidents official duty. their official capacity. these are the kinds of decisions that immunity and protections were designed to insulate presidents from future prosecution. the difference here is we are talking about allegations about subverting and election. that the special counsel would argue, and most legal experts, that it's not part of your official job as president. and that is the difference. that is why this does not open up pandora's box. in fact, the special counsel lawyer specifically said this. they said this is not going to create a-for-tat vindictive streak against political rivals, because the recent charges are brought here is because it was unprecedented conduct. the allegation he was trying to subvert in the election. that is unprecedented, and it's why there are charges here. but they are not worried for charges being brought for everything. the easiest way to see it i think is what is part of your official job as president at what is outside of that? the special counsel argues that what trump is accused of doing

is far outside his official duty. >> paula reid and bradley moss, thank you so much for the conversation. so the last time that presidential immunity was under a microscope like this was during the nixon era. president nixon famously summed up his stance saying, quote, when the president does it, that means it's not illegal. trump's argument is similar. if the president does it, then it's an official act. >> that's right. his lawyers are arguing that it's this blanket covering anything from firing off a tweet to calling up a state official to get them to, yes, changed their election results. so let's zoom in on these parallels here with cnn's ryan todd. brian, is this a case of history repeating itself? >> reporter: breonna and boris, the question -- the answer is sort of yes and no. there are parallels, but there are differences. the parallels are that both our presidents who tried to invoke immunity for actions they took while at the white house, but these are different types of immunity that they are trying to invoke. in 1974, richard nixon tried to invoke what is known as limited

presidential immunity over judicial orders when he tried to avoid handing over his secret white house tapes to the special counsel investigating the watergate scandal. even then the supreme court swept his argument aside and said he had to hand over the tapes. he did handover the tapes and soon after that he was implicated in the watergate cover-up, and had to resign. it's important to point out that richard nixon did not try to invoke immunity over being criminally prosecuted. he was doing it over judicial orders. it was a very limited immunity, and that's according to legal experts and historians that we spoke to about this issue. boris referenced nixon's comment. that was three years after he left the presidency in 1977, when richard nixon did those iconic interviews with british journalist david frost, when he seemed to imply that he was above the law at that time. here's a clip of an exchange between nixon and frost in 1977. >> in a sense, you are saying that there are certain situations, the houston plan

for that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interest of the nation or something, and do something illegal. >> well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal. >> reporter: i spoke to our historian who's used to run the nixon library about the comment from richard nixon to david frost in 1977. he pointed out something very important here. he said that nixon at the time was referring to just a narrow band of national security and domestic security operations, which for a period of time in the united states could be done by a president and not be illegal. he pointed out that later on after that, the courts and congress swept away that type of immunity. he also pointed out that nixon was not referring to absolute immunity. he was referring to immunity on judicial orders there, when he tried to invoke the community

in the first place. these are two different kinds of types of immunity. they were both invoked by presidents, so they are trying to basically use that to not be prosecuted in certain cases. >> a very fascinating look at history. the context, of course, as you laid out is critical. brian todd, thanks so much. >> thanks, guys. still ahead, we will take you live to the pentagon. in just a few minutes, we will get the first briefing since learned that defense secretary lloyd austin had a secret hospital stay that he did not tell the white house about. we might get an update on his condition as well. plus, we are less than a week out until the official start of the primary season. a new poll suggesting the recent race is getting much tighter. and donald trump trash talk to the economy with top of an economic crash. he is predicting doom, hoping as well that it comes before he might be reelected he said. is there any basis though for this projection?

we will fact check him on this one ahead on cnn news central.

new cnn polling showing

donald trump's rock-solid lead in the granite state might be cracking. he's still beating nikki haley in new hampshire, but she has made up a lot of ground there. >> and she has become the first republican rival to trump to get within striking distance. let's bring in cnn's harry enten. harry, break down these new polling numbers. >> reporter: i will try and do as good a job as you did last hour, boris. let's see. okay! so if we look at the state of new hampshire what do we see our latest poll showing? a seven point race. my goodness gracious? trump at 39% and haley at 34%. look at ron desantis. i don't know -- that 32% for nikki haley is the best for any candidate not named donald trump since all the way back in june. the trend is what is so key here. what do we see in the trend line? we see that nikki haley is gaining massive momentum in the granite state. if you look back at our last poll in november, what you saw

is that nikki haley, get this, was 22 points behind donald trump. now she's just seven points behind donald trump, and as i mentioned, ron desantis polling through the floor. not only in third place or fourth place now, but in fifth place. and chris christie of course has been his entire campaign in new hampshire, and isn't it distant third place. >> harry, tell us which group haley is doing best with, and do you think this is momentum she can continue? >> there are two questions and there and i will get both of them. the first question, who is she doing well with? if you know anything about new hampshire or northern new england politics, you know that moderates played a key role up there. and what do we see? we see nikki haley crushing with moderates. look at that, getting 55% of the vote. chris christie a distant second place at just 26%. among conservatives who make up the bulk of republican voters nationwide, she is in a distant

second place, 40 points behind donald trump, but the fact is moderates make up a much larger share of the new hampshire electorate then they do nationally or in iowa where nikki haley is also struggling of course. here's the question now. could she infect continue to close the gap? i want to give you an idea of why i think she could. if you ask these voters if they are definitely decided, what do we see? we see donald trump voters are very much in his camp. 80% of them said they definitely have decided on their vote. nikki haley has weaker support at 54%. so nikki haley could fall down as well. that is true, but you could also pick up support from the other candidates. look at that, 45% of voters who say they are supporting someone not named donald trump or nikki haley say they are definitely decided on their vote. so there is that chunk of voters, and specifically looking at the chris christie supporters, who at this point are overwhelmingly saying nikki haley is their second choice. they could go to nikki haley.

at this point, the seven point margin is closing, and it would not shock me, boris and breonna, if the gap closes even further. we will just have to wait and see. still lots of time to go. >> a lot to watch out for. harry, you are such a flatter were. there is no way i did on the magic wall compares to how you just breezed through that. sadly, he's a buffalo bills fan. >> [laughter] i'm all right with it, harry. >> reporter: what a betrayal! >> [laughter] >> listen, harry, i have to sit by boris every day. i will just have to fair weather friend that. >> reporter: you know what? i will make a trip to washington and i might sit between youtube. boris, i'm so sorry the buffalo bills are so superior. >> harry enten, thank you so much. it's been a great time. >> [laughter] he's going to cut your mic, harry. bye bye now. former president trump has a doomsday prediction for the economy, and he says in the worst case he just hopes it will be on biden's watch. >> we have an economy that is

so fragile. when does it crash? i hope it's going to be during this next 12 months, because i don't want to be herbert hoover. the one president i just don't want to be is herbert hoover. >> let's bring in cnn's vanessa yurkevich to fact check what trump is saying about a certain crash. walk us through what a crash is, vanessa. actually, we will stop right there because we have breaking news from the pentagon secretary of defense lloyd austin's condition. oren liebermann is there for us. some big news coming out of the pentagon, oren? >> reporter: absolutely. walter reed national military medical center, where defense secretary lloyd austin has just been the course of the past eight days, has just put out a statement saying that defense secretary lloyd austin was diagnosed with prostate cancer last month. that is why he went to the hospital on december 22nd. it is from discomfort from that hospitalization on december 22nd, and overnight stay, that he was then we admitted to the

hospital on new year's day. that is where he has been since new years day. so this is quite a lengthy statement we just got from walter reed medical center. i will read you parts of it. this answers a key question that we did not know the answer until this point. why was austin in the hospital to begin with? so i will read part of this here. there was positive identification of prostate cancer earlier in the month. he went in on december 22nd, just a few weeks ago, for a minimally invasive surgical procedure to treat and cure prostate cancer. he was under general anesthesia during that procedure and was then released the following morning. so this is december 23rd. he recovered uneventfully from his her jewelry and returned home the next morning according to the statement. the cancer itself was detected early, and his prognosis is good. one week later or so, on january 1st, the hospital says he was experiencing nausea with severe abdominal, hip and leg pain. the initial evaluation revealed he had a urinary tract infection.

on january 2nd, the decision was made to transfer him to the icu for close monitoring and a higher level of care. further evaluation revealed abdominal fluid collections impairing function of his swollen intestines. this resulted in the backup of his intestinal contents, which was treated by placing a two to drain his stomach. this goes on with quite a bit of detail here. crucially, this answer is one of the main questions we had had, something the pentagon had not been able to answer until we got the statement just a few moments ago. which was why was often in the hospital in the first place. we now know the answer, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. as the statement says, his diagnosis is early, and his prognosis is good. they then give a lot of information here about the discomfort that has kept him in the hospital since january 1st. this obviously answers a key question that we had, which is why it was austin in the hospital in the first place. crucially, it does not answer the question of why there was a failure to notify the president for days. national security adviser jake

sullivan and others in the pentagon, that remains a question and i suspect that will be a focus of the press briefing here from pentagon press secretary major general patrick ryder in a short time. the pentagon announced last night that there's a 30 day review to look at the policies and procedures around notifications to try to make sure this does not happen again. >> all right. oren, we are now awaiting a press conference there at the pentagon. we are certainly expecting more questions to be asked about this, as we have just learned that lloyd austin was treated for prostate cancer on december 22nd. but the reason he ended up in the hospital after that is what was initially revealed to be a uti, but then was discovered to be a intestinal blockage, as it is put here in a full statement from his doctor at walter reed medical center. we are going to get some input here from a doctor who can speak to us a little bit more about this as we await this key pentagon briefing after a quick break. we will be right back.

get over here kids. time for today's lesson. wow. -whoa. what are those? these are humans. they rely on something called the internet to survive. huh, powers out. [ gasp ] are they gonna to die? worse, they are gonna get bored. [ gasp ] wait look! they figured out a way to keep the internet on. yeah! -nature finds a way. [ grunt ] stay connected when the power goes out, with storm ready wifi from xfinity. and see migration in theaters now. 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 back to our breaking news. the pentagon just revealed that defense secretary lloyd austin had elective procedure to treat prostate cancer. >> the pentagon press conference expected to begin here any moment. we are keeping our eye on that. i want to go to dr. jonathan reiner now. doctor, just walk us through this. obviously, prostate cancer is incredibly common, but tell us about your reaction to the diagnosis, the treatment, and then the complications from it. >> yeah. i think this was always going to be one of the more likely

reasons for the secretaries hospitalization. for many men, this is a private time you know. prostate cancer is summer -- super common. there's almost 300,000 new cases every year. about one in 40 men will die of prostate cancer. these moments in your life are very private. it seems like secretary austin is a private man. i understand why this is something that he perhaps would not want to deal with publicly. this diagnosis, depending on what stage it is, is managed in a variety of different ways. from just observation to, you know, hormonal manipulation, to surgical excision of the prostate, which sounds like he had right before christmas. there are a variety of ways to remove the prostate. that includes robotic surgery.

complications can include bleeding or difficulty urinating. it's a little hard to understand perhaps what exactly the complications secretary austin might have experienced. it's surgery, it's invasive, and complications can happen. >> doctor, i'm curious to get your perspective on the second part of that. in a statement it was revealed his prognosis, when it comes to the cancer, is excellent. however, days after the procedure he had the urinary tract infection that you mentioned. there was further evaluation that revealed a collection of abdominal fluid impairing the function of his small intestine. fortunately, the statement says his infection has cleared. is that something common when it comes to that procedure? is it something that could potentially be recurring? >> it sounds like he probably had an abscess that formed either in his pelvis or in his abdomen.

when you have an infection, that can also result in something cold and alias, which slows down the passage of food through your intestines. that requires both bowel rest at the abscess would require perhaps drainage and antibiotics. if you come in with a serious infection, that is called sepsis, you can come in with low blood pressure. your life can be in jeopardy. it's not a stretch of the admonition to understand why a 70 year old man following a recent surgical procedure, who's potentially septic, would need icu management. so these are not comment complications following a typical prostate surgery, but they are not unheard of. it sounds like he was in the right place and has had excellent care, but these procedures can sometimes in small numbers result in serious complications, and even rarely

in death. >> yeah. i'm glad you pointed out. there are many complications that can obviously come along with surgery. let's actually listen in, doctor, as we begin the pentagon briefing. >> we appreciate your patience. secretary austin currently remains hospitalized at walter reed national military medical center and is in good condition. by now you should have seen the statement released by walter reed national military medical center officials regarding his medical care. for the sake of ensuring that everyone here today and everyone watching has the same information, i will read that full statement. this is a statement from dr. john maddox, trauma medical director, and dr. gregory chestnut, center for prostate disease research at walter reed national military medical center in bethesda, maryland. as part of secretary austin's routinely recommended health

screening he has undergone regular prostate pathogen surveillance. changes in his laboratory evaluation are early december 2023 identified prostate cancer, which required treatment. on december 22nd, 2023 after consultation with his medical team, he was admitted to walter reed national military medical center and underwent a minimally invasive surgical procedure called a -- to treat and cure prostate cancer. he was under general anesthesia during this procedure. secretary austin recovered uneventfully from his surgery and returned home the next morning. his prostate cancer was detected early and his prognosis is excellent. january 1st, 2024 secretary austin was admitted to walter reed national medical center with complications from the december 22nd procedure. that included and nausea with severe abdominal, hip and leg pain.

initial evaluation revealed the urinary tract infection. on january 2nd, the decision was made to transfer him to the icu for close monitoring and a higher level of care. further evaluation revealed abdominal fluid collections impairing the function of his small intestines. this resulted in the backup of his intense distant -- intestinal contents, which was treated placing a two through his nose to drain his stomach. the abdominal fluid collections were drained by non surgical drain placement. he has progressed steadily throughout his state. his infection is cleared. he continues to make progress and we anticipate a full recovery although this can be a slow process. during this stay, secretary austin never lost consciousness and never underwent general anesthesia. prostate cancer is the most common cause of cancer among american men, and it impacts one in every eight men, and one in every six african american men during their lifetime.

despite the frequency of prostate cancer discussions -- are often deeply personal and private ones. early screening is important for detection and treatment of prostate cancer. and people should talk to their doctors to see what screening is appropriate for them, and statement. secretary austin continues to recover well and he remains in good spirits. he is in contact with his senior staff, and has full access to required secure communications capabilities, and continues to monitor devotees day-to-day operations worldwide. at this time i do not have any information to provide in terms of what he might be released from the hospital, but we will be sure to keep you updated, and until then we will continue to release daily status updates on his condition. we in the department of defense of course wish him a speedy recovery. the department recognizes the understandable concerns expressed by the public, congress and news media in terms of notification timelines and transparency. i want to underscore again that

secretary austin has taken responsibility for the issues of the transparency, and the department is taking immediate steps to improve our notification procedures. yesterday, the secretary's chief of staff directed the ot's director of administration and management to conduct a 30 day review of the departments notification process for assumption of functions and duties of the secretary of defense. while the review is underway and effective immediately, the chief of staff also directed several actions to ensure increased situational awareness about any transfer of authority from the secretary of defense to include ensuring that the d.o.d. general counsel, the chairman and vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the combatant commanders, the service secretaries, the service chief of staff's, the white house situation room and senior staff of the secretary and deputy secretary of defense, are all notified. and that the notification for transfer of authorities includes an explanation of the reason. we will keep you updated

regarding the results of the review, and any additional significant changes to process and procedures as appropriate. as i highlighted to many of you yesterday, nothing is more important to the secretary of defense and the department of defense than the trust and confidence of the american people, and the public we serve, and we will continue to work every day to earn and preserve that trust. separately, deputy secretary kathleen hicks is traveling today on route to us space command headquarters at peterson space force base in colorado. tomorrow, she will preside over the us space command change of command at 12 pm eastern time, between general james dickinson and lieutenant general stephen whiting. the event will be livestreamed on defense.gov. also, doctor michael chase, deputy assistant secretary of defense for china, taiwan and mongolia, began talked yesterday with people's republic of china major general -- and deputy director of the central military commission of this for international military cooperation at the pentagon for

the 17th u.s. prc defense policy coordination talks. those meetings concluded today, and we will issue a readout later this afternoon. finally, as some of you might be aware, the united states of america and vietnam war commemoration was launched in 2012, authorized by congress under the secretary of defense and in support of a national 50th anniversary commemoration. to help thank the nation's vietnam utterance pet families for their service and sacrifice on behalf of our nation. notably, thousands of organizations known as commemorative partners -- >> all right, we are listening there to the briefing at the pentagon. we just heard what we were describing before, which is defense secretary lloyd austin was diagnosed with prostate cancer, had a procedure, and that is what led to his being in the icu. then the controversy over the fact he had not disclosed to the white house that he had this. i want to talk to dr. reiner

about this, and i want to tell our viewers we will keep listening, because this will likely come up again as we get to the q&a portion of the briefing. doctor reiner, just what you heard there. i mean we should be clear that there was an issue with a uti, and then a blocked intestine, or a backup as it was described in the statement. it must have been incredibly painful. we learned that during his stay, in this complication period, that the secretary never lost consciousness or never underwent general anesthesia. pardon me, let's go back to the pentagon briefing. >> >> reporter: do you suspect he might have to take a step back from some of the more rigorous parts of his job, such as a lot of the overseas travel that he's been doing, it may be delegated to secretary hicks? >> the staff has been in contact with the secretary. i have not personally spoken to the secretary, but i do know, for example, that he's in regular communication with his

chief of staff. as for his travel schedule, i do not have anything to announce. i can tell you he is actively engaged in his duties as i highlighted. and he's fully engaged. and so completely confident in that. we will obviously keep you updated in terms of his status in the hospital. >> reporter: as he expressed at all why he was reluctant to share what he was going through until now? >> i do not have that specifically from the secretary, tara, but as i highlighted prostate cancer and the associated procedures are obviously deeply personal. so, again, we will continue to work hard to make sure we are being as transparent as possible moving forward. and again, we wish the secretary a speedy recovery. >> reporter: then one last thing, there's still a lot of questions about the process and notification that did not happen. when he was taken by ambulance to walter reed and had personal security detail with him, why

at that point wasn't there a call to an operation center, or something that would have triggered a greater awareness that he was getting medical care? >> yeah, so again a fair question. you know, for the sake of not doing the review here from the podium as i highlighted, the director of administration and management was then directed to lead a thorough review to locate exactly those kinds of questions. the relevant facts and circumstances during the period in question, to evaluate the processes and procedures by which the deputy secretary of defense was notified, and the associated timeline. again, we will commit to being as transparent as we can in terms of the results of that. >> reporter: thank you. the chief of staff and senior military adviser were both told on tuesday that secretary austin was in the hospital. could the chief of staff has -- asked the estimate to make the proper notifications for her since she was sick with the flu? >> again, we fully recognize that there will be many questions in terms of the

notification timelines, as well as the transparency issues that we have highlighted. so i really think this review is going to help us make -- in a holistic way so that we can learn from it, but also ensure that we are doing better next time. so i think we really need to allow this review to run its course in order to do that. in the meantime, we taken immediate steps as i highlighted at the top. >> reporter: with that have been under a procedure for the sme to notify the white house national security adviser? >> again, certainly, you know, we want to make sure that the notifications are happening in a timely way, and we acknowledged there was shortfalls. so in sport and we go back and look at what the shortfalls were, what could have been done better, and make sure that going forward we are improving the processes. again, this review will help us. >> reporter: do you still think it's appropriate to call his medical procedure on december 22nd and elective medical procedure if it was treating prostate cancer? >> so i will defer to medical

officials on this. again, this is, you know we, have released this information as soon as we had it. so i will again refer back to the statement. going forward, we will use that as the baseline in terms of describing, but this particular case, as soon as we head the information made available to us, we provided to you. >> reporter: frankly, it seems like you were deceived by telling everyone that it was an elective medical procedure, and by telling that to the public. it does not seem elective if he had prostate cancer and was treating it. >> yeah. i'm not a medical professional. again, we will try to provide you with the most information we have as quickly as we have it. and recognizing that as i say that, we could have done a better job last week. so, you know, again, we have this information out from these medical professionals. i think that it will go a long way in terms of helping to understand the situation and what needs to be done going forward. >> when was president biden

notified that the secretary was diagnosed with prostate cancer? >> i would have to refer you to the white house. i just don't, natasha. >> reporter: the memo that was drafted by austin's chief of staff that lays out the 30 day review that is going to be done, it does not mention the initial december 22nd hospital stay. as the pentagon determined that all appropriate notification procedures in that instance were followed, despite the deputy secretary and the white house not being notified that he was undergoing surgery, which we now know he was under general anesthesia for? >> yeah, i think that the information that we gather and the lessons that we have learned from the period from last week will be applicable across the board. right? so it would similarly apply to the situation on december 22nd. the bottom line is ensuring if there is a transfer authority, making sure that the appropriate senior leaders in the chain of command no, and that importantly, there is a rational to be able to provide

some perspective in terms of why these transfers of authority are occurring. lessons learned from that will certainly be applied to transfers of authority in the future. >> reporter: just to be clear, prior to him going under general anesthesia, he transferred his authority to the deputy secretary? >> that is correct. laura and then i will go to -- >> reporter: just again, when this happened on -- in december, whose decision was it to not alert the president that the defense secretary had prostate cancer? >> again, as far as the situation in terms of what the elective surgery was, and the secretary's condition, we are providing that information to you as we receive it. we received that this afternoon and we are providing it to you now. so i will just leave that there. >> reporter: you clearly did not know. the chief of staff, did he know? >> i will not go into the specifics, about who

specifically knew what, when and where. again, a review will help us better understand that. other than to say, you know, as soon as we have the information to be made available, we provided it. we've got it this afternoon and provided it literally minutes before i stepped out. >> reporter: did he lose consciousness at all during the december 22nd surgery? >> to my knowledge, no. >> reporter: has the secretary been on any medication that might alter his judgment during any of those hospital visits? >> so i have no indications on our -- on anything that would affect his decision-making abilities. as i highlighted in the statement, that no time has he been unconscious or under general anesthesia, and of course is in the presence of medical professionals for the duration. when he resumed full duties on friday evening, that was in consultation with medical professionals.

>> he continues to stay very actively engaged with his senior staff and making important decisions about national security and defense. >> has he asked his chief of staff to resign, or has she offered to resign? >> no >> lastly and quickly, does the secretary believe he has become a distraction for the administration in which he serves during an election year? >> the secretary remains focused on recovering, but more importantly carrying out his duties as secretary of defense and defending the nation. >> two questions, secretary blinken said the death toll in gaza was far too high and senator angus king said that the campaign reached diminishing returns. does the pentagon agree with these assessments. that is the first question and i have a second one. >> sure. as we have said for a long

time, any civilian death is a tragedy. of course, the secretary and others him as we have engaged with our israeli partners have encouraged them to do everything possible to mitigate civilian harm, and we will continue to do that. no one wants to see innocent civilians killed in this conflict, whether they be palestinian or israeli. >> second question, a statement was issued condemning u.s. weakness. do you have any updates that you can share and any reaction to the claim that the u.s. is being two-week? >> the u.s. is not being two- week. we are working actively with our partners to address the houthi threat. operation prosperity guardian is bringing together 20 nations to help safeguard international commerce and mariners in the

red sea. we will continue to work closely with those partners to help deter presence but also help safeguard the ships. additionally, as you saw last week, a statement was put out by multiple nations highlighting that there will be consequences for any type of houthi, continued houthi attacks. that warning still applies. i am not going to speculate or get into hypotheticals about what we may or may not do. as it relates to addressing those issues other than it should be taken seriously. carla. >> first of all, the secretary is expected to host an honor court thursday here at the pentagon. has that changed? has it been canceled? is the pentagon preparing for someone else to host this? >> i do not have the specific details on that in front of me

other than to say, we will continue to assess the secretary schedule in terms of here at the pentagon, and certainly as we have updates, or things need to be delegated, we will do that. the business of the department, the day-to- day business continues and the secretary is conducting his duties from the hospital and we will keep you and others updated in terms of who may be carrying out specific duties or functions, or if we have to reschedule things. right now i do not have specifics. >> just so i understand the timeline. president biden did not find out he was in the hospital until friday, correct? >> correct. >> we do not know when president biden was notified or if he was notified before thursday if the secretary has prostate cancer. >> i do not want to get into who is telling the president what and what not. >> why did it take so long to get to president biden?

why did the statement take so long when the chief of staff returned on thursday, assuming she returned thursday morning, the statement did not come out until friday after 5:00, that is two full business days. what was the delay? we usually get statements about strikes or meetings much earlier. >> i will provide you a broad overview. i covered a lot of this yesterday and i recognize not everyone was bareback. there. when the notifications occurred to the staff on tuesday, because the secretary's chief of staff was ill with the flu, it impacted a delay in reporting it to the deputy secretary staff and the national security adviser. we recognize that there were shortfalls in this, in terms of the obvious question about delegation. that is what this

review will help us look at, is where we can improve processes to ensure these kinds of things do not happen in the future. the bottom line is -- >> i understand, post thursday, it still took all day thursday and all day friday to get a statement out. that is where i'm wondering where the delay was. >> this will go back to what we will look at. we recognize that we have to do a better job in terms of timeliness and transparency when it comes to, especially the secretary's health. we are committed to making sure that we do not do this again and we do a better job next time. joseph. >> can you provide updates on the three service members that were injured on the christmas day attack? >> i would have to refer you to the army. i do not have that. >> can you give us the latest numbers of attacks in iraq and syria? >> sure. since january 4, let's

see, there has been nine attacks since january 4. there has been 127 attacks total, 52 in iraq, 75 in syria. >> the dod and you previously said the pentagon was looking into reports of, billy the latest of november and october i wonder if there is an update. >> i do not have updates and i have not seen anything come back. >> are you still looking into closing that? >> i would refer you to the israeli's. they would know if they did or not. i am not aware of any updates or anything significant coming back. >> thank you, general. yesterday you talked about. do you have a deadline for the u.s. withdrawal in iraq? if not

then, how long will you stay? are you going to stay as long as the isis threats or the iraqi government? >> we are in iraq at the invitation of the government of iraq. as you highlight we remain focused on the defeat isis mission. we do remain in close consultation with the iraqi government when it comes to the u.s. presence in particular the safety and security of the forces. we are engaged in a coordinated and deliberate process with the government of iraq to discuss the evolution of that in a manner that preserves these gains and helps to ensure that isis never comes back. i am not going to get into internal iraqi government discussions, we will continue to consult closely with our iraqi partners. >> you have a deadline in iraq? >> we are there at the invitation of the government of iraq.

>> can you give us any update on the u.s. as it stands in japan -- >> we will keep monitoring this press briefing by major general pat ryder at the pentagon as he answers a variety of questions. the focus is the status of defense secretary lloyd austin after it was revealed earlier this afternoon that he underwent treatment for prostate cancer at the end of last year and suffered complications subsequently, and it has created controversy and part of questions of transparency. he was asked why the white house was not notified sooner that the defense secretary was being rushed to the intensive care unit at walter reed medical center. ryder, from the podium, saying he does not want to do a review. obviously the defense department looking into the process of what went into the lack of transparency. he does say, quote, we could have done a better job.

>> there were so many questions and he pivoted off of them saying there is a 30 day review and they would look at it. there are questions, including ones that you could ascertain answers to, but they are not answering at this point in time. i want to get to warren lieberman at the pentagon who has been tracking this. what did you think? >> there were two sets of questions, one was the medical aspect of all of this. the other was on the notification problems and the fact that president joe biden did not know his defense secretary was in the hospital. on the medical side, we talked about the medical procedures, the diagnosis of prostate cancer in early december, a minimally invasive procedure where he was under anesthesia. we have known that defense secretary kat hicks nor president biden was notified he was in the hospital. we now know he was under general