erin burnett "out front" starts right now. >> reporter: "out front next," a ruling from a colorado judge on whether to disqualify trump from running in the state. breaking, powerful explosions rocking northern gaza. israel now warning it will strike anywhere hamas is found as hamas release as new hostage video. new video of house speaker mike johnson making anti-gay comments weeks before he was elected speaker, more as we learn from his wife's ultra conservative views. let's go "out front." good evening, i'm erin burnett. we begin 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. the judge deciding trump is eligible to run for president even after his role in the january 6 insurrection. a group of voters filed a lawsuit, and this was based on the 14th amendment, arguing that amendment would bartrum from federal office. a judge, though, ruling the other way. a team of reporters standing by. lucy cavanaugh is out in front, evan perez in washington. as i said seconds ago, i haven't had a chance to read 102 pages. what do we need to know? >> the bottom line the judge, sarah wallace, is ordering donald trump's name will appear on the ballot in colorado this is a ruling that just came down. the bottom line for the judge is the 14th amendment, which is what these voters were seeking to have enforced, the judge is saying it's not clear that this applies to the president of the united states or that this president is covered by that section, that the writers of that section of the constitution intended for that to apply to the president of the united states. i'll read you just a part of what the 14th amendment says. anyone who has taken an oath as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the constitution of the united states shall have engaged in insurrection against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof is disqualified from holding office. that's what the voters were seeking to have enforced, to have the former president struck from the ballot in colorado. the judge said that really she can't really enforce that because it's clear to her that if the framers of the constitution intended for that to apply to a president of the united states, they would have made that much clearer. and so, in her view, it does not apply and, therefore, the former president will appear on the colorado ballot. now this is in line, we should say, with other challenges that have come forward. there are voters who brought similar challenges, another fringe candidate has brought a lawsuit in new hampshire. all tossed aside for this reason. it's not clear that you can bar the former president of the united states because of what happened on january 6 and his involvement inspiring what happened on january 6th, erin. >> we'll have a lot more to talk about. you lay out that on a certain level so others could be barred but not the president of the united states. that's confusing. i think all could see that but there's a lot to get through here, it's 102 pages. as it significant case because people have been watching colorado so closely. lucy, what are you hearing? >> reporter: obviously all eyes have been on colorado where this electoral drama had been playing out. as my colleague just pointed out, judge wallace ordered the colorado secretary of state to place the president on the ballot when it verifies the ballot january 5th. this lawsuit was filed by six colorado voters, four republicans and two unaffiliated, with the help of the watchdog group citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. in court they argued trump engaged in an insurrection by inciting a violent mob to attack the u.s. capitol in order to stop the peaceful transfer of power. trump's attorney, also a former colorado secretary of state, he had argued that not only does january 6 not qualify as an insurrection but there is no evidence that trump intended to incite violence, that the lawsuit amounts to election interference. we have spoke to voters who are split along party lines in understandable ways. republicans think this is election interference. democrats supporting keeping trump off the balance. we heard from some that given how divided the climate is, perhaps using the legal system as opposed to the ballot box isn't the right way to decide if trump should be in office. secretary, i appreciate you being with me. it's 102 pages. obviously you were watching it incredibly closely. what's your reaction to this? >> well, i think the court could have ruled three different ways, and this is how the court ruled. at the end of the day, there's big questions about how section 3 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 would agree with her. there's others who would not agree with her, and either way i think there's a high chance that this case is further appealed. so i think the court has been very thoughtful, like you said, it's 102 pages. it just broke. and i will follow whatever decision, judicial decision, in place at the time the ballot happens. >> it's important you say it will be further appealed because the expectation had been -- by the way, trump said he expected to lose, that they would, of course, appeal. even with a trump victory, the voters who brought the case will also appeal. i'm here with ryan goodman. did we have section 268 that you were showing me? >> yes. >> i want to read something to you, secretary, and this is something from the ruling, ryan goodman just found this. section 298 consequently the court finds that petitioners have established that trump engaged in an insurrection on january 6, 2021, through incitement and that the first amendment does not protect trump 's speech. secretary, how significant is that line for you? it is, to me, pretty stunning, the whole concern, oh, well, it is hard to prove. the judge says in the ruling that they did establish that trump engaged in an insurrection. >> it's really powerful for the entire nation. i believe trump incited insur insurrection. there are questions whether it reached the level of disqualification and to find a court of law to determine, 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, incited the insurrection, which is very dangerous language. he just showed the capitol in flames. he is a direct danger to democracy and the court really underlined it. >> secretary, i want to be clear. while you are an outspoken trump critic, you were a defendant along with trump in this case because you are the secretary of state. you oversee ballot access. you didn't take a formal legal position in the case. you have seen the evidence. you know it in and out. but you didn't -- you were technically a doeft because of your role as a secretary of state. do you feel that's the right thing? do you believe that's the right thing, the right thing that you had to do that? >> 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 what happened in this case. six republican and unaffiliated voters filed a lawsuit saying trump disqualified himself. the judicial system, letting it play out, trump's statement is just a continuation of lies about our democracy. judges decide when there's big, contentious issues. >> secretary griswold, i appreciate your time. thank you for being with us immediately as this broke. you haven't had a chance to read all of it yourself. thank you for coming up and sharing your thoughts with us. >> i want to go now to ryan goodman and joan. let me start with you, ryan. i want to start with section 298, because you found it. i'm going to put it in english. tell me if i'm right. this establishes the judge said trump did indeed incite an insurrection, his words are not covered by the first amendment, but that it's okay that he be put on the ballot to serve as president even though anyone else who did those things would not be. >> absolutely correct. >> okay. can you square that circle? >> so it's a factual finding by the judge that she believes that he did, in fact, have specific intent to incite an insurrection to disrupt the congressional certification of the election. what that would ordinarily mean for other people who swore an oath that they are disqualified from ever serving again, officers of the united states, that it applies to officers of the united states, that does not apply to the president. that would have to be explicit, that it's ambiguous. it's a technical term first to other officers of the united states but not the president. >> and she's thinking if you meant the president, you would say it. i understand that but this is one of those situations where if all of these things are true this is an absurd conclusion to make as a lay person. >> probably so in a certain sense but the other answer might be, you don't want to apply such a categorical bar against someone serving as president. if the entire country wants that person to serve as president, they should be able to do so. >> the will of the voter. >> very special to lead the entire country so that person would not be able to be disqualified by the 14th amendment. there's a special case for the president. >> let voters have their say. don't adjudicate it this way. joan, how do you see this? jump indicated he expected to lose this, that he would, therefore, appeal. you felt it would go quickly. now he's won, presumably there still will be appeals. what happens from here? >> yes, as i understand it the losing party, the challengers, would have until monday to file an appeal with the colorado supreme court and the colorado supreme court would have to decide does it want briefing or briefing and oral arguments? and my understanding from talking to people in colorado that process could run, and i'm gaming it out with you, erin and ryan right now, say it would run about 20 days if they actually had oral arguments if this case is appealed, and we'll know later tonight certainly if the challengers to donald trump trying to keep his name off the ballot are going to appeal. and then, let's just say we get a ruling by early december, december 8th, then the losing party there would come to the supreme court. now donald trump might be the losing party there. the colorado supreme court might say his name should not be on the ballot. for purposes of argument, either donald trump's attorneys or the attorneys for the challengers 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. this, to me, has a lot of shades of bush v. gore in early december. much different issue. much different court. i would think the key question, 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 with a briefing in early january to try to meet a january 5th deadline. now, again, i'm just gaming this out. here is the other thing i would say. if donald trump continues to prevail, if he wins before the colorado supreme court on appeal, there is no split in the circuit at that point. whatever the petition appeal comes to the supreme court, there's no split. he's won in every case and the justices might think they just reject the petition, the attempt to try to reverse the lower courts out of hand. that might be an easy thing for them to do, or they might feel given there's this big cloud hanging over the presidential ballot because of these arguments fully joined now they might have to resolve it so that it's clear going forward for the primary. so i hope that helps give the timetable. i think things will move very fast right away on monday. i think they, as i understand the colorado law, they have to get moving if they're going to appeal. >> 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 and status as a front-runner, nothing has had impact. at least negatively, right? if anything, it seems to have solidified his role. section 293, the court concludes trump ak acted to incite violence and disrupt the certification. and it just continues. 294, when the violence began, he took no effective action. it's all laid out with the conclusion that the petitioners have established he engaged in insurrection through incitement and the first amendment does not protect his speech. if that was just this ruling and nothing else about putting a name on a ballot, that would be a hugely significant thing. does that break through? >> i think it might. court decisions have to be reported. >> sort of in an unexpected way. this, one might argue, is the headline. >> but for the fact he was president, running for president, he would have otherwise been disqualify. that narrow of a miss because the judge is laying it all out that is a judicial finding he is essentially guilty of. that's enormous. >> joan, what do you make of that? the first amendment doesn't protect him but for that he was president he would not be allowed to run. >> but, erin, that is significant, and i think you're exactly right there are some lay people saying -- or many people saying, well, i don't get it. this provision in section 3 that has never been tested, certainly never 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 and this trial judge said, no, this would not aplow to donald trump. if and when it's appealed, and i would think it would be, frankly, they would appeal it on that question and say to the colorado supreme court, look at all these findings. wouldn't you as a matter of law think president trump would qualify here under that provision. >> stay with us, please. to kristen holmes. we know that the former president thought that he would lose this, so he has the -- at least at this court level, he won. his name is on the ballot. but there's all this other stuff in there. what is the reaction right now? >> i believe the reaction will be split. i am already hearing they are relieved -- i keep looking down at my phone because i'm told we'll get a statement any second. they were bracing for a loss. they were going to file it immediately. i spoke to someone who thought it was likely that he would lose this case. there is a sense of relief there. when you talk about her finding, this conclusion that he did engage in an insurrection that will rub people, including former president trump, the wrong way. why they were so confident if they lost today this would be overturned on appeal. they pointed to the similar case that is were in new hampshire, in michigan as well and minnesota. and the fact those cases had never made it to trial. they were dismissed before hand. that trump had not been convicted and he was not even charged with the crime of insurrection. again, the judge here concluding he was engaged in the insurrection because of his words inciting supporters. so that is a little bit of a split there in what they had originally argued. the other interesting part, they had accused this judge of being politically biased. something we have heard in these cases but they pointed to the fact she had made this $100 donation to a liberal group that was formed after january 6 and one of their causes was because of january 6 they were formed. they said they believe she was tainted. her ruling shows that he is staying on the ballot following what she believed to be the letter of the law there. interesting to see how this is going to break. i am looking for that reaction specifically to that incitement of the insurrection, supporters that engaged in the insurrection. that is something that will be key here. >> all right. as you get more information, i will go back to you. i'm looking down to underline another point here. we'll be going back. i want to bring republican strategist alice jordan in with evan perez. so, evan, what is your takeaway now that you've had a few more minutes to go through this? is, as you can imagine, trump's reaction, the language was intended to cause imminent violence. again, if were you to take pages 93, 94, 95, and that was your only ruling, twobl the most damning thing a court has issued about trump yet. >> that's right, erin. the fact this case even got this far has been a surprise to everybody. everybody thought that like the courts in michigan and minnesota and new hampshire that these things would be thrown out simply because, you know, we've never had something like this, right? we've never had a presidential candidate, leading presidential candidate, face disqualification because of this question whether he engaged in insurrection. this was certainly a big test and it was surprising this judge wanted to hear this challenge but also held multiple days hearings and here, what she's doing, is going on, frankly, one of the thinnest pieces of technicalities to say her hands are tied and she really goes -- i'll read you a part where she says near the end in the final paragraph, that, you know, she says, the court agrees there are persuasive arguments on both sides. the court holds in the absence of the president of the list of positions to which the amendment applies. this is the 14th amendment. combined with the fact section 3 specifies the disqualifying oath to one of support for the constitution. she points out that when you're president, you are swearing an oath to preserve, protect and defend, so what she's saying is because those words are slightly different from what others would spare when they take the oath, it doesn't apply to the president of the united states and so that's the reason why she is ruling this way and, frankly, the things ryan and you have been talking about does sort of show she was leaning all the other way until this one technical. >> i think if i were donald trump and in his camp, they should be still worried. the way this is set up on appeal is everything is locked into place where it potentially disqualifies him but for the technicality, the supreme court of colorado could say, no, that's way too narrow a reading. >> alice, lucy kafanov in front of the court spoke to voters earlier just ahead of the decision to get their reaction and here is some of what they told her. >> there has been a process for 200 years on how to do this, and this is not the way. >> i feel like if you're in trial for anything, let alone felonies, you shouldn't be on the ballot. >> so, alice, how does this play out with gop voters especially in the party primary where when you read through this you can obviously see people like chris christie, of course, grabbing on to some of the substance of this ruling. >> erin, there's no disputing the culpability with what happened on january 6th and it was uncalled for, unacceptable and many say un-american. in terms of this lawsuit, the courts repeatedly, this is the third time, almost the fourth time, this is not the venue or the avenue in a legal way to go about having donald trump face the consequences. many republicans are extremely frustrated with the fact donald trump is the front-runner. his base that want him on the ballot legally have the right to do so. i spoke with the party chairman williams and he just replied back to me with his comments in response to this ruling. he says the court has wisely ruled in favor of president trump, the fringe legal theory cannot be used to remove a candidate from the ballot. said radical left-wing need to stop undermining free and fair elections. what this colorado republican chairman said, it has always been unfair for a liberal judge from denver to single-handedly remove someone from the ballot that is a threat to the democratic party and, look, i believe there should be consequences for donald trump's actions, but republican voters, at least in colorado and certainly with the state party feel this was the appropriate ruling and they are ready and prepared to face the appeals that will no doubt come down. >> joan, a quick final word. >> sure. ultimately to the supreme court and the supreme court, this is something that's never looked at before, but it's very conservative supreme court with three trump appointees, six conservatives out of the nine, and at this point it's hard to bet exactly but i wouldn't be surprised if donald trump remains on the ballot. >> all right. well, thank you all very much. and as we all keep reading this, i hope everyone at home will, but i can say at the very least, and we've been hosting this, i have read 93 through 102 and, wow, there's a lot to think about. breaking news, powerful explosions over northern gaza as israel warns it may be ready to expand its assault on hamas. new video speaker mike johnson making anti-gay commentsts week before he e was electeted speak. breaking news now. we have large, intense explosions over gaza. what you're looking at was filmed moments ago after an expanding war in gaza saying it will advance anywhere hamas is found. when conditions are right, of course, distributing leaflets in southern gaza. a new video appears to show another israeli hostage held in gaza. we have not release details of this one. it did appear in a telegram channel belonging to hamas' military wing. this video comes after israeli recovered the bodies of two dead hostages, an idf soldier and a grandmother warren lieberman is out front. >> reporter: the military operation at gaza's largest hospital ongoing after the israeli military says it found a tunnel shaft in al shifa hospital. they share the same campus as the imaging building and other hospital units but cnn cannot verify the flames. the idf has not shown evidence of a large network of tunnels underneath the largest hospital. the commissioner for human rights called for an independent investigation. >> we need to look into this with -- by having access. we cannot rely on one or the other party. >> reporter: on the ground in gaza conditions have deteriorated with much of the population fleeing to the south. trash is piling up on the roads and crowds queue for the little food available. it's not the only shortage. >> translator: fuel is the basis of life. there's 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. >> reporter: israel announced friday it would allow in two tankers of diesel every 48 hours to help power the sewage treatment plants and to prevent the start of a pandemic. it's about 3% of the fuel that once entered on a daily basis according to the head of israel's security council. >> translator: this petrol is only for humanitarian needs, in order to provide for the millions of people there. >> reporter: in ramallah in the occupied west bank, the eu policy chief. calls for a ceasefire are growing as are the demands for a political process to end the conflict once and for all. there is doubt that is possible. >> this israeli government today does not care about two states. the revenge that israel is driving israel today should stop. >> reporter: the idf has brought back the body of another israeli hostage in gaza. 19-year-old noah marciano, the second israeli hostage known to have died in gaza. a 65-year-old grandmother was found dead near al shifa hospital, the idf said. a peck tour was put up as a way of marking a 9-year-old's birthday spent in captivity. >> we were hoping she would be back by now. that would have been our prayers answered. she's still down in the tunnels. we have to hope she'll be back for christmas. >> reporter: cnn has learned from two israeli officials and a source familiar with negotiations hamas had demanded as part of a pause, they wouldn't fly drones. israel is unlikely to meet. drones are an important part to observe what's happening on the ground to see where hamas is moving to see where israeli forces and, and if drones aren't above there, hamas could relocate and potentially even move hostages. it's unclear if that's still a part of the discussions or is already off the table. either way, erin, it's quite clear there is no deal in place at this time. >> thank you very 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 nine missing american hostages, her husband is also missing. they were in kibbutz a couple miles from gaza when they were taking. you, i know, were nofd about the existence of a new hostage video by israelis today they reached out and toemd you about it. i know you've chosen not to watch it yourself. what was your reaction when you heard there was another video? >> generally speaking, i prefer and i try not to get wrapped up in the psychological warfare hamas is trying to wage. this has been my position all along. i feel i 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 involved in this. it's a difficult mission. i'm focused on that. i can't allow myself to get wrapped up in this. >> one of the families, like yourself, suffering unimaginable and unending pain and worry, today said 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, whatever needs to be done, do it? >> i think there is certainly -- i don't know. i don't know what's on the table. an all for all exchange is fine by me. >> right. >> i wouldn't guarantee the fate of the palestinian prisoners that were released afterwards. that's another story. i think this is more or less the mind-set of israel altogether. >> i know you're from philadelphia. your daughter was partially raised there. you're both speaking to american officials and israeli officials. how helpful are they right now? in the first few weeks it was almost impossible to get information from anyone, in part, they didn't know. there was disorganization, confusion. what is it like now? >> 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. on the other hand, on the israeli side, the mechanism that is are designed to deal with people, the families of the victims in this case, were so overwhelmed, there was essentially a complete state of chaos and it's taken quite a while to get themselves organized. i think it's okay to say that by today it's better than it was in the past. but no comparison to the united states. >> i can't wrap my mind around this, my heart around this. you see the big boards and the signs and there's such an amount of support but videos, a man on the upper west side and his partner ripping down hostage pictures, right, that were stuck to trees and a disturbing number of such incidents and injust can't understand them. how do you come to terms with such hatred? >> i think -- i'm sure there were a number of different levels here. this is not a simple thing. if someone is being guarded by some kind of a leftist progressive impulse to react to the pictures or postages of the hostages, all i can say is they're very seriously misdirected in their thoughts and actions. there can be no equivocation to the moral depravity hamas displayed on the attack in israel. if you're a progressive leftist and want to take an approach to this then you need to really examine your whole moral framework of existence. >> yehuda, thank you very much. i appreciate you taking the time. i'm not glad to see you, but glad we had a chance to speak. mike johnson making anti-gay comments before being elected speaker as we learn more about the conservative mission he and his wife have been on for years. >> for more than about two decades now we've been working together on the front lines of the culture. plus, we'll take you to the streets of taipei where taiwan's fears of a war w with china a tonight t are strongnger than n. tonight the house speaker, mike johnson, kaccaving to the right wing of his party releasing video of the january 6 rye riots riots. his predecessor kevin mccarthy refused to do the same only making it available to fox news. this is what tucker carlson released to downplay the violence of the insurrection. johnson is facing scrutiny over anti-gay comments he made weeks before being elected speaker. he said this on a broadcast of the world prayer network. >> the culture is so dark and depraved it seems unredeemable, one out of four identifies as something other than straight. we're losing the country. >> speaker johnson's stance on homosexuality is shared by his wife who does a podcast with her husband. >> reporter: kelly johnson is not a household name. >> i want to thank my dedicated wife, kelly. she's not here. this happened sort of suddenly. >> reporter: she has been suddenly thrust into the national pspotlight. >> she spent the last couple of weeks on her knees to the lord and is worn out. >> reporter: with her husband's quick ascension to speaker. >> that's biblical, the bible says he raises up leaders and he brings them down, right? so god has him here for just this time. >> reporter: for years the two have displayed their faith on a united political front with speaker johnson often putting her at the forefront of some of the most hot button conservative social issues. >> i'm mike johnson. >> and i'm kelly johnson. >> reporter: the two host a podcast together. >> for more than two decades now we've been working together on the front lines of the culture. >> 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. >> reporter: where their views against same sex marriage, abortion and other flash points are amplified. >> how to raise what we call counter cultural kids in a culture gone mad. >> reporter: the johnsons have been married nearly 25 years. >> this is a symbol of my covenant with you. >> reporter: they have a covenant marriage only recognized in three states making divorce more difficult and only in a limited number of situations. >> i think we can be emotional creatures and i think we like to know for sure that it's going to be for a lifetime. >> reporter: kelly johnson believes other forms of marriage are marriage lights. >> if you want to be in a covenant marriage and your mate says, no, i don't think i want to do that, i think that's a big red flag. >> reporter: johnson has been a schoolteacher in the path and at times has worked for the right to life educational community. her work as a counselor has drawn scrutiny. >> i want to help them through their times of struggle and suffering. >> reporter: the website for her counseling services included disclaimer language in bylaws saying they believe any form of sexual immorality such as adultery, bestiality, incest, pornography or any attempt disagreement with one's biological sex is sinful and offensive to god. the website has been deppleted since johnson became speaker. >> i'll take any arrows but don't talk about my wife. >> reporter: a source 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 will she be? how present will she be here in washington? and they'll discuss this next week during their thanksgiving break. now as far as that podcast they host to go, the last episode was only released in october last month, but the source tells me that they are currently reconsidering whether that will continue. erin? >> thank you very much. that was fascinating. next, fears of an all-out war between taiwan and china reaching a fever pitch. why on this crucial week of the summit. we'll take you to taipei next for a story you'll see first "out front." plus, the carter center releasing new information about the health of the foformer firs lady, , rosalynn c carter. tonight, new fears in taiwan of a war with china. china continuing to step up military pressure on taiwan. of course 23 million people live there. and the uncertainty comes on the heels of that meeting between president biden and chinese president xi jinping. will ripley is "out front" in taipei. he's one of the few american journalists based in taiwan. here's his report tonight. >> reporter: 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 rehearsal for war. more than a year later on the streets of taipei, for some, the prospect of war feels closer than ever. >> translator: of course we are concerned that what happened to ukraine could happen to taiwan. i'm a mother and i have kids. >> reporter: priesident joe bidn and president xi jinping's summit in san francisco aimed at hot button issues, especially taiwan. xi was quoted in state media. washington has no plans to stop selling billions of dollars in 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. >> we maintain agreement that there is a one china policy and that -- and i'm not going to change that. >> reporter: as for the future of this self-governing democracy, xi says china will realize reunification. this is unstoppable. >> beijing's activity becomes something that could -- >> reporter: this man is director of taiwan's institute for national defense. he warns china's military buildup, the biggest in a century, may be just beginning. he says it can only be deterred by massive military power. >> does that deterrent force need to include the help of larger militaries, like the u.s., like japan? >> sure. taiwan enjoys very important location. if beijing can occupy taiwan, it's become so-called chinese hawaii. they can send their submarine from taiwan and such submarine can reach west coast of the united states, to strike united states. >> reporter: 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. >> reporter: when the people's liberation army surrounded the self-governing democracy, chinese media said they were simulating a blockade, practicing a possible precursor for a full-scale invasion, jolting taiwan into a new risk-filled reality, putting high-stakes diplomacy to the test. >> worth noting that for the second day in a row now during the a portion of this report, china censored our signal inside. then they brought us back. they were happy for us to show their military, their weapons. certainly they were happy for taiwan to see it as well. we have to watch a big development in taiwanese politics. three hours from now, three parts will be announcing their candidates for president and vice president, posing a surprising and credible challenge to the ruling party. saying you need to match beijing with military power where other opposition powers say they want to work with beijing. they want a business relationship. the argument is that could cause beijing to move further and harder if they sense any weakness here. so, very interesting to see how this plays out in the coming months. >> and of course in the next few hours. we'll be watching that. will ripley live in taipei this saturday morning, of course, where will is. and nextxt an updatete on t former firstst lady rorosalynn carter's h health. tonight, former first lady rosalynn carter has entered haas pin care at her home in georgia. her family revealed earlier this year that she had been diagnosed with dementia. her husband, the former president carter, entered hospice earlier this year. he is the longest living president now, 99 years old. thanks very much for joining us on this friday