the famous blue lagoon is closed. small sign, officials say of what is to come. thanks for joining us. thanks for joining us. "ac 360" starts now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com tonight on "360," our closest look from inside gaza, with israeli troops uncovering hamas' underground infrastructure. and a u.s. official saying one command post is under gaza's main hospital. day one of the former president's defense in new york's civil fraud case, with donald trump jr. taking the stand. we begin keeping him honest. what the former president is now saying about his opponents and how his allies are reportedly planning to target them. thanks for joining us. it is no secret that the former president lies nearly all the time. what's also becoming clearer, though, is that when he talks about what he would like to do to people he perceives as his enemies, he's often not lying. there's new reporting to that effect tonight. and coupled with several other recent reports, it suggests he meant what he said over the weekend when he said this. >> we pledge to you that we will rout out the communist, marxist, fascist, and radical left thugs that live like fermen within the confine of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections. >> fermen. the former president on veterans day, no less. he went on to say, quote, the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. our threat is from within. after that, he praised foreign dictators, calling the leaders of russia, china, and north korea, quote, capable, confident, smart, and tough. the "washington post" story read, echoing hitler and mussolini. the language is the language dictators use to instill fear. that's what dictators do. other historians and scholars of fascism echo that assessment to which the former president campaign spokesman responded in words that also sounded a lot like things dictators might say. those that make the ridiculous assertion are clearly snow flakes grasping for anything because they're suffering from trump derangement system. and their sad miserable existence will be crushed when trump returns to the white house. it's probably the starkest, clearest version of other sentiments he's expressed in the past year. >> in 2016 i declared, i am your voice. today, i add, i am your warrior. i am your justice. and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, i am your retribution. >> he's a warrior. he's never served, but he's a warrior. the former president back in march. it is tempting to write off what he just said as some kind of shtick like lock her up, or build a wall, or citing lines from the poem "the snake." the retribution is connected to a dehumanized target, people he calls fermen. he's the leading republican candidate for president. there's new reporting under the headline "trump allies prescreen loyalists for unprecedented power grab." quoting from it now, if trump were to win, thousands of trump first loyalists would be ready for legal, judicial, defense, regulatory, and domestic policy jobs. his inner circle plans to purge anyone viewed as hostile to the authoritarian-sounding plans he calls agenda 47. separately "the washington post" reports the former president and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for punishing critics and opponents with him, quote, naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute. something he talks about out loud and doesn't even bother denying. >> they call it weaponization. and the people aren't going to stand for it. but, yeah, they have done something that allows the next party -- if somebody -- if i happen to be president and i see somebody who's doing well and beating me very badly, i say, go down and indict them. >> that sounds reasonable. back during the nixon administration, the attorney general john mitchell, who later went to prison for his role in the watergate affairs told voters to watch what we do, not what we say. the question tonight, how comforting would those same words be now? joining us now is axios ceo and cofounder jim -- tell us more about what the former president's allies are actually planning. >> yeah, if you go back last time when he won, there was a lot of the same language, a lot of this bombast, a lot of the tough guy routine. but when he got into office, he was surrounded by people who would put restraints on him. and he didn't really understand how many levels of the bureaucracy could gum up, kind of, some of his instincts and often his worst instincts. they learned from that. and what we have found is when you talk to people at the heritage foundation, when you talk to people around donald trump who used to work for donald trump, who understand machinery of government, they've now put together a very well-oiled machine one year in advance of potentially winning the election that's allowing them to vet and screen people for their loyalty to trump and their belief in stretching the rule of law in ways that donald trump would like them to stretch it if he were in office. and the reason that i think the story is very important is it's one thing when he uses this language and then doesn't put it into action. but when you listen to him and he tells you what he's going to do, punish political enemies, round up illegal immigrants, potentially get rid of a million or so people who live in the united states, try to maybe even go after flag officers in general so he doesn't consider to pass the loyalty litmus test. if you know how government works and you can figure out how to purge 10, 20, 30,000 people from all those positions that make activities like that possible, that turn those policies or those ideas into action, you could have a much different administration. and really you would see restraints lifted that we've had on the previous 46 presidents. now, anybody who's a trump supporter who's listening to this, they're like, hell, yes, we love this. that's what we want. we want the administrative state purged and we want a new order. we want, sort of, the tough guy, sort of, the strong man routine because they feel like crime is high and immigration is surging. but i think if you're not a donald trump supporter, you're concerned, because this would be uncharted territory. we're talking about doing things. we're not saying this is anonymous sources. he's saying. these are the things he's saying he's going to do, and they're going to have the machinery to do it. i think that's just shows the stakes of the election. i wouldn't fall for this stuff where people think, he's just surrounded by clowns. there's some clowns around him, no doubt about it. but there's going to be really serious people who are involved in this process who are going to have a government in waiting ready to roll. >> the trump campaign put out a statement saying, policy recommendations from external allies are just that, recommendations. who are the groups who are pushing this overhaul? and how close are they to the former president? heritage foundation? >> heritage foundation is definitely doing a lot of the work, a lot of the vetting. they've already talked about 4,000 different potential applicants asking them their favorite political figure, their favorite political book, what is their ideology. but then you look at the people who are advising both the heritage foundation and some of these other outside groups that are involved, and they're all the trump people. johnny mcintee, who is head of presidential personnel, who's really one of the architects of trying to figure out the purge in the latter days of the first term of the trump presidency, is an adviser to these efforts. stephen miller talks to these people all the time. the heritage foundation, what they would say is this would be available to everyone. but everyone knows donald trump is likely to win the nomination. and they know they can't make the mistake they made before, which is just roll into town and not have a team ready to rock and roll. they're going to have it this time. i think we would be pushed almost instantly into uncharted territory. i think the second term, if he were to win, would be much more like the final days of the trump presidency than the first two years, really trying to push the boundaries, really trying to see if you can stretch the rule of law to do things, whether it's punishing political enemies or getting rid of people who you don't feel share your political beliefs, punishing media entities, report things you don't like. >> how would that work at the department of justice? you have career law enforcement people. how would something like that work for the doj? >> in any of the agencies -- basically, not to get too into the weeds, but one of the ideas at the end of the presidency was this idea of recategorizing people in the government as schedule f, which would allow them to get around union laws, get around things that make it harder to fire people who are, kind of, permanent civil servants in government. that's what much of government is. you hear about cabinet secretaries. you know the president, you know the vice president. a lot of the work, whether it's at doj or whether it's at the department of homeland security, it's done below. it's done by people who will often serve both parties. if you could suddenly in mass get rid of them, which they would try to do -- maybe the courts step in and say you can't do it, maybe they say you can. there's a big debate about what you could and couldn't do under schedule f. you could reassign anyone you want to reassign. you could put people in the gigs that you know have power that support your agenda. and i think that's what would be radically different this time from last time. because for everyone who didn't like donald trump or if you liked donald trump and you wanted more of it, the truth is, he wasn't very good at governing, particularly in the early years because he didn't have people who shared his p philosophy around him. and he didn't understand how to pull the different levers of ogovernment. his brain doesn't work that way. he's not thinking about who am i going to put where. he's very thematic. he loves the rhetorical part of the job. but beneath him, there's going to be a much bigger, well-oiled, sort of, prescreened, pretrained group of people ready to come in. >> fascinating. thanks so much. >> thank you. still to come tonight, the eldest son of the former president took the witness stand today as the defense begins in its case in the civil fraud trial in new york. he called his father a visionary in the world of real estate. the judge has said his dad committed fraud. we'll have more details ahead. and what it's like on the ground in gaza. what nic robobertson sawaw ther today. the former president's eldest son took the stand for the defense today in the civil trial against himself and his dad and brother and called his dad a visionary in real estate. the trial is in the seventh week -- to secure better financing and insurance terms. the judge already has ruled that the former president and his codefendants, including trump jr., committed, quote, persistent and repeated fraud. ca kara scannell joins us now. what stood out to you today? >> donald trump jr. was on the stand for about three hours today. and much of his testimony was like a promotional video for the trump organization. he described how he said his father was a visionary. he saw things people couldn't see, and he was an artist. they went through more than a dozen of the properties and showing glossy photos of them on the screen in the courtroom. donald trump jr. would describe how his dad would take a dilapidated building and turn it into a spectacular residence. how he would take a swampland in florida and turn it into a golf course. and took the old postoffice building in washington, d.c., which trump described as a war zone, and turned it into a hotel. he did say that one thing he took umbrage with was the value of mar-a-lago, which the tax assessment is about $18 million. this is something donald trump, his father, has been voicing a lot of criticism about any time he's walking in and around the courtroom. don jr. was saying that the atrium in mar-a-lago alone would cost $18 million today to build. so, trying to make the point these values, the trump touch, was something that would have just justified some of the valuations they put on this. they didn't get into the specifics company by company of the valuations. this was an exercise of allowing him to describe the trump brand, and to put the gloss on it with the transformations they made. the judge had given them leeway in this. the attorney general's office objected to this presentation. the judge told the attorney general, you've had six weeks to put on your case. he's getting time to put on his. >> whols who else is the defense expected to call? >> we're expected to hear from expert witnesses who will testify about real estate. they also said they will recall the trump organization executives in the finance department. also saying eric trump will be back on the stand, and it's very likely the former president will also make a return to the witness stand. >> kara scannell, thanks so much. jessica roth is here, professor at cordova school of law. do you think his testimony helped? >> i think it was largely irrelevant. i think the judge let him talk because he's giving the defense the opportunity to make their case, and he's clearly very sensitive to being viewed by an appellate court as being arguably biased in favor of the government. but nothing that don jr. said today goes to the heart of the case in terms of the specifics about whether those statements of financial condition were fraudulent or not. and the judge has already ruled in that partial summary judgment motion that objectively those valuations in the statements were fraudulent. so, there was nothing specific about don trump jr. it was long on superlatives and sweeping statements, nothing very specific. it may have hurt him because, as i understand it, he may have repeated some specifics that were actually wrong, like the number of floors on one of the properties. so, it may actually have been counterproductive. >> and both donald trump jr. and eric trump have distanced themselves from these financial statements to the extent they've tried to at least. eric trump's going to take the stand as well. what do you expect -- do you expect the same sort of thing from his testimony? >> it's hard to know what to expect. it may be the same kind of grandiose statements. but the value of the company, the value of the assets. if there's any legal relevance to these kinds of sort of statements to superlatives and their belief in the value of it, maybe it goes to the question of intent because the judge still does have to make a finding about whether these individuals acted with intent to defraud others. perhaps by putting on this presentation, they're demonstrating their good faith belief in how wonderful the assets were. that could be a reason for them to rely on this testimony and the presentation, this glossy presentation. >> didn't the -- when the former president testified earlier, he alluded to bankers testifying in his defense. are there going to be bankers? have they called bankers? >> so, not yet. the defense just started the presentation today. i'm really looking to see if they do call those bankers, what the former president essentially promised is that those people would take the stand, the witnesses from the banks, and say, we didn't rely on the statements. >> the financial statements didn't really matter in our evaluations. >> exactly. what would go to the materiality question, which is one of the elements the judge has to rule on for the remaining causes of action. so, i'm keenly interested to see whether in fact the defense will be able to put forward witnesses who would make those statements on behalf of the banks. >> it's fascinating. jessica, thanks so much. new reporting from gaza and fresh evidence that hamas is using hospitals for cover. that's ahead. you want to be able to provide your child with the tools or resources they need. with reliable internet at home, through the internet essentials program, the world opened up. fellas, fellas. that's how my son was able to find the hidden genius project. we wanted to give y'all the necessary skills to compete with the future. kevin's now part of this next generation of young people who feel they can thrive. ♪ ♪ we have new reporting tonight on the fighting in gaza, that challenges any easy assumptions about it. this includes what cnn's nic robertson saw today, imbedded with the idf within the territory. as well as evidence that hamas is using hospitals to shelter command bunkers, weapons, and possibly hostages. earlier today president biden said hospitals, quote, must be protected. but then later an administration spokesman acknowledged what hamas is doing complicates that effort. >> it makes it much harder for any military force to go after those targets because the hospital itself ought to be, as the president said, ought to be protected. so, he's really talking about this incredibly difficult conundrum that israeli military forces are facing right now. >> reporter: that reaction was prompted by what cnn's nic robertson saw today in gaza. joining us now is "washington post" reporter -- exclusive on what hamas in mind beyond the october 7th massacre. he's also the author of the remarkable book, "black flags: the rise of i.s.i.s." this is a fascinating article you've written. because of the images of the suffering that is clearly taking place, especially around hospitals and in hospitals, the international pressure around israel is mounting. from your reporting, this is exactly what hamas wanted and planned for. >> yeah. and i think that picture is becoming very clear for us now. i mean, hamas wanted to see some hostages. they see value in attaining hostages for swapping with prisoners the israelis are holding. but that wasn't the main point. i think hamas, as we're seeing it now, really wanted to shake up the region, wanted to put the palestinian resistance movement through something, in their terms, back on the agenda, to get people talking about this and thinking about this. and as our reporting shows, they really expected the israelis to hit back hard, maybe not quite as hard as they did, but hard enough to bring world opinion down on israel, which is a second phase we're seeing unplaying now. nobody talks about october 7th anymore. it focuses on what israel is doing in response. and that works very well from a hamas point of view with change of subject. they're very happy with that. >> let's just pause on that for a moment, meaning they planned this massacre, they committed the slaughter of men, women, and children, 1,200 or so, in israel. they did not build any bomb shelters for their own people, knowing that israel would respond. they did not attempt to do anything to protect their own citizens, palestinians in gaza. they wanted this response by israel. they have publicly said on arabic channels about embracing martyrs, wanting martyrs, and being -- they did nothing to protect their people. >> yeah. they're very proud, and they say this, as you said, publicly. we're all about martyrs. we want to create martyrs. it helps our cause. and you're absolutely right about this. hamas knew this counterstrike was going to be coming, so obviously they stock piled, you know, food and water and fuel for themselves. but nobody else in gaza got this warning. nobody else was told, well, you ought to pick up some medicine because we're going to be under a siege for a while, or you ought to make sure you've got fuel for your generator. people of gaza, the 2 million folks who live there and have to live under these conditions, were not warned at all. and they're the ones paying the price for that right now. and it does seem to fit very well with hamas' plan. >> and hamas controls the images which come out of gaza. any cameraman who works in gaza knows where you're allowed to point the camera and where you're not allowed to point the camera. the civilian death toll is horrific, and that is the major story there. the other story is hamas doesn't exist in any video from gaza. if you're looking at the images we're looking at right now, these are not -- you don't see any tunnels. you don't see any rockets being fired, any locations of rockets, because if you're a cameraman in gaza, you cannot videotape that. you can't point the camera at hamas. >> absolutely. and it's been striking to me as well that hamas is, sort of, disappeared from the scene. we see very little of them. we see very little of the fighting they're doing. >> it's like they don't exist. >> and we see very little of the hostages. they were recently talking about executing hostages or parading them in some way. that would be bad for hamas because it would swing public opinion about them. so, you don't see the hostages. they disappeared as well during this debate. >> part of your piece includes reporting about what more the hamas gunmen had planned for, that the terror attack wasn't just supposed to be -- there's evidence now, according to intelligence officials you've spoken to, that it wasn't just going to be in the kibbutzim along the border. >> we're still trying to piece together what the hamas had in mind. there are a few intriguing pieces of evidence. one of them is some of the groups that went to the south and to the east had enough material, had enough food, weapons, and gear for several days. they weren't planning to just run out and get hostages and come back out again. and some of the maps that have been described to us indicate that some of these units were planning to go or were potentially able to go as far as the west bank. they were halfway there already. they went 15, 20 miles into israel. another 20 miles they would have been at the west bank border. you can imagine what that would mean symbolically to link up with the other palestinian faction and to perhaps draw them into the fight or make that part of this effort that they were putting together. didn't happen, but they were clearly at least thinking about that. >> the other thing on this psychic blow to the israeli population about their own security, about the capabilities of the idf, the capabilities of the intelligence services in israel. can you just talk about what you have learned about in preparations for october 7th, how hamas was able to avoid the surveillance and tapping of communication networks? >> one of the most fascinating things that we found was this was really a deception operation as much as anything else. and the preparation for this goes back probably a couple of years. because since 2021, hamas hasn't really engaged with the israelis. they've been, sort of, talking, you know, about building and about making things better for people inside gaza. but not taking in rocketfire, which some of their allies did. jihad and others would occasionally fire missiles or fight with israelis on the border. not hamas. hamas seemed to be retreating from this position they've had for the last couple of decades. and that was important for the israelis. and we talked to israeli officials who said, we -- hamas seemed to know what we wanted to hear. they wanted to hear that hamas was not interested in war anymore. they were interested in development. and we were -- israel was going to help them with that. so, they were quite surprised. and just looking back at it now, really see that they were fooled by this, that hamas played them very well. and all the time these overtures of peacefulness and walking away from war, they were planning the whole time. they were studying what they were going to do. they were drawing up the maps and getting drone footage in some cases to some of these kibbutzim they ended up attacking, all the time preparing for a really big attack, while convincing the israelis they have nothing like that going on. >> it's fascinating. thank you so much. appreciate it. as we mentioned, cnn's nic robertson spent the day with the idf forces in gaza, where he saw not just extensive destruction, but for more than that. he was under idf escort at all times. cnn did not submit the script or footage. the idf has obtained control over the final report. nic, as we said at the top of the program, you said this was the most extensive damage you've seen in more than 30 years covering conflict. talk about what you saw. nic, can you hear me? clearly we're having trouble getting in touch with nic. we'll try to do that. i will take a short break. we'll bebe right bacack. how's the chicken? the prawns are delicious. oh, i have a shellfish allergy. one prawn. very good. did i say chicken wrong? tired of people not listening to what you want? it's truffle season! ah that's okay... never enough truffles. how much are they? it's a lot. oh okay - i'm good, that - it's like a priceless piece of art. enjoy. or when they sell you what they want? yeah. the more we understand you, the better we can help you. that's what u.s. bank is for. huge relief. yeah... ♪ we've reflished contact with nic robertson, we think, in israel. nic, you said you think this is the most extensive damage you witnessed in more than 30 years. can you just talk about what you saw? >> reporter: yeah, we drove in along the coast road. we drove several miles in the back of an open humvee-type vehicle. we saw everything. we weren't enclosed in a windowless armored personnel carrier. destroyed houses, destroyed apartments, destroyed villas, hotels that were destroyed, huge, tall apartment buildings destroyed, blown apart, bullet holes, shell holes. i didn't see any building that wasn't damaged. i didn't see any civilians at all. betook armored personnel carriers to get into the city. we were about five miles into gaza in a heavily builtup neighborhood by the children's hospital. there were tank bottles -- the idf tanks were firing at hamas down the street. it was absolute -- i mean, a war zone doesn't do it justice in a way. it was absolute chaos. i mean, everything, cars strewn up the sides of -- smashed into the sides of houses. the roads pulverized. every building you looked at smashed. and still a fire fight going on in this urban environment. and, again, no people. >> what about the hospital? >> the idea that civilians could be moving back and -- yeah, the hospital. so, there still seemed to be something of a fire fight going on very close to the hospital, at the front of the hospital. i asked the commander, why is there such a big hole in the back of the hospital. he said, look, we got here five days ago. the doctors were still there. there were patients still there. he said the idf -- we couldn't check because there weren't doctors there. the idf helped the doctors evacuate with the patients. they got away safely. but the only way, he said, for the idf to get into the hospital was to punch a hole, looked like by a tank shell, in the back of the hospital. and that's how we climbed in and got into the basement, which is what he wanted to show us. look, you know, he was at great pains to show us not just the hospital there, but tunnels that they found and the house that he said belonged to a hamas commander. look, we come into this as journalists, right? and we go in and we ask questions. and i ask the questions that, you know, some people are going to say, is this really for real? and he's like, no, this is what we found. so, we can see the solar panels on the roof of a house that he says belongs to a hamas leader. we can see the cables, and we can see them running to a junction box. and we can see them run from the junction box into a well-made tunnel shaft that goes down below us. and the top spokesman there for the idf said, look, we've got a robot down there. it's gone down some of the tunnels that are beneath us here. one of them runs toward the hospital. their point being -- and they haven't proven that link. but his point being that here is a hamas commander that's got a tunnel shaft, that's got electricity and communications cables running into it. this is right next to the hospital and into the hospital wr, where he showed us weapons and ammunition. you're asking, we're asking, the tough questions. and i think we were getting straightforward answers. but, again, this is such a contentious issue about the damage to hospitals, about the civilian casualties. when you go into this environment, you really want to press and make sure that you are getting the fullest amount of information you can. what we couldn't do was reference it against any civilians that live there or any medical staff because there was nobody there. >> and what about hostages? >> yes. so, in the basement of the hotel, what the -- basement of the hospital, what the idf was saying, not only was this weapons storage facility belonging to hamas, but then they took us into another room and showed us a motorbike that had a bullet hole in it. and they said that this was one of -- they believed it was one of the motorbikes that had been used by hamas on the october 7th attack. and when i asked, you know, how are you going to know, he gave me the impression that this was something they'd seen through observations, through aerial observations. can't know that for sure. we went into another room where there was a chair and a rope around the legs of a chair, and a woman's dress, it appeared, on the chair, and a baby's feeding bottle on a shelf above the chair. and i said, okay, is this -- is what you're showing us here proof that there was a hostage here? >> he said, look, we can't make that connection. we can't make that assumption. but what we are going to do, he said, because they had only been inside the hospital he told us for about four hours, was run dna tests on that dress, on the rope, on a hair band that was found on the floor there. and they showed us another area which he said was a guard room. and there was literally a schedule for guard duty, this is how he explained it, written on in arabic on the wall action starting october 7th running every single date until november 3rd, every date crossed out. he said that was evidence that that room was used as a guard room by hamas for controlling possibly the hostages. he did not say definitively. and i pressed him on this -- that there were hostages there. but he said it was a line of information that they were going to follow up with dna tests, as they exploited the area. i've got to say they're out there on the street digging holes looking for tunnels. and there were gun battles going on around them. they are so, i think, desperate is the wrong word. but so clued in that there is so much pressure on them that they really want to try to prove what they already believe and think they have substantiated, that there are these tunnels connecting hamas to hospitals. and they're doing it under gunfire. if you're really fighting a war, you're not trying to prove that there are tunnels connecting to hospitals and things like that when you're fighting a war. but they know the international pressure is mounting on them. and of course that's why they took us there to see all of this. >> nic robertson, appreciate it. thank you. with hospitals such a focus, i wanted to get an up close look from dr. -- with the international red cross, who's been treating patients in gaza in an undisclosed location. he recorded this message for us. >> i just came out of the operating theater. this morning we operated on a 2-year-old with 28% burns all over his body. we've just operated on another lady who has 40% burned. we're doing this operation -- got a call to say that his wife's brother and father houses have been hit. and he just found out that they'd all been killed in an air strike this morning. this afternoon we operated on a young child, 13-year-old with traumatic head injury, result of an explosive blast. big defect in the back of his skull, had some bone missing and exposed brain. careful debridement and a large flap from his skull to cover the defect. i'm pleased to say some of the patients have now recovered a little bit. those with the more minor burns, which is reassuring. but we still have many, many, many patients. so, another very busy day. all our orthopedic surgeons have been busy in the orthopedic theater helping palestinian colleagues manage some of the cases currently. particularly these cases that are complicated blast injuries that are extensive tissue loss and burning injury. unfortunately today we had to amputate the hand just proximal to the wrist of a 6-year-old child who'd had very, very deep burn injuries. we were trying to save his arm. we've managed hopefully to save his limb up until the hand. but unfortunately, the hand was basically charred and was the cause of ongoing infection, which was making him very unwell. he's still in a very critical condition. still many burns we're dealing with dressing changes. our local palestinian therapists are doing a great job getting these patients up and out of bed. so, still relentless, still bombardment every night. one very close, the first one this morning whistled over the top of the building we're in. still patients arrive, still inundated with internally displaced people. so, not really getting any better. >> one doctor's perspective working in a hospital around the clock. coming up next, more breaking news. we have new reporting on the fbi investigation into the campaign fundraising for new york city mayor eric adams, focused on campaign money, alleged favors, and possible foreign influence. 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. more breaking news tonight. we are learning more about the fbi investigation into campaign fundraising for the mayor of america's biggest city. last week we reported the fbi seized the cell phone and ipad of mayor of new york eric adams. he has not been accused of wrong doing. john miller joins us now. what have you learned? >> we're told my sources who have been briefed on the investigation that the fbi investigation into these campaign contributions that came from straw donors is backed up by the fact that they are -- we are told -- have the records of the checks in the same amounts of the campaign contributions that were then paid back to the employees of a brooklyn-based construction company that does a lot of business in the city. so, essentially a company can only give $5,000. but when you have a large group of employees giving $2,000 each and then they're getting it back from the company, they found a way to not only skirt the campaign limits in contributions but also get matching funds for those amounts from the city. >> why would the company do that? >> that, anderson, kind of, goes to the heart of what this case is really about. these were a construction company that's connected to a larger construction company in turkey. it's owned by a successful turkish american businessman who supported eric adams. is this just a turkish businessman who does a lot of business with the city who needs cooperation in permits and things like this. or is this -- and think about the menendez case in new jersey, where businessmen were working as cutouts to get things for the egyptian government. so, is turkey trying to lure in the mayor of the city of new york wittingly or unwittingly to get anything has simple as business development in new york for businesses that would benefit turkey, or more complex, which is investing in a politician who's got ambitions to maybe go to the white house. >> why would there be simultaneous searches and then wait a week to take the mayor's phone. >> there's two potential answers to that. one, they got the evidence in the searches that got the probable cause to get the searches for the phones. or two, investigative technique, which is they have wiretaps on suspects and they wanted to do something to stir up the pot and get conversations going. >> that's interesting. >> which would be even more interesting, in that they got a search warrant for the mayor's devices to mirror the hard drives, copy all the information. is it possible they had a wiretap as well on one or more of the mayor's devices? that we don't know. but tomorrow he goes before the press to answer questions about this. >> how tough would it be to get a wiretap on a sitting mayor? >> it's a significant task. laying out the probable cause to convince a federal judge -- it would also have to be approved by the attorney general of the united states -- to convince a federal judge that there is evidence of illegal activity on the mayor's phone and devices. now, we know they got that search warrant. so, we haven't seen that document yet. >> fascinating. john miller, thank you. the supreme court released a code of conduct today. the question though, does it have any teeth? will it be enough to save the court's reputation after a series of justiceses n not didisclosing g gifts in luluxur trtrips. thatat's next. after a series of embarrassing news stories that allege justices at the supreme court, including clarence thomas and sam yuel alito, the court today announced a code of conduct. critics say the code lacks teeth and does not spell out at all how it would be enforced or by whom. for instance, sheldon whitehouse asked, quote, is there a place to file a complaint against the justice who sorts out the ridiculous claims from the -- ones. the court also lists no specific restrictions on gifts or the code -- no specific restrictions on gifts, travel, real estate dealsment it says justices should, quote, make a reasonable effort to stay inform about the financial interests of themselves and their households. justices should not be knowingly be a speaker, guest of honor, or featured on a program of a fundraising event. the feeling on recusal should be construed narrowly. propublica began reporting on the justices financing, including republican megadonor harlan crowe had paid for expensive trips and more justice clarence thomas. thomas said the rules didn't require such disclosures. samuel alito also did not disclose a luxury fishing trip in 2008. he said the criticisms were, quote, not valid. joan vis cue pick. do these guidelines go far enough to understand the criticism that's been levelled? >> no, they don't, anderson. but we've finally got at least a written code. so, it is the first step in what members of the public, senate democrats, watchdog groups, you know, a host of media commentators have been pushing for. so, it is a first step. and the chief justice john roberts had really been struggling behind the scenes first to even get a majority to do something. and in the end, he was able to get unanimity. and ink it's because of the kind of atmosphere you just referred there in terms of the news stories, the constant drum beat of can't they have some sort of written rules the way lower court judges have. but the key thing is exactly as you said, there are no enforcement mechanisms in what they presented and also no way for anyone in the public, the hill, or elsewhere, to try to lodge a complaint and have it actually aired in some way. so, it's, again, the justice is saying, trust us. but i do want to say that at least they've taken this first step. now, they adopted much of what was in the lower court code, but they added certain things that actually, kind of, i think, were intended to blunt some of the criticism that they have. you mentioned that they say that if any actions might undermine the judiciary, they add the word "knowingly" there saying sometimes the justices don't know whether their conduct might undermine the judiciary or promote integrity. they just don't know. and with sharp disagreements, as the document said, they just needed to make sure they put in that they would only find -- it would have to be knowingly disregard the judicial integrity and impartiality. so, they, kind of, gave themselves an out in this document, including, anderson, in another one they said -- you know how the court receives lots of amicus briefs filed by business groups and individual who is have connections to the justices. and they said in the cases of these, quote, friends of the court briefs that are filed to back up certain parties in the case, that even if the justices have relationships with any of those individuals, they don't need to recuse. so, again, no enforcement. and some new provisions written in that i think were intended to blunt criticism that they've already been receiving in certain instances. >> so, i mean, is this -- i mean, are lower court judges -- do they have higher standards? >> right now they do. they do. >> wow. >> yes, they absolutely do. and the other thing, anderson, for lower court judges, there are channels that if you or anyone else has a complaint against a judge, there are channels in place that those complaints can be resolved. with the supreme court, there are no such mechanisms. >> wow. fascinating. joan biskupic, thank you so much. appreciate it. that's it for us. thanks for watching. the news continues. "the source" with kaitlan "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com tonight, straight from "the source," it's language that echoed that of hitler and mussolini, but tonight donald trump'