paula reid, appreciate the update. thank you. >>> just ahead, an update from israel and gaza exactly two o montnths since h hamas' octotob attack.. >>> some more breaking news this evening. two months since the october 7th attack that sparked israel's war with hamas, we're seeing new images from the war in gaza, including one released by the idf that they say shows senior military leaders of hamas that have been killed. jeremy diamond joins me now from ashkelon, israel. they say they've eliminated 5 of 11 senior hamas commanders in a photograph they released. it seems like hamas is organized enough to hand over hostages and still fight. so what is israel saying about their progress in this war? >> yeah, still organized to do those things, and also to fire rockets against cities in israel. we've seen those barrages tick up again over the last several days since that fragile truce between israel and hamas ended. israel is trying to show the progress that it is making towards its primary objective of destroying hamas and

starting us off tonight, paula reid. tell us more about this really surprising ruling. >> surprising, remarkable, pamela. and the judges here, they acknowledge that at the top of their opinion. they talk about the weight and the magnitude of the issue that they're deciding here. i mean this is the biggest court decision to impact a national election since bush v. gore. even though this only impacts colorado, the implications could be national because here we're talking about the 14th amendment of the united states constitution. and there's a section of that amendment that bars u.s. officials who engage in an insurrection from holding public office. now, in this case, colorado was at the lower court level. there was a trial. they found that trump did engage in an insurrection, but they said he shouldn't be disqualified from the ballot because the judge said that section of the constitution didn't specifically mention presidents. but here the state supreme court reversing that, saying he should be disqualified from the bal

paula reid, let me bring you in on this, as well. what do you think are you hearing is the strategy here from hunter and his legal team in what we just saw? >> well, kate, over the last year we've been reporting how huntser biden along with his lawyers abbe lowell and kevin morris have been employing a much more aggressive strategy when it comes to huntser's detractors. here, republicans wanted hunter biden on the hill. they got him, but they didn't exactly get the testimony that they were hoping for. instead, they got this rare, public statement from the president's son that was quite personal. he talked about his a dicddicti the impact that's had on his life and the impact it's had, and the investigations and the impact that those have had on his family and he blasted republicans saying, quote, they have no fairness, no decency. he reminded us that they showed naked pictures of him at an oversight hearing. he said they have taken the light of his dad's love and turned it into, quote, darkness and with the capitol behind him, he sai

cnn's paula reid is back with us now.s you continue to review this ruling, paula, what more stands out to you? >> reporter: they biggest question i had is what do the supreme courts see that the lower court oversaw this trial did not see, because that lower court said yes, trump engaged in an insurrection. but in section three of the 14th amendment, they did not specify presidents as being barred from holding future office. and therefore they said, look, we can't keep him off the ballot. but here, the supreme court says it is relying on intent, the objective behind section three of the 14th amendment. and, pamela, that is notable because this case, as we believe, headed up to a supreme court that has been taken over

paula reid is joining us now. what can you tell us, paula?reporter: that's right, this is significant and is something that could be decided possibly by july which would put this decision right in the middle of the presidential election cycle. here the supreme court said it will consider whether to restrict access to the widely used abortion drug mifepristone even in states where abortion is still allowed. now, the case concerns the drug mifepristone which when used with another drug is one of the most widely used abortion methods in the united states, but, again, the really key thing here is that this puts the conservative-leaning supreme court, once again, right in the middle of the abortion issue when just last year of course they overturned roe v. wade and this would potentially put this issue and whatever they decide here right in the middle of the election cycle. so this is going to likely be one of the biggest cases that they take up this term and, again, mifepristone is available right now, but this decision could change that. >> paul

paula reid, thank you. stand by. we have more questions for you and your analysis of what is happening in a moment. right now i want go the official who was at the center of this maine's top election official the secretary of state shenna bellows and thank you so much secretary of state for being here. obviously, as paula's reporting there. the trump team is planning to appeal this decision that you made to maine's superior court on tuesday. how do you expect them to respond? >> this -- thank you for having me. the appeal to superior court is the logical next step in the process. and indeed in my decision i suspended the effect of the decision pending that appeal to superior court and a superior court ruling. >> well, and it was expected. it was no surprise that they were going to appeal this. they didn't necessarily expect you to make this decision. on the basis of how you came to this, kcritics said the maine secretary of state doesn't have the authority to do and the procedures that happened before you made this d

chief legal correspondent paula reid is with us now.how much more complicated does this make the 2024 election? >> they have to weigh in. the justices must weigh in here, j john. because this issue could potentially just loom over the 2024 election. we've seen this litigated in over half a dozen states with varying outcomes, right? maine, colorado opted to take him off the ballot, while other states, including minnesota, michigan, new hampshire, and arizona, even california today all opted to include him. we're still waiting for oregon. but here, you have to have the supreme court weigh in because i'll note in states like michigan, like minnesota, the judges in that case did not really get to the merits of the issue. it was more of a procedural victory for trump. but they left the door open to relitigate all of this in a general election. if the supreme court does not weigh in here, this issue will continue to hang out there and likely spread to other states all the way likely through november. >> sometimes the supreme court likes to av

as paula reid reports, hunter biden has paid the back taxes, he has paid the penalties. are these typical charges, all of them, any of them, considering that he's made the government whole? he's paid what he owes? >> i think a lot of people would be surprised even when it's clear there's been a kr50i78, people are often allowed to pay off those monies, and when they do, and the penalties, as biden has done, they're often not prosecuted. that can't be they can't be or shouldn't be, but they're not. it's a little surprising. he's been caught. the evidence seems strong, and if you look at the central district of california, which i just happened to take a look, there are other crimes in similar dollar amounts that have been prosecuted for tax laws. >> so some truth to what abbe lowell says. i'll ask you from a legal context. when the chair of the house and oversight accountability committee says that he is concerns that maybe these charges were filed to protect hunter biden from testifying, is there any validity you see in that? >> no, i don't think so. i think one could ar

paula reid is with us. what is at stake, paula?it is a historic case dealing with one of of the biggest scandals in american history, opioid crisis. nearly 640,000 americans have lost their lives to opioids in the past two decades, and right now as we speak, the justices are reviewing a settlement related to purdue pharmacy which is owned by the sackler family. as part of the sackler family, they were granted protection from future lawsuits as part of the settlement. but as part of it there is a bankruptcy restructuring of the purdue pharmaceutical, but it is not the ordinary bankruptcy case, because it is looking at the role that this company played in the nationwide crisis and extends to liability for the family. but the trustee oversees the bankruptcy has asked the supreme court to review this, because saying, that this is raising the constitutional concerns about the rights of victims to then potentially file their own lawsuits. as part of this suit, they have agreed to pay $8 million through the next eight years ark and they s

cnn's paula reid joins us with the details, why are we seeing these decisions? >> the u.s. constitution means different things to different judges, that's why we have the supreme court on the final word, we are not there quite yet, we have this question of ballot eligibility litigated through several different states, here in michigan, this is a more procedural decision than how they came to two decide he can remain on the ballot for the primaries but last week, the colorado supreme court surprised a lot of people when they said he could be removed. that was a surprise because lower courts had ruled look, even though we had a trail that he did engage in an insurrection. this portion of the 13th amendment we are talking about does not specifically say this applies to presidents. that's why the colorado decision was a surprise, that's the big question. it's a constitutional question, the 14th amendment says officials who engage an insurrection should be banned from holding office going forward. it lists specific offices but omits the president or the president's seat, the for

here is the latest, cnn chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid. paula, what do you know that these charges? >> good evening anderson. well our colleague, evan perez, breaking the news that the justice department has filed a new criminal case against hunter biden. we don't know the specific charges, because the court documents are not yet public. just a few weeks ago, we broke the news that the special counsel, appointed to investigate the president's son, david weiss has been using a los angeles-based grand jury to gather evidence about hunter biden's finances, specifically his taxes. now going back to 2018, the trump-appointed u.s. attorney has been investigating hunter biden's finances. hunter biden repeatedly missed irs deadlines to pay his taxes, and eventually owed around $2 million. anderson, he did pay back what he owed, including $800,000 in penalties and fees. and this was all expected to be resolved as part of a plea deal, where he would plead guilty to two misdemeanors. but over the summer, that plea deal fell apart. the u.s. attorney,

. >> let's get more on this with paula reid, tell us more about what this means, and how significant it is. >> this is the first time we are getting a preview from the special counsel of the case that they intend to present next march when they try former president trump related to january 6th and claims of elections of version, in this new filing, they are putting him and his lawyers on notice about exactly what they put before a jury, they point specifically to his continued public support for people who attack the capital. they point to the fact he's suggested he could pardon some of them if he is re-elected and has also referred to them as times as hostages, prosecutors say this is evidence he conspired to in spite -- inside that leads -- inside violence. this also listing things that happened before january 6th, you may remember in a 2020 presidential debate, then president trump was asked to denounce the extremist group the proud boys, instead of denouncing them he would publicly speak directly to them telling them to quote stanback in standby. we now know that members of that

. >> let's talk more about that, and cnn legal affairs correspondent paula reid. a first of its kind, i call it a prosecution, but there aren't defendants here, so to speak, paula. >> they're listed on an indictment so it's fair to call them defendants and it is unclear if they'll ever see the inside of a courtroom in the u.s. and this is an extraordinary announcement by the attorney general and the justice department charging four russian soldiers with war kcrims during an invasion of ukraine. this is historic because this is the first time the u.s. government has useded a decades-old law to prosecute those who committed war krieps against an american. this indictment was returned yesterday and it alleges that an unnamed american was violently abducted from his home in ukraine. soldiers allegedly beat and tortured him in a russian military compound where he was held for ten days in april 2022. now the indictment alleges he was tortured during two different interrogations that he was stripped, beaten and photographed. two of the defendants are commanding officers

cnn's paula reid is covering the story for us. she is getting reaction as well., paula, this indictment and some of the truly sensational details included. >> sensational indeed. these charges, wolf, are the result of a long-running investigation into hunter biden's finances, but now his father will be seeking reelection while fighting an impeachment bid from republicans and while his son is fighting to avoid prison in now two federal criminal cases. president biden ignored questions friday about the latest criminal charges filed against his son. >> reporter: any comment on the new charges against your son? >> those new charges laid out in a 56-page indictment, unsealed thursday. prosecutors allege hunter biden engaged in a four-year scheme to not pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. they allege the younger biden had money but spent it on drugs, escorts and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing and other items of a personal nature. in short, everything but his taxes. the case was supposed to be resolved with a plea deal that fell

chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid has more on that and on the d.c.eals court ruling. >> reporter: down in georgia on friday, trump's lawyers gave a preview of how they intend to defend their client in that criminal case. they argued to the judge that the entire case smoub dismissed because they say that their client's comments about widespread voter fraud or conspiracy theories is all protected political speech, something they say is protected under the first amendment. this argument has been rejected by this judge. it was previously made by two former trump lawyers turned co-defendants. it's unclear if truch will be successful, but his lawyers also made arguments about the timing for when this case will go before a jury. now they insist that this case cannot go in 2024. the district attorney said this case could take four to six months to try, and she want it is to begin in august 2024, just a few months before the election. trump's lawyers argue that would be, quote, election interference to start the case late next summer. if you look at the call

paula reid, cnn, washington. >> and as she mentioned, california secretary of state pushed back against some calls from her own democratic party and decided to keep trump on the ballot. here is what she told cnn. >> we have looked and looked and we have observed and watched every case that has come out. i have 18 attorneys that are basically focused on this in my office as well as our attorney general has been involved with this particular issue. and so we're still looking. we haven't said that we'll keep him quote/unquote on the ballot. he is listed on the ballot because we don't have the authority yet to take him off the ballot. i'd like to see them answer whether this constitutional provision applies to all states, that they come out with a decision that affects all 50 states because otherwise we could have a tremendous amount of chaos with regards to being on certain ballots and not on other ballots and having people challenge counts because certain states weren't included. i think they have to decide if this is a federal issue, a nanational issssue that hahas t addressed. they need

paula reid reports. >> reporter: the supreme court facing increasing pressure to weigh in on whether states can remove former president trump from the 2024 ballot. after maine became the second state to kick him off based on the 14th amendment's ban on insurrectionists holding public office. >> never a secretary of state have deprived a presidential today on ballot access, but no presidential candidate has ever engaged in insurrection and been disqualified a under section three of the 14th amendment. >> reporter: in maine, ballot eligibility questions first go to the secretary of state, not the courts. trump has called for the democrat sheena bellows to recuse herself because of previous comments about january 6 where she tweeted the jan 6 insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. she did not remove herself from the matter and now the issue heads to the courts as trump and the state's republican party vow to appeal. >> our voting rights enshrined in the constitution are sacred to us. and to have one particular person remove really the

paula reid has the details. >> reporter: republican party of colorado is asking the supreme court of the united states to overturn the unprecedented decision from the colorado supreme court last week that removed former president trump from the ballot. trump signaled he too will appeal the ruling but he hasn't done so yet. the gop has been a party in this litigation. they are fighting for the ability to list trump as a candidate on the primary ballot. and one of the immediate impacts of this appeal is that the colorado decision is now on pause. until the supreme court reveals whether it wants to get involved. they are under enormous pressure to take up this case and offer clarity on exactly who the 14th amendment applies to and the extent states have power to remove candidates from the ballot. so unclear if the supreme court will take this up or how long it will take them to decide, but because of the appeal, that colorado decision now on hold. now, one of the places where this question of whether trump will be on the ballot is still outstanding is the state of maine. what is interes

paula reid, cnn, washington. >>> and our supreme court analyst says the request could be a push from the special counsel to have the supreme court make a landmark decision on a subject never before seen in u.s. politics. here is part of her conversation earlier with wolf blitzer. >> just think of the supreme court, this is a supreme court that managed to avoid a lot of the controversy during 2020. it rejected baseless claims from donald trump's allies about the election results. stay out of it. every case that is ever handled with donald trump, whether on his policy or on his personal tax dealings has always been fraught. so they are probably not looking at this with eagerness, but they know that this is a case that this question has never been decided. and that was the point of jack smith's petition, that eventually the supreme court is going to have to decide if a former president or president can be immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office, which is exactly what donald trump is asserting. so i think frankly that this is a really strong case that sxwrak sm

paula reid joins me now from washington. it has to be the supreme court's ball game. is that fair? >> that's completely fair. another example of how the u.s. supreme court could be such an influencing factor in the 2024 election. the question here is ballot eligibility. this is something that has been litigated across multiple states with varying outcomes. here the question is whether former president trump can be kept off a state ballot buzz of the u.s. constitution's 14th amendment, which says that officials who engage in an insurrection are barred from holding future office. this was something that was designed to keep former confederates out of office. it's been used twice in the past 100 years. also note this provision does not specifically state the presidency. the president is among those who would be barred from holding future office. now the colorado supreme court, as you noted, surprised a the lot of people when they ruled that trump can be kept off the ballot in that state. that was surprising because lower courts in that state had held while they do believe he engaged i

paula reid, thank you so much, let's discuss further with cnn political commentator adam kissinger, he served on the house alexa january 6th committee, thank you so much for being with us, what do you make of the colorado republican party going back for trump and appealing his band? >> it's obviously no surprise, it's trump's party now, he owns all the mechanisms, they believe he was wrongfully taken off the ballot, i think what is obvious is that i think each side can make a compelling argument when they are speaking, it is just going to have to go to the supreme court, it shows a failure of our political system to an extent that we keep having to go out of the supreme court to answer these questions and we cannot do it in house within democracy, within our republic. we have to have the supreme court make a decision, that's what it comes down to and i have no idea which way they will go but ultimately, their word will have to be the final and we will have repercussions throughout america because that will determine what the 14th amendment judge -- does and does not allow. >> we were t

paula reid takes a closer look. >> reporter: the supreme court facing increasing pressure to weigh in on whether states can remove former president trump from the 2024 ballot. after maine became the second state to kick him off based on the 14th amendment the's ban on insurrectionists holding public office. >> new secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of wall bilallot actis based on the 14th amendment. but no presidential candidate has ever engaged in insurrection and been disqualified under the 14th amendment. >> in maine, ballot eligibility questions first go to the secretary of state, not the courts. trump has called for a democrat to recuse herself in this case because of previous comments about january 6th, where she tweeted, the january 6th insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the results of a free and fair election. he did not remove herself from the matter and now the issue heads to the courts as trump and the republican party vow to i appeal. >> our voting rights enshrined in the constitution are sacred to us. and to have one particular pe

. >>> i want to turn to chief legal affairs correspondent, paula reid. trump's lawyers believe the georgia charges should be thrown out on these first amendment rights to free speech, as you just heard nick explaining. the judge has already rejected the first amendment arguments from other defendants, including kenneth chesebro. >> that's right, he's rejected this for two other defendants, both of whom were former trump lawyers. and there the judge said, look, before you can make this argument, there have to be certain -- a record of certain facts from a trial. but neither one of these defendants went to trial. they both entered plea deals to avoid having to go that far. today trump's lawyers argue that, in fact, you can decide this pretrial. for that to actually happen, they would all have to be in agreement, both sides would have to agree on the facts of the case, which means trump would have to concede that his claims of voter fraud were false. >> robert, trump's attorneys are arguing against the timeline of the trial, saying august is too close to th

paula reid has more. >> reporter: president biden ignored questions friday about the latest criminal charges filed against his son. >> any comment on the new charges against your son? >> reporter: those new charges laid out in a 56-page indictment unsealed thursday. prosecutors allege hunter biden engaged in a four-year scheme to not pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. they allege the younger biden had money but spent it on drugs, escorts, and girlfriends, luxury hotels and rental properties, exotic cars, clothing, and other items of a personal nature, if short everything but his taxes. the case was supposed to be resolved with a plea deal that fell apart over the summer. >> i'm cooperating completely. and i am absolutely certain, 100% certain, that at the end of the investigation that i will be cleared. >> reporter: the case stems from hunter biden's lucrative overseas business dealings. he did eventually repay taxes he owed along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties and fees, but prosecutors say that when he did finally file his returns, he included false business ded

paula reid, cnn, washington. >>> new trading day getting under way in the u.s.just under five hours. all eyes on it as well. look at the futures currently. they are up after a pretty stellar performance yesterday. meanwhile european markets are also up following the lead. but it was slightly different across asia, a bit more of a mixed bag as you can see. but generally pretty positive particularly if you look the that hong kong and south korean exchange. the u.s. stock market did soar wednesday after the federal reserve announced that it would keep interest rates steady the rest of the year and the chairman also said that the fed would pivot toward rate cuts this year. this shift comes after two years of aggressive rate hikes by the federal reserve. vanessa yurkevich has more. >> reporter: at 2:00 p.m. eastern when the federal reserve announced that it was pausing rates, we saw the dow pop. you can see it right there on the screen. 2:00 p.m. eastern time, that line just shoot up and ultimately that led the dow to close up 1.4% setting a new all-time high record

paula reid, thank you. joined here tonight by former president trump's former national security adviser john bolton. ambassador bolton, when you look at this measure that was put in place to keep former confederates from returning to power, i mean, where do you think it's being used here? >> i think it's completely misplaced. i think this colorado supreme court decision is badly wrong for multiple reasons. number one, the 14th amendment provides that congress can pass legislation to carry its provisions into effect, which congress has gone on many aspects. it has not put anything with respect to section three on the books since just after the civil war. second, the idea that 50 different state courts can decide a question involving the highest elected office in the executive branch, interpreting the federal constitution as to what constitutes an insurrection against the federal government is incoherent. and i think undoubtedly, the supreme court is gonna have to clear that up. in terms of what the framers o

i'm paula reid in washington. breaking news -- special counsel jack smith is pushing back on donald trump's claim of presidential immunity. smith writes in a new court filing tonight that granting a former president absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, quote, threatens to license presidents to commit crimes to remain in office. the rebuttal comes less than two weeks before oral arguments start in the federal election interference case before a u.s. court of appeals. amid trump's many legal troubles, some states have disqualified him in holding public office. at this hour, anti-trump challengers have gotten him removed from the primary ballot in two states based on the united states constitution's ban on insurrectionists holding office. but the decisions are being appealed, and trump's team is expected to file its appeals on tuesday. tonight, at any moment, oregon could become the next state to decide if trump is disqualified from its ballot. oregon's secretary of state, a democrat, has asked the court to t

. >> paula reid, thank you. >>> the new continues with more on this historic decision. "the source" with kaitlan collins starts right now. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. >>> we do begin with breaking news. a blockbuster from the colorado supreme court, ruling that donald trump is disqualified from running for president in that state in 2024. officially booting him from the ballot. tonight, the country is in uncharted waters. from the ruling, i'm quoting, president trump is disqualified from holding the office of president under section 3 of the 14th amendment. it would be a wrongful act to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. this ruling just out tonight goes tonon to say, president tr didn't merely insight the resurrection, he continued to support it by demanding the vice president, mike pence, refuse to perform his constitutional duty and by calling senators to persuade them to stop the counting of electioral votes. these actions constituted overt, voluntary and direct participation in that insurrection. of course, as you look at this

they want the jury focused on facts. >> paula reid, appreciate it.nk you. >>> ron fine is a lead attorney on the challenges to remove donald trump from the ballot in michigan, oregon, and minnesota. good to have you with us. let's go back to michigan, if we could. the fourth state to reject a bid to remove donald trump from that primary ballot. i know you are not done in that state. what is next here for you? >> the michigan supreme court's decision actually left it open for us to refile after the primary. it was a very narrow ruling. the michigan court did not say that donald trump didn't engage in insurrection. it did not say that michigan can't decide whether he is disqualified under the 14th amendment. all it said is that that challenge needs to come after the primary. we will be ready to refile. >> the former president, as i'm sure you saw, was quick to celebrate the decision on social media, praising it. calling your efforts, a pathetic g gambit to rig the election. you were unsuccessful with a similar effort in minnesota. do you see at this po

joining us now, cnn legal correspondent paula reid. talk about what judge chutkan had to say today. >> anderson, chutkan has been adamant this case will go to trial in march. she's had to put the proceedings on hold. and she has to do this because you really can't put on a case when the court of appeals is considering issues that could render the entire thing moot. this is also why we saw earlier this week special counsel jack smith ask the supreme court to just step in and decide his issue so they can go to trial on time. notably tonight the court of appeals, which is the next scheduled step, unless the supreme court weighs in, they set an expedited schedule for hearing these matters. but even if they move quickly, ultimately the supreme court is going to have to weigh in before this trial can begin. >> and why is the supreme court considering whether part of a federal obstruction law can be used in january 6th cases. >> this is so interesting. they've decided to look at a certain part of a federal obstruction law. and depending on ho

joining us now is a senior supreme court analyst job is cubic and paula reid. so, paula, this is a pretty aggressive move from the special counsel. what is the play? >> that is exactly right, this is the first time the special counsel jack smith has gone to the supreme court, he is asking it to decide if the former president is immune from criminal prosecution. that is a constitutional question that has never been decided, but really what is at stake is the timing of trump's first criminal trial. trump has been litigating this issue of immunity, he lost at the district court level and signaled he would appeal, the next stop would usually be the court of appeals, go before judges, if you don't like that outcome you can try to go before the entire circuit, if you don't like that, then you go to the supreme court. the special counsel is not asking the supreme court to skip those intermediary steps and take up the issue now. that is a process, going to the court, then the supreme court appeals process could take months or potentially even a year, that could delay t

that has largely been offered by federal appellate court. >> paula reid, thank you so much for that report. breonna? >>> in the meantime, former president trump is set to testify in the new york civil fraud trial against him and his business empire. while he prepares to take the stand the rest of the republican field is looking ahead to 2024. weeks to go until the first presidential contest in iowa and new hampshire, the republican candidates are flocking to those states. they are hoping to gain a boost following the fourth gop debate this week. cnn chief national affairs correspondent jeff zeleny joining us. nikki haley's campaign looking, of course, to gain strength and financial support from some major donors, like the coke network. what is her strategy really hoping to become the trump alternative? >> our strategy now as she's making her first visit iowa now after that debate. she has been spending her time between iowa and new hampshire more than most of the candidates. for strategy right now is to try to continue some of that upward swing she have seen from debate to debate to see if

it will be a paula reid exclusive whether or not i'm actually able to go to bed before midnight this to be. i don't know, harry, do you have a new year's resolution? >> do i? you know, i stole my one. i was going to say, and i was going to charm the pant off you and say i wanted to spend more time with you at least on this side of the screen. you in d.c. and me in new york although i can come to d.c. one time if the bosses allow it, but if you look at where americans are on this particular score, whether or not they have a resolution or not, what we generally see is that, in fact, only a minority of americans have a new year's resolution. the majority, the 60% say no, but you know, i don't know if i'm with the 60% here because why not try and have a resolution in why not try and better ourselves and jannian is arbitrary, but why not start now? >> why not, right? what would your resolution be? do you have one in mind? >> do i have one in mind? if i was being real maybe it would be to take a step off the pedal a little bit. maybe not show up to work every saturday or sunday. don't worr

cnn's paula reid is joining us as well as cnn legal analyst elie honig. what did the supreme court decide? >> kate, we have been waiting for this decision for some time, and here the court holding that former president donald trump does not have immunity from the civil suits connected to the actions of january 6th. it does not mean that he is liable for the actions of january 6th. what it means is that the capital police officers and others who are trying to sue trump related to january 6th, they will get a day in court, and litigate the claims. the former president has said that the suits cannot be brought, and you are arguing that the actions brought that day were all part of the official duties as president, and officials from the president on down enjoy immunity, and the court drew a line around that, and said this is not in the official capacities as president, and this is more in the lines of the campaign. and therefore you are not immune from the charges. so he will go to trial in washington, d.c., for election subversion, and it is suspected that

we will breakdown the impact starting with cnn's paula reid who was taking a look at how the mifepristone case and how it can affect millions of women across the united states. >> the supreme court says it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug, mifepristone when taken with another drug is one of the most commonly used methods in the u.s. >> has this abortion drug been on the market for more than two decades? >> yes, 23 years i think. >> it has been used by millions of women during that period? >> many with millions. >> the drug remains available nationwide, the supreme court put on hold lower court rulings that would impose restrictions that abortion opponents would like. >> i am concerned before or than half of the abortions in this country are medical, medicinal, and these drugs have been legal in our country for years. >> last year, the conservative leaning court overturned roe v wade altering the abortion landscape in the u.s. more than half of the states outlaw or severely restrict the procedure by agreeing to take up the case, the court will once ag

let's bring in cnn's paula reid. cnn -- 's paula, what more are you learning? >> reporter: this could be quite the showdown tomorrow. here's what we know, hunter biden lives in california, but we know that he's in washington, d.c. right now and he will be here tomorrow. that is the date where house republicans have demanded that he come in and sit for a closed door deposition as part of their escalated impeachment inquiry. hunter biden has said he is willing to answer questions even though he now faces two criminal cases says, but he wants to answer these questions publicly. lawyers have said there are concerns, that if they sit behind closed doors the republicans might selectively leaked certain information to help their narrative. republicans though rejected that request and said we insist you sit behind closed doors first. then maybe eventually we can do something publicly. and now there's just a stalemate, but our colleague on the hill, and greer, says republicans are prepared for hunter to possibly show up tomorrow among their preparations. the cameras are

. >> cnn chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid is tracking all of this precip. us more about this indictment. >> reporter: remember, this case was supposed to be resolved with a plea deal where the president's son would've pled guilty to two misdemeanors. he is now facing nine counts, including three felonies. in this 56-page indictment, prosecutors included a lot of embarrassing details about what they say he spent his money on instead of paying his taxes on time. that includes hundreds of thousands of dollars to various women. nearly $200,000 on adult entertainment as well as tens of thousands of dollars on drugs and rehab. the president's son has of course been very open about his substance abuse issues. in a statement, his attorney abbe lowell said if hunter biden's name was anything other than hunter biden, that he would not be facing these criminal cases in delaware and california. now, something else that might not happen if your last name wasn't biden. a short time ago before this indictment, in the past few months, hunter biden sat down for a podcast to

i'm paula reid in washington. happy new year's to all of you, our viewers.own to the new year. here is a live look at new york city's times square where we are just six hours away from celebrations there. athens just kicked off the new year in the last hour. here's a look at their fir works display. [ fireworks ] [ fireworks

paula reid and zach cohen are here to discuss. also with us is correspondent for law fair, thank you for being with us. zach, talk to us about what's been happening inside the courtroom today. >> if hearing from trump's lawyers is the main event of today, the warm-up act has been one of the lawyers for his fellow codefendant also charged in this case. that's david schaffer, the top fake elector in georgia. he's accused of organizing all of these fake electors to sign those certificates and sending them to congress. schaffer's attorney is arguing there were no fake electors because they weren't fake. they were contingent electors. and really they were just on standby because donald trump was still trying to fight this out in court. if that sounds familiar, we have heard this before from the same attorney who argued this same point. they move to federal court unsuccessfully. now the federal judge was not having this argument. it would be interest figure the judge is more receptive to it. we are still waiting to see the main event to

. >> paula reid is here to explain. this is one of the biggest cases of the term. right? >> reporter: absolutely. it could have consequences for the presidential election. here, once again, you have the conservative leaning court jumping into the abortion issue less than a year after they overturned roev. wade. a decision would come by july, which is in the middle of the presidential election side. since roe was overturned abortion has been a hot issue on the campaign trail. here specifically we're talking about access to the most commonly used abortion medication. mifepristone. that, when used with another drug, it accounts for a significant number of abortions in the united states. lower courts have tried to restrict access to mifepristone. right now the decisions are on hold while the supreme court looks at this issue. this drug was approved for 23 years. they approved it in 2000. in the past few years, they've made it more accessible. you can get it through tell medicine or delivered by mail. opponents, abortion rights opponents argued the fda didn't vet the safety he

chief legal affairs correspondent paula reid is here to walk us through it. this is very confusing. there's so much. we're going to try to do it in a linear way. >> january 4th. s this was the deadline for former president trump to appeal the colorado supreme court's ruling that removed him from the ballot. they said if you can appeal to the supreme court by then, they will put their ruling on pause, which means he will be on the pry ballot. trump has not appealed, even though he's expected to. the republican party appealed this ruling. they are a party to this case. they have been fighting in court for their right to list trump on the primary ballot. it's the understanding of the parties we talked to that that appeal is enough to put that colorado decision on hold for now. but we're still waiting for that trump appeal. >> january 9th, 5 days later, a hearing about immunity. >> a big day. this is an oral argument for this appeal. this has prompted a judge to put the entire federal january 6th trial on pause while the special counsel and trump's lawyers argue in court about whether h

. >> paula reid joining us with more details. when will the supreme court pick up the case, what could we watch unfold? >> this is fascinating, conservative leaning supreme court is jumping right back into the abortion issue less than a year after overturning roe v wade. a decision could come by july, which is right in the middle of the presidential campaign season. we know that the decision to overturn roe v wade, the larger questions about abortion have been hot issues on the campaign trail. here of course, we are talking about access to a commonly used abortion truck. it is currently still available even though some lower courts have issued decisions trying to restrict access to the drug. the fda approved the drug 23 years ago and in recent years, they have tried to make it easier to access so you can get it to telemedicine or the mail. the challengers in this case including some doctors and other groups that oppose abortion and cyst the fda did not properly evaluate safety concerns back when initially approved the drug or, as

reid and norm eisen.hat have the two sides argued today so far, nick? >> reporter: this is the first time we're seeing trump's attorneys in court in this case. they're saying this indictment should be thrown out based on the first amendment. what his high-profile criminal defense attorney is arguing is that when president trump, after he lost the 2020 election, began peddling conspiracy theories, claiming there was widespread voter fraud, that that at its core was political speech protected by the first amendment. in a legal finding on monday, they said the speech should not be count earned by an indictment from the fulton county district attorney's office. but the state responding saying, while it sounds good to claim there's political persecution here, this is about laws that were broken and crimes committed. another big headline had to do with scheduling. in a recent interview, the district attorney, fani will liles, told "the washington post" she wants this trial with trump and his co-defendants to st

correspondent paula reid is with me here in "the situation room." she's got details.o what are trump's lawyers arguing. >> we got a preview of how trump and his attorneys intend to defend him down in georgia. the first argument is that this entire case should be dismissed because they say that trump's claims about voter fraud was all political speech, protected by the first amendment. but the same judge has dismissed that argument for two of the former lawyers turned co-defendants and the issue of timing was a big thing here today. trump's lawyers have argued that he is going to be the leading candidate for the presidency and that this case should not go to trial next year. but the district attorney has been very specific. she wanted this case to go to trial in august. it is expected to last between four and six months. and let's take a listen to what trump's lawyers said in court today. >> i don't see how any way this court could set for trial in august, it is very possible that time my client will be running for election for president of the united states for the re

paula reid, explain what jack smith asked of the supreme court exactly. >> this is huge. this is the first time the special counsel is going straight to the supreme court, and he is asking them to decide the question of whether former president trump is immune from criminal prosecution. this is a question trump has been litigating. he lost at the district court level. he said he intended to appeal, but usually an appeal with at least first go to the court of appeals, then depending what happens there, go to the supreme court. special counsel here is saying you guys take this up now because, yes, this is an interesting constitutional question, but the special counsel is mindful of the calendar. this is all about timing, so here the special counsel is saying we need you to decide this now. so this case can go on as planned in march. they are also saying even if you don't want to take this question up, you don't want to skip a court of appeal, kenny at least tell the court of appeals to do this quickly? because if a question like this goes through the normal channels, it can

i'm paula reid. i'll see you again tomorrow night starting at 4:00 eastern. stay with us for the cnn special "all the best and all the worst: 2023." >>> 2023 was a year like no other. jeff everyone seemed to be going all in all the time. now it's time to look at the whole crazy year with our guest, laura baron lopez, omar him nottyesses, laura coates, john berman, charlotte wilder, coy wire, and max foster. we're playing for keeps. it's "all the best, all the worst: 2023." >> welcome, i'm tom foreman. it's worth asking how did we get past the last 12 months. many of us hoped it would be easier than recent years, and there were moments of accomplishment, community, and joy. but we were also challenged, divided over issues and often unable to agree even on what we want. and it was wildly apparent where we begin -- with the biggest news stories of the year. ♪ >> the worst big news for many americans started in their pocketbooks. >> the economy this year was an absolute emotional roller coaster. >> unemployment was down, earnings were up. at any moment, a lot of

more from paula reid. what exactly has the supreme court right now agreed to? >> reporter: today the special counsel asked them to take up two constitutional questions in the hope that those could be resolved and they could move ahead with their election subversion case against trump, as scheduled in march. tonight the supreme court said, we'll get back to you soon. now, they're not saying that they're going to take up these questions. they're saying, though, that their response will be prompt. and that's somewhat of a win for the special counsel because timing is everything here. former president trump is litigating these legitimate questions that have never been answered before. the first is whether he is immune from prosecution. the second is whether he is protected from double jeopardy because he was impeached, though not convicted on similar charges. well, it is his right to litigate these questions. this takes time. it could take months, potentially even over a year for this question to go from the district court, where he has lost on the immunity questio

paula reid reports. >> reporter: the supreme court facing increasing pressure to weigh in on whether states can remove former president trump from the 2024 ballot. after maine became the second state to kick him off based on the 14th amendment's ban on insurrectionists holding public office. >> no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on the 14th amendment, but no presidential candidate has ever engaged in insurrection. >> reporter: in maine, ballot eligibility questions first go to the secretary of state, not the courts. trump has called for democrat she tena bell lows to recuse herself because of previous comments about january 6 where she tweeted "the jan 6 insurrection was an unlawful attempt to overthrow the result of a free and fair election. she did not remove herself from the matter and now the issue heads to the courts. as trump and the state's republican party vow to appeal. >> our voting rights enshrined in the constitution are sacred to us. and to have one particular person remove really the top candidate from the ballot beca

. >>> you are in the cnn newsroom, i'm paula reid in washington, and happy new year's to all our viewers're counting down to the start of the new year. this is a live look at times square where just hours from now millions will witness the ball drop, revelers are already bundled up in the cold ready to ring in 2024. we have a live team of reporters mingling with the crowd and giving us an inside look at all the fun that's happening down there. but, the new year is already here for many parts of the world. here's a look at dubai's incredible fireworks show earlier tonight. let's take a look. ♪

. >> more now from paula reid. >> reporter: this is a remarkable case from the colorado supreme court, they acknowledge and write at the top of their opinion the magnitude and the weight of the questions that they are analyzing here. and here this court found that former president trump should be disqualified from being on the ballot in that state because they say not only did he engage in an insurrection, but they believe that the 14th amendment, which bars certain officials from holding office, if they engage this insurrection, applies even to presidents. now, a lower court oversaw a trial in this case, the lower court found that trump engaged in an insurrection, but they said that presidents are not specifically mentioned in that section three of the 14th amendment, so they said it didn't apply. but here the supreme court looking instead at the intent behind this amendment, looking at the overall objective of what they were trying to do when they were working on the language of this specific section. now, the issue there is that the trump campaign, the trump team made it clear, the