down in her new, not yet furnish irned home. the team is exhausted. >> "the whole story" this sunday, 9:00 p.m. eastern pacific right here on cnn. the news continues. "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. tonight.ts now. breaking news. a colorado judge has ruled donald trump can be on the ballot, but also says he engaged in the january 6th insurrection. plus georgia prosecutors now want trump in court less than three weeks after the republican national convention and just three months before the 2024 election. of course, a reminder, that is a trial that will be televised. also tonight advertisers are fleeing from elon musk's x, as he himself is facing backlash over his anti-semitic posts, from many of the biggest companies in america. i'm kaitlan collins, and this is "the source." tonight, donald trump has survived what was the most serious attempt to force him off the ballot in the primaries. a colorado judge says he can't stay on the ballot there. this is also the first time that a judge has determined that donald trump, the former president, engaged in insurrection. e i want to read you the language. the judge says that trump acted with the specific intent to incite political violence and direct it at the capitol with the purpose of disrupting the electoral certification. so, why did denver district court judge sarah wallace keep him on the ballot because of the quote you just heard there? she said that's because the constitution's insurrectionist ban doesn't apply to presidents. tonight the trump campaign is applauding this decision not to remove him from the ballot, but no mention there about the extension there, those hundred of pages the judge had tying the former president to january 6th. i am joined now by the attorney who represented donald trump in this case and also is colorado's former republican secretary of state, scott guess letter. scott, thank you for being here tonight. have you spoken to the former president? what was his reaction to this ruling? >> i have not spoken with him, but obviously we've spoken with the legal team. and we're pretty satisfied with the outcome. >> and is this something you expect the other side -- we do expect the plaintiffs to appeal it here. if that happens, what's your argument going to be to the colorado supreme court? >> well, i'm almost certain that the plaintiffs are going to appeal this case. we'll argue to the power of the supreme court a lot of the same arguments we made before, which is, you know, the textual and the historical analysis of the 14th amendment, especially, you know, considering the fact that the way our constitution is set up, the way our republic is set up, is people get to choose who gets to be their president. we shouldn't have courts striking people from the ballot. we're also going to, you know, fully take on the courts erroneous argument that president trump engaged in an insurrection. we think that's just flat out wrong, certainly contrary to the evidence. it was a little bitten usual for her to spend a lot of time talking about that and then at the end rule that the 14th amendment didn't apply. >> why do you think she didn't have that -- why do you think, scott, that the judge here did add those 100 pages of her, you know, going into detail about the role that she believed your client played in january 6th? >> well, i think pretty clearly she is not a fan of president trump. but to be honest with you, normally courts will rule on jurisdictional issues, will rule on whether the law applies before going into all of that. so, it's really a backwards way of going into it compared to how courts normally do that. maybe she just wanted to be able to say that. i don't know her motivations along those lines. but at the end of the day, the voters of colorado are going to be able to make the choice, not a court. and we're thankful that she respected the role of voters and stopped the, sort of, efforts or at least the effort in colorado, which is antidemocratic, trying to strike president trump off the the ballot. >> given the fact she does go into such detail and is now the first judge to ever say that depa donald trump engaged in an insurrection, do you still really view this as a win here? >> you know, we can't stop the judge from saying things like that and still ruling in our favor. but i will tell you, she also said that the first amendment protections don't apply to president trump the way they do to everyone else. and we think that's flat wrong. so, there are a lot of problems with that analysis. maybe that will wind up contesting it. maybe not depending how the appeal comes out. at the end of the day, she ruled for us and properly so. and this, you know, is her opinion on what happened. but it has no legal authority at all because of her ruling. >> but i guess some people would read this and see where she says that he acted with specific intent to incite political violence directed at the capitol, that he not only knew about the potential for violence, but that he actively promoted it and incited it on january 6, 2021. and they'll say, okay, yes, he is staying on the ballot. but the judge also is tying him to all of this activity, saying that he was responsible the for what happened that day and asked how this is a victory for the trump team. >> look, part of the problem with that analysis is that what she did is she took the january 6th report, which was a wholly one sided approach used to attack president trump directly and politically. and she afforded that whole thing into the case itself. she viewed that as reliable, which is -- i think most reasonable people would view that as absurd. she relied on that -- >> there are people who would not agree with that, right, scott? >> i'm sorry? >> yes, there are some people who do not like the january 6th report. there are a lot of people who believe its findings. i saw you making this argument in court, saying you didn't believe that should be something the other side was basing their argument on here. is there anything, i guess, in the facts that she's laying out here in the statements she's laying out here that you dispute about trump's behavior on that day? >> absolutely. he did not act with intent or specific intent at all. we thought the evidence was very clear, that he made efforts to ensure -- he authorized the national guard, to make sure that they were available to prevent this type of violence fu. if you look at his tweets -- >> he didn't authorize the national guard that day. >> he did. he did. >> well, ckash patel, his forme aide testified that, as one of your witnesses here. but when he was asked for any documentation or any evidence that trump had done that, he didn't provide any. >> yeah, well, there were two other -- there was a second corroborative witness, katrina pearson. and in fact, the plaintiffs -- they're called pe tishers -- >> katrina pearson didn't work in the white house. >> let me finish. allow me to finish. a tweet from an adviser to president trump that ashley referenced president trump's efforts to authorize the national guard. i mean, it was their own evidence that they brought in that referenced that. so, i don't think it's appropriate to say that he never authorized. that's just not fair. and i don't think the evidence leans in that direction. i thought we put out pretty strong evidence. and she can say she doesn't believe people. but just because there's not a specific written document doesn't mean that it didn't happen. and frankly, part of the problem with this entire hearing was that we didn't even have the time or the ability to send out subpoenas and get this type of witness testimony and look at other type of documents to be able to make our case. so, we were very limited on what we were able to do. so, to be able to say you didn't have enough or enough documents, part of that was the truncated or compressed process, the lack of our ability to compel people to talk to us, the lack of our ability to get documents unless someone volunteered them to us. so, there were problems along the lines of the process itself. we thought there was very strong evidence. >> this has been investigated time and time again, including by this committee. donald trump himself did not testify here. he blames nancy pelosi for calling the national guard that day, even though it was in his authority. but i do -- i looked at what you said on the first day of this trial. you said you believe the judge was biased and she should recuse herself. do you feel differently based onts outcome tonight? >> what i said initially is she had contributed money to an organization that was specifically dedicated towards removing politicians, that they claimed -- that this group claimed -- engaged in an insurrection. so, the very purpose of the organization she contributed to was the decision that showed her support. >> before she was on the enbch, right? >> well, not kuwait. he had already applied and i believe she had been nominated but not yet appointed. but it was within the past year. whether you're on the bench or not, you look at a year as a rough deadline for viewing things in the past. it was still pretty fresh. we had deep concerns about that. i'm not necessarily here to relitigate that about the judge. at the end of the day, you know, we're respectful that the judge made the right decision. i understand she threw a lot of shade on president trump, and we're not happy about that. and we disagree with it. but at the end of the day -- and we're respectful of this -- that she's respecting the democratic processes. >> are you saying that you accept the ruling but you're rejecting her findings here? it seems like you're having it one way and also the other. >> not at all. i mean, we accept her jurisdictional, her conclusion that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the presidency based on its plain text and the history as well. we certainly accept that. the other stuff she wrote in there frankly is not jermaine to her decision. attorneys will call that superfluous language that didn't really make a determination had on how she ruled. at the end of the day, she said that. we disagree strongly with that. but she also ruled in our favor. and at the end of the day, that's what we're satisfied about, that president trump will have the opportunity, like everyone else, to make his case and that voters will be able to have the opportunity to vote for him if he want to. that's what democracy is about. >> still quite a scathing ruling, saying he acted with intent to incite political violence. sc scott, the attorney in this case, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you for having me. also here tonight is ben ginsburg, a top republican attorney who has represented four republican presidential candidates and played a central role in the 2000 florida recount. ben, i'm so glad to have you here tonight. b what do you make of what you just heard from trump's attorney on this case, that they accept the ruling itself that trump can stay on the ballot but not, you know, the 100 pages the judge says here, that trump engaged in an insurrection. >> well, scott is not the first lawyer to take the things that he likes in an an opinion and say that it's gold and reject what he doesn't like as pure garbage. that's, kind of, the way lawyers work. what's interesting about this case is the overall perspective that it brings. you now have one judge finding trump was guilty of insurrection. you had cases in a couple of other states where they had not reached that. but what this tells you is that it's an ongoing issue that will be brought up between now and the election and maybe even after the election. and there is a need for some sort of definitive ruling, i think, by the u.s. supreme court to bring some closure to this. >> do you think it ultimately -- i mean, even scott gessler himself said they believe the other side will appeal this, go to the colorado supreme court, and then eventually the supreme court. do you think it ultimately goes there? >> well, i do. and i think it needs to. my guess is the way it needs to go up is not a case like the colorado case, but where donald trump is actually denied a spot on the ballot. and that will be the posture of the case that goes to the supreme court. it's worth noting that in primaries, parties have a great deal of discretion under legal precedent to pick their nominees the way they want to. it gets different for a general election. as i say, i think a court keeping trump from a position on the ballot is a case that does have to go to the supreme court. >> just remarkable to see that she found his actions unlawful in this court ruling. ben ginsburg, as always, thanks for your time tonight. we have more on this breaking news. a judge saying that trump can stay on the ballot in colorado but did engage in insurrection, the first time we have ever seen that. also, a new trial request date is in on another trump case. the fulton county district attorney wants his georgia trial to start only months before the election. plus elon musk, no stranger to controversy, but tonight could be a turning point. we'll tell you more next. donald trump will be on the ballot in colorado, but a court did just find that the republican front runner, quote, engaged in insurrection and tried to hang onto power through unlawful means. this is the first time any court has determined that trump engaged in insurrection. the impact of this ruling goes far beyond just the printing of a primary ballot in a state that no republican has won since 2004. i'm joined bea fair of political veterans, jamal simmons, and scott jennings, who worked with former president george w. bush. scott, thanks for being here tonight. you know, as ben was pointing out, you know, every attorney takes part of a ruling that they like and runs with it, and the other part they don't like, not necessarily. how do you make a judge finding your client ask inciting an insurrection a win given he's the front runner to be the next potentially republican candidate for president. >> well, look, i mean, not getting thrown off the ballot is a good thing. by the way, i think democrats dodged a huge bullet. had they thrown donald trump off the ballot, had a single judge done that tonight, donald trump, republicans, even his opponents, would probably be going crazy tonight and doing whatever they do when these legal things occur. the reality is on the insurrection talk and on the january 6th talk, most voters have heard it all before. we heard it from the january 6th committee. they watched it with their own eyes. they know what they know. they believe what they believe. i'm not sure what a judge says about it is going to change what people already know. if i were the trump people, i would probably be happy. and secretly, i suspect the democrats are probably happy about this too. >> are democrats happy about this? >> i don't know if democrats are happy writ large. i think scott may be right about this point. we sit at a precipice as a country, where you have these folks who really don't have confidence in the system, don't have confidence in the institutions. i feel if we deprive donald trump from being op thn the bal it would be more fuel for the attacks. the president is going to litigate it. outside groups are going to litigate it. we're going to see president trump on trial for a big part of his campaign. i think there are a lot of things that highlight what's wrong with the trump form of the government and the maga movement. >> scott, when you look at this, and the fact he is still going to be on the ballot, this is not the first tame we've seen this attempt. but in other states where this has happened in other groups, not the one that sued here in colorado. other groups have tried to do this, the cases were dismissed. this was actually a trial, where the judge heard from the defense but also both sides, testimony from january 6th officers. what do you make of the fact that she did include so much what he did on that day in this ruling? >> well, obviously she's looking ahead to possible appellate work here. maybe this does wind up in the supreme court. maybe the supreme court winds up, sort of, clarifying the meaning of the 14th amendment here. maybe we need that because obviously it's never been tested and we don't really have a process for this. i ultimately think, though, the right place for this to be decided is at the ballot box. donald trump did what he did, and you can either think that's good or think that's bad or think it's overblown or think it's not been blown up enough. but the american people will get a chance to decide this. the democrats are banking it's going to help joe biden win re-election. republicans are banking they're going to be vindicated here. ultimately i think throwing him off the ballot, even if you've got a long paper trail, as you point out, kaitlan, would make republicans feel like they were deprived of the opportunity. and democrats also deprived of the opportunity to make the ultimately political decision. >> well, i mean, jamal, if you were inside the white house, would you advise them to be using this, what the judge has found here in these 100 pages? >> there's a lot of fuel here for the fire. so, the judge put a lot of things in there. it's important for us to have a record of this, not just going into the campaign, but as a society people stood up and said what donald trump did was wrong, not calling the guard in, letting this go on for so long, capitol police being in trouble and not helping, being assaulted and not helping. i think it's incredible important. so, the white house -- i don't know if i would say breathed a sigh of releaf, as scott just said, but i think we've got a lot of work to do as democrats and as a country. >> jamal simmons, scott jennings, as always, thank you both, but especially on a friday night. i should note prosecutors in georgia have just submitted august 5, 2024, another potential campaign. they say august 5, 2024, is when prosecutors in georgia want donald trump's election interfer interference trial to start. of course that is three months before the election kicks off. it's two and a half weeks after the republican nominating convention, where trump very well could be anointed his party's presidential nominee. fulton county district attorney fani willis has already said this trial could go on for a very long time. >> i believe the trial will take many months. and i don't expect that we will conclude until the winter or the very early part of 2025. >> of course this is also a trial that is expected to be televised because it's happening in state court, not in federal court. trump's lawyers tonight say they are going to oppose this date. i'm joined now by the former u.s. attorney for the middle district of georgia, michael moore. michael, thank you for being here. obviously this is all up to the fulton county judge, scott mcafee. does it seem like a reasonable time frame to you to start in august, in a trial in a case that is expansive as this one? >> well, i'm glad to be with you. i will just say, i think it's probably one of the most unreasonable requests that i've seen lately coming from the d.a.'s office in this case. there is a lot of noise around trying to have a case that's not political. i heard the d.a. say that they don't take the politics into play. that's just not reality. and to somehow try to take this case, which they have acknowledged will last some five months or more and the judge thinks maybe eight months, and to pull the republican candidate off the campaign trail or require the sit-in trial, basically rushing his case, compared to other defendants who have been sitting in jail waiting on trials in fulton county. i think it stinks of politics. i'm not saying the public doesn't have a right or an interest in seeing the case done, but i think it's unlikely. given the trial schedule that's set in courts all over the country now, i think there are three or four trials set next year already. to somehow suggest this state trial should be horse shoed in -- shoe horned in, rather, into the calendar, i just think is not serious. i don't think it was a serious recommendation any more than i thought taking 19 codefendants to trial at one time was a serious recommendation. i think it's a lot of puffery. i think it maybe does good for people who want to cheer on the local prosecutor in this thing. but i don't believe it was a serious recommendation. and i just have to believe in my heart of hearts surely they knew that when they asked the judge to set the trial in august. >> well, his attorney, they don't agree. they say they want to make their argument against this date in person. why do you think it's important to them to do so in person, in front of judge scott mcafee? >> this kind of action falls right into trump's trap. and i think the state fell into his trap here. and that is to make it look like it's a political persecution. so, think about the optics of trying to make him sit in a courtroom while you're letting the democratic presidential candidate run around the country and campaign and talk about how bad the former president was. it plays into his optics. and he has seen much of these trials as much campaign as courtroom. so, i think they want to get out in front of it. they want to talk publicly about it. and they want to make that argument to the plublic, especially since these hearings are televised in the state court. it gives them basically free media all over the world to talk about how he's being mistreated. and that has been, we've seen at least based on the polling. we've seen that's been red meat for his supporters. so, this is just a chance to throw him a big steak. >> i was texting with a former trump cabinet member who no longer is a big fan of his who said it will only help him. michael moore, thank you for your time. elon musk tonight is facing major blowback for some of his sites -- from some of his site's biggest advertisers, after he poesed an anti-semitic conspiracy. disney, paramount, many others, the white house is even weighing in condemning the popost. thatat story rigight after a a break. 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. an anti-semitic conspiracy theory that inspired the deadliest attack against jewish people here in the u.s. has now been publicly endorsed by elon musk, a man with one of the biggest megaphones on the planet. he shared the message on twitter, with more than 160 million of his followers, prompting some of the world's biggest companies to tell the social media platform tonight that they have had enough. musk on wednesday wrote this, quote, you have said the actual truth. that was in response to a post that claimed jewish communities support -- and i'm quoting now -- hatred against whites. that same conspiracy theory inspired the tree of life massacre. that was the one where a gunman murdered 11 people, as they were praying at the synagogue in pittsburgh back in 2018. now tonight, after that post, disney, warner brothers discovery, which owns cnn, and paramount global, have all announced that they are suspending their advertising on the site. that comes as well as prominent movie studio lion's gate and ibm. all of this is happening as the antidefamation league says that anti-semitic incidents have risen nearly 400% since hamas attacked israel on october 7th. here tonight, cnn's senior media reporter, oliver dorsi. oliver, you've been covering elon musk and his takeover of twitter for a long time. does this feel different to you? >> this feels a lot different. it seems like there's an exodus, if you will, over this extreme rhetoric that you're seeing from elon musk, endorsing this anti-semitic conspiracy theory. this really frankly dangerous conspiracy theory. as you said, it's led to actual real world violence. so, you're seeing that. and you're also seeing this separate report that came out this week from the progressive media watchdog media matters, where it showed that blue trip advertisers, like disney, like apple, were seeing their ads adjacent to actual neo-nazi content on x, that's really saturated the platform since elon musk took over and removed all the guardrails. so, this confluence of events has really created an environment where advertisers don't want to touch this place with a 10-foot pole. they want out. and you're seeing now on a friday night, of course, all these advertisers come out, big brands that they really need, saying they've had enough. they're getting their advertisements off x. >> our friend, kara swisher, posted a list of infamous anti-semites and wrote, there's no genius that -- this toxic anti-semitic nonsense. this isn't the first time we've seen elon musk post things like this, amplify conspiracies like this, especially about jewish people. i mean, do you think that he has gotten away with it for so long because of who he is? >> i'm not actually sure why he's gotten away with it to be quite honest. he has posted some of the most conspiratorial, deranged, unhinged rhetoric and conspiracy theories on x. and advertisers have quite frankly -- they've been silent for a long time. i mean, earlier this year he was attacking george soros, a man of jewish assent and has been attacked for that. he wrote on twitter at the time that george soros wants to, quote, erode the fabric of civilization. soros hates humanity. >> and also this huge fight with the adl. >> he smeared the adl, demonized the adl, really threatened them in a number of ways for just pointing out that hate speech has risen on the platform since taking over. finding that a lot of other groups have come to the same conclusion as well. i'm not sure why advertisers have taken this long. but finally, i think, maybe elon musk with that tweet this week, where he endorsed, he took the mask off. i think it's untenable from that relationship. >> he seemed to respond to all of this saying that he's suspending anyone from x, as it's now called, that advocates the genocide of any group. i mean, that is not addressing the post that he said that you speak the truth. basically, you know, pouring gasoline, as we're already seeing a rise in anti-semitism in the u.s. >> it's just gross. and, you know, experts have warned, of course, that these anti-semitic rise could lead to real world violence. it has in the past. and you have elon musk, the richest man in the world, endorsing it. let's not forget too that not only has he enor dorsed this theory, but he has allowed bigots back on the platform. there were rules that suspended and banned these people. he's allowed them back on the platform, welcomed them back. and the platform is now really drenched in a lot of hate speech. and you're seeing elon musk as well promote this hate speech. but you're also seeing this on the platform. it's a terrible environment. it's obviously very dangerous. and the posts he's posting tonight don't really account for it at all. i mean, it's just simply not enough. >> no responsibility. >> no. >> oliver dorsey, thank you very much. also tonight we are on the ground in israel, where families of hostages who were kidnapped by hamas are marching from tel aviv to jerusalem, with supporters in tow, as they demand the israeli government do more to get their loved ones home. i'm going to speak to a member of israel's -- on where those negotiations stand right after this. i could use a little help. yeah, there's a lot of risk out there. huh ♪♪ hey, is this thing hard to learn? nah, it's easy. huh. you know, i think i'm going to ride it home. good thing you chose u.s. bank to manage and grow your money. with our 24/7 support at least you're not taking chances with your finances. yeah, i think i'm gonna need a chair. oh, ohhhh. as israel is prepared to potentially expand its military operation to southern gaza, there's a growing concern tonight among the civilians about where, if anywhere, is safe. we know 750 or so have escaped through the rafah crossing into egypt. that includes zachariah al rah shi and his wife, layla, who arrived back in the united states just last week. and zachariah is here with me tonight. i'm so grateful that you and your wife are safe and that you're joining me tonight. i know the two of you went to gaza to visit family. and then all of a sudden, you're trapped in the middle of a war. can you just describe what you saw? >> i see stuff i've never seen in my life. i see bomb. i see people die. i see building down. i see everything is bad. that's what i see. and when i was home -- i have home back home. and they asked us to move to different place. and i moved to different place, and it still is not safe. it was next to my -- somebody elsewhere i go, my wife's cousin. this was big noise and bomb next to us and it scare us and scared the kids. you would not believe how strong was the noise. i was connected to my embassy in jerusalem, and they take all my information and they told me, we'll call you back. i don't know what's happening. they never called me back. and i tried to call my son here, and he called -- he find out if anybody can help us to get out. and rashida tlaib works for us -- >> congresswoman rashida tlaib. >> yes. and it was a bad situation. no water, no food, no nothing. i buy water from the store, and i go buy more. there's no more water , no more food.t out? >> tlaib contact with the congress. they called me from washington, d.c. they called me, you have to go to the border. and i go, like, five times. i spent all day over there. was the border closed. and she worked, she add my name on the list. >> i know you still have family in gaza. two of your children, seven of your grandchildren tonight. >> yeah. >> are you able to even -- have you heard from them? >> that's why i want to talk now about my kids, my daughter kids and my son kids. they are over there. i tried to call him, like, ten times. he answered one time. i say, what's happening. they're crying for me, take us, take us, please take us. and i say, i'll try to do my best. and i try to find somebody to help me now because it's not safe. there's no food, no water. and i cry every day for my kids. and i need my kids to please be here very soon. >> i can't even imagine the pain that you must feel over that and the helplessness to a degree. and zachariah, i'm so sorry for what you have been through, for what you and your family have been through. and we'll stay in touch with you to hear about your kids, as you are still trying to get them out of gaza. thank you for your time tonight. >> no problem, you're welcome. thank you. >> his family in gaez, also the hostages, as their family is deeply worried about them tonight. we'll get an update from an israeli official right after this. tonight cnn is told that negotiations are still ongoing to free the more than 200 hostages that are still being held by hamas. sources tell us that one demand that hamas has made is for israel to stop flying those surveillance drones over gaza during what would be a break in the fighting, should they agree to one. among the hostages is emily hand. today, a new billboard went up in times square showing this heartbreaking message. today is emily's ninth birthday and her 41st as a hostage. joining me is former israeli ambassador to the united nations, danny da known. ambassador, thank you for being here. people like emily hand's father, a lot of families worried about their loved ones tonight, what is the biggest sticking point in the negotiations right now. >> kaitlan, we are dealing with a very cynical organization being led by a psychopath. sinwar doesn't care about the kids, the children in gaza, or the children he's keeping, the hostages. the people of israel are watching very carefully. the families will arrive to jerusalem tomorrow. and, you know, every time we think we have some kind of agreement, they come up with new demands. i think for us the most crucial part is bring back the children and the mothers. and today we hear that the hamas is not willing to bring back entire families. i'll give you an example. two twin sisters, 3-year-old emma and urie, we cannot leave one of them behind and bring one of the sisters back to israel. so, those kind of issues are being raised all the time. and he knows that it is very important. but at the same time, we cannot accept the fact that he wants to play with our emotions. >> so, you're saying hamas wants to split up some of the families, not necessarily give israel back the list that it gives to hamase >> israel to not fly those drones over gaza if there is a pause. is that something israel is open to considering stopping? >> well, i cannot go into specifics, but we're willing to do a lot to bring back home the hostages. 40 days in prison, you know, in the tunnels. >> are you willing to do that? >> so we are negotiating a lot of things we are not happy with. i cannot give you the details of what we agree or don't agree. but we are willing to pay a heavy price, including releasing prisoners who committed crimes against israelis. every time we think a breakthrough, they come up with new demands. >> okay. so israel is willing to he auto lease some of those prisoners being held in israel. the other thing that israel announced today they are allowing limited fuel deliveries into the gaza strip. we saw the first two go in. we have heard israeli government ministers want to meet, talk about that decision, some people in the cabinet were unhappy about it. do you have any expectation it will be reversed or do you think that will stay in place? >> the serious debate about it, because we feel that we give all day long and don't receive anything in return. 'hear a lot about the humanitarian crisis in gaza, but we don't hear anything about the humanitarian crisis in israel. mainly regarding the families of those who are being held in gaza today. so the government decided, the cabinet decided to allow fuel to if in. we know it will not go to hospitals. we know hamas whenever it's coming into gaza, they are taking it. it's a challenge because they will use the fuel to refuel their rockets they are sending to israel. they will use it for the tunnels where they are hiding. so it's a debate. i don't think it will be reversed. but i think expect to receive something. even a red cross visit to the hostages or videos, proof of life. >> that something that you believe the prime minister should have -- i mean, the fuel has gone in, part of it. should he have gotten that in return before they sent the fuel in is your argument? >> there should be no free lunch for the terrorists. and those countries pushing us, including the allies the u.s. and europe, when they come to us, yes, we are willing to do it, but we have to get something in return. so i would expect them, the negotiators to apply more pressure on hamas apply pressure not only on israel. >> ambassador, one central issue has been what we have seen, what the world has seen from israel as far as allegations it's made about the al shifa hospital saying that there is a sprawling command center initially under there, a massive 3-d briefing that the idf did. so far they have shown, you know, one tunnel entrance, we are showing it here. a tunnel shaft they say is about 100 meters or so -- or 30 meters from the hospital. is israel going to release evidence to back up its claims that there is this sprawling command center underneath the al shifa hospital? >> well, i beg to differ with you. we proved already. it's a military base. i never saw a hospital where you have tunnels beneath the hospital or you have in the cupboards, you have ak-47 or in the mri room you find grenades. i can tell you something more than that. we have evidence that we haven't revealed yet that many hostages were brought into al shifa hospital and it was not that they came there to receive medical treatment. it was headquarters of hamas. that's why they are trying to stop us from conducting the investigation and the more we look into it, we find more -- >> where are those hostages? because so far all we've learned the idf found the bodies of two hostages since they have gone into that al shifa complex. where are the other hostages that you say hamas took there? >> well, i would assume that they were transferred to the tunnels, to another location. because we took the time, you know, we spoke with the hospital before we came in, we ask them what they need, they knew that we are coming in and that allowed them to transfer the hostages. unfortu unfortunately to kill. we see every day all those videos that hamas is releasing where you see people that have been killed by the hand of hamas who were held in the area of al shifa hospital. >> ambassador, thank you for staying up late for us. appreciate your time. we'll be right back in just a moment. in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to a $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yep, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network and that powers more businesses than anyone else. learn how you can get $1000 back for your business today. comcast business. powering possibilities. tonight cnn is learning that roslyn carter has now entered hospice care at her home in georgia. in may, we learned that the 96-year-old former first lady had been diagnosed with dementia and in a new statement from the carter center we found out she and her husband, former president jimmy carter, are spending time with each other and their families. former president jimmy carter of course is 99. he transitioned to hospice care nine months ago. the carters are been married for 77 years. they are the longest married presidential couple in u.s. history. we are thinking of them and their family tonight. thank you so much for joining us each and every night. cnn news night with abby foot phillips starts right now. did a judge just suggest that donald trump is actually above the law? that's tonight on news night. ♪ ♪ good evening. i'm abby phillip in washington. we start with a question.