is this amelia earhart's longe last plane? if you look at the screen, an exploratory team from south carolina believes the is the plane earhart was fly when she went miss oefrg the pacific ocean in 1937. the discovery was made after a underwater drone surveyed more than 250 miles of the ocean floor. the intelligence officer who funded the $11 million search telling the "wall street journal" the aircraft-shaped island was found 100 miles from

the island where earhart was supposed to stop and refuel. thank you so much for joining us. "ac 360" starts right now. tonight on "360," as the president waives retaliation, a closer look at the steps he could take against whom and the risks he could run of deepening what is already a regional conflict. also tonight, he calls it an invasion. so why does the former president say explicitly the congress should not do anything about the boarder? convicted killer alex murdaugh in court asking for a retrial. what the judge medal of his evidence. good evening. we begin tonight with the biden administration promising a serious response to this weekend's drone attack in jordan which killed three american soldiers and wounded more than 40 others. this afternoon, the pentagon identified the fallen soldiers as william rivers, 46 years old, 24-year-old specialist kennedy sanders, and specialist breonna moffet, who was 23. u.s. officials say the drone

that killed them may have come in just behind an american drone that was landing in the american outpost at the time. as for who is responsible still unclear. here is what a pentagon spokesman said about possible iranian involvement earlier today. >> i don't have more to share on terms of an intelligence assessment on if leaders in iran were directing this attack, but what i can tell you is that we know these groups are supported by iran, and therefore they do have their fingerprints on this. >> clarissa ward starts us off, reporting tonight from tel aviv. i want to show on the screen how many nations and terror groups are involved in the mideast conflict. secretary of state blinken said today the region is as dangerous as it's ever within since 1973. what's been the reaction to the drone attack from u.s. allies and adversaries? >> so it's been a mixed bag. i think the most significant thing is that iran has come out right away and really tried to

distance themselves from this attack. that could be a signal that they don't seek any escalation with the u.s. it's important for our viewers to keep in mind, anderson, that this is the first deadly attack where enemy fire has killed u.s. troops. but there have been more than 150 attacks on u.s. troops in iraq in syria, in jordan now as well since october. so it's not clear if the intention of this one was, you know, to be more damaging or to be more deadly, or if it was simply bad luck in a sense, as you explained, that u.s. drone flying low. we have also heard from a couple of iran-backed militias in iraq, one claiming responsibility for a number of attacks along the jordanian-syrian border earlier in those early hours of sunday morning. another saying that there will continue to be attacks against

u.s. forces in iraq and syria as long as they remain in the region. the jordanians, of course, who are an ally of the u.s. have called it a terrorist attack. and while they have been very vocal in condemning israel's military campaign in gaza, they have also been vocal about their desire to try to contain this conflict, to try to prevent it from spreading further. and so the emphasis now for most nations appears to be on trying to limit this and prevent it from becoming a full-blown regional conflagration, anderson. >> so what more do we know at this point, and it's still very early, about how this drone attack unfolded and also the status of the americans wounded? >> so first of all, tower 22 is a logistics base, if you will. there are about 350 u.s. troops. they sleep in these kind of housing units. the attack we're told took place in the very early hours of sunday morning. so presumably, most of them were

sleeping in their beds. and from what we gather from a couple of sources, it was basically very unfortunate timing, because a u.s. drone was returning to the base at the same time. that meant that essentially, there was a delay in activating the air defenses. we don't know yet what the point of origin was of that drone that killed those u.s. troops. and that's the question, of course, that everybody now is waiting to find out, as we try to get some more clarity. was the intention as well behind this drone attack to deliberately follow this u.s. drone, or did it just happen, you know, by random chance? these are the kinds of questions that the biden administration and the pentagon will be combing through methodically as they try to choose that sort of perfectly calibrated response that will deal with this forcefully and send a strong signal without escalating this conflict even further, anderson.

>> clarissa, stay with us. i want to bring in retired army general mark hertling. what is your reaction to this attack? because i think a lot of people have the idea that this is iran making this decision to attack this base. it is may be much more complicated than that, right? >> oh, certainly, anderson. first of all, if you don't mind, i'm going give our condolences to the families of sergeant rivers, specialist sanders, and specialist moffet. it's horrible when you lose soldiers like that and have so many of them wounded at the same time. but it gives you an indication of how this incident may have happened. clarissa is exactly right there. are things that happen when drones are returning, friendly drones are returning to a base. the air defense weapons go on what they call either weapons hold or weapons tight, which means the people who fire those weapons do not fire them because they know there is an incoming friendly aircraft. whether or not an iranian drone or a proxy drone came into that

following the u.s. drone, whoever is suggesting that this early 24 hours after the investigation doesn't know what they're talking about just yet. you know, first reports are always wrong. when i'd say i've done hundreds of investigations on these kind of things. and what we learn in the first 24 hours isn't going to be sustainable throughout the entire investigation. but the third thing is, as clarissa said, this is an extremely small base. those soldiers live in something called containerized housing units. they're like a small mobilized trailer. they're not armor-protected. it's not possible to do that. so having this many soldiers injured or hurt or killed, the three soldiers killed mean that that drone struck in one place and had a blast radius that caused all of these casualties. you can't avoid these kind of incidents. a lot of people think the battlefield is perfect. you push a button, and everything happens the way you want it to. that's not the way it goes in

combat, and unfortunately, as clarissa said, this is a small base. those were all army reservists from the state of georgia. i'm sure that unit is suffering as well as their families back home, and it's just a horrific incident. >> and clarissa, what are the expectations in the region for what a u.s. response would look like? because obviously, there have been some senators who have called for direct strikes on iran. there are also all these proxy militias, terror groups in iraq and elsewhere which are iranian-backed which may have decided to do this on their own. is that right? >> that's right. and that's why it's such a difficult needle to thread, really, for the biden administration. historically, we've seen them always go for the kind of goldilocks option, that carefully calibrated. it's forceful. it's significant. it sends a strong message, but it doesn't escalate this conflict further. thing is even more pressure in

this moment because the entire region is on tenterhooks. but also because if you look at the sort of biden administration's military campaign against the houthis, which has been significant, which has been ongoing, but which really hasn't done anything to rein in the attacks that we have seen these houthi militants carrying out on shipping channels in the red sea, and so there is a lot more pressure, if you will, on the biden administration to really deliver a significant blow, or have a significant impact. but, again, do you do that by targeting an iranian-backed militia in iraq or syria? do you do it by sending a message to issue and attacking iranian soil? that hasn't happened, by the way, since 1980. so that would be a significant escalation. iran has signaled by sort of distancing themselves from this that they are not seeking that kind of direct escalation. but it remains on the seen what

kind of a message the biden administration will send with this response. >> general hertling, what are the options? what should they be in your opinion? >> that's tough part, anderson. as clarissa said, there is no one unified group of popular mobilization force. when i was in northern iraq, we had them there. there were dozens of them. none of them are truly controlled by iran. >> you popular mobilization, you're talking about militias? >> what are called pmfs, or iranian militias. they're all beholden to iran for weapons, for quds force training, for some leadership. but they're also very dispersed. coy name six that are in syria right now off the top of my head, and there are more. so when you say how do you prevent iran from supporting them or how do you strike back against those specific groups, you have to have kind of a dual approach to these kind of things. stopping the supporters, the quds force, the iranian government, and at the same

time, striking against the forces in the field. i predict that we're going to see probably a very heavy strike against the forces in the field with the intelligence we have. and by the way, these forces are everywhere in syria and in northern iraq. they're not located in any specific locations. so you have to really get the intelligence to where to strike and who to strike. and at the same time, could there be covert action against the iranian government to back up the words of don't support these guys anymore. but they're all over. they're in northern iraq. they're in syria. they're in -- they're part of hezbollah. they are in iran, they're in yemen. so, you know, where are you going to go? and there have been other governments fighting these forces for a very long time and have not made much progress because they're all small groups with iran having plausible deniability that they were involved or not. >> general hertling, clarissa ward, thank you. joining me democratic congressman seth moulton who

serves on the house armed services committee and served four tours of duty in iraq. congressman, who do you believe the u.s. should respond to? what should the response be and to whom? >> well, i mean, look, the general and clarissa are right, that we're trying to achieve deterrence. deterrence is hard. but war is worse, anderson, and we don't want to get involved in a direct war with iran. that would play right into our enemies' hands. so what the biden administration is trying to do is find a way to send a clear and decisive message to these militant groups that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. we're not going stand for it. but at the same time, we're not going allow them to instigate a war that will not only play into our enemies' hands in the middle east, but frankly, it's just what russia and china want as well. the biden administration has to be smart and strategic here. that's what they're trying to do. >> i wonder what you say to your republican colleagues in congress, lindsey graham, john cornyn, who are calling for to

strike targets inside iran. >> well, look, everything should be on the table. so i'm not going sit here tonight and say we should never consider striking inside iran. but if they're calling for a war with iran, then they're not playing on our side. it's interesting you started this hour, anderson, by listing all the nations that are involved in this effort in the middle east, and you said none of these nations want a wider war. but these militant groups, these terrorists, they do want a wider war, and it sounds like some of these republicans do as well. that's playing into our enemies' hands. that's not what we need to do. and let's also not forget that many of these republicans, some of them actually served in republican administrations over the last 20 years. over 20 years, we've had iranian proxy groups killing u.s. troops in the middle east. when i was on the ground in iraq, we were losing hundreds of u.s. servicemen a year to iranian proxy groups. and under democratic and

republican administrations, they all tried to find this balance, sending a message to iran that you can't keep doing this while not starting a wider ward. it's obviously hard, anderson, or we wouldn't still be in that situation today. >> yeah, i mean, you talk about the numbers there while you were there. according to a u.s. official, if there have been roughly 165 attacks on coalition forces in iraq and syria just in the recent months. i mean, should there have been action taken by the biden administration sooner on this? >> i mean, you can certainly make that argument, that they could have been more aggressive earlier. but to think that by doing something in a few months ago they suddenly would have solved the problem, that the bush administration, the obama administration, and the trump administration could never solve i think is fanciful. there are a lot of people who support trump right now who are saying that biden needs to be tougher and saying that that's exactly what trump did. but look, if trump had been successful over four years, we wouldn't be in the same situation we are today. >> i'm wondering just as a

veteran, what's your message to the families of the service members who were killed and wounded? >> well, there is nothing that this administration or anyone can do to bring back lives of those three heroes. and the loss that their families and their units o, that army reserve unit in georgia are feeling right now is something we probably never understand. but the message i want to send to their families, to the unit, and to everybody who is watching this is that they didn't die in vain, that we have troops stationed around the world, including in places like this in the middle east because we have a lot of enemies who want to do us harm. and they're out there on the front tonight, as these three were this weekend to fundamentally keep us safe at home. so as we mourn their loss, we're also just incredibly grateful for their service. >> congressman seth moulton,

thank you so much for coming on tonight. i appreciate it. >> thank you, anderson. still to come, a bipartisan bill that senate republicans and democrats agree would help secure the border, a top priority for the former president, obviously. so why is he against an actual solution? we're keeping them honest, next. and later, breaking news. a judge today decided whether alex murdaugh will get a new trial almost a year after a jury found him guilty of murdering his wife and younger son. we'll have the judge's decision, ahead.

bipartisan senate negotiators have been finalizing compromise legislation on immigration and border protection. and although we're waiting to see the actual text of it, it is shaping up by all accounts the most conservative in decades. just ask one of the most conservative members of the senate james langford of oklahoma who helped craft the deal. >> this bill focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings a day. there is no amnesty. it increases the number of border patrol agents. it increases asylum officers. it increases detention beds so we can quickly detain and deport individuals. it ends catch and release. it focuses on additional deportation flights out. it changes our asylum process so that people get a fast asylum screening at a higher standard and then get returned back to their home country. >> so that's the sound of a

serious conservative republican touting an apparently conservative measure full of conservative provisions which the biden administration appears willing to accept. a measure that the conservative "wall street journal" editorial board recently called the best chance in years to fix asylum law in this country, saying, quote, a gop border reckoning. that's how they headlined it with a subheadline that tonight appears profs prophetic. keeping them honest, the answer seems to be no, the party doesn't really want to solve the problem, or at least not yet. not unless there is a trump victory in november. the former president posting on social media today, quote, a border bill is not necessary to stop the millions of people, many from jails and mental institutions located all over the world that are pouring into our country. it is an invasion the likes of which no country has ever had to endure. it is worth noting this is not the first time the former president has said people from mental institutions are pouring into the country. he said something similar the

night he won the new hampshire primary. our fact checker daniel dale called the trump campaign for evidence. they had none. as is for the other language he use had in post, that it's an invasion, an existential threat, that congress doesn't need to do anything about it. that's what he is saying. it doesn't make much sense unless he clears it up, which he does two postings later. quoting again from the former president, "i didn't need a big complex democrat-oriented border bill," and here is the key phrase, "which will make republicans look bad." now there is no evidence that it would, and there is plenty of evidence that it would not. that is if you believe senator lankford, "the wall street journal" editorial board, president biden and plenty of democrats unhappy with the harder line pieces of the proposed deal. what the former president appears to be unhappy with is an actual solution to the broken asylum system and the problems at the border because it might lessen his ability to use it against president biden this election year. now this is something we and other news ute lets have been reporting for several weeks now.

something senator lankford himself is now complaining about out loud. listen. >> republicans four months ago would not give funding for ukraine, for israel, and for our southern border because we demand changes in policy. so we actually locked arms together and said we're not going give you money for this. we want a change in law. now it's interesting a few months later when we're filing it, oh, just kidding. i actually don't want a change in law because the presidential election year. >> he said that a day after the oklahoma state republican committee passed a resolution, listen to this, condemning him, the senator for working on a bipartisan deal. the party vice-chairman saying in an email afterwards, quote, it is our hope that senator lankford will acknowledge the direction of the state committee and do all in his power to defend the border from the current invasion, which by all appearances is precisely what he believes he has been doing. he just chose the wrong year to do it, according to republicans. joining us now is jeh johnson, who served as secretary of homeland security in the obama

administration. i mean, it's so cynical for the former president to be saying you don't need a border bill when he was president, he continually said i'm looking for a border bill. i'm looking for a big border bill. >> yes. it is. and, anderson, this is why people, americans should really be disgusted with washington right now. let's call them out. house republicans following trump's lead would rather complain about the problem than take the opportunity to solve the problem. this bill that james lankford and chris murphy have negotiated is the most pro-border security bill in modern times. usually when we talk about comprehensive immigration reform, there is something in it for everybody. on the right, on the left, opportunity for path to citizenship, take care of the

daca kids on the left. the role of the administration has been to fend off the worst of the worst in negotiating this deal. there is a lot of good things in this bill in my judgment, addressing the asylum laws. i've said multiple times now that on the front end of the asylum application process, the bar for establishing credible fear is way too low. ultimately, it's much higher, but there is years in between. >> so that's the same thing for people who don't follow this. people come here believing they can apply for asylum or they will apply for asylum. it will take them in some cases years. >> years. >> i've talked to people who waited years to even get before a judge for a hearing, and often times their claims are not valid. while they're escaping economic hardship v hardship. >> not political oppression. >> and migrants know that. and many come here with the expectation if i only get to stay five, six years, it's while i have a job, i can send money home to central america.

>> so this bill talks about speeding up the asylum process, basically have those asylum claims heard in a much more timely way. >> and raising the bar on the front end to establishing credible fear. establishing credible fear is basically articulating the words. it's a very low standard. plus this negotiated compromise, as i understand it, would give dhs emergency authority to like title 40 to quickly send people home if you reach a certain threshold. it limits the secretary's ability to parole people into this country, which i know the administration is not crazy about. and it's more resources, more judges, more border patrol agents. why anyone genuinely interested in border security, genuinely interested in security would not embrace this bill is beyond me. and what has happened cynically is republicans would -- republicans in the house would rather have the issue going into the election to complain about

than actually solve the problem. >> we've heard time and again from republicans about fentanyl pouring across the border. most of it comes at established border crossing points. >> right. >> but take them for the word as the argument it's pouring across the border and fentanyl is obviously killing -- it's devastating communities all across this country. if you believe that, which is true, you would want to -- a deal that would slow that down. >> and jury genuinely concerned about this. right. >> the imperfect deal. >> would save lives, right. >> and you can adjust the bill. the idea that the former president has said there has to be a perfect bill, there is no bill that is perfect. >> of course not. he is moving the goalpost. he and his supporters would rather have this issue as a campaign issue than to actually take the opportunity that lankford and murphy have presented them to solve the problem. and, you know, people on the

right constantly talk about the possibility that national security threats are crossing our border. if you really believe that's true and you're really concerned about it, then you ought to jump at the opportunity to fix the problem and fix it yesterday. don't wait until after november. >> it's just the hypocrisy is extraordinary shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, but it is. >> hypocrisy in politics, yes. >> jeh johnson, thank you so much. appreciate it. it was good to have you on. coming up, breaking news in a twist in a murder case that gripped the nation. alex murdaugh, you remember, convicted of killing his wife and younger son. after an allegation of jury tampering, he moved to get a new trial. the judge has now ruled on that. we'll get a decision on that, next.

last year's jury verdict that alex murdaugh murdered his wife and younger son appeared to be the final chapter in a bizarre murder mystery that began as an attempt by murdaugh to cover up his financial crimes. and then an allegation that a clerk made an improper comment that influenced her vote. today the judge decided whether the jury was tainted which influenced the trial. what can you tell us? >> you know, anderson, that bombshell testimony from that one juror certainly added suspense. it was a rough day on the stand for the clerk of court at the center of it all. but in the end, none of it was enough, and a judge decided that alex murdaugh will not get a new murder trial. >> i did not pressure the jury.

>> reporter: but that's exactly what alex murdaugh tried to prove happened in his quest for a new murder trial, which is a judge swiftly denied. >> i find the defendant's motion for a new trial on factual record before me must be denied. >> reporter: at the center of today's hearing, clerk rebecca "becky" hill, a fixture of the six-week murder trial and allegations of murdaugh's defense team that she tampered with the jury to secure a book deal and media appearances that they say she wouldn't get if there had been a mistrial. >> it didn't matter to me if it was guilty, not guilty or a mistrial. >> in your book you suggest that the guilty verdict was what you wanted. >> reporter: hill repeatedly denying this on the stand monday. >> did you interact with any juror in an attempt to influence their view of the facts in the state v murdaugh case? >> no. >> reporter: the judge said a

high bar for the defense. they must prove not just that hill tampered with the jury, but that it has an impact on the verdict. disguising their identities as she questioned juror after juror. >> did you hear ms. becky hill make any comment about this case before your verdict? >> nine out of 12 saying they did not. >> no, ma'am. >> no, ma'am, i did not. no. >> reporter: but others saying they did. >> it was the day that mr. murdaugh was taking the stand. >> yes, sir? >> and she made the comment about watch his body language. >> what did ms. hill say? >> to watch his actions. >> to watch his actions? what else. >> to watch him closely. >> reporter: that's juror z, who shocked the courtroom with her answer to the judge's next question. >> was your verdict influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk of court in this case? >> yes, ma'am. >> rand how was it influenced? >> it felt like she made it seem

like he was already guilty. >> did that affect your finding of guilty in this case? >> yes, ma'am. >> the only juror out of the 12 to say that her decision was influenced by hill. but attorneys quickly pointing out that her testimony differed from her signed affidavit, which the judge then read back to her. >> i had questions about mr. murdaugh's guilt, but voted guilty because i felt pressured by the other jurors. is that an accurate statement about your verdict? >> yes, ma'am. >> reporter: despite objections from murdaugh's attorney -- >> this juror gave two statements under oath, one in an affidavit and one here to you today. it could be both. >> reporter: in the end, the judge ruling that while she did not find hill to be credible -- >> i simply do not believe that the authority of our south carolina supreme court requires a new trial in a very lengthy trial such as this on the

strength of some fleeting and foolish comments by a publicity influenced clerk of court. >> what's next for alex murdaugh? >> you know, anderson, he was immediately shackled and taken back to prison where he will continue serving his back-to-back life sentences for murdering his wife and son. but his attorney said it will take about a month. they do anticipate to revive his appeal, and they tell me that they think that they can win, especially with what transpired today, if not 59 the court of appeal, then at the south carolina state supreme court, or if necessary, in federal court. and anderson, as far as clerk of court becky hill goes, she did issue a statement thanking the judge and the jurors, noting that they did determine that her actions didn't influence the jury's zidecision, but it's far from over for her as well. the state has two separate investigations open intoer her, one for the jury tampering allegations, and the other for using her elected position for

personal gain. >> dianne gallagher, thanks very much. ahead, fani willis facing allegations of an improper relationship which raises questions about her handling of the rico case against donald trump. coming up, the authors of a book just 80 of one of the most detailed allegations that led to charges against the former president.

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.

the georgia election interference case is unique among the trials facing the former president. there are of course the questions about the relationship between the prosecutor, fani willis, and the man she appointed to oversee the case. it's also the only trial scheduled to be televised. and should he be reelected, the former president can't pardon himself if convicted as these are state charges. one reason some have speculated that this may be the case he fears the most. the case is now the subject of a fascinating in-depth new book "find me the votes" about willis, the plot to overturn georgia's election results and the actual rico case against trump. joined by the book's co-author, daniel clydeman and michael isikoff. congratulations on this. i want to ask you about the controversy over fani willis in a moment. >> sure. >> but i was struck in the book

by the testimony that senator lindsey graham gave when he actually finally was forced to go on the stand. he fought it. >> it's one of those amazing behind-the-scenes stories you find in the course of writing a book like this. >> because no one had heard. >> she subpoenaed him early on because he had -- he too had called secretary of state brad raffensperger and there are questions whether he was just doing trump's bidding. he fought the subpoena, said no way, challenged it, went all the way up to through the court of appeals, i believe, and he got turned down. he had to testify. so he goes to testify. before the special grand jury, and according to one source here with his testimony, he throws trump under the bus. he talks about how, you know, if martians told trump that the election had been stolen, he'd believe them. he suggested that trump cheated at golf. and then after the testimony, he runs into fani willis, the

district attorney as he is walking out of the grand jury room, and he thanks her for giving him the opportunity to testify. he says that was so cathartic. and then he hugs her. he hugs the district attorney. >> i didn't know he was a hugger. >> that was pursuing the president of the united states. >> i think calling it cathartic was the most revealing thing about it, anderson. lindsey graham, his mentor was john mccain, who was, you know, the maverick, who bucked his party based on his own personal convictions. and then lindsey graham ends up, you know, swearing allegiance to donald trump for all of these years. and you to think that there is an internal struggle going on about that. and then he is in front of a -- >> lindsey graham did have that one moment the night of january 6th when he said i'm done. and then someone yelled at him in the airport the next day as he was scurrying through the airport, and then lo and behold, he is suddenly reversed himself. >> you get in front of a grand juriy you're sworn to tell the truth, that must have been at least for that period of time a

weight off of his shoulders. so it is cathartic in this sense. >> what is fani willis like? because obviously there are huge questions about her judgment given all that's come out, and there is a lot of things we don't know. >> well, we spent a lot of time with her. we interviewed her half a dozen times, many hours over the two years that we were reporting on this book. and she's, you know, complicated, very human. she's -- the phrase that people use to describe her is a force of nature. and, you know, sometimes people who are larger than life like that, their flaws can sometimes seem as large as their strengths. and her strengths are prodigious. but she is confident, and she's got this that quality that some trial lawyers have that certitude. >> cocky. >> a touch of arrogance. and you wonder if that's partly what led to this sort of blind spot in the situation that she is in. now. >> it's up to the judge

ultimately to decide. >> right. >> to decide whether she has to remove herself from this case. >> right. and she is going to respond later this week. there are facts here that are still unknown. and a lot is going to depend on how she puts it. but at the end otv day, no question this was a flawed judgment, and it was a pretty stupid thing to do. >> given the world attention that when you go after a former president. >> but that said, this had absolutely no impact on the case whatsoever. and it has -- it didn't violate any defendant's constitutional rights. there is no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in the way they handled the prosecution. so i think i will be surprised -- >> she had a hard time finding. >> yeah. she couldn't get anybody to take the job. she reached out to the former of governor of georgia, roy barnes who turned her down. >> that was one of the questions. why did she pick this guy who had never handled a case like this. >> at beth, nathan wade was her

third choice. but she had trouble. the reason she had trouble getting people the take the job is because of the threats that so many of them were facing bts a , and which she was facing in the dramatic ways. death threats to her, to her family. she had to move out of her house. >> everybody remembers the call from the then president to brad raffensperger. >> right. >> you report about an exchange, call this call from president trump to francis watson, the chief investigator before the georgia secretary of state. this is on december 23rd. i just want to play. this. >> i won georgia, you know that, by a lot. and the people know that. something happened. something bad happened. if you can get to fulton, you are going to find things that are going to be unbelievable, the dishonesty. >> of course, that's not true. that was ten days before the call to raffensperger. the pushback from trump allies about all this while he genuinely believed this, what

have you found? >> he genuinely believed it because he was talking to these eccentrics who are promoting the most fantastic conspiracy theories. we've got another tape of trump talking to lynn wood, who was a full-blown qanon adherent. used to be a celebrated trial lawyer. be thank you time he was totally into the idea that is there a cabell of pedophiles who are manipulating and running the government. and of course sidney powell, who was promoted the whole idea that there was venezuelan socialists had secretly planted algorithms in dominion voting machines. >> but the former president believe that or those or just the loony bins. >> telling him what he wanted to hear. and he settled and took the nonsense that he was hearing from these loony tunes, and he used that to pressure state officials. in his conversation with raffensperger, he talks:00 ruby freeman and shaye moss, the two african american election workers who were falsely accused

of stuffing ballots. he brought them up 18 times. he was obsessed with this stuff. >> and by the way, one of the reasons -- this is story is about len wood and sidney powell. it's colorful. it's bizarre. it's exotic. it also is dangerous and it had real consequences. they are all over social media in georgia and around the country, and they are spreading this stuff. and you end up with -- part of the reason this is a compelling story to us is because of the human toll on people like ruby freeman and her daughter shaye moss. it was horrible. >> they've won a judgment now against rudolph giuliani. >> that's right. >> who horrifically defamed them. >> just as easily get one against donald trump. >> thank you so much. again, the new book, "find me the votes" a fascinating look at the rogue president and the plot to steal an american election goes on sale tomorrow. coming up, king charles and princess of wales out of the hospital. what we know about their recoveries, coming up next.

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

tonight, king charles and catherine prince ss of wales ar back home and recovering after being hospitalized. there's still amistery surrounding the abdominal surgery princess kate had noorly two weeks ago. we have more from max foster. >> reporter: a royal wave good-bye. king charles heading home after undergoing a corrective procedure for an enlarged prostate. the message, the crown is still strong. he left the london clinic on monday afternoon, accompanied by queen kamila. to the applause of onlooking crowds. just hours earlier, a car full of flowers for the king's daughter-in-law, kate, who left the same hospital following abdominal surgery and out of the

sight of cameras. buckingham palace and kensington palace releasing statements on monday thanking wellwishers for the kind messages towards the royal pair over recent days and weeks. king charles is now set for a time of private recuperation. and then undisclosed home. with a spokesperson saying that the princess of wales is making good progress and is set to continue her recovery in windsor. it will be several more weeks until the world is able to see the princess again, with her as well as the prince of wales pausing all public duties until at least easter. it's unclear exactly what her surgery was for, however, a royal source confirmed to cnn that the condition was non-cancerous. king charles, on the other hand, making the decision to be open about his diagnosis. to prompt men to get checked. his announcement resulting in a

surge of people looking into information about prostate cancer. queen camilla, who visited charles daily in hospital, told reporters ahead of the surgery the king was looking forward to getting back to work. the recent and unusually candid health updates from the royal family possibly a sign of a slightly evolving and more transparent monarchy. >> max, is it clear why king charles made a public exit from the hospital in front of news cameras? the princess of wales did not. >> reporter: well, there is a long tradition of royals appearing on doorsteps when they leave hospital to remind the world that they are still healthy and the head of state is still well. that's, i think, why king charles appeared today in front of the cameras in the way that he did. of course, the princess was slipped out a side door and she vanished off towards windsor. we haven't seen her since christmas. we won't see her for months now.

that has raised some eyebrows. i think the issue here, of course, is we don't know what the procedure was and what the reason might be. she doesn't appear in front of the cameras, but in previous visits to hospital, when she had her children, for example, she always appeared on the doorstep. the only suggestion we're getting because there aren't any leaked from the hospital or the palace in fact is it's simply a private matter. it's a private medical issue and she has a right to privacy and you'll be able to see her again when she's fit and healthy. so there are some questions around it, and she has appeared in the public before when she's been in hospital. but that's all the information we have at this point. >> max foster, thanks so much. we'll be right back.

incredible photos to show you off the coast of california. this may be the first ever glimpse of a newborn great white shark in the wild. they captured the 5-foot pup from drone footage. they published their findings today in the science journal