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 on three 60, as the president waits for -- retaliation on american drone attack on troops in jordan, a closer step at dempsey could take an -- already regional conflict. also tonight, he calls it an invasion, so what is the former president now say explicitly that congress should not do anything about the border? we'll keep him honest. plus, convicted killer alex murdaugh in court asking for a re-trial. what a judge made 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 fall it soldier, sergeant william rivers, 36 year old, 24-year-old specialist kennedy sanders, and specialist breonna moffatt, 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's what a pentagon spokesperson said about possible iranian involvement earlier today. >> i don't have more to share in terms of 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. >> cnn's clarissa ward starts us off, reporting tonight from tel aviv. clarissa, i want to show on the screen how many nations and terror groups are involved in the conflict. in fact, secretary blinken said today the region is as dangerous as it's ever been

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 direct escalation with the u.s.. it's important for a viewers to keep in mind, anderson, that this is the first deadly attack where enemy fire has killed u.s. troops. but there has 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, and 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 from most nations appears to be on trying to limit this and prevented 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? >> reporter: 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 are 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've gathered from a couple of sources, it was basically very unfortunate timing. because a u.s. drone returning to the base at the same time, that meant that essentially there was a delay and activating those air defenses. we don't know yet what the point of origin was of that drone that killed those u.s. troops. and off 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 by random chance? these are the kind of questions that the biden administration and the pentagon will be

combing through methodically as they try to choose a sort of perfectly calibrated response that we'll deal with this forcefully and send a strong signal without escalating this conflict even further, anderson. >> all right, clarissa stay with us. i want to bring in cnn military analyst, retired military general mark hertling. so general, what's 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 may be much more complicated than that, right? >> oh yeah, certainly, anderson. first of all, if you don't mind, i'm going to give our condolences to the families of sergeant river's, specialist sanders, and specialist moffitt. it's horrible when you lose soldiers like that i have so many of them wounded at the same time. but it gives you an indication of 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

either what they call weapons hold or weapons type, which means the people who fired those weapons do not fire them, because they know there is an incoming aircraft. whether or not an rainy and 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 say i've done hundreds of investigations on these kinds of things, and what you learn in the first 24 hours is not 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 shoes, containerized housing units. they're like a small local trailer. you can get anything through their. they're not armor protected. it's just not impossible to do that. so having this many soldiers injured or hurt or killed, the three soldiers killed, means that drone struck in one place

and had a blast radius that caused all of these casualties. you can't avoid these kinds of incidents. a lot of people think the battlefield is perfect, the push a button and everything happens the way you wanted 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's also all these proxy militias, terror groups, in iraq and elsewhere, which are iranian-backed, but which may have decided to do this on their own. is that right? >> reporter: that's right. and that's why it's such a difficult needle to thread, really, for the biden

administration. we've seen them usually go for the goldilocks option, that carefully calibrated, it's forceful, it's significant, it sends a strong message, but it doesn't escalate this conflict for their. i think there's 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, which really hasn't done anything to rein in the attacks 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 iran and attacking

iranian soil? that hasn't happened, by the way, since 1980. so that would be a significant escalation. iran has signaled by started distancing themselves from this that they are not seeking that kind of direct escalation. but it remains to be seen what kind of message the biden administration will send with this response. >> general hertling, what are the options? what should they be, in your opinion? >> yeah, that's the tough part, anderson. as clarissa said, there is no one unified group of popular mobilization forces. when i was in northern iraq, we had them there. there were dozens of them. none of them are truly controlled by iran -- >> you call the popular mobilization forces. you're talking about militias, are iranian-backed militias in iraq? >> what are called pmfs, or iranian militias. they're all beholden to iran for weapons, for quds force training, for some leadership. but they are also very dispersed. i can 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 kinds 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 are going to see probably a very heavy strike against the forces in the field with the intelligence we have. by the way, these forces are everywhere in syria and in northern iraq. they're not located in any specific location. so you have to really get the intelligence to where the strike and hutu strike. and at the same time, could there be some covert action against the iranian government to backup the words of don't support these guys anymore. but they are all over. there in northern iraq. they're in syria. they're part of hezbollah. they're in iran. they're in yemen. so where are you going to go? and there have been other governments fighting these

horses for a very long time and have not made much progress. because they are all small groups, with iran having plausible deniability that they were involved or not. >> all right, general hertling, closer ward, thank you all. join us now is massachusetts democrat congressman, seth fulton, who serves on the house's armed forces committee, served four tours of duty in iraq. congressman, who do you believe the u.s. should respond to? i mean, what should the response be and who? >> while, i mean, look, the general and clarissa are right, that what we are trying to achieve is 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 try to find a way to send a clear and decisive message to these militant groups that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. we are not going to stand for it. but at the same time we are not going to allow them to instigate a war now will not only play into our enemies

hands in the middle east, but frankly it's what russia and china want as well. so the biden administration has to be smart as knee-jerk i wonder what you say to republican colleagues in congress who are calling for, to strike targets inside iran? >> look, everything should be on the table. i'm not gonna sit here tonight and say that we should never consider striking inside iran, but if they're calling for a war with iran, and they're not playing on our side. it is interesting that you start to 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 is playing into our enemies hands. it is not what we need to do. 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 have 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. 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 to starting a wider war. it is obviously heart, anderson, or we wouldn't still be in that situation today. >> yet, you talk about the numbers there. while you are there, according to a u.s. official there had been roughly 165 attacks on american coalition forces in iraq and syria in recent months. shouldn't there have been action taken by the biden administration sooner on this? >> you can certainly make that argument, that they could have been more aggressive earlier. but i think that, by doing something in a few months ago that they would have suddenly it saw a problem that to the bush administration, the obama administration, and trump administration could never solve's offensive foul. 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 trumpeted. but if trump had been successful over four years, we wouldn't be in the same situation we are today. >> i'm wondering as a veteran, what is your message to the families of the service members who were killed on duty? >> well, there is nothing that this administration or anyone can do to bring back lives of those three heroes. the loss that their families and their units are feeling right now is something that we can probably never understand. but the message that i want to sandwich their families, to the unit, and everybody that is watching this, is that they didn't die in vain. that everybody -- we have troops stationed around the troops, including places like this in the middle east, because we have a lot of enemies who want to do us harm. and they are out there, on the

front tonight, as these three or this weekend, to fundamentally keep us safe at home. so, as we mourn their loss, we are also just incredibly grateful for their service. >> congressman, thank you so much for coming on tonight. we 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 are keeping him honest, next. 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, while a judge's decision. ahead.

bipartisan senate negotiators are been finalizing compromise legislation on immigration and border protection. so we are waiting to see the actual text of, it it is shaping up to be, by all accounts, the most conservative in decades. just ask one of the most conservative members of the senate -- 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, the number of asylum officers, detentions so

that we can quickly detain and then deport the individuals. it ends a catch and release, it focuses on traditional divorcee sean flights out. it changes our asylum process so people can get a fast asylum screening at a higher standard, and then get returned back to their own country. >> that is the sound of a serious conservative republican touting an apparently conservative measure, full of conservative provisions, with 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 laws in this country. saying, quote, a gop border reckoning, that is how they headlined, it with a supplied line that tonight appears prophetic. it reads, quote, we will do know if the party really wants to solve the problem. keep in them honest, senator lankford and -- the answer seems to see the, know 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 in jails and mental institutions all over the world that are pouring into our country. it's an invasion the likes of which no country has ever had to endure. it is worth noting that this is not the first time the former president people has said -- he said something similar the night he won the new hampshire primary. our fact checker called the trump campaign for evidence. they had none. for the other language that he used in that post, it's an invasion and existential threat, that congress doesn't need to do anything about it. it is what he is a. it doesn't make much sense, unless you clears it up, which he does, to postings later, quoting again from the former president. i didn't need a big, complex, a democratic-oriented border bill, here's the key phrase, which will make republicans look bad. now, there is no evidence that it would and there's plenty of evidence it would not. that is, if you believe senator lankford, the editorial board, president biden, and plenty of democrats unhappy with the pieces of the proposed deal.

with the former president appears to be unhappy with is the 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 electioneer. now, this is something that we and other news outlets have been reporting for several weeks. not something centerline for, it himself, is now complaining about out loud. listen. >> republicans four months ago would not give funding for ukraine, israel, and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. so we actually locked arms together and said we're not going to give you money for this, we're going to change in law. now it is interesting, a few months later, when we're finally getting in, just kidding, i don't actually want to change in law because the presidential election here. >> he said that a day after the 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's our hope that senator lankford will acknowledge the

direction of the state committee and do all his power to defend the border against the current invasion, which by all appearances is precisely what he believes he's been doing. he just chose the wrong near to do it, according to republicans. joining us now is jake johnson, who served as secretary of homeland security in the obama administration. it is so cynical for the former president to be saying that you need a border bill, when when he was president, he continually said i am looking for a border, bill i'm looking for a big border bill. >> yes. it is. and, anderson, this is why americans should really be disgusted with washington right now. let's call him out. house republicans, following trump's lead, would rather complain about the problem then take the opportunity to solve the problem. this bill, the james lankford and chris murphy have negotiated, is the most pro-border security bill in modern times. usually only talk about

comprehensive immigration reform, there is something in it for everybody. on the right, on the left, opportunity for a path to citizenship. take care of the docket kids on the left. >> that's not what this is? >> no, it's all pro border security and the role of the administration has been defend off the worst of the worst in negotiating this deal. there's a lot of good things in this bill. addressing the asylum laws. i have said multiple times that the front end of the asylum -- the bar for establishing -- is way too low. it's ultimately much higher, but there are years in between. >> that's the same thing for people who don't follow this. people come here believing that they can apply for asylum, or they will apply for asylum. it will take, in some cases, years. i've talked to people who have waited years to get before a judge for a hearing and oftentimes their claims are not valid because, while they are

escaping economic hardship -- >> not political oppression. >> they're not being politically oppressed. >> migrants know that. many come here with the expectation, if i only get to stay five or six years, it is while i have a job and i can get some money home to central america. >> this bill talks about speeding up the asylum process. basically having those asylum claims heard in a much more timely way. >> and raising the bar on the front and, to establish credible fear. credible -- establishing credible fear is articulating the words. it is a very low standard. plus, this negotiated compromise, as i understand, it would give dhs emergency authority to, like the title 42, to quickly send people home and reach a certain threshold. it limits the secretary's ability to parole people in this country, which i know administration is not crazy about. and it's more resources, more, border patrol agents. why anyone, generally

interested in border security, genuinely interested in security, would not embrace this bill is beyond me. what has happened, cynically, is republicans in the house would rather have the issue going into the election to complain about, then actually solve the problem. >> we've heard time and again, from republicans, about fentanyl pouring across the border. but, what takes them for their word, as the argument is boring across the border, fentanyl is devastating communities across the country. if you believe that, which is true, you would want to -- a deal that would slow that down. >> you would be generally concerned about this. >> an imperfect deal. 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 goalposts. he and his supporters would rather have this issue as a campaign issue, then to actually take the opportunity that lankford and murphy has presented to them, to solve the problem. and, you know, the right constantly talk about the possibility that national security threats are crossing our border. if you really believe that is 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. >> the cynicism, it is, the hypocrisy is extraordinary. it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, but it is. >> a pop of sea and politics, i am shocked. >> jay johnson, thank you so much. coming up, breaking news and twists in a murder case that gripped the nation. alex murdaugh, convicted of murdering his wife and younger son, then after allegations of jury tampering is trying to get a new trial. a judge is ruled on that, we'll talk about that next.

, an attempted murdaugh to cover up his financial crimes. then, a member of that jury alleged that clerk made proper comment or comments that influenced her vote. today, the breaking news is that a judge decided whether the verdict was tainted, which would force a new trial. diane gallagher joins us with the decision. so, what can you tell us? >> you know, anderson, that

bombshell testimony from that one juror certainly added to suspense. well, it was a rough day on the stand for the clerk of court at the center of it all. but, in the, and none of it was enough and a judge decided that alec murdaugh would 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 a judge swiftly denied. >> i found the defense motion for a new trial on the factual record must be denied. >> at the center of today's hearing, the clerk of court -- becky hill, a fixture of the six-week murder trial and the allegations of murdaugh's defense team that she tampered with that jury to secure a book dealing, 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 --

>> reporter: hill repeatedly denied this on the stand monday. >> did you interact with any juror in an attempt to influence their view of the facts and the dates of the case? >> no. >> reporter: the judge set a high bar for the defense. they must prove, not just that hill tampered with the jury, that it had an impact on the jury's verdict. disguising their identities as she questioned juror after juror. >> did you hear this becky hill make any comment about this case before your verdict? >> reporter: nine out of 12 saying they did not. >> no ma'am, i did not. >> no. >> reporter: but others thing they did. >> it was the day that mr. murdaugh was taking the stand, and she made the comment about watching his body language. >> what did miss hillside? >> to watch his actions. >> what else? >> to watch him closely.

>> reporter: that is a juror z, who shocked the court room with her answer to the judges next question. >> with your verdict influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk report in this case? >> yes, ma'am. >> i wasn't 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. >> reporter: the only jury 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 her judge then right back to her. >> i had questions about mr. murdaugh's guilt, but voted guilty because i felt pressured by the other jurors. is that in accurate statement about your verdict? >> yes, ma'am. >> reporter: despite objections from murdaugh's attorney -- >> to statements under oath. one an affidavit, and one here due 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 the -- 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 is 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. they tell me that they think that they can win, especially with what transpired today, if not at the court of appeal, and at the south carolina state's supreme court, or if necessary, in federal court. anderson, as far as the county clerk backheel goes, she

thanked the judge and the jurors, noting that they did determine that her actions did influence the jury's decision. but it is far from over for her, as well. the state has two separate investigations opened into her. one, into the jury tampering allegations, and the other for using her elected position for personal gain. >> gallagher, thank you very much. just ahead, georgia county district -- fani willis which raises questions about her handling the r.i.c.o. case against donald. trump coming, up the authors of a new book just out. one of the most detailed accounts of the investigation that led to charges against the former president.

the georgia election interference case is unique among the trials facing the former president. they're of course the questions about the relationship between the prosecutor fani willis, and the man appointed to oversee the case. it's also the only trials had to be televised, even if he should be reelected the former president can't apartment self is convicted because these are state charges. some of speculated this might be the casey fears the most. the case is the subject of a fascinating new book, finding the vote.

about will, if the plot to overturn the georgia election results, and the actual r.i.c.o. case against trump. joining me now is the author -- claude min, and michael -- . congratulations on this. i want to ask you about the controversy over fani willis in a moment, but i was struck in the book by the testimony that senator lindsey graham gave when he was finally forced to go on the stand. >> it is one of those amazing, behind the scenes stories that you discover in the course of writing a book like this. >> no one had heard what he actually testified. >> absolutely. it was known that she subpoenaed him early on, because he, too, had called secretary of state brad raffensperger -- >> whether he was just doing trump's bidding. he fought the subpoenas and norway challenged it, went all the way up to the court, through the court of the appeals i, believe, and got turned down. he had to testify. it's a ghost siesta phi, before the special grand jury, and according to one source with

his testimony, he throws trump under the bus. he talks about how 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, who is walking out of the grand jury room and he thanks her for giving him the opportunity to testify since that was so cathartic, then he hugs her. he hugs the district attorney that was pursuing. >> calling it cathartic was the most revealing thing about it, anderson. remember, lindsey graham, his mentor was john mccain who was the maverick, who blocked his party based on his own personal convictions. and then, lindsey graham ends up swearing allegiance to donald trump for all these years. and you have to think that there was an internal struggle going on about that. >> lindsey graham did have that

one moment, on january six, where he said that i have not gone and somebody yelled at him in the airport the next day as he was scurrying through the airport and, lo and behold -- >> you get in front of grand jury were your sworn to tell the truth and that must have been for it least that period of time, it weight off his shoulders. so it is cathartic in that sense. >> so what is paul fani willis like? there are huge questions about her judgment, given all that has come out, and a lot of things we don't know. >> we spent a lot of time with her. we interviewed her half a dozen times, many hours over two years that we are reporting on this book. and she is complicated, very human. the phrase people use to describe her is a force of nature. and sometimes people who are larger than life, like that, there flaws can seem as large as their strengths, and her strengths are prodigious. but she is a confident and she

has got that quality that some trial lawyers have, that sort of substitute one. a touch of americans and you wonder if that is partly what led to the blind spot that she's in. >> it's up to the judge, ultimately, to decide what she has to remove herself from this case. she's going to respond, there are a lot of facts that are, unknown it will depend on how she put it. at the end of the day, no question this was a flaw in her judgment. i, and it was a pretty stupid thing to do. >> given the attention when you go after former president. >> that said, it had absolutely no impact on the case whatsoever. and, it did not violate any defendants constitutional, writes that 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 in the prosecutor. >> she can find anyone to take the job. she reached out to the former governor who turned her down -- >> that was one of the questions, why did she pick this guy who never handled a case like this? >> at best he was her third choice, but she had, trouble and the reason she had trouble getting -- is because of the threats that so many of them were facing. when she was facing, in the most dramatic ways, i mean death rates to her and her family she had to move out of her house. >> everybody remembers the call from the then-president to brad raffensperger. you report about an exchange, this from president trump to francis walton the chief investigator before the georgia secretary of state on december 23rd, i just want to play this. >> georgia, i won by a, lot and the people know, it and

something happened something bad happened. -- you are going to find things that will be unbelievable and dishonest. >> that is not, true that was ten days before the call to raffensperger. the pushback from trump allies about all of this is featuring lee believed this what have you found? >> he genuinely believed it because he was talking to these eccentrics who were promoting the most fantastic conspiracy theories. we have another tape of trump talking to lin wood who was a full blown qanon adherent. used to be a celebrated trial lawyer by this time he was totally into the idea that there is a cabal of pedophiles that are manipulating and running the government. of course, sydney powell who is promoting the whole idea that there was a venezuelan socialist that's equally planted algorithms and dominion. -- >> then the former president believe that? or -- would take him down -- >> he was telling what he

wanted to, hear he accepted, and then he took the nonsense that he was hearing from these looney tunes, and he used that to pressure state officials on brad raffensperger and ruby freeman and shaye moss those two african american election workers who were falsely accused of stuffing ballots. he brought them up 18 times. he was obsessed with this. >> by the way, one of the reasons the story is about linwood in sydney powell, all of these crazy conspiracy, there is it is colorful, it is, bizarre it is exotic. it also is dangerous. it had real consequences. they are all over social media in georgia and around the country. they are spreading the stuff. you end up with, part of the reason this is a compelling, story because of the human toll. people like ruby freeman and her daughter shaye moss, it was horrible. -- who just horrific lee defamed them and -- >> yes, manual, thank you so, much i thank you so, much again

the new book find me the, votes a fascinating, vote georgia prosecutor rogue president and a plot to steal an american election goes on sale tomorrow. coming up king charles and princess was out of the, hospital what we know about the next steps.

you may know adam schiff's work to protect the rule of law, or to build affordable housing, or write california's patients bill of rights. but i know adam through the big brother program. we've been brothers since i was seven. he stood by my side as i graduated from yale, and i stood by his side when he married eve, the love of his life. i'm a little biased, but take it from adam's little brother. he'll make us all proud as california senator. i'm adam schiff and i approve this message.

tonight king charles and cat and princess of wales are both back home recovering after being hospitalized. the king had corrective surgery for enlarged prostate, and still mystery surrounding the abdominal surgery princess kate had nearly two weeks ago. we have more now from cnn's max foster. >> a royal wave goodbye, king charles and -- are 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 camilla to on looking crowds. just hours earlier a car full of flowers for the king daughter-in-law kate following abdominal surgery and out of sight of cameras. from kensington palace, both releasing statements on monday thinking well wishes for the kind messages towards the royal pair over recent days and weeks. king charles is now set for a time of private recuperation, i did an undisclosed home. with a spokesperson saying, the width of wales is making good progress this and instead to continue our 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 is 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 man to get checked. his announcement resulting in a surge of people looking into information about prostate cancer. queen camilla who visited charles daly in hospital told reporters ahead of the surgery, eking was looking forward to getting back to work. the recent an unusually candid health updates with 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 and from news cameras as the princess of wales -- >> there is a long tradition of royals appearing on doorsteps when they leave hospital to remind the world that they are still healthy and that is i

think why king charles appears today in front of the cameras in a way that he did. of course the princess was slipped out of a side door and she vanished off towards windsor. we haven't seen her since christmas, we will not 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 president was, but previous visits to hospital which her and her children for example, she always appeared on the doorstep. the only suggestion we are getting there aren't many leaks on this is from hospital or the palace in, fact is that it is simply a private matter. it is a private medical issue. she has a right to privacy and you will be able to see her again when she is a fit and healthy. so there are some questions surrounding -- she has appeared in the public before when she has been in hospital, mud that is all the information we have at this point. >> all right, max foster, thank

you so, much we will be right back.

>>