changes to her will, when she had alzheimer's. he was sent to prison for his crimes. brooke astor died in 2007 at the age of 105. and with her passing game the end of an american fortune. >> on the one hand, the astor family leaves a legacy of civil involvement and philanthropy. but on the other hand the astor family leaves a shocking legacy of repatience, capitalist, advantage taking of people in dire straits. like most great fortunes, if you scratch the surface a little bit, there are a lot of unfortunate lessons about human nature you can come to. >> the astor money may be gone in america, but you can still see the astor name all over new york city, especially in astor place in greenwich village, where on the walls of the subway stop, if you look closely, you'll find ceramic tiles depicting beavers, the source of the fortune john jacob astor so

relentlessly carved out of the american wilderness. the book is out now. i hope you enjoy it. the news continues. "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. tonight, straight from the source, bob menendez defiant, now trying to explain the hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash stashed around his house, as a third democratic senator calls for him to resign. plus former president trump threatening the highest military ranking officer in the nation, who also happens to be a witness in the special counsel's case against him. we'll get reaction from trump's former defense secretary in moments. and the trump campaign first said that he bought a gun today in south carolina, but after an immediate uproar, they walked it back. what's the law for someone who's been indicted four times? i'm kaitlan collins, and this is "the source."

tonight, new jersey senator bob menendez is refusing to resign, despite the growing calls from within his own party. now three democratic senators calling for him to step down. and just in tonight, former speaker nancy pelosi joined them. >> the charges are formidable. and if, in fact, we're going to say that if you're indicted you should resign, that would probably be a good idea if he did resign. >> probably would be a good idea. the democrat, who has now been indicted for a second time, though, says he has no intention of doing so. >> i firmly believe that when all the facts are presented, not only will i be exonerated, but i still will be new jersey's senior senator. >> these are his first comments on camera since being indicted. and the member of the senate banking committee offered this explanation for why nearly half a million dollars in cash was somehow safer in jackets in

closets in his home rather than, say, a bank. >> for 30 years, i have withdrawn thousands of dollars in cash from my personal savings account, which i have kept for emergencies and because of the history of my family facing confiscation in cuba. >> menendez did not offer an explanation for the gold bars or the mercedes-benz sports car that prosecutors say he received as bribe payments for using his position to funnel money and military aid to egypt, allegations that, of course, are made all the more brazen given he was the top ranking democrat on the senate foreign relations committee. >> throughout my 30 years in a house of representatives and the senate, i have always worked to hold accountable those countries, including egypt, for human rights abuses and repression of its citizenry, civil society, and more. >> the senator made no mention about running for re-election

today, as he insisted that the rest of the details he believes will come out in court. >> the court of public opinion is no substitute for our revered justice system. >> i should note that justice system has a bipartisan track record. currently two sitting law records are facing charges, senator menendez and congressman george santos, one democrat, one republican. given the allegations against the senator focus on his position to influence armed sales and u.s. aid to egypt, i want to get straight to the source tonight, congressman done buyer of virginia. congressman, thank you for being here tonight. you heard senator menendez there. he said he's not resigning, but you believe he should. why? >> absolutely. first, there is a strong tradition in the congress that when indicted, you should resign. you're still going to get your day in court. he hasn't been convicted yet. but i don't know how he can do

his job effectively with this damning indictment hanging over his head. and frankly i wasn't impressed by the press conference today. >> what questions did he not answer that you still have? >> well, first of all if you believe that's why he has the hundred of thousands of dollars in cash hanging around, and even if he did have it, why wouldn't you put it in a safe at home? that doesn't explain why he texted a list of u.s. embassy employees that ended up in -- hands, doesn't explain why he ghost wrote a memo that called for a hold on military aid, and doesn't explain why he had the secret meeting with egyptian intelligence. we've been pushing hard against egypt's human rights violations. you know, the thousands of people that are held indefinitely, incarcerated, the torture, the rape, the violation of just human rights. so, the senator says one thing, then he does these letters, then he exactly the opposite when it's not in the public eye. >> i should note on the money, some of it was in a safe deposit

box. a lot of it was found either in jackets or just around the house. you mentioned egypt, and that has been something that has been a huge issue for you, how they are on human rights. you heard the senator. he's stepped down as the chiefrt foreign relations committee for democrats for the time being, following senate democrats' rules. but he made this defense of his record on egypt today. >> one fact is indisputable. throughout my time in congress, i have remained steadfast on the side of civil society and human rights defenders in egypt and everywhere else in the world. if you look at my actions related to egypt during the period described in this indictment and throughout my whole career, my record is clear. >> is that how you see his record? what new questions do you have about the actions he took regarding egypt, given these allegations? >> well, kaitlan, let's look at his actions. so, he says he wrote a letter

and he stands up for human rights. the only tool we have in our diplomatic box is to withhold military aid. under the condition of our agreements, we can withhold up to $300 million every year in aid to egypt because of the human rights violations. he actually -- and the biden administration right now is withholding 65 million, considering withholding the rest of it. but senator menendez, on the other hand, was working actively to make sure they got all of their money. he says one thing, but does something completely opposite. >> what do you think this warrants from the administration? they just announced $235 million in military aid in recent weeks to egypt. you put out a statement on that as well. what questions does this raise about that relationship going forward? >> the biggest question it raises is egypt, you know, a friend and an ally, is conducting an espionage operation within the u.s. senate right here in washington, d.c. i think that calls for a much

stronger response from the biden administration. and the straightforward one is to withhold the whole $300 million. >> so far three democrats have call on senator menendez to resign. we just heard from former speaker pelosi a few minutes ago. do you believe that schumer and other democratic leaders also need to call for him to resign? >> i think everyone approaches it their own way. i think it's harder when he's been a colleague for year after year. the nancy pelosi calling is very powerful because she's still the most important person in congress, even in her emeritus status. and you'll notice that phil murphy, the governor of new jersey and a democrat and a longtime associate of senator menendez, has also called on him to step down. >> he's been an ally of menendez. he was one of the first to come out. we haven't heard from senator cory booker yet. if he stays in the senate, what does it do for your party's credibility? >> it hurts it. we all make mistakes, but when we make mistakes we have to own

them and take responsibility for them, whether they're our own personally or in our family or in this case the democratic caucus. it won't help us to have him hanging around. >> right now he says he plans on doing that. we'll see if that stays the case. thanks so much for joining us tonight. i'm joined now by lesley caldwell, who eight years ago was a prosecutor for the justice department, announced a different set of charges against senator menendez. menendez was acquitted after the jury deadlocked in that case. former president trump actually commuted that doctor sentence and other charges. leslie, what do you make of it and do you believe it's stronger than what the justice department tried to bring in the previous case against senator menendez? >> i think it's very different. the first indictment of senator menendez was filed and tried when the law was one thing -- was filed when the law was one

way. and between the indictment and the trial, the law changed in the form of the supreme court decision, making it much harder for prosecutors to prove public corruption. this is a different kind of indictment with a very different fact pattern. and the indictment is very careful to allege links between specific conduct and specific benefits that were provided to the senator and his wife. so, i think that makes a big difference, and we'll see how it shakes out. >> yeah, and of course what you're referring to is the supreme court essentially changing what counts as bribing a public official. that was while his first while trooil was going on. one of the jurors in the case said this about why they did not convict him ultimately in 2017. >> there's no smoking gun in this case. we didn't see. so, that's all. we went by that. we all pretty much went by our hearts, and, you know, we didn't think there was enough going on there in the case to convict

him. >> these charges, obvi obviously,lessly, there are picture of gold bars, text messages complaining about late payments. how challenges do you believe are the facts that are laid out in the indictment, the allegations, how challenging is that to rebut? >> i think it's going to be very challenging. and the first case involved an individual from whom he was getting benefits. but that individual also was a longtime friend. that's not a fact in this case, apparently. and the allegations, the, sort of, visual power of the items that were given to him and the amounts that were given to him is much more significant than it was in the earlier case. i think it's going to be very difficult to explain the gold bars. i understand he's already made some statements about the cash. but i think it's all going to be difficult to explain, particularly when there are allegations of links to very specific behavior by him. >> he did offer an explanation

for the cash today. just as background, the average senator makes $174,000 a year. this is what senator menendez said to explain why he had nearly half a million dollars in cash in his home. >> now, this may seem old fashio fashioned, but these were moneys drawn from my personal savings account based on the income that i have lawfully derived over those 30 years. >> if you were prosecuting this case, how would you respond to that defense? >> well, i'd first want to test to see if it was even accurate. i'm sure the government is subpoenaing, if they haven't already, his bank records from his personal savings account that he says this money came from, to see what the flow of funds was in and out of that account. apparently, according to the allegations, some of the envelopes that contained cash, had fingerprints and dna of some of the codefendants, which is difficult to explain. so, i think it's going to be very challenging. >> yeah.

we'll see what he says going forward. of course he said, you know, obviously he has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. he's got the first court appearance on wednesday. leslie caldwell, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. and still ahead, america's top general facing a disturbing new threat, including from the man who appointed him. donald trump insinuating that general mark milley be executed. what does trump's former defense secretary, who served alongside him, have to say about these remarks? plus the trump campaign saying the former president bought a gun, then correcting themselves after an up roar. remember trump is under four felony indictments. can he even legally purchase a firearm? that's next.

general mark milley tonight is facing an onslaught of violent rhetoric, just days before he is set to retire. on friday former president donald trump baselessly accused the department chairman of treason, quote, an act so egregious that in times gone by, the punishment would have been death. paul gosar suggested in a news rant on saturday night that milley be hanged, among other disgusting remarks that don't bear repeating and therefore won't be repeated tonight. trump and the congressman were piling on milley for his response to the january 6th

attack, including phone calls milley made to allies and government officials in china reassuring them at the time that the u.s. was still a stable government despite what had happened in washington that day. as a remind, trump hand picked general milley to the role he has now in 2018, and showered him with praise at the time. >> mark milley, he's a great gentleman. he's a great patriot. he's a great soldier. >> joining me tonight, former defense secretary under former president donald trump, mark esper, who of course worked alongside general milley in the administration and wrote about his experience in "a sacred oath," his book. secretary esper, how dangerous do you believe this post from donald trump is? >> look, it's very dangerous, kaitlan. it's wrong. it's disgusting. it's despicable. and it's not just an assault on one person, mark milley, who has served his country nobly, and who now has to fear somebody may act on such remarks. but it's also attack on institution of the military

professionalism and their sworn oath to defend the constitution of the united states. i see this on multiple levels and either way you look at it, it's despicable. >> one thing that, kind of, stands out when trump says something like this that is obviously so egregious and you typically never hear a president, a former president, attacking the person he put in as the joint chiefs chairman, is kind of how muted their response to it. certainly from republican leaders on capitol hill, do you believe it's important for them to speak out about this kind of incendiary comment from trump? >> look, first of all, i'm offended that one american would say this about another american. far, far worse is the fact that the president, the commander in chief, no less, is saying this against the four star joint chiefs of staff who spent 20-plus years in uniform in war and peace fighting, defending his country and his family sacrificing along with him. i think it should be condemned from toek approximates on the

right, the left, republicans, democrats, conservatives, and liberals alike. this type of talk should be condemned once and for all. >> secretary esper, at the heart of what trump is talking about, can you clarify what did happen with those phone calls to government officials in china, who directed those, why those would have happened despite what trump is obviously implying in social media? >> yeah, look, there's two incidents, one in january of 2021, which i was not part of because i was fired in november. but the other one happens in mid-october. as a result, milley has been accused of being a rogue general, acting on his own, possibly sharing information with the chinese, so forth and so on. i think much of this is due to incomplete and inaccurate reporting by a few authors, most of whom i have respect for but who are, i think, trying to depict a hero fighting against a lone president. but the story is much more complicated. the accusation that milley called the chinese on his own is

simply wrong. i reached out to my multiply cheese counterpart in mid october 2020 to send the message that the chinese were scared, alarmed, uncertain about what was happening in washington -- so i want to send a message to them that everything was okay, we had no engs interests about them. we wanted to keep the lines of communications open, so forth and so on. i want to avoid any type of accidental conflict or confrontation with the chinese. about a week later, after my call through a subordinate was initiated, i was in a meeting with mark milley and admiral davidson and others, and i conveyed to them that we sent this message to the chinese. i said, typically happens, we have others in the chain of command do the same. milley, davidson, i spoke about this. i directed milley to reach out to his counterpart as well and convey the same message, which he did a few days later with the help of civilian appointees who worked for me. by the end of october, he

conveyed the message. and the chinese came back and said, thank you very much. we've been very concerned. we appreciate what's going on. at the end of the day, nobody wants some type of accidental conflict to happen with the chinese or with any country for that matter. so, i thought it was always good diplomacy and responsible state craft for the d.o.d. to be doing this. >> and the joint chiefs chairman just takes orders from the defense secretary, the role you were in, or the president, right? >> yeah, absolutely. look, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is an adviser to myself, to the president, to the national security counsel. he has no formal command authority over anybody. he's an adviser, a coordinator, he can be a communique r to. so, what he was reacting on was my directive to reach out to his chinese counterpart, which is something we would do typically. we would do it with others around the world to make sure we were passing along a unified, coherpt message up and down the chain of command about our intentions. >> when i was reading this and reading this post, i was

thinking of how we reported several months ago that general milley actually met with federal investigators over that recording of trump allegedly discussing classified documents after he left office. milley could potentially be a witness in that case, maybe in the election subversion case as well. do you believe that that could be part of why trump is targeting him now? >> who knows? it's hard to say. look, i think trump is obviously not happy with what milley has apparently said before the committee. milley and others -- trump and others are not happy with some of the reporting that are coming out, some of the books that were written about the trump administration, where milley is quoted as saying this or that. i think part of that has been unfair to milley by authors, again, sometimes inaccurately or incompletely writing about situations and looking to find a hero to strike a contrast against a villain. so, all these things get, you

know, amplified. and, look, milley's tenure was extraordinary. he did a great job. he has served honorably, and he deserves our praise and thanks. he does not deserve what he's receiving from president trump right now. >> you mentioned this new reporting. there is a new piece in "the atlantic." part of that says that milley has told friends he expects if trump does return to the white house that the newly elected president will come after him. quote, he'll start throwing people on jail, and i'd be on the top of the list. do you think that's a justified concern? >> look, i think it's a legitimate fear. if you'll recall from my memoir that you mentioned at the top, i cite a circumstance where the president, donned by his close advisers, when the callback to active duty -- to court marshal them for things they allegedly said in the public domain. and milley and i had to talk the president out of doing that for

any number of reasons. is it possible that a new loyalist sitting around trump in the oval office will say, let's call up milley? yeah, it's likely. there's a silver lining in all this. trump has poisoned the well. i don't know that a jury or anybody could find, given what we call command influence, that such a thing could happen. the president has also said that a second term would be about retribution, right? so, i think these are all legitimate concerns. >> can we just take a moment? you were his pentagon chief. the former defense secretary is saying that it is a legitimate fear that the former commander in chief, who is seeking to be the commander in chief again, would want to seek retribution against someone like general milley simply because he doesn't like the way that that tenure is being reported in books and in articles? >> yeah. and i think simply also because the way milley conducted himself, which was to offer candid, frank advice. if it wasn't what the president wanted to hear because of what milley was saying or he didn't want to hear what i was saying,

look, he doesn't like that. he wants to find yes men in his office. so, yeah, he would do that. it's hard for me to believe i'm saying that as well. i wish i didn't have to say that. if i didn't have the experience in the oval office with president trump seriously wanting to call back to active duty mccrystalal and mcraven, to court marshal them, i would be less certain. but unfortunately, it is what it is. >> remarkable. secretary mark esper, thank you for joining with your perspective tonight. >> thanks, kaitlan. coming up, donald trump seemingly gun shopping op the campaign trail in south carolina today, saying he wanted to buy this hand gun that had his face on it. because he has been charged with multiple felonies, questions were raised about whether or not he can legally do so. we'll discuss next.

is it possible my network could take my business to the next level? it is with comcast business. powering all your devices with gig-speed wifi. and you get fast downloads and uploads. pick it up! pick it up! oh we got this! because it's powered by the next generation 10g network. more speed for your business? it's not just possible. it's happening. get started for $59.99 a month for 12 months. plus, ask how to get an $800 prepaid card with a qualifying internet bundle.

comcast business, powering possibilities. former president donald trump made a campaign stop at a gun store in south carolina today. the 2024 republican front runner, seen on camera admiring and pose being a hand gun that had his face on it. and he was heard on camera saying that he was interested in buying it.

>> they like me. >> they like you. >> sir, if you want one -- >> i want to buy one. >> you do? >> moments later, his spokesperson posted online that trump had bought the gun, saying he bought that glock, immediately raising questions, though, about trump's ability to do so and to obtain a new weapon now that he is a criminal defendant in multiple jurisdictions. not only ago, the spokesman deleted that post and clarified to cnn that the former president did not buy a gun, despite saying he had. joining me now is safety instructor and firearms reporter for thereload.com. obviously, steven, the first question everyone had and the reason that post was likely deleted was it raised questions about what trump can do here given he's been indicted four times, facing those 91 counts. can he legally buy a gun now that he is a criminal defendant? >> as the law stands right now,

he can't. anyone who is under felony indictment is prohibited from receiving new guns. they can keep the guns they have, but they can't buy or obtain new ones so long as they're under that indictment. >> does this raise any constitutional questions? the law stopping defendants from owning a gun, from receiving a gun, been tested in the courts before? >> yes. there's actually quite a lot of controversy around this law right now. there's been decisions on either side of whether it's constitutional since the supreme court handed down its landmark decision in brewen. so, it's -- the constitutionality of this law is questionable. but at the same time, it's still in effect. no circuit, no appeals court has ruled that this law is unconstitutional yet. we may soon get that ruling. but as of now, it's clear that he could not buy that gun. >> but isn't this the same issue that we've heard hunter biden's attorneys weighing over his gun charges, that they believe

essentially it's on shaky legal ground and they can challenge that? >> it's similar, yes. it's a different law. hunter biden's charges deal with him lying on the background check about his drug use and being a drug user while owning a gun. but the same legal theory applies in both cases because of that supreme court ruling in brewen, which says any modern prohibition, any modern gun law, has to have a historical analog that dates back to the time of the founding. and it's not clear whether these laws do. >> when it comes to trump specifically, we saw him at a campaign event in south carolina, he stopped at this store. he was there talking to the person who is selling these firearms. legally what can he do, as he's facing this indictment? >> he can keep the guns that he already has. he can go shooting. it's not a possession ban, like you'd see for somebody who is convicted of a felony. it's a ban on receiving new guns. so, he can't buy a gun. in fact, if you have ever bought a gun, they explicitly ask you

if you're under indictment for a felony on that form. and if you say yes, you fail the background check. he also likely can't receive guns as a gift, which is a pretty significant problem when you're running as a republican who's a pro second amendment guy. often times people want to give you guns on the campaign trail, especially donald trump, who's there's a number of companies that make these guns with his face on them. >> that was exactly the issue that was at hand today. i think what caused all this was not that just people saw him there and assumed he's in this gun store, he's trying to buy something. it's that his own spokesperson had posted that he had actually purchased before said gun, before later saying, no he didn't, he didn't actually post it. >> this is a fairly obscure law, i guess, for the average person might not know about this. people note the conviction of a felony makes you prohibited from owning guns. a lot of people might not understand that just being indicted on any felony, whether it's federal or state, would trigger this federal prohibition. so, it seems like his campaign

staff certainly didn't understand that and seems like he didn't understand it either. >> not something typically the campaign staff would have to know. but obviously this is an extraordinary circumstances. steven thank you so much for joining with your expertise on this obviously. >> thank you. meanwhile, house speaker kevin mccarthy is plotting his next move, as the government is hurdling toward a shutdown tonight and his job is potentially on the line. the white house saying, it's republicans who are to blame.

how's the chicken? the prawns are delicious. oh, i have a shellfish allergy. one prawn. very good. did i say chicken wrong? tired of people not listening to what you want? it's truffle season! ah that's okay... never enough truffles. how much are they? it's a lot. oh okay - i'm good, that -

it's like a priceless piece of art. enjoy. or when they sell you what they want? yeah. the more we understand you, the better we can help you. that's what u.s. bank is for. huge relief. yeah... ♪ tonight, president biden is blasting hard right republicans for driving congress potentially toward a government shutdown, now just less than six days away. >> now, a small group of extreme house republicans, they don't want to live up to that deal, and everyone in america could be faced with paying the price for that. we made a deal, shook hands, said this is what we're going to do. >> this may not surprise you what i'm about to say, but former president trump is

backing those few on the hard right, telling them they should shut down washington unless they, quote, get everything they are asking for. of course the problem is there is almost no chance of that happening. but without a deal, millions of people, americans, could be impacted by a government shutdown that could happen just days from now. it could potentially mean that active duty troops and border patrol agents would have to work without getting paid. nearly 7 million women and children who rely on food assistance programs would potentially be cut off. farmers could lose access to their loans. and air travel could see disruptions if those unpaid tsa officers call out of work. house speaker kevin mccarthy is facing a defining decision by the end of the week. he could put a bipartisan senate bill, maybe, risking his speakership, though. or he could side with the hard right flank, and it would eventually trigger a shutdown. let's discuss with jamal simmons, and doug heye, communications director for the

republican national committee. doug, i want to start with you. house republicans essentially need some kind of legislative trick at this point to avoid a shutdown, given they have such little time. and speaker mccarthy sent them home last week. how does the gop get itself out of this if they even potentially can do so? >> the short answer is we don't know. we know there's going to be a shutdown. almost 99.44% chance of that happening. it seems an impossible for it not to happen. so, then the question becomes, if we shut down the government, how do we reopen it, and what is the deal that can be cut between kevin mccarthy and senate democrats, obviously the white house as well. and what is he allowed to do with his own conference? and his challenge is, it only takes five people to move a deal south and to make a motion to vacate the chair. so, whatever he does, it's a very difficult situation. it's why the elections in 2022 were disappointing for republicans. even though we won back the

house, democrats through the party. this is why. republicans in the house have found themselves in a very precarious position. the government is going to close, and they don't know how it's going to reopen at this point. >> it's such a slim majority. president biden, you saw him weighing in on this. they're coming out in front of it essentially saying, if this happens, it's republicans to blame. i think trump is advocating for a shutdown because he believes chaos in washington could benefit him. do you think the white house is doing enough to emphasize who it is that would be responsible for this shutdown? >> the white house is doing that? different cabinet secretaries every day to tell us what's going to happen, each individual place. at some point, the weight of this and what its impact is going to be on real people will start to matter. when under the influence a kid, my step father was an entrepreneur. we had a couple of years where we didn't make ends meet. we were on wic payments.

you know what's worse than having to depend on the government to feed your kids? not having the money to feed your kids. those moms are not going to go down without fighting. same thing is going to happen with military pay and border control. i think we're going to have a -- if a real shutdown happens and doesn't have exemptions in it, that might be the counterweight that finally gets this thing to move. >> you just heard what doug mentioned there, the idea if a motion to vacate comes up for speaker mccarthy. democrats could play a pivotal role in deciding his fate. should democrats help kevin mccarthy keep his job? >> my sense after calling around some people today has said, that is not going to happen. there is no stomach in the democratic caucus to help kevin mccarthy keep his job. democrats do want to keep the government open, but kevin mccarthy has a problem -- doug can speak to this better -- in the rules committee. they've got to get a bill out of the rules committee, which means he needs some republicans -- because the balance isn't quite the same. he's going to need some

republicans to get that bill out of the rules committee. >> they're struggling to get their own defense bill passed. doug, i know that you are coming on here to talk about this, and i do want more of your thoughts on kevin mccarthy, but we do have some breaking news from the republican national committee. they have just announced who has qualified for the second republican debate. that's going to be happening this wednesday. and right now that list includes north dakota governor doug burgum, chris christie, ron desantis, nikki haley, mike pence, vivek ramaswamy, and tim scott. but notably not on there is former arkansas governor asa hutchinson. what do you make of what the debate is going to look like on wednesday night, with one fewer candidate on the stage? >> i don't think there's any reason to expect that it will be any different than the last one. we might see more breakout moments from different people here or there, but ultimately all these candidates need to ask themselves a question. are you running to win the nomination or are you running for something else? and everything we've seen so far, sort of, suggests that there's a something else because

they're awfully hesitant to go after donald trump directly. and when you have an opponent who's got a huge lead and then gets indicted in politics, whether you're running for mayor, congress, president, what have you, you use that against them. instead, what we've seen from most of the republican candidates in these debates and outside the debates is not just not going after trump, as they normally would do. they reinforce donald trump's messaging. that's unheard of in american politics. so, what we're going to have to find out wednesday night, is somebody running for real? are they going to go after trump? we don't know if that's going to be successful or not, but we sure know it won't be successful if it's not -- >> let me ask you about that though. asa hutchinson was one that was willing to criticize trump and did so regularly. he's not on the debate stage because he didn't meet the fundraising or polling threshold. what does that mean? >> asa hutchinson is a good, honorable man.

he was a good governor for arkansas. it's time to get out. coming out of this debate, we should see more republicans get out. if you want to be the nominee, you want more running. that opponent is donald trump. everyone who has seen "star wars" knows, like sky walker had to confront darth vader. he couldn't sit back and hope that the force or han solo can take care of it. >> you had jamal laughing at that. >> i've never seen "star wars." don't kill me. >> don't tell kasie hunt that. a major u.s. city is facing a water crisis tonight. -- $36 million of fresh water a day to hold off the threat. inside the plan to save the drinking water in new orleans. that's next.

breaking news tonight, as the republican national committee has just announced the list of candidates who will appear on stage for the second republican debate on wednesday night. former arkansas governor asa hutchinson, who was there on the first -- on stage for the first republican debate -- did not meet the criteria to participate.

he has now just joined us by phone. governor, thank you so much for joining us. what does this mean for your campaign that you are now going to be on that stage on wednesday night? >> we're going to continue to campaign. whenever you look at where we need to be, i've set a goal to be at 4% by thanksgiving or by the next debate. so, we set internal goals. we're not going to let everything be dictated by the standards that are set by the rnc. so, we're excited to continue. this week i'll be in a number of different venues, three or four different states over the next couple of weeks. we'll continue to campaign. we will evaluate. i know there's going to be those that says we ought to step aside. but whenever you look at the role that iowa and new hampshire plays, we're going to continue to compete there and measure it based upon the response we get in those states. >> so, it sounds like thanksgiving is your next date for reassessing this campaign.

governor, you have been one of the few 2024 candidate who is has spoken out against trump, who is very critical directly of him, what does it mean if you are not on that stage wednesday night without that criticism of the republican front runner? >> well, we'll see, but i heard your previous guest that criticized republican candidates for not being tough on donald trump. and you know, they've got to recognize that i went out there and i made my case, and you know, i'm not on the next debate stage. so, there's a lot of critics that are outside the realm of the candidates. and they're going to offer a lot of advice. but i think you will see the candidates go after donald trump. he's the leader. if you're going to run against him, you've got to make your case. you've got to do it in a way that presents your own arguments. and that's what we're going to do.

nobody brings more experience to this case than me, as governor, as the head of the dea, on the cases we face. >> governor asa hutchinson, it was just confirmed you were not on the debate stage wednesday night, but you say you will not be dropping out of this race. you say you will reassess come thanksgiving. governor, thank you so much for quickly hopping on the phone with us tonight. >> thank you, kaitlan. have a good evening. and you just heard the story we teased a few moments ago on the water crisis in new orleans. back on that story with bill weir in just a moment.

the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing?

great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network. >> a serious situation unfolding in new orleans tonight. salt water in the gulf of mexico is now threatening the city's water supply. the mayor, signing an emergency declaration as the army corps of engineers has planned to barge 36 million gallons of freshwater daily into the lower mississippi river. this is the second straight year that climate change has made the river drop so drastically, and it has made less resistant to the salt water that is coming in from the gulf. joining me now is cnn's chief climate correspondent bill weir

is. here. obviously they're trying to fix, this, what is their plan to fix this? >> they're building a still underwater. a couple years ago, we lower the mississippi river, which means a lot bigger ships can move up and down it. but a lot bigger threat for this to happen. as a result of this, incredibly high record high here. mississippi isn't -- should be running 300 cubic feet per second, less than half, that it can go even lower, as the stroke continues. and it doesn't just threaten water systems, because they don't filter it. if it gets in the pipes, its lead pipes, it is about 50,000 of those in new orleans, it can cut loose heavy metals, make a toxic as well. people won't accidentally poisoned themselves, you will taste this all before you make yourself sick. but it's a huge concern. and because this happened back-to-back years, they never predicted this sort of thing. at the same, time the barge traffic getting all the grain,

lng out of the world, is now in a bottleneck because of this problem. >> but they're saying don't panic, you don't need to -- >> know, not yet. folks in new orleans especially. there's a couple folks in blackmon parish down south that is trying to be affected. and those folks deserve to have the bottled water, in case they needed. but this is a slow motion disaster. so before, five, six weeks, this sort of thing. >> as your modern, that i know you also spent a lot of time in maui after we saw the wildfires there. some residents are finally able to get back into their neighborhoods there. what are you -- >> yeah, at least a dozen families relied and with ppe gear under supervision of the authorities. painful, as you can imagine. it's been so many weeks since it's happened. they're opening -- in a couple, weeks all be there for that. but it's interesting, the fatality count was about 115 for a few weeks. they modify that downwards. now, 97. they found some of the remains, either double counted or non human remains. there were 300 missing for. while that's now under 31.

it's still the deadliest fire in modern history. but thankfully, it's not as bad as we feud a few weeks ago. >> yeah, and what are officials saying about what they plan to do going forward about this? the fear is that it's a reoccurring issue. >> yeah, how they rebuild, the world will be watching. there is a huge fight between native hawaiians and longtime locals about water rights, land rights, affordability, and not letting resort developers come in and take over that place, as they try to rebuild. and you've got to think about fire resiliency in pacific islands and other places we never thought about for those kinds of disasters before. adaptation in realtime on the mississippi and in hawaii. >> yeah, just devastating for those families. >> it really is. >> but hopefully getting back and will help. bill weir, i know you're getting there soon, keep us updated. and thank you so much for joining us tonight. cnn prime time with abby phillip starts right now. ♪ ♪ ♪