are saying that privately and publicly. prime minister himself, although he has in the past committed to a two state solution, it is not something that this israeli government is prepared to talk about anytime soon. we have heard this from a lot of israeli officials that the two state solution is not a feasible option. frivolity of reasons. but it's certainly not going to be the one that's gonna be on the horizon anytime soon after everything that has happened here. >> a remarkably complicated movement as gaza is plunged into a humanitarian nightmare of epic proportions. >> as you mentioned, with a complete blackout, now the united nations passing the security council resolution calling for a cease-fire and a release of the hostages, and we are now in uncharted territory, you could see that. >> and you can watch ayman weeknights on, we can lighten msnbc. that's our show for this evening. at this time to the last word, with lawrence o'donnell, good evening lawrence. >> good evening. alex. i have some bad news for you. it's official, it's not just me saying it. george santos cannot be trusted. [laughter] that is the official verdict. >> i had placed so much trust in him, lawrence. >> [inaudible] >> and then they go on to prove that. we will be discussing that tonight with one member of that committee. >> i will be watching. >> thanks, alex. >> i would echo. >> you can accomplish a lot in this world in nine months. we are all here, thanks to the miraculous work that our mothers did in the nine months that it took to bring us into this world. but donald trump says nine months isn't nearly enough time to prepare a criminal defense in any of the criminal cases pending against him. but in the last eight and a half months the republican -controlled house ethics committee authorized 37 subpoenas and attained and studied over 172,000 pages of documents. it conducted an investigation that was so thorough it found even more crimes committed by george santos then federal prosecutors have already charged him with. today the house ethics committee agreed to, quote, publicly condemned the representative santos for his conduct. it took the house ethics committee only nine months to conclude, in writing, as it did today, george santos cannot be trusted. the house ethics committee is chaired by republican michael guest of mississippi. it is the only committee in the house that is equally divided between republicans and democrats. all five of the republicans on the house ethics committee found absolutely nothing wrong with what donald trump did leading up to and on january six, that every one of those republicans voted against the impeachment of donald trump for his part in the attack on the capital, which included donald trump's dereliction of duty, including taking absolutely no action at all to stop that attack. all five of the republicans on the house ethics committee thought donald trump did nothing wrong on january six. some of the republican members of the ethics committee denied the actual results of the presidential election and voted to block the inauguration of president joe biden. but even those election denying and january 6th truth denying republicans could not abide george santos using campaign money for botox. today the house ethics committee released the investigative report prepared by a subcommittee of the ethics committee. it is a congressional document that reads like something from the pre-trump era, which is to say, it reads as if prepared by perfectly rational fact finder's. the house ethics committee member memo to congress, saying representative santos ought to fraudulent eloit every aspect of his house candidacy for his own personal financial profit. he blatantly stole from his campaign. he deceived donors into providing what they thought were contributions to his campaign but were in fact payments for his personal benefit. he reported fictitious loans to his political committees to induce donors and party committees to make for their contributions to his campaign. and then diverted more campaign money to himself as purported repayments of those fictitious loans. he used his connections to high value donors and other political campaigns to obtain additional funds for himself through fraudulent or otherwise questionable business dealings. and he sustained all of this through a constant series of lies to his constituents, donors, and staff about his background and experience. the subcommittee report lists thousands of dollars spent on a range of purchases and on cosmetic procedures, including an awful lot of botox along with $6,000 on luxury goods from the italian design brand farah gonell and hundreds of dollars in atm withdrawals, including atm withdrawing cash from an atm at a casino. congressman santos did not dispute one word of the report today. not one where it. but he still called it a disgusting politicized smear. and george santos finally said what republicans have been hoping he would say. i will continue on my mission to serve my constituents up until i am allowed. i will however not be seeking reelection for a second term in 2024. it is possible that at this time tomorrow night george santos will no longer be a member of the house of representatives. after the ethics committee report was released today, the chairman of the ethics committee, michael guest, who voted overturn the results of the presidential election and who voted against on trump's impeachment for what federal prosecutors now say were crimes on january six, announced, through his spokesperson, that he will introduce a resolution to expel congressman santos from the house of representatives tomorrow. the ethics committee investigation of george santos is unlike anything we have seen republicans in the house of representatives do in the trump era. and that makes it something of a marvel. it is astonishing to see members of the house of representatives who denied the presidential election and allied the don trump committed impeachable offenses on january six, including dereliction of duty, is simply astounding to see those same republican members of the house lend their names to such a thorough and professional piece of work as this ethics committee investigation. which, in fairness, was not really conducted by the republican members of the committee. these investigations are conducted almost entirely by staff. but still, the republican staff of other committees are doing absolutely terrible work. shameful work. this ethics committee investigation report is the only evidence there is of any professional professionalism or competence on the republican side with house of representatives. and the reason republicans produced this impressive investigative report, and it is a unanimous report, with the full support of the democrats on the committee, but the reasons the republicans did it is because no house republican fears george santos the way they all fear donald trump. and every house republican knows that george santos hurts their campaign to maintain control of the house of representatives. every house republican knows that it would be very bad for the republican party to be associated with george santos on election day when they know they will all be heavily associated with the republican nominee for president was been indicted four times. every one of those republican members of the house ethics committee who condemned george santos today will be cheering for their indicted nominee at their next convention. and so i, for one, just don't know what to make of this house ethics committee investigated report. does it mean that when the trump era is finally over that republicans in congress will be able to return to the way they used to mostly conduct themselves in the house and senate? is the house report it is the congressional republicans are not as crazy controlling their behavior? they could actually return to what congress, at least, considers normal. for the answer that question and others, joining us now is congressman glenn ivey of maryland, ahead of the house ethics committee and judiciary committee. congressman, i thank you very much for joining us tonight. and i want to stress to the audience, this is a unanimous report, all five democrats on the committee, including yourself, all five republicans on the committee agree with every word of this report. but congressman iv, can you understand why my astonishment at this, that the republican side of the house of representatives was capable of participating in an investigation as complete, professional, and bipartisan as this one? >> well, yeah. i appreciate your comments. and i thought you are right on the money on a couple of those in particular. certainly the staff rule was critical. and as you were talking about i was trying to think, which staff members are the democrats in which other republicans? and i'm not really sure. and i think that maybe a strong indication of what you can do when you've got a bipartisan effort going forward. and as you said, they really did do an outstanding job. and to be fair, i think, as well, the political analysis you made is on the money as well. they don't fear george santos. i think he's viewed as an albatross around their necks, certainly for the new york republicans, who were really have been pushing to try and get him expelled for sometime now. so i think you're right on both counts. the big question will be, when one of these votes finally comes to the floor again, we've got 182 republicans voted no on the last expulsion vote. you're going to have to, over 100 of those plus we'll have to change from notice to get the two thirds en route to expel them. is that gonna happen? the critical factor they are going to have to balance out is, you're right about the impact he could have won their election coming up. but the other factor, though, is it makes the margin even smaller for the house majority. so we'll have to see how they sort that. out house leadership, i think, still remains inside and what position they're gonna take on. so we're just gonna have to see. >> the report indicates that you found potential crimes that federal prosecutors apparently either have not found or have not yet charged george santos with. what are those potential crimes? >> well, they total a number of different aspects, mostly reporting. it may be the department of justice looked at them and decided that they weren't necessarily big enough for them to include in their case, where they wanted to streamline their case. we're not exactly sure. but the staff broke out a chart for them so that they would know which ones we thought were beyond the scope of the indictment, that they already brought. the 23 count superseding indictment i think you mentioned earlier. even if they don't add those, i think the allegations in the indictment, which we corroborated, we had over 40 witnesses were interviewed, i think 170,000 plus pages of documents that were reviewed, and it's a strong documentary evidence, as well. it goes to beg records and campaign finance records that came from the reports. and we use those to put together the money trail. it's a very strong case that doesn't allow that much on witness credibility. and i think that's going to be, i hope that will be a major factor when house members evaluate this and make a decision when the vote arises. >> and of course, as a standard in these ethics committee investigations, you offered george santos more than one opportunity to defend himself in whatever way you he wanted to, either by submitting evidence to you that could be documentary evidence that could be helpful to him or to provide testimony to you and apparently he did not respond to any of the invitations for him to supply information to the committee. >> yeah, his lawyer communicated with the staff. but from the standpoint of actually having a chance to give him the opportunity to sit down and explain and if you felt he had good explanations are we off track or do we misunderstand something? is there some innocent explanation. he failed to do. that now he did plenty of television interviews about this. so we knew that he would be willing to talk about it, at least in certain contexts. but as far as coming in and giving us a deposition or a transcript or a transcribed interview, he declined to do that. >> how would you describe the way the committee worked? you had several meetings, about once a month at least, on this, to go through it as members, as the staff was developing the investigative material. so you are frequently, i assume, in the room together, as committee members. how would you describe the functioning of this bipartisan committee? >> i thought it worked extremely well. the committee created a subcommittee consistent with the ethics rules in the house of four members. i was part of the subcommittee they did some of this work as well. and then we worked with the staff closely as they went through their investigation. i keep point to point out here, i think, is that obviously the department of justice had an investigation and a prosecution going at the same time. we made sure that the staff and the doj attorneys were in communications. we wanted to make sure we didn't do anything to preempt or step on their investigation or create any problems. and that is in fact one of the reasons we wrapped it up as quickly as we did, was to make sure we really didn't want to get in the way of the moving forward with the criminal case they're moving forward. with >> before we go, as i read this, i was my imagining of those committee meetings was not a single tense moment between you and republican members. it reads as the way these things used to work. >> it was interesting. i won't go into the particulars of the deliberations, but i will say this. there were times when i is a liberal democrat was in agreement with the conservative republican and we might have had the other democrat and republican disagreeing with the two of us. so it wasn't partisan. frequently the divisions went in different directions. it that interrupting the case when we go back to the full committee as well. so the way it used to be, as you pointed, out i became a hill staffer in 1987 for congressman john conyers. that's how it used to be. be nice to get back to that at least on a more frequent basis. we know it's not constant but just looking ahead at what is coming in the near future in the house, i think that's unlikely. so hope springs eternal, though, and we'll see. >> congressman glenn ivey, thank you for joining us tonight. and now is robert -- day of homeland security committee. congressman garcia, in my memory, you are the first in the house of representatives, and it feels like a year ago calling for george santos to be expelled. >> that's right. in fact it has been now nine months since we actually found the initial resolution papers on the house floor and it's been nine months since unanimously voted to save desantis and keep him in office and then refer this matter to the ethics committee. and now we have a result. what we have in front of us, beside the fact that we already knew he was a fraud and a liar nine months ago it is but more damning news in this report, spending all of this essential campaign slush fund that he created from his voters, botox, farragut, no it's it's shameful and tenuous and i hope the republicans this time will do what they were unwilling to do last time and that is actually expel this fraudster from congress. >> one of the things it is quite striking about this is how well the ethics committee worked. i have to, say when this was first reviewed to the ethics committee, we are now accustomed to the ethics committee be the place where these things go to, if not die, languish for years without action. i did not expect action from that committee. what turns out to be now less than nine months. >> i think that's right. i remember what kathy, i dedicated and read a letter wrote a letter to kevin mccarthy earlier on, that we were trying to expel santos early on, obviously now is 20 different accounts against him, and we gave the run around. we thought this would never conclude. then that's why there's been other efforts to try and expel george santos because this was going nowhere and i'm glad that this initial effort led to this report, i'm glad the report is out, but when we knew nine months ago that he should shouldn't be in congress, this seals the deal. we are gonna get to two thirds. i've been talking and other republicans and democrats voted to keep santos in his last effort. we're going to expel him. and if he should do the right thing, save himself the trouble and resigned tonight. >> when do you expect the vote on expelling? >> we had announced we were going to put forward another expulsion, set of papers on the first day they were back which of course is right after thanksgiving and we got word today the republicans are gonna do the same thing, which is great. republicans are finally on board, so we are glad they are doing that. i imagine this vote is going to happen the week after thanksgiving and it could be tuesday or wednesday, that will be sent by the speaker, who, by the way is has not taken a formal decision on this, and he should. he encourages members to vote for expulsion. and one way or another we are going to expel him from the house. he does not deserve to be there. he will have his day in court with his 23 other counts, but we have a different standard in congress. it's not a court of law, and we have the ability to remove him, and that's what we should do. >> congressman robert garcia, thank you very much for joining us tonight. >> thanks, lawrence. >> when we come back, donald trump is asking for one of those fake hearings from americas first tv lawyer so, perry mason. that's next. liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. with the money i saved, i started a dog walking business. oh. [dog barks] no it's just a bunny! only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪ with 30 grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. -ahh, -here, i'll take that. woo hoo! ensure max protein 30 grams protein, one gram sugar, 25 vitamins and minerals, and nutrients for immune health. (♪♪) have heart failure with unresolved symptoms? it may be time to see the bigger picture. heart failure and seemingly unrelated symptoms like carpal tunnel syndrome, shortness of breath, and irregular heartbeat could mean something more serious, called attr-cm a rare, underdiagnosed disease that worsens over time. sound like you? call your cardiologist and ask about attr-cm. 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. >> donald trump is so old he is home of the xfinity 10g network. older than television. donald trump was born before television. but by the time he was 11 years old, through his teenage years, he got to watch perry mason, from 1957 to 1966, starring raymond word. and american television's very first lawyer so. it was the big drama on tv most days. black and white, classic old tv. and one odd thing that it may take a while to notice if you watch reruns of old perry mason shows now, as i do, is that there is usually no jury in the court. the rioters justified that early in the series when they decided to stop using juries by having one of the lawyers involved refer to what was happening in court as a pre-trial hearing, where sometimes the judge would do that, without ever specifying why all the witnesses were testifying at a pre-trial hearing that sure seemed like a trial. the re