chutkan, has denied two truck drop motions to have the government's case against him thrown out. fair warning, if you have to be watching for mar-a-lago tonight, the catch-up might be flying. judge chutkan begins with a robust takedown of the trump claim that is a former president he is immune from criminal prosecution. here's what it says, quote, whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the united states has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a life long get out of jail free pass. former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability. they may be federal to federal mastication, indictment, prosecution, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office, and quote. judge chutkan goes on to explain why in america we have equal justice, quote, the public has an undisputed interest in promoting respect for the law, deterring crime, protecting itself, and rehabilitating offenders. all of those interests would be thwarted by granting former presidents absolute criminal immunity. most importantly, former presidents exposure to federal criminal liability is essential to fulfilling our constitutional promise of equal justice under the law, end quote. and, judge chutkan explain the difference between protecting a president not just from civil actions such as wrongful termination lawsuits or replacing a cabinet member, and criminal activity. quote, the rationale for immunizing and presidents controversial decisions from civil liability does not extend to sheltering his criminality. indeed, the possibility of future criminal liability might encourage the kind of sober reflection that would reinforce rather than defeat important constitutional values. if the specter of subsequent prosecution encourages the sitting president to reconsider before deciding to act with criminal intent, that is a benefit, not a defect. and quote. judge chutkan, by the way, it's a 48-page response, which is worth reading. she denied the trump claim that to prosecute him in federal court would be double jeopardy since he was already a peep impeached and acquitted by republicans in the senate after january six. she echoed the understanding mitch mcconnell had when he voted to acquit donald trump in 2021. >> president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. and an ordinary citizen. unless the statue limitations veteran, still liable for everything he did while he was in office. didn't get away with anything. yet. yet. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation. former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. >> judge chutkan also ruled against trump on his first amendment motion. we're gonna get all that in a moment. judge chutkan's decision tonight on immunity follows a federal appeals court decision this morning that ruled that donald trump can be sued by capitol police officers and members of congress in civil court for his actions on january the 6th. the appeals court wrote, quote, in arguing that he is entitled to official act immunity in cases before, as president trump does not dispute that he engaged in his alleged actions up to and on january 6th in his capacity as a candidate. but he thinks that that does not matter. rather, in his view, a presidents speech on manage the public concern is of invariably unofficial function, and he was engaged in that function when he spoke at the january 6th rally and in the lead up to that day. we cannot accept that rationale. and quote. the appeals court also done by the trump argument that january six was trump executing his oath of office. president trump maintains that his actions as alleged in the complaint falls within the outer perimeter of official presidential responsibility, entirely him to an official act immunity to official act immunity is to all the claims against him. his primary argument is that his alleged actions leading up to and on january six were official presidential actions because they amounted to speech on matters of public concern. the alternative, he submits, that those actions were official because they came within his constitutional duty under the take care clause. we are on persuaded by either argument. we are on persuaded by either argument. joining us now, someone else who is on persuaded by it, democratic congressman eric swalwell of california, because he specifically is one of the plaintiffs against donald trump for january six that can now proceed as a result of today's appeals court decision. also with us, joyce vance, former united states attorney and professor at the university of alabama school of law, co-host of the podcast sisters in law, and an msnbc legal analyst. welcome to both of you. thank you for being here this evening. choice, you know i've taken two enjoying reading legal documents. this 48-page document, issued by judge chutkan, is some good reading. choices doing their star trek transformer thing. there we go. we've got you back. sorry, choice, we had a signal problem there. it's some good reading. not only is it pretty easy to read but she is very specific about why she is taking this decision she is taking, almost with an eye to the fact that anything judge tanya chutkan does or judge mcafee does or alien canada's, is going to end up possibly before the supreme court. she's laying it all out. she saying this is where the courts look at it. this is where the supreme court will look at it. this is what our law says. it's all pretty clear. >> yeah, i think that's right, a very clear opinion written with an eye to the appeal because unlike many issues that have to wait until a trial for an appeal, defendants are entitled to appeal these sorts of immunity issues for a trial takes place. this one will be off to the races pretty quickly, but judge chutkan writes forcibly and the argument is essentially this, that former presidents are not above the law. she justifies that in the context of mystery, tradition, history, tradition, in case law. donald trump isn't above the law. americans are entitled to see anyone held accountable for criminality including a former president. >> congressman, good to see you again today, i want to ask you about the other part. the civil suit. don trump tried a lot of things today in court, and, that they were all expected things. for most people they were technical legal matters. but none of them went his way, including the fact that people like you or a capitol police can sue the president in civil court based on actions that he took on and leading up to january 6th. were you expecting that decision? and what do you make of it? >> i brought the case, ali, because i wanted accountability and, this idea that nobody is above, it not even the president of the united states, and now the federal district court has said that in the court a little bit higher than them just under the supreme court has affirmed that. what it shows is that donald trump is facing this tapestry of accountability, and it's being stitched together by civil and criminal cases all over the country. and perhaps, as we go into this next election, that tapestry of accountability, where the rule of law and constitution is looking, is a security blanket for our democracy. so i do believe at the end of the day, regardless of how this case goes down in front of a jury or how the criminal cases go down, the strength of our democracy is going to be that we went through this exercise and donald trump's faithful handle rest in the hands of jurors who are his peers. it won't be trump justice, which is what he would exact on people where he as king is the judge, jury, an executioner. it will be american justice. >> by the way, there are lots of references, joyce, in tiny check-ins references to kings and how presidents are not kings and how the framers of the constitution wanted to make that very clear. in that part of her decision she also speaks to the separations of powers. i'd like to read it to you, because it's some of those things might come into play later but it's very important about the case at all trump was trying to make and why she didn't go for it. she says the fact that no longer spoken by criminalizing the conduct with which the defendant is charged also highlights the separation of powers principal that council in favor of the court retaining jurisdiction over this case. holding a former president absolutely immune with us impinge on the functions of all three branches with respect to criminal law. congress is province to make it, the executives prerogative to enforce it, and the judiciary's charge to apply it. what is the point she's making here? >> so she is making a compelling argument to the supreme court, saying we value the separation of powers, but we also value the ability to of each branch to perform its functions. and so she is telling supreme court, if you reverse my decision, you will impair essential functions of government. she has been reading the supreme courts opinions for the last term in particular, when they have been focused on the founding found fathers intent on -- history and tradition. here's american history in tradition for you. former presidents have to be held accountable like everyone else. trump can't be a moon, and it's masterfully done because she has written an argument that will be appealing to the people that will hear it on appeal. >> donald trump, congressman, felt that this could be dealt with me easily because he's been impeached by congress, that's why we play that piece of sound from mitch mcconnell, who said, on the day the don trump was not convicted in the senate, the d'entremont still holds responsibility, he still can be charged in civil court and unless the statute of limitations come out. you were in impeachment manager against donald trump. that has, judge chutkan has held today what mitch mcconnell said that. a. >> that doesn't leave mitch mcconnell off the hook, by the way, because he could have led the effort to convict donald trump. we prove that case. many republicans joined us and on trump would not be able to run for president today or ever hold federal office if they had connected the dots and had the courage to do that. that is side, what our case also shows or what mcconnell was referring to, we will be able to, as we do depositions in discovery, getting evidence from donald trump, we'll learn more about what happened leading up to january six and on jen you. it's what downtown did and didn't do that cause january 6th. and by the way, all of these individuals who refused to testify in congress, including what donald trump refused to provide, we will no longer be able to refuse. they won't have the privileges that they used to not come to congress because this is a private civil case and so they will be compelled to come forward, so we're going to learn a heck of a lot more about what happened leading up to january six. >> joyce, i want to ask you another thing that was brought up and that was the issue of campaigning, and i think the idea came up in i don't know which case it was, that the lawyers said, i think it's georgia, where the monogram can't be called upon to be at trial while he's busy cam plating campaigning, that will be election interference. and then they said what if he becomes president? lawyer said he can't be tried, obviously, while he's president. so that it is basically, you have this trial put off possibly till 2029? talk to me about the business of the president, former president campaigning to be president. >> right. so this is the fulton county hearing today. and ali, we heard what steve sadow, to trump's lawyer in atlanta, say allowed the things that we were afraid to hear. up until now we have all had some comfort level that the georgia case is something that trump could not tamper with if he becomes president. but what steve sadow said today was you know judge you can't trump try my client while he's a candidate for the presidency. that would be election interference. and you can try my client of his elected president because under the supremacy clause of the united states, that would be -- so you'd have to put this case off until he left the white house. now the judge, who i think is very good at holding his cards sort of close to the vest, didn't indicate whether he was buying either one of these arguments and where he might land. but now we see what the stakes are here. these cases don't go to trial before the election. >> and some of his own questions helped you get a sense of this is often a case in oral arguments of the supreme court. listen to what the judges ask. it gives you an indication of what they're thinking. i want to talk to you more about this case when we come back, joyce, so stick around. eric swalwell of california. coming up, as we were just talking about in fulton county, don trump's lawyer said, i am not misspeaking, that he might not be able to be tried for his efforts to overturn the election in georgia until 2029. amy lee copeland joins me, and joyce comes back, on the other side of the break. joyce comes back, on the othr side of the break. side of the break. >>ef and helped leave bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc tried to slow me down... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when uc caused damage rinvoq came through by visibly repairing my colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid-free remission... ...and the chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check, check, and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save. (music) 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 be 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. (smelling) ew. gotta get rid of this. ♪tell me why♪ because it stinks. ♪have you tried downy rinse and refresh♪ it helps remove odors 3x better than detergent alone. it worked guys! ♪yeahhhh♪ downy rinse and refresh. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well. ♪ ♪ jardiance ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance, ♪ ♪ at each day's staaart. ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to seee. ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c. ♪ jardiance works 24/7 in your body to flush out some sugar! and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections. a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and don't take it if you're on dialysis. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell, ♪ ♪ the little pill with a big story to tell. ♪ first time i connected with kim, she told me that ♪ jardiance is really swell, ♪ 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. >> all right, today don trump made his most concerted effort yet to evade accountability in fulton county, georgia. it was the first time fulton county judge scott mcafee heard directly from don trump's criminal defense team, including the lead attorney, stephen sadow, who said trump can be put on trial because he's running for president. >> can you abandon the notion of the republican nominee for president not being able to campaign for the presidency because he is, in some form or fashion, in court? the bottom line is, i don't think we should set a trial date. >> of course not. and here's where trump's ultimate goal in fulton county became clear. >> if your client does win election in 2024, could he even be tried in 2025? >> the answer to that is, i believe, that under the -- laws and his duty as president of the night in states, the trial would not take place at all until after he left his term in office. >> till after he left office? that would be 2029. just attorney fani willis's team responded to that outrageous proposition with a simple request to, quote, move forward with this business at fulton county. attorneys for multiple codefendants argued that the case should be dismissed on first amendment grounds. >> this is yet. this is the first time that a prosecution of this type has been brought in this country, as far as i'm aware. the reason these lawsuits haven't been brought is because the first amendment says you can't bring them. we're going to allow the discourse, we're going to allow the statements, even if they're false, because somebody's false statement is another person's truth. >> and here is fulton county's response to that. >> we are doing the other side that this is the first time a prosecution of this type has been brought, that is unprecedented and, that may be true, but this is the first time someone has a criminal enterprise has gotten together and try to overturn the results of election. so i don't think it's a particularly persuasive argument. this is the first time a case like this has been brought. there's going to be a first-time case under any statute or any situation, it's good to be brought, it doesn't make it unconstitutional. >> the judge there, scott mcafee, has not yet ruled on the schedule of the trial or any of the issues argued today. with the timing of the trial is actually going to be remarkably important. joining us now, amy lee copeland, criminal defense attorney and former georgia federal prosecutor. joyce vance is back with. this thing to both of you to be here. let's talk about this, amy lee. the concept of the trial in fulton county, fani willis has said she'll be ready to go around august-ish. but because of issues having to do with the appeals on the federal trial, the judge did ask, how much time we do need if this trial could go earlier? and the lawyer said about 30 days, which means this trial could be the first one. >> it could be, ali. it could be anytime between now and 2029. but when asked, the state said it would give about a 30-day jump to subpoena as witnesses, they have a trial run with that with the judge from appellate trials that simply didn't go forward. so they're ready to go. but you also know the countervailing claim of eastman who said listen, i just can't wait around until 2029 to do it. that led judge back feet down other roads like, would this be tried as two -- of defendants, would it be defended as a defense each, and probably possibly trot by himself. we came out with more questions than answers when it comes to the timing of the trial. >> let's talk about the first amendment business, joyce. in fact, not in his indictment, but in the jacks mitt indictment, i think it's the second or third page. very very clear. everybody needs to defense with the first amendment saying. everybody's gonna write to lie. donald trump has a right to live, he's gonna write to lie about the election, the right to lie about the outcome of the election. he can pursued the rare remedies but once he's pursued all those remedies and he still feels like lying about it, he doesn't actually get to take action to overcome the outcome of the election. that's what jack smith has said. this is the fulton county story. are the first amendment claims similar and related? >> they are. these are the same sorts of claims. and we saw the judge in washington, judge chutkan, we were discussing earlier, dismissed the sorts of first amendment claims. the same argument applies in fulton county. when your words are an instrument used to commit a crime, they're not protected by the first amendment. so with trump said to a random person on the street, put your hands up, i'm going to rob you, certainly those comments wouldn't be protected by the first amendment. they would be part of committing a crime. the same thing holds true in fulton county and in d.c.. where speeches used to commit crimes it's not protected. as the dea's lawyers were quick to point out, the reason there has not been in private prosecution has nothing to do with the first amendment. it has to do with the fact that no president has ever been part of a conspiracy to overturn an election before this. >> interesting, though, amy lee, the trump attorney did seem to be floating this idea of alternative facts, the idea that one person's truth is another person fly. there is some danger about these trials becoming trials around the first amendment, despite the prosecutions efforts to dispense with the notion that these are first amendment prosecutions, because they're not. donald trump, in his social media, in his speeches, wants to call the both first amendment issues and election interference in both cases. i suspect that's not going away just because a judge says so. >> of course it isn't. and to piggyback on joyce's answer, i think it's interesting. i actually looked up to see what the aclu used position wise, and a few weeks ago it published a an op-ed actually defended trump various times including being upset that he got kicked off social media for exercising those rights. even the aclu has come out and said this isn't a first amendment case. but going back to your question, the real issue at today's hearing was exactly when can the judge determine these first amendment issues. did he have to wait until during trial when the evidence started coming out? or was there any avenue that he could determine prior to trial? and for the first time today the defendants floated that there was a case that they found from georgia this event the judge could actually determine these issues before trial. and so there is a lot of hullabaloo about what with the defendant have to simulate to have the judge determined this? ultimately, though, this isn't gonna be a successful claim. this is not a first amendment case. the rubber meets the first amendment road when talk turns into action. and there is plenty of action here. >> joyce, you and i talked to the last block about what scott mcafee said. we heard, at the exchange about when dom thomas running for president and when he was going to be tried. tanya chutkan had a conversation about this as well today. she released information it who decided earlier about campaign. lead i want viewers to compare what they heard the fulton county court to what tanya chutkan wrote. she said when i first term president ops to seek a second term, his campaign to win reelection is not an official presidential act. the office of the presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next, and campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office. tell me how that thinking applies to what we are hearing from long trump's attorneys about the fact that he can't be tried while he's campaigning and he certainly can't be tried when he's president, if he's president again. >> that's a really interesting question, because that's extending the analysis a little bit further. the argument the judge chutkan has made is that president trump might be entitled to certain immunity, but candidate trump is not. candidate trump is responsible for his conduct. and so there's an interesting question of whether status as a candidate means that donald trump can't be put on trial. that will be a question that perhaps judge mcafee will have to sort out. it was interesting because he extracted a concession from steve sadow, saying if your client is not the republican nominee the nothing prevents him from going to trial, right? and trump's lawyer was forced to acknowledge that that was correct. that does not mean, though, the trump is able to avoid a trial just because he's a candidate. and there will be good arguments offered by the district attorney for taking him to trial regardless of whether he's a candidate or not at the time. >> thanks to you both. i'm always grateful for your analysis. amy lee copeland, enjoy vance. when we come back, it took nearly a year but today the house of representatives finally voted to expel george santos. no thanks to house republican leadership, by the way, with every single republican leader voting to keep george santos on the job. democrats are really the ones who cleaned up this republican santos mess. congressman glenn ivey, a member of the house of ethics and judiciary committees joins me next. es joins me next. me next. >>ls, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪) hmmm... with 30 grams can this be more, squiggly?in. perfect! so now, do you have a driver's license? oh. what did you get us? with the click of a pen, you can a new volkswagen at the sign, then drive event. hurry in to lease a new 2023 all-electric id.4 for zero down, zero deposit, zero first month's payment, and zero due at signing. limited inventory available. ♪ you were always so dedicated... ♪ we worked hard to build up the shop, save for college and our retirement. but we got there, thanks to our advisor and vanguard. now i see who all that hard work was for... it was always for you. seeing you carry on our legacy— i'm so proud. at vanguard, you're more than jt an investor, you're an owner. setting up the future for the ones you love. that's the value of ownership. 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. theo's nose was cause for alarm, so dad brought puffs plus lotion to save it from harm. puffs has 50% more lotion and brings soothing relief. don't get burned by winter nose. a nose in need deserves puffs indeed. america's #1 lotion tissue. my most important kitchen tool? my brain. so i choose new neuriva ultra. unlike some others, it supports 7 brain health indicators, including mental alertness from one serving. to help keep me sharp. try new neuriva ultra. think bigger. at bombas we make the comfiest socks, underwear, >> why would i want to stay and t-shirts that feel good and most of all do good. because when you purchase one, we donate one to those in need. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first purchase. bombas. give the good. here? to hell with this place. that's what we're santos told reporters after he became the sixth member in the house history, 234 year history, to be expelled. >> the chair announced to the house that in light of the expulsion of the gentleman from new york, george santos, the hold on the house is now 434. >> with that congress in the chaos caucus is down one member. but this republican house remains full of bad actors, even though it's most outrageous pretender is gone. 105 republicans joined 206 democrats to remove the indicted republican congressman. a new republican speaker, mike johnson, and his top lieutenants, tom hammer, steve scalise, and the new yorker, elise stefanik, we're not among them. on the same day the speaker johnson voted to try to save george santos, cnn reported this. mike johnson wrote the forward and publicly promoted a 2022 book that spread baseless and discredited conspiracy theories and used derogatory homophobic insults. the book also disparages poorer voters as unsophisticated and step the bulger gornnt dependency and easy to manipulate with black lives matter, defund the police pandering, and quote. spokesperson for the speaker said that he had never read the passages highlighted in the cnn story with which he strongly disagrees. baseless and discredited conspiracy theories by the way is not categorically something the categorically how the republican houses had a problem with. pretty much every so-called weaponization hearing that has flopped is going to get worse or better now that speaker johnson now leads republican caucus with only a three member majority. joining us is democratic congressman glenn ivey of maryland, member of the house ethics committee and house judiciary committee. also former federal prosecutor. also with this congressional historian, norm ornstein, an american scholar at the american enterprise institute. gentlemen, good to see you tonight. thank you for being with us. norma, for people who have been following this, there's been an interesting evolution. particularly some democrats including cheney raskin who earlier when this vote was first taken, voted against the expulsion of congressman santos because he said we don't really want to have emotions guiding how we do things that are that important congress, especially when you expel someone who is not answerable to you. they're answerable to their constituents. so he wanted to hear the evidence from the ethics committee. you are skeptical that the ethics committee would do its job because sometimes it just doesn't in congress. tell me how all that unfolded. >> the ethics committee, the best word i could use for its performance over the last number of years is feckless. it rarely takes action against other members and often divides along partisan lines. when the ethics committee issued this report, unanimously, in a scathing report, built on evidence of fraud and misuse of campaign funds and serial wrongdoing by george santos, it went way beyond his own lying about his identity and his background, that changed things, jamie i really rarely disagree with, and i don't in this. case he was in the first instance, he was right if you want to be right about turning expulsion into a tool that you use for more regularly than it has in the past, it's a very powerful weapon. but in this case, yes it was the right thing to do. one thing i should note, ali, i'm hearing a lot of talk. we've never expelled anybody who has not been convicted of a crime. the three confederates who were expelled around the time of the civil war word convicted of anything. they were flat out insurrectionists trying to destroy the union. that is why we ought to take a look at some of the republicans in congress who are flat out insurrectionists and try to destroy the union. >> glenn ivey, you are one of the people on the ethics panel, and wrote this stuff. it definitely blew peoples minds. i don't know what they were expecting. i don't know what you are expecting to write. and i do want to hear your take on what norment just said about the fact that some people felt the standard for expelling him should be criminality and that's what george santos said in his defense. he said i've been convicted of nothing. >> i think that's right. we had a number of people, even in today's vote, who felt that they couldn't vote in favor of expulsion because he hadn't been convicted of a crime. but the point that i tried to make was that the constitution doesn't require that. it's a two thirds vote. it's the only requirement in the constitution. we don't have to wait until a member has been remanded to the prison before we can vote him out of the house of representatives for this level of misconduct. i think the other points to make, as me norm mentioned, it was unanimous, it was bipartisan, the report coming out of the ethics committee. i think the other piece we should note is that there was no dispute with respect to the findings that we made. mr. santos made. made a lot of interviews, delight of statements, press conferences, statements on the floor, even. but he never challenge any of the factual allegations that we raised in the report, or for that matter, that were raised in the indictment. so essentially the findings were undisputed. i think that led a lot of people to change their votes from where they had been in the last vote. the last thing i heard, as well, i wasn't aware of this until recently, but apparently there is a republican member who was a victim of the credit card scams that mr. santos was involved in. >> yes. >> and so an email to his republican colleagues to let them know that. that's a pretty powerful affirmation that the report that we issued. >> he said he and his mother were done out of some money by george santos. it's a remarkable read, the ethics committee report. norm, you made a point about why the reason you agreed with people like raskin on both counts is that expulsion from the house is serious. that sort of hard to express to people because a lot of people are frustrated with what goes on in the house of representatives of the monitor how effective it is. but this is important. people have a right to be represented there and represented well. i want to play for you what speaker mike johnson said. he sort of making the point that republicans are the ones who take all of these serious things seriously. democrats are the ones who weaponize them. listen to what he said. >> i served on president trump's impeachment defense team twice. we lamented openly, we decried how the democrats politicized that process. they were brazenly political, and how they brought those america's impeachment charges against the president. this, what you are seeing, here is exactly the opposite. we are the rule of law team. the republican party stands for the rule of law. >> kind of made my eyes bug out a little bit. norm? >> mike johnson is not gonna go down as one of the better speakers about the house. he is not doing well in a short time in office. of course the impeachment of donald trump, both of which were joined by some republicans, were built on a very strong base of knowledge and of facts. and it's pretty clear that mitch mcconnell almost joined in the senate with the conviction in the second impeachment, didn't do so because he feared it would divide his own republican base. there's one other point here that is worth making, ali, and that is, censure is the next level of punishment in the house. a used to be really serious. if you are censured, you have to go into the well of the house and the charges against you are red. it's humiliating. we have defined deviancy down, and what republicans did was not the rule of law when they censured adam shift, these centered adam schiff because he had been too effective in the impeachment of donald trump. so they do based censure and that doesn't leave a lot of additional punishments. we have to start looking in a different way at what we can do when members go over the line. and they're gonna go over the line now, it's very clear, with an attempted impeachment of joe biden, which itself is utterly marieval us. >> guys, i wish i had more time to the conversation, we thank you both for being here, and we will continue. congressman glenn ivey, thank you for being here, norm, always good to see you, i'll probably see you again in a few days. coming up the collapse of the cease-fire between israel and hamas has led to hundreds of deaths as fighting resumes in gaza. that's a stunning new york times report describes what israeli intelligence knew about the october 7th hamas attack. the journalist joins me from jerusalem, next. a 40 interventions we have new zealanders employees who remember them aaron a few years veteran journalist john i peuplier >> -- >> -- >> reporter: >> >>? >> tonight, hundreds of airstrikes inside gaza as israel's military resumes its ground operation against hamas. in 24 hours since the cease-fire ended which happened just after the show went off the air last night, palestinian authorities say there had been more than 200 people killed inside gaza. the reigniting of the offensive comes amid a reckoning inside of israel, which is dealing with the fallout of a shocking new york times report from ronen bergman, that israel knew of the hamas attack plan more than a year ago, but israeli officials couldn't imagine that hamas could actually pull it off. quote, the approximately 40-page document which the israeli authorities code named, jericka wall, outlined point by point exactly the kind of devastating invasion that led to the deaths of about 1200 people. now, that would be bad enough, but the report continued. quote, then, in july, just three months before the attack, a veteran analyst with unit 8200, israel's signals intelligence agency, warned that hamas had conducted an intense day-long training exercise that appeared similar to what was outlined in the blueprint. and quote. but, a colonel in the gaza division brushed off her concerns, according to encrypted emails viewed by the times. i utterly refute that the scenario is imaginary, the analyst wrote in the email exchanges. the hamas training exercises, she said, fully matched the content of jericho wall. it is a plan designed to start a war, she added, it is not just a raid on a village. officials privately conceded that had the military taken these warnings seriously and re-directed significant reinforcements to the south, where hamas attacked, israel could have blunted to the attacks or possibly even prevented them. and put. now, for anyone who doesn't know, israel's unit 8200 might be the most sophisticated military intelligence agency in the world. veterans of that unit are in high demand. they often go on to be tech entrepreneurs. ronan bergman, one of the foremost military reporters and analysts in israel, told my colleague, chris hayes, tonight, that he was stunned by the detail and the specifics in the hamas document. >> it's about 40 pages, and anyone who starts reading that, it was translated it hebrew, the original was of course in arabic, cannot help but be stunned to the extent of intelligence, the details, the details that hamas was able to connect with the fortification of the wall and other security arrangements in the border. it's not coming from open source. i assume someone is investigating how can this kind of intelligence can reach hamas. but besides that, it translates the intelligence into positioning of forces into a location of gear. it's a massive plan that calls 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 motors and missiles for diversion, using paragliders and drones to take out all the towers, the cell phone towers, the communication centers, the cameras, and the automatic remote control machine guns. do that at the same time, to create intelligence battlefield fog,. -- >> the white house isn't commenting on the report. unit 8200 analysts reportedly described the hamas attack as a plan designed to start a war. which calls to mind this tweet from president biden yesterday. hamas unleashed a terrorist attack because they fear nothing more than israelis and palestinians living side by side in peace. to continue down the path of terror, violence, killing, and war, is to give hamas what they seek. the end quote. joining me now from jerusalem is the person i most trust to discuss these matters, she has been with us for a long time, and her commitment to her trade is such that it's not even six in the morning in jerusalem and she's up joining us. nogo tarnopolsky is an independent journalist who has spent over two decades covering the israel palestine conflict and israeli politics. noga, i don't know where to start, because the things described in that new york times report that ronen bergman was involved in, that this analyst had warned the military of wealth, it's chilling. it's actually what happened. >> it is. excuse me. it is. i have to say that that article, which has had such a boom impact, is only part of even ronen's reporting on a wide array of failures. so they range from this one, in which a document was obtained, we don't know how, but it was obtained by israel, and basically, outlined, step by step, the incoming attack. then, we have the reports by women, much younger than the 8200 analyst. but i think maybe not coincidentally, also women serving in uniform. there was a company of observers down in the south, mostly women, not all, but teenagers, 18 and 19 year old knew conscripts, who described in detail, to their commanders, and in some cases to their families, that hamas was training for something very major, they were seeing it where their own eyes. this was also dismissed. it leads to a question about patriotism or worse, actual sexism, in the israeli army, that contributed to this disaster. >> let's talk about shortly after the war began, in an interesting fashion, which doesn't typically happen when a country is attacked, the prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, basically through the idf under the truck. it didn't go over well with israelis. because netanyahu has spelled many years saying i am the safety, the security, and safety guy. i'm the guy who's going to keep you safe. generally speaking, when things like this happen, people like responsibility to be taken at the highest level. how does this complicate things for benjamin netanyahu right now? >> well, he's in a very complicated situation already. i suspect that he never saw this document in particular, not because of any evil doing, but because that's the kind of document that gets analyzed at a much, much lower level. but it has to be said that even if he didn't see it, this does not absolve him in any way, because the attitude, the instructions, and the policy analysis that allowed superior officers to simply dismiss these concerns by these women, we're all broadcast by him, mr. security. who had said all along, hamas is deterred, we know how to handle it, we know what they can do. so, in a way, these officers were doing what they had been told. that said, and of course, taking into account the massive failure of the military level, it does have to be said that netanyahu was directly warned, at least twice, in written letters and in meetings, by the idf intelligence chiefs. so, something did seep up to the intelligence chief, again, whatever these massive failures -- something seeped up that was concerning enough that he warned the cabinet and the prime minister that israel faced the prospect of an immediate multi front war. so, i think that the shocking part of the new york times revelation -- i think it's bergman and goldman, is that they saw this document. and the document was basically hamas saying guys, this is what we're going to do. >> yep. >> and still, israel is caught with its pants down. >> it was thought to be aspirational. people looked at it and said maybe this is one day what hamas would like to do. but they are not capable of. it noga, we have a lot more to talk about. it the good news is i'm talking you again tomorrow morning. the bad news is it's your morning already. which means you want to add any sleep by the next time i talk to you. but thank you as always for the remarkable journalism and remarkable analysts. noga tarnopolsky is a law independent journalist joining us today. -- i'll be home for christmas. you can count on me. right now, all over the country, kids at shriners hospitals for children® are able to go home and be with their families for the holidays. and it's only possible because of the monthly support of people just like you. with your gift of just $19 a month, only $0.63 a day. we'll send you this adorable love to the rescue® blanket as a thank you and a reminder of the care you'll be providing so kids can be with their families. thanks to a generous donor, your gift will go twice as far and help more kids like me. thank you for giving! please call the number on your screen