in washington, d.c., they become hostages. >> and the judge, judge lamberth so this is preposterous and in this case he was resentencing a january 6th defendant who he says has shown no remorse whatsoever for what happened on january 6th, and that is encouraged by some of the words you're hearing from the campaign trail, from people in the capitol. now, where this judge is sitting, right, you can see the capitol. you can see the scene of the violence of january 6th. and because of where these judges sit, you know, they -- they've been grappling with all of these cases that have been coming before them, more than 1,200 of these cases, erika. so they know first-hand what went on. >> absolutely. evan, appreciate it. thank you. thanks to all of you for joining us tonight. "ac 360" starts right now.

good evening. thanks for joining us. we begin tonight with the massive bill. a new york federal jury today handed the former president for repeatedly defaming the woman he's already found liable for sexually abusing. $7.3 million for emotional harm he caused by his repeated verbal attacks on e. jean carroll while he was president, which of his followers turned into serious threats against her. $11 million to repair the damage carroll suffered to her reputation, and $65 million in punitive damages. $83.3 million in total. no comment from her or her team as they left the courthouse in lower manhattan making their way through a sea of cameras and reporters. in a moment we'll hear from her attorney, roberta kaplan, her first interview since the verdict. also exclusively from another trump accuser jessica leads who was a witness in ms. carroll's first lawsuit in which she told jurors the former president groped her on an airplane in a cross-country flight. mr. trump has repeatedly denied

lead' claims. tonight he's denied the claims saying he'll appeal the case adding, quote, our legal system is out of control and being used as a political weapon, they've taken away all first amendment rights, this is not america. a not so minor detail we should point out the first amendment does not cover defamation. mr. trump's lawyer, alina habba, who spoke a short time after the verdict either ignored or didn't understand this trial was only about damageds and complained not being able to reargue what another jury already determined, namely that her client sexually abused e. jean carroll. >> there was no proof, and i couldn't prove that she didn't bring in the dress. there was no dna, there was no expert. my experts were denied two of them -- two of them were denied to come in. >> that's nut what was this trial was about. again, all of that was already determined and explicitly not part of this case.

she knows that. what this case was about was what the former president should pay for repeatedly and cruelly defaming his victim. here's some of what he has said about e. jean carroll. >> i met a woman in front of bergdoff goodman, took her up to a changing booth right up front where the cash register is. why didn't you scream? uh, i was in trauma. i don't even know who this woman is. i have no idea who this woman is. i have no idea who she is, where she came from. i know nothing about this nut job. this is a person i have no idea until this happened, obviously -- i had no idea who she was and nor could i care less. she said that i did something to her that never took place. it is a totally false accusation. they said he didn't rape her, and i didn't do anything else, either. you know what? because i have no idea who the

hell she is. this is woman who's also accused other men of things. i said while it's politically incorrect, she's not my type, and that's 100% true. she's not my type. this is another scam. it's a political witch hunt. and i wear that i have no idea who the hell -- she's a whack job. >> the former president and ayou'dicated sexual abuser now on the hook for more than $80 million. a few minutes ago i spoke with e. jean carroll's attorney, roberta kaplan. first of all, what's ms. carroll's reaction to this? >> i almost have no adjectives to describe it. she is overjoyed. she cried. she showed me more emotion and i've known her for a long time now that i've ever seen her show. she feels she got justice from the jury today and from the court, and she feels she's really stood up and she has stood up for almost every woman who's been defamed, who's been kicked out, who's been shut up.

i think she's played a part in making things better for women everywhere. >> can you take us inside the courtroom? because during your closing statement the former president got up and left. did you see that? i mean it's a small courtroom. >> the crazy part about it is i wasn't really focused on him. i was -- i was standing here. he was to my left, but i was facing the jury who was to my right. and the only way i actually knew what happened because i was trying to zone him out is when the judge said president trump left the courtroom. >> the judge made a point of putting into the record that he left. >> correct. but obviously the jury saw it, and my partner shawn crowly where she spoke after me to the jury said you saw how he is. pretty much that's what our case is about. >> do you think that act of getting up and walking out hurt, or made a difference with the jury? >> i think it hurt him terribly. our whole dace is about the fact

donald trump is unable to follow the law, unable to follow the rules. he thinks they don't apply to him. and as bad as what he did to e. jean carroll was and the sexual assault was terrible and as horrifying as the defamation was back in 2019 the most amazing shocking part of it all is he kept on doing it, and he kept on doing it even during the trial. what other person thinks they can openly break the law over and over again? donald trump. >> the punitive damages were higher than -- i don't know if they were higher than you anticipated. were they? >> we were very happy with the punitive damages award. >> why do you think they were so high? >> under the law of punitive damages the jury should consider what monetary amount it will take to get the person to stop. >> that -- so the idea the jury was it's going to take a big number to get this guy to stop. >> exactly. all he really understand is money and so you should award an

amount of munthy that should make him stop. whether that will succeed, i don't know. i hope it does. >> if he continues to defame her will there be -- is there a potential there's another case? >> i'm too good of a lawyer to tell you that, but i mean everything's on the table. >> so he should be on notice about what he says from now on about this? >> he should be on notice. and he should be on notice if he keeps saying it, it could cost him a lot more money. >> what is the likelihood this ruling will stand or the damages will stand? >> very, very high. we have one of the best -- most well-respected judges in new york city, judge kaplan, no relation. the jury was great. the issue about what he said when he was president has been dealt with, the issue about him waiving presidential immunity has been dealt with by the second circuit. there's really not much left to appeal. >> it'll go to the second

circuit or -- >> it'll go to second circuit which wave already won i guess three times now. there's really not much left for them to argue. >> what would be the grounds for him to appeal? i mean things -- are there particular things that happened in the court or filings that occur? >> i think you're going to hear kind of what people were hearing i'm told what he and his lawyer alina habba said today, that the judge was unfair, that he should have had a do over, he should have been able to re-try the assault and the defamation again, that it was biased, he wasn't allowed to speak, yalda, ya yald, yadda, none of that's true. none of that is going to be remotely persuasive to the judges. >> if the second circuit declines to rule against him, could he take it higher? >> he can't take the defamation claims probably higher. maybe he'll bring up some of the issues about presidential immunity, but that's already been litigated as well.

it's very unlikely -- >> there have been plenty of cases where a jury awards a huge verdict and it gets knocked down later on. do you anticipate e. jean carroll seeing this money? >> the kind of ratios the courts get concerned about are ratios over 6 to 1. here ware in that range. here comp senseatory damages are $18 million. so 65 punitive with 18 million comsense penceatory is not that big of a ratio and i can't imagine any court having a problem with it. >> you also hear there's been plenty of defendens have judges against them and do you think he's going to have to pay? >> i think he's going to have pay something. that's his problem, not ours. and judge kaplan will make sure he pays. indeed even to take the appeal he's going to have to at least

put up a bond 20% of the amount. >> what was the whole experience in the courtroom like? >> i've been to a lot of courtrooms in my time especially new york city and i've seen a lot of judges. i have never seen a party be so openly contemptuous of the authority of the court and the authority of our justice system and the legitimacy of our justice system as donald trump. and i think the best thing of today other than the vindication that e. jean carroll so deserved is that today was a good day for our system of justice. today was a day that showed that the rule of law applies to everyone. even if you don't think the rule of law applies to you, it applies to you and applies today to donald trump. >> i'm always interested when i see depositions of a former president because someone sued as much as he has and involved in lawsuits and i assume deposed often he seems terrible in depositions. i imagine on the stand as well. how do you rate him as a

defendant given his experience in the justice system? >> to be a good party in a case and to be a good witness to the case, you want the jury to believe you and to think that you tell the truth. and the very big problem that donald trump has is really no one believes he tells the truth. and in this case he lied again on the stand. he again said i standby everything i said in my deposition which was i did nothing to e. jean carroll, never met her, she's a whack job, never heard of her. so he not only committed perjury, but the jury themselves saw him commit perjury and then they watch his deposition video where he pointed out as everyone knows that famous photo of him and ivaughna and her then husband and points to e. jean and says that marla maples and wunls he realizes it's a mistake he says it's a blurry photo. and i said to the jury you saw the photos. it's the same photo you saw today. it's not a blurry photo. >> and joining us now is jessica

leads who as we mentioned testified at the first e. jean carroll trial. she first talked about her allegations years ago on this program. what is your reaction to what happened today? >> i am pleased. i am pleased for jean, and i am pleased for what it says about our legal system and about taking the situation of sexual aggression seriously. >> do you think this will change anything about the way the former president speaks ability women who have made accusations against him? do you think he'll stop defaming e. jean carroll? >> i would hope so, but i would be unwilling to make a bet that he will. >> i'm wondering what you made of how the former president's legal team try today depict ms. carroll. his lawyer said in quote ms.

carroll didn't take part in the press frenzy and profile that she wanted and still enjoys. >> well, it was an interesting defense. if she as a person had ever experienced what e. jean carroll has experienced, she would not be using that as bringing all those issues up because they're -- they don't apply. what e. jean suffered and how she suffered, she lost her job, she lost everything. and the threats that this society has been thrown against her because of trump being unable to keep his mouth shut are serious and not to be taken lightly just like our wonderful congress people who can't seem to stand up to trump either because they're afraid, just afraid of him, which that's what bullies do.

he is a constant bully. >> i'm wondering what you made of the former president walking out of the courtroom during closing arguments. >> i'm not surprised. i think it was stupid, and i think he's going to regret that he did that. but it's -- it's par for the course of his temperament. >> why do you feel it was important to testify last year on ms. carroll's behalf? >> well, i was asked. and since i had come forward and you will remember this is 2016, my little moment of -- of notoriety has happened. i figured that if i was willing to come forward then, i should be willing to come forward now. >> do you regret coming forward

back then? >> regret -- well, it -- it's a little disconcerting. but i feel seriously having worked all these years having raised children, having had a life that this issue of sexual aggression is -- is one that our society really, really needs to -- to think about and to do something about. i mean women should be able to go to work and not be harassed. and they should be able to go to cultural events or should be able to socialize and not be harassed. and -- and if i feel that seriously about it, i should step forward. >> you had said when you came forward back then not only did you describe what you said happened to you on that airplane but that you would run into donald trump later on at a party

in new york and that he had turned to recognize you and said a disgusting word to you, an insult to you. i'm wondering if you have any message for donald trump tonight. >> well, i actually think at this stage donald trump has -- i really almost believe him when he says he doesn't know -- he doesn't know e. jean carroll. i don't think he -- i don't think she rated any lasting memory. the reason my sfeerns with him was so firmly cemented was because of the run in i had with him a year or so later. that just -- just made the whole thing, reliving it again. but he -- he -- i don't know whether it's possible for him to learn or whether he's going to even be able to figure out

what's wrong and do something about it. he's basically a lost cause. he is what he is right now, and that's what we have to deal with. >> jessica leads, thank you so much for being with us. >> good to see you. >> coming up next cnn's kara scannell on what she saw inside the courtroom today. kaitlan collins inside the trump camp. and later cnn's clarissa ward investigating the shootings of people in gaza who were holding up white flags when they were shot.

just a few moments ago on our first interview since the jury awarded a fine of $83.3 million e. jean carroll's attorney, roberta kaplan, talked about the case. i just want to play a moment from our conversation during which she spoke about what stood out to her most about trump's behavior. >> our whole case was about the fact that donald trump is unable to follow the law. unable to follow the rules. he thinks they don't apply to him. and as bad as what he did to e. jean carroll was and the sexual assault was terrible, and as horrifying as the defamation was back in 2019, the most amazing, shocking part of it all is that he kept on doing it, and he kept on doing it even during the trial. what other person thinks they can just openly break the law over and over and over again?

donald trump. >> joining us now cnn's kaitlan collins, kara scannell, also cnn legal analyst joey jackson and david cay johnson, investigative reporter, law lecturer, and author of the big cheat how donald trump fleeced america and enriched his family. >> i think the moment where donald trump stood up and walked out in the middle of e. jean carroll and roberta kaplan's closing arguments it was about 10 minutes in, and it was at the moment she brought up this very point where she said he did not respect the last jury's verdict. in fact the last 24 hours he was on a cnn town hall with you repeated throughout this trial and that really solidified the point, and there are arguments the jury said nothing will make this man stop but money because that's what matters to him. >> as you were interviewing in that moment when he brought that

up, did he realize that the time how significant it was he was doing this again? >> we thautd about this because we were preparing for the town hall and the verdict came down the day before, and so i mean obviously it was expected how he would respond to this the way he has been constantly where he goes after her, talkeds about the interview she did with you several years ago and the question is he defaming right now, and you can kind of see it on the stage. and i think one thing that came up during the trial and something clearly effective is the argument e. jean carroll's attorneys made, arguments to the jury saying, you know, she felt worthless when they were waking those comments at the town hall the day after this verdict came out. and that was essentially the argument here. i was talking to former trump attorneys and people in trump's world today and they were saying, you know, what's going to be the most effective is saying hit donald trump where it hurts. you know, he has all this money, this is why the damages should be so high because this is the only way to send a message to him. >> jessica, from a legal

standpoint how significant is this verdict? >> these were really significant numbers, both the compensatory damages which signified they credited his testimony how she'd been harmed by his defamatory statements and the testimony of experts. the question he made these statements when he was president of the united states and the big muneative damages award means they felt it was important to send a message to him of condemnation for what he had done. and the relationship between the two members, between the compensatory damage and the punitive damages number is reasonable. courts do worry if the pune positive damages are an x-factor too much what the damages were here it is three times six that's generally viewed as reasonable. >> do you agree with roberta kaplan his behavior in front of

the court for that jury it impacted, i mean they saw it with their own eyes. >> it's a referendum on your conduct and your behavior. and if you are having the narrative as her team did, e. jean carroll this is a person just immune of any notion of decorum, of respect and how a process works. and we want you jurors to hold him accountable for once and for all in his love language, the love language of money, right? and in the event you do that perhaps he will understand. so i think that certainly was detrimental, the walking out. and it fed right into their narrative about what are we going to do to stop that that's what they did to stop it. >> what does $83.3 million mean to donald trump now? is he liquid in that way? where does that money come from? >> we may discover just how many smoke and mirrors. in a deposition he said he had $400 million cash. i wouldn't trust that for two

seconds. when donald to give you a good example bought mar-a-lago he told everybody he paid cash for it. i have in my home the letter from chase bank promising to never rel veal he took out a mortgage for 120% of the purchase price. his finances are -- what he says about his finances in reality are not connected, so understand to see does he have the money -- does he even have the $16 million for a bond so he can appeal? >> do you think he may not have that much money because in order to appeal as roberta kaplan said he needs to put out that percentage. >> a 20% bond. we don't know what cross cocollateralizations. i'd be very prized if he had $400 million sitting in the bank which is what he testified to in this case. >> we knew he's angry, and they

knew it was coming. there's a reason he left court before the verdict was even read. he left before we knew it was coming down. but his attorney had a good idea what was coming their way. did they think it was going to be this way, i don't think they realized that at first. >> why do you think they left the court, was it to make a statement he thought would play well in terms of fund-raising, you know, with his supporters down the road? because clearly his behavior in court hurt in front of the jury. he felt if he -- he must have known that -- >> i don't think it's that strategic. i think it's pure anger, and there's -- the way to get to donald trump is to get to his money. i mean he doesn't even like paying his attorneys. he doesn't like paying people who work for him. he doesn't like being separated from his money. it is one of the things you talk to anyone who's worked for him, it irks him so much. the idea he'll have to pay potentially e. jean carroll this much money, this is case that gets under his skin like fuel of the others do i think because of

what's at the heart of this. it's something that bothers the form first lady melania trump so i think that's all part of it. i don't think it's strategy he left early today. i think it was they knew he was going to be angry. the texts that were going around was i would not want to be one of the people getting on that plane because he was getting on a plane to nevada when the verdict was going down. >> i mean they say they're going to appeal this and they have appealed repeatedly which is the trump pattern at every turn in a case to try to appeal and extemd it. but i think they shouldn't leave out there are limited avenues of appeal here. just to go back to money part of this, he's also awaiting a judgment in the new york attorney general civil fraud trial, and they're seeing over $300 million. now, the judge has already found in a summary judgment of this that this is really now about how much we'll have to pay, and that could be a significant amount of money. when you combine the two and look at what actual cash does he have, it's a big question what

will happen, will they need to take out loans, will they need to sell properties in order to cover this? >> david, he does have properties he could take loans out on, no? >> yes. and he could sell properties, which he'd be very loathe to do. at the end of the day do i think there's $83 million there? probably. but i don't think he's going to be able to just write a check. there's likely to be litigation about his making a payment or not making it as required. that will be down the road a little ways, but i think it'll be very revealing about donald's finances and what he claimed. remember eight years ago or nine years ago he claimed he was worth over $10 billion. when he became president his financial form as i count it came out to a little over 1, some says 3. nowhere near 10. >> could he be forced to pay -- you do hear about there's a

bunch of rogue characters out there on the hook for a lot of money that haven't paid. >> yeah, so he is -- as roberta kaplan covered in her interview with you earlier, he can be required to post a bond pending appeal. of course that would require somebody to put up the bond and assure in the first case he wound up posting cash. >> to what that bond means even for him to file an appeal he has to put up 20%? >> no, not to file an appeal. he doesn't have to pay in order to appeal, but in terms of satisfying the judgment now that's been entered against him he either has to pay it now, which he's not going to want to do or to avoid having to do that, he's going to have to essentially put up the money in a safe place in escrow effectively in cash which is what he actually did for the first trial verdict so that it sits there and it's going to be available to e. jean carroll if she prevails on appeal, which i expect she would. if he doesn't want to put up the whole amount in cash, then he's got to put up a bond in which he

puts up a percentage of it, and someone assures it for him and he would pay interest essentially on that loan. so those are his two options. >> do you agree he doesn't have much avenues -- >> i mean he could, and that's the reality. what happens is they're going to look at the reasonableness, i think of the award. they're going to attack it. i think in doing it, they're going to examine the egregiousness of his behavior. they're knowing to potentially look at other awards and make a distinction whether this in light of other awards is reasonable and appropriate. and i think based upon that there'll be a determination made whether or not this is a figure that considering the fotality of the circumstances should be upheld by the system. and i think that in addition to everything else you heard about the attack on appeal will be what it is. is this a reasonable sum? is it predicated on the conduct, and is it dissimilar to other cases. next the political dimension what voters across the political spectrum might make of this. also thoughts on the president's legal battles from some women

vovoters in sosouth carolilina of the n next republblican prir.

more on tonight's breaking news. the $83.3 million jury verdict against the former president. it damages he's been told to pay writer e. jean carroll for defamatory statements he's made about her. earlier on the program you heard roberta kaplan say today afs good day for our system of justice. i also spoke with another trump accuser, jessica leads who alleges the form president groped her on a commercial flight in the 1970s and testified hin carroll's first trial. she said this about the former president. quote, he is what he is right

now and that's what we'll have to deal with, words about the republican front-runner for president. randy kaye spoke with a group of senators in south carolina where of course the next primary is going to be held and asked them about the former president's legal battles. she joins us now. randy? >> that's right, anderson. we came here to greenville, south carolina, to talk to those republican women. two of them are supporting nikki haley. three of them are supporting donald trump. now, we spoke with them before today's verdict in the e. jean carroll case, but i had asked them during our interview what they think of all of these legal troubles and all the charges that donald trump is facing. and here is what they told me, just part of it. listen. >> trump is facing 91 criminal charges. he's already been found liable of sexual abuse in the case of e. jean carroll. does any of that give you pause? >> most of that makes me angry. i think it's a political witch hunt. >> yes. >> 100%. and i honestly believe that every time they adanother charge that it's just adding fuel to

the fire for his supporters. when they arrested trump i was like that's it. that's it. he's got my vote 100%. >> why was that? >> why was that? because it is nothing but a political witch hunt. as much as they're coming after him, they're actually coming after us. >> what is the bar, though? is there anything that would change your mind? is there any conviction that would change your mind in. >> well, i think our rule of law has been compromised. we need our courts and judges. we need to restore our rule of law. >> and anderson, you heard that one woman candice call this a political witch hunt. as you knowthets a term the former president likes to use as well. they're watching these cases very, very closely and they also told me those cases only reaffirm their support for the former president. they say they're backing him no matter what. anderson? >> randy, thanks very much. this is the sharpest legal

setback so far for the former president who's facing multiple criminal and civil cases obviously. joining us now two of our political commentators. i'm wondering what is your reaction to the jury's decision today? >> well, i think that they felt this was a completely out of control party, and they were trying to send a message that you've got to follow the rules. look, if donald trump had just conducted himself the way that anybody watching this including those women, by the way, which is to follow the rules, follow the judge's orders there would not have been this massive judgment against him. the vast majority of the money is not because of what donald trump did a long time ago but how he's been acting ever since. i think this is not going to be reversed on appeal. it is a reasonable attempt of our court system to tell donald trump and anybody else you can't just -- just flout the law.

you can't just continue to insult people when you've already been found liable for doing so. >> nikki haley posted tonight trump wants to be the republican nominee and we're talking about $83 million in damages, not talking about the border, not talking about tackling inflation. america can be better than donald trump and joe biden. i'm wondering do you think that's an effective line for her in. >> listen, that's a line she's going to continue to take. and look, nikki haley is not coincidently the gentleman who kind of funded this lawsuit, reed hoffman, is also one of nikki haley's biggest supporters. we shouldn't lose sight of that. i disagree with van not surprisingly that the $83 million is reasonable. i think even those in the courtroom when they heard that number gasped how outrageous it was, right? the punitive damages are so high it's guaranteed it'll be reversed on appeal. and as you heard -- >> actually all lawyers say that's actually not the case, that based on like a -- i mean a number of lawyers say that's not

the case. >> you have me back on, you can prove me wrong. >> it's not me saying it. i'm just saying what the lawyer said. >> i bet you $83 million. >> listen, anderson, i think here's the narrative, right? this is in new york city, it's a new york verdict, it's a new york jury. the case was put together by george conway, there's an e-mail as part of you're reducing the concept to e. jean carroll. >> what does that matter? is this a deep state thing? >> no, no. anderson, you're asking about the political ramifications. that was how we started the segment. i'm telling you the political ramifications are those voters you just heard and others are going to look at this and say this case was started by somebody who hates donald trump and george conway, funded by someone who hates trump in reed hoffman, and the verdict was given down by people who hate donald trump in manhattan. that's how it's going to be viewed politically. >> obviously no one wants to be on the hook for $83 million,

this outcome, do you think it helps the former president politically? it doesn't give them any pause at all. >> well, i think that, you know, there are people who kind of drinking the kool-aid. this is big bucket of kool-aid for them to drink. but i think if you're donald trump he says he's got $3 billion, he's going to have to sell something to pay this off. by the way, this verdict is only 3x the actual damages. when you get 6x, 20x, that's when the appeals court steps in and says no. 3x on punitive, that's not reversible. so they can say whatever they want to say, he's going to have to sell something on this thing, and i think it's going to hurt donald trump. whether it hurts his movement or cause probably not. >> david, do you think that the former president benefits from -- i mean, you know, walking out of court, his behavior in the court, according to, you know, those who were in the court, the attorney for e.

jean carroll, they all believe that certainly hurt him with the jury and that is what resulted in the money. do you think that there are -- it was strategic that there are benefits for him in doing that in terms of his supporters and fund-raising outside? >> yeah, listen, i'm not so sure about that, anderson. i'm not sure if he stayed in the courtroom or he stormed out of the courtroom, it's going to change the narrative that those voters that randy kaye just talked to will hear or see or listen to, right? i do agree with you it probably didn't help on the punitive -- on the punitive side of things, right? but, look, as you know president trump is not one who -- who hides his emotions very well, right? it's kind of right there wears it on his sleeve. and so i'm sure he was angry and he probably pounded the table and left, and now he's going to have to, you know, go on appeal and be hopeful that this $83 million is reduced because as van said this does stack up.

you look at this, the new york attorney general's case they're looking at $250 million range. it starts to add up even if you're a billionaire after a while. >> what do you think if the real estate case also is a huge verdict against him, what if -- if he takes such a financial hit, what does that actually do to his sort of the aeroow on donald trump? do you think it makes any difference? >> i'm not sure it makes an aura. i'm sure it hurts his pocketbook. again, i don't think it's going to hurt his political viability amongst the base, right? if we're talking about the base voters in the primary here, you saw randy kaye. you'll hear that echoed throughout south carolina, again the super tuesday states. i bet you go back and look rote rospectively in iowa and new hampshire and supporters will say the same thing. this is all baked in, anderson. all these cases, indictments are baked into this vote as we see

it right now. >> go ahead, van. >> just to add on, you know, from a branding point of view what he's done is he's positioned himself as he's a mogul when he wins, and when he loses he's a martyr. so he's either a mogul or martyr. either way his base loves it. so if he's willing to lose billions of dollars to die on the cross for their cause, he's brilliantly -- sickly but brilliantly turned his losses into a win. that's why he'll talk about cult-like behavior on the part of his followers. he literally can't lose. whatever he does he's either a champion and a win or he's losing on your behalf. >> i'll just say real quickly, you know, this kind of comes -- all this gets -- it comes kind of mashed together, right? the alvin bragg case, the case in georgia. you had misconduct on the case in georgia. to the people of america it's

just one big trial of donald trump, right? and i think it does play into the narrative he's being purseicated not prosecuted. >> thanks. just ahead high level of negotiations for a gaza cease-fire potentially. and clarissa ward investigating the shooting of a grandmother in gaza who was dilled while holding the hand of her grandson while holding a white flag. that story's next.

not just any whiteboard... ...katie porter's whiteboard is one way she's: [news anchor] ...often seen grilling top executives of banks, big pharma, even top administration officials. katie porter. never taken corporate pac money - never will. leading the fight to ban congressional stock trading. and the only democrat who opposed wasteful “earmarks” that fund politicians' pet projects. katie porter. focused on your challenges - from lowering housing costs to fighting climate change. shake up the senate - with democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

several key developments in israel's war against hamas. president biden has sent bill burns to meet with top officials from israel and egypt as well as the prime minister of qatar. it's potentially the next step towards a hostage and cease-fire deal. comes the same day as a u.n. relief agency operating in gaza fired staff members israel says participated in the october 7th terror attacks that killed more than is1,200 people. also comes the it tells, quote, it must take all measures to avoid civilian deaths and genocide but notably the court did not call for a cease-fire. our clarissa ward has been investigating civilians in gaza being shot while holding white flags. i want to warn you some of the images in her report are difficult to watch. >> these are the last moments of her life. you can see her here leading a group of 30 odd people.

they wave white flags, a plea for safe passage out of their neighborhood now surrounded by israeli forces. she holds the hand of her 5-year-old grandson tightly and then suddenly -- little tiem quickly runs away as her son mohamed rushes towards her. if you slow the video down you can see hala start to turn just before she is shot. as if she had caught sight of something. from had angle of her fall and the movement of the fleeing group, it is clear that the bullet came from the west or the south. cnn has jelocageolocated the intersection. he looked up and saw two israeli tanks to the south, and just 200 meters to the west we know israeli troops were stationed at the new gaza prep school for boys, as captured here in

satellite >> it's really hard for me to look at the pictures. i try to remember the beautiful gatherings that we used to share together. >> her 18-year-old daughter sara was further back in the group. now safely in istanbul, she tells us the family agonized over whether to leave their home. after two nights of the most intense bombardment yet, they decided to move. >> translator: i remember that my mom after we all sat down and discussed, she got up to make breakfast for everyone in the house. when she was making breakfast, she went to pray the prayer. it's really hard. really hard.

>> take your time. >> translator: my mother was my whole life. she was my friend and my everything. >> she wants her to be remembered as she was in life. a devoted grandmother who still made sara sandwiches to take to university for lunch. a retired arabic literature teacher, beloved by her students and family. the month before october 7th had been the happiest of time for the family. celebrating sara's engagement and the graduation from university. >> translator: may mother was going to be 58 years old on december 30th and had her grandson with her. why would you shoot her? what's between you and her? you made us feel like it's safe

to leave. we had white flags on our house. what happened? nobody knows. nobody knows. >> it is a question many are asking as more videos have emerged of unarmed civilians displaying white flags, apparently shot dead. the geneva-based human rights monitor says they are investigating nine such incidents. we analyzed four. the most widely reported is the shooting of the three israeli hostages with the idf admitted killing under the mistaken impression that their surrender was a trap. the most recent incident just this week in southern gaza. 51-year-old ramsi said he is trying to get back to the house where his brother is being held by israeli forces to plead for his release. the camera zooms in on two

israeli tanks beyond the berm. the drone can be heard overhead. ramsi and four other family members moved tentatively forward, hands in the air. white flag held high. then suddenly a burst of gunfire. ramsi falls to the ground. if you slow down the video, you can see the impact the first round against the wall. clearly first from the direction of the tanks. the men hastily dragged his body away. the white flag now soaked in blood. his wife runs after him. he is already dead. another video obtained by cnn was recorded by journalist on november 10th. he says the idf ordered his family to evacuate their home and to carry white flags.

as they walk, gunshots can be heard and the other side of the street, a man is wailing over the body of his dead son. >> translator: i told you, let's stay home, my son, he says over and over, still clutching his while flag. if only we had stayed home. around the corner, two more people shot. also carrying white flags. cnn cannot say who fired the shots. we sent the coordinates of all the incidents to the idf and repeatedly asked for comment. this person was buried in a shallow grave in a small alley way next to the family home. her gravestone written in chalk. her family hopes there will be justice for her killing and a proper burial when this war is

finally over. >> clarissa ward joins us from jerusalem. incredibly disturbing. what is the idf saying about this investigation? >> reporter: anderson, we actually flew here several days ago with the hopes of sitting down with the idf, going through our footage and our findings with them on or off camera. they ultimately declined to meet with us. several hours after this report was first published, they did issue a statement saying cnn refused to broadcast the footage -- sorry. cnn refused to provide the footage in question prior to the article in question to receive and to thoroughly examine the incident and provide any sort of comprehensive response. cnn's hesitancy to slayer the materials discloses the nature of their report doing a disservice to the complex nature of the reality on the ground. the incident is being examined. now the idf statement doesn't

specify which incident exactly was in our report is now being examined. i really do want to emphasize again that we repeatedly offered to come to sit down, to show them the footage well before publication. they declined to meet with us, anderson. >> thank you very mumuch. we'l'll be rightht back.

we all know that words have power. they set things in motion and make us happy or sad. but there's one word that stands out,

because when people say it, lives are changed. it's not a big word, but when you say it, the life of a kid like me can be changed. what is this special word? it's yes! yes, yes! yes to becoming a monthly supporter of shriners hospitals for children®. that's right! your monthly support allows the doctors and nurses at shriners hospitals for children® to give the most amazing care anywhere and change the lives of kids like me. when you say yes to giving just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day, we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue® blanket as a reminder of all the kids you're helping every day. thank you. thank you for giving. call or go online now to say yes right away.