Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
Judge Keeps Trump On Colorado 2024 Ballot; New Explosions And Heavy Shelling In Northern Gaza; Speaker Releases January 6 Video Amid Push From Far-Right Members; CNN In Taiwan As Fears Of War With China Reach New Heights. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired November 17, 2023 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next, breaking news, a ruling from a Colorado judge on whether to disqualify Trump from running in the state.
Also breaking, powerful explosions rocking northern Gaza. Israel now warning it will strike anywhere Hamas is found as Hamas releases a new hostage video.
And new video of House Speaker Mike Johnson making anti-gay comments just weeks before he was elected speaker. This as we are learning more about his wife's ultra conservative and anti-gay views.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.
And we begin OUTFRONT on this Friday with breaking news. A judge seconds ago just ruling on whether former President Trump should be kicked off the ballot in the state of Colorado. Judge Sarah Wallace deciding that Trump is eligible to run for president even after his role in the January 6th insurrection.
A group of voters had filed a lawsuit, and this was based specifically on the 14th Amendment. They argued that that amendment would bar Trump from federal office. A judge, though, ruling the other way, as I said, just seconds ago, a team of reporters standing by to go through the details on this breaking news as we get it.
Lucy Kafanov is OUTFRONT in Denver. Evan Perez is in Washington.
And, Evan, as I said seconds ago, I haven't had a chance to read 102 pages. I -- you have had a chance to see a little bit more of it than I have. But what -- what do we need to know?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: The bottom line, Erin, is that the judge -- Judge Sarah Wallace is ordering Donald Trump's name will appear on the ballot in Colorado. This is a role and she just came down. And the bottom line for the judge is that the 14th Amendment, Section
Three of the 14th Amendment, which is what these voters were shaken to have unforced, they say, the judge saying, it's not clear that this applies to the president of the United States or to the-- that the president of that United States is covered by that section of the -- of the 14th Amendment.
It's not clear that the framers, the writers of the -- of that section, of the Constitution, intended for that to apply to the president of the United States. And I read you just a part of what the 14th Amendment says. It says that anyone who previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or is an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof is disqualified from holding office.
And so, that's what these voters were seeking to have unforced, to have the former president struck from the ballot in Colorado.
And the judge says, really, she can't enforce that because it's clear to her that if the framers of the Constitution had intended for that apply to the president of the United States, they would have made that much clearer. So in her view, it doesn't apply and therefore, the president -- the former president will appear on the Colorado ballot.
Now, this is in line, we should say, with some other challenges that have come forward. Voters who have lost similar challenges in Minnesota, in Michigan, another sort of fringe candidate has brought a federal lawsuit in New Hampshire. All of these have been tossed aside, for exactly this reason. It's not clear that you can power the former president of the United States simply because of what happens on January 6th and the accusations of his involvement, and inspiring what happened on January 6th, Erin.
BURNETT: All right. We're going to have a lot more talk about this. You lay out the logic. Of course, it is on a certain levels others could be barred but not the president of United States -- that's confusing. I think all could say that. But there's a lot to get through here, and as Evan said, there's 102 pages.
So, as Evan continues to go through this, understand the logic on this. It's a significant case because people have been watching Colorado every closed on the specific. What I want to go to now Lucy Kafanov. She's in Colorado, and she's outside the court.
Lucy, what are you hearing?
LUCY KAFANOV, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, obviously, all eyes have been on Colorado where this electoral drama had been playing out, at the courthouse behind me.
Minutes ago, as my colleague just pointed out, Judge Wallace ordered the Colorado secretary of state to place the former president on the Colorado primary ballot next year, when it verifies the ballots on January 5th.
Now, this lawsuit was filed by six Colorado voters, four Republicans and two unaffiliated. It was with the help of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. And they effectively argue that Trump had engaged in an insurrection by inciting a violent mob to attack the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, in order to stop the peaceful transfer of power, which they argued makes the GOP front runner ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment.
Trump's attorney, also a former Colorado secretary of state, pardon me, he had argued that not only did January 6th not qualify as an insurrection, but he also argued there is no evidence that Trump intended to incite violence. He suggested that lawsuit amounts to election interference.
And we have been speaking to voters on the ground, who are largely split along party lines, in understandable ways. Republicans think this is election interference. Democrats supporting keeping Trump off the ballot. But we had heard arguments from some Democratic voters that given how divided the climate and this country is, perhaps using that legal system as opposed to the ballot box is not the most effective way to have folks weigh in on whether Trump should be in office -- Erin.
BURNETT: All right. Lucy, thank you very much.
And I want to go now to the Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. She is a Democrat.
And, Secretary, I appreciate your being with me.
So, first, it's 102 pages. I know you probably haven't had a chance to read through all of it, but obviously you are watching it incredibly closely. So what's your reaction to this?
JEN GRISWOLD (D), COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I think the court could have rolled three different ways. And this is how the corporate. At the end of the day, there is big questions about how section three of the 14th Amendment works. And the court has determined that it does not apply to the presidency.
There are some people out there, constitutional scholars, who of course would agree with her. There are those who would not occur with her. And either way, I think there is a high chance that this case is further appealed. So I think that the court has been very thoughtful, like you said, it's 102 pages.
It just broke and I will follow whatever decision, judicial decision is in place by the time the appellate certification happens.
BURNETT: Absolutely. And I think important you say it will be further appealed because the expectation had been -- by the way, Trump was out there today saying he expected to lose, that they would appeal. If it was a Trump victory, the voters who brought this case will also appeal. I'm here with Ryan Goodman. I don't know if we have -- do we have
section 268 that you are showing me?
RYAN GOODMAN, CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF JUST SECURITY: Yes.
BURNETT: All right, I want to read something to you, Secretary Griswold, and this is just something from the ruling. Sorry, Section 298.
So, Ryan Goodman just found this, Section 298. Consequently, the court found -- finds the petitioners have established Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6th, 2021, through incitement and the First Amendment does not protect Trump's speech.
Secretary, how significant is that line for you? I mean, it is, to me, pretty stunning here. The whole concern have been, oh, well, insurrection and seditious conspiracy, it's hard to prove. But the judge says in his ruling that they did establish that Trump engaged in an insurrection.
GRISWOLD: It's really powerful for the entire nation. I believe Trump incited insurrection. There is always questions whether his incitement reached that level of disqualification.
And to find a court of law or determined that yes, he did incite the insurrection, I think is important for the entire country.
Regardless, if Trump is on the ballot or not, he is a danger to American democracy. He consistently lies to the American people. He incited the insurrection. He called his political importance vermin, which is very dangerous language.
He just showed the Capitol in flames. He's a direct danger to democracy, and I think that the court really underlined it.
BURNETT: So, Secretary, I do want to be clear on this though. And you're clear on how you see it.
But, you know, while you are an outspoken Trump critic, you are actually technically a defendant, along with Trump, in this case because you are the secretary of state. You oversee ballot access. So you didn't take a formal legal position in this case, I know you were in court for the closing arguments, you've seen the evidence, right? You know it in and out, but you didn't -- you are technically a defendant because of your role as a secretary of state.
How do you feel about that? Do you think that that's the right thing? I know you didn't, because that your position, but do you believe it's the right thing that you had to do that?
GRISWOLD: I think it's the right thing for elected officials to follow the law and uphold the Constitution.
And in Colorado, there is a law that allows everyday voters to file a lawsuit against a secretary of state, challenging the certification of candidates to the ballot. That's exactly what happened in this case. Six Republican and unaffiliated voters filed a lawsuit saying Trump disqualified himself from engagement in the insurrection.
So the judicial system, letting it play out is how this country should work. Trump's words of saying this is somehow election interference is just a continuation of his lies to the American people about our democracy. And this, again, is just how things should work out. Judges decide when there's big contentious issues.
BURNETT: Secretary Griswold, I really appreciate your time and thank you for being with us, just immediately as it broke. As I said, I know you know it better than anyone, but you haven't had a chance to read all of it yourself. So, thank you so much for coming on and sharing your thoughts with us.
GRISWOLD: Thank you.
BURNETT: All right. That's the secretary of state for Colorado, Jena Griswold.
And I want to not go to Ryan Goodman and Joan Biskupic.
So, let me just start with you, Ryan. I want to start with Section 298 because you found. So, this -- just to summarize, I'm going to put it in English and you tell me if I'm right. This, 102 pages, establishes that a judge says that Trump did indeed incite an insurrection, that his words are not covered by the First Amendment. But that it's okay that he'd be put on the ballot to serve as president, even though anyone else who did those things would not be.
GOODMAN: Absolutely correct.
BURNETT: Okay. Can you square that circle?
GOODMAN: So, it's a factual findings by the judge that she believes that he did, in fact, have specific intent to incite an insurrection to interrupt the congressional certification of the election. But what that would ordinarily mean for other people who had sworn an oath to the Constitution, they were disqualified from serving again, she interprets the words of this constitutional amendment which is officers of the United States. It applies to the officers of the United States. That does not apply to the president.
That would have to be explicit, that it's ambiguous. The officer of the United States is a technical term that refers to other officers of the United States, not the president, maybe --
BURNETT: And she is thinking, if you meant the president, you would say it.
BURNETT: I understand that, but that's one of the situations where of all these things are true, that's an absurd conclusion to make, as a lay person.
GOODMAN: Probably so in the certain sense, but the other answer might, but you don't want to apply such a categorical bar against somebody serving as president. If the entire country wants that person to serve as president, then they should be able to do so.
BURNETT: The will of the voter.
GOODMAN: The will of the voter, very special to lead the entire country. So, that person would not be able to be disqualified from office by the 14th Amendment. That would be the argument. There is a special case for the president.
BURNETT: Right, right. And that you would want -- and I guess, in essence, that's the point being made here. Let voters have your say, don't adjudicate this, this way.
BURNETT: John, how do you see this? I know Trump had indicated he expected to lose. This heat would therefore appeal and I know you helped -- hope that would go quickly because you've got to make a decision on the ballot fast. But now he's one, presumably, there will still be appeals. What happens from here?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Yes, as I understand it, under Colorado law, the losing party, the challenges here, would have until Monday to actually file an appeal with the Colorado Supreme Court, and then the Colorado Supreme Court have to decide, does it won't just briefing or does it one briefing and oral arguments?
And my understanding, from talking to people in Colorado, that that process can run -- and I'm just kind of gaming it out with you, Erin and Ryan, right now. Say it would run 20 days. If they had oral arguments if this case is appealed. And we'll know later tonight, certainly, if a challenge was to Donald Trump trying to keep his name off the ballots are going to appeal.
And then, let's just say, we get a ruling by early December, like December 8, then the losing party would come to the Supreme Court. Now, Donald Trump might end up being that losing party there. The Colorado Supreme Court might say his name should not be on the ballot.
But again, just for proportions of argument, what happens next? Either Donald Trump attorneys or the attorneys for the challenge here would then go to the Supreme Court and as I understand it, Erin, we've got like a January 5th deadline for -- in the state for getting these ballots prepared. So, you know, this, to me, has a lot of shades of, frankly, Bush v. Gore that came crashing down on us right before Thanksgiving and early December.
BISKUPIC: Much different issues, much different court, a very different court here. I would, think the key question then would be, would the Supreme Court try to decide this question on just filings or would it hold oral arguments?
If Donald Trump loses before the Colorado Supreme Court and the Colorado Supreme Court says he should not be on the ballot, I would bet the Supreme Court would not want to hear that appeal only on paper.
That it would feel it was important enough, if it was going to take the case, to actually hold oral arguments and that could happen, you know, with briefing and mid or late December, early January, to try to meet a January 5th deadline.
Now, again, I'm just gaming this out. But here's the other thing I would say. If Donald Trump continues to prevail, let's say, you know, he just won tonight and if he wins before the Colorado Supreme Court on appeal, there is no splitting surface at that point. Whatever petition, appeal then comes to the Supreme Court, there is no split.
It's that he's won in every case and the justices might think that they just reject the petition, the attempt to try to reverse the lower courts out of hand. You know, that might be an easy thing for them to do. Or they might feel, different there is this big cloud hanging over the presidential ballots because of these arguments that have been fully joined now, that they might feel they have to resolve it, so that it's clear going forward for the primary.
So I hope that helps give a timetable, but I think things are going to move very fast, right away on Monday because I understand, the Colorado law, they have to get moving if they're going to appeal.
BURNETT: So, you know, two people have to pay attention to a level of detail to have this have impact? And certainly we know when it comes to polling and Trump's performance, his status as a front runner, nothing has had an impact, at least negatively, right? I mean, if anything, it seems to have solidified his role. But Section 293, the court concludes that Trump acted with intent to incite violence in order to disrupt the electoral certification and it just continues.
Section 294, when the violence began, he took no effective action, right? It's all laid out with the conclusion that the petitioners established that he engaged in an insurrection through incitement. And the First Amendment does not protect the speech.
If that was justice rolling, and there was nothing about putting a name on a ballot, that would be a hugely significant thing. That's new --
BURNETT: -- from a court perspective. Does that breakthrough?
GOODMAN: I think it might. I think court's discussions often can breakthrough. They have to be recorded --
BURNETT: In sort of an unexpected way, right? Because the headline is, Trump won, he's on the ballot.
BURNETT: But this, one might argue, is the hit line.
GOODMAN: Yes, and -- but for the fact he was president, running for president, he would have otherwise been disqualified. It's just that narrow of a miss because the judge is laying it all out. But that is a judicial finding that he is essentially guilty of incitement of insurrection and the First Amendment would not have covered him, that enormous.
BURNETT: Joan, what do you make of that? I mean, you know, all this laid out -- engaged in insurrection, the First Amendment doesn't protect him. But for that he was president, he would not be allowed to run.
BISKUPIC: But, Erin, that is significant. I think you're exactly right. There is probably some people -- many people saying, I don't get. But this provision in this, you know, section three of the 14th Amendment that has really never been tested. It's certainly never been tested at the Supreme Court in this fashion.
A key component is the role of the person who took the oath and would have betrayed the oath. This trial judge said, no, this would not apply to Donald Trump. If and when it's appealed, and I would think it would be, frankly, you know they would appeal it on this question and say to the Colorado Supreme Court, you know, look at all these findings. Wouldn't you, as a matter of law, think that President Trump wouldn't qualify here under that provision?
BURNETT: All right. Stay with us, please.
I want to go to Kristen Holmes.
Kristen Holmes, we know the former president thought he would lose this. So he's got at least at this court level tonight, he won. His name is on the ballot, but there's also this other stuff and there. I mean, what is the reaction right now?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I'll tell you that I believe that reaction is going to be split. First of all, I am already hearing that they are relieved. I keep looking at my phone, because I'm told we're going to get a statement any second from them on this ruling.
But as you mentioned, they were bracing for a loss. They'd already written their appeals. Sources told me they're going to file it immediately. I spoke to someone who had been sitting through some of the trial, who said what they are witnessing, they really believed it was likely he would lose this case. There is a sense of relief there.
But when you talk about her finding, this conclusion that he did engage in an insurrection, that is going to rub people including former President Trump the wrong way.
Now in particular, one of the things I've spoken to a number of sources about was why they were so confident that if they lost today, this would be overturned on appeal. They had a number of reasons. The first one being that they pointed to the similar cases that were in New Hampshire, in Michigan, as well in Minnesota.
And the fact that those cases had never even made it to trial, that they were dismissed beforehand. They also talked about the fact that these elections subversion cases were still ongoing in Georgia and Washington. That Trump had actually not been convicted and he was not even charged with the crime of insurrection. Now, obviously, again, the judge here concluding that he was engaged in the insurrection because of his words inciting supporters. So, that is a little bit of a split there and what they originally argued.
The other interesting part here is they had accused this judge of essentially being politically biased, something we've heard in multiple of his cases. But they specifically point of the fact that she had made this hunted over the nation to a liberal group that was formed after January 6th, was one of their causes, was because of January 6th, one reform. They said that they believe that she was tainted.
Now, obviously, her ruling shows that he's staying on the ballot, following what she believed to be the letter of the law there. But interesting to see how this is going to break. I'm looking for that reaction, specifically, to that incitement of the insurrection -- because I think that's going to be something that's key here.
BURNETT: All right. As you get more information, Kristen, I'm going to come back to you. I'm looking down here, I've underlined another crucial point here. So, as Kristen gests more, she gets a formal response here, we will -- will be going back.
I want to bring now Republican strategist Alice Stewart into the conversation, along with Evan Perez.
Joan Biskupic and Ryan Goodman also are also back with me. So, Evan, what's your take away now you've hit a few more minutes to go through this? It is, as Christine, said one can only imagine Trump's reaction to some of these lines. You know, his language was clearly intended to cause imminent violence.
You know, again, if you were to take pay just 93, 94, 95, 93 through 25 and it was the only ruling -- that would be the most damage thing a court has issued about Trump yet.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Erin. And, look, I mean, the fact this case even got this far has been a surprise for everybody. Everybody thought that like the courts in Michigan and Minnesota and New Hampshire, that these things would be thrown out, simply because we have never had something like this. We have never had a presidential candidate, leading presidential
candidate face disqualification because of this question, whether he engaged in an insurrection. This is certainly a big test and it was surprising this judge not only want to hear this challenge, but also held multiple days hearings. And hear what she's doing is going on, frankly, one of the thinnest pieces of technicalities to say that her hands are tied. And she really goes -- the part which is says, near the end, the final paragraphs, where she says that, the court agrees fear are persuasive arguments on both sides.
The court holds in the absence of the president from that list of positions to which the Amendment applies, the 14th Amendment, combined with the fact that section 3 specifies the disqualifying oath to one of support for the Constitution. She points out, when your president, you are spurring an oath to preserve, protect, and defend.
So, what she's saying is, because those words are slightly different, from what others would swear when they take the oath, it doesn't apply to the president of the United States. So that the reason why she's rolling this way. And frankly, the things that Ryan and you have been talking about, it really does show she was leaning all the other way until there was one technicality.
BURNETT: It's almost like the word Pyrrhic victory apply.
GOODMAN: I think so. And I think if I were Donald Trump, or his camp, they should still be worried. If they were worried about an adverse decision, the way this is set up on appeal is everything is locked in place potentially disqualifying him but for Evan describe it, the technicality. That's a pure question of law, that the appeals court, Supreme Court of Colorado, could go the other way and say, no it's way too narrow reading. It must apply to all U.S. officials.
BURNETT: All right. Alice, you know, Lucy Kafanov who's here in Colorado, in front of the court, she spoke to some voters earlier just ahead of the decision to get their reaction. And here's some of what they told her.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNE BERKELEY, COLORADO VOTER: There has been a process for 200 heroes on how to do this. And this is not the way.
ETHAN BLUNT, COLORADO VOTER: I feel like if your on trial for anything, let alone felonies, you shouldn't be allowed on the ballot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: So, Alice, how does this play out with GOP voters, especially in the party primary where -- when you read through this, you should obviously see -- not people like Chris Christie of course -- grabbing on to some of the substance of this ruling?
ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, Erin, there is no disputing the culpability of the former president with regard to January 6th was uncalled for, unacceptable, and many say un-American. But in terms of this lawsuit, the courts repeatedly -- this is the third time, almost the fourth time. The court ruled this is not the venue and the avenue, and the legal away, to go about having Donald Trump face the consequences for this.
And politically speaking, there are many Republicans who are extremely frustrated with the fact that Donald Trump is the front runner. But that being said, his base and Republican primary voters that want him on the ballot, legally, have that right to do so. Now, I spoke before this ruling came down with the color of the Republican Party chairman, Dave Williams, and he just reply back to me with his comments and response to this ruling.
Dave Williams says: The court has wisely ruled in favor of President Trump. The fringe legal theory cannot be used to remove a qualified candidate from the ballot, let alone the front runner to the Republican Party. Said, radical left wing activists need to stop undermining free and fair elections and simply allow the voters to decide.
Now, what this Colorado Republican chairman said is that it's always been unfair for a liberal judge from Denver to single-handedly stand in a way and remove someone from the palace. That's a threat to the front runner of the Democratic Party.
And, look, I truly believe there should be consequences for Donald Trump's actions with what he did. But Republican voters, at least, in Colorado and certainly with the state party feel this was an appropriate ruling. And, obviously, they are ready and prepared to face the appeals that will no doubt come from the other side.
BURNETT: And, Joan, a quick final word?
BISKUPIC: Sure. You know, it's ultimately to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court, this is something it never looked at before, but it's a very conservative Supreme Court with three Trump appointees, six conservatives out of the nine. And at this point, it's hard to that exactly but I wouldn't be surprised if Donald Trump remains on the ballot.
BURNETT: All right. Well, thank you all throughout much. And as we all keep reading this, I hope everyone at home will, but I can say it was released here and we have been hosting this, I haven't had a chance to read all of it -- but I have written 93 now through 102. And, wow, there is a lot to think about in there. I hope everyone will read it.
All right. Next, the breaking news, powerful explosions over northern Gaza tonight as Israel warns it maybe predict to expand its assault on Hamas.
Plus, new video of House Speaker Mike Johnson making anti-comments just weeks before he was elected speaker.
[19:31:11] BURNETT: Breaking news, large, intense explosions over northern Gaza. What you're looking at there was filmed just moments ago, after Israel's signaled an expanding war in Gaza. Now saying it will advance anywhere Hamas is found in the entire Gaza Strip, when conditions are right. Of course, they've been distributing leaflets in southern Gaza, now.
Hamas tonight releasing video which appears to show another Israeli hostage held in Gaza. We are not going to release details of this one. It appeared in a Telegram channel belonging to Hamas's military wing. It's important to note that this video comes after Israel recovered the bodies of dead hostages, a 19-year-old IDF soldier and a 65-year- old grandmother in the past two days.
Oren Liebermann is OUTFRONT.
OREN LIEBERMANN, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The military operation at Gaza's largest hospital, ongoing at this hour after the Israeli military says they found an operational tunnel shaft in the Al-Shifa Hospital complex. CNN geolocated that shaft to this point, sharing the same campus as the imaging building and other hospital units.
But CNN cannot verify Israel's claims. Hamas denies the accusation, and the IDF has not yet shown evidence of a large network of tunnels underneath Gaza's largest hospital. That U.N. high commissioner of human rights call for an independent investigation.
VOLKER TURK, UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER: We need to look into this with -- by have an access. We cannot rely on one or the other party when it comes to this.
LIEBERMANN: On the ground in Gaza, conditions are rapidly deteriorating, with much of the population fleeing to the south. In Khan Younis, trash is piling up on the roads as crowds queue for that little food available. It's not the only shortage.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Fuel is the basis of life. There is trash in the streets and sicknesses have spread. And what more can I tell you than that? You can see, there's no fuel, no electricity, no water.
LIEBERMANN: Israel announced Friday it will allow a two tankers of diesel every 48 hours to help our sewage treatment plants in Gaza and to prevent the start of a pandemic. But it's about 3 percent of the fuel that once entered on a daily basis, according to the head of Israel's National Security Council.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): This petrol going and is only for humanitarian needs, in order to provide for the millions of people there.
LIEBERMANN: In Ramallah, in the occupied West Bank, the EU's foreign policy chief met with Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh. Calls for a ceasefire re growing, as are the demands for political
process to end the conflict once and for all.
Shtayyeh doubts that's possible.
MOHAMMED SHTAYYEH, PALESTINIAN PRIME MINISTER: This Israeli government today does not care about two states. This mood of revenge that Israel is -- is driving Israel today should stop.
LIEBERMANN: Meanwhile, the IDF has brought back the body of another Israeli hostage in Gaza, 19-year-old Noa Marciano. She is the second Israeli hostage known to have died in Gaza. Sixty-five-year-old grandmother Yehudit Waiss was found dead near Al-Shifa Hospital, the IDF said.
The father of another hostage, Emily Hand, put her picture up in Times Square as a way of marking her birthday spent in captivity.
THOMAS HAND, DAUGHTER TAKEN HOSTAGE TO GAZA: We were hoping that she would be back by now. That would've been our prayers are answered. But she's not -- she is still down in four tunnels. Now we have to hope that she'll be back for Christmas.
LIEBERMANN (on camera): As part of the negotiations, CNN has learned from two Israeli officials and a source familiar with the negotiations that Hamas had demanded as part of a pause in the fighting for hostage release, Israel wouldn't fly drones over Gaza. Now, that's obviously a demand that Israel is incredibly unlikely to meet because drones are incredibly important part of military operation to observe what's happening on the ground, to see where Hamas is moving, to see where Israeli forces are, and if drones aren't above there, that Hamas can relocate and potentially even move hostages.
It's unclear if that's still a part of the discussions, or it's off the table.
Either way, Erin, it's quite clear that there is no deal in place at this time.
BURNETT: Oren, thank you for a much in Tel Aviv, of course, just after 2:30 in the morning there.
There are 237 people that we believe are hostages held against their will tonight in Gaza, captive now for 42 days.
One of the stories that we've been following here OUTFRONT is Liat Beinin. She's one of the nine missing American hostages. Her husband is also missing. They were in kibbutz Nir Oz, just a couple of miles from Gaza, when they were taken.
And Liat's father Yehuda is OUTFRONT tonight. So, Yehuda, you -- I know, were informed about the existence of a
hostage video by Israelis today, before anyone else found out about it. I know you've chosen not to watch it yourself.
What was your reaction when you heard that there was another video?
YEHUDA BEININ, FATHER OF AMERICAN WOMAN MISSING IN ISRAEL: Generally speaking, I prefer and I try to not get wrapped up in the psychological warfare that Hamas is obviously trying to wage. This has been my position all along. I feel a need to remain sane in order to deal with the ongoing attempts to free all the hostages, which, of course, is the number one priority of the American families and all the other families that are involved in this. It's a difficult mission to remain focused on that. So, again, I can't allow myself to get too wrapped up in that.
BURNETT: One of the -- one of the families, like yourself, suffering such unimaginable and unending pain and worry, today said that they knew, said that they knew that someone had been killed by a Hamas terrorist years ago. And they would be okay with that Hamas terrorist being released, whatever it took.
The point is, whatever it would take, Israel, do the deal. Do you feel that way now, whatever needs to be done, do it?
BEININ: I think fair is certainly, you know, I don't know. I don't really know it's on the table. If it were up to, me and all four of exchange is fine by me.
BEININ: I wouldn't guarantee the fate of the Palestinian prisoners released afterwards. That's another story.
BEININ: But I think this is more or less the mindset in Israel altogether tonight.
BURNETT: So, I know you're from Philadelphia and your daughter was partially raced in New Jersey, settling in Israel. Of course, I know you also live in a kibbutz there. You're a dual citizen. So I know you're both speaking to American officials and Israeli officials.
How helpful are there right now? I know at first, and those first few weeks, it was almost impossible to get any information from anyone, in part, because they didn't know, that there's disorganization, confusion. What's it like now?
BEININ: First of all, the involvement of the American administration and officials at the political and professional level has been exemplary throughout. There is no room for equivocation on this. It's outstanding.
On the other hand, on the Israeli side, the mechanisms that are designed to deal with people, the families of victims in this particular case were so overwhelmed, there was essentially a complaint that of chaos. And it's taken quite a while to get themselves organized.
I think that it's okay to say that, today it's better than it was in the past. But it no way compares to the level of --
BURNETT: In the United States.
I want to ask you one thing, Yehuda, because I can't wrap my mind around this, my heart around this. You see the billboards and you see signs, and there's such an amount of support, but then there's videos like, you know, the man on the upper west side and his partner ripping down hostage pictures, right, that were struck to trees. And there have been a disturbing number of such incidents. And I just can't understand them.
I mean, how do you come to terms with such hatred?
BEININ: I think that -- first, I'm sure there are a number of different levels here. This is not a simple thing. If someone is being guarded by some kind of leftist, progressive impulse to react to the pictures or posters of the hostages, then all I can say is they are very seriously misdirected in their thoughts and actions.
There can be no equivocation to the moral depravity that Hamas displayed by this attack on Israel. And if you are a progressive leftist and you are going to take an optimistic approach to this, and you need to really examine your whole moral framework of existence.
BURNETT: Well, Yehuda, thank you very much. I appreciate you taking the time. As I said, I'm not glad to see you, but glad for the chance to speak with you. Thank you.
BURNETT: OUTFRONT next, new video of House Speaker Mike Johnson making anti-gay comments just before being elected speaker, as we're learning more about the conservative mission he and his wife have been on for years.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
KELLY JOHNSON, WIFE OF HOUSE SPEAKER JOHNSON: For more than about two decades now, we've been working together on the frontlines of the culture.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BURNETT: Plus, we're going to take you to the streets of Taipei, where Taiwan's fears of a war with China tonight are stronger than ever.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BURNETT: Tonight, the House Speaker Mike Johnson caving to the right- wing of his party, just releasing 44,000 hours of video of the January 6th riots to the public. He released a video under pressure from Republicans led by Congressman Matt Gaetz. His predecessor Kevin McCarthy have refused to do the same, only making footage available to Fox News.
This is video that conservative personality Tucker Carlson released to bolster his effort to downplay the violence of the insurrection. It comes as Johnson is facing new scrutiny over anti-gay comments he made just weeks before being elected speaker. He said this on the broadcast of the World Prayer Network.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The culture is so dark and depraved, that it almost seems irredeemable. One and four high school students identify as something other than straight. We are losing the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Speaker Johnson stands on homosexuality is shared by his wife, who's a Christian counselor and hosts a podcast with her husband where they publicize their ultraconservative views.
Sunlen Serfaty is OUTFRONT.
SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Kelly Johnson is not a household name.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: I want to thank my decade wife of almost 25 years, Kelly. She's not here. We couldn't get a flight in time. This happened sort of suddenly.
SERFATY: But she has been suddenly thrust into the national spotlight.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: She spent the last couple of weeks on her knees in prayer to the Lord. And she's a little worn out.
SERFATY: With her husband's quick ascension to speaker, the second in line to the presidency.
K. JOHNSON: I believe that God has placed him here. That's biblical. The bible says he raises up leaders, and he -- he brings them down, right? So, he -- so I believe that God has him here for just this time.
SERFATY: For years, the two have displayed their faith on a united political front, where Speaker Johnson often putting her at the forefront of some of the most hot button conservative social issues. SPEAKER JOHNSON: I'm Mike Johnson.
K. JOHNSON: And I'm Kelly Johnson.
SERFATY: The two host a podcast together.
K. JOHNSON: For more than about two decades now, we have been working together on the frontlines of the culture.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: In all those experiences, Kelly, we became more and more burdened over the years about what was happening in our country and in our communities.
SERFATY: Where their views against same sex marriage, abortion, and other flash points are amplified.
K. JOHNSON: How to race what we call countercultural kids in a culture gone mad?
SERFATY: The Johnsons have been married for nearly 25 years.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: This ring --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is a symbol of my covenant with you.
SERFATY: They have a covenant marriage, which is only recognized and three states, making divorce more difficult and only in a limited number of situations.
K. JOHNSON: I think we can be a national creatures and I think that we like to know for sure that it's going to be for a lifetime.
SERFATY: Kelly Johnson says she believes other forms of marriage are marriage light.
K. JOHNSON: If you decide that you want to opt into covenant marriage, and your mate says, no, I don't want to do that. Well, I think that's a big red flag for us. Maybe we need to rethink the situation.
SERFTAY: Johnson has been a school teacher in the past, and at times, has worked for the Louisiana Right to Life Educational Committee. But it's her work as a biblical counselor which has recently drawn scrutiny.
K. JOHNSON: I want to be able to help them through their times of struggle and suffering.
SERFATY: The website for her counseling services included a disclaimer link, which in their bylaws saying they believe any form of sexual immorality, such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, pornography or any attempt at changing ones six or disagreement with ones biological sex is simple and offensive to God. The website has been deleted since Johnson became speaker.
SPEAKER JOHNSON: As a husband, you know, I'm taking the arrows. That's fine. But don't talk about my wife, for goodness sake.
SERFATY: And a source close to Kelly Johnson tells me it's been a whirlwind since her husband was first elected speaker. And the couple, they're currently discussing her next steps, how involved would she be, how present will she be here in Washington. They'll discuss this next week during their Thanksgiving break. Now, as far as a podcast that they host together, the last episode was only released in October last month. But the source tells me, they are currently reconsidering whether that will continue -- Erin.
BURNETT: Sunlen, thank you very much, that was fascinating. Well, next, fear of an all-out war between Taiwan and China now reaching a fever pitch. Why, on this crucial week of the summit, we are going to take you to type up next for a story you'll see first OUTFRONT.
Plus, the Carter Center tonight releasing new information about the health of the former First Lady Rosalynn Carter.
BURNETT: Tonight, new fears in Taiwan with a war with China. China continued to step up military pressure on Taiwan. Of course, 23 million people live there.
The uncertainty comes on the heels of that meeting between President Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Will Ripley is OUTFRONT tonight from Taipei. He's one of the few American television journalists based in Taiwan. Here is his report tonight.
WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Taiwan will never forget those four tense days when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit triggered unprecedented Chinese military drills, widely seen as a dress reversal for war.
More than a year later, on the streets of Taipei, for some, the prospects of war feels closer than ever.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): Of course, we are concerned that what happened to Ukraine could happen to Taiwan. I'm a mother and I have kids.
RIPLEY: President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping's marathon meeting in San Francisco aimed at dialing down the temperature on a host of hot button issues, especially Taiwan, the most important and sensitive issue in U.S.-Chinese relations, Xi was quoted in Chinese state media.
Washington has no plans to stop selling billions of dollars of weapons to Taipei. Military cooperation, including U.S. training of Taiwanese troops at the highest level in decades. The U.S. formally switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979.
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You maintain an agreement that there is a One China Policy, and that I am not going to change that.
RIPLEY: As for the future of the self governing democracy, Xi says China will realize reunification. This is unstoppable.
SU TZU-YUN, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY RESEARCH, TAIWAN: Beijing's activity has become something like a Nazi Germany did during World War Two.
RIPLEY: Su Tzu-Yun is director of Taiwan's Institute for national defense and security research. He warns China's military buildup, the biggest in a century maybe just beginning. He says he can only be deterred by amassing military power.
Does that deterrent force need to include the help of larger militaries like the U.S., like Japan?
SU: Sure, Taiwan enjoy very important location. If Beijing can occupy Taiwan, it becomes a so-called Chinese Hawaii.
They can send their submarines from east Taiwan. And such submarines can reach the West Coast of the United States to strike United States.
RIPLEY: Last year, Beijing fired ballistic missiles over Taiwan.
Here in Taiwan, people have lived their entire lives with the reality that China has an arsenal of missiles pointed at this island that could be raining down in a matter of minutes. That's why here in Taipei alone, there's an estimated 90,000 air defense shelters ready for whatever comes.
When the People's Liberation Army surrounded the self governing democracy, Chinese state media said they were simulating a blockade, practicing a possible precursor for a full scale invasion, jolting Taiwan into a new risk field reality, putting high stakes diplomacy to the test.
RIPLEY (on camera): Worth noting for the second day in a row now, during a portion of the report, China censored our signal inside and then brought us back. So, they're happy for us to show their military, they're happy for us to show their weapons, certainly happy for Taiwan to see it as well.
We had to watch closely, Erin, a big development in Chinese politics. The hours from now, who opposition parties will be announcing their candidates for president and vice president, posing a very surprising and credible challenge to the ruling party, which is intended to have a stronger stance against Beijing, saying you need to match Beijing with military power, whereas the other opposition parties say they want to work with Beijing. They want a business relationship. The argument on the ground here is that that could actually cause Beijing to move even further and harder if they sense any week this year. So, very interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months, Erin.
BURNETT: All right. And, of course, these next few hours, and we'll be watching that.
All right. Thank you very much, Will Ripley, live in Taipei this Saturday morning, of course, where Will is.
And next, an update on the former First Lady Rosalynn Carter's health.
BURNETT: Tonight, former First Lady Rosalynn Carter has entered hospice care in her home in Georgia, according to the Carter Center. A family revealed earlier this year that she had been diagnosed with dementia. Her husband of 77 years, the former President Carter, entered hospice care for health issues earlier this year. He is the longest living U.S. president now, 99 years old.
Thanks very much for joining us on this Friday night.
"AC360" begins right now.