plus, ask how to get up to a $1000 prepaid card with a qualifying internet package. don't wait, call and switch today! things have gotten better recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into. it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e.

this is cnn perking news. >> we do have breaking news. jennifer crumbley, the mother of the teenager who killed four students at and oxford, michigan high school in 2021 but that has been found of involuntary manslaughter. >> it's a significant development. let's bring attorney casarez, who has been tracking this case for months now. jean, walk us through what we learned today, the jury's decision? >> well, the jury found jennifer crumbley guilty on all counts of involuntary fans slaughter. one count for every student that was murdered by their son, her son, in november of 2021. beyond a reasonable doubt, saying that she was a grossly negligent parents, and or that she violated the legal duty in michigan that they parent of to a child. , now what history looked that

were the months leading up to november 30th, 2021. that he was exhibiting signs of mental instability, to say the least. he thought he might be having collusion nations. you saw bullets flying off the shelves. his mother spent time away from the house. he was alone so much of the time, he never exhibited any signs of violence, however. during any of those months at all. but then, we take us into black friday. the family already had two handguns, but ethan had wanted a nine millimeter. he'd been asking his father for it for months. they had no idea what his journal had in his bedroom that he was writing, that he was planning to do a mass shooting at this school, and he needed a 9 mm, but his father went to the gun shop on november 30th, black friday. they saw went on sale. they got. it was cash deal. it was ethan's money that he had earned from waiting on tables, and then four days

later, that's mass murder happened. now, one thing that i think it's important, because we heard from the school, and they missed so many signs. of course, there are not on trial. they will not be charged. but i looked in my notes and that i listen to a call on monday, when easton was racial drink bullets. it was the day before the mass shooting. the teacher calls jennifer crumbley that night, and she very nicely says he should not research bullets at school, even told me he went to target practicing over the weekend at the gun range. and i understand families have a sport of shooting, but just to remind you, best not to look at bullets. so, they had been given but notice that there was access to a gun by ethan. nonetheless, the defendant today with jennifer crumbley, and sheen that will have sentencing in april. there is 15 years on each count of involuntary manslaughter,

though the judge makes the final decision. it is believed it will be concurrent sentences. that would be 15 years, and she has been in lock up 23 hours a day, he testified, for two years now. >> all right, let's bring in laura coats now. just a stunning verdict here. i think laura, we were prepared for this to be the outcome, and yet the same time, it's sort of takes us, because this is a new era, perhaps, if this is going to be a standard. this is something that is going to be considered in so many other cases when it comes to the culpability not just of a shooter, part of the people around them. >> not just the parents, likely, at some point, either. it could be those around them who were aware of red flags and stopped acting or did not do enough to prevent that, which later occurred. it's going to be a very

interesting precedent that will not be created. i think there's probably a strategy behind the scenes as well here, brianna, about the decision to try these parents separately. they're not being tried together. the father will eventually be try, coming up soon. that is likely to figure out a finger-pointing would have resulted in an acquittal for one, with one saying they had passed the baton to the other to oversee aid related to the gun. would that be enough? would you appeal to the parents on the jury and suggest look, i'm just like every other parent. i missed some things. i don't know about all the other things. we're with the fact that you were aware that he had a gun, that there were red flags we should've recognized and failed to do so, would that be enough to say negligent and criminal negligence? here, this jury said yes. why this is so important, remember, ethan crumbley has now been convicted after pleading guilty, and he is serving life without parole. that's not an automatic for somebody who is 15 at the time of the actual killers when they

occurred. that had to be decided that he could be treated and tried pass and adult like status, and sentenced accordingly, based on the conduct and behavior. he remained in an adult jail throughout much of the duration of all of this, because they believe that his mental maturity was such of an adult, live if you 15 year old. why does that matter? because now you have somebody who would be treated like an adult for sentencing purposes. yet, their parents can be held accountable for their action. think of this is a school shooter, a minor. think about mass shootings more broadly. sadly, in this country, breonna, we grapple with them at a level and write that is unconscionable. imagine if somebody as an adult, also net worth red flags being a parent, could be held to account to know that person. this truly was a moment, i have historic before proportions. another responsible for the actions of her son, failing to heed the warnings, to address the warnings, and perhaps,

those significantly, around that very day, when the school believed it may have just been drawings, when they left it to the parents in part to decide whether to take him out of the school, the school administrators were handicapped by not having the knowledge that he had a gun. they didn't check the school book back. the parents were aware he had a gun, at least in the home. did not check. did not follow up. and when they learned that there was a school shooter, the mother texted, don't do it. to kherson. that was an extraordinary hurdle to overcome if you're the defense, and remember, it was only her testifying. i wonder what the dynamics with her attorney were, remember, the judge was asking if it would've had more witnesses, on this, me and my client disagree. we have to come to a kind of meeting of minds. i'm paraphrasing here. i wonder if it was, you need to call your son or not.

>> misty, ultimately, as a defense attorney, was it a mistake to only have jennifer crumbley as a witness in her defense? >> so, she's the one who really have to tell the story. she's the best witness to put on that stand, and of course, you take a risk whenever you put the defendant on the stand, because it opens up other areas of inquiries you subject yourself to, cross-examination. but to your question, they did. but the fans tried to compel ethan crumbley to take the stand. his lawyers intervened and said no way, because he has an appeal coming with respect to his sentencing of life without parole with the -- when the crime was committed by a minor. they were really handcuffed in that way, that he would take the stand and only plead the fifth. the judge pence that there's no reason for him to take the stand if he's not going to be able to answer any questions. but you bring up such a

critical point, and i think we will see it in the appeal, and appeals are generally based on errors of law and things the judge should have let in or shouldn't have left in. that's one of the questions, by the jury, was can we make and the sunshine, based on evidence we did not see, specifically related to how did even get possession of a gun, they wanted to know how ethan came into possession of that's gone. that is critical, and the only person who can answer that question ethan crumbley. so, i do think the defense did what they needed to do. they tried to compel the testimony. the fifth amendment was always going to blockade that. under this particular set of circumstances, but it did leave a gaping hole that juries might, again, lots of other evidence here. laura brought to pay great point. that text message, ethan don't do it, that was always a sticking point for me. even if it was a fear he was committing suicide, it lends the belief that she knew

something was amiss with him, prior to the incident. so, a lot at play here. >> there were certainly, any reasonable person listening to that testimony, there was some believability issues with that specific part of her testimony. areva, thank you, so much of this, i think, centers around this trying to convince a jury. i couldn't believe my kids would do this! of course, that leads to confirmation bias, that's what a parent is just going to confirm. i wonder if now, this is not more incumbent on parents to hypothesis test the opposite, which is maybe my child could do this, and i really need to be looking at the risk factors and the red flags. >> absolutely, brianna. this case just races so many issues. you have to start with the gun was a gift for christmas. remember, there was testimony that jennifer was bragging on social media about buying this

gun, about going to the shooting range, shooting with her son. so, yes, parents need to be asking the question, why are you buying a kid that's obsessed with guns a gun? why are you telling him, when he says he gets caught for searching for ammunition online, you tell him, it's okay to do it, basically, but don't get caught? so, this mother was just engaged in conduct that's really bizarre. and in this case, it's been determined to be criminal, because of her gross negligence. there's so many red flags in this case. let's talk about what happens after they were charged themselves. we know they tried to escape, conscious of guilty this, guiltless of conscious, when they were on the run. they were actually fleeing the state. they didn't show up on their own sons arraignment. so here, you want to think there for this very involved, parents airy caring parent, that when your song displaced in this very serious situation, you are running from law

enforcement. >> areva, east end by. we actually have some fresh sound in from pontiac, michigan. craig schilling, the father of 17 year old justin shilling, was just speaking to reporters. justin, was, of course killed in the oxford high school shooting. let's listen to this father talk after this verdict. >> it was a long time coming, but it's definitely a step towards accountability, like what we were talking about. it's kind of been our goal the whole time. it was tough, but waiting out, for sure. there was a lot of emotion back here, in the courtroom, it's definitely going to resonate with me for a while. and i hope at all be able to come down and get some sense of good feeling, but it's not really a good feeling. it's not really about winning

or losing. it's about making its apparent that all of this has to stop in society, and you know what? it's going to go all the way now. there's no way to look the other way. you have to address things at every level. and it's very clear now. >> what do you think the messages to parents, as well as school officials across the country? >> do your due diligence with your child. it is your choice. it is your choice to have a child, and you cannot choose to take care of her child. you cannot use another trigger child. you cannot choose to take your own interests over your child, especially when it comes to mental health and addressing, you know, concerns, the problem. everything about that was disturbing. there's a lot of stuff that could have easily prevented

this whole thing. it could've stopped, and stopped very easily. >> what were you feeling as the jury -- >> really powerful words from the father of justin shilling, a 17-year-old boy killed in oxford, michigan. craig schilling saying this is a step towards accountability, saying quote, there is no way to look the other right now. adding, as a parent, you cannot choose to not nurture your child. you cannot choose to take your own interests over your child, and their mental health. of course, stay on top of the very latest from pontiac, michigan, as we leave you with a look at the four young victims that were killed at oxford high school. we'll be right back.

former president trump says he will appeal the historic ruling that a federal appeals court made today against him. the three judge panel found he has no presidential immunity for the crimes allegedly committed while he was in office. this decision is a major blow to trump's key defense so far in the federal criminal case

from special counsel jack smith. he charged trump with multiple offenses, accusing him of trying to subvert the 2020 election. the appeals judge has not only sided with the justice department here, they also repeatedly condemned trump's actions after his 2020 defeat. they cited the indictment, which said he allegedly used his seat of power to quote, unlawfully overstay his term as president, and to displaces duly elected successor. the judges ruled his courts can try a former president who has been impeached in congress. we have cnn's kaitlan collins joining us on this. so caitlin, the tragedy nano sly ruling here against trump's immunity claim, usually significant. >> it is. it's the ruling we expected, but when you actually read through, it the fact that it was unanimous, that they notley signed on to this, they're all saying that they are agreeing with this decision by the court. it's significant because they're undermining interjecting every single defense that you saw trump's team make when he went before

those three charges. we gotta listen to that hearing live. he was quite a remarkable moment, where the one charge was bringing up the prospect of a president hypothetical using s.e.a.l. s.e.a.l. team six to kill a political opponent and whether or not he would be immune from prosecution there. , now we can read what these charges thought. they are outright rejecting trump's claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution. therefore, rihanna, they're answering a question that no other courts has answered before. this question, this novel idea, because of, course we've never had a former president indicted before in this situation. one thing that's key here, though, in addition to what they are doing as they go through every defense that trump's team mate and are rejecting them, is they're putting a time limit here. they are saying that by next monday, trump has to go to the supreme court if he wants to request that emergency stay of this decision, rejecting his claims of immunity. and therefore, they're kind of cutting out other options that trump has to continue delaying

this. by repeatedly appealing it's, which we know, breonna, has been a tactic that his legal team has been pursuing. we are told from trump's side they are going to appeal this to the supreme court. then, the question is whether or not the supreme court, of, course takes up this matter. >> and how is trump responding to this all, kaitlan? >> i don't think he's surprised. he never likes when his legal team loses an argument on his behalf. i should know that's kind of a ferry general, evergreen statement for trump, based on years of covering him. but i think this decision was expected. i think what was not expected by the trump team is the quick turnaround that they got from the court here. saying you have only a matter of days to make your decision here, because they are trying to move this along quickly. so, if we don't see the supreme court take it up, i, mean we could be in a moment where initially, just the other, rick we sought this case may not have happened anytime soon. that could be changing. it really is going to be up to the supreme court whether or not that you can take this case up. when you talk to sources inside

trump's world, previously, they were confident the supreme court will take it up. it's not so clear after reading this unanimous opinion, this unanimous decision, from this court. so, that's really the big question here, brianna. >> yet, they just deferred to the lower court. here kaitlan collins bay, so. much we appreciated. boris? >> a major bipartisan border deal and foreign aid package appears on track to fail in the senate, with a key vote scheduled for tomorrow. now, it would take only 41 senators voting against the bill to sink the agreement. there are already more than 23 who have signaled that they are opposed to it. the proposals faced relentless attacks from former president donald trump and top house republicans. so, president biden is now trying to draw contrast, accusing republicans of tanking a strong deal. listen. >> it represents the most fair, humane, reforms in our

immigration system in a long time. and the toughest set of reforms to secure the border ever. now, all indications are this bill won't even move forward to the senate floor. bye? a simple reason. donald trump. he would rather weaponized this issue than actually solve it. so, for the last 24 hours, he's done nothing i'm told, but reach out to republicans in the house and the senate and threaten them to try to intimidate them to vote against this proposal. it looks like they are caving. frankly, they all went to the american people to show some spine, and do what they know to be. right >> now, supporters of the new border package argue the opponents are misrepresenting several key elements. so, let's walk through some of those claims. one of the central disputes that this bill would permit 5000 migrants to enter the country illegally every day. we've heard republicans make this claim on social media, including the house majority

leader, ski fca lease, and former president trump. this is inaccurate. in fact, the national border patrol council president just said this wasn't true. brandon judd said it's actually the exact opposite, and this bill would be a huge deterrence. returning to hear more from him in a moment, but what does he mean when he says that this would be a huge deterrent? now, they are referring to an emergency provision mandating that the border be closed if the average showing of each day for a week's 5000 or 8500 in a single day. that means no asylum claims outside of a ports of entry, and with some exceptions, anyone crossing illegally is removed. it does not mean migration goes unchecked up to 5000 a day. we should point out this is a provision that those sunsets after three years. another argument from the house republican leadership, quote, the bill expands work authorizations for illegal aliens will failing to include

critical asylum reforms, let's bring this one up in the parts. top republicans in the senate, yes, senate republicans, the same party debating the same bill, they argue deporter acts completely reforms asylum laws. migrants, they, say would have a much higher standard to meet in order to qualify for asylum. and, they would receive those qualification interviews within days of arriving at the border. let's compare that to the way things are. now the asylum process could take a decade for any single individual. yet supporters say this bill would expedite the process. they would get adjudication, but then a mere six months. that could help unclog this court system that's severely backlog with more than 3 million pending cases. and back to that claim from the house leadership about work authorizations, that part is true. work authorizations for undocumented migrants screen for asylum are allowed in the senate deal. but you know what other bill allows for that?

h are too. if you're not familiar, that's the bill, the very same maga republicans opposing this new porter, act have been demanding the senate passed for months! h.r.2 also provides work authorizations for undocumented migrants who have been screened for asylum. actually, it even lets them keep reapplying for extensions indefinitely, which the senate border deal limits. notably, unlike h.r.2, the senate deal is bipartisan. even as there are some democrats who oppose it, including california senator alex pie via, because it includes zero protections for dreamers. there is no so-called amnesty in this bill. that's something trump himself couldn't even get as president, when he negotiated his own failed immigration deal back in 2018. notably, i mentioned he national border patrol council precedent, they are backing this agreement. they write the pill is a step in the right direction, and they hope that it quickly passes. this union, represent a border patrol agents, actually

endorsed donald trump for president. twice. for his part, trump said on monday, that anyone who would vote for this deal is a fool. even though many of these proposed changes are, as we showed you, things that trump lobbied for during his presidency. in fact, here's senator james lankford of that. let's listen. >> a lot of these issues ef4 when he was precedent in 2018, he was asking for changes in the silent law. this includes changes in asylum law in 2019, when president trump was president. we had 4000, some 40 fs1 people that were crossing the border illegally, and he was working to be able to limit that, which she eventually was able to do. but there were a lot of laws that we could pass in this that would make sure that never happens again under any precedent. >> and we have news just into cnn. senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell, told reporters moments ago the immigration and foreign aid package will not become law due to speaker mike

johnson's opposition, and concerns within the senate republican conference. this now, begs the question, brianna. it's just about opposing the policy itself? what's actually in the text of the bill? or, capitalizing on serious problem to win votes? >> that certainly is a big question here, boris. for joined now by a republican on the homeland security committee, congressman josh rakim of oklahoma. sir, thank you so much for taking the time to be with us. boris, just so clearly outlined what is in this compromise between senate republicans and democrats in the white house. i do want to look at the bill and see where the problem is for you and your opposition here. the crocs, of, course is the trigger that gives the president the authority to bar migrants, really not just this president, any president, to borrow migrants between ports of entry once crossings hits 4000 as a daily average in a week. and then it makes it required once it hits 5000 on a daily average in a weaker 85,000

today single day. he's our thresholds that have been reached every day for months now. this is something that would be kicked in today, for instance. what is the problem with that part of the bill? >> look, i want to stay off of you know, someone from my stay as work on on the senate side, on the house side, your own reporting is already described. at this bill is not going anywhere. that is a decision being made on the senate side. in terms of the real solution, the real solution has -- been >> sir, i need to remind you, this is endangered because house republicans say that this is going to go nowhere and because former president trump has said this should go nowhere, and once that happens, you started to see senate republican support peel off. >> look, i -- >> can we talk? what i want to do is i want to talk about the issue. because i've gone through talking with many of your colleagues about h.r.2, and

now, which is not, you know, certainly a starting point for you house republicans, but look talk about the spill. what is the problem with that kind of trigger, which would shut down the border, which is something house republicans have been calling for? >> well, then is the thing we've been calling for, to seal an open border. so, look question is, where is migrant protection protocol? where is remain-in mexico policy that says why should it be the united states responsibility to not only pay for detention of those that would come across in high in numbers, why should that be the responsibility of the taxpayer? why are we not talking with the remaining on the opposite side of the border that the premise for them to obtain legal entry into our country needs to be upon the justice of their claim, not coming across and then us, you know, granting them, again, through their taxpayer utilization, legal defense, ankle monitors they could cut off themselves? what happens when somebody has

an ankle monitor put on them, cuts it off, and highs in the interior of the united states? >> the border patrol, you wonder, because of the cost to taxpayers, this would cost them less, because this would object project these -- >> keep them on their side of the border. it would cost the taxpayer left -- >> the process for asylum, but you have the border patrol council, right, which is the union representing border patrol agents, which has previously endorsed former president trump saying this would be a deterrent. so, why do you disagree with them? why do you think they're wrong? >> look, the union itself, there is good things that they've been a part of what the homeland security committee, but you know, the union themselves, they all said, the gentlemen that's the spokesman there also supported mayorkas. i'm a part of the committee that sees him as a complicit in the problem that we see, because he refuses to enforce

congressional law. we have no problem if the immigration and nationality act would be enforced to the level that congress said it should be enforced. detention until a proceeding. that's with the immigration nationality act of section 2:35 says, and, yet you have an administration who's claiming will, here's a solution, but the real solution it has already been on the books for decades, and they refused to enforce it 2017, it was being, enforcer the lowest number of illegal immigration and our nation's history, 40 years, and yet, what's the difference between 2017 and dates? the difference is an administration that chooses to be lawless. and republicans, go ahead. >> can we have an honest conversation about this? because the immigration and nationality act of 1952 that you're talking about also says that people can come to the border and ask for asylum, even if they crossed into the u.s.

without authorization. and if you are citing that bill, you should be very much aware of this, because this particular bill in the senate side would change that. it would give the president the ability to do exactly what you were citing. the part of the bill that you're citing, because in november of 2018, when former president trump trying to use that very bill that you're talking about to curb illegal migrant crossings, he was prevented from doing so by a federal court, because it violated the very law that he was trying to use. the law that you are saying is on the books. >> the lowlands on the books, president biden on day five, utilize it when it came to brazil, south america, south africa, excuse, me and the united kingdom. he utilized that's provisional law that he has the -- >> it can't supply to asylum, congressman. >> hang on, let me finish. let me finish. we'll have it on conversation. on day five, president biden utilize the immigration and nationality act to save

>> -- negative after -- an, brazilians, on because there was a provision that says a class of aliens are entirely of aliens, if they are seen as being destructive to the united states, the president has the authority to holler, whoa, he refuses. he knows it's there. he's used to before, but he refuses to use it because he doesn't understand to the level that i think common sense tells the average american people, that's what the american people at large of saying, even in new york city, that's what's happening in our southern border, quoting new york democrat mayor adams, will destroy, he struck out his city, will destroy his city. many of us are continuing this, it could destroy our country. >> listen, democrats of many of the cities, we found them on. they have major problems because of the crisis at the border, but you are just wrong when it comes to that bill, because what you are calling for president biden to do is something former president trump attempted and that a court found he couldn't do. the bill says that people can come to the u.s. border and ask

for asylum, even if they crossed into the u.s. without authorization, and i know that's inconvenient, but that is in the very bill that you are citing. what would change that would, also in the bill, yes, but these things, one cannot be used to circumvent the other parts of the bill. and this agreement in the senate -- >> with a purpose. >> yes, but you can't use one part of the bill to invalidate the other parts. and that is actually something the court found. i would ask that you revisit what happened in november of 2018, and you'll see exactly what i mean. >> in ld respect, i would ask you to revisit in 2017, the lowest numbers in 40 years of illegal immigration with the same laws on the books, the differences leadership. but lawlessness begets lawlessness, and we have an administration who refuses to enforce the laws that are on the books. >> i would ask for you to revisit the loss that are on the books. congressman josh became, thank you so much for your time.

>> thank you. >> coming up, hope for a hostage deal. secretary of state tony blinken back in the middle east? saying the u.s. is reviewing hamas's response to a possible hostage agreement.

you can make money the hard way as a bullfighter or a human cannonball... or save money the easy way, with xfinity mobile. existing customers can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan for a year! not only will you save hundreds but you'll also be joining millions who have connected to america's most reliable 5g network. sure is a lot safer than becoming a stuntman for money. get a free line of unlimited intro for a year when you buy one unlimited line. plus, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. things have gotten better recently, but too many businesses like mine are still getting broken into.

it's time our police officers have access to 21st century tools to prevent and solve more crimes. allow public safety cameras that other bay area police departments have to discourage crime, catch criminals, and increase prosecutions. prop e is a smart step our city can take right now to keep san francisco moving in the right direction. please join me in voting yes on prop e. as secretary of state antony blinken heads to israel, he's bringing new optimism about ending the war in gaza. blinken says the u.s. is revealing hamas's response to a proposal that would release the remaining israeli hostages and bring a sustained pause in fighting. qatar is calling hamas's response positive, but blinken says the work isn't over.

listen. >> as the prime minister just said, hamas responded tonight. we are reviewing that response now, and i'll be discussing it with the government of israel tomorrow. there is still a lot of work to be done, but we continue to believe that an agreement is possible, and indeed, essential. >> president biden has been briefed on the matter as blinken continues talks in the region. in the meantime, there's new video from the u.n.'s main aid organization in the enclave, and it shows dozens of buildings destroyed in northern gaza, including one of the groups health centers. cnn's jeremy diamond is live for us in tel aviv. so jeremy, how is the fighting impacting a very delicate hostage negotiation process? >> well, boris, just yesterday, israel's defense minister, yoav gallant, described hamas's leader in gaza, yahya sinwar, it's a man on the run, running from location to location, making it difficult for him to command his forces.

and communicating with other hamas leaders. that may be why it took nine days for hamas to ultimately respond in this case here. but what's also clear is that hamas has also answered and now that these negotiations are still ongoing, the fighting is still very intense in gaza at this hour. we have seen earlier today that there has been intense fighting not only in southern gaza, worthy israeli military for nearly two weeks now, has been pressing forward with a major offensive in western khan yunis, for they say they've killed dozens of militants over the last 24 hours, but also heavy fighting and strikes in central and in northern gaza, where the israeli military had actually withdrawn thousands of troops in recent weeks. and we're also getting new images of the absolutely you know, enormous destruction in parts of gaza. you mentioned that video from andra, the refugee agency, showing one of the health centers in northern gaza, just the absolute destruction all

around is startling. but, now negotiations will still continue, and the secretary of state, tony blinken, as he is set to arrive in tel aviv and spent tomorrow meeting with israeli leaders, it is very clear that the ball in these negotiations is back in israel's court. hamas has not responded nine days after israel, the united states, egypt, and qatar agreed to this broad framework for a potential hostage deal, a potential weeks-long pause in the fighting. but the details will be critical to work out. here notley the implementation, but also, it's very clear that infamous response to this initial framework, they are still talking about ending the fighting altogether. ending this war altogether. and it's been very clear from the beginning that that is not what israel is looking for here. they are looking for a pause that can go from six weeks to months perhaps, but they are not looking for a permanent cease-fire. it still seems like hamas is pushing for that. so, how they can bridge that gap and then how they can work on the implementation will be critical to seeing if, indeed, this can go into effect, >> yeah, as we remember from the last pausing the fighting

and release of hostages, there was disagreement even as it was being implemented. so, a very difficult process. jeremy diamond, live for us in tel aviv. thank you so much. up next, the ntsb just released a report on the door plug blowout involving that 737 max 9 jet last month. the report describes a loud bang. yeah. you could say that. more details, coming. up

this just in. ntsb investigators say fort bolts that hold the door plug in place on the boeing 737 max nine were missing at the time of last month's blowout on alaska airlines flight 182. the neared semester happened mid air during a flight from

oregon to california. 177 people were on board. faa chief mike whitaker has been testifying today on capitol hill about his oversight of boeing following the incident. we have cnn aviation correspondent pete muntean here with us. all right, tell us more about his testimony and this new report. obviously, those four bolts were very important. >> this is a bombshell finally come the national transportation safety board. just released 90 page report. it's preliminary report about that blowouts backcountry fit. it essentially says the bolts, which have been the focus of this investigation from the start, we're not there. this is the actual type of both. this is an eight and six spoke, pretty common aviation. this is the bolt itself. it's a castle that here. , then a qatar paid to keep this together. at one point, there was some conjecture that maybe the qatar pin was missing that would cause this castle that to work itself free. in actuality, the ntsb says none of this boats were in place at the time of this blowout last month.

the ntsb was able to determine this, because they were able to recover the door plug that fell off alaska flight 1282 in the portland backyard of a physics teacher. they brought it to their lavish in d.c. to do something called destructive testing. they were able to tell from the telltale signs on the door itself and also on the fittings there, you can see those on the side of the door there, that these bolts were simply not installed. the running theory from the ntsb now is that these bolts were taken out at some point when this plane was very new. it first flew at the end of october, but the fuselage was delivered by a subcontractor to boeing on september 1st, of 2023. at boeing, technicians their noticed some issues with rivets next to the door. they were able to remove parts of the door and door plug, and the ntsb was able to tell from photos taken of the work that took place on september 19th

that the boats were not installed than. this only adds further scrutiny to boeing, which is really under a lot of pressure right now when it comes to its quality control. and a big question here is why they removed those votes, and why they did not put them back in. that is something the ntsb is still trying to determine. they want to figure out what the instructions were specifically that were in the instruction manuals there for boeing workers at its plant in rendon, washington. right now, we just heard from the faa administrator. there are about two dozen faa inspectors there. conducting an audit of poems quality control. but this is only the beginning. this is just a preliminary report. we will see a final report probably in the years time. no laying blame here by the ntsb on boeing, but we could find that in the final report. very quickly, when the plane is pretty new, the door plug had to come off for a reason, or if it, recent was put back, on the ball took on? >> were gone. and the issue is that the door plug itself, which you can't see from the inside of the

airplane. you can see from the outside of the airplane, goes through so many cycles. the inside of the airplane expands because of pressurization, and that contracts when it's not pressure i. so as to hold it there in place, but at a certain point, essentially, this gorgeous blue free and the ntsb says the door blew out and up and free of the airplane. in a very explosive and traumatic video. we've seen the videos from on board. it was pretty incredible that everyone survived this anonymously really hurts. >> pete, thank you so much for that. want to bring in cnn safety analyst and former faa safety inspector, david sushi now. that is a bombshell. as pete said there, especially since it seems before this door plug blew off, it was an airplane that was kind of giving some science, right, with the pressurization issues that it had been experiencing on multiplications? >> yeah, three times before this, that pressurization indications, and the airplane was put on the ground. they inspected. it they checked. it they didn't go to the extent of doing a preservation check

on the ground, which typically isn't on. they'll do a couple of other things before they do that, but that's the one thing i think it's mission care. this problem started long, long before this actual door came out. that's for sure at boeing. >> what this is tell you, david, about what happened here and, i mean, to you understand how this could have happened, if the door plug was put back on without the bolts being there? but >> yeah, absolutely. i've been an aircraft mechanic, listen mechanic for many years. i worked on a line, installing aircraft, on the manufacturing line, and there is often a problem between the communication, especially in shift changes, where they change from one to the other. by her situation. manufacturing employs a certain mindset. when that manufacturing process, the assembly line process, is interrupted with a nonconforming parts, which as pete mentioned, there are events that weren't installed properly that had to be

repaired. that to my question is why were the bolts put in and why did that process not happen at boeing and that is what the faa needs to make their focus on. what is going on in boeing that would allow to have that happen. >> questions that have persisted for years. great to have you. thank you so much. on super bowl sunday, the biggest star in the stadium, there she is. she will be in a luxury box. how big of a draw will she be at the big game. this is cnn news central.

worst answer on earth. widely known. >> i am like a lane on seinfeld. i am a singer. that's not the point of this segment. it's about football. >> it is super bowl week and it is all about the kansas city chiefs and some singer that i have never heard of. they are putting on quite a show. corey weier kicked off super bowl week with an opening show where he talked with players and talked about bedding, food,

and of course, taylor swift. >> so far, it is money. one of the biggest events and it was not even the actual event itself. opening night. a lot of them parading around and setting their stuff. this was unlike any i have ever been to. thousands of media showed up in droves. >> i am living the dream. >> extra hype. the extra super bowl in vegas. putting on a show and making memories. >> nobody has a better show than las vegas. it is the mecca of the world for entertainment. >> a decade ago the nfl

would've scoffed at having the super bowl at sin city. >> i kind of have a bad track record in vegas. >> we come out here from labor day weekend and we get ridiculous. the people who are involved in not know who they are. >> the food there was absolutely phenomenal. >> the chiefs are looking to double down and become the first repeat in almost 20 years. the 49ers will get a win to the six super bowl title. there is one aspect of the game that the players just can't seem -- >> she is part of the chiefs kingdom right now. it's fun to see her enjoy the game of football knowing that it is new to her life. >> it's not us against taylor swift or anything like that.

>> which taylor swift album title resonates with your persona the most? >> red. i guess sunburned a lot. >> fearless, lover. >> i am a fearless lover. >> the antihero song is pretty sweet. i would say that. i do love love story, it gets me every single time. >> they show it more than the player sometimes. >> the players, they are fully affair of the taylor swift effect. of the most watched tv programs were football related and now is five days away from one of this year's biggest shows of the mall. >> thank you, fearless lover was pretty good. stay with cnn news central, we will have more right after the break.

we're back.