other issues were overturned. as the court became more conservative. in 2018, when she was diagnosed with dementia, she wrote in a letter to the public that she was grateful for her countless blessings. she's survived by her three sons. she was 93 years old. that's i that's it for us. the news continues. have a good weekend. "the source" starts now. tonight straight from "the source," congressman george santos is history and making history after being evicted from congress in disgrace. now the fight for his crucial seat in a narrowly divided house. plus air strikes resuming in gaza, widening to some targets in the south, where thousands of civilians were told to relocate. and with more than 130 hostages still in captivity, will negotiators strike a deal for another pause? and breaking news on the federal election interference case. another loss for donald trump. hear the judge's blistering new ruling. i'm jim acosta and this is "the source." good evening, everybody, kaitlan is off tonight. i'm jim acosta. we're going to bring you the latest in israel, resuming air strikes in gaza tonight, as its iron dome intercepted rockets today. still no deal for another fighting pause. first, to our other major story, the congressman who infamously lied his way into the u.s. house is now out. george santos expelled with an overwhelming number of bipartisan votes, 311-114 after committing an overwhelming amount of ethics violations, not to mention also facing 23 federal fraud and conspiracy charges. a distraction on capitol hill, no sign of the new york republican anymore. literally santos' sign has been taken down outside his office. the lock is now changed on his door. he's now a member of a dubiously elite club of six to get a house eviction, the first time since the civil war someone was ousted without a criminal conviction. an alleged conman, but not a convict, yet. his exit shrinks an already thin republican majority. sets off a scramble for his crucial seat ahead of a special election early next year. new york governor kathy hochul now has ten days to schedule it. disgraced politician, punch line, historical footnote. while we're at it, fraud, accused criminal, conman. the possible descriptions go on and on, almost as long as the list of lies told by george santos. but the story of a man who has compared himself from everyone to rosa parks to mary magdalene is far from over. the original "star wars" was in theaters longer than santos was in office. but the farce is strong with santos. december of last year, the "new york times" raised questions about his resume, but a local newspaper called the north shore leader was sounding the alarm months before n part because even among his fellow republicans, there were questions as basic as his name. >> another congressional nominee. george santos. george, who we know is a friend, he's known as anthony to me. so, i don't know where george santos came into the thing. but that's what it says here. >> what followed was a barrage of bloviating bs, a flowchart of falsehoods, from his education, the prestigious prep school with no record of him, to the fictitious all star volleyball career at a college he never attended. >> told me, i remember specifically, i'm into sports a little bit, that he was a star on the baruch volleyball team and that they won the league championship. >> there were tall tales about being a mover and shaker on wall street with jobs at citigroup and goldman sachs. that never happened. then came the brazen attempts to cloak himself in the world's most horrific moments, lies about being descendants of the holocaust, having lost friends in the pulse night club shooting, and shifting claims to a connection to the attacks on 9/11. it's astonishing his past did not check up with him sooner. there were active investigations for check fraud in brazil, and multiple court dates for failing to pay rent and his role in what the s.e.c. called a ponzi scheme. and then there are the accusations of funneling charity money into his own pocket, even funds meant for a disabled veteran's dog. woof. but it seemed shamelessness was his superpower. on display time and again, when he was confronted with his lies. >> i lived an honest life. i've never been accused of any bad doing. >> oh, my god, george santos stole money. george santos bought designer clothes. that's what i buy. i just discovered what onlyfans is about three weeks ago when it was brought up in a discussion in my office. >> santos launched 1,000 late night jokes but lost on jokes about appearing on "hannah montana" or producing the failed "spiderman" musical, what a tangled web we weave. there are also the people of long island. more than 700,000 people in new york's third district santos was paid to represent in congress. >> i feel that i can trust him to represent myself, my interests, or the third district. >> he lied to everybody. >> i think we deserve better. >> george santos, ugh. >> there were the messy interviews, even tantrums in the halls of congress, at one point with a baby in his arms. santos leaves the arms facing multiple federal indictments. the stack of charges include unemployment insurance fraud, lying to congress, falsifying fundraising reports, and scamming the people he was elected to serve. because this is george santos, he managed to turn a criminal indictment into a salacious read, as prosecutors detailed a lavish lifestyle, shopping sprees, and online porn. in the end, he did accomplish one thing. he brought republicans and democrats together for one brief shining moment on capitol hill, that's right, a rare moment of bipartisan agreement that it was time for santos to go. i'm joined by former senior adviser to mitch mcconnell, scott jennings, and former senior adviser to president obama, david axelrod. pardon the wrong windup there, but it's a long saga for george santos. i think we probably left some things out there. scott, what's the significance now of george santos now being a former congressman? he can't lie about that. >> yeah, it was a righteous vote. and i'm glad they went ahead and did it. i was a little puzzled i be some of the republicans who in recent days made him a bit of a cause celeb. and it seems to me that the house leadership this morning after being quiet about this to some degree misread their own conference. i know a few more republicans than not voted to keep santos. you can tell a lot of republicans did not want to be associated with them. they were alarmed by the ethics report. and they were standing by the republicans on the ethics committee and also the republicans in new york who were desperate to tell the leadership, hey, we've got to get rid of this guy. i was really puzzled by their votes. but i suppose, in this case, all's well that ends well. santos is out. he deserves to be out. and this was, if anything, a victory for the institution, for the institutional integrity of the ethics committee process, and hopefully cleansing the republican brand of santos' unique problems, which had been an embarrassment to the entire party. >> and david, as a democratic strategist, do you, kind of, wish he wasn't leaving? >> well, he would have been doa in any kind of re-election campaign. you know, he's facing these charges, as you've mentioned. and he's really victimized the people of his district in a way that i don't think he would ever be forgivable. i think the only term that george santos will serve in a federal building in the future will probably be in a prison, not in the u.s. congress. but, you know, i agree with scott on everything that he said, including, i was baffled as well as to why the three republican leaders voted to save santos. you know, republicans had a choice, and it was a tough choice, which was give up a precious vote in a house that is almost evenly divided and that has been hard to manage as it is, or have a guy on your team who was so radioactive that he threatened to cost them the house in the next election. you know, six of the swing district battles that they have to defend in 2024 to hang on to the house are in the state of new york, three of them on long island. and that's why those new york legislators were so vehement about getting rid of santos, which was, of course, big news in their media markets. >> the new speaker, mike johnson, did not vote ultimately to kick out george santos. the leadership was, sort of, standing by him. what was going on there do you think? >> well, i mean, look, one of it is just pure politics. as david mentioned, it's a narrow majority for the republicans, and they were thinking about, well, when this seat is vacant, we'll have an even narrow majority and there's going to be a special election and we may not win this seat back. this is one of those districts that was represented by a republican that joe biden won. so, there's no guarantee a republican is coming back. you may look at it through the lens of math and they don't want it to be harder than it already is to govern this unruly house republican majority. i happen to think this became a bit of a cause celeb for the freedom caucus guys. and you saw a lot of those guys vote to preserve santos. and i wonder if the leadership was trying to signal something to them. but at what cost? you can see in the votes totals, the so-called normmys in the house republican conference clearly did not want to be associated with santos anymore. this idea of undercutting the members of the ethics committee -- remember, ethics committee is a bipartisan deal. it's evenly split. and as soon as they finish their report, the republican chair could not wait to get to the floor to file a motion to expel this guy. to vote against him and to vote against the people you put on that committee, to do the work that they did, really cut the legs out from underneath. so, i'm glad the ethics committee ultimately prevailed here. but i'm sure that ruffled some feathers. >> a couple things i want to say about this. one is, i absolutely believe the house did the right thing today. but, you know, as with everything else we've seen, you worry about, this is a norm that has now been set aside because generally members have to wait for a conviction before they're expelled from the house. they was so flagrant in his abuses that he invited this. the ethics committee report was so outrageous in the scope of the charges against him that he had to go. but i hope it doesn't become another one of those things where this becomes weaponized and used as a, kind of, partisan weapon in the future. and that's always a fear in this political environment. and the second thing really quick is, this was a failure on the part of democrats as well. you know, part of that ethics committee report was 137-page self-researched document that his campaign produced that surfaced a lot of these scandals that took place before he ever was elected. and somehow the democrats did not make sure that that information was known. perhaps they didn't do the research. and also this was a bit of a media failure because there was a local newspaper there working on this story or some aspects of it. and it just never caught up. it just never caught on because it wasn't thought to be important enough. so, there are failures all around on this one. >> yeah. i mean, the story was just unfolding at that point. no question about it. and scott, here's what democratic senator john fetterman said on "the view" today. i thought this was interesting. let's listen to this. >> we have a colleague in the senate that actually done much more sinister and serious kinds of things, senator menendez. he needs to go. and if you are going to expel santos, how can you allow to somebody like menendez to remain in the senate? >> scott, i mean, i suppose people will give credit to senator fetterman there for going after bob menendez and calling him for removal as well. but is there something to be said for waiting until the legal process plays out? are we going to enter an era here where allegations are enough for members of congress to be expelled? >> well, in the case of santos, the report, as david said, was so egregious. i mean, what they found and uncovered was so bad that the members of the ethics committee felt like, we can't wait. i mean, this guy is really beyond the pale. so, i think if you're going to have an ethics process, you've got to let them make recommendations. that's what you do with any other committee. any other committee makes recommendations to their chamber and you tend to go with the experts on it. that's what the ethics committee is for. every time i hear john fetterman lately, i find myself agreeing with him. shocking for me, i was not a fan. he's right on israel. he's right on menendez. he's right on this santos situation. he's making a lot of sense. i think as -- >> pennsylvania -- >> look what -- >> pennsylvania democrat save this tape. >> yeah, but, you know, it's not going to help you in an election in pennsylvania, i can assure you, david. but i just think that what menendez is accused of, he's right. if it's true and if you had an ethics committee look at it and say, looks like he's doing things with a foreign country that jeopardizes national security, how could you wait? how could you wait? >> one thing that -- listen, i hold no brief for menendez, and these charges are egregious. but he was indicted before, and he was acquitted. so, you know, these -- this is -- it's a little bit different because, you know, santos was a serial liar. and that was proven, and there was no dispute about the trail of lies that he told. this needs to be adjudicated. menendez denies it. but, listen, i think that if they're proven, that he should go. and i don't think he should be privy to classified information when he's accused of trading on it for his only personal profit. >> yeah. i think we know where george santos is headed next, and that is his own biopic or series of some sort on a streaming service like netflix or max. i have to assume that's the next step. infamy always leads to one of those types of deals these days, it seems. david axelrod, scott jennings, thanks a lot guys, appreciate it. breaking news, a federal judge denies donald trump's motion to get his january 6th trial thrown out, she issued a blistering takedown of his basis for it, saying he doesn't have the divine right of kings. plus an american icon is gone. we'll look back at the life and remarkable legacy of the first female supreme court justice, sandra day o'connor. she passed away today at the age of 93. we'll bebe right bacack. we're back now with breaking news tonight. u.s. district judge tanya chutkan handing down a decisive blow to donald trump and his team, rejecting their attempts to dismiss charges on the january 6th case in washington, d.c. joining me to talk about this, zachary cohen. zachary, what do we know? >> this is really a forceful rebuke of trump's argument that he should have absolute immunity for any crimes he may have committed while in office, and that includes what he said and did after the 2020 election. the judge in this case, judge chutkan, really making clear that she does not agree with what trump's lawyers are arguing in this case. i'll take you through a couple passages. the first passage compares trump to a divine king, says, four years as commander in chief do not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability. she goes on to say, whatever immunity a sitting president may enjoy,y, the uniteted states isy one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a life long get out of jail free pass. this is an issue, presidential protections, that's going to have to be sorted out by an appeals court before it can go to trial. it's scheduled for march. the judge making clear she has no issues unless a federal appeals court steps in and takes a different side. we'll have to see how long the appeals court can take. it's a major blow to trump's legal strategy in this federal election subversion case. >> absolutely. and a blistering way as well. zack cohen, thank you very much. joining me to talk about this, former counsel to the attorney general for security, carrie cordero, and former u.s. attorney michael moore. carrie, what do you make of this ruling and the judge, judge chutkan, i mean, really -- it's almost as though -- i feel like when i read what she has to say in a lot of these cases, it almost sounds like she is talking directly to the former president. you do not have the divine right of kings, and so on. >> she is very clear. she is clear on that point. and she is clear on the point that to the extent that the former president's team makes arguments about what kinds of cases can be brought against a president, she consistently says, but he is not president anymore. he is not the president. and so, it is a different situation when you have someone who is making these claims, trying to use the cloak of the presidency and executive authority, when that simply isn't his position anymore. that being said, there are unique aspects of these cases that are brought against him. so, he does have unique challenges because the conduct that's alleged was while he was president. >> yeah. >> and now he is also a candidate for future office. so, that's why sometimes these first amendment claims get more attention. >> yeah. michael, i mean, a lot of this gets wrapped up in, well, i was president while this was happening, and i'm running for president. i need to be granted all these favors and special privileges because all these things happened either while i was president or running for president. what do you make of it? >> she stung him pretty good in the order. there's no question about it. i mean, she went to great lengths to talk about whether or not a president or former president should have immunity. i do think -- it was interesting to me, there was a little bit of lack in talking about the fact that this happened while he was president. she refers to him repeatedly as the former president. she put up the quote about, well, we have only one president as a time. nobody questions that. the issue is the conduct that occurred at the time that he was the sitting president of the united states. i mean, i do think it's a blow to the trump camp. i also don't think that they were naive enough to think this was going to get settled in the first inning of the game. and that's, kind of, where we are. this will have to make its way up to an appellate court. and ultimately she recognized at the end of her order -- she recognizes these are issues of first impression, and i'm not trying to be overbroad. we're going to hear from nine folks sitting up there at the marble building at some point about what they think of the case. >> yeah. and carrie, what is your sense of it? do you think this might delay things? if it goes up through the appellate process -- and we know the trump playbook is delay, delay, delay -- could this have an effect on the start date for this trial? >> it could potentially. i mean, the judge in this case has indicated she wants to move the case along in a measured way, and she thinks it's in the interest of justice, in the public interest, to move the case along promptly, not too soon that it's unfair to the defendant, but in a way that takes in account, the realities of the environment, and the fact there is an election out there. i think that could delay. i think that also is the point. so many of these claims that are made -- she knocked down claims that his team made on the impeachment, judgment clause, first amendment claims, claims of absolute immunity, due process, double jeopardy, i mean they threw everything in there, i think in part, to preserve any potential issue on appeal so they have lots of opportunities to write those briefs that potentially would go to the supreme court. >> michael, it sounds like this judge is determined to get this case started on time, and she wants to get these issues resolved before it gets going. >> i think that's right. i mean, she is clearly one who thinks that there's a public interest in moving the case forward. you know, i agree the public interest has a right in that. i think, though, we also ought to step back a little bit and think about the public's interest in protecting the norms and the institutions that we have. and, you know, what we don't want to do at the end of the day is get ourselves wrapped up like a pretzel just because of a dislike or a disdain of a particular former president. i'm not suggesting that she's doing that, but there's a reason to have a measured process that we don't rush a case like this. because the issues are such great magnitude that we want them decided in the right way. so, i would suggest -- >> you think she's running the risk of that? do you think the judge is running the risk of that, mike? >> well, i think what will happen is that the supreme court will get it or an appeals court will get it, and they'll err on the side of slowing down or changing the trial date to make sure there's a full and fulsome argument to be made from both sides about the issues here. because it's not just affecting the former president. this is something that's going to affect every president from now on. and they raised -- his team raised that in the order. she, kind of, batted it down time and time again. but the reality is, this -- what we're talking about here is changing how former presidents are viewed and sitting presidents are viewed for conduct, both in this order and the order that we saw from the court of appeals today. whether or not a president can be civilly liable for certain things that happened during his campaigning as opposed to while he was sitting in the oval office. these are issues that are going to wind their way to the supreme court, and that's the place they'll be decided. >> future president is important, of course, that is if we have a former president of the future in as much legal hot water as donald trump, which i suppose remains to be seen. much appreciated. thanks for joining us. coming up, the bombing has restarted, the casualties mounting again, as the truce between israel and hamas ends. we are live on the ground. ththat's comining up. first time i connected with kim, she told me that her husband had passed. and that he took care of all of the internet connected devices in the home. i told her, “i'm here to take care of you.” connecting with kim... made me reconnect with my mom. it's very important to keep loved ones close. we know that creating memories with loved ones brings so much joy to your life. a family trip to the team usa training facility. i don't know how to thank you. i'm here to thank you. there are new strikes in gaza. israel restarting its military campaign against gaza after a week-long truce with the group expired. the idf is also focusing on targets in southern gaza, dropping leaflets in the city of khan younis, warning civilians to evacuate, even as questions grow over where they can safely go. but hope for a truce and release of more hostages, as sources say negotiations are ongoing. the idf says 17 women and children are among more than 130 hostages still in gaza, including several women in their 20s and 30s kidnapped from the nova music festival. time is of the essence. the deaths of three israelis in gaza were confirmed today by their families. jeremy has the latest. >> reporter: the war between israel and hamas is very much back on, as that fragile week-long truce collapsed early friday morning. since then, we have seen israeli military operations resuming and expanding into the southern part of the gaza strip. ground operations now taking place in southern gaza, as well as air strikes in the key cities of rafah as well as khan younis. hamas, for its part, has fired several barrages of rockets at cities in southern israel. we witnessed several of those heavy barrages aiming directly at the city where we are. we saw these barrages coming in towards our position, the iron dome system intercepting dozens of rockets that were fired in this direction, a very dramatic scene, certainly the heaviest barrage of rockets we've watched fired from northern gaza toward this position in weeks now. and that's especially significant when you consider the fact the israeli military has said for several weeks now they're in control of northern gaza. but clearly hamas still has an ability to fire rockets from some of the northern most positions in the gaza strip. meanwhile the israeli strikes in southern gaza resulting in heavy casualties, hundreds killed and wounded, according to the palestinian ministry of health in gaza. among them, you can see some of the scenes. they include women and children injured and killed as well. but despite the fighting resuming, what is still also ongoing is those negotiations between israel and hamas. to see whether or not there is the possibility of resuming that operational pause in order to allow for the release of hostages. negotiations happening in doha, qatar, with intelligence chiefs from israel, the united states, egypt, and several other countries involved in trying to see if another deal is possible. not only to get the rest of the women and children who are in gaza held hostage by hamas out, but also to potentially start looking at a broader deal that would see men as well as israeli soldiers released as well. the israeli government knows that that will come at a much higher price. and the israeli prime minister has made clear he believes that the fighting that the military pressure on hamas, will help to lower that price, pushing hamas to the negotiating table for those individuals. jim? >> jeremy, thank you very much for that. for more on this, i'm joined by a member of israel's knesset. former ambassador to the united nations. mr. ambassador, thank you for joining us this evening. any sense of where the negotiations stand at this hour? might we see another truce come into the picture over the next couple of days? >> good evening, jim. you know, if it was up to us, we would have continued with the pause and we would be very happy to see more hostages coming back to israel. last week, we saw more than 100 hostages coming back to their families, mainly women and children. unfortunately, hamas chose to stop this kind of agreement we had with them. they were not willing to send us the names of the women and children. and we know that they have 17 women and children in their capacity. so, it's unfortunate. we resume the fight. and i believe that why we will use more force, we'll be able to resume the talks maybe in the future. but now we are focused on the military activity, and we are getting ready to use our weapons, our military, to go after the hamas leaders. >> ambassador, there are some far right members of the israeli government, including the finance minister, who have called for israeli to back out of hostage talks altogether, cut contacts with mediators in touch with hamas. do you agree with that? >> we have a government, and the government decided that we support this kind of agreement. and by the way, we'll be willing to extend it without any government vote. so, the government wanted to continue. it was hamas who decided not to continue that. maybe in the future there will be another opening. we are committed to achieve both goals of the war. the one goal is to eradicate hamas. the second goal is to bring all the hostages back home. jim, it's two parallel goals, but we are committed to achieve both of them. >> and as you know, all the eyes around the world are going to be focused on how israel conducts this next phase of its offensive. it's estimated that 80% of the palestinian population in gaza is now in southern gaza. today the idf dropped leaflets over the city of khan younis. we're looking at some video right here. we did hear from a journalist there who said, quote, from day one, displaced from one place to the other, this is what some of the people are saying to journalists there from the north to the south, from the center. only god knows where next, and there's no electricity, no water, no food, no good living conditions. this is what civilians are telling journalists at outlets like reuters. where do you expect civilians to flee if they've been told to move to the south? how does a palestinian on the southern part of gaza sort through this? >> so, our goal, jim, is to minimize civilian casualties. unlike hamas -- they want to achieve exactly the opposite. and we prove it when we maneuver in the northern part of gaza, we allowed the population to move south. we created corridors for them to arrive to safe zones. it will be the same way we operate in the south. we will actually direct the population to move to the west. we actually sent a map to the people in gaza, showing them where the safe areas are. and we will continue to do that. you know, it's not easy for us to do that, but we are willing to wait. we are willing to allow the population to move out. so, we were able to maneuver and to fight with hamas while we minimize the casualties. you know, hamas is threatening the people to stay put and not to move. and we do exactly the opposite. >> let me ask you this, ambassador. i'm sure you know about this, millary military and intelligence officials in israel knew of hamas' attack plan more than a year before it happened. it appears this was just a spectacular intelligence failure on the part of the israeli government and the intelligence community. how far up did this intelligence go? and what is your response to all this? >> jim, i sit on the foreign affairs defense committee and we had few discussions about this issue. we decided as a nation not to start inquiry now. first we are committed to be united and to defeat hamas. and then we go back and do the proper inquiry. we'll do that. we have to do that. we knew about the intention of hamas to invade israel, but we were not aware when it would happen, in what capacity. we have so many threats in israel. every day we have threats coming from the north, from iran, from hamas. so, we knew about the intention, but nobody knew about the actual date and the operation that hamas planned. >> but there was a lot of specificity in this blueprint, as it's been described. i suppose you did not know about it, but you have to think, i would think at this point, that there are some very serious questions to be asked not only of the intelligence community but also of the prime minister. isn't that the case? >> well, i think once we will get into the inquiry, we will have to ask difficult questions. first the intelligence authority, the idf, also what happened on the day of after the attack started, why it took so long to get to the border and to push back those animals who raped our daughters and killed so many israeli civilians. and the third will be the decision makers for sure, also government officials about what they knew and what they did -- all those years when hamas actually was preparing for that. when you look at the border with egypt, for example, you know, they're both so much ammunition, explosives from the border with egypt, we have to look at all those issues. >> just to button this up, ambassador, do you think more should have been done with this information? was this a failure? >> absolutely. no doubt it was a failure and we paid a heavy price for that failure. but now we are committed, jim, to win the war. and we are united, you know? we work together left and right, opposition, coalition. we turn together as a nation. we paid a heavy price for those mistakes, but now we are committed to win the war, to eradicate hamas, and to build a new future for the people in gaza. it's not only about our future, it's also about the people in gaza. >> ambassador danny danon, thank you so much for your time tonight. we appreciate it. >> thank you, jim. meantime the holiday season is in full swing. so is virus season. hospitalizations are on the rise with respiratory ailments like flu and rs v causing the spike. a top doctor a about how c concd we should d be. we'l'll talk abobout that inin few momentnts. you may have heard it yourself, coughs or sneezes around the office or around school. a lot of people are getting sick right now. respiratory illnesses are on the rise in the u.s., especially among children. weekly pediatric hospitalizations due to covid, flu and rsv are surging. all this, as hospitals in china are overwhelmed with young pneumonia patients. last week the world health organization asked china for more information. joining me to talk about this, dr. ashish jha, covid-19 response coordinator. formerly at the white house. dr. jha, it's great to see you again. it's been too long. in a way, though, i feel it's a good thing i haven't talked to you in a long time. but let's start with these respiratory illnesses and this rise that we're seeing. how concerned should we be right now? >> yeah, so, good evening, jim. it is good to be back. i agree it's good to have taken a little break from all this. but here we are. respiratory season is back, and we are dealing with four different things. we've got rsv, flu, covid. we also have the microplasma pneumonia that comes around every winter, a little worse this year. my view is we can get through this. our health care system can manage this. really important for people to get up to date on their vaccines. and if people do, we will get through this winter without too much illness. >> so, you're not concerned that we're seeing -- all the experts are saying we're not seeing a novel virus, we're not seeing anything coming out of china, for example, that is going to take the world by storm, such as what we saw with covid-19? you're not seeing that? >> no, and let me tell you why. again, the data from china is not always as reliable as we would like. my view is the chinese are saying, this is pretty typical stuff. we need to verify that. we've got a surveillance system now that looks at what's happening in other places. we've got travellers coming out of china. we're seeing no evidence that there's anything new or novel happening there from any of our surveillance systems that we have built up over the last few years. so, yeah, based on everything we know right now, i feel pretty confident there's not a new virus happening. >> are and you just led me to my next question, which is china has a terrible reputation for not being up front with the global health community about these issues, dating back to the early days of covid-19. in your view, has china gotten any better at sharing this information? or is it still a problem? >> look, they are better. i know there are ongoing conversations between our cdc and the china cdc. that scientific sharing is happening. i always think countries should be more open, more transparent. i would like to see china share more of its data than it has. but my view when i was at the white house and my view now is it's fine to listen to what the chinese government has to say. but we should also have a verification system that goes beyond what the chinese government is reporting and have our own surveillance system that allows us to track what's happening. >> all right. very good. dr. ashish jha, sound advice. thanks, as always. please take no offense. i don't want to see you on a daily basis. it means nothing personally, i swear. but dr. jha, great to see you. >> i don't take it personally. thank you. in the meantime, she blazed a trail through history as the first woman on the supreme court. next, we remember former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor, who died at the age of 83. tonight we remember a trail blazer sandra day o'conner died today at the age of 93. he paved the path of generation of woman including the five that followed her on to the supreme court. >> in my lifetime i have seen unbelievable changes in the opportunities for women in positions of power and authority that woman are well represented. that it is not an all male governorrance governance as it once was. >> she stepped down in 2006 to care for her husband who was suffering from all-timers and she shared her own diagnose for dementia. great to talk to you, thank you for being with us. 1971, i guess, justice o 'conner to name a woman to expongs she was that woman. what does it will you about the woman she was and the legacy that she leaves behind? >> she was a extraordinarily strong woman who saw the future in front of her. she really did believe that she belonged in places of power and managed to make it through stand ford law school to be a state lawmaker to be a state judge and then not terribly surprising to her, i think, to be a female justice of the supreme court. >> you describe justice o'connor to be the first female justice, what did you mean by that? >> she had what it took to be the person who received hundreds of letters a day asking her to speak at schools and universities and events. she spent so much time being bold, an ambassador from the supreme court to the country and being a justice. it was really remarkable to watch. she just was extraordinarily well-rounded and just capable in positions of power and at the same time talking to a group of little kids. >> and which decisions was she the most passionate about? i mean there, there has been a lot of talk about how she was a key vote on matter of roe v. wade, what can you tell us about that? >> so, she was the reason that roe v. wade was not overturned until relatively recently. during the time that i was working, 1989-'90 there were many challenges brought to the court and the hope on the right side of the court was that she would be the fifth vote. she was such a strong individual who had her own mind. she was never looking around trying to figure out what to think because of what other people thought. she just held firm. she truly believed in the right of women to reproductive freedom, she truly believed in the power of women to be able to serve publicly. and so, you know, i think she was very proud of that. >> all right. marcy hamilton thank you for helping us remember justice o'connor, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. actress felilicitie huff m talklking about t the college scandadal how shshe felt shehe break the e law 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. . desperate house wives star is speaking for the first time about the college admissions scandal that sent her to prison. she was one of 33 wealthy parents that were arrested on conspiracy of getting their kids in prison. paying to inflate her daughter's sat scores, here is what she said. >> i had to give my daughter a chance at a future. and it was sort of like my daughter's future which meant i had to break the law. i kept thinking, turn around, just turn around and to my undying shame i didn't. >> back in 2019 she was sentenced to 14 days in prison, year's probation, 1500 hours of community service and fined did $30,000. do the work