background and her upbringing, which is fascinating. the tragedy that she lived through, and her trajectory to become the person that she is today. and i have an absolute blast, i think the audience did too. and that episode, our conversation, is now available for you to hear. you can check out the whole conversation wherever you get your podcasts, just scan that q r code on your screen or visit msnbc. com slash podcast. that is all in on this wednesday night, alex wagner tonight starts right now. everybody to go listen to the podcast. >> definitely go check it out. thanks to you at home for joining me this hour. today in new york donald trump's eldest son, don jr., took the stand in the civil fraud case against the former president and his family and his business. down in d.c. and in florida,

judges issued orders in both of special counsel jack smith's criminal cases against donald trump. the d.c. case involving trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and the florida case centered on the former president's unlawful retention of classified documents. so a flurry of legal action today for mr. trump, and i'm going to get some expert legal help breaking down all of that in just a second. but perhaps the biggest legal news of today was this. the federal judge in charge of the mar-a-lago classified documents case, judge aileen cannon of course appointed by president trump, today judge cannon signaled she may push back the date of trump's trial in that case. the trial was originally scheduled to start at the end of may next year. that would put it a few months after super tuesday and a few months before the republican national convention, right in the eye of the 2020 election

storm, if you will. now, judge cannon did not set a new date today, but in court she says that she has a hard time seeing how the current trial schedule would work. cannon's comments today came after trump's legal team filed a very specific request before the court early last month asking to delay the trial until at least mid-november 2024. at the time that request felt more comical than anything else. at least mid-november 2024, hmm, i wonder why? what could be happening at the beginning of november 2024? but now it is a very live issue as to whether or not that fairly transparent request on the part of trump's team, whether that request might have found a sympathetic ear. if the end of may is too early in judge cannon's eyes then there's not much runway is left until the primaries are

officially done and the general election is in full swing. would judge cannon be willing to schedule a trial in the middle of a general election? or is it possible donald trump may not face trial in this case which is arguably the most clear-cut criminal indictment he's been charged with until after the 2024 election? that may be the most important decision judge cannon makes in this tire case particularly in light of some explosive reporting out of "the new york times" today. today "the times" is out with some incredible new details about a master plan developed by former trump administration officials including immigration hard liner stephen miller. miller along with other controversial trump advisers is drawing up a plan for what trump will do if he wins the 2024 election. now, the top line of this story is that these individuals want to get rid of all the quote-unquote traditional legal conservatives that typically make up a republican administration and indeed were hired and fired with some reg

lirty in the first trump administration. and instead these officials want to fill the executive branch with lawyers willing to do whatever trump wants. i really cannot stress just how far "the new york times" reports the overturn window has shifted here. the most important conservative legal group in this country is the federalist society. for decades it has been the core of the conservative legal movement stacking the judicial and legislative and executive branches with as many conservatives as possible. but "the new york times" reports tonight that on the trump-aligned far-right, the phrase federalist society has now become a slur, a shorthand for a kind of lawyerly weakness. the federalist society that brought you sam alito and antonin scalia. it reflects the continuing resolution of those in the trump

era and the effort of those in this inner circle to prepare to take control of the government in a way unseen in modern presidential history. people close to the president say they're seeking out a different type of lawyer committed to trump's america-first ideology. they want lawyers and federal agencies and in the white house who are willing to use theories that more establishment lawyers would reject to advance trump's cause. this new mind-set matches mr. trump's declaration that he is waging a final battle against demonic enemies populating a deep state within the government that is bent on destroying america. reading between the lines here, the most out there trump aides like stephen miller are putting together lists of legal minds they want in a potential second trump administration. and the litmus test here isn't whether a lawyer is a conservative or even conservative enough but instead whether a lawyer is willing to let donald trump test the bounds of legal thinking and

concentrate power for himself. and that includes the justice department. "the times" rofrts that advisers are likely to follow -- who are likely to follow trump back into power view white house authority to direct the justice department as proper under the so-called unitary executive theory. that is the theory popular on the right that says all executive branch officials should be under the direct command and control of the president. joining me now is andrew weissman, former federal prosecutor and co-host of the essential podcast. before we get to the legal news today, i found this "the new york times" reporting staggering, the lengths to which trump wants to push everything to an area that no one -- not even a gray area, a dark, black hole where the law has not gone

before. kenneth chesebro, john eastman, rudy giuliani, sidney powell, these are trump's lawyers who are now criminally indict. those are the kind of folks or the actual folks trump would like to have in the white house making big decisions if he wins in 2024. your reaction. >> this is the model of roy cohn. we are talking about not a legal system. this is an extra legal system. my issue is not with the federalist society. it's not, oh, i disagree with the opinion of pat cipollone or don megan and i think it's wrong to be thinking of it as liberal versus federalist society in terms of those are legitimate differences, and you can have really -- real debates about it. but there are people who have lines. don megan had a real line. he was not willing to lie for the former president.

pat cipollone was not willing to engage in insurrection. i know a lot of people would say that's not a high bar, but they were willing to say, no, they were acting as lawyers within their own principles. this is taking a play book out of fascist authoritarian regimes where lawyers are part of the tools of giving a veneer of legitimacy toa thor teariations to make it appear they're staying within the law when they're not. >> it's as if there's no self-respect of the knowledge they've accrued as professionals and as people who graduated from law school. >> so we're not immune in the legal profession. you've seen it in journalism. you see it on the hill. you see it in all sorts of ways where power and money has an insidious effect on people in

terms of their integrity. it is not a good thing for my profession when you think about the fact that there are good and sincere conservative and liberal lawyers. we're talking about people who are are being picked because they won't say no. so it's a very, very different discussion. and, you know, people -- that's just part of human nature is that some people are not brought up to be able to have the test of can you go home and look at yourself in the mirror. >> i was also stunned to see that the federalist society is being referred to in trump's circles as a bunch of squishes. i mean these are the people on the supreme court alone responsible for a radical transformation of american society in the image of far-right conservative ideology. what is your reaction to that just in terms of whether

alienating the federalist society in terms of donald trump's priorities might somehow be a good thing for broader democracy to not have them aligned anymore. does that help normalize things? >> well, i do think we've already seen some of that. for instance, the federalist society scholars who have the view that the former president is not capable and should be disqualified from running again, the federalist society white house counsels who have said no to the former president. so i think we're already seeing that split. and it used to be that you saw that in terms of push republicans which i think are otherwise described as democrats. it tells you how far trump has taken the country and certainly the republican party. which my friends who are

republicans say they don't really have a party anymore. >> one wonders how that plays out in the context of the trials unfolding right now. the suggestion today she may move the trial date, how do you -- how do you parse her words on this? i know it's difficult. >> so it's fascinating because remember she was reversed twice by the 11th circuit by very, very conservative judges, and that's an example of judges who are like, you know what, we didn't signup for that. we still adhere to what the law is and don't paint us with the same brush. i think it's perhaps too early to tell, but the signs are not good. she comes with a history where she was reversed twice in quite

spectacular fashion by the 11th circuit by making decisions that weren't close. i mean they were off the charts. and that is to your point how we began our conversation was donald trump looking for lawyers like that. the idea that the trial would be pushed off, i've read all the papers. there's no reason to put the trial off, no legitimate reason. this is a minor dispute about discovery where this is still months and months away. and there is a very narrow window to have this trial, so it remains to be seen what she'll do. she could just push it off a little bit, which would be a sign maybe for a couple weeks. >> yeah, what is a little bit in your book? is that june? >> i'm sorry, yes. it's like basically june because, you know, the further it goes, the more you really do have to start being concerned about if he is the nominee, which it looks like he will be, then you do want to make sure that he has the ability to run for the office as much as you

may disagree with his views, he will be a presidential candidate. >> and you also theoretically want to give republican primary voters a chance to evaluate whether they want a criminally convicted nominee. >> the idea of putting it off, i mean the counter you want both republican voters to know, and you want the general electorate to know whichever way the trial goes, they should have the benefit of that information. >> and i meant that in the context of pushing it to may is already quite late. you're going to have a nominee by july, there's very little running room here. >> absolutely. and she suggestled the argument is that she doesn't want to run into the march trial date that judge chutkan has, but that trial is not scheduled to last all that long. you know, that's where jack smith is very much like i'm going to try this case, i'm going to get in and i'm going to get out, so he knows he wants to

have the second trial. so it's not a great argument for him to be like i'm concerned about that, and if you were concerned is the way to deal as the way judge chutkan dealt with it. judge cannon, there would nothing proper at all to call judge chutkan and say i want to make sure this is okay if i do this, and i want to make sure my trial can go and not jamming you up. >> first of all, it's hard to imagine them talking, the disparity in sort of experience and outlook. but is someone organizing this? is there a phone tree happening? >> the normal process when you have this is judges are adults, they call each other. judge chutkan announced that. she said i called the state court judge. there'd be nothing wrong at all with the judges speaking to each other. they're both federal article 3 judges, and there's a certain amount of collegiality, respect

and decorum that goes with that. >> things if you believe in "the new york times" are on their way out if trump wins another term in the white house. i know that's hard for a lot of people to hear that sentence but the reporting is essential. andrew weissman, thank you for joining me tonight. we have a lot to come this evening including the latest unbelievable developments in the george santos saga. plus donald trump jr., the first of the trump family to take the stand in the civil fraud trial in new york city. we're going to dig into that with pulitzer prizewinning reporter sue craig. that's coming up next. ning reporter sue craig that's coming up next. i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq

smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save.

the power goes out and we still have wifi to do our homework. and that's a good thing? great in my book! who are you? no power? no problem. introducing storm-ready wifi. now you can stay reliably connected through power outages with unlimited cellular data and up to 4 hours of battery back-up to keep you online. only from xfinity. home of the xfinity 10g network.

today in a manhattan courtroom donald trump's eldest son, donald trump jr., took the stand in the new york civil fraud case against the trump family and the trump organization where trump jr. was the executive vice president. donald trump is the first of trump's adult children to testify. his siblings and his father are slated to testify later this week and the next. today mr. trump spent most of his time on the stand putting distance between himself and the questionable financial statements at the heart of this case. as a reminder new york attorney general luishtitia james alleges donald trump and his top

executives, including his sons conspired to inflate their wealth on financial statements by billions of dollars. and the judge in this case, judge arthur engoron has already ruled that fraud was committed, so what is left to be decided here is how much the trumps are going to pay for that fraud. joining me now is suzanne craig, investigative journalist and one of the leading reporters at "the new york times". so donald trump jr., how plausible is it he really didn't know what was going on with the company finances? >> i find it very unlikely. i mean anything is possible, but this is somebody who was senior officer of the company making "the new york times" obtained a lot of their tax information it was $2 million a year since his father went into the white house. it was a substantial increase he was making and a nod to how much

more responsibility he was going to be taking on. and he was put in as a trustee when donald trump became president. he said setup a trust, and the idea was don jr., eric, his brother would go and essentially be overseeing the company. eric wasn't a trustee but eric was. don jr. had this very strael role as a trustee. >> in the trial today we didn't sort of get to the goods, as it were. there's more to come tomorrow. what is your expectation in sort of the attitude the prosecution is going to take here, and also what's your expectation for eric trump, who by all outside assessments actually knows even more than don jr. knows? >> i think it's -- they're not created equal in terms of their roles in the company. i think with don jr. today he just -- you know, stepping back

now in the weeks before leading up to this, he hasn't been present in terms of a lot of the conversations about just how much he was -- we're not hearing people say i went to don jr. and talked to him about this. you're hearing i went to eric and i went to ivanka, and they'd come up in terms of decisions that were made. but he still -- you know, his role in the financial statements i think we're going to get into tomorrow. it started right at the end of the day. what was interesting he had a very friendly demeanor for most of the day. the attorney was giving off an aggressive stance. when they got down to his role and financial statements, those were the statements submitted to the financial institutions later in this case and showing they submitted false documents to financial institutions. and these statements, the question was how much was he involved and what did he know, and he walked right away and said i didn't have any involvement, that's what we hire lawyers for. and then we kind of walked that

back a bit and said i may have had them but didn't know what i was saying was going into the calculations for the financial statements. so he really thread that. i think we're going to hear that tomorrow, a lot more aggressive questioning on that issue. and then eric will be really interesting because eric's really been a member of the family that has been running. and when you've heard a lot about people's dealings with eric trump leading up to now so i think he's going to take a fair bit of time for the attorney general to go through and i think it's going to be a real focus. >> ivanka has had her role effectively thrown out by an appellate court and she is testifying. and it sounds like an open question because donald trump jr. and eric trump would be the ones effectively prevented from doing business if judge engoron so decides here in new york city. and there's a question about whether the management of the trump organization could be transferred today ivanka trump, is that right?

if she chooses that option? >> i'm not in that -- i mean i don't know -- i mean i've heard that. i don't know how it's going to play out. i think it's going to take such a long time because i think we have to remember even when this trial is done and there will be a number, there'll be a penalty, it's going to go to appeals court. it's going to take a long time to play out, and in the meantime there's a receiver over the company, and that receiver will be there to monitor their business because eventually some assets may have to be sold to meet that penalty, which could be $250 million. it could be less. and it was interesting before don jr. got up, it was pretty dense stuff to listen to, but the expert who was speaking to how much the damages should be was up this morning, and he had said because of the fraudulent nature of the documents that were submitted, they got favorable terms on loans just on four properties that came to more than $160 million.

so that's the stuff the judge is going to be reading over when he's looking at how much the damages should be. when you think about the kids coming into this, not only is this the company they have all worked for pretty much their entire lives except for a year or two in ivanka's life, whatever is left will be their inheritance. there's a lotats stake here in terms of this is not just a family business, it's going to affect not only what they inherit but their descendants. >> and we should also say it's an open question about how liquid donald trump himself is. right, "the post" reports that trump reported earning income about 14.8 million in paid speeches in '22 and '23, collecting $250,000 from log cabin republicans, the gay republican tour, and these are large numbers for all of us. but for donald trump who said he'd a billionaire he's making

speeches for $250,000, which suggests to me he needs cash, sue. >> right. we don't know what his actual walking around money is. we know he owns a number of businesses. "the new york times" in 2020 brought 20 years of his corporate and individual tax returns. what we learned in that is a lot of his businesses lose money. golf courses aren't worth as much but he's got valuable assets but he's also pumping capital into those, and they're losing money. what you're seeing here when i read this, it's very much akin to around the country he's got businesses but then he's also got licensing deals where he would liesance his name and he gets a one-time fee. and those are very addictive because you get the money -- in that sort of thing you're right. and the speaking fees remind me of that in the liv golf tournament where he's getting money to host liv golf

tournaments at his courses. that's the sort of stuff that's great because it can be used to plug holes in the businesses losing money or whatever he wants. we know the business is the most pertinent part of his money. >> how much is walking around money and paying out damages money, right? $250 million, that's a lot of speeches to the log cabin republicans. >> right, and it's not tax-deductible if it happens. >> words donald trump does not want to hear, not tax-deductible. suzanne craig, thank you for helping to understand complicated testimony this week and next. still to come this evening, the president -- president biden confronted by a protester over the israel-hamas war as the democratic party faces deep divisions over u.s. policy. plus republican congressman and serial fabulist, george santos faces some music, faces tunes in the house of representatives.

what happened there is next. app. (man) mm, hey, honey. looks like my to-do list grew. "paint the bathroom, give baxter a bath, get life insurance," hm. i have a few minutes. i can do that now. oh, that fast? remember that colonial penn ad? i called and i got information. they sent the simple form i need to apply. all i do is fill it out and send it back. well, that sounds too easy! (man) give a little information, check a few boxes, sign my name, done. they don't ask about your health? (man) no health questions. -physical exam? -don't need one. it's colonial penn guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance. if you're between the ages of 50 and 85, your acceptance is guaranteed in most states, even if you're not in the best health. options start at $9.95 a month, 35 cents a day. once insured, your rate will never increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it.

keep in mind, this is lifetime protection. as long as you pay your premiums, it's yours to keep. call for more information and the simple form you need to apply today. there's no obligation, and you'll receive a free beneficiary planner just for calling.

is it possible my network could take my business to the next level? it is with comcast business. powering all your devices with gig-speed wifi. and you get fast downloads and uploads. pick it up! pick it up! oh we got this! because it's powered by the next generation 10g network. more speed for your business? it's not just possible. it's happening. get started for $59.99 a month for 12 months. plus, ask how to get an $800 prepaid card

with a qualifying internet bundle. comcast business, powering possibilities. back in early september, republican congressman george santos of new york called up a reporter from "the new york times," in and the course of a 45-minute conversation this happened. i'll give you one story that nobody talks about, santos

replied, before telling me how his 5-year-old niece disappear from a playground in queens only to be located 40 minutes later on a surveillance camera with two chinese men. santos said the incident was the subject of an active police investigation, implying heavily that it might have been in retaliation for his vocal stance against the chinese communist party. so you think it was china, i asked clarifying. look, i don't want to go into like, conspiracy theories, santos said, but, you know, if the shoe fits, right? "the new york times" reporter here naturally looked into santos' story and a high ranking police official confirmed that officers had been called and investigated the incident, but they found no evidence of chinese communist party involvement or of any kidnapping at all. they found nothing at all to suggest it's true, the official said. i lean into he made it up -- he

made it up. it has been nearly a year since "the new york times" reporter and her colleague first started looking into george santos and uncovered the extent to mr. santos has been making it up. from lies about graduating from colleges and to lies about having worked at wall street firms, that's in addition to a slew of anecdotes. and there was a criminal charge in brazil for allegedly forging signatures on checks he stole from an elderly man. in may federal prosecutors charged santos with 13 counts of fraud, money laundering and lying to the house of representatives. santos pleaded not guilty to those charges, but last month santos was hit with ten additional federal charges

including conspiracy, wire fraud, false statements, falsification of records, aggravation of identity theft and credit card fraud. the indictment alleges santos obtained personal identity and financial information of individuals who had contributed to his campaign and then caused their accessed device tuesday be charged repeatedly without authorization for santos' benefit all to which santos has pleaded not guilty. and that led to five new york republican congressmen backing a resolution to expel george santos from congress. and yet presented with the opportunity to finally expel a federally indicted serial fabulist from their ranks in the united states congress, the vote failed 179-213 earlier this evening. a majority of republicans chose to standby the serial liarand alleged criminal. only 24 of them voted to expel

santos from their ranks. 31 democrats also broke ranks and voted to let santos stay in congress. for what reason we do not yet know. for a guy who has been somewhat of an emblem of the chaos of the republican led house, that guy will be take sticking around. we are going to talk about that and what is happening right now in the democratic party coming up next. democratic party coming up next.

earlier tonight at a camp pain event in minnesota, president biden began speaking about the israel-hamas war,

calling the conflict incredibly complicated. and this is what happened next. >> mr. president, if you care about jewish people as a rabbi, i need you to call for a cease-fire right now. >> that protester was rabbi jes wurosenberg. she is a member of the group jewish voice for peace, which has been organizing jewish led pro-cease-fire protesters across the country, part of a drum beat of groups calling for one. 18 house membervise signed onto a resolution calling for a cease-fire in gaza. all of them are democrats, all of them are people of color. president biden and the vast majority of the democratic party have reject those calls, and the administration has instead supported what they call a humanitarian pause to allow more aid into gaza. so far israel has given no sign it intends to pause its military operation anytime soon. prime minister netanyahu instead said this week, this is a time for war.

now, the divide inside the democratic party here reflects a broader generational divide on this issue. a quinnipiac poll out today finds that 64% of democrats support president biden's approach towards israel. but when it comes to voters under the age aff35, a key democratic constituency, only 25% support biden's approach. and this debate is now poised to become a real flash point in next year's election. "the new york times" reports pro-israel groups are weighing supporting primary challenges to several of the more outspoken congressional critics of israel's military response to the hamas terror attacks. joining me now is mitual goldberg, opinion columnist for "the new york times." michelle, you've written so thoughtfully about this moment we find ourselves in, and i wonder what you make of biden's management of this. again, i do think it's complicated, but he was very clear at the outset where he believed america's allegiances

lay, and has refused to outline any kind of red line for israel in terms of its bombardment and invasion of gaza, so i wonder, you know, what you make of the fact it appears to be costing him quite seriously among part of the key parts of the democratic base. >> well, i think there's two questions here, right? there's the substantive question whether his handling of the crisis can be defended, and then there's the other question of how he can handle it in a way that's politically wise. and those two things aren't necessarily the same thing. look, i think that obviously his strategy and embracing israel and showing a kind of united front in public and then leaking a lot about how he's pressuring israel in private and doing his best to restrain it in private, in order for that to seem credible to people, there has to be some indication of israeli

restraint besides just this tiny trickle of, you know, 25, 30 trucks coming in over the border from egypt. and so, you know, i think he said that instead of calling for a cease-fire he supports a call for a humanitarian pause. he needs to be i think making that call much more forcefully -- making, putting much more visible pressure on israel to stop some of the rampages we're seeing in the west bank, doing more, i think, visibly not just leaking you're doing it behind the scenes to stop these scenes of -- if not stop at least mitigate these scenes of unimaginable horror. >> yeah, unimaginable carnage which is not to say what happened in israel is not unimaginable, but the death toll with the statistics we've been given absolutely staggering in gaza. michelle, there's also the question of what happens inside the democratic party.

democrats and congress are less in a position to change what israel is doing, but it's still a debate in congress what the party should do, and i think there's something to this idea that those who were speaking out against israel's actions a lot, all of them thus far in congress are people of color. you look at the way in which the movement to support the citizens of palestine is -- intersects with the social justice movement, and i think a lot of people aren't aware of the sort of -- the convention of these two movements. "the new york times" reports that biden and democrats face new resistance from an energized faction of his party that use the palestinian cause an extension of the racial and social justice movements that dominate american politics in the summer of 2020. the killing of mike brown in some ways was catalytic for the thinking of how brown people in this country are treated. and on this planet, arab

american support, arab americans willing to vote for biden in 2020 it was 59%, october of this year, 17%. what do you make of that, michelle? >> look, i think obviously there's different problems, right? there's just the generational divide. and the generational divide makes sense. i mean there's an older generation, biden's generation for whom israel -- israel for a long time for a time was seen by others -- the younger people have no memory of that. they have no memory of an israel whose leaders weren't openly eliminationests, who didn't have not just netanyahu but some of these incredibly racist characters he has around them. and then meanwhile you have i think the pro-palestinian

movement has done a very good job of trying to make their own struggle, which is not necessarily analogous in all its particulars to racial justice struggles in america, but i think that they have been very, very good at building these grassroots connections, making these analogies. you know, there's murals of george floyd in palestine, and so i think for a lot of young people especially because this is confusing and, you know, the history in many ways it's a hall of mirrors with claims and counterclaims. and so people look for analogies, and they look for trusted voices. and i think among -- you know, for a lot of young people both what they're learning in school, what they're learning if they're going to social justice protests and what they're hearing from their peers is -- is a total abhorrence of the current government of israel that in many cases ends up extending

into sort of broader, and that is a bigger problem than i think biden and his political team can necessarily address, but they can do things to narrow the divide, one, i think by showing that their strategy is at least bearing some fruit, and then also maybe by standing up to apac, the american israeli public affairs committee, which is targeting some of these members of the squad who have tried to walk a fine line on israel, who have condemned these horrific massacres by hamas, condemned this explosion of anti-semitism but at the same time insist on the legitimacy of palestinian national aspirations and human rights. >> michelle goldberg, this is such a complicated topic, i keep saying that word, but it is complicated and deeply sensitive. and you put it into context so brilliantly. really, thank you for your time and thank you for your thoughts

on this. still ahead, for the first time since the war between israel and hamas broke out on october 7th, a small group of evacuees were permitted to cross the rafah border to safety in egypt. e rafah border to safety egypt.

i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq

smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save.

ramona is a 71-year-old prosthesis expert. she's a resident of seattle where she work for years as a lecturer at the university of washington. since she retired in 2017 she's made frequent trips to gaza to volunteer at the palestine children's relief fund wrg helping children who lost nar lands due to violence in the region. she was there in gaza after war broke out after hamas launched terror attack against israel last month. she'd been staying in a united nations compound in gaza, but she had effectively been trapped there for 26 days. today we can confirm she is one of five american aid workers allowed to evacuate gaza

crossing the rafah border into egypt. she was on a list of about 500 people permitted to leave the area as part of a deal between egypt, hamas, and israel. one that was mediated by qatar and american officials. >> today thanks to concerted american leadership, we're in a situation where safe passage for wounded palestinians and foreign nationals from gaza has started. american citizens today part of the first group of over 1,000 as part of this process going on over the coming days, working nonstop to get americans out of gaza as soon as and safely as possible. >> joining me now is my friend and colleague ayman mohyeldin who has reported extensively during the 2014 war. >> 26 days.

for a while these americans could have been considered being held hostage in gaza if not directly by hamas. was this american intervention that made this happen, and why did it take so long? it's almost a month for people who were medical professionals helping and staying at u.n. compounds. you would imagine they would be among the very first to leave. >> yeah, i think the position as i understood it from people involved in trying to broker this at least on the egyptian side and certainly on hamas' side through intermediaries that are mostly in doha is that they wanted to see not just dual nationals leave. there's something they felt was very sinister about just saying, oh, foreign nationals can leave but the rest of the palestinian population being bombarded has to say. in fact, what they were really trying to negotiate a mechanism for also what we saw was the exodus of wounded palestinians.

so there was a long convoy of cars or ambulances i should say carrying palestinian children, some of the most critically injured people, life and death types of situations in ambulances that were allowed to leave so it was humanitarian relief for as many people as possible and not just the foreign nationals a lot to get out of gaza while a lot stayed behind to be bombarded to death. >> those images you see are just wrenching, and those are the lucky ones. >> yeah. >> there's a huge question about how do you even begin to choose when you have suffering in the order of magnitude we have heard happening in gaza. we know juballia refugee camp. israel said they killed a hamas commander in that strike. united nations is saying the

attack on that refugee camp could amount to a war crime, ayman. >> one of many allegations that are made throughout the course of the past several days. and here is why. in part because if you look at the way the bombardment has been taking place across the gaza strip nowhere and i mean nowhere is safe. israel told people to move to the south, the south was bombed. they have taken shelter in certain places like a church. the church was bomb. in a refugee camp where people think they might be safe, they're bombed. so at the end of the day the challenge that has become very apparent and what international lawyers and human rights organizations are talking about is proportionality and to what extent you expect the people in this camp to be aware of what is happening to them or what is happening underneath them at any given moment if you are on the face of it accepting the israeli argument that they were doing this to target a single individual. but keep in mind and we've seen this, we've seen surveillance video of home cameras, and i've

had this on my show over the weekend where a young boy was standing adjacent to a building, the building gets knocked out, and ultimately the child is buried underneath the rubble. and that's why people use the term collective punishment because you are not aware of who else is in your vicinity at any given moment. they tell people to leave and in some cases it's 5 minutes, some in cases it's a phone call. they've been dropping leaflets. but people feel like they don't have anywhere to go that is safe. we've spoken to a lot of people. the bureau chief whose family was killed, he heeded israel's warnings. he moved his family out of the northern part of the gaza strip. he moved them to the southern part below the specific line they told them to and what happened? the building next to where his family was seeking refuge was targeted by israel and he lost his wife, his daughter, son, and grandson. it's a story repeating itself every time throughout this war and that innocent civilians men,

women, children, elderly are paying the price and there is no single safe space in the entire gaza strip. >> yeah, he focused just on the lives of children who have been lost, 3,600 children reportedly killed. >> which would be the equivalent of 200,000 american children killed in the spanl of three weeks. we sometimes think of 3,000. maybe that is proportional number what has happened. but to put it in perspective the pcrf, the palestinian children's relief fund told me on my show that would be the equivalent of 260,000 american children killed in the span of three weeks. >> we will leave it on that note, ayman.