what did israel know and when did they know it? an explosive report provides an answer to both of those questions. that's tonight on "news night." good evening, i'm abby phillip in washington, and breaking tonight, "the new york times" reports that israel had the hamas attack, plan of attack more than a year before october 7th, and they chose to simply file it away. now, the consequences here were deadly, and now there is a question about if at all the war, the deadliest day in israel's history, thousands and thousands of palestinians caught in the cross fire of all those bombs if it was all preventable. "the times" claims that israel inte intercepted a hamas blueprint nicknamed jericho wall. it, quote, called for a barrage of rockets at the outset of the attack, drones to knock out the security cameras and automated machine gun along the boarder and gunmen to pour into israel on motorcycles and on foot. the document, according to "the times" circulated among israeli military and intelligence leaders. leaders who then dismissed that plan as beyond hamas' capabilities, not just once but multiple times. the discovery of this document's existence also adds drama to a decision that is just hours away now. does israel try to push a faltering truce to an eighth day, or does mr. netanyahu try to bury these failures with more bombs? i'm now joined by cnn national security analyst beth saner and former deputy director of national intelligence. beth, this has already been pretty clear to be a devastating intelligence failure for israel, but "the times" is reporting that these attacks were planned for years, that they knew about the plans, that they had even previous iterations of these written plans. could this all have been avoided? >> well, you know, it probably never comes down to just one thing, right, or one moment. i think that it's possible, but a lot of things would have to be different because it's not just about paying attention to a report. it's actually about how doo you think about that report? so you had analysts and not just this one analyst that's mentioned here, but you had junior female soldiers on the line looking and reporting similar things weeks before. separate report thes. >> yeah, they saw hamas practicing for this exact attack. >> exactly, so those things reported up, but the mind-set issues are the things that really affected decisions, and they affected decisions that were political decisions. you know, big strategic decisions about where to focus intelligence, and then ult ultimately by seniors to say, well, we don't believe these reports because it doesn't fit with our mind-set. >> when you see a document that is this detailed that is this devastate fing if it were to co into fruition. first of all, how rare is it to come into something like that as an intelligence officer? are you surprised that would not be in any way proactively acted on? >> you can take a parallel. we did have that for the russian invasion basically, and what did cia do with it? they wrote it up, and they talked about the likelihood of it, and they had analyzed it based on that, and so, you know, i would expect -- and i haven't worked directly with israeli military analysts, which are different than the foreign ma sad, but yaou know, i would hav written a pdb on it that said in our organization, this is what this says, and then you say either you think it's right or not, and maybe you have a dissent in there where an agency says they think this is true. >> i think that is now the essential question that will face israeli leaders, perhaps when this war is over. >> definitely. >> but in the meantime, we're learning so much more. thank you so much for joining us tonight! thank you, abby. . and let's get reaction to this reporting from someone who is directly affected by all of this. her husband's cousin and three of her children were held hostage by hamas for more than 50 days. they were, thankfully, released on sunday. that cousin's husband and eldest daughter were murdered by hamas in the october 7th attack. thank you so much for joining us. we just were discussing this report from "the new york times" about what appears to be a clear failure of israeli intelligence on october 7th. what's your reaction to hearing that this plan was in the hands of israeli intelligence officials? >> well, first of all, it's very important for me to say that i trust the idf. i trust its commanders. they're doing the most important and hard work there is right now, and i don't blame the idf, neither the commander, but we are very much heartbroken by what happened and in many ways i think it's very important to say that the only one to blame is the terror organization hamas with the atrocities and massacre and kidnapped our loved ones on october 7th. so it's very important to remember that, they were the one who did it. >> yeah, hamas absolutely responsible, but i wonder what do you think should happen in israel as a result of what was missed here and what could have been done differently to potentially defend israel and your relatives against an attack like this? well, unfortunately -- and i'm saying it with a very heavy heart, my government was busy weakening the judicial system and hurting our democracy throughout this year, and they were too busy on that instead of keeping our borders and keeping the civilians safe, and we are extremely sad and painful and heartbroken by this, and they will need to give us answers, and i hope prime minister netanyahu will take responsibility for his own failure. but once again, the idf soldiers are not the ones to blame, and they are doing the most amazing work right new. they are risking their lives. they're committed to their job and their mission to keep us safe, and to eliminate hamas because that is the most important job right now, and of course we feel betrayed by our prime minister, and by this government, but once again, the only ones to blame is the hamas organization, terror organization. they were the ones taking babies out of their beds, not anyone else. >> we thank you for your perspective on this and joining us on such short notice with this breaking news. we appreciate it. >> thank you. and back here in the united states, the congressman who lies over and over again is now just hours away from learning his fate. george santos is defiant again tonight as the house prepares for rare expulsion vote tomorrow over that damning ethics report that concluded that santos ripped off voters and tried to enrich himself in the process. now, that's in addition to the 23 federal charges that he is facing including allegations of fraud. but he still has some backers as both sides took to the floor of the house this week to make their cases. >> george santos is a liar. >> mr. santos used tragic events in history to try and propel himself to public office. >> i have been convicted of no crimes, mr. pspeaker. >> whatever mr. santos did with botox or only fans is far less concerning to me than the indictment against senator menendez who's holding gold bars inscribed with arabic on them from egypt while he is still getting classified briefings today. >> mr. santos has repeatedly egregiously and brazenly violated the public's trust. >> if they want me out, they're going to have to go silence those people and take the hard vote. >> the facts of george santos' fraud are not in dispute. >> dear god, mr. speaker, my future former colleague is divorced from reality. >> he's got to go. it's time to expel. >> about to go too far, just calm down and step back. >> we are in unchartered waters, unchartered waters, folks. the swamp water is very murky. it's deep, you try to find a lily pad to land on, but for george santos there doesn't appear to be a safe lily pad. >> you, sir, are a crook. >> my colleague wants to come up here, call me a crook, same colleague who's accused of being a woman beater. >> since the beginning of this congress, there's only two ways you get expelled. you get convicted of a crime or you participated in the civil war. neither apply to george santos. and so i rise not to defend george santos, whoever he is, but to defend the very precedent that my colleagues are willing to shatter. >> i want to bring in steven a. smith, host of espn's first take and of the steven a. smith show on youtube. so steven a., is it a slippery slope to expel someone before they're convicted criminally in any kind of allegation? >> well, absolutely, but in the same breath w y, when you're a pathological liar and you've proven that and lied to your constituency en route to winning an election, certain situations may call for different measures. the reality is clear, he misrepresented himself. there was an abundance of lies that he told to his constituency. for crying out loud, i think at one point in time he had lied about his mother being a part of 9/11. he had lied about that along with various other things that that they said he lied about sochl, so when you consider you got elected by completely hose ago constituency, the third district of new york, then something definitely needs to be done. it's incumbent upon his contemporaries within the house to do so. i certainly applaud what they're doing in this situation. i'm not getting into their motives and agenda because we always know there's something behind it. at the end of the day, to stand up and let the american people know that this is not something that we want to be associated with is the right message to send. >> to the point about the ulterior motives, this is politics, so they certainly have them. but there's also just the embarrassment factor of all of this. you know, all of this george santos stuff that he's alleged to have done, it's jut st the latest in a series of just bad behavior of what's happening in the united states government. i mean, how do just regular americans who are looking over at washington, how do they see all of this drama? >> with disgust, to look at grown men and women in the house of representatives, in the senate, our government, our elected officials acting like children, acting belligerent, showing an unwillingness and capability of working together, it's shameful. when we talk about george santos, how did he get elected in the first place, he was lying. he appeared to be a pathological liar. what happens, he gets into office and they don't expel him. you have certain people who were introducing expulsion, but in the same breath you had an abundance of colleagues that did not want to do that. they were concerned about that majority in the senate. my god, we've got like an eight-seat advantage. it could dwindle to seven seats. stop the presses. these are the kinds of things and attitudes they walked around when. y when you hear the accusations levied against him, $60,000 of campaign dollars being used at luxury apparel shops to sephora to only fans for crying out loud. >> to botox. >> true. let's not forget the botox, i mean, the man definitely went to botox and all of this other stuff. in all seriousness whrksen you k at it, in this country you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. but in the same breath when you're an elected official, once upon a time we were taught they were supposed to be held to a higher standard. their standards have dissipated and dissipated dramatically throughout the years. and as i said to you the last time i was on this show with you, i know 22, 25, 35-year-old athletes that aren't elected officials, that aren't government officials that don't have a constituency out there that voted them into office to legislate policy and things of that nature that are held to a higher standard than grown men and women who are elected officials on capitol hill. when it has got than bad and when we are living in a time where we have a presidential candidate that has four indictments and 91 counts against him, and you have people saying that even if he were to be convicted and thrown in jail, we'd still vote for him. that is the state of affairs in america. it is sad. it is pathetic. it is wrong, but it is what it is. >> and look, on this same theme basically, there's elon musk, the owner of x, which is, you know, we know is twitter. he is facing all of this backlash for his recent anti-semitic tweet and the amplification of this anti-semitic narrative on his platform. advertisers have said, no, we're leaving. but now he is saying to them what he feels about that. listen. >> if somebody's going to try to blackmail me with advertising, blackmail me with money, go [ bleep ] yourself. but -- go [ bleep ] yourself. is that clear? i hope it is. >> i mean, look, he's getting praise among conservatives for that. what do you think? is it admirable? is it self-sabotage? what is going on here? >> it's neither. it's certainly not admirable, let's make sure we're clear about that. there's nothing admirable about him conducting himself the way that he did yesterday. i believe that's when that took place. but in the same breath, you know what, it's not something that's going to have a detrimental effect on him at the end of the day because he has an abundance of people out there who are supportive of him, and supportive of that kind of behavior, and this is what i think that we have to accept -- >> but shouldn't it have a detrimental effect because -- >> of course it should. >> if you are a ceo of a company, if you were a woman and you said that kind of thing. >> let's not confuse what i'm saying. i'm not saying that it shouldn't be. i'm saying that's the way that it is. unfortunately, you have people that can get away with it. again, what have we been lamenting for years? we have been seen not just an ex-president. we've seen an abundance of politician ofs on capitol hill acting as belligerent as you can be, unprofessional and in the working world they would have lost their jobs, but you know what? on capitol hill, if you coax your constituency into supporting you no matter how belligerent or immature or out-of-pocket you are, then you remain in office and you have a vote and that makes you a very significant individual, whether it's 435 in the house or one of 100 in the senate. that's the way that it goes. for me, i look at somebody like you and others, and i got to tell you something, me talking politics from time to time and stuff like, that i actually find myself feeling sorry for y'all. how you all can be subjected to this stuff on a day-to-day basis listening to these folks act like a bunch of damn hooligans for crime out loud, okay? and i know there is no way that that would be tolerated from young athletes who have no impact on anybody. you can turn up the tv, you don't have to pate nice the product and the brand and go to games and support them and all this other stuff. and the litany of criticism and the vitriol that is aimed in their direction for the slightest thing, but these folks on capitol hill seem to get away with everything. that's the time that we're living in. if there's a change that needs to be taking place, it needs to be a return to a significant level of accountability that politicians want to have to face that they no longer have to face. it needs to be reversed, instead of holding kids more accountable and having no patience with them or young men and women accountable with no patience, make sure we exercise that same level of fervor towards our politicians who are supposed to represent us properly instead of embarrassing us at every damn turn. >> all right, stephen a., stand by for us. i want to ask you about donald trump touting an endorsement from a black lives matter activist. plus, dramatic moments inside the capitol today, how rand paul saved the life of joni er ernst, and we'll analyze the highlights from that ron desantis, gavin newsom debate. the black lives matter organization tonight is distancing itself from one of its activists who is endorsing donald trump. now, the former president says he is very honored to have the backing of mark fisher who claims to be an activist in the rhode island chapter, but black lives matter also says fisher is not affiliated with any current chapter. it's interesting that trump is touting anything from black lives matter since he has said this in the past. >> blm and antifa burned down cities, kill people, and nothing hps t happens to them. >> we have antifa and blm who hate our country and burn down o cities. >> many of them who are spreading violence in our cities are supporting an organization called black lives matter. the stated goal of blm organization people is to achieve the destruction of the nuclear family. >> blm, blm, many people were killed. these people -- i'm not trying to justify anything, but you have two standards of justice in this country. >> and stephen a. smith is back with me now. so stephen, it is pretty amazing that trump once knocked black lives matter and now is honored by one of the activists endor endorsements. this comes as biden seems to be in the polls losing some support among black voters. what's your take about what's going on here? >> well, first of all, take a moment to give trump a little credit. i mean here's clearly lying, we know this, but it's what he does. and so what happens is that when he said what he said, if you didn't pay attention, you really did think it was black lives matter that supported trump. if you listened to him as opposed to seeing that it was one person who was an advocate on behalf of the organization some time ago and is still that way to some degree. the reality of the situation is that you had one individual speak up on behalf of him, and you would have thought that trump was the second coming of lyndon b. johnson. i mean, trump alluded to that. he said, hey, he took that as a means to say i'm supported by black lives matter. i'm supported by the black community, oh, by the way, no president has done more for black americans than me sk, and brought up lincoln with a question mark forgetting that it was lyndon b. johnson that signed civil rights legislation and voting rights legislation into law in the '60s. it was barack obama with the affordable care act, so you could feel whatever way you wanted to feel. one could easily make the argument that there were a few others that did more for the african american community than donald trump, as a graduate of an hbcu, winston-salem state, i will give you credit for making sure to funnel some money to hbcus. he does deserve credit for that. i won't deny that. there's a lot of other things that obviously i would challenge him on and certainly that would be one of them. that assertion is wrong, it's a lie, but nevertheless, it's very, very predictable, and he knew that most people wouldn't know better. they would assume it was black lives matter instead of one individual, not necessarily associated with the national arm. >> and look, his republican opponents in the republican primary are attacking him for touting this endorsement. they've already been attacking him for the first step act, which allowed some people to have reduced sentences or leave prison for some non-violent crime. so we'll see how that all unfolds. but stephen a., of course i cannot have you on without asking you about a little bit of sports. tiger woods, he says that he'll quit when he can't win. so his return to the green today was not quite i'm sure what he wanted it to be. he struggled quite a bit. he's been through a lot, especially these last few years. is it time? >> it's been time. we don't want to say that, but it is. when you consider the health issues that tiger woods has had, there's nowhere to go. tiger woods, put him on a golf course for nine holes. he can beat anybody on the planet. go to 18 holes, he still probably could beat anybody on the planet. the issue with tiger woods has rarely been his game, his skills. the issue with tiger woods h