>> the republican front runners nixon defense goes poof. >> when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. >> tonight, why two major rulings against donald trump could be jack smith's biggest victory to date. then, the tragic culmination of the george santos saga. >> you have no business in this building! tonight, the long road to today's historic expulsion. >> that makes me jewish. it's always been a party favor, everyone's always laughed. now everybody is canceling me. >> just when you thought ron desantis couldn't get cringier. >> you are trolling folks and trying to find migrants to play political games and get some attention seeking out trump trump. by the way, how is that going for? you >> all in starts right now. good evening from new york, i'm chris hayes. we've got huge developments tonight in two of the trials of donald trump. just within the last half hour, judge tanya chutkan, who was overseeing the federal criminal case of january 6th and the attempt to overturn the 2020 election, issued a withering rejection of the ex presidents attempt to get his crimal case thrown out of court. trump and his lawyers had argued that he had total presidential immunity, and so the case should be dismissed outright. chutkan rejected that argument saying in part, quote, defendants for your service as commander-in-chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade the criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens. now, this ruling, in that criminal case, comes today in the wake of a federal appeals court ruling, that donald trump can face legal accountability for inciting the insurrection on january 6th in a civil case. that case brought by capitol police officers and lawmakers who sued donald trump back in 2021. as the washington post explains, they brought this suit under a roughly 150 year old law designed to combat kkk violence after the civil war. they argue trump violated th statute, barring the use of force, threats, or intimidation to prevent government officials from carrying out their duties, by conspiring with members of far-right groups to keep lawmakers from coirming the results of the 2020 election. again, similarly, in that case, donald trump and his lawyers claimed that as they had in the federal case to steal the election, that he had absolute immunity of president. but he could not be held civilly liable or accountable for his actions around the attempted coup. now, all that is a clear embodiment of the dictatorial powers that donald trump wants to ascribe to the presidency, at least when he occupies it. while he was still in office, trump repeatedly spoke about his absolute power to do whatever he likes. >> i have the right to do whatever i want as president. but, i don't even talk about that. it gives me all of these rights, at a level that nobody has ever seen before. when somebody is the president of the united states, the authority is total, and that's the way it's got to be. it's total. >> after he left the white house as the legal pressure increased, trump zeroed in on this defense, declaring at the end of last year, quote, as president, i have total immunity. just a few months ago, his lawyers in the federal elections case made the argument plainly, on national television. >> everything that president trump did was while he was in office, as a president. he is now immune from prosecution for acts that he takes in connection with those policies. >> according to donald trump and his lawyers, the president of the united states can just do whatever he wants. he can never be held accountable for any of it while -- things he did while in office, even after he leaves office. this is trump's view of presidential power, it's the view he will embody if he's reelected next year. it is the view that judge tanya chutkan knocked down today in the federal criminal case, and the circuit court in washington d.c. also knocked down today in that civil case. the chief judge in that case explained, quote, when the president acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity from damages liability just because he happens to be the president. when he acts in an unofficial, private capacity, he is subject to civil suits like any private citizen. when it first term president ops to seek a second term, his campaign to win reelection is not an official presidential act. and trump himself recognized that he engaged in his campaign to win reelection, including his postelection efforts to alter the declared results in his favor, in his personal capacity as presidential candidate, not in his official capacity as sitting president. now, to be clear on that civil case, the lawsuit, it's not the final ruling on the plaintiffs argument. s not th it will allow the case to go forward, give them a chance to prove that trump broke the law, and that they were injured as a result. but again, in just 24 hours, right, both of these rulings, huge, and hugely needed, providing some perspective on what actual judges think of trump's claims of absolute and total immunity. scott bolden is a former prosecutor, now a white-collar criminal defense attorney who practice the federal bar for sometime. scott, let's start, because criminal law is your area of expertise, i want to talk about this decision just handed down by judge tanya chutkan. i have it right here. judge chutkan is responding to a number of constitutional claims the president made, and this motion by trump was always seen as his best attempt, basically, do not face trial. in the spring. the main claim that he mixes as president, even at the, quote, outer perimeter of his duties, he is absolutely immunity and judge chutkan absolutely eviscerate's that argument. what do you think? >> i think it's the right decision. i really believe these arguments about presidential immunity, given the allegations against donald trump, are always going to be dead on arrival. because his duties and responsibilities have nothing to do with him deciding a riot, telling people to go interrupt the county that votes are electoral votes and what have you, but in fact, in the constitution, chris, the president has no role in the transfer of power or counting the electoral votes and certifying elections. it just doesn't fly. the fact that your president, if you look at clinton be jones from my legal viewers, clinton be jones says, it's not the fact that you're the president, it's the fact that what the acts to committed as president, were they a part of your official duties or not? just being the president doesn't mean you can do anything you want, because again, no one is above the law. >> here, let me read from tanya, judge tanya chutkan's decision here. -- from criminal prosecution and for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. which itself is sort of ludicrous. it's not the outer perimeter to incite a coup and sack the capital. >> there's no perimeter. it's no perimeter. >> there's no perimeter. she says, the constitutions text structure and history do not support that contention. no court or any other branch of government has ever accepted it, and this court will not so hold. whatever the immunities, a sitting president may enjoy, and obviously there's some, you can't get sued as president for when you're doing your official duties, the united states has only one chief executive at a time in that position does not confer a lifelong get out of jail free pass. which is fundamentally the argument that trump's lawyers have been trying to make. >> and they're just not winning arguments. because their view was the acceptable rule of law by the supreme court or even these interim federal pre courts. trump could walk into a store and he could steal from the store, he could shoot someone on fifth avenue in new york and get away with it because as the title of president allows me to murder someone or allows me to steal, or do worse in this country. it's just a fallacy, if you will. it's got to make its way through the courts. but in the end, the civil cases, these criminal cases, they're going to be tried. because i've said to you before, the criminal justice system, the civil justice system, and the judiciary separation of powers, they don't care about politics or what donald trump thinks. they care about civil and criminal justice. and we are going to get that and see that in these trials that are going to start in march of next year. >> i tend to agree. i know you've made that case before. but there is one -- in terms of timing, that ruling, and i think the substance of this ruling is any surprise, again, when you go through his opinion, and i just did, it really does lay bare how preposterous and thin the trump arguments are. there's one argument where he says that it's double jeopardy that he's getting prosecuted for this. they already try to impeach him and it didn't work. that's ludicrous, it doesn't work that way. that's the correct answer to that, which is what judge chutkan does, basically. >> chris, come on, you don't need a law degree to see that. >> you do not. you do not. you don't have much expertise. here's the question, right, on the timing here. this will be appealed, no question. that brings us to the d.c. circuit court. that same d.c. circuit court offers an opinion today, on an unrelated distinct but related matter, which is a claim of absolute immunity for what he did on january 6th in a civil context. where it's actually even a stronger argument, because there is some real importance to the civil immunity a president has under his official duties. you can't have a situation where the presidents being sued for everything the president does while he's president. there's a real body there that they are working off of. and even in that, with a higher threshold, you find a d.c. circuit court including a panel member that was a trump appointee saying, no. this does not fly even in a civil context. >> this was a unanimous decision. and while the civil justice standard is preponderance of the evidence, the criminal justice standard is beyond the reasonable doubt. stice standard ithose standardst when trump is trying to get his case dismissed in the criminal setting or civil setting, because he's trying to get them dismissed at i have presidential immunity. that standard of review and that decision today by the d.c. circuit, his criminal case is going to be appealed and go directly back to that circuit with those same judges who have ruled already. i don't think the difference between criminal and civil, based on his presidential immunity arguments, is going to make much difference. and i'd be very concerned if i were his lawyers, and even appealing it, because you have precedent now. >> yeah, and just one more thing on this. this becomes a timing issue. it's a waiting game. we all understand that, obviously. trump's lawyers, i think, filing today in fulton county, saying you can't try until 2029. we've got a situation here where that, i agree with you. i think on the substance, everyone anticipates these arguments are thin, their week. we now have a ruling from the three judge panel unanimously, the d.c. circuit says even the civil context where you have a better shot on this, we are not buying it. same is going to go with the criminal. that's going to then get appealed to the supreme court. and the real question here, this hail mary pass has always been, can you get enough people on the supreme court to issue a stay, and then just kind of thoughts around a long enough to delay the trial? >> for it's up to the judicial discretion. the trial schedules have been set. he's got to get a stay, even if he goes to the supreme court or goes back to the circuit. that's really up to the judges and their discretion. but the efficiency of the criminal justice system and the public interest the out of control, we've seen trump appointees not be political but be committed to their code of judicial ethics, which i believe, my dad was a judge, i believe once you get appointed, you've got the judicial code of ethics and you've got to do the right thing. we will see, but i've got to tell you, in march, and may of next year, despite the presidential elections, one of these trials, i think, is going to get started, it america is going to see, especially in state court, america is going to see the evidence, see the process and procedures, and it's going to have a direct impact on his political fortunes and the political process of those running for president of the united states. >> scott, i want you to stay with us. i'm also going to bring in anna bower's illegal fellow and correspondent -- ana, it was actually your post on social media that alerted me to this chutkan decision, so thank you for getting to that so quickly. she makes short work of the arguments in this opinion. not necessarily unanticipated, in terms of where she comes down substitute flee, but still, i find it incredibly persuasive and truly leaves very little left of the trump arguments. >> right. i think that's right, chris. you mentioned this isn't totally unexpected. of course, the main question here on the presidential immunity question is whether a former president can be prosecuted after he leaves office for alleged crimes that occurred during his time as the president. there has never been a case or any kind of precedent that supports the idea that this prosecution should be barred. so it's not surprising that a district court judge is going to that not come up with a novel theory, a presidential immunity. just because former president trump believes that she should. , but, the question is going to be as it goes through the appeals stages, what will the appellate courts do? what will the supreme court do? and then, of course, there's also importantly these other first amendment arguments that she rejected, and then some other arguments that were rejected that he raised as well. >> go ahead. >> i think, also, as a way of looking at how important this decision is, we've got all these other motions that are ongoing in fulton county as well, although it is a different legal team, we saw some first amendment arguments today before judge mcafee. i think it's very likely that is steve sadow, trump's council in that case, is going to see eminently raised some presidential immunity arguments there. this decision can give judge mcafee a potential roadmap or a persuasive -- although it's not binding on a georgia judge, because it's a different system, state versus federal system, it's still something that i think would be very persuasive for judge mcafee to look to. persuaswe should say, the first amendment claim here, and, not your point here is an important one. which is that part of the reason that she makes short work of the presidential immunity claim is she says, look, it's not on the text of the constitution, clearly. even the defendant can -- concedes that in his own motion. it doesn't say it. it's not in the history or tradition there. there's nothing that implicates it. the textural argument, that the defendant makes, is ludicrous. the to reach to find it in the impeachment clause. but to your point about precedent, the reason there is some opening here for trump, and this, i think, really is his only chance to avoid this trial happening next year, is that it also is unprecedented in the other direction. even as a legal matter, it hasn't been -- it's not definitive. we haven't prosecuted an ex president for the things he did in office ever before, because gerald ford pardoned nixon before that could happen. >> right. i mean, i think that's right. but i think that judge chutkan makes an excellent point that, you know, the president's -- does not, by way of his office, become exempted or subject to -- i believe she uses some kind of phrase saying that the president does not gain the divine right of kings, just by virtue of being a former commander of chief. as a part of the rule of law in this country, everyone is subject to the same laws. the laws apply equally to all. i think that is the point that judge chutkan is making here. she has reiterated this idea that trump, although a former president, he is still a criminal defendant. and that is something that has been a theme throughout the way that she has handled this case. >> scott, there's another argument that trump makes that is sort of less novel. i think was serious. i think are all pretty unserious, which is this first amendment argument. and to anna's point, they are sort of starting to trot that out in georgia and other places. oh, it's illegal to say an election is stolen? and the point that chutkan makes in her opinion, yeah, certain speech and furtherance of a crime is illegal, that's not protected by the first amendment. you can't say you've got to pay up or my boys are going to come break your head in. well, the first amendment allows me to do it. >> you certainly can't. and you know, if trump believed the election was stolen, he could stand at the highest skyscraper in new york and say that. and his speech is protected. but here, let's think about the allegations. it's not so much that he thought that the alley -- the allocate that the election was stolen, he not only thought, that but he acted upon that. he allegedly committed criminal conduct and conspired with others and allied, and filed false lawsuits. then conspired to get voting machines in atlanta and the whole litany of bad acts, that, coupled with his speech, is allegedly criminal conduct. at least the government believes that it is. and they believe they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. that will never work for trump. his arguments only go so far, because when the conduct is put before a jury or judge, it's overwhelming evidence based on what we know publicly, and it will be in the hands of the jury. none of that is really workable. you can't just say something, you can say what you want on the first amendment, but your bad acts with that first amendment speech can be criminal conduct. >> all, right anna bower and scott bolden, thank you both, very much. appreciate it. it's been a heck of a ride, but george santos is no longer a member of the united states congress. we bid a final goodbye to one of the most eccentric liars in congress. the question remains, how exactly did we get here? next. next oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that- i need a breakthrough card. like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more. plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases. and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas- a brilliant reality! the ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours. ♪ ♪ ♪ we're building a better postal service. for more on-time deliveries. and easier, affordable ways to ship. so you can deliver even more holiday joy. the united states postal service. delivering for america. if you're looking for a medicare supplement insurance plan that's smart now... i'm 65. and really smart later i'm 70-ish. consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan from unitedhealthcare. with this type of plan, you'll know upfront about how much your care costs. which makes planning your financial future easier. so call unitedhealthcare today to learn more about the only plans of their kind with the aarp name. and set yourself and your future self up with an aarp medicare supplement plan from unitedhealthcare. i told myself i was ok with my moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis symptoms. with my psoriatic arthritis symptoms. but just ok isn't ok. and i was done settling. if you still have symptoms after a tnf blocker like humira or enbrel, rinvoq is different and may help. rinvoq is a once-daily pill that can rapidly relieve joint pain, stiffness, and swelling in ra and psa. relieve fatigue for some... and stop joint damage. and in psa, can leave skin clear or almost clear. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin; heart attack, stroke, and gi tears occurred. people 50 and older with a heart disease risk factor have an increased risk of death. serious allergic reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. done settling? ask your rheumatologist for rinvoq. and take back what's yours. abbvie could help you save. the power goes out and we still have wifi and take back what's yours. 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. >> united states constitution home of the xfinity 10g network. makes it very hard to expel a sitting member of congress. quote, each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. two thirds majority is an extraordinarily high bar to reach. that makes sense. in most cases, it's the voters that should be the ones to decide who stays or goes in congress. so, in order for someone to actually get expelled, they really have to do something particularly egregious. the last example was ohio democratic congressman, james traficant. who was expelled in 2002, after getting convicted on corruption charges. he did not go quietly. >> i will go to jail, but i'll be dammed if i'll be pressured by a government that pressured these witnesses to death. to get a conviction on a target, the number one target in the country. >> today, congressman george santos did not go quietly either. the indicted new york republican was finally expelled from the house by a truly overwhelming margin. nearly 3 to 1. that's less than a full year after he was so pointed to office. as the new york times notes, this is, quote, the first time since the civil war that a member has been removed without a criminal conviction. for his part, santos told reporters, quote, why would i want to stay here? to hell with this place. thus and one of the truly strongest chapters in the 234-year history of the u.s. house of representatives. durham now by someone who is there to witness it up close, and someone who's documented the story for history. congressman dan goldman, is a democrat of new york, the forefront of the effort to dispel santos. mark chiusano who started covering in 2019 at the long island news reporter, newsday, and has author the new book the fabulist -- which is out now. good to have you. congressman goldman, i think this was the third intent, expulsion votes are rare, successful expulsion votes even rarer. successful expulsion votes not pursuant to a conviction, unprecedented. your reaction to today's news? >> well i think we're getting a little out of our skis by talking about how unprecedented this is that there was no criminal conviction. it's also unprecedented, effectively, i'm not positive, but unheard of, that the ethics committee would release a report prior to the resolution of a criminal case, or merely the ethics committee defers to the department of justice. so, the house of representatives is not obligated to operate under rules of a criminal court. we have our own rules, based on the constitution, based on the rules that have been set forth. george santos was provided with due process through the ethics committee, he declined to participate. he declined to be interviewed. then they did an investigation and released a report that was incredibly damning, worse than i think even i could have imagined, and i filed the original complaint to the ethics committee for them to do this investigation. so, at some point, it becomes just a simple question of whether or not george santos violated the rules of the house, and it deserves to continue to be a member of congress. one of the 435 most powerful people who make our laws. it wasn't much more complicated than that. this idea of precedent and innocent, not innocent -- sorry or, innocent until proven guilty, it's all bunk. that exists in a courtroom where your liberty is at stake, that is not the congressional standard that is not anything that anyone needs to work with. i'm perfectly comfortable, as a member of congress, to say that the precedent that either there is an ethics committee report, or a criminal conviction, is enough to remove someone. fine. if you meet either of those standards, okay. >> yeah, just to be clear, i don't think unprecedented necessarily means bad. to me, what's interesting here is that i think he was unprecedented. this is the thing. i think what santos pulled off was unprecedented. he basically effectively, and comprehensively, defrauded the voters of his district to get himself elected. and then it was revealed, probably was defrauding, to a criminal extent, although it's just alleged at this point, a whole bunch of people throughout his entire life. i don't think there's any precedent for a guy like that getting elected to congress. >> the first conversation i had with him, i write about this in the book, this is the very first time, 2019, and i call him. i've written about sketchy politicians before. this is long island. i give him a call, and he says, i'm launching my campaign today. but i'm in florida right now. and this is a new york district. why are you launching your campaign in florida, where he is on business? he also, by the way, didn't have his campaign finance filings up yet. everything was there right at the beginning. how we are this guy was. >> yeah, i wonder too, congressman goldman, let me ask you this. there is an interesting thing happening among the new york delegation. the new york delegation was, i think, understandably took this quite personally. they were serving next to this individual. i think across a bipartisan line, wanted to get rid of him. there's also some degree to which it seemed like the republican members in those frontline districts, who are going to have to face the voters and districts that are the biden districts, it's useful for them to be, we're not like this guy, george santos, don't through our name with him. what do you think about that aspect of it? >> first of, let's focus on at least a phonic, right, now who was george santos biggest back. her biggest supporter. and voted to protect him. she was the conference chair of the republican party. e waand also a new york member. the other freshman members and much more vulnerable districts, did an interesting bait and switch. in may, when we first brought the expulsion motion up, they were the ones who moved to table it. which moved us to kick it down the road and protect george santos. then, about a month ago, before the ethics report had come out even, nothing had materially had changed from may, all of the sudden, they realized that politically, george santos was a liability for them. so then, they initiated an expulsion motion so they can say they were trying to move him. that failed. many members wanted to wait for the ethics committee report. this was just purely political from the new york republicans, who wanted to distance themselves from george santos when they realized that he, rightly so, is such a political liability for them. but in reality, more than half of the republican party voted to protect george santos, notwithstanding, the egregious misconduct that was laid out in that report. >> here's my question for you, mark, who was there from the beginning. when you take a step back, the big question that i had in the beginning is still there. which is like -- how did so many systems fail for this guy? i think we now can all say this guy never should've been a member of congress. that has been the judgment of three quarters of the house. i think it's the judgment of the people in this district. how did it happen? why did it happen? >> one of the things that i looked into in the book is that the scientific literature behind a lying. it actually is very difficult to figure out if someone is lying. when will you do that is to almost make someone tell the story backwards. i think that's a way to look at how hard it is to find people out who are lying about everything. and so, there were people poking holes in his stories. i wrote a bunch, the daily beast, the north shore leader, even the democratic -- the dccc looked into him, and found lots of really sketchy things. nobody pulled all the dots together until the times great story and december. >> that's an interesting point. if you lie about everything, maybe you even heard to catch someone, at least the honor of the baruch volleyball team has been restored, which george santos was not a member of. everyone should know that. congressman dan goldman, mark chiusano, thank you both. still ahead, the man was likely to finish third in the republican party, again demonstrates he's not ready for the big stage. but first, after the truly shocking relipidations about the israeli intelligence knew about the october 7th a check, one of the reporters who broke that story joins me to break it all down, next. wn, next warning civilians to clear out, while hamas forces them back. allowing in food and water, which hamas steals. ♪♪ vicks vapostick provides soothing, non-medicated vicks vapors. easy to apply for the whole family. vicks vapostick. and try vicks vaposhower for steamy vicks vapors. my name is caron and i'm from brooklyn. i work for the city of new york as a police administrator. i oversee approximately 20 people and my memory just has to be sharp. i always hear people say, you know, when you get older, you know, people lose memory. i didn't want to be that person. i decided to give prevagen a try. my memory became much sharper. i remembered more! i've been taking prevagen for four years now. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. struggling with the highs and lows of bipolar 1? ask about vraylar. because you are greater than your bipolar 1, and you can help take control of your symptoms - with vraylar. some medicines only treat the lows or highs. vraylar treats depressive, acute manic, and mixed episodes of bipolar 1 in adults. proven, full-spectrum relief for all bipolar 1 symptoms. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. call your doctor about unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles or confusion which may mean a life-threatening reaction, or uncontrollable muscle movements which may be permanent. high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. sleepiness and stomach issues are also common. side effects may not appear for several weeks. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie could help you save. my money should work as hard as i do. that's why i used my freedom unlimited card every time i get gas. [laughing] get a little slack on pump three! earn big with chase freedom unlimited. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours. - [female narrator] they line up by the thousands. each one with a story that breaks your heart. like ravette... every step, brought her pain. their only hope: mercy ships. the largest floating civilian hospital in the world. bringing free surgeries to people who have no other hope. $19 a month will help provide urgently needed surgery for so many still suffering. so don't wait, call the number on your screen. or donate at mercyships.org. shingles. some describe it as pulsing electric shocks or sharp, stabbing pains. ♪♪ this painful, blistering rash can disrupt your life for weeks. a pain so intense, you could miss out on family time. the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older, ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles. >> on the morning of october 7th, armed hamas men flew into israel, paragliding, rhoden on motorcycles, and carried out the worst terror attack in israel's history. a lot of people wondered how -- wh could have foreseen this? well, apparently, the answer is the israeli intelligence, a bombshell in the new york times report brought you last night ysut how israeli officials actually had in their possession a 40-page copy of hamas's battle plan over a year before the devastating attack on october 7th and how, quote, hamas followed the blueprint with shocking precision. a barrage of rockets started to distract israel from the real onslaught, drones to disable israel's elaborate security defenses on the gaza border, and hamas fighters breaking through more than two dozen points in the border fence into israel. fo warnings to israel intelligence and the failure of the government to protect against the attack, some of what the israeli press has also reported on is no small factor in a very low approval ratings of prime minister benjamin netanyahu. many political observers in israel believed the prime minister will be out of that job as soon as the war against hamas ends. but, as of this morning, a weeklong truce that resulted in the release of many hostages and prisoners came to an end. rockets have been launched from gaza towards israel by hamas and the bombardment of gaza has resumed. ronen bergman is one of the reporters who broke the story, he's a staff writer for new york times magazine, based in tel aviv, and he joins me. now ronen, this is an incredible piece of reporting. first of all, job well done. can you tell us a little bit about this document that they call operation jericho wall, what was it that the israeli intelligence agencies actually had in their hands? >> since 2012, hamas was devising a master plan, that it perfected, it added more and more intelligence about israel, more and more forces, to the different circumstances in the arena, that 2020 was based on tunnels. since israel arrested the south -- wall. it needed to adjust and only launch forces above ground. but the purpose remained the same. for a front through front invasion in many different points, that would shudder the israeli fortified fence would allow hundreds and thousands of hamas gunman to raid the immediate area, to run over the division headquarters, the gaza division headquarters, the division in charge of the security of the border, and then allow many other teams to go further. in a little bit more than a year ago, the idf military intelligence had a victory. they were able to obtain the latest copy of that plan. they, meaning the israeli intelligence, code named this top secret, the jericka wall document. and this is the booklet that adam goldman and myself are discussing in the story. it's about 40 pages, and anyone who starts reading that, it was translated to hebrew, the original was of course in arabic, cannot help but be stunned to the extent of intelligence that the details, the top secret details that hamas was able to collect of the fortification of the wall and other security arrangements at the border. d it's not coming from open source. i assume someone is investigating how can this kind of intelligence can reach hamas. but besides that, you translate the intelligence into positioning a forces, into a location of gear, it's a massive plan that called for the deployment of 2000 commanders hitting the fence at 60 different places. all simultaneously, and at the same time, massive bombing of israel with rockets and missiles -- using paragliders and zones to take out all the towers, the cell phone towers, the communications centers, the cameras, and the automated remote control machine guns. do that at the same time, to create intelligence battlefield fog. spread confusion, and be able to break the fence, and allow many, many hundreds of people to immediately deploy towards israel. each team with a specific target. those go to the kits, those go to the cities, those go to the military camps, killing, massacring, raping, starting their atrocities. >> if when i bend over backwards to give credit, obviously intelligence agencies have to deal with all kinds of information they get. and there are, you know, people sometimes say in the u.s., circumstances, that there is some battle plan for china and the pentagon will i would say, look, we have battle plans for everything. that doesn't mean we're going to do it. there is an open question, you obtain a plan, how real is this? to me, i can see a defensible argument, yes, they have this on the shelf. , timmy the real pinterest moment is when a member of the military intelligence unit basically witnesses them running a rehearsal for. g a rehear in the late summer, early fall, that seems much harder to defend that oversight. it's one thing to have the plan, it's another to see them doing it. tell me about that part. >> so when the plan was obtained, it was sent to see that the israeli intelligence -- the overall assessment, the consensus that this was not a plan for execution, more than that, it's not just the u.s. military not going to provoke china. -- all the analysts said there was a consensus that this is a roadmap for hamas. they called it a compass for the building of the force. this is where hamas wants to be in years. but far away from capabilities. until that analysts that you mentioned, in july, 2023, send in a memo, encrypted emails, with no exchange with the -- she said i was detaining a military group, it was crazy, it was madness. and she said it all fits into what we saw in jericho wall. i see the materialization of jericho wall in front of my eyes. and instead of looking into that, a superior officer basically pushed back and said, well, you did a great job, but this is imagine a tory. they would never be able to do so. and they started arguing, joined by some colleagues. but at the end of the day, though she got it right, she was the only one who got it right and said, maybe when this document was obtained, there was a gap between what they wanted and where were they in military capabilities. but it's there. now, this is -- she says this is not a plan for a raid, this is a plan for war, a plan for evasion, not to raid one kibbutz. this argument stays only a small capsule between -- certain commands. not above kernels, no one else heard about that. it was contained, and you get the catastrophe. >> ronen bergman who was one of the coauthors of that piece involved in the new york times, just a remarkable feat of reporting. thank you so much for staying up with us and making time for us. i really appreciate it. >> thanks so much. still to come, they say young children view any attention as good attention. and it seems to be the motto of florida governor, ron desantis, as well. the blow by blow from his humiliating thursday evening, next. next to create your personalized plan. let's find the right investments for your goals okay, great. j.p. morgan wealth management. i was stuck. unresolved depression symptoms were in my way. i needed more from my antidepressant. vraylar helped give it a lift. adding vraylar to an antidepressant... is clinically proven to help relieve overall depression symptoms... ...better than an antidepressant alone. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts. antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, as these may be life-threatening, or uncontrolled muscle movements, which may be permanent. high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain, and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. stomach and sleep issues, dizziness, increased appetite, and fatigue are also common. side effects may not appear for several weeks. i didn't have to change my treatment. i just gave it a lift. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie could help you save. sometimes jonah wrestles with falling asleep... ...so he takes zzzquil. the world's #1 sleep aid brand. and wakes up feeling like himself. get the rest to be your best with non-habit forming zzzquil. ♪ ♪ the chase ink business premier card is made for sam who makes, everyday products, designed smarter. genius! like 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more, so sam can make smart ideas, a brilliant reality! chase for business. make more of what's yours. >> in our current economic moment, data trains, economic data trends, tend to make big news if they are bad, particularly inflation, for instance. and i became convinced that a huge part of the negative perception of the economy is that good economic news doesn't make the splash. not only is the overall inflation rate down, but the core inflation rate, the thing that the fed is most focused on, food uninjured energy prices, has been dropping since september of 2022. it's at the lowest point in two years. how about gas prices? the so-called pay at the pump. you can see the price of regular gas droppings is so stone like september. how about those insane gdp numbers from last quarter? those are revised upwards to over 5%, the strongest growth in two years. here's another thing you probably haven't heard about. there have been four national polls recently, all of which would show joe biden defeating donald trump. and no, he is by no means ahead by a large margin. there roughly ref mackinac, the cause of tremendous and understand what concern, but it is worth noting that when polls come out showing donald trump beating joe biden, they get a lot of coverage. do you notice that? you probably hear about them? you didn't hear about those polls. same dynamic at play here. we think it is worthwhile undertaking to cover the news in both directions. as the economy heads into what is by all predictions the definition of a soft landing, last night fox news viewer sean hannity and austin ron desantis got some of this hard truth dropped on them from of the network's biggest bogeyman. >> let's talk a little bit about bidenomics. i'm happy to take that on right now as well. >> year i appreciate you acknowledging. that >> 2 million jobs, ten times more than the last three republican presidents combined. >> because he had the -- >> over 9%. >> because of the. covid >> as he continues to talk over me, i will talk to the american people. here's a guy who celebrated bidenomics just this week, celebrating $28 million that came into your state because of the chips and science act. >> nothing to say, just green and barrett. you might be wondering why would ron desantis, i forget this all the time, actually a current sitting governor, presumably with a job to do, debating gavin newsom on fox news. the motivation for newsom is clear. the chance to defend president joe biden's audience to an audience that doesn't usually hear that message, not to mention getting to raise his national profile while he's at it. but unlike gavin newsom, ron desantis is currently running for president. the only answer that makes any sense is, he agreed to this debate because his campaign is floundering. but the problem is, it did not go well for ron desantis. you can see it all over the florida governor's face last night as gavin newsom repeatedly dumped on the guy of. we'll see the thought button lighting up. how did i end up here? it wasn't supposed to be like this. ron desantis was supposed to be the guy. the colossus. he was going to beat trump for the nomination and make democrats quake in their boots. now everyone is pointing and laughing at his boots, and here he is now resigned to doing stun debates on kennedy for attention. and losing their two. >> you're telling folks i'm trying to find migrants to play political games to try to get news and attentions you can out-trump trump. by the, way how is that going for you, ron? you're down 41 points in your own home state. i know nikki haley's campaign is asking, when you're going to drop out and at least give nikki haley a shot to take down donald trump in this nomination? there is one thing, in closing, that we have in common. it's neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024. >> [laughter] a watch party was held it mandeans amber dusk oh. captured by really summed up the collective reaction to ron desantis's predicament. former republican congressman from florida, and he joins me now. you and i had a conversation, desantis, year floridian, you were a florida republican congressman. it almost sounds like this guy, again, take away his policies, his politics, all that, sort of pure candidate level, just doesn't seem that appealing, particularly in the context that you would find someone in the national stage or the presidential. that really struck me, again the, is i watched the debate. >> yeah, that's right, chris. rhonda sanders is a terrible candidate. you see that. no amount of -- his strategy or staff has changed his trajectory. the more you get to know about him the less you like him. you've seen this play out in the race. what struck me about last night was that we understand why ron desantis took this opportunity. i think when he agreed to it a few months back, things weren't as bad as they are now. he saw it is an opportunity for relevancy. but what struck me as the static nature of desantis's campaign. it's done. it's going nowhere. there was no momentum here. tried to declare victory over gabba newsome. he tried to beat his chest, but there was no excitement around this debate because ron desantis has been left for dead and his campaign is done. to me that was the tamps time stamp we witnessed last night. >> an interesting moment substantively on abortion that i want to show which i thought was interesting because it shows hannity and others. everyone in the republican party conservative media understands how dangerous this issue is republicans, and rightly so. newsom is trying to press desantis on this and hannity sort of road to the rescue. take a look at this. >> will you or will you not support a national ban the lands on your desk? you could answer that in any other, answer it tonight. >> moving on to the next issue. >> american people should know this. i'll answer for ron desantis, kicked answered, he will sign that next week. >> let me move on. >> american people should know that. >> by the, way saying that he'll finance exclude national man, he signed exactly that ban in the state of florida. >> rhonda vance is an uncomfortable about this issue because he lives in a super majority echo chamber in tallahassee, florida, and he's in a super conservative cultural with republican primary for the presidency, so he has checked every box for immigration, abortion, down a list. but on abortion he was unsteady. he was at 15 weeks he didn't want to touch it because he knows how to read a poll. he knows where the american people are. he got pushed in for the stricter ban and he now owns it. what you saw there was a boxer taking a hit and wobbling because he knows it he's in a bad place with national politics on the issue. >> i want to ask you about a piece of news that i was looking at today. i was pretty blown away by. it -- is a close associate of ron desantis. this is the florida republican party chairman, christian ziegler, who is currently under criminal investigation for algations laid to sexual battery, including rape. according to a complaint filed in the sarasota police department, a heavily redacted 13 page report released thursday includes rape, had been sexual battered, on ten, two, 2023, not that long ago. ziegler's name doesn't appear on the document. was provided to the police department after nbc news asked specifically for a complaint filed against zeigler who did return requests seeking comment. this is the florida republican party chair. his wife is the head of moms for liberty. which is going around banning books and accusing liberals of being groomers and pedophiles. this guy runs the republican party? is this making the shock waves in florida republican politics i feel it should be? >> it is. this scandal has rocked the florida republican party. i think it's important because there's a lot of scandal and hypocrisy. frankly some head turning facts here. but it starts with a serious credible allegation of rape, which means there is a victim that filed this complaint. i think we have to keep that in focus. what is the allegation? the allegation, by the woman's admission, is that she was engaged in a three-year relationship with these, with the party chair and his wife, who's elected school, member who has sought to ban lgbt books and is ahead of moms for liberty. that's where the hypocrisy comes in after criminality. there are other seriously credible allegations. obviously unconfirmed in news media a roundtable courting,'s video recordings, perjury charges, and the important thing here, this is where it goes to ron desantis, those will be very hard to administer judges because the sarasota republican community is very insular, where most of your elected prosecutors and justice officials know all of the players. ron desantis might have to make some hard judgment calls. but the hypocrisy of this, after a campaign to ban lgbtq literature in our schools, to have the leader of that movement and the leader of the party apparently engaged in an lgbtq relationship themselves, perhaps they're trying to ban the books so that students can't know about their own political scandal. >> it is truly, truly astounding. just to reiterate what you said. serious allegation here. file with the police department of sexual violence by a survivor that sexual violence and we will see how that plays out in the new process in the court of law. this is the head of the florida republican party and the head of moms for liberty, folks who he had been basically torturing trans kids through intimidation and legal-ism for years now. david jolly, thank you very much. that is all in for this week. alex wagner tonight starts right now with my dear friend melissa murray, in for alex. good to see you melissa. >> thanks, chris. and thanks to all of you at home at this 9:00 hour. than >> i'm melissa murray in fr alex tonight. and then uses capitol police of