>> ambassador, there are 2 million plus civilians or people in gaza. where are the people that are now in the south, many of whom were living in the north and actually moved south after your country dropped leaflets there telling them to go south, now where are those people and the ones that are in the south living permanently supposed to go? >> first of all, not everyone in the south has to go. we are being surgical, very specific about areas where we need to attack where there are hamas military infrastructure, where we need to act. once again, not everyone has to be relocated. a small group will be temporarily relocated if they want to get out of the fighting. they should. we have specified zones. those maps have been shared with secretary blinken and others in administration, specified safe zones for civilians to be for the fighting so they stay out of

harm's way. i urge people to leave. we don't want to see them hurt. >> ambassador mark regev, thank you very much for being with us. very much appreciate your time. >> thanks for having me. that wraps up the hour for me. i'm jose diaz-balart. andrea mitchell picks up with more news right now. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," expelled. indicted republican congressman george santos becomes the sixth house member in history to be kicked out of congress by his colleagues with a trial on nearly two dozen federal charges still in his future. fighting resumes between israel and hamas after talks to extend the week-long humanitarian pause breaks down. sparking a dangerous new phase of fighting with potentially devastating impacts for civilians and hostages in gaza. that stunning "new york times" report that israeli military and intelligence officials had been warned hamas was plotting a detailed and unprecedented invasion a year before it was carried out.

exactly as planned. what is the fallout? this hour, i will speak to a cousin of an israeli hostage freed wednesday after being held for nearly two months. an icon for women across america has died. we will look back at the historic life of sandra day o'connor, the first woman to sit on the u.s. supreme court. ♪♪ good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. freshman republican congressman george santos of new york has been formally expelled from the house, effective immediately. the historic vote was 311 to 114. santos watched the vote tally from the floor of the house. his coat already on. anticipating the outcome. he walked out as the tally passed the required two-thirds majority. he then quickly left the capitol grounds. unlike his usual practice, he

brushed past reporters without commenting. his long island congressional seat will stay vacant until a special election can be held. what sealed the deal for many members to finally vote for -- to vote to expel him? a report accusing him of stealing from his campaign. some republican members said they still voted for him to remain, to avoid establishing a precedent because he had not yet been convicted, despite the many indictments and the e ethics report. we start with ryan nobles and tim miller, writer at large at "the bullwork." ryan, you were trailing him. you talked to him so often. santos' fellow new york republicans led the charge against him. seeing santos as a political liability. they were in the minority until recently. how is it playing out on the floor? >> reporter: you know, it's very interesting, the whole way this

saga played out, even up until the last moment. particularly because of the turn that house leadership made at the last minute. the house speaker, mike johnson, the conference chair, the whip, and the majority leader had not signalled how they intended to vote on this particular piece of legislation, which something as dramatic as this, as historic like this would normally be a -- a clear signal would be given as to how the members should act. speaker johnson said he thought his members should vote their conscience. right before the vote today, he signalled he was not going to vote in favor of the resolution because he was concerned by that precedent. that was not enough to sway the republicans who wanted to see george santos go, particularly that group of new york republicans, the majority makers for the house republicans who just feel that he has become too big of a political liability. as you rightly point out, andrea, the governor the new york, kathy hochul said she's in

the process of planning to call for a special election to replace george santos. she said in a tweet earlier today, i am prepared to undertake the solemn responsibility of filling the vacancy in new york's 3rd district. the people of long island deserve nothing less. it's a real question mark as to who will end up replacing george santos and what party that person will be affiliated with. this is a seat that normally has been held by democrats. it was won by president biden by nine points in the 2020 election. republicans took it back in 2022. one of the candidates that's emerged and will participate in the special election is tom swazi who held the seat prior to george santos holding it. this is something that democrats really view as a pickup opportunity. it really in many ways puts the majority for house republicans at risk. they now only hold the majority by three seats. they will lose another member who is stepping down from ohio to become the president of

youngstown state. of course, there are questions about the future of kevin mccarthy, the former house speaker, as to whether or not he intends to stay in his seat in california. there's a scenario whereby the beginning of next year, that republican majority is only down to one seat, which would be really incredible and make governing here more difficult than it already is. >> if that. it was the five new york republican seats that switched that gave them the majority in the first place. it's quite remarkable. i'm fascinated by the decision by the speaker, by scalise, by stefanik, was that when they saw the vote? steve scalise is a good whip. did they see it coming and decided they wanted to stay on the side of precedent because they knew he was going to be expelled anyway? >> reporter: it's a great question. one we don't have a specific answer to right now. it really seemed as though the republican party just decided that this was going to be a member by member decision.

they didn't want to lean in on this vote one way or another, because they -- there was no pressure applied by any of the leaders, which is formally the way something like this would play itself out. they attempted to sort of whip count, as you alluded to. steve scalise was not asking members how they intended to vote today. many of the members, including leadership, went in blind, not even 100% sure what the outcome would be. this is not the way congress normally operates. you would not expect if this were a situation where nancy pelosi were still the speaker that there would be so much uncertainly going into a vote like this. it likely demonstrates how controversial and how difficult the george santos era has been for the republican party. you could see a real sense of relief from many of the republicans, particularly the new york republicans that had to serve alongside of him, that this controversy is behind them. they will deal with the fallout when it comes. for this time and this moment, they felt this was the right decision.

>> indeed. ryan, your reporting has been top notch on all of this. thank you so much for being with us today. it all came together. tim, let's talk about this. have they left it behind, or is this something the democrats can use in the elections coming up in '24? it's just so dramatic. there's still the trial. he will be front and center. >> santos is. i think the new york republicans felt like they had to do this politically to even give them themselves a chance to get rid of his baggage. to be honest, i think the bigger threat to those republicans in biden districts is the new speaker mike johnson. mike johnson's record is so extreme on issues that voters in blue states care about, social issues, gay rights, abortion, of course. there's a new report out today about -- that it was just last

year that mike johnson was writing the forward to a book that pushed conspiracy theories. this guy is very extreme. you can make that case in a television ad a lot more clearly than you can to try to associate these guys with george santos. i think in some sense, he is off their back. that's why this happened today. this is politics all the way down, frankly. george santos wasn't providing anything anymore to the republicans that was useful. they felt like they could get rid of him and try to get rid of some of the baggage. i think it will be mike johnson's baggage that will have more -- >> they were so eager to do this so it didn't happen yesterday, so they did it on a friday. they are probably heading to the airport right now. tim miller, thank you very much. trailblazer. sandra day o'connor, the first woman to serve on the supreme court dying at the age of 93 and

leaving an unprecedented legacy. that's next when "andrea mitchell reports" is back in 60 seconds. you are watching msnbc. are watcc the subway series? it's the perfect menu lineup. just give us a number, we got the rest. number three? the monster. six? the boss. fifteen? titan turkey. number one? the philly. oh, yeah, you probably don't want that one. look, i'm not in charge of naming the subs. (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro, your husband deserves it! ♪ (mom) carolers? to tell me you want a new iphone?that one. a better plan is verizon. (vo) for a limited time, turn any iphone in any condition into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium and ipad and apple watch se - all on us. only on verizon. sometimes your work shirt needs to be for more than just work. like when it needs to be a big soft shoulder to cry on. which is why downy does more to make clothes softer, fresher, and better. downy. breathe life into your laundry.

sandra day o'connor, the trailblazing lawyer, first woman on the supreme court, has died at the age of 93. the high court announcing the former justice passed away this morning at her home in phoenix after, quote, complications related to advanced dementia, probably alzheimer's and a respiratory illness. she was appointed in 1981, famously, by president ronald reagan and retired in 2006 after serving more than 24 years on the court, serving for decades as the indisputable swing justice, casting decides votes on contentious cases. she stepped down prematurely at the age of 76. she was in good health. she became the full-time caregiver for her husband, john o'connor, who was suffering from

alzheimer's. joining me now is pete williams who covered her for decades, along with historian evan thomas, her biographer, and linda webster, a close personal friend of the late justice and fellow native arizonian. pete, let's talk about the legacy. as a young correspondent, i was sent to the airport. it was a big deal. a woman appointed to the supreme court. who had heard of such a thing? we all just went to the gate and did a huge gaggle and walked with her. she was shy and seemed overwhelmed but gracious typically. not as impatient as she later could become in such circumstances. she was amazing as a woman and as a first. graceful. one of her most notable legacies to me, besides on her decisions, was her close relationship and mentorship of a very shy and

nervous ruth bader ginsburg when she became the second woman on the court. >> yes, of course, it was a campaign promise, as you know, of president reagan's to appoint a woman to the supreme court. i think her significance is really three things. first of all, culturally, the fact she was the first woman on the court. as she once famously said, i don't want to be the last. i want to do a good job, because if i don't, it will be a long time before another woman is appointed. that turned out not to be a problem. she overcame her initial shyness. secondly, legally. in the later years when o'connor was on the court, it was her court. as sandra went, so went the court. she sided with conservatives, sometimes with liberals. she was often the deciding vote. she was the social director at the supreme court. when she left, one of the supreme court justices said, i really miss sandra. she was somebody who brought homemade mexican food to the court to have everybody bond together. she really was the glue that held everybody together.

her legal significance is considerable. her jurisprudence was practically oriented. she had life experience growing up on a ranch in arizona, serving as an elected official. she had an experience that other justices who come through a more ivy tower don't have. >> she had been a state legislator. you are her biographer. she was a key swing vote on so many cases. talk to us about that background. she wrote about her life on the ranch, the first in her class at stanford law but couldn't get a job. had to take a legal clerk's job in the receptionist position in the law firm out there in california, and going to school with rehnquist and what was later revealed, maybe in your book -- >> it was. >> in your book about the personal relationship they had and his having a crush on her, proposing to her.

>> yeah. she was obviously tough and confident and modest all at once. one thing about her, she knew not to pick stupid fights. she stayed above petty arguments. when one of her clerks would write in a zinger into an opinion to get back at another justice or retort against, say, justice scalia, she would cross it out. she was smart about the fights she picked. she knew when to stand up for herself and for her causes, but also not to get into these ego classes that are so common today. >> linda webster, you knew her so well. went fishing with her. you knew her as an outdoorswoman. she was a woman's woman. as tough as she could be. she stood up for things.

she could be -- if you could excuse the expression -- all girl. >> could be. quite a lady. she was my fishing buddy, first and foremost as evan wrote so beautifully in his book. she loved the outdoors. i would beg to differ, she did get competitive on both the tennis court, the golf course and fishing river. we argued over whose fish was larger, mine or hers. >> i remember her on the golf course. we belonged to the same club. she was very athletic. pete, let's talk about some of the big decisions. i'm thinking of bush v. gore. did she have any regrets on that? >> she thought it was inappropriate that the court had to decide the case in the first place. she kind of wished it didn't have to do that. she did side with the conservatives in deciding basically that the election contest in florida was over, which made george bush the president.

it was scalia who said when there was criticism, get over it. that was not her position. she was -- after initially raising some questions about abortion in her confirmation hearing, she was a key vote on keeping the abortion right alive. of course, that's one of the things about her legacy that this current court has walked away from. she also wrote the decision -- you will see it on the screen, the grutter case. she famously said in the decision, maybe we only need to do this for 25 more years. some of the conservatives who struck down affirmative action in the last term noted that. they said, the clock had always been ticking. maybe it was time to end it. andrea, you can't get over the fact that she was raised on a ranch. she said in one of her books that when she got up in the morning, she said there were things on the ranch that could bite you or sting you.

when she got up in the morning, she would shake out her shoes to make sure there were no scorpions on anything in them. i said, i bet you still do that. she said, yes, i do. i said, the supreme court was once described as nine scorpions in a bottle. it must, given your background, seem benign. she said, well, you would be surprised. >> evan, let me recall something also and linda, jump in here, because you may have been there. i remember ruth bader ginsburg talked so movingly about her two or three weeks after martin ginsburg died, we were in aspen and i was invited to an 80th birthday party for sandra day o'connor. you may have hosted it. >> i did. >> ruth bader ginsburg got up. she was accompanied by her grandson. she had come to aspen to speak. she actually even amusically imitated sandra day o'connor's

way of speaking. she said when she was a freshman member of the court, she was assigned by the chief to write her first majority opinion. she was so nervous, she went -- she turned to her mentor, sandra day o'connor and said, how do i do this? she imitated herself. i'm imitating ruth imitating sandra. she said, just do it, do it. put one foot in front of the other and do it. >> that's pretty good. >> it gave ruth bader ginsburg the spine to write that opinion and rise to, of course, become a decisive vote on the court who had more weight than just the single vote, because she actually turned votes from one to another. she got seven votes. >> here is a story that tells a lot about her. the mentioned the vmi case.

the u.s. versus virginia. landmark case. the opinion was originally assigned to justice o'connor. o'connor said, no, this should be ruth's case, because ruth ginsburg did so much on women's rights. justice ginsburg told me later, i loved her for that. can you imagine some male giving up a landmark opinion to somebody else because they thought they deserved it? she could be -- she had a big self. she was above self. she knew when to share the credit. she knew how to make a friend out of justice ginsburg. they were different people but they admire and respected each other. o'connor had been on the court for 11 years before ginsburg got there. >> you are all such perfect people to have today, all of your experience and life and at the court. pete, it's great to see you.

evan and linda, my friends, thank you so much on this sad day for a great lady. and for the country. what they knew and when they knew it. breathtaking "new york times" reporting. ignoring warnings for a year that hamas had a detailed plan for the terror attack. how is it possible? you are watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. e waa mitchell reports" on msnbc it's your verizon. a few years ago, i came to saona, they told me there's no electricity on the island.

we always thought that whatever we did here would be an emblem of what small communities can achieve. trying to give a better life to people that don't have the means to do it. si mi papá estuviera vivo, sé que él tuviera orgulloso también de vivir de esta viviendo una vida como la que estamos viviendo ahora. es electricidad aquí es salud.

the white house is pushing for another truce in gaza as israel has resumed its bombardment today after a seven-day cease-fire collapsed. strikes on southern gaza where palestinians had fled to. where israel agreed to designate larger safe zones as blinken

appealed to netanyahu to withhold all attacks to first better have a plan to protect civilians, because of the high number of casualties up until now. dozens of palestinians have been killed today as israel is blaming hamas for launching rockets into israel and failing to free at least ten hostages a day, which was the agreement. a unicef spokesperson today posting this video message from gaza's largest hospital. >> we cannot see more children with the wounds of war. with the burns, with the shrapnel littering their body, with broken bones. >> this after a devastating report from "the new york times" that israe officials had been warned about hamas' plan of attack, down to the details, the paragliders, more than a year before it happened. that was dismissed as aspirational by israeli intelligence and community, despite 40 pages outlining point by point exactly the devastating invasion that led to the deaths of 1,200 people, to quote "the

times." in dubai, secretary of state tony blinken reacting to the reporting. >> there's going to be plenty of opportunity for a full accounting of what happened on october 7th. israel has been very clear about that. right now, the focus is on making sure that they can do everything possible to ensure it doesn't happen again. >> nbc new has not seen the report. the israeli military responded saying its focus is on the war and it will investigate later. they did not deny it. joining us is nbc news chief foreign con -- correspondent richard engel. the fighting is continued. they are at risk. >> reporter: they are at risk. we don't know how many hostages may already been dead.

there are questions about how many hostages hamas actually has possession over right now. it seems that they are trying to -- they might be running out of hostages, certainly hostages they are willing to trade. that's really what went wrong here. it wasn't the question of the principle, should hamas trade hostages for prisoners? hamas says it's willing to do that. israel is willing to do that. it's over the kinds of hostages. israel asked for women. this is according to the israel government and hamas said the israeli government asked for women and hamas said no. amid this dispute, because ahaas was insisting the military-age women are soldiers, and when hamas refused, then launched rockets this morning, israel responded and said, this truce is over. now we are in a fighting stage.

it's possible they could resume the truce and try to get more of the hostages out and negotiators in doha and other places are working to make that happen. once the violence resumes, as you know, covering stories of conflict for many years, it takes on its own dynamic. you can't necessarily go back to where you were once the bombs start falling. there was an attack in jerusalem yesterday on a bus stop. will could be more suicide attacks by hamas or other groups inside israel. once the fighting stops -- there was another exchange of fire between hezbollah and israeli forces today. getting back to where we were, even though the two sides still agree in principle, could be very difficult. but it's possible. >> john brennan, i want to read more from that "new york times" report about the ignored warnings. "the times" is reporting three

months before the attacks, a veteran analyst with 's intelligence agency warned hamas had conducted an intense day-long training exercise that appeared similar to what w outlined in t blueprint. a colonel in the gazaivion brushed off the concerns according to encrypted emails. i refute the scenario is imaginary he wrote. it's a plan designed to start a war. it's not just a raid on a village. with your intelligence experience, please address that. how serious is this? >> it's very serious and very shocking. obtaining a plan by your adversary in advance of an attack is invaluable. they could -- the israelis could have determined it was aspirational at that point and that hamas didn't have the capabilities to carry out such a broad attack. but that document should have been driving israel's

intelligence collection effort over the last year. they should have tried to collect all indications that hamas was moving forward with its capabilities. the document should have been used as an analytic prism to assess everything the israelis were able to collect and see. that analyst that did the exact right thing was to look at the document and see whether or not it correlates with any of the things that they are observing, collecting through intelligence means. the person who basically refuted her good analysis -- there never should be a single point of failure. that document should have been shard broadly within the intelligence community. this is something that they should have shared with u.s. intelligence as a way to see whether the u.s. intelligence had any sense hamas was developing these types of capabilities. there's going to be quite a review and a commission that

will look at this. it does question just how broken the israeli intelligence system was and the connection with policymakers and whether that system today is as strong as i think a lot of us saw it to be in years past. >> is it conceivable the u.s. knew about this so-called joshua wall report without having warned israel? is that possible? >> it's possible that the israelis showed it to other intelligence services. i don't know. i would think that something like this -- it appears as though there was no questioning that it was an actual hamas document. they just didn't believe hamas had the capabilities to do this. given that it was obtained directly from hamas, i think the israelis really should have done everything possible to see whether or not there was any indication that hamas was able to carry out this type of

attack. i would like to think they would have shared it broadly within the intelligence community. i have no sense about whether or not they shared it with .s. intelligence. the israelis should have asked whether we saw anything. >> at the very least, had the troops there to respond more quickly than they did eventually respond. >> this was going to -- they were seeing indications of this planning and preparations. the fact that the music festival was so lightly defended. there was no augmented israeli defense forces or security along the gaza strip there. i think it's a failure on multiple levels in multiple areas. >> perhaps if a man had been the analyst warning it, they would have taken it more seriously? just saying. thank you both so much. back now to the breaking news from capitol hill. the expulsion of congressman

george santos from the house. mike lawler joining us now. you voted for expulsion. what is the historic vote about? what do you think about the leadership of the speaker, the majority leader voting against it? >> this was about restoring trust in the institution and holding george santos accountable. he not only defrauded voters, he defrauded donors, stealing money, putting it into his personal account to pay for clothing from hermes to botox infections. it was truly absurd. he was unfit to serve. i called for his resignation going back to the beginning of the year. that's why my colleagues, why we pushed for this vote to bring

the expulsion resolution to the floor. today you saw a broad bipartisan vote. two-thirds required to remove him from office. this was not about due process. he was afforded every opportunity to comply and work with the ethics committee and answer their questions. he chose not to. that ethics committee report was damming. with respect to leadership, look, every member has the right to vote their conscience, to vote what they think is in the best interest. i'm not in the business of telling other members how to vote. you had two democrats who voted no, two democrats vote present. last time around, 31 democrats voted no. obviously, there are people who have a difference of opinion here. that's fine. the reality is, over two-thirds voted to expel him. there will be a special election. the governor will do that. the election has to be held

within 70 to 80 days. we will have a special election in short order at the beginning of next year to replace george santos. >> there's new nbc reporting about republican congressman max miller who apparently before the vote had new information about personal charges -- extraordinary personal charges that had never been reported probably on santos' personal credit cards or campaign credit card. >> santos' -- >> on max miller's credit card. >> santos's campaign overcharged max miller and his mother for campaign donations. max was notified by the fec. he has had to deal with that. he felt it was important to share that and let other colleagues know just what afraud george santos is. this is unprecedented.

you had somebody who set up a corporation to have donors contribute to under the guise it was a super pac. he transfers funds to his personal account to pay bills, including rent. it's truly insane. like i said, he is unfit to serve. it's why we felt this was necessary to have this vote. i think this was about restoring integrity to the institution and putting country above all other considerations here. >> i'm seeing the readout on this. during debate today, part of the debate i had not seen, where max miller stands up on the floor and says, you, sir, are a crook, to santos. santos already had his coat on during the tally. he knew what was coming. amazing. >> yeah. i think he saw the writing on

the wall. even he was smart enough to figure this one out. >> congressman, as always, thank you very much for being with us. >> thanks. president biden asking congress for $14 billion in aid to israel. nearly half of the senate democrats want amendments to require israel to do more to prevent civilian casualties before voting for the package. joining us now is one of the lawmakers. what kind of reception did you get at the white house? are they willing to have that kind of condition placed on the pack package? >> it's good to be with you. we were talking about jake sullivan about how we could work together with the biden administration to ensure that as israel pursues the legitimate goal of ending the military threat from hamas, we don't see these unacceptably high levels

of civilian casualties, two-thirds are women and children. we get the full cooperation of the netanyahu government when it comes to providing humanitarian assistance. that was the conversation. you know secretary blinken just left israel where he delivered the message that it was, quote, imperative that the netanyahu government develop a plan that dramatically reduces the number of civilian casualties and helps provide humanitarian assistance. those are exactly the issues that we wrote to president biden about and that we raised in the discussion with jake sullivan. the question is, as hostilities resume and as the netanyahu government pursues a ground operation against the biggest city in southern gaza, how is the united states going to hold

the netanyahu government accountable for those goals? that's a continuing conversation, andrea, as to how we go forward. we also want to keep the focus on reang the remaining hostages. it was really important that president biden took the lead in making that happen. we don't want to lose focus on getting the rest of the hostages home. >> let me back you up a second. the fighting has resumed now. what secretary blinken said explicitly several times yesterday, after meeting with netanyahu was, the plan had to be developed before they resumed fighting. the fighting has resumed in the south. that was the concern that blinken forcefully expressed to netanyahu. is it clear that this larger zone that they have created is effective and can protect the civilians and reduce casualties in places in the south where they are hitting? >> no, it's not at all clear, which is why i think it's

especially important now that the biden administration has rightfully said this is an imperative from the united states' perspective in protecting our interests and our values. i would argue also, protecting the interests of israel as well as protecting innocent civilian lives. it's really important that we hold the netanyahu government accountable. all i know is as of today, all the reports we are getting is the rafah gate is closed. there are no trucks going through today. it's not clear why. we are also getting reports that already today over 100 people have been killed from bombing and bombardment. what i do know is that the israeli minister of defense said just last monday that the operation in the south is going to be bigger than the one in the

north. this is a really urgent moment for the biden administration working with those of us in congress who care to make good on our insistence that the netanyahu government have a plan to reduce civilian casualties and cooperate fully on humanitarian assistance. it won't be enough simply to say that these are expectations. the united states has a major commitment here, as you mentioned. the president asked for a $14 billion in additional funding. it's very important that the interests of the united states be fully recognized here. >> senator, thank you very much. a lot happening today. i appreciate you being here. >> thank you. the court concerns. the big new legal problem for former president trump. this is "andrea mitchell reports." we will be back in a minute right here on msnbc. a minute

right here on msnbc. running this kitchen. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. whenever you're hungry, there's a deal on the subway app. buy one footlong, get one 50% off in the subway app today. now that's a deal worth celebrating. man, what are you doing?! get it before it's gone on the subway app. ♪♪ ( ♪♪ ) we're still going for that nice catch. we're still going for that sweet shot. and with higher stroke risk from afib not caused by a heart valve problem, we're going for a better treatment than warfarin. eliquis. eliquis reduces stroke risk. and has less major bleeding. over 97% of eliquis patients did not experience a stroke. don't stop taking eliquis without talking to your doctor as this may increase your risk of stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve

or abnormal bleeding. while taking, you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, or unusual bruising. it may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. we're going for it. ask your doctor about eliquis.

we have breaking news. a three-judge panel of the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit ruled former president donald trump is not immune from lawsuits, which may seek to hold him liable for the january 6th insurrection. joining us now is ken dilanian. if they had ruled that he was immune, that would have been a

bigger deal. it would have been surprising because it would have cut short the case. >> this is a civil case. but it would have had implications for the chutkan case. what they ruled was he cannot get out of this civil lawsuit citing presidential immunity, because he cannot show he was acting as the president. they concluded that on its face, he was acting as a presidential candidate. this is based on a framework involving, as you know, the supreme court cases involving presidents nixon and clinton. there's implications. what we have here are three judges, including one appointed by president trump, who have said as a matter of evidence that donald trump was not acting as the president when he tried to overturn the election. that is exactly what is at issue in some of the criminal cases.

>> it could be at issue in the documents case, the obstruction argument about what he did at mar-a-lago. >> that's right. former president trump and his lawyers made an argument saying anything a president says and does is acting as the president. the court has resoundingly rejected that. >> it's very -- i want to point out, mitch mcconnell made that argument again of the second impeachment, saying he is liable in court to the legal system. we shouldn't do it here. let the courts have at it. >> that's a great point. that was his excuse for not voting for impeachment. an exclusive with one of the three students who was shot saturday in vermont. kinnan spoke with nbc. here is part of the interview. >> we walked around the block. on the way back, across the sidewalk, we see this man standing on his porch looking

away. he turned around and as soon as he saw us, he ran down the steps, pulled out a pistol and started shooting. he first shot me friend tahseen. i heard the thud of his body on the ground and started screaming. i heard another pistol shot while running. he hit hisham. i jumped the fence. i believe that's when he shot me. >> just horrifying. can see that full interview tonight and more in a 30-minute special. "fear & faith, palestinians in america," an important special report at 9:00 eastern, streaming on nbc news now. tears of joy. we will talk to the cousin of a young israeli mother reunited with her daughter, still faring for those who remain in the hands of hamas.

an advisor to israel's prime minister, about the report of shocking warnings that could have prevented the hamas attack, a full year before it took place. this is "andrea mitchell reports." you are watching msnbc. reports. you are watching msnbc trying to give a better life to people that don't have the means to do it. si mi papá estuviera vivo, sé que él tuviera orgulloso también de vivir de esta viviendo una vida como la que estamos viviendo ahora. es electricidad aquí es salud. [city ambience sounds] [car screech] [car door slam] [camera shutter sfx] introducing ned's plaque psoriasis. [camera shutter sfx] he thinks his flaky, red patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. [ned?] it can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking.

with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing it for nearly a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts, or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. [crowd gasp] ♪♪ with clearer skin, movie night is a groovy night. [ting] ♪♪ live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. the new subway mvp rewards earns you points for every order. this mvp uses it for free subs. you can use your points for anything. like free cookies. whoa, peyton. what — i'm not playing anymore. join now and get a free cookie when you buy a sub. the ball is out and there's a pile-up. -let's go! -get in the pile! ugh, i'll deal with this tomorrow. you won't.

it's ripe in here. my eyes are watering. i'm a busy man. look how crusty this is. shameful. ugh, it's just too much. not with this. tide. tide can tackle any pile. that a tackle pun? just clean the pile, ron. okay. this too. that was easy. when stains and odors pile up, it's got to be tide. students... students of any age, from anywhere. using our technology to power different ways of learning. so when minds grow, opportunities follow. ♪ (carolers) ♪ iphone 15 pro, your husband deserves it! ♪ (mom) carolers? to tell me you want a new iphone?unities follow. a better plan is verizon. (vo) for a limited time, turn any iphone in any condition into a new iphone 15 pro with titanium and ipad and apple watch se - all on us. only on verizon. my daddy's a cowboy, i'm a cowboy and i'm raising a cowgirl. and discovering that my family come from farmers

for generations. this life is in our blood. give the gift of family heritage with ancestry.

a young mother who saved her 3rd-year-old daughter during the october 7th attack only to be taken hostage herself now has her baby back in her arms. she was released wednesday 54 days after she and her husband and child were taken from her mother-in-law's kibbutz, briefly escaped from their kidnappers. jordan thrust her daughter into her husband's arms. she was recaptured ftd her family eventually made it back to safety. maya roman is back with me today. it's great to see you under happier circumstances, at least in part.

for weeks she did not even know that she had saved her 3-year-old daughter, that she had survived. what was that reunion like? >> it was amazing, of course. it started with a phone conversation when yarden got to israel, she called us on the phone. we had woken geffen up not that long before, and geffen was already ecstatic and, you know, i kept asking her do you know who we're going to meet, and she was -- didn't even want to say. she kept saying, you say it. you say it. and i said, no, who are we going to meet, and eventually she kind of, you know, peeped and said, oh, mommy, like very, very quietly, and when she heard yarden, it was just amazing, and then at the hospital, they were both so happy and you can see that amazing, amazing photo of

them. i was actually waiting at the sidelines kind of to let the nuclear family have some time together and then after a few minutes geffen came running towards me and the rest of the family yelling mommy's back. you have to come see mommy, mommy's back, and it was just after all this time, just, you know, a moment of total joy. which was just well deserved for both of them and for the rest of the family. i hope that all the families will get to have that. >> you know, and yarden's sister-in-law, though, car mel is one of the last remaining young women being held hostage. have you heard anything about her condition and whether hamas has her in custody. >> we can confirm that we know that carmel is alive. we have heard from some of the hostages released who have seen her. that is why this of course gives us a lot of hope and more drive

to continue to make sure that we get more hostages back as soon as possible. you know, we can't share a lot about what yarden told us that she experienced while she was there, we can say that she told us that the situation is dangerous and that, you know, we need to get them out as fast as possible, that she was scared for herself some of the time and so she explained to us the urgency and importance of getting everyone out and of course specifically carmel who was one of the first questions she asked was did carmel return because though initially she didn't know and again, this just shows you the terrible, terrible situation we're talking about that she did not know that geffen is okay, she did not know that she had been able to save her for at least the first three to four weeks and then she heard

a song on the radio that carmel's cousin was dedicating to both of them. through that dedication she realized her mother-in-law had been murdered and carmel had been taken. because she did not announce geffen, she deduced that she was okay. that of course helped her survive the rest of the time there. yes, she is very worried about carmel, as are we and of course about all the rest of the hostages. you see from the story how every single hostage is just representing so many people, family and friends and so many lives that are on hold right now, and we just. we really want to see everyone back. >> especially with the fighting resuming, it's got to be terribly worrying. maya roman, thank you, we met you here when you were here talking to u.s. officials in

congress, and it's, at least so far, so good and it's great to hear that carmel is alive. there's been some proof of life. now to another emotional reunion, a mother and daughter back together after being held hostage for two months. 21-year-old mia schem was among the hostages released yesterday. joining us now is former israeli ambassador to the u.s., michael lauren who knows the family well, was in touch with mia's mother. tell me about that family. >> good morning, hi, andrea. deeply emotional. i woke up to have a little message on whatsapp saying that mia's out with many, many exclamation points, and you know in my bed i broke out crying. i had met with mia's mother karen the day after her kidnapping simply one of the many israelis who went around visiting the families of the kidnappers, of the hostages. and karen was the first i met. and you know, somehow it creates a familiar relationship, it just does. and we've been in touch

intensely ever since then. she's a dual french israeli citizen, and through various connections, her mother karen was able to meet with president macron of france, with former french president as well as leaders of the french parliament, the french jewish community, to try to put pressure on iran and on qatar, and i would like to think that that pressure worked. i'll tell you why, mia falls not into any category. she is a woman, she wasn't a child, she wasn't an older woman. she does have infirmities that the family likes to keep confident. she had been shot in the arm, and she talked about having been operated on by a veterinarian in gaza. so i do not know her current physical condition right now, but i'm sure it's going to be a while recovering, but i'm just -- i'm so personally delighted, just as you heard in your previous interview. all this is intensely personal. we all know families, and yet we have to face this very harsh reality of the fighting

continuing because there's another reality, the other reality is that there are 250,000 israelis who can't go back it their homes as long as hamas is in power in gaza and threatening to launch another attack, which they openly do. so israel has to face, i think, a choice that no government to my mind has face instead history, with 137 hostages still in the hands of hamas, israel has to renew its campaign to destroy hamas. and knowing that at the end of the day, hamas will not release all the hostages, once it does, israel can flood those tunnels and destroy hamas. what a difficult, terrible dilemma. >> it is a horrible dilemma, and i'm just also wondering in this context with your heart and soul in this, how upsetting is it that there was a report not denied by the idf, the response

has been we'll deal with that when the war is over, a time and place for the investigations, but this was an explicit warning, chapter and verse literally of the attack. how can this happen to the best intelligence agency in the world? >> well, it happened to the best intelligence agency in the world in 9/11 as well, pearl harbor, it happens. that's not to excuse it in any way and i can only say having been in the military for many years and in government for many years, there's a lot of fog. there's a lot of back and forth, and who knows to whom this report was submitted ultimately, how far up the chain it got, i can only say as an official who was working on the hamas issue in government, we all assumed that hamas could be paid off in some way with qatari money and 20,000 palestinians going from gaza to israel every day creating a situation where hamas would have something to lose. that sort of militated against that theory that hamas would

launch a military strike. why would it do that? it was getting paid off so well, and all these gazans were making such good israeli salaries, why would it do that? there are all these other considerations that go into estimating whether a report like that is true. be but as much as i'm disturb ed by the fact this report was not taken seriously, why was it leaked right now. someone made a point of giving to the "new york times" what is clearly a highly classified document. to my mind that seems part of this fight that's going to start evolving about who's responsible, whether it was the government or the military, and you've heard how recently -- or not too long ago, benjamin netanyahu came out and said, well, i didn't know about this. the military and the intelligence assured me that everything was okay, and then he quickly apologized for it but it was sort of like revealing what was going to come down the line. we've been through this movie