unfortunately the cease-fire is over. izal is launching new strikes in gaza accusing hamas of violating its deal to hand over more hostages. the fighting resumed just hours after a report in "the new york times" that israeli leaders dismissed warnings of a pending hamas attack. let's start with cnn's jeremy diamond near the israel-gaza border. and jeremy, we've seen explosions over gaza all day. what is the israel government, what is the idf saying about the renewed military operations? >> reporter: well, jake, not only has the israeli military renewed its military operation in gaza, it is also expanding it, moving combat operations, ground combat operations into the southern part of the gaza strip and also taking aim at key cities there including rafa as well as han eunice and hamas has been responding in kind. in the last couple of hours we've seen dozens of rockets being fired from just behind me in a part of the gaza strip. i want to show you some of those rockets. and you can see that there were multiple sirens going off, dozens of rockets being fired. in just one barrage i counted 19 rockets being fired from a position right behind me that appears to be in a city in the north eastern most in gaza. what's remarkable utthat, jake, the israeli military for a couple weeks now has been claiming they're in control of the northern part of the guzza strip. and yet clearly hamas still has the ability to fire rockets from some of those positions. it also, of course, comes as they have had a week now to resupply, to regroup, which was one of the fears of military analysts here in israel. but what is also clear is that the israeli military is continuing to pound key parts of gaza. and the result of that, of course, has also been heavy civilian casualties once again. we know in the southern part of the gaza strip it appears according to the palestinian ministry of health that several hundred people have already been killed. among them they say many women and children. >> what are the chances of a new pause and a hostage exchange? >> reporter: well, what's interesting, jake, aeven amid the renewed fighting those negotiations between israel and hamas mediated by the qatari government with heavy assistance from the united states, those negotiations are still ongoing. and sources have told us if israel is presented with a list of ten, women and children they have been asking for to extend the truce today, they'd be willing to once again return to that pause in fighting in order to allow for had release of those hostages. it appears hamas is claiming they simply don't have that number of women and children left in their custody in order to release. some of that may have to do with some of those individuals, unfortunately, being dead. some of it could also have to do with the fact other militant groups hold some of those hostages themselves. but what is also clear that at some point these negotiations have to and are already starting to move towards the broader question of men as well as israeli soldiers. israeli political leaders recognize getting those hostages out will come at a significantly higher price, and they also believe these military operations, that the military pressure on hamas, will help to lower that price putting pressure on hamas at the negotiating table as well. >> what is the reaction in israel, jeremy, to "the new york times" report revealing israeli leaders had been given detailed warnings of hamas attack plans and yet they were dismissed. >> reporter: it's really been silence, jake. none of israel's political leaders have commented on that report so far. what's also interesting is that it comes on the heels of in just the last week a lot of reporting in the israeli press about insider accounts of warnings from one intelligence officer in particular who has been named "v" in the israeli press here. her warnings effectively about the very same type of attack that hamas actually carried out, which were ignored or dismissed in other cases as well. but what's clear is that "the new york times" report goes further than those accounts with very specific blueprints that the israeli military and the intelligence community appears to have obtained. but it's not changing the posture of the israeli prime minister who's effectively said all questions about this intelligence failure should be answered after the war ends. of course he's the only one really who has yet to take responsibility. most of israel's security leadership already has. >> jeremy diamond, thank you so much. and this news just in. the biden administration and israeli officials believe that hamas continues to hold hostage a number of women who are approximately 20 to 30 years old who were kidnapped, many of them from the nova music festival. the fear, of course, that there is a specific reason why a group of terrorists would want to keep holding hostage a bunch of young women. let us return to the blockbuster "the new york times" report, the paper revealing that israel knew of hamas' attack plan more than a year ago, but israeli officials dismissed it as aspirational and ignored specific warnings. this comes on the heel of an article in the israeli newspaper last week saying, quote, over the past year the israeli defense force spotters situated on the gaza border warned something was happening. those who survived the october 7th massacre convinced if it had been sounding the alarm things would be different today, unquote. we thought of having an israeli official come onto respond, but frapgly we've been asking about intelligence failures since the very beginning of the saga starting with the horrific hamas terrorist attack on october 7th. and we've been getting the same answer over and over and over again. this one. >> once again, all these questions can be addressed after the conflict. and i'd remind you and you know this better than most that when we've had security mishaps or challenges in the past, we have known in this country how to investigate ourselves. >> so instead of subjecting you to that answer once again, i want to discuss this with former deputy director of national intelligence in the united states and also a cnn national security analyst. obviously the fault of the hamas attack is hamas. first, foremost, period, full stop. but that said netanyahu's government ignored warnings. one cannot miss the fact that many of these warnings were from women. what is your reaction to this latest "the new york times" story? >> well, i think there's multiple levels of failure here. it's never just one thing, right? it's multiple things. so you can start from the bottom, you can start from the top. from the bottle people did not listen to these young women, mainly young women. that's a cultural problem, right? whether nairp women or men, they didn't listen to junior officers. then you get all the way to the very top where netanyahu had policies that literally moved resources away from hamas, focused on iran, iran, and maybe hezbollah and actually put money into the settler movement, which stoked things and created policies that made hamas and other adversaries, hey, maybe now's time we need to attack. so you can look at this in all directions, but they have a huge problem that they need to deal with. >> and i have to say what i read in "the times" seems worse than that infamous it tell briefing memo bin laden determined to attack in the u.s. the detail in "the new york times" article is incredible. hamas battle plan. according to documents seen by "the times" hamas called for a rocket barrage to district the israeli military, using drones to knock out cameras, breaking through the wall, attacking with paragliders and motorcycles on foot, target towns as well as the israeli mill fare base. all of that actually happened. and as you know not only was the idf focused on protecting these extremist settlers in the west bank, netanyahu himself was very engaged in trying to weaken the judiciary, and the country was politically very divided. >> exactly. so, you know, when you look at warnings and whether you get these things right or not, there's two things you have to get right. one is the intent of an adversary to attack and the other is a capability of an organization to attack. in 9/11 we got the intent right. we warned, you know, red lights flashing is what the head of cia said. but we didn't get the tactical warning right. here they got both wrong even though they had the blueprint. so they didn't get the intent right. they didn't believe that hamas still wanted to be a terrorist organization. they thought they had it cowed into this governing kind of body, and for that reason they didn't take a real hard shot at saying, huh, look at this blueprint, i wonder if they can actually do this. so that is the double failure here. >> so "the times" article also cites a 2016 israeli defense ministry memorandum that warns hamas intends to move the next confrontation into israeli territory. such an attack would most likely involve hostage taking and occupying an israeli community and perhaps even a number of communities. and the plan would involve hostage -- anyway, what's interesting about this 2016, seven years ago. >> yeah. >> i don't know how many people in the united states follows ieraly conflict, but netanyahu who's been prime minister longer than anyone in the history of israel, his whole pitch to israel is i will keep you safe. he even says you might not even like me, but i will keep you safe. here is a netanyahu ad from 2015. here's a little clip of it. it's a young couple waiting for a baby-sitter. they open a door and they've got a bye-bye sitter, i will protect your chirp. i can keep you safe, the others won't. here's another ad from 2019. he's a lifeguard. go to the right, go to the right, i will protect you. go to the right. it's his whole pitch. i will keep you safe. do you think this is the end for him politically? >> absolutely. i just don't see how you get out of that. and i think that the hostage families who really -- i mean the heart of all israel is with them. they have lost absolute confidence in netanyahu. and they will tell you -- i think you had a person on yesterday who -- >> we had five families on yesterday. >> yeah. and many of them said my trust is with the idf but not with netanyahu. they understand that these decisions come and they filter down. and they distorted society over this period of time in israel. and i think that, you know, this whole idea of, you know, we can't look at intel failures as just some guy didn't listen to a female officer. yes, that's important. but it's part of a bigger cultural and societal issue that they need to ask and grapple with. >> one of the other things -- and it doesn't matter who gets attacked, who gets killed by hamas. i mean it doesn't matter their politics, but a lot of these people who lived near gaza were left wing. >> exactly. >> and really did everything to work with the palestinians. they opposed netanyahu, they wanted peace. if also shows you how much none of this is about politics. it's about killing jews for hamas. >> it is. and unfortunately in all of this it has moved many of those people who really wanted peace, really wanted coexistence, and it's hardened them. and we can understand why. if you see the films of what happened, you can understand why. but it means that two-state solution is farther now from us than it has been in 30 years. >> perhaps. perhaps. i got to hope. >> i'm always a buzz kill for you, though. >> i got to hope. thank you so much. some sound bites from donald trump will go in history books. sound bites such as this one. >> so, look, all i want to do is this. i just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state. >> not exactly ask not what your country can do for you. still, up next the first signs of how trump's attorneys are going to try to defend that call and other actions by donald trump in the conspiracy to steel steal georgia's 16 electoral votes. stay with us. and we're back with our law and justice lead. attorneys for donald trump arguing in fulton county court today for the first time since donald trump was indicted in the georgia elections case, they argued the charges against the former president should be thrown out base on his first amendment right to free speech. it's an argument the judge has already ruled against for two of trump's codefendants, sidney powell and kenneth chesebro. evan, why would they use this first amendment argument if he's already ruled against it? >> well, i think trump's lawyers believe that he's got a different kind of argument to make, that he has a nuanced version of this argument because he was president, right? he was a sitting president. and the judge -- what the judge was looking at in the chesebro and sidney powell case was simply saying, look, this is an argument that is left for you to make when you go to trial. this is a trial argument. and that is probably where he still will stand. but for now, obviously, this has been an all-day hearing going on in fulton county court. so for now he's listening to the trump lawyer who made these arguments of what potentially could be at stake in the coming months. keep in mind, jake, part of the play here by the trump team is to -- is to delay this trial. right now the prosecutors are trying to have it next august, right in the middle of the election. and they claim that is election interference, which is something the judge is sort of having trouble trying to decide what to the do with that. >> and tom, i want to play this moment where trump's lawyers were asked if trump could be tried in georgia if he wins the election in november. >> if your client does win election in 2024 could he even be tried in 2025? >> the answer to that is i believe that the supremacy clause and his duty to president of the united states, this trial would not take place at all until after he left his term of office. >> so see you in february 2029? >> exactly. come back later for the trial of the century. i think if that happens, if we're in that situation, and god forbid where we are where there's a sitting president in a criminal trial, i think the team would have an argument you cannot prosecute criminally a sitting president. i think the supreme court would look at that from the constulational duties. would prosecuting a sitting president interfere with his duties. wouldn't surprise me if the supreme court under those circumstances says this goes too far. especially if it's state because that adds onto the additional layer of the state supervising the federal government, which can't happen under our constitution. >> evan, we also saw this major ruling in d.c. federal court that trump does not have presidential immunity over civil lawsuits related to january 6th because it wasn't in the course of his presidential duties. what does that mean for trump? >> it's a pretty consequential ruling at least when it comes to these lawsuits. these are lawsuits filed by members of congress and capitol police officers filing for damages. the president can still make this argument, jake, as this litigation goes forward, but the big, big question that is still hanging out there, right? and you can see it in reading this ruling today we were all trying to parse it because we're trying to see what the -- the appeals court and ultimately maybe the supreme court will do with the question of the presidential immunity with the criminal cases. we know the president, the former president is going to make the same argument that he's immune to jack smith's prosecution. he's trying to make that very argument. this is going to be a preview of that. >> would this assuming this is upheld in water court it goes to because it's going to be appealed, would this impact the powers of the presidency? >> i think it could. and that's one of the ironies of all this litigation, jake. on the one hand the president is urging broad exceptions of presidential power and immunity. when the courts keeps rejecting the arguments i think it narrows the scope of the president's powers and the scope of immunity for future presidents. congress moves fast when it wants to. in the morning house members expelled george santos. by afternoon the locks were changed on his office door. and that wasn't the only move to erase his name from the halls of congress. stay with us. nice footwork. man, you're lucky, watching live sports never used to be this easy. now you can stream all your games like it's nothing. yes! [ cheers ] yeah! woho! running up and down that field looks tough. it's a pitch. get way more into what you're into when you stream on the xfinity 10g network. in our politics lead, it's over. those words from former congressman george santos who was expelled from the house today over ethics violations. >> congressman, what's your reaction to the votes as they come in? >> it's over. but what reaction? the house votes. that's their vote. sure wrijust set a new dangerous precedent for themselves. >> when it was all said and done the resolution passed 311-114 with 105 republicans voting in favor of expulsion. resulting in this the unceremonious removal of santos' nameplate within hours of the expulsion vote. let's get into this with the panel. we should opponent out in terms of people talking about the precedent set, the house ethics committee did an investigation. they concluded after a thorough investigation that his behavior and his conduct had been beyond the pail and they unanimously democrats and republicans voted to expel him. that is pretty rare. others expelled from the congress fought for confederacy and were convicted of crimes. but do you think that this is dangerous because he has not been convicted of a crime? >> i do not. look, here's the situation here. he will face his day in court. he's facing 23 indictments on very serious charges with regard to campaign finance. he will have his due process and his day in court. with regard to congress, believe it or not, there are actually standards and conduct of behavior that members of congress have to meet. and they set those standards and enforce those standards. and when he was brought forth before the ethics committee, he had the opportunity to refute these charges or set the record straight. he gave the ethics committee the middle finger and did not answer. now 311 of his colleagues gave the middle finger back to him and said, enough, you're an embarrassment, a fraud, and we're not going to have you here anymore. he doesn't have the right to be a member of congress. it is a privilege to do so, and if you don't meet the standard of behavior, fortunately, his colleagues said we're done. >> i think they would have set a different standard had nay not voted to expel him, which would be in the face of when his own constituents remember in the fall after the election when things started to come out, they were trying to figure out how can we get rid of him and there's no constitutional way. voters they had to rely on the ethics committee. it would have set a standard that says we're going to protect our own even in the face of overwhelming evidence. and remember he actually admitted to some of this when it first came out. the other thing, though, if you think about the ethics committee it was formalized in 1967, and over the years they have actually added rules and regulations as the times have changed. and as one of our colleagues said earlier this week this is political catfishing. this is a person who created new ways, frankly, of scamming his voters that i also hope the ethics committee takes a look at and says are there new rules and regulations we need to add because we now believe this level of conduct is not appropriate if you're to be in public service, that they would adhere to going forward. >> yesterday before santos be