defend that. "the lead" starts right now. with cameras rolling, mr. trump's lawyers appeared in georgia and began their attempt to defend their client. what they presented today before judge mcafee and what's likely to come down the pike. we're going dive into all of it. plus, the cease-fire is over. the white house is blaming hamas and israeli strikes resumed in gaza, while prime minister netanyahu is facing new criticism and tough questions about warnings his government received and dismissed as recently as last summer about a pending hamas attack. and the locks changed on george santos' office already, just hours after the historic vote, expelling him from congress. all the day's drama, the fire, the fury, the tears, the cheers, as we say not good-bye to george santos, but let us say, until we meet again. welcome to "the lead." i'm jake tapper. we start with two major developments in donald trump's legal battles. first off to fulton county, georgia, trump's lawyers arguing before the judge in the georgia election case for the very fefrt t first time, saying trump's charges should be thrown out. trump's defense is going after the current timeline for the case, which has the timeline starting next august, just three months before the november presidential election. trump is one of 19 people charged in the case regarding efforts to overturn the state's 2020 election results. of those 19, four of them have pleaded guilty. and then more breaking news in d.c. earlier today, a three-judge panel on a federal appeals court ruling that trump can, in fact, be sued in civil lawsuits related to the january 6th capitol attack, with the chief judge stating that not everything a president does is necessarily protected from legal liability. this ruling will impact several legal cases against donald trump, including cases brought by democratic congressman eric s swalwell, as long as cases by police officers. this could have major implications for the presidency in general. let's get straight to cnn's nick valencia in atlanta outside the courthouse. what did trump's lawyers argue in court today about free speech and what donald trump said about the case in georgia? >> reporter: yeah, fascinating day in court because this is the first time we're hearing their arguments in court in this case. and what they're saying is that this indictment should have never been levelled in the first place, that it's protected by first amendment, and that when donald trump lost the 2020 election and then began to peddle these conspiracy theories, that at the core of those statements were political in nature and protected by the first amendment. they argued the remedy for this should not have been a political prosecution by the district attorney's office here in fulton county. listen to what he had to argue earlier in court today. >> you take the facts as alleged in the indictment throughout the rico count, and when you do that, applied with the first amendment, you find that it violates free speech, freedom of petitioning, all the expressions the first amendment is designed to protect, and therefore the indictment needs to be dismissed. >> reporter: the state said that this is not about political prosecution, but rather that crimes that were committed and laws that were broken. the presiding judge in this case unlikely to issue a ruling from the bench. instead, he's told defense attorneys they have until december 15th to broaden out their arguments and given the state until january 2nd to do the same. we should mention all of this is happening while four of trump's former codefendants have pleaded guilty to the crimes alleged and agreed to testify against the former president at any future trials. >> and, nick, tell us about what trump's attorneys were arguing about this line for the trial with the expected start date in august. >> reporter: so that's another major headline that emerged from court today. in the recent interview with the "washington post," fani willis says she wants to start in august of 2024 and that scheduling came up in court today. trump's attorney said that's simply unrealistic. he said he expect his client to be the republican nominee for president and that the trial in august of 2024 would be in the heart of the presidential election cycle, in his words, it would be hard to imagine trump being able to go on trial while simultaneously running for president. >> nick valencia in fulton county, thank you so much. i want to turn to chief legal affairs correspondent, paula reid. trump's lawyers believe the georgia charges should be thrown out on these first amendment rights to free speech, as you just heard nick explaining. the judge has already rejected the first amendment arguments from other defendants, including kenneth chesebro. >> that's right, he's rejected this for two other defendants, both of whom were former trump lawyers. and there the judge said, look, before you can make this argument, there have to be certain -- a record of certain facts from a trial. but neither one of these defendants went to trial. they both entered plea deals to avoid having to go that far. today trump's lawyers argue that, in fact, you can decide this pretrial. for that to actually happen, they would all have to be in agreement, both sides would have to agree on the facts of the case, which means trump would have to concede that his claims of voter fraud were false. >> robert, trump's attorneys are arguing against the timeline of the trial, saying august is too close to the november election and too soon. what do you think judge mcafee is going to make of that? >> look, i don't think the judge has to consider when the election is. ultimately the judge is a fulton county judge and his job is to rule on and judge cases that happen in fulton county without respect to whether or not there's a national election. he also asked a question if president trump were elected, how would that affect the timeline. i think it would push it out to 2029 because there's serious questions about whether or not you can try a sitting president. ultimately he's going to do his job, and he's going to make sure that things are done efficiently. if that means it happens before an election f it comports with the laws of georgia and the united states, i think that's going to happen. >> lawyers or former chair david schaefer, one of the fake electors who tried to overturn his defeat in georgia, argued that they weren't fake at all, they were contingent since trump was, in fact, contesting the results. we've heard that argument before when they tried to move the case from georgia state court to federal court. the judge didn't seem to buy it then. >> yeah, i don't think the judge is going to buy it now. i think this is something that's going to go to a jury and 12 people are going to have to decide. that's a great defense when you argue to a jury, and it may confuse some people, it may persuade some people. you're asking the judge to dismiss a case based on that's your opinion, that's your perspective, that it does not violate the law. but i don't think it's clear-cut enough for the judge to dismiss the case. >> paula, big news in d.c., a federal appeals court ruling that trump can, in fact, be sued in civil lawsuits related to january 6th. the judge writing in the opinion, quote, the president does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibility, and when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity, when he acts in an unofficial private capacity, he is subject to scivil suits like any private citizen. as we know, there are suits being brought against him, for instance, by some of the police officers affected that day, as well as democratic congressman e e e eric swawell. >> we've been waiting for this for a while and it doesn't mean trump is liable for his actions, but it means the folks you just mentioned will be able to get their day in court because they have sued trump for what he did on that day. but trump had previously argued, look, i can't be sued for anything that happened on january 6th because i was president, i was acting in my official role. we know that federal officers from the president on down enjoy civil immunity for things that they do in the course of their official duties. but here the court found that his remarks on january 6th were part of a, quote, pro-trump rally, and more like campaign activity, not his official duties as the leader of the free world. now, the trump campaign has responded once again, insisting that he was acting as president, and it is likely that they'll probably try to appeal this. >> so let me ask you, robert, do you think that this will ultimately be appealed all the way up to the u.s. supreme court? >> yes, i do. i think trump's lawyers are going to appeal this as far as the higher courts will accept it. if that's the supreme court, that's what it's going to be. but they will tie this up in litigation as long as they can and fight tooth and nail on every single issue, including this one. >> yeah, and paula, what would that mean theoretically if it were upheld all the way to the u.s. supreme court? i mean, that's a tough pill to swallow, that's tough to imagine. but what would that mean for the presidency as a whole? >> not only for civil immunity is this significant, but also for the idea of criminal liability, because that's the bigger question for former president trump. in march of next year, he will go to trial related to alleged elections aversion in january 6th, and he is raising some of the same questions in a criminal context. here you have a court of appeals, and in your hypothetical, the supreme court saying not everything you do as president is an official act, not everything you do grants you immunity. so this would be incredibly damaging if it goes to the supreme court and is upheld in the criminal arena. right now just having this appellate decision, the fact that not everything he did is protected from liability, that's not great news for him in terms of how he wanted to try to use similar arguments for his criminal case. >> robert james and paula reid, thank you to both of you. coming up next, the reaction from former congressman george santos after the house of representatives voted to give him the boot. >> why would i want to? it's a hell of a place. >> hear what else he had to say. plus, i'm going to speak with the republican candidate who now wants to fill his empty seat. in our politics lead, george santos has left the building. this is actually the moment, we're showing it to you right now, that now former republican congressman from new york fled, i guess is the right word, fled the united states capitol building before the gavel even came down, signifying his fate has been sealed. he is now out of a job, again. the house ethics committee compiled evidence of serious misconduct and unanimously recommended that he should be removed, and other members of congress found it damning and conclusive, so overwhelmingly, more than two-thirds of a bipartisan group of his fellow members of congress, whose profession is often synonymous with lying, voted to expel him. cnn's lauren fox has more on how santos became the sixth lawmaker ever in the history of this wonderful country to be kicked out of that chamber. >> in light of the expulsion of the gentleman from new york, mr. santos, the whole number of the house is now 434. >> reporter: an unprecedented and historic vote, as new york republican george santos becomes just the sixth member of the house to be expelled from congress. santos leaving the capitol before the vote was officially announced, saying he has no plans to return. >> why would i want to stay here? the hell with this place. >> reporter: 105 of santos' republican colleagues joining with all but four democrats, after a bipartisan ethics committee report concluded santos sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his house candidacy for his own personal financial profit. >> basically he defrauded the voters of his district. his life was made up, it was a lie, and then he used his campaign as though it was a scam the whole time, taking money from donors and turning it into his personal use. it's not that deep, it's theft. >> reporter: the ethics panel finding that santos blatantly stole from his campaign, including for travel, botox, and even only fans. one republican congressman alleging friday he was personally impacted. >> mr. santos took not only my credit card personally, he took my mother's credit card. this man has cost my family $30,000. >> reporter: the vote comes even after gop leaders raised concerns about expelling a member before they were convicted of a crime. speaker mike johnson took the rare step of voting against the resolution. >> i personally have real reservations about doing this. i'm concerned about a precedent that may be set. >> majority leader steve scalise and whip tom emmer voting no. santos has pleaded not guilty to 23 federal charges. >> it's wrong what he was accused of doing. but he was accused. if this institution is going to ignore the rule of law because of political preferences and decisions, it is going to be damning not just for the house, but damning for the united states. >> reporter: three members were previously removed from the house for fighting for the confederacy. two others expelled after being law enfo convicted of crimes in court. most recently in ohio in 2002. the ouster could have a major impact on the gop's already narrow majority. and over the next three months, we expect that the seat will be filled with a special election. the governor of new york, kathy hochul, will set the date within the next three months. obviously it is going to be a tight race, given the fact that this is a district that biden won in 2020, jake. >> lauren fox, thanks so much. let's bring in kellan curry, a new york republican already vying for george santos' old seat. thank you for joining us. the democrats are going to do everything in their power to flip the seat blue. why jump into this chaos? >> oh, absolutely. jake, thank you so much for having me. i'm encouraged by all the people that have been standing with us in this campaign. we desperately need better leadership in this country. the better leadership we can provide. right now we're not getting that from mr. santos. it's a great day he's gone and our district can get back to work and i look forward to being a part of that solution. we've been at this for nine months and we've gotten endorsements from congress, and have raised money and we're fired up and ready to go. >> does it concern you if you get elected, your leadership, house speaker mike johnson, other leaders voted to not expel george santos? >> no, look, again, i think this is a great day for our country. it's a great day for our district's residents. we can get back to serving the people and get back to actually delivering services for voters, delivering real results for long islanders. this is a great day. santos is in the past. he's become a media narrative. people aren't interested in talking about mr. santos. they want to talk about the future, real leadership and that's what we're providing. >> your bosses, your leadership in the house of representatives, should you win in november, are going to be people who voted to keep santos in congress. >> at the end of the day, the conference will be best served by members who are not going to be distractions. i'm going to be a part of the solution. i'm going to deliver on solving our border crisis, deliver on red reducing inflation in this country, deliver on repealing the cap that was placed on state and local taxes so we can deliver real results and tax relief for long islanders. that's what's important right now and going forward. >> you've gotten endorsements, former hhs secretary tom price. do you have any plans to meet with the house speaker to get speaker johnson's endorsement? >> we're building a big tent. we want every member to support us, obviously we've gotten some initial support, and we're going to build on that. we've gotten a number of former members as well. and so it's been encouraging to have the support of future colleagues, the most important thing in this campaign is to nominate the right person for this seat. i believe i'm that person. we've been running a vigorous campaign for quite some time and we're ready to make sure that we can bring this home for republicans in 2024. >> so you wanted george santos out because obviously he's been accused of crimes, lying and ethics violations. so has the republican presidential front-runner, former president donald trump, frankly accused of much worse and he's been indicted across multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions. what do you think about him running for president? do you think he's fit for office? >> at the end of the day, the voters are going to decide that. my focus is on this district. for the past 11 months now we've been out, we've been without the right representation, effective representation. we've had the most ineffective member of congress. so our attention right now is on this race right now to make sure that we get it right in 2024 and we have the opportunity to do that here in about three months. >> i get that. >> the american people are going to take care of the presidential race. >> but you can't not give me an opinion on the most popular republican in the republican party right now, the leading republican presidential candidate. if you don't think george santos is fit to be in congress, you must have an opinion about whether donald trump is fit to be in the white house. >> at the end of the day, the american people are going to decide that. >> i'm asking you what you think. >> jake, we are in a vigorous debate right now. there's not just donald trump, there's nikki haley, there's ron desantis. they're kduking it out. we'll see how it shakes out. >> who do you like? you must have a preference. you've got a lot of good candidates in the race. who do you like? >> absolutely. i'm going to support the republican nominee at the end of the day. >> it's not the end of the day. it's only 4:23. who do you like? >> at the end of the day, jake, i'm going with the republican nominee. >> it's not the end of the day. it's 4:23. who do you like? nikki haley, ron desantis, vivek ramaswamy, donald trump, chris christie, who is just from across the river? you must like one of these guys. >> here is what i like, jake. i like the process. i like the fact that we're having a vigorous debate right now about who is going to be the standard bearer. and i look forward to seeing that debate play itself out. we're going to have debates, iowa is coming up, new hampshire is coming up. we'll see. i don't think we should get ahead of the process. i think we should allow it to play out. i think we should allow voters to weigh in. folks don't like to be told what to do or what to think. we'll see where it goes from here. >> with all due respect, you had a lot to say about george santos, he's now gone, and george santos, who had certainly a lot of embarrassing things that he did, said and has been accused of and is charged with, is a piker compared to donald trump. and yet you don't have anything to say about him. >> jake, i know what you're trying to do. >> i'm not trying to do anything. >> the fact is, donald trump deserves his day in court, he deserves due process, he deserves everything that's afforded to every single american. i don't think we should get ahead of that process, either. we'll see where it goes. there's no need to rush to a judgment right now about donald trump. the fact is, he's going through court proceedings, he's going through a campaign and we'll see what the american people decide. >> what about the civil court that already found him guilty