extend their truce another day? that and a new report from "the new york times" that israel actually knew the plan for the hamas attack more than a year before it happened. plus indicted congressman george santos could be out of a job in just hours from now. and now he's threatening to take down his own colleagues if expelled from the house. and racism, hazing, sexual assault. what top ranking military officials have been concealing from the public for years. we expose a coast guard cover-up right here tonight. i'm pamela brown, and this is "the source." ♪ and good evening to you. kaitlan is off tonight. just three hours from another truce deadline, what could be the end of the pause in fighting between israel and hamas. negotiations going down right to the wire once again on this seventh day of the truce, as a seventh group of hostages were freed and are now safely back in israel. only eight hostages released in this handover. israel and hamas agreed to count the two extra israeli russian hostages released yesterday as part of the ten required in this deal. there are significant questions about whether this deal can survive another extension. negotiators initially believed hamas wouldn't likely be able to offer more women and children to stretch the pause beyond an eighth day. and meanwhile, there is a major story tonight from "the new york times," also reported by israeli media, that israeli officials had the battle plan for the hamas attack more than a year before it happened. but the israelis largely dismissed it as aspirational, considering it too difficult the record hamas to carry out. i want to start with cnn's oren liebermann who is live for us in tel aviv tonight. oren, let's start with the truce. it expires in less than three hours from now. what are you hearing from your sources in israel about what will happen next? >> pam, it is just after 4:00 in the morning here, so there are three hours until this truce is set to expire. with no announcement from any of the sides here, underneath israel, hamas, nor from qatar, which has led the negotiations, that there is a deal in place to continue this at least for another 24 hours. it has been qatar that has made many of the critical announcements, saying it will continue, that there will be more hostages released. we haven't seen that announcement yet. the idf has said they're ready to continue operations as soon as the order is given. we expect that order would come shortly after 7:00 in the morning, unless hamas announces they are ready to release ten more israeli women and children. we haven't heard from the political echelon here about where those negotiations stand. we know they are ongoing. secretary of state antony blinken was here and continues to be here, but spoke and said that the need for a continued pause is critical, not only to allow the release of more hostages but also for more humanitarian aid to go through. he also said before israel launches the second phase of its offensive in gaza, it needs to have a plan for both humanitarian aid and a plan to reduce civilian casualties in gaza. that's been a major concern of the u.s. and the international community. crucially we are simply watching the clock. last night this went down to the final few minutes, when hamas produced a list that was acceptable to israel. as our colleagues have reported, including alex marquardt and mj lee, hamas produced two lists that were unacceptable to israel. it's unclear if we're in the same back and forth right now. this will very much go down to the wire, pam. we will absolutely keep an eye on it to see if this war restarts in just three hours now. >> really getting right down to it, as before. thank you so much, oren. appreciate it. i want to go to "the new york times" reporting, as well, that israel obtained hamas' attack plan more than a year ago. it has also been reported in israeli media. and "the times" reports that a veteran analyst warned hamas conducted a training exercise similar to what was outlined in those plans. i want to bring in our alex marquardt on this, our chief national security correspondent. you know, this "new york times" article really lays out all the warning signs from this pamphlet that the israeli intelligence officials had received. would the u.s. intelligence have been aware of this? >> it is possible, pam. they obviously have such a close intelligence-sharing relationship. this "new york times" article, which just has some extraordinary warnings about this document, they nicknamed the plan, jericho wall. it ended up being hamas' phrasing for it was the al aqsa flood. you had this character in this piece, a female analyst, who warned that this was a plan designed to start a war. she said, it's not just a raid on a village. and her officer, a colonel, ignored that. this was military intelligence. so, it is very possible that it was shared with the u.s. side, which would be the defense intelligence agency, which is the pentagon. this "times" article is also saying this may not have been shared with the highest levels of political leadership in israel. so, it likely was not shared with the highest level of u.s. intelligence leadership either. but we did see some warnings both from israel and from the u.s. that we've reported on in the days before this horrific set of attacks on october 7th. but essentially they weren't taken seriously. and what it's being called is not only an intelligence failure but a lack of imagination. the u.s. and others thought that hamas could do something, but if they did something, it would be rockets fired across the border that might get intercepted by the iron dome, but certainly not that hamas would be able to break out of gaza and carry out this kind of attack. the u.s., since october 7th, has made clear they view this very much as an israeli intelligence failure. hamas is not a major focus. >> it's interesting that in this reporting that the view from some top officials in israeli intelligence and defense was that it was aspirational, they wouldn't be able to pull this off. but you see some of the hamas, the go pro video they had, just waltzing across the border essentially unobstructed, without really anyone there to stop them. so, it really raises the question of why they were able to do that and why israeli officials thought that it was so aspirational. you know, you heard oren talk about the produce that could end in a few hours. i want to talk about that now because you have been extensively reporting on, sort of, why it has been going down to the wire. what can you tell us about what is going on right now? >> reporter: it really could go either way. we've got less than three hours before this deal expires. and the ball really is in hamas' court. israel has made clear that they will continue this pause if hamas is able to come up with ten more women and children. the u.s. and qatar, which are the center of these negotiations, they want to see this pause continue. but hamas really does have to release more hostages. oren referenced the list that had been rejected by israel last night. that's because they didn't include only women and children. they had some dead bodies, of which we believe there could be a significant number that hamas has. another list included elderly men. but israel is saying, you have to give us all the women and children. so, there's a lot of focus on what happens tonight. if they come up with a list of ten women and children, we'll see this pause extended by another day. but the u.s. definitely wants to expand the conversation to include some of the men that they have, to include the israeli soldiers that they have. so, even if tomorrow goes smoothly and another ten are released, we're getting into possibly another chapter, where negotiations will have to start over the next categories. and in the meantime, if those negotiations -- if the releases stall, we could see the military operation via israel start back up again. that could happen, if not tonight, then certainly in the coming days. >> the big question, if it starts back up again, we heard what antony blinken has been urging, to limit the civilian casualties. i now want to bring in the former israeli ambassador to the united states, michael oren. i want to start with this new reporting that we were just reporting with alex from "the new york times." what does this mean to the people of israel, if as "the new york times" is reporting that the government knew about the hamas attack plan more than a year ago? >> well, good to be with you, olivia. it was that the army knew. we don't know how high up the chain of command that information went. but it's part of an investigation that will follow this war, and it'll be a very thorough and far-reaching investigation. and everybody will be investigated, including the military, including the government echelon. clearly there was an intelligence failure here of a magnitude of october 1973 at the outset of yom kippur war, when there were warnings and those warnings weren't taken seriously. personally speaking, i was in the government and i was involved in the gaza issue. we all thought that, you know, hamas wore two hats. it, sort of, wore a terrorist hat but it also wore a government's hat. it was the defacto governance of gaza. and that hamas could be incentivized to wear the governance hat more than the terrorist hat by giving them a lot of qatari money -- a lot of money -- plus allowing about 20,000 gazan workers into israel every day to work. that gives hamas something to lose. so, it wasn't just that people in the government were, sort of, underestimating the military prowess of hamas, but really thinking that hamas could be induced, be something else than what it was, which is a terrorist organization. >> well, and i -- you were right to state that we don't know if the whole of government of israel knew. "the times" says it is uncertain, this reporting could not indicate whether netanyahu knew or not. wouldn't that be a failure in and of itself for something like this to not go up to the highest levels. according to "the times" you have an analyst raising the alarm bells saying, we're seeing hamas fighters training exercises that match exactly what is in this blueprint that we have. they're using the same words that are in this blueprint. why wouldn't that have gone up to the top levels of the government? >> well, again, i can say, as someone who spent a lot of time in the military and a lot of time in government, you get a lot of warnings of this nature in israel. we are in a terrible neighborhood and surrounded by enemies on all sides. so, warnings are coming in every day and frankly all night. and there's a lot of fog, and you have to see through the fog and see, okay, what is the real threat here. it's not always easy. this is not to exonerate or to give anybody -- clearly there was a serious intelligence failure here. but just to give you a sense of the complexity of these issues. i must say also i'm a little disturbed by this report, not just because of what it says about the intelligence failure. but it seems to me already part of the -- i don't know, sort of, the political back and forth about who is going to be responsible for this intelligence failure, whether it's going to be the government or the military. obviously someone gave this report to "the new york times," and i have to ask, what is the motivation of the person who did so. >> that aside, it is important reporting to understand what was known, what wasn't known, before this horrific attack on october 7th. i want to talk to you about moving forward, as we look at these next few hours. we don't know if this truce is going to hold, right? it is right down to the wire. so, that means that israeli military operations could start back up right after. the biden administration has urged israel to be more surgical with its military operations once the truce ends to limit civilian deaths. so far the hamas controlled palestinian health ministry says more than 14,000 civilians have died, many of them women and children. here's what secretary of state antony blinken said today. let's listen. >> before israel resumes major military operations, it must put in place humanitarian civilian protection plans that minimize further casualties of innocent palestinians. clearly and precisely designating areas and places in southern and central gaza where they can be safe and out of the line of fire. >> do you expect israel to be receptive to these demands? >> i think israel's always been receptive to these demands and they don't even have to be made as a demand. israel, both on the moral plain, we have no interest in causing deaths of palestinian civilians. but on the strategic level. the more palestinians that are hurt by the fact they serve as human shields by hamas, that creates political pressures on us to agree to a ceasefire. it's actually a boomerang. and a ceasefire wins hamas wins. it means hamas gets away with mass murder. it means 250,000 israelis can't go back to their homes because they've been removed from those homes. they wouldn't go back to their homes if hamas can organize and launch further strikes. and that's what hamas has said they're going to do. it is not in israel's strategic interest to increase the number of palestinian casualties. israel will do its utmost to limit casualties, but it's going to be difficult because hamas is going to continue to hide behind them and use them as human shields. at the end of the day, we're fighting a vicious enemy who doesn't care anything of the lives of palestinians, nothing. >> but -- i -- so you say israel has been receptive to u.s. demands. but clearly the biden administration doesn't believe it's been receptive enough or has been following it enough. and we know that per what the idf has said and testimony that they have been using dumb bombs, which they say is to get to the tunnels there in gaza, that hamas uses. dumb bombs, though, are more indiscriminate. they kill more people. they're not surgical. so, clearly the biden administration believes that it could be doing more to limit those civilian deaths. and do you worry that israel's mission to destroy hamas in the way that it is carrying this out with more than 14,000 deaths could actually backfire by, you know, radicalizing more people to sympathize with hamas and then join its ranks? >> well, let me just take issue with the 14,000. that's put out by hamas. let's be very straight about that. hamas routinely inflates its numbers. we know that. we know they conflate the number of palestinian terrorists who have been killed in that number, as well as the significant number of palestinians who have been killed by palestinian rockets that fall short. about 30% of their rockets fall short and fall on palestinian neighborhoods. we all remember what happened to the hospital several weeks ago. so, yes, any casualty, doesn't matter what the number, civilian casualties, are too many. and it's in israel's interest morally and strategically to limit that. keep in mind, we're deal being a densely populated and densely built up area, and hamas is under that area, over 300 miles of tunnels. you imagine what this is like for a military to try to remove that threat. at the end of the day, israel has to remove that threat. we cannot live as a country, and we will have to make some very difficult choices about the hostages. i don't know how long these truces can go on. we are trying our best to get as many women and children out of the hands of hamas. but at the end of the day, let's be clear. hamas will not give up all the hostages. the hostages are the get out of gaza free card for the hamas, and they know that once they give up the last of those hostages, israel then could flood those tunnels. it could set those tunnels afire. they can't do that as long as there are hostages there. perhaps we could reach a situation where -- please, go ahead. >> go ahead, no. you were talking about the hostages. i want to follow up on that. hamas released this video of yarden bee bass today. he is the father of a 4-year-old and 10-month-old. and just yesterday hamas claimed without any evidence that the boys and their mother were killed by an israeli air strike. cnn has no evidence of their deaths or the air strike that hamas is claiming. we are not showing the video of yarden, but we do have an image from it that we have showed. that image, in this video, it shows yarden begging israeli officials to bring him and his family home. what video does this have on the families of the hostages? >> it's not the video, it's the whole story of the family. . it has become emblematic for the israelis in general. orange balloons, that's a reference to the red-headed children here. and we don't know, we can't know, we can't verify, whether hamas' claims that most of the family, except for the young woman, young girl, has been killed. we know in the past that hamas has said that hostages have been killed. we found the bodies of two women who allegedly, according to hamas, had been killed by an israeli air strike. but forensic evidence showed they were alive and had been executed by hamas. so, we don't know. but olivia, if i could, i don't think i responded to your question. and i wanted to get to it. will israel will risking creating another generation of terrorists through its military activities in gaza? shall i answer that? >> yes, go for it. we'll make time. >> go for it. okay. thank you. because it's an important point and it comes out often. it simply is this. first of all, if every time a country went to war against an evil enemy, united states and world war ii thought it would create more nazis by destroying nazi germany, then united states would never have gone to war against nazi germany. and every time we've gone to war in the middle east, and we've gone to war quite frequently since our founding in 1948, yes, we risk creating another generation of terrorists. but we have no option, of course. this is our option we have to live. but the opposite, the positive side of this whole process is that every once in a while, people in the middle east will internalize that war is not the way. you could get an -- egypt, egypt made war against us four times, wars of national destruction. jordan made war twice, wars of national destruction. and king hussein internalized this wasn't the way, and we made peace. and we made the peace with four arab countries who are part of the abraham accords. so, it's not true that continued war is always going to create generations that want to wage war. some generations will wake up and say, you know, maybe this is not the way to get a better future for our children and grandchildren. and that's the hope here. at the same time, we're going to have to continue to defend ourselves. >> all right. michael oren, thank you for coming on to offer your perspective and analysis. another long-awaiting reunion caught on camera. an israeli mother finally coming home to her husband and daughter she saved from being kidnapped nearly eight weeks ago. her cousin is with us up next. plus indicted congressman george santos defying calls once again to resign on the eve of another vote to expel him. and claiming he is being bullied out of congress. tonight we are learning more about newly released hostage yarden roman gat. family saved from hamas when they were kidnapped on october 7th, after they all jumped out of a car headed to gaza, yarden handed their 3-year-old daughter to run. they escaped. yarden did not. that was the last time they saw her until now. more than 54 days later, they are finally together again. >> hi! >> it was beautiful to see that reunion. maya roman, yarden's cousin, was also at the hospital, is here with us. you were there to welcome her back. we should note. maya, it is so emotional. i can't imagine how you feel as a family member who has just been hoping and praying all these days for her to come back safely. you know, we can see just how anxious it has been for the family. tell us more about your reunion, and how is she doing now? >> yeah. the reunion was, of course, amazing. we were all so excited to see her. her daughter was so excited to see her. you know, the release that day was postponed more and more. so, it was very late at night. and we woke up at 2:00 a.m., told her that we found mommy. and she was just going crazy at the house, ecstatic, and you know, too nervous to explicitly say. i kept asking her, you know, do you know who we're going to meet? and she was like, you say it, you say it, because she didn't want to say the words. and then when they met me and the partners of yarden's siblings, kind of let them meet first alone. and then we were waiting around the corner so gefen, kind of, came running toward us saying, you have to come, mommy's back. you have to come, and running through the hospital. so, of course it was extremely, extremely emotional. and she's doing well, considering what she's been through. obviously it's been a very, very hard time, especially the first few weeks, when she didn't know if gefen was alive. she had no idea that she succeeded in saving them. so, she obviously said that it was very, very tough. but then she luckily was able to hear on the radio -- actually the first thing she heard was a song that her husband's cousin dedicated to her mother-in-law that was murdered on that day. and he dedicated it to her and to her sister-in-law, who is still held by hamas. and that is how she understood because he didn't mention gefen, that gefen and -- are probably okay. so, that was the first time that she could feel some relief. >> and when was that? she was held in captivity 54 days. at what point in captivity was it when she heard that and pieced it together? >> it was after about a month, three weeks to a month, something like that. so, for the first, kind of, month, she really was in the dark. which, again, it's hell, as you would imagine. but once she understood what was happening, it helped her a lot. and she is, as you can understand, from the story of how she was kidnapped, she's an incredibly strong woman. and is still an incredibly strong woman. the way she's dealing with what she's been through is just extremely inspirational. and one of the main things she was concerned about after she saw gefen and saw that gefen was already, was again, her sister-in-law and where is she and has she come back already. and that is why we are still, you know -- even though we're so happy and celebrating in a way, we are still very concerned that the rest of the hostages have to come back home. this includes caramel, who's 39. she's a young woman and one of the last women held by hamas. but also all of the other hostages and, you know, relatives of families that we have gotten to know so well during these past extremely, extremely trying days. so, yeah, we are still very much thinking about them. >> what an emotional roller coaster you have been through. maya roman, so much joy today with this reunion. but still so much angst with the fact that the sister-in-law is still held hostage and so many others are still held hostage at this hour, and only a few hours left in the truce, as it is going down to the wire. thank you for joining us. we are sending our best to you and your family, and we are so glad that they were able to reunite. thank you, maya. >> thank you. and back in the u.s., it is the eve of another vote to expel congressman george santos. and he's not backing down. what this was this a threat? >> if the house wants to start different precedent and expel me, that is going to the undoing of a lot of members of this body because this will haunt them in the future. nice footwork. man, you're lucky, watching live sports never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network. well george santos could be spending his final night as an elected representative in the united states congress. we are hours away from the vote to expel the embattled representative from new york. >> if i leave, they win. if i leave, the bullies take place. this is bullying. >> santos later took to the fight -- took the fight to the house floor to put the blame off himself and onto his colleagues. >> it is a predetermined necessity for some members in this body to engage in this smear campaign to destroy me. with more on the impending vote to expel santos from congress tomorrow, we're joined by karen fenny. also joining us tonight is republican strategist alice stuart, who also served as communications director for ted cruz. before we jump in, i want to go over and remind our viewers what this ethics report released earlier this month revealed, shall we? so, it revealed misuse of campaign funds for vacations, spa and botox treatments, even only fans accounts, which is essentially a porn site. so, it alleges he was using campaign funds for that. what are the chances, karen, that he is still a member of congress after tomorrow? >> it seems highly unlikely, i will tell you. what's interesting, today, one of the things we heard members of congress saying, those who were trying to speak in support of him was, you know, the people should be able to decide. well, there was a poll recently that said 75% of new yorkers, 83% of long island residents, and about 68% of the gop in new york think he should step down. and as you'll recall, when we first learned last fall that he had, you know, completely lied and misled people about his résumé, that seems like nothing compared to the rest of it at this point. even then people thought he should step down. so, i think the pressure is on for the republican party, i think, to show that ethics actually matter. >> right. and look, republicans, i mean, they're in agreement, he is a serial liar. no one is denying that. but there are some republicans that we've heard from that are claiming, you know, that they're concerned about the precedent that this would set, expelling someone from congress who is not at this point been convicted of a crime. alice, how much do you think it is the reluctance to expel him is that, establishing that precedent, sversus the fact the need his vote because there's a slim margin. >> there's an argument to be made there is a reliable vote. and for republicans who are only thinking about this through the political lens, they would rather keep him and let voters vote him out of office. he's not running for re-election, but when his time is up. when we talk about luxury vacations and designer clothing. this is what happens when you have caviar dreams on a congressional salary. it turns into a nightmare. this is of his own doing. what i'm hearing from republicans, this is not a matter of him having his due process, because he had the opportunity to answer these questions and put forth information before the ethics committee. he did not do so. and he had the opportunity to withdraw and step down, as many have asked him. he is not doing so. so, expulsion is the only answer. and, look, this is not a matter of the precedent of someone who has never been -- had not been convicted of being expelled from congress. look, this is about, there are conduct and standards of behavior amongst members of congress. he has not met that. and rational republicans that i've been speaking with saying he is a disgrace not just to the republican party but to politics, to congress, and also to this country, with his behavior. and what he did today, as he spoke out there on the floor, did not do him any favors. he lost votes. >> but i think the question is for the republican party, given all that baggage and the baggage they've been dealing with with kevin mccarthy and the chaos, will they be able to show they can come together and say, okay, enough is enough. i think it's a big risk for them. >> you bring up kevin mccarthy. i want to talk a little bit about kevin mccarthy because "washington post" is detailing this phone call he apparently had with donald trump shortly af mccarthy was removed as speaker of the house. when mccarthy asked why the former president did not help him keep the speakership, trump blasted mccarthy for not expunging and endorsing. mccarthy felt very free and emboldened to tell it straight to trump when he was feeling now that he has been ousted. what do you make of this? >> given all that kevin mccarthy has done to support donald trump and going down there to mar-a-lago when he supposedly couldn't eat after he lost, donald trump certainly should have had his back. this is a classic case of loyalty with donald trump is a one-way street. mccarthy was loyal to trump. he did not return the favor. he encouraged matt gaetz to oust him from being speaker, and he didn't do anything to help him win. the votes were mounting up against him. i would have dropped the f bomb and a lot more. his campaign says he didn't say that, says they have a good relationship, work well together, talk often, they've agreed and disagreed in the past. it's much better to talk about the f bomb than kumbaya. >> here's what was also interesting in that piece. it talked about people were saying kevin mccarthy's rationale for why he had an endorsement -- that was one of the issues trump had -- concerns about fundraising, concerns about protecting vulnerable members. so, that also -- i think that's a very important point that we should underscore. i know the f bomb is exciting, but that tells you, republican party knows that with trump on the ticket, they have a problem raising the money and the funds that they're going to need to compete in some of these house races, probably in senate races as well. meanwhile, democratic fundraising is going very well as well. i thought it was a telling part of the story that they were real concerns kevin mccarthy had. >> thanks as always for your wonderful analysis. coming up, did donald trump's own attorney provide testimony that could get him convicted in the classified documents case? we'll be back. federal prosecutors appear to have damning testimony against donald trump in the mar-a-lago classified documents case, and it comes from trump's own attorney. abc news first reported jennifer little told a grand jury that she had informed trump last year that defying a subpoena for classified documents would be a crime. and a source told "the new york times," quote, ms. little told prosecutors that the former president clearly understood her warning. joining us now is cnn senior legal analyst elie honig. elie, how significant is this testimony from trump's own attorney? >> pam, it's just straight up bad news for donald trump any way you look at this. this is testimony from his own former attorney that goes right to the heart of the obstruction charge in the mar-a-lago documents case, a case which by the way i already thought had the strongest evidence of any of the four cases against donald trump. now you add this on top of it. this attorney's testimony goes right to obstruction of justice. i told we have a subpoena, i told him you have to obey it, i told him if you don't, it's a crime, and he said he understood. you lay that out for a jury. she's not somebody who has an ax to grind with donald trump. she hasn't had a falling out with him n. fact, she's still his lawyer in another case. it's going to be hard to attack her testimony. her testimony is going to go to the heart of the issues. >> right. and people might be thinking at home, hold on, she's his attorney, why is she testifying about this? what about attorney/client privilege. walk us through why and how she was able to tell a grand jury this without violating this. >> yes. completely understandable why people would think that. ordinarily conversations between attorneys and clients are privileged, they're confidential. you can't be made to testify against them. but there are narrow exceptions. and the exception that a judge found here is what we call the crime fraud exception, meaning that these conversations were evidence of some sort of ongoing crime. and here, the theory is, well, when this attorney -- and this attorney is not part of the crime. but when she tells donald trump, if you do this, it's a crime, and then he does it, that's going to qualify for the exception. so, a judge found that's why the attorney-client privilege is pierced here and that's why a jury is going to be able to hear this testimony. let's switch over to another case. this would be the new york civil fraud case. we know the gag order on trump and his lawyers in that case, it was reinstated by an appeals court today. what do you make of that? >> it's not a surprising decision, and i think it's the right decision because this gag order is so narrow. the only thing it prohibits donald trump from talking about is the judge's staff, the clerk, the people who work in that courtroom. that's it. it leaves donald trump free to criticize the judge, the a.g.'s office, the case against him, even the witnesses. so, this is what you look for in a gag order. look, judges have to be very, very careful when they do impose gag orders because any person in donald trump's position absolutely has very broad first amendment rights. but they're not unlimited. and attacks on court staff, that is just out of bounds. you just do not do that. that is all this gag order prohibits donald trump from doing. >> later in the day, court officials had to knock down this truth social post from trump with these false claims against the judge's wife. the former president shared these claims, far right activist, accusing the judge's wife of writing negative stories about him. but none of it is true. what does trump get out of further agitating the judge here? >> oh, my goodness. i have no idea why he would do this. it's false to start with. it's wildly inappropriate to follow up with. not just this judge, but he's got four other cases, four other criminal cases. they're watching this. they're keeping an eye on what he's doing. it's a horrible idea. it's dangerous. and it's worthy of our reprimand. and, look, there's just -- it doesn't technically violate the words of this gag order because the judge's wife is not a member of the staff, but it's wildly inappropriate and should be condemned. >> all right, elie honig, thank you so much. coming up, a lock and sealed critical report that leaders of the coast guard, well, they didn't want you to see it. but our team of investigative colleagues, we are going to show you what this report reviewed because we got a copy of it. and we're about to share the alarming findings that expose racism, hazings, and incidents of sexual assault across the agency. we'll be right back. a documented culture of racism, hazing, discrimination and sexual assault exists within the u.s. coast guard. top officials at the agency spent almost a decade trying to make sure you don't see what's in the report that we have now obtained. i'm talking about what's called an almost ironically titled culture of respect study. for eight years the coast guard tried to keep it hidden but sfen has it and it reveals alarming conclusions based on interviews with hundreds of coast guard employees, including that coast guard personnel accept poor behavior as status quo. the coast guard does not provide sufficient measures to prevent sexual assault. the coast guard personnel had been discriminated against and sexually harassed and cg indicates we will not tolerate discrimination. even when found guilty of these offenses there are no consequences. one coast guard employee says the attitude is, hey, i got through it, so can you. and the culture was boys will be boys. this report was from 2015. our investigative team reporters blake ellis, melanie hick did our first story on the culture of cover-up within the coast guard about five months ago, and at the time we uncovered yet another damning report, that one focused on sexual assault at the coast guard academy. that report like this newly discovered one was purposely buried for years. after our story, congress held hearings. linda fagan promised transparency. >> i'm committed to improving our prevention efforts, prompt and thorough investigations into reports of sexual assault, and harassment, accountability for perpetrators, compassionate support to victims and full transparency with congress and the american people. >> yet, this 2015 report which also focuses on racism and bullying was not released. over the course of our investigation we talked to so many people who are survivors of sexual assault in the coast guard, hazing, racial discrimination and sexism. they believe if these reports had been made public perhaps the culture would have changed and what happened to them might have been prevented. >> when i saw the report, i knew that if they had implemented the vast majority of the recommendations that it absolutely could have prevented what happened to me and not just me, what continues to happen to service members and civilians across the entire u.s. coast guard. >> after eight years of preventing its release, the coast guard says it will release this report to the public next week. that will be at the same time it releases the results of a 90-day review that was ordered after cnn's first story. a spokesperson says that the 129 recommendations laid out in 2015 and the culture of respect report, 60 have been at least partially enacted and nine more are in the works. up next, a fascinating new look at one of the most stunning crimes in american history that many of you may not even know about. giving tuesday. giving tuesday giving tuesday giving tuesday is a global effort that encourages people to do good. this year, when you choose shriners hospitals for children® your choosing kids like me and me. i give to shriners hospitals for children® because i want to be a part of something amazing. our support gives kids a bright future. thanks to a generous donor. your gift will go twice as far and help more kids just like me. your support helps us do amazing things we never thought would be possible. with your monthly gift. we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue® blanket as another way to say thank you. plus, it's your reminder of all the children who now have hope because of your support. please call right now to give. if operators are busy with other caring donors, please hold patiently or go to loveshriners.org and when you do your gift will have two times the impact. airing this sunday the all new cnn film about one of the most shocking true crime stories you've never heard, about the 1976 kidnapping of a school bus full of children and their driver who were buried underground for more than 12 hours before pulling off their own dramatic escape. >> they escorted me to where there was a hole in the ground with a ladder coming out. i looked down the ladder and i could see ed ray, the kidnappers gave him one flashlight. i did not want to go down there. i knew if i went down that hole i was never coming back out. time froze. and then he grasps my ankle and says come on, it will be okay, and i climbed down into there. >> that is horrifying. the new cnn film "chowchilla" premiers this sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. thank you so much for joining us "cnn news night" with abby phills