ivanka, the latest trump to take the witness stand. what donald trump's eldest daughter just said about her father's allegedly inflated net worth and various financial statements. and the u.s. warning israel against re-occupying gaza. so who should govern the palestinian people if israel is successful in eliminating hamas? and a, quote, complete failure. some top republicans blasting party strategy after last night's elections. we are following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to cnn news central. in just a few moments, ivanka trump is expected to re-take the witness stand, testifying in the trump organization's $250 million civil fraud trial. so far, she's faced about 2 1/2 hours of questioning from a new york attorney general's office, with a major focus on her father's past financial statements and how he allegedly inflated them to get favorable loans. let's get an update with cnn's chief legal affairs correspondent, paula reid. court currently on a lunch break. walk us through what we saw earlier in the day? >> this has been much less chaotic and contention than it was when her fathers and brothers have taken the stand in this case. so far the questions have been focusing on her time at the trump organization before she left to work at the white house in 2017. they've asked about some specific projects that she worked on. let's take, for example, trump doral down in florida, the resort and spa. she was working on the financing for that project. and in one really notable exchange, they show how the bank wanted trump to maintain a net worth of $3 billion in order to have these more favorable loan terms, but she suggested lowering that threshold to $2 billion. now, they settled on $2.5. of course, that is significant because at the heart of this case is an allegation that he was maybe not being honest about his net worth. and at the same time, he had cited his net worth back then in 2011 as being around $4 billion. they also asked about the old post office here in washington, d.c., which they converted into a trump hotel, and how the government had questions for her about exactly how they had compiled their financial statements. they also asked her about a penthouse apartment that she had in one of her father's buildings. it had a purchase option of $8.5 billion. but in her father's personal valuation, it was valued at $20.8 million. so all of this goes to the heart of the case, but so far they've really been focused on pretty technical questions. it's been pretty calm, pretty professional. quite a contrast to what we've seen over the past few days. >> and we should point out, she's not a defendant in the case, but she could provide valuable testimony for the prosecution. paula reid, thank you so much for that. let's dig deeper with former u.s. attorney, harry litman. thank you so much for being with us this afternoon. what did you make of ivanka's testimony so far? >> well, as paula said, you know, it didn't seem as electric and contentious. if you'd just wandered into the trial, you would think, in fact, it was kind of dull. and at many critical junctures, she said, i don't recall. but it was important because she really fills in an important piece of the puzzle. she's the one who does take corral of getting financing, of both of the projects that paula mentioned. and in order to get it, the regular deutsche bank commercial real estate order will not deal with them, they have to go to the private wealth management group for super rich people. ivanka is the one that put that together. that's how they get a much better interest deal, but it requires trump to sign on and attest year over year that he has this net worth that is almost certainly going to turn out to be a lie. so even though there's no dramatic moment where she betrays daddy, nevertheless, she fills in why he needed to say that and why, in fact, the counts in the complaint thabz that he lied are -- it strengthens exactly those counts. >> so, harry, let's sort of clarify that point, because it was significant when she testified to confirming what was in that email, that said that she suggested that he should lower his minimum net worth in that deutsche bank deal to $2 to $2.5 billion. how does that play into what prosecutions are looking for here? is it an admission that he was inflating his net worth previously? >> not exactly, but it shows that she knows it's an issue, and even more to the point, boris, she's the one that deals with the banker and says, this is a great rate, let's go for it, and writes her and says, you're the best, rosemary, it shows that they get this great deal only because trump makes these promises. that's the important evidentiary point. and then they'll show independently that these promises that he made were lies and they repeated them year over year. so she really does establish the relationship and set up for the falsity that they are approving otherwise from trump's statements. >> when it comes to her terrifying that she couldn't recall, a number of different financial dealings, specifically on the penthouse that she leased from her father, his valuation, like $12 million more than what it actually was worth, how does the trump team read that testimony? the fact that she doesn't recall some of these things? >> i think in general, where she could avoid hurting him, she did, and there was ant moment, in this testimony that really added to things, but it was the testimony that she had already given before. so i think in general, as paula says, she was poised and polite, quite a contrast to the other trumps and she does disavow recalling certain big points. but what they are going to use her for or have used her for is to really set up trump's lies themselves. she otherwise doesn't advance the ball, but that advance is a pretty big advance. >> harry, we've got to leave the conversation there. we very much appreciate your time. we want to take our viewers to the white house where vice president kamala harris is reacting to pretty significant election results last night. let's listen. >> -- and by extension it was a good night for democracy. i think that if you look at from the midterms to last night, from california to kansas, ohio to virginia, the voters said, look, the government should not be telling a woman what to do with her body. i think voters have been clear, regardless of whether they're in a so-called red or blue state, that one does not have to abandon their faith or deeply-held beliefs to agree that the government should not be telling a woman what she should do with her body. it was a good night and the president and i obviously have a lot of work to do to earn our re-election, but i am confident that we are going to win. so thank you all. >> are you concerned he's coming across -- >> all right, let's break it down with david chalian and ron brownstein, after hearing from vice president harris, brief remarks there outside the white house, after abortion rights fueled some of the democratic wins and trump strongholds last night. clearly, the white house wanted to seize on this and they chose to put out the vice president, not ft. but the vice president harris. what do you make on that? >> i want to comment on how rare it is to see the vice president go out to the microphones there in the driveway of the white house, to make a statement. that is not a normal -- >> i covered the white house for many years. i never saw that. >> that's a rare thing. usually you see congressional leaders out there, visitors to the white house, not the vice president. obviously, the administration wants to have a public face attached to what were really positive results for the democratic party last night, and on this issue specifically, kamala harris, the first, ever, female vice president of the united states, has been leading the charge for this administration in this political battle over abortion rights, specifically since the overturning of roe v. wade. so having her out there to sort of be attached to the victory in ohio last night, in virginia as well, is something they're obviously looking to do. i thought it was noteworthy, she didn't take questions, but she did note the work ahead that she and the president clearly still have to do in their own re-election effort. she said, they're going to do it. but she did note the reality that they do have work to do. she didn't deny that, in any way, which was interesting. >> so to put this all into perspective here, ron, how do you square the work they have to do, looking at biden's abysmal polling with the democratic performance last night, largely driven, as we know, by abortion rights, right? driving people out. giving democrats those big wins. how do we square that? and what does this mean for biden in 2024, if anything? >> yeah, i think -- i think you can actually square the circle, pretty comprehensively. which is that, look, the polls are documenting real concerns about president biden. you know, we have a lot of polls showing that a significant majority of americans question whether he's too old to do the job for another four years and a significant majority of americans do not believe that they are better off as a result of his agenda. and those are real vulnerabilities that can't be waved away. but what the election last night showed is the same thing that the election of 2022 showed, which is that there is another side of the ledger. and that is when democrats can run campaigns that focus voter attention on the republican agenda, there is a critical slice of voters that are dissatisfied with the economy, and are still unwilling to entrust republicans with power, to impose that agenda, particularly on cultural issues, starting with abortion bans, but also others, like book bans. and you know, and that kind of movement among voters is most pronounced in big metro areas, urban centers, and highly populated inner suburbs. and that was the most consistent thread last night from kentucky and ohio to virginia and the pennsylvania state supreme court election, democrats as throughout the trump era dominated these population centers, and if there is a path to re-election for president biden in 2024, those are exactly the kinds of places it runs through. >> so you have the white house seizing on this, david. you have the biden campaign seizing on this, claiming despite the polls that this is a positive reflection on biden himself. how do they connect all of these democratic wins to joe biden in the mind of voters? in other words, how much of this is about joe biden versus, you know, women wanting their abortion rights and being anti-trump, anti-maga? >> well, to ron's point about the polls and the clear concerns that the majority of americans have about his age and stamina and about his position on the issues, issue number one, the economy, where he's suffering right now, as well, there is a disconnect here. there is not a problem to democrats right now, especially on these kinds of issues, like abortion rights. it is the fuel for them right now in the victories we've seen, not just in the '22 midterms, not just last night, in all of these special elections last year, and when trump was in office as well before dobbs was overturned, this has been a democratic party that has been computing in elections. joe biden has a problem with joe biden. that is the problem with a year ahead. we're seeing a snapshot right now a year out. and what is key for them, part of the problem for them is a diminishment of support in some of their own backyard constituencies. african-american voters, latino voters, yuoung voters. that is the work they have to begin doing now to get a 4 to 5 democratic base in the way that donald trump has used his trulies and indictments to fortify the republican base. right now there is not yet a fully contrast campaign. that is what they're counting on to bring this into a much shaper frame next year. >> let's look ahead to tonight. we have the republican debate, five republican presidential candidates will be on that stage. this, of course, abortion will no doubt be front-runner especially for the big gains for democrats last night. and, you know, ron, it makes you wonder whether any of these candidates, particularly someone like ron desantis, right, who signed into law a six-week abortion ban, you know, what their messaging is going to be on this. and it also raises the bigger question of what lessons have been learned by republicans, from the 2022 midterms, as you pointed out. >> first of all, the thing to understand about abortion in the 2022 midterms was that in the red states that actually moved to most severely restricted procedure places like ohio, florida, tennessee, iowa, texas, there wasn't much of a backlash against republican governors and legislatures. that issue alone wasn't enough to move away voters who ordinarily vote republican, but it was a very different story in wing states, like michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin, even arizona, where there was a significant majority of voters who wanted abortion to remain legal, and who voted in overwhelming numbers for democrats, despite widespread dissatisfaction with the economy. that's what we saw again yesterday in virginia, particularly. because, you know, virginia, i think, very much the dynamics that may be present next year. biden's approval was underwater in the state, by double digits, voters said they trusted republicans more than democrats on the economy and crime, similar dynamics to what we see in the cnn poll and other surveys nationally. and yet, glenn youngkin failed spectacularly, failing to win the state senate, losing control of the state house, overwhelming because of resistance to the cultural agenda of the trump-era gop. his attempt to find a compromise on abortion. but also, other issues like book bans. and in these populous suburban areas, where there is discontent over the economy as well and deployment in biden, enough voters still said, i did not want to trust the republicans with power. if you're nikki haley, that's a very good argument to point to and say, we have to downplay this issue. ron desantis is probably in too deep after a six-week abortion ban to execute that kind of pivot, but i would certainly expect to hear that from haley tonight. >> david chalian and rob brownstein, we shall see how tonight's debate goes and how they handle it and address it. thanks so much. appreciate you offering up your perspective after we just heard the vice president of the united states, kamala harris, speak right outside the white house on this issue after big democratic wins. thank you so much. up next, trumping the debate stage. the former president skipping out on yet another gop debate. instead, he is heading to florida to build momentum with latino voters. plus, secretary of state antony blinken emphasizes that israel cannot occupy gaza once this war is over, but he says there may need to be some time to transition. the latest from israel, up next. and is ukraine inching closer to joining the european union? that bloc's executive body says so, so what does that timeline look like potentially? strong words from the united nations secretary general today, who said the number of civilian deaths in gaza shows that something is, quote, wrong with israel's military operation there. more than 10,000 people in the hamas-controlled region have been killed, according to palestinian officials. >> violations by hamas, when they have human shields, but when one looks at the number of civilians that were killed with the military operations, there is something that is clearly wrong. >> thousands of palestinians are now arriving in the southern part of the enclave after fleeing northern gaza through a humanitarian corridor set up by israeli forces. some are describing unbearable conditions in gaza city with constant air strikes and no water. let's take you now with cnn international diplomatic editor, nic robertson who's live in israel. there's pressure growing on israel to consider a humanitarian pause, something that benjamin netanyahu, the prime minister of israel, said he would be open to in very, very short amounts, in hours worth of time. what can you tell us. >> reporter: he said that a couple of nights ago and we haven't seen any action on it. he said on the diplomatic front, they're working 24/7 to allow the idf to keep up its military operations on the ground. so they're really trying to keep the military part of the action here going, rather than stopping it for a humanitarian pause. and to sort of reflect on something additional to what antonio guterres said, everyone has heard the high death toll figures of people in gaza, over 10,000, but other interesting statistics, now they say 193 medical workers in gaza have been killed. the u.n.'s main agency in gaza for humanitarian relief and refugees there. they're saying 99 of their staff have been killed. i don't think back to a conflict in gaza before where the death toll has been so bad for the health providers in gaza or for the u.n. workers. so the prime minister netanyahu is under a lot of pressure for the united states, and it doesn't sit particularly well with some people here, because they're saying, look how can the prime minister give into demands particularly coming from hamas to have a humanitarian pause when we can't even get hamas to tell us how the hostages are doing, even to allow the international committee for the red cross to get access to them, which is normally a fundamental rule of international war. so there's real pressure on the prime minister from the military to keep going with the fight popularly from the street. but there's another rule of thought saying that time is running out to crush hamas and that the prime minister really needs to level with the people of israel and say, you know, however well the idf are doing right now, we're not actually going to be able to deliver on completely crushing them, which then gets the united states' next pressure point on israel, which is then, articulate your next move after this. >> nic robertson live in israel, thank you so much. with us now, alex marquardt. so today secretary of state antony blinken reiterated u.s. objections to an immediate cease-fire in gaza. he also seemed to respond to prime minister netanyahu's remarks about them having security in gaza. >> prime minister netanyahu made these comments on monday night. and now we've seen essentially two days of american pushback, because these comments were quite remarkable. prime minister netanyahu saying that he foresees this indefinite period where israel would have overall security responsibilities. so that raised major questions and concerns among the biden administration and others, that israel was looking to re-occupy the gaza strip. and that was eventually the goal. now, we have seen this pushback from the white house and now today, again, from secretary blinken, saying that israel should not re-occupy the gaza strip. that is not something that should happen, if hamas is to be toppled. now, the israelis have tried to walk back what netanyahu has said. they're saying, we do not intend to occupy the gaza strip, but we do want to make sure that there is some kind of security presence, so that hamas cannot reemerge. now, guys, this raises major questions about the governance of the gaza strip, what happens if, and it's still a major "if," if hamas is able to be overthrown. and we did hear secretary blinken say, rather interestingly today, that what he imagines is that there may be what he called a transition period. here's a little bit more of what he said? >> gaza cannot continue to be run by hamas. that invites a reputation of october 7th, and gaza used as a place from which to launch terrorist fattacks. it's also clear that israel cannot occupy gaza. now t