♪

a dictator on day one, but only day one. donald trump in his own words on what a second trump presidency will look like. a cnn exclusive, guess who was on the witness list when donald trump goes on trial in georgia? former vice president mike pence, on a coalition course for a historic courtroom standoff. and a rampage across two cities leaves six people dead in texas. the grisly killings at five different crime scenes. i'm sara sidner with john berman and kate bolduan. this is "cnn news central." ♪ a dictator for a day. donald trump in iowa last night offered ample -- offered ample opportunity by a fredly host and audience to make clear he won't lean into his authoritarian tendencies if he wins the election, an opportunity that

trump took and did this -- >> do you in any way have any plans whatsoever if reelected president to abuse power, to break the law, to use the government to go after people? >> you mean like they're using right now. >> also in all of that asked about being a dictator. we will get to morph that in a moment. "politico's" take on it all, a presidential front runner ideally musing about being a dictator even for a day is not normal stuff. also not normal is this, a former vice president possibly testifying against his former boss who is facing multiple indictments for trying to steal an election that he lost while he's currently running for president again. all of that to say prosecutors in georgia have now put mike pence on their witness list in the state's 2020 election subversion case. one has to wonder if any or all

of this will come up in the presidential debate tonight. four republican presidential candidates taking the stage in another face-off. again, not on the list will be, of course, the front runner, donald trump. skipping it again while he remains 50 plus points ahead in the polls for the republican nomination. cnn's alayna treene leads us off. take us to last night to understand where we are today. what happened in this interview? >> reporter: yeah, well, i think you showed some of that clip earlier, kate, where sean hannity tried a few times to get donald trump to deny that if he were elected in 2024 to the white house that he would not abuse presidential power, he would not use the government to go after his political enemies, but donald trump did not take the opportunity to do that. here is more of that exchange. >> under no circumstances you are promising america tonight you would never abuse power as

retribution against anybody. >> except for day one. >> except for -- >> he's going crazy. except for day one. >> meaning? >> i want to close the border and i want to drill, drill, drill. he says you're not going to be a dictator, are you? i said, no, no, no, other than day one. we're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling, after that i'm not a dictator, okay? >> now, to put it bluntly, kate, i mean it was a bit of a weird answer. i agree with "politico" on that. i mean, donald trump has completely -- or completely deflected last night from answering that question, instead he joked about being a dictator and tried to flip the script and put it on joe biden, arguing that biden is the one abusing his power and pointing to the four indictments that trump is facing. but, look, i think we need to be very clear here, donald trump has said publicly both on the campaign trail, but also in his interviews that he would try to weaponize the justice department to go after his enemies and i think, you know, a lot of this

is coming as there's intense media scrutiny on what a trump second term would look like and a lot of these plans that we have reported on and other outlets have reported on are planning that the campaign doesn't deny. now, i do think the reason there is so much attention around what an expansive second term could look like is not necessarily because trump's rhetoric is increasing on this, this is really the same language that he's been using since he announced that he was going to run for election last year, but it's bece six weeks away to the iowa caucuses and donald trump still has a commanding lead in the polls and that's led a lot of people, republicans, democrats, critics, to wonder what exactly would a second trump administration look like. >> good to see you. thank you. >> with me now is former obama administration official van jones and david urban, republican strategist and former trump campaign adviser. they are both cnn political analysts. with me in studio, van, i want

to replay the initial question from sean hannity. just so we are all -- >> pretty simple question. >> pretty simple question from a guy who isn't really trying to expose the former president here. let's listen. >> do you in any way have any plans whatsoever if reelected president to abuse power, to break the law, to use the government to go after people? >> do you have any plans to abuse power, break the law or go after people? and here is the thing, van, we timed it. he didn't answer that question for five minutes. for five minutes. >> wow. >> he obfuscated, didn't give a yes or no. for five minutes. and when he finally did answer, the answer was dictator on day one. what do you hear there? >> well, i mean, in some ways it's kind of like the guy at ellis island, they say do you have a case of overthrowing the government which force or

violence? and he goes, violence? this is a very easy question, a simple yes or no question, and there was an opportunity to set the record straight, to tell people i do not plant to do this. i plan to follow the law. he didn't do it. there's not a simple human being on earth that would take more than five seconds to answer a question like that the right way, he couldn't get it five in five minutes. >> david, i want to make clear. this isn't a complete vacuum when it comes to trump himself or the people he has surrounded himself with including kash patel who worked in the last administration, i know you know kash patel. "the new york times" noted today an interview with steve bannon patel said, quote, we will go out and find the conspirators not just in the government but in the media. yes, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about american citizens. we're going to come after you whether it's criminally or civilly. >> it's nuts, right? it's crazy. i can tell you firsthand that i know that the trump campaign and the inner circle of the trump campaign which kash patel is not

part of is none too happy with those comments. they're indefensible. clearly indefensible. so to be out there saying that, there's no way you can respond to it other than say it's just wrong, right? what he's saying is wrong. >> you will say that and the campaign will say that, unfortunately the candidate won't say that, that's the problem. >> and to your point about what the former president said last night to hannity, look, hannity twisted his arm a little bit and saying, saying uncle, say uncle, donald trump. you know this, van knows this, when trump gets pushed into a corner he's not going to admit that he did something wrong. he said i will be a dictator insomuch as that i am going to close the border, insomuch as i'm auto going to drill. if those things are being a dictator i'm a dictator. >> that was after five minutes of not promising he wouldn't abuse power. >> he was being too cute by half. as we get closer and closer to the election there will be more

scrutiny. the only person that's going to beat donald trump in this election is donald trump, not joe biden, not nikki haley. >> how should voters interpret this? >> i think when somebody tells you who they are, you should believe them. this is -- i think people forget a democratic republic, it's the most rare form of government in human history. you have 10,000 years of human history, ours is the oldest, it's a couple hundred years old. these things fall apart all the time. the usual thing a strong man comes on the scene and you don't have a democracy anymore. that's happening in countries around the world, it can happen here. he's trying to be cute, trying to be clever, that's what people who like him think. but if you have somebody who is in a position of power, your boss or your clergy men, whatever, who talked about power the way he does, you would be very concerned. you would be concerned about america today. >> go ahead. >> celine my friend coined this phrase which is very popular during the 2016 campaign, you

know, trump supporters take him seriously but not literally. his detractors take him literally but not seriously. i think you're seeing more of that today. >> do you think that still holds after he's been in office for four years? liz cheney, by the way, liz cheney distinctly doesn't, the atlantic doesn't, other people have been talk being that this week. i want to play liz cheney from last night. she seems to be saying we don't have the luxury, she says, of taking literally or seriously. we have to pay attention because it's different this time. listen. >> i think it's naive and a real misreading of what we've lived through to think that we can count on the guardrails that we have in place. donald trump tried to seize power in 2020, he's learned the lessons of 2020 and 2021, and so i think anybody who says, well, don't worry, you can count on the balance of power and the institutions, that's really wishful thinking that we can't afford. >> van? s>> i think she's right.

any job you have you're a little better the second day than you are the first or the second year than you are the first, the second time than you are the first. the first time donald trump got there he didn't think he was going to win in the first place, he had a campaign team a very small one, he didn't have the governing capacity. now he knows how this thing works and a lot of the marbles that people put on the stairs for him, the banana peels that people put on the sidewalk for him those people won't be there. he will be expected to deliver on these promises. i think people should take it seriously. it won't just be this kind of circus type of thing. he's going to come in with a disciplined plan to do a lot of stuff that could could hurt a lot of people. >> who is going to stop him? >> he's going to have a plan, take down some institutions and things that dismantle some things that he doesn't like and republicans don't like, but i do think -- i disagree with liz cheney that our government is going to collapse if donald trump -- i disagree thabreathle atlantic article or the economist saying he is the greatest threat to democracy and

the world this 2024. he will challenge the things going on in washington. he will get elected. >> who is going to keep him from crossing a line? >> listen, there is a system in place, checks and balances, there is a senate, right, the senate has to confirm people. >> josh hawley, ted cruz? >> you know this, you need 60 votes to get anything done in the senate. 60 votes. when the republicans controlled the house, senate and the white house they couldn't get things done. you need advice and consent to confirm people. >> what you are talk being is for legislation and confirmationes. >> yeah. >> on a day to day basis, hour by hour, minute by minute basis the president of the united states does a lot of stuff and that person doesn't respect the rules and has a team of people who don't that's a dangerous situation. >> that's the assumption you're going to make. >> van jones, david urban, thanks. >> there will be more of this. >> good morning, brother. >> sara? six people have been killed in a wave of violence across two texas cities. police say the rampage started

tuesday morning in san antonio. two people were killed at a home in what police say was a grizzly crime scene. the violence continued in austin where four more people were killed and two police officers and a bicyclist were shot and wounded. police say all of this violence is linked to one suspect who has been arrested. cnn's ed lavandera joins us now from dallas. give us a sense of what happened here and how this played out. >> reporter: good morning, sara. well, this is a troubling timeline. investigators believe that the killings started -- this killing spree started yesterday morning in the san antonio area where a man and woman were found dead in their home as investigators described it as a grizzly scene. and then it moved to austin, around just before 11:00 a.m. at a high school in austin, a school police officer was shot and wounded in the leg. two hours after that a shooting was reported at another home and that is where investigators

discovered the bodies of another man and woman. and then several hours after that there was a man on a bicycle who reported being shot and wounded as well. and then after that there was a burglary report where investigators found the suspect in the backyard, exchanged gun fire with him and that led to a chase where they eventually captured this man, but inside that home there were two other people dead. so basically five different shooting scenes, six people killed, three people wounded, two of those police officers, and investigators in san antonio said, as i mentioned, that the initial shooting scene was a grizzly crime scene. >> i think it happened and i believe the bodies were relocated to where they are now and they're wedged inside a very small room. they are up against the door so we are not able to fully make entry. but we can see that clearly they're deceased in there, but certainly it's a pretty grizzly crime scene in there. >> reporter: so after the last

shooting took place there yesterday afternoon in austin, there was a chase. investigators and police there in austin took a man in his 30s into custody. he is now facing capital murder charges. what we're still waiting to find out more about is what is the motivation behind all of this. is there a connection between all of these different shooting and murder scenes as well. that information we still don't know at this point. sara? >> it is just stunning the number of people and places that he went on this killing spree. thank you so much, ed lavandera, with that report. kate? coming up for us, senators in a shouting match. what happened in a closed-door briefing of cabinet officials and the u.s. senate? we will have more on that and why it now has the push to help ukraine and israel on the brink of collapse. plus, cnn exclusive reporting on who is on the witness list for donald trump's georgia election interference case. it is not taylor swift. i will tell you that. for one thing. but new this morning taylor

swift was just named "time's" person of the year. we will be right back.

this morning sounds of alarm from the u.s. senate, quote, i just don't think there's any question that we are about to abandon ukraine. that from democratic senator chris murphy after a classified briefing on ukraine turned into a shouting match with more than a dozen republicans walking out. a test vote on ukraine aid could come as soon as today. cnn's lauren fox is on capitol hill with the very latest this morning. what's the status, lauren? >> reporter: yeah, and, john, this is all stemming from the reality that a lot of republicans and democratic senators they agree on the reality that more money needs to be sent to ukraine. what they disagree about and why

this briefing yesterday behind closed doors got so tender points -- tense is that they do not have any agreement on what to do at the southern border and what policy changes democrats and republicans could agree to live with moving forward. that issue has vexed the overall supplemental package for moving forward. we expect a procedural vote later this afternoon on that package, but we also expect that republicans are going to vote against it. behind closed doors yesterday in that intelligence briefing that was classified, you had senators arguing that things got so tense that they devolved into a shouting match. here is majority leader chuck schumer. >> it was immediately hijacked by leader mcconnell. then when i brought up the idea that they could do an amendment and have the ability to get something done on border, you know, they get -- they got stuck. they didn't like it and even one of them started -- was

disrespectful and started screaming at one of the generals and challenging him to why he didn't go to the border. >> people got up and walked out because this is -- it's a waste of time. they just said, this isn't worth it. this is a joke. you are not serious about this. i'm going. you know, and i don't blame them. >> reporter: and you heard there majority leader schumer alluding to the fact that he says that republicans could have an amendment vote if they wanted on any border security policy they want to put forward, but that would require them getting bipartisan support because they would need 60 votes in the senate. that of course a very high bar to clear, john, and something that republicans are arguing just is not enough. they want democrats back at the negotiating table, they want to find a path forward that they can all agree to, add that to the bill and move that supplemental package forward. right now we are a long ways from that becoming a reality. john? >> a long ways. all right. lauren fox on capitol hill, thank you very much. kate? >> joining us now for more on this is republican senator pete ricketts of nebraska, he sits on

the foreign relations committee. thank you for coming in. why did it get so contentious in that briefing last night? what's going on here from your perspective? >> well, i think one of the things -- of course, these are very high stakes negotiations and so there is a lot on the line here. so i think temperatures are rising. i think we have to remain calm and cool. you know, at the end of the day divided government which means there has to be a negotiation here and frankly we've been talking about this since september. the president put it into his supplemental package so he brought the border in here. the speaker has been very clear about what he needs to see with regard to the border. we've got to have some policy changes, that's what we as republicans in the senate want to see. so this negotiation just has to get on to be able to move forward on the supplemental package. >> it sounds like this vote is going to fail today as lauren fox is laying it out. mcconnell has said that that should send a loud message to democrats of how serious you all are about the border and having it be included as part of this

negotiation. what message does it send to ukraine if this vote fails today? >> well, one of the things that i tell all of our allies that our democracies at least is they know that democracies are messy, that it takes time, you know, as winston churchill said it's the worst form of government except for all the other ones so this is just part of the process. so we've got to be able to continue to negotiate. frankly, i don't know how leadership expects anybody to vote for the supplemental when we haven't even seen -- we are not going to vote on something we don't know what we're voting on. that's crazy. that's not going to fly. hopefully it does send a message to democrats that we have divided government, there's going to have to be a negotiation, that this is important for everybody. there's broad agreement on supporting for ukraine, israel, indo-pacific. we've got to get something on the border. the president put it in his package. so we just need to sit down and get the negotiation under way. >> that's why this, i think, is -- makes people scratch their

heads. if this kind of broadly is an area where everyone agrees to support israel, to support ukraine, more funding for the border, why is it devolving into shouting matches? i mean, i look back and you've been consistent on your message for support for ukraine. in september after meeting with ukraine's president you put out a message saying if vladimir putin suck seetds in his brutal war in ukraine nato allies could be next and american lives would be at stake. if that's the stakes here, why not take these issues that you believe all relate to u.s. national security separately if it is so important and such a priority so that one doesn't get held up by the other? >> actually, kate, back in september i said the exact same thing was take these things up separately and we can vote on them independently if we want but that's not the way that the

president has chosen to do this. he's wrapped this all up into one package and frankly back in september i believe leader schumer was in the same place. what needs to happen here is the president needs to get on and engage directly with the negotiation, leader schumer needs to get on this. >> do you think that will actually shake this up if the president gets involved? do you think that's going to increase chances you guys reach agreement? >> there's going to have to be an agreement on the southern border. the president has made this an issue when he put it in his supplemental. he is going to have to get involved here to make sure that the policy changes that republicans want are part of this overall package for this to move forward. it is going to be up to the president to get involved and get this negotiated. >> senator, your party's leader, donald trump, he talked about and weighed in on the border crisis himself just last night. let me play this for you, just to remind you what he said. >> under no circumstances, you are promising america tonight,

you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody. >> except for day one. >> except for -- >> he's going crazy. except for day one. i want to close the border and i want to drill, drill, drill. >> that's not retribution. >> i'm going to be -- i'm going to be -- he keeps -- i love this guy. he says you're not going to be a dictator, are you. i said, no, no, no, other than day one. we're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. after that i'm not a dictator. okay? >> a dictator on day one to close the border. after that he says he won't be a dictator. does that concern you hearing him talk like that? >> well, donald trump is a candidate, but i can tell you what he's reflecting is the fact -- and i hear it in my office every day -- is that people are very concerned about the southern border. look, if you want us to get involved with how we're helping out other countries, a lot of americans are saying you've got to do our country right first.

we know that, for example, on sunday and monday 10,000 people came across that border. cbp can only process so many so they're getting released into this country. >> alejandro mayorkas was on cnn this morning talking about how clearly it is an issue at the border, but hearing donald trump talk about being a dictator, do you take him seriously? >> he's reflecting what americans are concerned about with regard to we've got to close the southern border. candidates will say what they want to say, but i will tell you right now it is a real issue with the american people and especially in my state. they're concerned about the drugs coming across, they're concerned about people on the terrorist watch list. we have got to do something on the southern border. it's going to involve policy changes. i've been to the border four times and the last time i was down there cbp was very clear they need policy changes and that's what we're asking for as republicans to get the supplemental passed. >> senator pete ricketts, thank you for your time.

sara? well, donald trump looked ahead to 2024, prosecutors in georgia are still looking to hold him accountable for the chaos that followed the 2020 election. a new witness has been added to the list, a person as close to the presidency as you can get. we will have that coming up.

first time i connected with kim, she told me that

her husband had passed. and that he took care of all of the internet connected devices in the home. i told her, “i'm here to take care of you.” connecting with kim... made me reconnect with my mom. it's very important to keep loved ones close. we know that creating memories with loved ones brings so much joy to your life. a family trip to the team usa training facility. i don't know how to thank you. i'm here to thank you. this morning a cnn exclusive, former vice president mike pence could be a key witness when donald trump goes on trial in georgia for trying to overturn the 2020 election there. sources tell cnn that fulton county prosecutors have a list of more than 150 potential witnesses who could be called to

testify, including mike pence. cnn's zachary cohen is on this reporting this morning. zach, what have you learned? >> reporter: john, this is really the first piece of concrete evidence that prosecutors in the georgia election subversion case are seriously considering calling former vice president mike pence to testify in a trial. on one hand that makes complete sense, right? we know from the indictment in this case that the pressure campaign on mike pence to throw out, to reject the electoral college voting votes in georgia is a key part of this broader conspiracy case that prosecutors have been building, but it's also interesting because mike pence has not testified under oath in the georgia case at all in any capacity. that's different than what we know about his engagement in the federal election subversion case overseen by special counsel jack smith. it's interesting, too, because pence was actually asked about his willingness to testify in the federal case back in august. take a listen to what he said then. >> i have no plans to testify,

but, look, we will always -- we will always comply with the law, but, look, i want to tell you, i don't know what the path of this indictment will be. there actually are profound issues around this, pertaining to the first amendment, freedom of speech. >> reporter: first amendment issues, no plans to testify, but also acknowledges he plans to -- will always comply with the law. we will see if that also applies to the georgia case, if he is called to testify as a witness. john, i have to remind you, too, if he does take the stand in the georgia case, it will be on camera. so there is a scenario where he and donald trump are in the room together as he testifies. >> and that we would see it as it happens. that's a great point. zach, terrific reporting. thank you very much. sara? >> we're joined now by cnn legal analyst and former federal prosecutor elliot williams. thank you for coming in for us again, elliot. pence officially listed as a witness. we know that he went before the

federal grand jury in the jack smith investigation, which is the federal investigation. why now do you think that prosecutors there in georgia are saying, do you know what, we're putting him on the witness list? >> well, we should talk about what a witness list is and isn't. prosecutors are obligated by law, sara, to notify the defense and the court of anybody that they might call as a witness at trial. now, who might you call as a witness at trial? someone who could provide what's called legally relevant evidence. evidence that proves or disproves a central point at trial. and when someone is on trial, they are a close colleague of theirs, a top lieutenant of theirs in a political case would certainly be a relevant witness. so, you know, mike pence even if prosecutors don't choose to call him, may have evidence that could be valuable to a prosecution over election subversion here. so, again, you know, who knows whether they actually end up

putting him on the stand. it was important to notify the defense that they did and he might be a valuable witness. >> okay. so let's move on to that other case, the federal case that's out of d.c. court. jack smith's case on the election subversion trial that is expected to begin next year. he's looking at sort of some new information that's been put into the court. trump's support for capitol rioters, to help know that he intended to inspire violence on january 6th, and i will read just a little bit of the evidence that they're putting forward. it says, evidence of the defendant's post-conspiracy embrace a particularly violent and notorious rioters is admissible to establish the defendant's motive and intent on january 6th that he sent supporters to the capitol to achieve the criminal objective of obstructing the congressional certification. what's he getting at here? >> right. so when you bring -- when

prosecutors seek to bring in what's called character evidence, and that's what that would be, it's evidence of the defendant 's traits, character, state of mind, whatever else. that that can be used to not just establish that he is a bad guy or was more or less likely to commit the defense, it is his motive of intent. it's similar to georgia, prosecutors have to issue a notice to the court and defendant when they intend to introduce such evidence. this could be incredibly valuable evidence for prosecutors if the judge allows it in in establishing what donald trump's state of mind might have been. one of the best examples and they note it in that pleading, sara, is that when donald trump says the words "stand back and stand by" to the proud boys, they then went and put it on their merchandise on their website. that could be evidence of at least knowledge of, you know, certainly not a link -- a direct link between donald trump and whipping up the proud boys, but they believed what he said and there was at least a meeting of the minds in some way from them,

and that can be used possibly to establish some form of knowledge or intent on the part of donald trump. >> a little bit of sort of cause and effect we saw playing out there. >> yeah. >> i do want to ask you, moving on to one more case, rudy giuliani. >> yeah. >> he's facing this defamation trial and he's just not showing up to court. what's going on here? and how might that affect the case? >> okay. a couple things. one, it is on rudy giuliani's lawyer as much if not more than on rudy giuliani when he fails to show up in court. you have to know where your client is and that's a failure on the part of his lawyer. so there's a few failures. number one, it's disrespectful to the court and to the time of prosecutors and defense attorneys when a party who has been summoned to court doesn't show up. so you're wasting everybody's time. two, there is a big sort of practical problem for the court now because what could happen at trial is the judge could put on a proceeding and then giuliani

could say, wait a second, i never agreed to that. my lawyer was the only person in court on that day. so, you know, you've wasted the court's time, but also created a practical problem because you can't have scenarios in which lawyer and attorney and court and prosecutor are not all in agreement as to how a proceeding is going to play out. so it's really -- it's more frustrating than anything else. it's created more work for the court and prosecutors and it's really, i think, in large part on rudy's lawyer, rudy giuliani's lawyer, than anything else. >> probably not great to upset the judge so much before you're in front of them on a case. >> no. >> thank you so much, elliot. i appreciate you coming in. kate? coming up still for us, new audio just out, a former israeli hostages confronting benjamin netanyahu in a private meeting, now freed hostages angry at the israeli government. we will be right back.

this morning the u.s. border patrol released body camera video of an agent rescuing a migrant who was drowning in the rio grande river in texas. the agent spotted the guatemalan man, quote, struggling to stay afloat in the river. one agent jumped in and pulled the man to shore. they say he is okay and did not need additional treatment and that he is in border control custody currently. kate? also this, in the past 24 hours the idf -- more than 250 hamas targets in gaza, multiple sources are telling cnn also that u.s. officials -- this current phase of israel's ground

operation to last for several weeks before shifting possibly to a lower intensity fight possibly in january. already today cnn has seen plumes of smoke continuing to rise once again over gaza. cnn's alex marquardt is in israel following all of this. alex, there is also another aspect of this to talk about. new audio has been released of freed hostages confronting the israeli prime minister. what is this about? >> reporter: yeah, this is really remarkable, kate, and it really speaks to the desperation and the anger that so many people in israel feel when it comes to the hostages who are still being held in gaza and the efforts or lack thereof, they say, by the government to free them. so this tape that was obtained by israeli news outlet wynet is the audio recording of a meeting between the hajts themselves and their families are prime minister benjamin netanyahu. they accuse him of playing

politics, of prioritizing politics over freeing the hostages. they say that the intelligence services in israel didn't have a good sense of where the hostages were being held and they say that israel's military campaign even endangered and wounded some of the hostages. i want to play a clip of one of the women in this meeting, she herself was a hostage with her children. they were freed, but her husband is still inside. she says that no one was doing anything for them, she says, and that israeli shelling actually wounded them. take a listen. >> translator: you will return them all, they will not wait 50 days. they will not wait another year because you claim that they are strong enough. you have no information. you have no information. the fact that we were shelled, the fact that no one knew anything about where we were. >> reporter: so that former hostage demanding of netanyahu that he get the rest of the hostages out now. at one point, kate, according to this recording people started

shouting "shame" at netanyahu. netanyahu defended the military action saying it was actually the military operations and pressure that led to the initial release of hostages and he went on to say that more military pressure will actually help get the rest of the hostages out. kate, the fact remains that just under 140 hostages, 138 to be exact, remain in the gaza strip and there is a lot of anger directed at the netanyahu government they believe -- they believe that the netanyahu government is not doing enough to get them home, kate. >> and you can hear it, the recording continues, there's even more to it and you can very clearly hear that in the recording there. alex, thank you. sara? she's really been flying under the radar, but not anymore. after so much anonymity, finally an award for taylor swift. also the loss of a television legend, iconic american television producer and creator norman lear has died. he revolutionized tv, pushed boundaries and made people smile

for generations. the life he lived and the shows we loved ahead. this is cnn .

we do have breaking news. word of an announcement any minute now from the department of justice and homeland security. this is enforcement over accused human rights violations of russians against an american or americans in ukraine and the details here are absolutely ext extraordinary. cnn's evan perez is here with the details. >> john, this is an extraordinary case that's been unsealed in the northern district of virginia. according to prosecutors they're bringing charges against four member of the russian military, a couple of commanders and two lower ranking officers in the russian military. these people were serving either in the russian military or in the donetsk people's republic's military and they were operating in the eastern part of ukraine. they are accused of -- of

detaining and torturing an american citizen, someone who lived in a village down there in the area of kherson. the kherson area of ukraine and interrogating and torturing this person repeatedly. we don't know the name of the victim, but it is identified as someone who lived in that area after the russian invasion and was treated this way according to prosecutors. now what makes this remarkable, obviously is the fact that the justice department and the homeland security department have been helping ukrainians gather evidence of war crimes. they've been doing this work since the -- shortly after the russian invasion of ukraine in 2022 and they've spent months and months trying to gather this evidence from people who been held by the russians. in this case we're talking about americans, right? these are people who the u.s.

can bring charges against -- over, rather, their treatment and so that's one of the reasons why this case is unusual and the other case is this is the first time that this particular statute is being use. this is a statute that has to do with war crimes over the period of years. the u.s. has brought war crimes cases under other statutes and this is the first one, this is being used and of course, this is now work that is continuing, john, the fbi and the homeland security department and hsi is all still working with the ukrainians where they can where the u.s. has jurisdiction and they will bring these cases and right now, we only know the name of these four russians. we don't know what means the u.s. might have to bring them in custody. >> i was going to ask, evan, charges to what end, these four russians are in or about to be in u.s. custody and what's significance there and the

timing here as ukraine funding seems to be hanging in the balance? >> right. exactly. this is the funding for the ukraine war effort and the administration has been pushing to try to get congress to supply more money for the ukrainians and the weapons that they need to be able to defend their territory and look, john, this is an effort that began in 2022 certainly from the justice department and the homeland security department. they sent agents over to the region to try to work with the ukrainian prosecutors. we've seen merrick garland, the attorney general go over to meet with the ukrainians to try to emphasize the importance of this work that they -- you know, that they're pushing to try to make sure they can bring some of these people to justice for some of the crimes committed after the invasion of ukraine, john.

>> evan perez, keep us pososted. this annououncement anany minutd we'l'll bring more when n it happppens. muchch more justst ahead .