>> four criminal cases, 91 felony charges. but it is the case you may not have heard about that could really spell trouble for donald trump. tonight, i'm laura coates live. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> the legal developments, they are coming fast, and they are coming furious, and in the many different cases that donald trump is facing. in georgia, you've got prosecutors asking a judge to now jail one of trump's codefendants. his name? harrison floyd, over his alleged efforts to intimidate co-defenders and apparently witnesses, including georgia election worker ruby freeman. and the judge said that he is going to bar the public release insensitive evidence, like the generalists -- that we saw that was leaked earlier this week. >> he said, the boss, meaning president trump and everyone understood that the boss, that's what we all told him. he said the boss is not going to wait under any circumstances. we're just going to stay in power. >> and, by the way, you know, we now know who leaked that video and why. more on that a little bit later. then, of course, a quarter of a billion dollar civil fraud case in new york against trump and his family business. former president wants a mistrial in that case, and maybe no surprise, he is a alleging that the judge is biased against him, a claim that he has shouted from the rooftops, or at the very least, to the reporters outside the courtroom. >> this judge is a very partisan judge, with a person that is very partisan setting in a court -- it shows what this is. >> wait, there is more, in this election subversion case right here in washington, d.c.. prosecutors are calling on the appeal court to uphold the gag order on donald trump who some might argue made the case for them by calling jack smith -- what was that word? the ranged. also claiming that quote, his wife and family, despised me much more than he does, unquote. but none of those cases nor any of the many other donald trump cases would actually, or has actually derailed his candidacy. a federal conviction, a criminal case conviction, serving time behind bars, the constitution says no problem to all of those. and legal experts say the constitution doesn't bar anyone convicted or even serving jail time from running, or maybe even winning the presidency. that is of course if he is actually on the ballot. but what if he couldn't be on the ballot? or wasn't allowed to be on the ballot? well, that's the issue that three states have been wrestling with, michigan, my hometown of minnesota, and colorado. but how could he be removed from their ballots? well, it's pretty novel, and it's all about the 14th amendment, which basically says anyone who, quote, engaged in insurrection or rebellion, unquote, shall not take oath of austin, defend the constitution, forbidden from holding public office. notice and that, it doesn't define insurrection. it doesn't actually spell out how to enforce that ban. but the language is there. parties in those three states at least have tried to erase donald trump's name on their ballot. now, in minnesota, and also in michigan, the courts have already decided that election officials don't have the authority to take his name off the ballot, full trials in this round. but besides the evidence in these cases at least for now. but in colorado, the judge, they did have a trial. and they have yet to decide what to do. she has until friday to actually roll. so, what will she decide? and that is the really big question for all of us, who should get to decide who is on the ballot? is it the courts or is it you, the voters? i want to bring in now congressman jamie raskin, a democrat from maryland. congressman raskin, i want to get to the 14th amendment trial in just a moment, it's very important. but i have been saying a lot about the violent protests this evening calling for a cease-fire in gaza outside the dnc headquarters. and we are told that three of the top house democrats were there with several members of congress, they had to be escorted out by police. have you heard from any of them and are they safe, congressman? >> well, i understand everybody is okay. so, you know, we can be grateful for that. >> we certainly can be, watching the video footage, it looks like it could have gone very, very badly. i do want to get to the 14th amendment. you are a constitutional professor and scholar, and just yesterday, the michigan judge rejected another 14th amendment challenge. and that means there is now a handful of states where the argument is falling flat. so do you think we are going to see a different result in colorado? >> well, as you know, a bunch of donald trump's cases, there are a lot of issues of of first impression, which means things that the courts are dealing with for the first time. it doesn't mean that they are saying donald trump did not engage in insurrection, but they are parsing different parts of section three of the 14th amendment. in michigan, the court ruled that this was a political question, none just to show, which means it's not to the court to decide, it's up to congress to decide. and for that ruling, they really based it on final sentence of section three of the 14th amendment, which says that congress can't remove the disability of having participated in an insurrection by a two thirds vote. and that seems to apply to that court anyway, that it's really within the province of the legislative branch to be making these decisions. now, other courts have gone in another direction. in minnesota, the court seemed to stumble on to a different solution, which struck me as kind of strange, which is that it might be an issue that could block a candidate from being a candidate for president of the united states, or congress, or send it in the general election, but not in the primary, which to me is like saying a 14 year old tried to run for congress or for president, they could be on the primary ballot, but not the general election ballot. that is just up to the party to decide, which i think cuts against, you know, nearly a century of supreme court rulings that the primary process is part of the electoral machinery that belongs to the state. and that was decided really in the 1930s and 40s, and in some cases, called the white primary line of authority, smith versus albright, terry versus adams. so that struck me as a strange way of thinking about the case, but obviously, the courts are all over the map here because as with so much trump litigation, it is all new. and nobody has dealt with this before for more than a century. >> i mean it is kind of the wild, wild west. and frankly, it should be by design. you want to have very few cases involving somebody who is maybe alleged committed insurrection. but let me ask you about that very point because what often comes back to people talking about these cases is whether or not it should be up to the judges, or should it be up to the voters to decide how they want to vote to somebody, knowing all the information brought to the daylight, frankly, and there has not yet been charge of insurrection in these different jurisdictions, force, or even a conviction against trump. is this all premature to even have these sorts of discussions? >> that strikes me as an odd way of looking at it. the authors of the 14th amendment themselves dealt with that question. and they felt that if someone sets themselves at war against the constitution, and engages in the most profound anti-democratic act of trying to overthrow an election by installing themselves in office with an insurrection, then at that point, they are constitutionally barred. and so, when people say, it is undemocratic what the voters decide, that's like saying, let vladimir putin run for president, even though he's not a u.s. citizen because it would be undemocratic to deny that choice to the voters. the constitution has already made that judgment. it would be like saying, you know, a 12 year old can run for president or congress because it is undemocratic not to give the people that choice. we'll, if you don't like it, then amend the constitution to change that rule. but abraham lincoln really settled that question of what is democratic and what is not because he said at the beginning of the civil war that the act of insurrection is a profound assault on democracy because it is an attempt to strip away from the people there right to choose their own elected officials. and so at the end of the civil war, in 1868, a few years later, with the passage of the 14th amendment, the framers of the constitution said, we are going to deny people, the worst offenders, the opportunity to serve again in federal or state office, president, congress, civil or military office, even members of the electoral college, they said we don't want them to be a part of it. and if you look at what happened to us on january 6th, you can see the wisdom of what the constitutional founders in the 14th amendment we're talking about. so, i think it's really a question of determining whether he engaged in insurrection. now -- >> congressman, that is exactly what -- excuse me, that is exactly what is part of the trial in colorado for that very reason. you are right, you know that the impeachment on that very issue, but in terms of a criminal conviction of such, that hasn't occurred. you know that. but i want to tell you, i actually posed this question because i was so curious, because i hear this so many times about people talking about being undemocratic to have the choice not before the voters as opposed before the judge. i posed the question to a number of people from both sides of the aisle, invited them to the conversation, asking what they think about in this case. here's just a few, lists. >> we need someone and the courts to decide on his fate because quite honestly, i don't think that if we leave it up to the people, the right decision will be made. >> of course, we should decide that. our judicial branch of government is in place for that purpose, to uphold our constitution in the laws -- >> my take on former president trump ballot eligibility is that that decision should light in the hands of people. as a proud u.s. citizen, i believe in our democratic process. >> keep trump on the ballot and let the voters decide whether to vote for him or not. that is democracy in action. >> so, are they getting it wrong, that's what some of the people had had to say. and you hear this refrained at times. i point to this specifically, congressman, because there seems to be some indication that people have different views, whether it's at the primary level, or at the general election level. do you have a say in that? >> well, i like what your second respondent said, which is we gotta start with what the constitution and the laws of the country provide. and the constitution is very clear on this question. and so, you know, it would be like saying, well, you know, should we have school desegregation or not? should it be based on equal interpretation of the constitution? or should we just allow the voters to decide? and there are some things that we commit to the constitution and then we follow the constitution. it seems to me really strange to say when someone tries to overthrow the democratic process, as donald trump did, that the constitution should not apply to him. he agrees with that. he has said repeatedly, we don't need the constitution. so, i think what we need is a judicial determination of whether or not an impeachment by the house, 57 to 43 vote in the senate, enough to establish as a civil proposition that he's engaged in insurrection. or whether you need additional adjudicated fact finding by the court. but nowhere does it say that you need to have a criminal conviction in order to make section three of the 14th amendment apply. >> and that is exactly where colorado comes in. congressman jamie raskin, thank you so much. really important to hear your insight. >> thanks for having me. >> i want to bring in cnn's marshall cohen who's been following this trial for us, also constitutional lawyer rebecca grant, and former january 6th committee investigative counsel marcus childress. glad that you are all here. let's begin where that leads off, really. it's not a requirement in the constitution that it has to be a criminal conviction, that is true. but so many voters are saying to themselves, hold on, how do you get to decide, your honor, whether or not there has actually been insurrection? is that the criteria here? or should it be up to us to vote for this person or not, eyes wide open? marshall, there's been a trial in this case, unlike the other cases we have been talking about, where they are trying to, as the congressman raskin identify, create and establish whether an insurrection took place. tell me about what was gleaned and the closing arguments at the very least. >> just a few hours ago in denver, both sides in this case presenting their final arguments to the judge, who has two days to issue her ruling. so, this is going to happen quick. >> why is that, just two days? >> well, this is an election case that was filed under an expedited procedure because, of course, at some point, they have to make a decision, print the ballots, and then let people vote. >> and that early january. >> that's right. in colorado, the primary super tuesday is in march. closing arguments, the challengers were basically saying a lot of the things that congressman raskin just said. this is in the constitution, whether it is convenient or not. this is the supreme law of the land, donald trump is ineligible and states have no business putting in ineligible candidates on their ballots. trump obviously, his team made a very different argument. they said that this is kind of a charade, a ridiculous, absurd presentation of the constitution. they also argue that january six does not fit the definition of insurrection, which they argued is more something to the level of a civil war. and so, those are some of the issues that the judges gonna hash out. she's got two days. >> and of course, if they were to decide that, marshall, if they were to decide that very notion, what's the timeline? what happens, there's a go to the ballot or what? >> well, everyone is expecting an appeal of this decision no matter what. and the judge made very clear in the beginning of the case that she knows where this is headed. the next step would be the colorado supreme court. it is actually all democratic appointees on that court, by the way. and then the step after that would be the u.s. supreme court, very different story there with the conservative super majority. so one way or another, this is going to reach the supreme court, probably before the end of this year. >> we can all see the tumbleweed going down the road because this is all novel and the wild, wild west of the lot right now, which is again a good reason not to have these cases be a diamond destin. but when you hear this, different arguments, how do you see it? >> i agree with what marshall said, fundamentally, this will go to the supreme court. and the reason states are struggling is it's very difficult. and for a state trial court to weigh in on the role of the 14th amendment in this essentially novel since the civil war situation, that's a big ask for a state court judge. they're doing their best and everybody knows where this is going, this is going to the supreme court and going their relatively quickly. and i think to echo what representative raskin said, these are hard questions. the constitution by design puts some issues beyond the ability of voters. that's the purpose, that's the purpose of the constitution. if we want to maintain our republic, if we want to keep this system going. there are questions that by design are out of voters hands, and this may be one of them. you know, a lot of this is relying on the january 6th testimony and what was presented. you obviously were a big part of that, markets, the fact that that was used, there were questions in the public eye about whether there had been a sufficient enough case made that donald trump himself had engaged in insurrection or had directed someone to do so. did they make the case? would that be enough, what you presented to the january six committee? >> no one is really challenging the facts, or might be challenging the lack of minority staff, or the former prosecutors that were on the team. but no one is really challenging the findings per se. >> trump's team is, they don't like the findings at all. >> they don't like the findings, but also they're not supporting the arguments by showing facts to the contrary. and the through line, as charles knows this, you know the through lines of opening to go through closing. and this call to action has been a through line, consistent through our january six committee investigation. and we sought again during this colorado hearing. look, i think the perfect iteration is glenn youngkin who actually said during the oath keepers trial that he was influenced by the big lie, and that he viewed the attack on the capital as the frameworks of resolute revolution, his attack under the seal. that is an illustration of insurrection and i thought that the colorado team did a great job of continuing that argument, to show that it was an instruction. >> one way to get the supreme court, between different circuits, obviously and other entities, and if the state of colorado were to roll, and then you've got minnesota, michigan, albeit for different reasons, saying no he can stay on the ballot. the supreme court might take this up, and they likely look at this. what's the outcome now? >> it's an interesting question. i think the supreme court has shown that it cares about its institution here. i don't think this is obvious even though the supreme court is dominated by republican appointees. i do think there are numerous republican appointees who are worried about the stability of our institutions right now. so i don't know but they will decide. it would be the ones, i think ultimately, who will decide this question. >> you've been following this so closely, what is your prediction? i know it's a hard one. how about this, i know reporters, i know it, i get it. how about this, how do you think it's leading? >> i think that if it's gonna win anywhere, it's the challengers who want trump off the ballot, if they are going to win and, we're not gonna beat minnesota, nor michigan. it could be colorado. and the fact that it even got this far to a trial, with witnesses and evidence and all the findings for marcus report presented one by one, i think that's says where this may be going for now. >> for now, obviously. that is a reporter. i love that, marshall cohen. thank you so much, rebecca, marcus, also stick around, please. we also some breaking news from capitol hill, the state senate voting to pass that stopgap bill to avert a shutdown at the end of the week. next week it will go to president biden to be signed. the two step plan extends signing until january 19th, priorities including military construction, veterans efforts, transportation, housing and energy department. the rest of the government, anything not covered by what i just said, funded until february 2nd. i know the proposal does not include additional aid for israel or ukraine. well, now we know who leaked those proffer videos and the georgia election subversion case. next, i will tell you why and what the judge in the case is gonna do about it. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> prosecutors in the georgia election interference case, they are cracking down now on a series of a very public issue that happened even this week. the d.a. fani willis is asking a judge to revoke the bond of the man you see here, harrison floyd. he's one of the defendants, and she wants to put him in jail. now, the y is interesting. they are saying that what he has done is that he has engaged in behavior to intimidate codefendants and witnesses. in one example, they laid out a social media post where floyd calls out of the georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger. and in another post, it shows floyd questioning why his legal team was accused of leaking materials and referring to false claims about election worker. and that election worker is ruby freeman, who once again is caught in the middle. she and her daughter were targeted by trump with bogus fraud, fraud allegations in the past. speaking of those leaks from the fulton county judge, blocking the release of sensitive evidence after key video statements when other defendants got out. and now, the attorney for a separate defendant -- i know it's a mess -- he's owning up to it. jonathan miller, representing former coffee county elections supervisor, misty hampton saying here saying that his client believed the public has a right to see these videos. they showed proffer sessions from jenna ellis and sidney powell who were giving info on trump's attempts to overturn the election. back with me now is rebecca grant and marcus childress. i mean, first of all, the fact that they did not already have some sort of protective order is surprising, still, i mean, the fact that this was almost inevitable, when would think. obviously, we don't want to have this happen. but why not have that in the first place? >> it's pretty common, just to say they have a protective order, especially in criminal trials and especially when you know what the defendants and types of witnesses you are dealing with in this matter. i mean, it was pretty appalling to me that i can send an email to witnesses during the january six investigation. and within minutes, my emails were -- and this is not as sensitive as the emission evidence that the fulton county d.a. is sending out. i'm happy there's a protective order in place for sensitive information because we do have to think about protecting these witnesses and ensure the safety of the actual investigation, integrity as we move forward. >> what is behind the reason, why do you think misty hampton's attorney thinks it is best to have it out there? >> i think this was probably an ill-advised decision, that he wanted to explain what she was dealing with, what his client was facing. but you can't do this in the media. i agree it is surprising not a protective order in place. but an attorney should not, right? and an attorney should know that this is the kind of thing that could impact the trial in a way that you can't do. in a trial, if you are presenting the trial in court, you need to try the case in court. this attorney is probably in trouble for publicizing information that he knew could influence a trial, and information that he knew without a protective order, he should've known it should not have been made public. >> all this to me, with all the defendants who all who are here, they're not all on one team. you have all the different defendants, all each out for themselves, wondering how can i get -- people, some of them pleaded guilty. but that said to me, look at this yearbook photo, right? these are different cases for all intention and purpose is here. but i hate to single out harrison floyd because obviously, some of the behavior that donald trump has been engaged in, gag orders in different cases as well. sometimes in different ones. why do you think fani willis is not asking for him to be revoked in some way? >> i mean she's probably trying to keep it consistent across the board. and we will see. i mean, i think he might be the first example with this type of violation, preserving that integrity of the investigation. and i think that the fulton county d.a. has been taking a very cautious methodical approach, and she's attacking these cases. and i think this is just the latest example of that. >> so, what will this be adding to the witnesses, defendants now? is this going to be an issue, rebecca, everyone that this is seeing this as a warning shot for them? >> i hope so. i think the answer to what do we do when donald trump makes a similar statement, it is more difficult legally because he can say, under different circumstances, i'm running for office. that is different practically. he's got a security detail. but you lock him up in atlanta jail, or in a d.c. jail, the logistical challenges are huge. that said, judges do have home potential that comes to mind. there are ways you can penalize even someone running for president but it raises difficult issues which were not raised by another codefendant here, saying things in any difficult criminal case, he would be in trouble for it. i think one thing that sometimes is not clear here, i've been involved in lots of cases, where there is little media attention. and this kind of talk in public about witnesses in your case is not okay, it is never okay. so, we are pushing boundaries here that don't usually get pushed this far. so, the consequences here it makes sense to me. >> but who do you think stands to gain the most from all of this being in the public eye? >> well, i'm not the one talking -- i don't necessarily think it hurts the fulton county d.a.'s case. i think that shows a path out there are being, and a planet is proffers from individuals who submitted guilty pleas. but it's another example of a show trial which is what the clerks and d.c. and new york and in georgia are trying to prevent. these cases been tried in the public eye. and to preserve everyone's safety and the interpreting of these cases. >> and remember, this is the case where you can have cameras and a courtroom. so this will be that one time you have -- well, rebecca legrand, marcus childress, think of some much both for being here. so is the lead off the prophet videos and attempt to influence public opinion? our other guests talk about that rigight now. 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. >> we have told about the legal ramifications of lincoln witness videos to the price. there are substantial ones. what about the effect on the court of public opinion? i want to bring in brian stelter, author of the new book, network of lies, the efficacy of folks news, donald trump, and the battle for american democracy. owes journalist and former fox news host, geraldo rivera. i'm glad to have both of you here. brian, welcome back, hello, congratulations on your new book. we always knew, frankly, gentlemen, this is going to be argued in to court. the court of law, brian, and the court of public opinion. but i wonder what you make about the fact we are already seeing videos like fulton county once and that media, and the price, circulating already? >> this was astonishing. and i think we should have some sympathy, at least, a little sympathy for the fulton county district attorney's office. that they're facing this sort of lakes and these situations a plant in public view. but i have to say, as someone switching on the outside, trying to learn what went wrong and 2020, i just wrote a whole book about it, there's still so much to learn. and that's why the admissions from jenna ellis, the admissions on pit videotapes were so valuable. just for the public at large, despite the hit expend coast lately. >> geraldo, we look at this issue and how the media is so impactful and any of these cases. you see people in her echo campers, you see people trying to go and get information. something like this as cover, maybe, it differently. tell me what the impact you think on the media it will be from heaven these lakes? >> well, i think one of the reasons judge is so anchor here, laura, is the fact you have jenna ellis testifying on for this proffer that dance gavino, a key trump aides told him trump said he wasn't leaving. so jenna ellis testifies to that. that's hearsay. that probably would not be admissible in court, except now that they have heard it, now it's out there, now a potential juror is polluted, a potential juror now has heard testimony from key people that would not be admissible in trial. but it's out there. so that's one of the reasons this should remain confidential. usually -- let everything all hang out. but in this particular case, it's very sensitive. and i think the judge made the right decision and terms of keeping this confidential from here on. >> and that's the key isn't it, gentlemen, when you think about the why? what you want to get things and to the court of public opinion? yes, it's the jury pool. we are also yes than a year away, brian, from a presidential election. donald trump loves a camera, we are well aware of that. he has gone out in the hallway for the new york civil fraud trial time and time again to give his own summation of what's happening. kate wants to have cameras in the courtroom, even in the federal court. georgia, it's allowed, not there. but when you look at that, does that have the potential for good transparency or media circus? >> isn't the answer all of the above? isn't the answer all of the above? yes, to some people it looked like transparency. it is transparency. it's the only way to show folks who might be on the fence that trump is not the victim, he's actually being treated equally unfairly. on the other hand, we do know the circus would follow. and we live in a median age for little single clips, little moments here and there become bigger than they actually furrow -- thorough full scale of it. of don't think the federal case you see will be on a camera. i think the special counsel will prevail against trump's attempts to get it on camera. because, laura, there is no precedent for having it on camera and federal courts, right? >> geraldo, do you think -- to you think that donald trump really, in the end, once these trials affiliate televised? because if that happens, he really can't, geraldo, to a kind of hallway spin? >> well, i was on celebrity apprentice with the former president and his very good at spinning. he'll spin like a top. and i think that he will, you know, outside of jurisdictions like new york city and maybe atlanta, i think he could present a case, for instance, in florida, cases before a relatively sympathetic people. and he's an expert, a consummate artist, performance artist. and as you've seen, in new york, he will spin like a top. and i think he will be, generally speaking, successful, except maybe jack smith will net him on a couple of counts. maybe, maybe not. but i think, if you want to beat donald trump, i won't say this, laura, very, very important. he's got 91 indictments and all the rest. if you want to beat donald trump, you've got to beat him at the ballot box. otherwise, he'll be in an orange jumpsuit, he'll be in jail, he'll still be president. he's not part by the constitution, even upon conviction. so i think, all of this noise, all of this pretrial kind of acting let's going on, all these cases. the state case, alvin bragg, in the stormy daniels and laetitia james, the most ambitious politician in new york going after him. valuation of real estate, promoter, or for william in his real estate. oh, how shocking? that probably has never happened before. really. >> the judge agreed with that last point. that's what they had a motion rejecting to say, you committed fraud personally on that very point. brian, let me ask you, in your new book -- you two other thorough deep dive into to behind the scenes at fox news. and geraldo didn't manchin january 6th in particular and jack smith. i find it surprising that more than two years past, now, january 6th, and we are still just now hearing more and more reporting about what was going on about the coverage and beyond. why do you think it's taken this amount of time? >> it matters because january 6th has been redefined. there has been a new narrative, a nerve really presented by some folks on the. right on the far-right. and geraldo, to his credit, spoke out against tucker colson for doing that. for promoting conspiracy theories. but it's conspiracy theories that have allowed trump to return to some stage. i've realized -- trump was the platform, shamed out of the public square three years ago. but he was brought back to the center by these conspiracy theories about january 6th. that's one of the reasons what the federal trials are so important. to put onto the st. what really happened and why, and to get away from this nonsense about feds and felt flex and government committees. it's important we speak out against plus lies, and we've got to give geraldo credit here, since we have never been on tv together, he did speak out against. that >> geraldo, do you want to return that embrace? >> i appreciate that. >> no, he doesn't. >> i appreciate, that brian. i always thought you were pretty good on tv, too. here's my thing, laura. this is very -- people can get their own -- i called president trump's impeachment on the 7th of january, 2021. but the after january 6th. i said hey deserve to be impeached. he was in paged by the house of representatives. but then he was acquitted by the united states senate. you know, i would have convicted him. the senate acquitted him. doesn't jack smith's efforts, and away, smack of double jeopardy? isn't the impeachment process the way we punish errant presidents? people who violate the oath of their office? it just seems to me that a lot of these various falsehoods against trump, as outrageous as his behavior has been, and it really has been in many cases low down and dirty. but still he went before the united states senate, he didn't physically show up, but his case was litigated. the senate acquitted him. you needed two thirds vote, you didn't get anywhere near two thirds vote for conviction. that the constitution. and i saw your earlier segment on the lawsuit to keep him off the appellate and colorado. it's really -- it's that first state to determine who's on the ballot for the presidential election. i think it's really going to ad hominem. they're going after him and ways that generate sympathy for him. you know exactly what you shouldn't be. >> two points. one, thank you for watching the interim laura coates live show. i do agree it's dynamite. 11 pm, eastern, weekdays. number two, i will say, it's not double jeopardy, according to law. because one was a political discussion and one was, you know what, let's not argue, fellas. i'm glad you are both here. thank you so much. [laughter] brian stelter, geraldo rivera, thank you and be sure to check out brian's new book, network of lies, the epic saga of fox news, donald trump, and the battle for american democracy. we'll be right back. >> when hamas militants broke they poured offense and i can't pick to reject a voter for seven, many war gopro camera to document the assault. some videos were shirt as hamas propaganda, but not all of them. cnn has obtained video from one of these cameras from the israeli military. the idf says it shows the reality of what happened, which many have called israel's 9/11. and one long continuous video shows 100 minutes of horror. and we have to warn you, some of what you are about to see is very graphic. here is cnn's oren liebermann. >> an explosion before dawn on october 7th. the time is here and the attack is underway. allahu akbar, god is great, they chant as they cross the breached fence. go right, go right, go right, they say. less than two minutes later, they cross the second security fence. they are in israel, heading towards a kibbutz. the sun is up, and a day that will reshape the region has begun. this video comes from the body cam of one of the terrorists who took part in the attack. it was obtained exclusively by cnn and the israel defense forces. for the first time, we also see video inside hamas tunnels before the attack. it is a look into a network of tunnels, with what appear to be supplies stored in the darkness. writing on the wall in arabic says, what's hidden is far worse. above ground, the gunman fires his first shots. go on, men. go on, men, he screams. [screaming] they stop on the way. more than a dozen militants gather here to prepare for the next assault. one has several rocket propelled grenades on his back. minutes later, a group advances across an open field, moving towards the village of kissufim. the gunman charges the last bit, spots an israeli soldier on the ground. [screaming] others join in celebration. moments later, he is more composed as he turns the camera on himself. he says his name and that he's 24 years old. he's a father. he says he killed two israeli soldiers, he asks god for victory, and well deserved martyrdom. on motorbikes now, they keep advancing, moving together along empty israeli roads, or nearly empty. the man cheers as he sees bodies on the road. his is not the first wave. he rounds a corner. here, we have seen this place before, among the first videos to come out after the attack. this is dash cam video from a car on the same road moments earlier. the car approaches a group of militants who open fire. the car coasts, its driver almost certainly dead by now. it's just after 7:40 in the morning. after a quick reload, the group approaches a military base near the kibbutz of re'im. for 65 minutes, since crossing the gaza fence, they've had nearly free reign in israel. the gunman closes the distance with a weapon he took from an israeli soldier, opening fire. and fire comes back. [screaming] this man is part of the attack comes to an end. the terror is just beginning. oren liebermann, cnn, tel aviv. >> oren, thank you. wewe'll be rigight back. >> before we leave you tonight, i want to share how matthew perry costars are remembering the referee. and matt leblanc saying, i will always smile when i think of you and i will never forget you. never. david schwimr writing, i am agent you up there, somewhere, in the same white suit, hands in your pockets, looking around. could there be any more clouds? lisa kudrow, thanking matthew for making her laugh so hard that tears poured down her face every day. courtney cox, saying, i am so grateful for every moment i had with you, mattie. and jennifer aniston saying, being able to really sit in this grave allows you to feel that moments of joy and gratitude for haven't loved someone that deep. and we loved him. deeply. [silence]