on this friday night. "ac 360" begins right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com good evening. earlier tonight our cnn crew witnessed the most intense shelling in days. israel's 12 news is reporting what it says is a police report showing the number of people killed at the nova music festival is much higher than believed. it was believed tom 260 people have been slaughtered. now 364 people were according to israel's channel 12. also according to that news channel, police also say that 40 festival goers were kidnapped and taken into gaza. israel's military revealed it recovered the second body of a hostage near the hospital. she was 19, a corporal in the idf, and she had been kidnapped from a kibbutz. yehudit weiss was discovered yesterday. president biden spoke with the leader of qatar, who brokered the negotiations. three sources tell cnn hamas has demanded israel stop flying surveillance drones. the sources say israel uses those drones to track hamas' movements and is unlikely to -- that request. nic, we showed the heavy bombardments in northern gaza. what's the latest you're hearing now? >> reporter: still hearing explosions. there were exchanges of gunfire. we can see over in this direction, looking over there now i can see there's a glow in the sky that wasn't there before. so, that's clearly aftermath of a blast over there right now. so, the fight is still going on. not as intense as what we were seeing earlier on today. as you were mentioning there, really sad news for two families of hostages. and i went to meet one of those families today. yehudit weiss is the first israeli hostage discovered by the idf since their full incursion began almost three weeks ago. the dearly loved 65-year-old grandmother, a mother of five, was already dead. >> translator: yesterday, we were heart broken for the second time in a stronger way, when they told us about father, there was still hope that mother would return. and yesterday we were told that we would not see our mother and grandmother again. >> reporter: her husband was killed october 7th, when hamas stormed their home in be'eri kibbutz. but even now, her death a mystery. the idf claimed she was murdered by terrorists. >> has the idf been able to tell you how she died? >> translator: they can only tell us she wasn't killed ton day of the attempted rescue. they don't know if she was murdered in gaza or her remains taken into gaza. >> reporter: early friday, the body of a second hostage was recovered. 19-year-old idf corporal noah mash i can't know, discovered by the idf in a building near the shifa hospital. a hamas propaganda video released this week that cnn is not showing, claimed she died as a result of an israeli air strike. oma is sure his mother did not. >> you said you knew for sure she wasn't killed in an air strike. how do you know that? >> translator: yeah, we have to trust in military. and we trust they do everything to free them without harming them. >> reporter: as fighting continues around the al shifa hospital and across northern gaza, the idf estimates another 237 hostages are still missing and are vowing to continue their search and fight in the south. >> translator: we're determined to keep advancing. this will happen anywhere hamas is found. and they're also in the southern strip. >> reporter: cnn cannot independently verify events inside gaza, as phone and internet services are cut due to fuel shortages. a doctor at the al shifa hospital was able to reach the qatari news network, al jazeera, telling them, we lost most of the intensive care patients who were on ventilators due to the lack of fuel and oxygen. he also claimed there was no water and electricity in the main buildings and said food supplies promised by the idf are insufficient. hundred of patients and children suffering. for oma weiss and his family, a new type of suffering now. hope and fear replaced by loss. >> translator: we waited for mom for 40 days. for mom, it's too late. we need had to try everything we can in order for the hostages to be returned, all of them, as quickly as possible. >> reporter: the corporal noah -- family too, a closure of sorts at her funeral in a war of abundant loss, heartbreak is never that far away. >> nic, what's the latest you've heard about these hostage negotiations? >> reporter: there's very little that's really breaking the surface that's new. i think a couple of details that seem to have some currency at the moment, debate within the israeli government about whether or not there should be some of the women and children released or all of the women and children released together. of course hamas also saying that all the drones, the israeli drones, should be taken out of the sky over gaza. that's a new precondition that they're putting forward. i think the central part, though, at the moment, is the focus does seem to be on the women and children. and some families of hostages that i talked to say that particularly of men. they say they're a bit worried about that because they want everyone released. they really want the women and children released. and the elderly people as well. but they are concerned if the men aren't freed now as well, then they could be stuck there for a very long time, anderson. >> nic robertson, thanks. joining me now is former chief of the hostages and -- unit of the mu sad. when you hear about some of the terms of the hostage negotiations being discussed, fuel trucks into gaza, multi-day pause in fighting, stopping drone flights in gaza, which of these points do you think israel can negotiate? and which are completely out of bounds? >> i think that most of the times that we-- terms that we'r hearing are non-negotiable. the hamas wants us to stop the war, for us to forget the 7th of october and for them to continue as it was the day before. the drones in the sky are essential for this war. they will continue. the release of part of the women and part of the children and not all of the hostages will create, in israel, a terrible situation in the future. what are we going to do with the parents of all these soldiers which are obviously going to be kept? and the pause that the hamas wants, that will make it very difficult to restart the war the day after. and as we've said yesterday, these negotiations -- these demands that the hamas are now posting are really a non-negotiable situation. if you ask me, the only way that we're going to see any advance in the release of hostages is when the pressure on hamas becomes a lot stronger than it is today, meaning the minute that we start dealing with the south of the gaza strip, you will see the hamas crumbling. here, i want to note something that your reporter didn't say. what has happened in the last couple of days is that the closest people to sinwar have been killed. and sinwar is now feeling our breath very close to his neck. >> general kim met, what would fighting in the south look like? i mean, they have told hundreds of thousands of people -- hundreds of thousands of people have gone to the south, han eunice, and other places, very overcrowded conditions. there are some aid trucks coming across. but obviously people are in dire straits there. how tough -- what does that kind of fighting look like? where do those people go? >> that's a very good question. i'm quite mystified at what they mean by fighting in the south. obviously most of the humanitarian efforts are down in the south. the israeli army specifically said, move to the south. so, if they're talking about the types of operations where you're actually going in among these civilian populations, that just mystifies me on how they would do that. i would not suspect there are tunnels down there the way we saw in gaza city. but this is going to be probably even a tougher fight than they found inside of gaza. >> rami, what does fighting in the south look like to you? there's 50 people living in homes. you know, people are just sleeping anywhere they can. what does that look like? how do you operate in that environment? >> well, the south is a big -- in the south there are several areas. we've been asking the gazans to move to the mua si area, which is the area closest to the sea. and this is where the big tent cities have been established. fighting in the south does not mean we're fighting in the same area. and as you will see in the last couple of weeks, the fighting is very surgical. it is slow. it is very methodical. we are trying not to reach any of the non-combatant population in the gaza strip. and i think that there is no way that we can eradicate the hamas without dealing with most of its forces that have been -- that have fled to the south. now, again, one will note, the noncombatant population in the gaza strip is really a non-existent term because all of the gazans voted for the hamas. and as we have seen on the 7th of october, most of the population in the gaza strip are hamas. nonetheless, we are treating them as noncombatant. we are treating them as regular civilians. and they are spared from the fighting. >> general kimmitt, the idea to negotiate to not fly drones for a period of time, of several days, as hostages are being let go, if that is the sticking point, that seems unlikely that the idf would agree to that. talk about just the importance that drones have right now in this war for israel. >> well, let's be very clear. when you're fighting inside of the city, your eyesight goes about one block to the next very high building. but when you use drones, you have far better visibility of the entire area. when you're looking at it from approximately 500 feet in the air, you can see the enemy coming at you. you can see the enemy running away from you. you have a better idea if they're repositioning. that's one of the dangers you have inside urban operations is your lack of visibility of the surrounding area because of the buildings in the area. but that is taken care of if you can get something -- an eye in the sky, as we talk about -- which gives much better ability to see the region. >> general kimmitt, appreciate your time. rami igra as well. today is the ninth birthday of one of those hostages, we want to point out. emily hand is her name. her father was in times square with a billboard when photos of emily went live today. you may remember thomas hand was interviewed by clarissa ward. he said when he was initially told that his daughter was dead, he thought it was the best news -- his term -- because of what he believed his life would be like. he later found she was highly probable alive and a hostage. today thomas hand says his prayer is that his daughter will be home for christmas. next, a major ruling in favor of the former president, the one where the judge still says he engaged in an insurrection. residents in san diego, the deal with the constant stream of migrants who crosseded the boro onto theirir land anand camp ou. detailils ahead. a short time ago a colorado judge decided the former president will remain on the ballot in colorado should he win the republican nomination. the ban on insurrectionists in the office is a win for the former president. the judge was scathing with her assessment on his conduct on january 6th. judge say rah wallace writes that the -- january 6, 2021, through incitement. and the first amendment does not protect trump's speech. however, she says the ban does not apply to presidents. joined now by our justice correspondent, jessica schneider. so, talk more about the judge's decision here. >> this was actually a lengthy decision by the judge here, 102 pages. in it, it's a bit scathing at times. she goes minute by minute through trump's actions on january 6th leading up to the capitol attack. she talked about her words incited, in her words, lawless violence. she talked about how trump did nothing to stop the violence and how he did engage in an insurrection. notably, this is the first time a court has come to that conclusion. despite all that, the judge did stop short of taking trump off the colorado ballot. in fact, she ordered the secretary of state to keep him on the ballot. anderson, that's because of the specific language of the 14th amendment. so, section 3 said that certain officials cannot hold office if they've engaged in insurrection. but the judge noting here, president of the united states is actually not specifically listed under section 3 of the 14th amendment. she wrote this. she said, part of the court's decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that that was the intent of section 3 of the 14th amendment. so, really saying because the constitution does not explicitly state a provision for a prospective president to be removed if they engage in insurrection, that trump has to remain on the ballot here, anderson. >> so, what happens next? >> so, it is likely that the group that tried to get trump off the ballot, they will probably appeal to the colorado supreme court. it's actually a group that includes several republicans. so, they have to file their appeal to the colorado supreme court by monday. the appeal there, it could be heard pretty quickly. and ultimately anderson, there is a very good chance this case could be heard by the supreme court. but we know the supreme court solidly conservative. the majority of the justices, they're really sticklers in adhering to the exact text of the constitution. so, it's likely that trump would ultimately end up victorious at the supreme court. but it is very likely that we'll see the challenges go up through the appeals court and probably end up at the supreme court. >> i want to get some perspective from david urban, elie honig, and jessica roth, who's now professor of the cardozo school of law. what's your opinion? >> this is extraordinary. >> extraordinary in the way that it's scathing. >> extraordinary in that it's scathing and also the choice the judge made here. she ruled in trump's favor on a very specific legal ground, that he was not in an office the section covered in the 14th amendment. she could have stopped there. but she has 100 pages of fact findings, factual findings, against trump that are just devastating. finding that he intended to incite violence, that he engaged in insurrection. she also has findings, for example, that she knew he lost the election, but facts that are highly relevant to other cases, criminal cases. so, just the breadth of what is covered in this opinion is extraordinary. and the substance of the findings, they're just devastating. >> why do you think she went into that level of detail? >> i think what she's trying to do is make sure that this case can be resolved as expeditiously as possible. so, if an appellate court in colorado or the supreme court of the united states ultimately overrules her on the legal determination, she has provided those courts with the factual findings such that she can just essentially substitute a new ruling based on her factual findings, if a court disagrees with her ruling. she won't have to have a new trial or issue a new opinion applying the law as those appellate courts find it to the fact. she's done it already. >> elie, is this what you expected, based on the other states which kept the former president on the republican primary ballot? >> it is, anderson. i think we've discussed this on air. the fundamental reason these lawsuits keep failing is because we simply don't know how this works. we don't have a process in place. yes, the 14th amendment tells us anyone who engages in insurrection is disqualified. that's important. the problem is in the 150 years or so since that was passed, neither the constitution nor the supreme court nor congress has given us any guidance as to how it works. and what we cannot do, we collectively, is invent a process now on the fly and then apply it retroactively. because that would violate the 14th amendment's due process provision. and i think this is why, anderson, we've seen now every official who's considered this, republican and democratic, state secretaries of state, and now four different judges, including democratic nominees who are have all ruled against these motions, all ruled in favor of trump, but all for different reasons. we don't have a procedure in place for how this work. >> part of the ruling read trump engaged in an insurrection ft it's the first time a court has determined he did engage in an insurrection. does that mat frer any legal standpoint? >> i think it does matter legally. if there's an appeal, the judge has made a very careful record here to support her findings. she held a two-week trial. much of it is drawn on the materials in the public record. she draws heavily on the record establishedty january 6th committee, which i think is a testimony to the ongoing importance of their work. it's important politically and atmospherically, but also legally as well. >> david, how big a boost politically is this for the former president despite a scathing rebuke from the judge of his behavior? >> elie and i talked about this earlier, anderson. i think that if the judge were to have found that this was violative of the 14th amendment and took donald trump off the ballot in colorado, it would have been a boone politically for the president because he would have pointed -- the former president would have pointed to the fact that here we are again. look what they're doing. they're trying -- an unelected judge -- in this case, an elected judge in the state of colorado, partisan, is trying to do what joe biden can't, beat me. so, by failing here, i think that democrats did themselves a favor by not playing right into the president's hands. it would have been -- they would have been shouting from the rooftops. this now, kind of, goes quietly into the night. by the way, anderson, i would say, if this was such a slam dunk, i think merrick garland and mr. smith, the prosecutor here, january 6th, they're examining this, would have taken it, would have taken it up. instead the president wasn't in charging the federal level. >> it is interesting, jessica. it was a number of conservative scholars who backed this idea. i talked to a couple of them on the program. and they have an argument for the fact that, yes, the language does not specifically say "the president," but it does talk about -- i forget what the actual language is. they believe it covers the president, even though it doesn't say it does. >> right. so, there's a dispute among scholars about what actually the language encompasses. and it's a historical question in large part. what did the framers or those who adopted the 14th amendment, what did they intend this clause to cover? and she n her opinion, sites the evidence that was presented to her, including other provisions of the constitution that are relevant for her determination of what this provision means. and she makes a finding that she's persuaded this section doesn't cover the president as an officer. that's clearly something an appellate court would disagree with, looking at the historical evidence about the intention of the people who drafted the 14th amendment section 3. so, that's a really clean issue in a sense to go up on appeal as a purely legal question that probably should be decided by the united states supreme court ultimately. >> elie, do you think that's where this is headed ultimately? >> i do think it could well end up at the u.s. supreme court. and what the judge does in this decision, further to jessica's point, is really thread a very fine needle. she says the 14th amendment applies to officers. but officers does not include the president. that may sound very unusual to normal, sensible people. but the judge points at other areas in the constitution where there is a distinction. for example, the judge says, if we look at the impeachment clau