ears. and of course a previous biden family dog was also banished for biting. and ironically, just like fdr's snappy german shepherd, his name was major. still, comedy writer jill twist who wrote a book about him notes at least this is a different kind of political scandal. >> yeah, i feel bad for the dog that is what dogs do when they get freaked out. i feel bad for the family, because families love their dogs. i obviously feel terrible for people getting bit, because getting bit is terrible. but i'm not mad at anybody. and that's just really a good feeling. >> reporter: at best, white house dogs can be happy, and they can really humanize a president, making the most powerful person in the world seem like a lot of us just hanging out with our best friends. but at worse, well, sometimes for the dog and the humans, it just bites. erin? >> for the hippo. and hippos are not pleasantly dispositioned. let's just put it that way. >> i can't believe you had a

possum. >> briefly. i didn't succeed in saving my possum. but i did. all right, tom, thank you very much. and thanks to all of you for being with us. anderson starts now. tonight on "360," new reporting that donald trump allegedly disclosed potentially sensitive information about american nuclear subs at mar-a-lago to a fellow billionaire who reportedly told dozens more. also tonight with congressman jim jordan lobbying to be house speaker, he would take the job too. and later, one of the deadliest civilian attacks in the ukraine we have seen. more than 50 people killed at a wake for a fallen soldier. good evening. we begin with breaking news. the reporting comes from abc news, and it's about the former president on how allegedly reckless he has been. reckless, again, allegedly beyond keeping highly classified documents at his florida club in plain view for all to see. here is the lead paragraph of the story from abc news's

website. months after leaving the white house, former president donald trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about u.s. nuclear submarines with a member of his mar-a-lago club, an australian billionaire who then allegedly shared the information with scores of others, including more than a dozen foreign officials, several of his own employees, and a handful of journalists, according to sources familiar. the abc story identifies the billionaire as anthony pratt and says the fbi and federal prosecutors have interviewed him at least twice this year. in those interview, again, according to abc news sources, pratt told sources he struck up with a conversation with the former president during a meeting at mar-a-lago in twill 2021. reporting from the report, pratt told trump he believed australia should start buying its submarines from the united states, to which an excited trump, leaning toward pratt as if to be discreet, told pratt two pieces of information about u.s. submarines. the exact number of warheads they routinely carry and how close they can get to a russian

submarine without being detected, end quote. abc further reports that in subsequent emails and conversations, pratt described what he heard to at least 45 others, including six journalists, 11 of his company's employees, ten australian officials, and three former awes australian prime ministers. sources tell abc that a mar-a-lago employee told investigators that pratt began telling people within minutes of his conversation with the 45th president. the same sources saying this employee told investigators he was, quote, bothered and shocked, unquote, to hear that the former president had provided such seemingly sensitive information to a non-u.s. citizen. just before air time, a trump spokesperson put out a statement which reads these illegal leaks are coming from sources which totally lack proper context and relevant information. the department of justice should investigate the criminal leaking instead of perpetrating their baseless witch hunts on knowing that president trump did nothing wrong, has always insisted on truth and tran patiencesy and acted in a manner proper to the

law. "the new york times" as well, maggie haberman on the byline. our political analyst and author of "confidence man: the making of donald trump and the breaking of america." also joining us william cohen, cnn military analyst and retired general mark hertling and elie honig. maggie, what more have you learned from your reporting? >> we confirmed what abc reported, anderson, which is that trump had this conversation with mr. pratt, who is a member of mar-a-lago not long after leaving office. this was a conversation in which trump supposedly revealed a couple of pieces of sensitive information. now it's not clear exactly what trump said. we know that according to abc, it was specifics about capabilities and about distance that the submarines can go and how close they can get in certain cases. this is not -- it doesn't appear that he showed a document to this gentleman. but i don't know for prosecutors that that matters because our understanding is he is among the

trial witnesses who prosecutors have listed as possible people they will call. and what they would likely use him for is to establish a pattern of trump being loose with sensitive information and the government's secrets. >> so he might actually be called? >> he is among dozens of people who might be called. and this list stretches back through the white house years. because, anderson, as you know, as we've reported, as cnn is reported, trump has a history of allegedly talking about classified information or putting out classified information. there was an infamous oval office meeting with two russian officials where he is said to have spilled some sensitive information that upset israeli officials. he tweeted out a classified picture of an iranian launch site, i think it was in 2019. this is something he has done for a while. this is the kind of behavior that added to why president biden cut off trump's briefings that ex-presidents get to sensitive information and classified briefings, because

according to the current president, what could happen other than the trump would slip up and say something? >> secretary cohen, what's your reaction to this report? >> it's not surprising. i know it hasn't been validated completely. let's look at his history. his history is he has very little concern about national security interests, especially as it affects our military and our civilian population. he has given away secrets in the past, will do so in the future. in this case here, he is being given the benefit of the doubt. how much more evidence do we need of his misbehavior in terms of attacking our institution, the military those who give life and limb for by service to the country as losers and suckers. he has thrown the intelligence community under the bus in helsinki. everything he has done is to undermine respect for this country of ours. so we're watching the slow -- or i'd say even rapid dissolution of democracy under his hands. he is doing it day after day,

and this is just one more example of why we should never allow, never vote to allow him to get his hands on classified information in the future. he shouldn't be anywhere near the oval office ever. >> general, the capabilities of america's nuclear subs, close proximity they can get to an adversary subs, how valuable would information like that be to a foreign adversary or to people in the defense industry? >> yeah, what i'd say, anderson, is all classified information is provide only to those with a need to know. and every president needs to know a lot of stuff to help them in decision making. but that need to know also comes with a requirement not to disclose. if he was truly talking about capabilities as maggie said about the nuclear, sea-based part of our nuclear triad, i would suspect, and i don't know this for sure, that they're at the higher levels of security

clearances, either top secret or code word when you're talking about the nuclear force. that puts the country and as the secretary said, it puts service members in harm's way when he's giving up capabilities. and one other thing i'd add to that, if this alleged incident did occur, and it seems that it did, this is just one incident that's being reported. how many other times at mar-a-lago that one of his golf courses did he lean into somebody and put other secrets in our citizens in danger because he has given up other secrets? that's the thing that concerns me the most. >> the abc report says this billionaire, the australian billionaire went and talked to other people very quickly, and that fbi federal investigators have talked to him. the alleged incident is not part of the special counsel's -- or not the charges that he brought, but he is on the witness list. >> i think this could be golden evidence for prosecutors, you're right. the indictment does not

specifically mention this incident, and it does mention other incidents where donald trump does show people classified documents. the infamous incident at bedminster. that said, prosecutors often do not, and do not have to list all of their evidence in an indictment. you can introduce evidence that goes beyond what's in the indictment, but it has to be relevant. and the relevance here is to intent. it goes to donald trump's stooimd. it goes to a pattern. it goes to answer the question what was he doing with all of this information any way? and if he is out there disseminating it to people, i think it's really going to resonate with the jury. >> maggie, there any reason to believe that access to president at mar-a-lago is any free-wheeling than it has been over the past few years? >> no, i think it's exactly the same. what is different is he doesn't have those documents at mar-a-lago anymore, as far as we know have all been either retrieved or turned over under subpoena or an fbi search. but he continues to entertain his members. again, it is worth noting that this gentleman who he was talking to, this australian

businessman is a member of mar-a-lago. he is somebody who joined mar-a-lago after trump became president. he is somebody who became pro-trump after not being pro-trump prior to the election, and he is somebody who "the new york times," my colleagues and i reported a couple of years back toward the end of the presidency was part of this broader effort of trump or a habit of trump's of melding the presidency and his business and his own persona into one. and so this gentleman, mr. pratt was invited to a state dinner 2019. he -- the president went to one of his factories in ohio. and so there is this atmosphere where there is a sort of seamless rolling of things related to the white house and things related to government secrets into aspects of trump's business. >> secretary cohen, abc news also reports that this billionaire, this australian guy went to tell more than a dozen other people. how difficult is it to stop this

game of telephone once sensitive information is out there? i can't remember if it was world war i or world war ii where there are posters the u.s. government put out loose lips sink ships. i mean, this is a prime example. >> exactly right, anderson. i was thinking back in greek mythology, or roman mythology, they had the bird rumor. and under rumor's feathers were eyes and ears. so that's how information spreads. so when you think i'm just giving this information to a friend, number one, it's a violation of law. but number two, that friend is going to spread it just like everybody else will. and they have a rumor they've heard. they have inside information. look how close i am to former president. i have this information and it just spreads like wildfire. you're not just giving it to a friend. you're potentially giving to it enemies as well. this is why it's so important. general hertling, you mentioned the submarines in particular. out of the triad, the submarine

is the one that is most secure for us because it's not targetable. a preemptive target can't go after subs. they can go after airplanes. they can go after land-based missiles, but not the subs. so they're special. and he is giving away special information on what is protecting us around the world. >> and general, to secretary cohen's point, it is just to bolster one's ego. that's why people in this case, it could seem unless there was some business quid pro quo here, it's just to make himself feel more important and look like you would think having the title of president would be enough. what kind of steps can the military actually take to limit damage when they know sensitive information is out there? once it's out, it's out. >> if they know exactly the kind of information, ( that's been given to others, they can certainly take steps to fence the information, fence the

capabilities, sense the type of secrets that have within given away. that's happened multiple times, anderson. we look at spice that have gwynn information to foreign governments, and there is that reaction of the intelligence community or the military or the state department to try and mitigate the risks that can occur with this. but you never expect it out of a president. i mean, he is giving secrets to people, and carrying secrets into his home where, you know, everyone that is read in to classified documents signs a piece of paper that says i will not divulge this because each of these secrets have something to do with national security and divulging it could cause either grave or serious harm to the united states. and it appears that there have been incidents with president trump just willy-nilly giving that, because he wants to appear big. there have been times on cnn where you all have asked me questions that i've known the answer to because of my background and because of secret information i had, but i'm not going to give it up to you.

i mean, maggie will try to get it from anonymous sources and others will, but they'll never give up the details of this secret information because people that take the oath know that these kinds of things harm the country, number one, and number two, if they're found out giving it, they can be held accountable with a lot of jail time, as elie will probably talk about. >> so elie, he is an australian billionaire. i don't know what his -- i assume if he has any u.s. citizenship. can a foreign national be -- that's a photo of him with the former president. can a foreign national be compelled to testify? >> absolutely, yes. there is a probably called multilateral assistance treaty. it's a treaty we have certain countries, including australia to compel someone to comply with a subpoena. he might also testify voluntarily. and to general hertling's point, it is a freestanding crime to disseminate, to spread this type of classified information. not charged at this point, but jack smith may be chewing on that now. >> elie honig, thanks.

maggie haberman, general hertling. next, jim jordan lobbying moderates and the former president says he is ready to do the job too. later, ukraine. not even a memorial service in a rural area is safe from russian attack. one of the deadliest attacks from russians in the war so far.

it's classic tale of an authoritarian populist who really has a grip on the emotional, psychological needs and desires of a portion of the population. and the base of the republican party, for whatever combination of reasons, and it is emotional and psychological, sees in him someone who speaks for them. and they are determined that they will continue to vote for him, attend his rallies, wear his merchandise because for whatever reason, he and his very

negative, nasty form of politics resonates with them. maybe they don't like migrants. maybe they don't like gay people or black people or the woman who got the promotion at work they didn't get. so it is like a cult. and somebody has to break that momentum. >> secretary clinton was also asked about congressman jim jordan who is now trying to win over moderate republicans in his bid for the speakership. >> it said that the main contenders for his position are jim jordan, who you knew very well from benghazi. >> well, i don't know him well. i watched him. and stared at him for 11 hours while he made stuff up about me. so i don't know him, but i've seen him in action. >> so what will it mean if he gets the speakership? >> he is one of the principle ringleaders of the circus that has been created in the republican party for the last several years. when you look at the extremists in the house, they certainly don't represent a majority of the country. and, you know, somebody has to

stand up and say enough. >> melanie zanona joins us with more on the speaker's race, and if anyone is even close to a candidate. can his history with maga elements complicate his bid for speaker? >> anderson, i think that could be one of his biggest vulnerabilities in this speaker's race. of course his flame-throwing brand of politics, as well as the fact he is the face of the biden impeachment inquiry is going to be a top sell among vulnerable districts, particularly in the districts won by joe biden. and one jump shot lawmaker who is a moderate told cnn he is not anxious to support jordan, and that challenge is he built the monster. that's part of the problem. remember, jordan was a cofounding member of the freedom caucus, which was home to many of the members that ultimately voted to oust kevin mccarthy. but jim jordan knows he has his work cut out for him. he hansen been making calls, trying to win over the moderates. and part of his pitch i'm told is he is the best position to

unite the conference, in part because he has the ear and respect of that freedom caucus. and one other group i would look out for is the moderate members who were loyal to kevin mccarthy. because a lot of bad blood between kevin mccarthy and steve scalise, the other republican who is running has happened over the years. and jim jordan was really a loyal ally of kevin mccarthy, particularly in january during the speaker's race. that could really go a long way in convincing at least some of these members to get behind jim jordan. >> so could donald trump actually become speaker, especially given he is under federal indictment? >> well, that is a pretty far-fetched idea, anderson. first of all, there are conference rules in the republican party that state that any member who is indicted on felony charges that carry a prison sentence of two or more years has to step down from their leadership post. now it's unclear how that would apply to someone who is already indicted stepping into the role. and they couldn't always change the rules that would take the requirement of 218 votes from

republicans. just electing trump as speaker is going to take 218 votes. and he does not have the support of the republican party and remains a very polarizing figure inside the gop. >> how many do you talk -- of the republicans you talk to, do many really want him to be speaker? >> of course there are some hard-core supporters like marjorie taylor greene who are egging on this idea and floating it openly. but i talked to one republican lawmaker who told me this illusi solution to chaos isn't to bring in a chaos agent. there are 18 republicans in districts that were won by joe biden. there are two republicans are still around that voted to impeach donald trump. so they're not going to be on board with a trump speakership in any form. and meanwhile, i don't know that donald trump wants this job. he has a presidential candidate, campaign he needs to think about. he has court battles he has to fight. i do think perhaps he is bringing up this idea for some more attention and more headlines. but that hasn't stopped some of

his most loyal supporters trying to push this idea. a potentially he could come to capitol hill next week. >> i'm shocked about your suggestion this could be about a attention and headlines. this very much. alyssa farah griffin who once worked for jim jordan when he chaired the house freedom caucus. jordan is trying to lock down support of moderates. former president says put me in, coach. what do you make of this situation? >> so listen, both steve scalise and jim jordan declared likely candidates kind of take votes from each other. so steve scalise has the moderates in his corner. i would suspect jim jordan would choose a founding member and chairman of tomorrow. i guess as a group they would endorse him as a bloc. as matt gaetz suggested, he would lower his requirements for the motion to vacate for a jim jordan speaker. that's a big selling point within the conference. this notion of the motion to vacate hanging over everyone's head and speakers only last agency few months is a problem. but neither of these candidates have 218 votes. not even close to it.

so what i'd expect is next week you're going to see a private conference ballot. they do not make their votes public. and they're going realize that nobody has the majority of votes. now the donald trump idea and all this, i'm considering it political fan fiction at this point. he doesn't know how to do the job. it's a functional role for one thing. he also wouldn't have the votes. even the most die-hard house republicans i think would admit that he would be a further agent of chaos. he is not somebody who can fund the government. and i think he would get under 150 votes in a private ballot. >> can jim jordan win over moderates? >> it's a very tough sell. anyone who has been part of the house republican conference since the early days of the freedom caucus i think would say that jim jordan is not someone you can expect to pass a government funding bill and divide the government. that's 43 days ahead. that's going to be his biggest hurdle. he is a good messenger. he is a good face for the party in an era when they want to go after joe biden and talk about the impeachment inquiry. a scenario that i could see happening, though i've not heard

many rumblings of this is ultimately a deal being cut between scalise and jim jordan. one is speaker. one is leader where they burden share and trying to bring everyone into the fold. right now the votes do not exist for any one individual. >> if there is a battle going on for the soul of the republican party, i'm not sure it is going on, or it's already been won by the trump wing, what would a jim jordan speakership say about the future of the republican party? >> i mean, that would be the logical almost conclusion of the trump era, would be somebody who was instrumental in going after john boehner, him leading, somebody who started the freedom caucus, who became the biggest defender of trump. he received the biggest presidential medal of freedom from donald trump for his efforts and investigating hillary clinton. him becoming speaker could be the icing of the cake of this is donald trump's party. it is not the party of paul ryan, the reagan republican party anymore. >> alyssa farah griffin, thank you so much. more on the man who sparked all this. our randi kaye went to matt

gaetz's congressional district to see what his constituents think of it all. >> what do you think about matt gaetz leading that move to oust speaker kevin mccarthy? >> i think it's a great move on his part. he is a hero to me. >> a hero is how republican voter billy mitchell sees matt gaetz. here on the northwestern edge of florida's panhandle in gaetz's congressional district, voters like mitchell are in good company. >> matt gaetz believes he did what his constituents want. do you support that? is that what you wanted? >> absolutely. i'd like to see the government shut down entirely for a while. maybe our money won't be going to ukraine. >> reporter: not every republican we met backed gaetz's ousting mccarthy. >> strong conservative, we thought this was a mistake. >> reporter: jean-roberts is chairman of the county republican party. >> i don't think the majority of constituents really wanted that. it would have been better if it

simply supported him, worked together and got the job done without all this waste of time. >> reporter: republican buddy cummings had nothing good to see about the gaetz-led rebellion in the house. >> now we don't have a leader. so i think it creates so much more chaos. >> reporter: gaetz would disagree. >> i don't think voting against kevin mccarthy is chaos. i think $33 trillion in debt is chaos. >> i don't know if he is about trying to create a circus, that he is trying to be the ringleader of it, but i think it's very dangerous. >> reporter: and this independent voter, he's no fan of gaetz either. >> matt gaetz is a bully. i'm one of his constituents, and i disagree. so he won't be getting my vote. >> reporter: this woman, a democrat, believes gaetz's push to remove mccarthy was personal, related to the house ethics committee investigation of gaetz. >> i think it was absolutely personal. it kind of comes across as attention seeking. i don't think that anything he does is really for the good of

the constituents. i think it's what's good for him. >> reporter: gaetz, now 41, was born in hollywood, florida, but grew up in the panhandle. he earned a bachelor's degree from florida state university and later graduated william and mary law school. gaetz worked as an attorney before becoming a florida state senator in 2010, alongside his wealthy father. don gaetz was a state senator from 2006 to 2016. now 75, he has announced plans to run again. in 2016, matt gaetz was elected to the u.s. house of representatives. now with some republicans calling for gaetz to be expelled from the house gop conference, his own political future may be in jeopardy. do you think he should remain in congress? >> if it was up to me, absolutely not. >> i think we all need to calm down, get along. work together. well can work with matt gaetz. >> randi kaye joins us. given the electoral makeup of that part of florida, is support for gaetz surprising?

>> it's not really surprising, anderson. no. this is a very red part of the state. the first congressional district here in the panhandle. in fact, back in 2020, donald trump won this district by a very wide margin. he got more than 65% of the vote compared to joe biden who got about 33% of the vote. and just last year here, matt gaetz won reelection in this district by nearly 36 percentage points. this is very friendly republican territory. i spoke with a lot of people today on both sides of the aisle that do expect matt gaetz will win reelection again next year. >> randi kaye, thanks much. coming up, the former president claiming he is immune from prosecution by the special counsel in a claim that could go all the way to the supreme court. plus, more testimony in his civil fraud trial that ties him to the allegedly inflated valuations that could potentially cost him hundreds of millions of dollars.

the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? it's true. plus, when you buy your first line of mobile, you get a second line free. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide.

wireless that works for you. it's not just possible. it's happening. more legal issues for the former president tonight in the civil fraud trial under way in new york. testimony from a former top records keeper for the trump organization who is also a defendant appeared to back up the state's claim that trump knew about the allegedly inflated financial claims this company was making. specifically, he testified about a handwritten note that read djt to get final review. also, we should note that despite claiming he was forced to appear at his fraud trial and, quote, they took me off the campaign trail, the former president was not in court today because you don't have to be for a civil trial. so he was lying when he said that. there is a new filing in jack smith's case for trump trying to overturn the 2020 election. former trump attorneys asked the judge to dismiss all criminal charges.

they say he has immunity because he was president and he was acquitted by the senate. it's a claim that could wind up before the supreme court. back with us is elie honig and joined by law school professor jessica roth. does the former president have a chance of getting federal election interference case thrown out? >> he does. and some of the motions, including the impeachment part of this one are ridiculous. and you can dismiss them out of hand. but not this. this has real consequences and there is a lot of unknown territory here. let me clarify what we do and don't know. we do know that a president has civil immunity, meaning he cannot be sued for anything he did within the broad parameters of his job. what we don't know, the supreme court has said we don't know whether that applies to a criminal charge, so this could be the moment when we find that out, and whether trump was in fact acting within the broad parameters of being president. i don't think trump is going to win at the district court. i don't think judge chutkan is going to grant him this dismissal. but he is not playing for judge chutkan here. he is thinking of the u.s.

supreme court. i think there is a reasonable nonzero chance that he wins, and if he does, this chase goes away. >> what do you think? do you think this is headed for the appeals court and maybe the supreme court? >> absolutely. this is headed for the d.c. court of appeals and the u.s. supreme court. this is a serious motion. it's well written. and the issues are tremendously significant. and the court, as elie said, has not ruled on whether or not a president or a former president enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution. in cases in the civil context that have already been decided by other judges in the d.c. district court, the court where judge chutkan sits, courts have ruled that former president trump does not enjoy immunity from civil suits for actions related to january 6th. and so i think this judge is probably going to be somewhat influenced by the other decisions in that regard, but ultimately, this is going to the d.c. circuit and the u.s. supreme court. and really, it's going to turn on how broadly the court characterizes the facts.

what trump is asking is the court to say look, in a very broad man either the actions i took. i was communicating with members of the department of justice. i was communicating with state election officials. those are the kinds of acts that a president undertakes as part of his official duties. and what i expect, the response is going to respond is no, you have to look at a more specific level at what he was doing and whether those actions are consistent with the president's role. >> what would the timeline, though, of all this going into the supreme court be? >> well, it's going to depend on how quickly this case gets up to the d.c. circuit, and how quickly it rules, and how ex-sped dibsly it gets up to the u.s. supreme court. the d.c. circumstances kit and other courts dealing with the trial. >> all the trial, there would have be a sentence and go appeals. >> unless he persuade as court to grant a stay which is what we see him asking for in a variety of context and other co-defendants asking for stays. but they have yet to be successful. >> and elie, if he was

successful in the immunity claims on this, would this have ramifications for the georgia trials? >> oh, yes. i think if trump wins this one, if he gets the u.s. supreme court to say you're immune from criminal prosecution for jack smith's case, fannp fani willis is all but gone as well. there have some different nuances be, the core of the conduct that fani willis is the attempt to steal the election in georgia. that's included in jack smith's indictment. if he prevails here, there is a reasonable chance, i'm not saying it's more likely than not, but it's also not a 5% chance, not a 10% chance. if he succeeds here, he is going to knock out the jack smith election interference case and probably fani willis' case too. >> in the fraud trial, the former president's attorney told a judge that they plan to seek a stay tomorrow. is it clear what their argument for pausing is? >> no. and that's what we're waiting to hear is also, what is the scope of this day? are they seeking a stay of the

trial? are they seeking a stay of the judge's order that would rescind the certificates to do business? what parts of the judge's order from last week are they seeking to stay. so we'll know more about that tomorrow. >> and elie, when you look at that case, how long of a trial do you think that's going to be? >> they say it could take into december. trials do sometimes have a way of compressing, especially when remember, this is being tried to a judge, not a jury. you can simplify the issues. you can do away with some of the histrionics. the judge has even said in this case, okay, folks, there is not a jury here. let's get right to the point. i peg it at six to eight weeks if i had to guess. >> thank you so much. appreciate it. coming up now, more than 50 civilians killed in a russian missile strike on a village in eastern ukraine. many of the victims were gathered for a wick for a fallen soldier. cnn is on the scene with the latest, ahead.

♪♪ alex! mateo, hey how's business? great. you know that loan has really worked wonders. that's what u.s. bank is for. and you're growing in california? -yup, socal, norcal... -monterey? -all day. -a branch in ventura?

that's for sure-ah. atms in fresno? fres-yes. encinitas? yes, indeed-us. anaheim? big time. more guacamole? i'm on a roll-ay. how about you? i'm just visiting. u.s. bank. ranked #1 in customer satisfaction with retail banking in california by j.d. power. ukrainian officials say russia fired a cruise missile hitting a cafe and shop in a small eastern ukrainian village. at least 51 civilians were killed, including a 6-year-old boy in one of the deadliest attacks of the war. several victims were attending a wake for a fallen soldier. cnn's fred pleitgen is on the scene. >> reporter: an absolutely devastating attack that happened here in the village hroza in eastern ukraine. we're actually pretty far away from the front lines. i would say 25 miles away from the front lines. nevertheless, as you see this building here, absolutely

annihilated. the ukrainians are saying that this was a supermarket and a cafe. now they say there was an event going on at the cafe, that there were a lot of people in the cafe for some sort of funeral event for someone who was local to here. they also say more than 50 people were killed in this attack. and the bodies were absolutely mangled. i want to show you over here, you can see that a lot of the forensic work is actually still going on over there. we're obviously not going to go close to there, because some of the bodies really are not in very good condition. the ukrainians are telling us that because of the thrust of the explosion, because the explosion was so strong, that they actually haven't been able to identify all of the bodies yet, simply because they're in such bad condition. the ukrainian authorities say that the missile that was used to destroy this building was an iskander. that's a medium range missile with a massive warhead that can do a lot of damage. and obviously when it's dropped on a fairly small building like

this one, the result, well, you can see it right here. >> fred pleitgen joins us now live. fred, what are president zelenskyy, other ukrainian leaders saying about the strike? >> well, they're absolutely angry and irate about all this, anderson. i want to show you some more devastation that we're seeing here. you can see that this building here, it hasn't just been destroyed. it's been reduced to rubble. these are the kind of things we'd see if there was a magnitude 8 earthquake that has gone through here. that's how powerful that explosion was. president zelenskyy of this country, he was in spain today meeting european leaders. and of course, this is one of the main things that was on his mind. and he said it shows the need for ukraine to have better air defense systems. because precisely the kind of missile that hit this building, the iskander cruise missile that does a lot of damage in wide parts of ukraine. obviously has devastating effect when it hits civilian areas. we know, anderson, that there are larger cities in ukraine that are better protected by air defense systems.

this one, if a missile is fired like that it does do a lot of damage to these kind of civilian areas. that's certainly one of the things president zelenskyy pointed out. of course, coming back to some of the uncertainty with weapon supplies coming from the u.s. as well, the ukrainians saying look, this is one of the best examples of why they continue to need aid, why they continue to have to try and drive the russians from their land. because, of course, they understand this is not the only time this happened. and they fear this could happen once again in the future, anderson. >> fred pleitgen, thanks very much. just ahead, the former president goes after his former chief of staff, retired general john kelly, confirming the disturbing statements that trump allegedly made about wounded veterans and soldiers killed in action. details ahead.

c'mon, we're right there. c'mon baby. it's the only we need. go, go, go, go! ah! touchdown baby! -touchdown! are your neighbors watching the same game? yeah, my 5g home internet delays the game a bit. but you get used to it. try these. they're noise cancelling earmuffs. i stole them from an airport. it's always something with you, man. great! solid! -greek salad? exactly! don't delay the game with verizon or t-mobile 5g home internet. catch it on the xfinity 10g network.

donald trump is now attacking his former chief of staff, retired general john kelly, who was unsparing in his criticism of his one-time boss in an exclusive given to cnn's jake tapper. kelly confirmed a number of damning statements the former president made behind closed doors. described the former president as, quote, a person who thinks those who defend their country

or spend years being tortured are all suckers because there's nothing in it for them. he didn't want to be in the presence of military amputees, it doesn't look good for me. by far, the dumbest of my military people picked up the theme of the radical left's lying. he was incapable of doing a good job, i couldn't stand the guy, so i fired him like a dog. trump also mentioned trump. his wife, who suffered a lot, told me he would never speak badly about president trump. jake tapper joins me now. jake, obviously the former president's reaction is pretty typical. it's about what one would expect. he of course even brought in general kelly's wife into his argument. >> yeah. but fundamentally the stories that we have heard that john kelly is now confirming on the

record were sourced by multiple people when jeffrey goldberg wrote that story for "the atlantic" in 2020 about all those horrific thing that donald trump, as president, said about veterans who were killed in action, about veterans who were in the cemetery in france, killed in world war i, about wounded veterans, and on and on and on. those were sourced to multiple people behind the scenes. john kelly is just the first person to acknowledge it and confirm it on the record. >> the thing that has, again, shocked, not surprised, me is the lack of response from republicans. i don't know if privately you're hearing from republicans something. but publicly certainly, if any other politician, democrat or republican, would have said anything like this, you would think there would be outrage. >> when barack obama saluted a marine as president while holding a cup of coffee in his hand, that was fox news banner

headlines for a week. just because he held a coffee in his hand while he did a salute. so, correct. it's outrageous. and one of the things that i think has escaped the notice of a lot of people, but olivier knox in "the washington post" notes today is that what general kelly picked up on, the statement about the execution of general milley is that in kelly's view, trump doing that, trump saying, you know, not so long ago, a guy like milley would be executed for such a thing, in kelly's view, that's trump wanting somebody to act, if you look at the statement he gave me, wanting somebody to take matters into his own hands, that call for violence. and i think that's one of the things that's so shocking about it is other than the likes of the kinzingers and the cheneys and the romneys of the world,

where are the republicans? including the nikki haleys and the ron desantis' and the tim scotts who are running against trump. why are they not saying anything about this sort of thing? >> well, i mean, lindsey graham, who was in the military -- i haven't heard anything from him either. >> no. i mean, it's shocking. and, you know, we've seen this before, not just with donald trump but during the joe mccarthy era. when people say and do indecent things and are not challenged at all by people within their own party, it just gets worse and worse and worse. >> also, i mean, the president has -- the former president has said that nobody loves the military more than he does. i mean, if all of these statements are true -- and again, from general kelly and all the other sources, there's no reason to believe they are not true, multiple people have confirmed these statements, he

doesn't understand -- the former president doesn't understand why people join the military, doesn't see what's in it for them, which is what he said about those who were in arlington. and if you fight and get wounded and disabled or disfigured, he doesn't want you around him because it doesn't look good for him. i mean, that's who this person is. >> well, i don't think that somebody who tries to get out of the military by pretending to have bone spurs -- and look, lots of people tried to get out of service in vietnam. and i'm not here to cast dispersion. but i don't think anybody who tries to get out of the service in the military can credibly say that nobody loves the military more than them, when there are people who actually joined the military, volunteer to serve,

devote their life to the military, and their families join the military too. they actually -- general milley served his country honorable bli, including on the front lines of battle for four decades. to say that nobody loves the military more than somebody who never served versus somebody who did is ridiculous. >> jake tapper, thank you. >> thank you, anderson. coming up next, remembering the life and career of nfl hall of famer dick butkus.

bittersweet reminder now that carl sandberg is write, chicago is the city of dave shoulders. the legendary nfl linebacker dick butkus was born 80 years ago. overnight he died peacefully, which was not how he played, not at the university of illinois and certainly not throughout the 60s and '70s with the chicago bears. he was a terror on the field and a champion in every ns