we appreciate your time. we appreciate your time. "ac 360" starts now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com tonight on "360," the truce ends in gaza, but the questions about who knew what and when about what hamas was planning for october 7th are just beginning. also tonight, two court rulings, both saying the former president is not immune for actions he took as president leading up to january 6th. plus a finality for the fabulous george santos, kicked out of the house. and that is not a lie. thanks for joining us. we begin with israel and hamas after a 7-day pause in fighting. in according to hamas' interior ministry, also targeting sites in the southern cities. the idf dropped leaflets into the area today calling khan younis, quote, a fighting zone. as for the hostages, sources are telling us that both israeli and american officials believe hamas continues to hold a number of women taken from the nova music festival on october 7th. putting the number of women and children still captive at 17 out of 136 hostages in all. talks to free them continue in qatar. all this against the backdrop of last night's detailed and damning report that israeli leaders dismissed warnings of hamas' attack plans for more than a year leading up to the 7th. in a moment, former israeli prime minister barack's take on that and renewed fighting. also what cnn's john miller is learning from his sources in the intelligence community. first the latest from cnn's matthew chance. >> reporter: this is what israel vowed would happen if hamas stopped releasing its hostages. after a 7-day pause and more than 100 freed, gaza is being pounded again. israeli officials say military pressure will force hamas to release more. having chosen to hold onto our women, hamas will now take the mother of all thumpings. israel says it was hamas that broke the truce, firing rockets out of gaza, striking israeli tanks. but it's inside the gaza strip where the intensity of this war has resumed. hospitals, already overwhelmed, now facing a new flood of casualties. >> we cannot see more children with the wounds of war, with burns, with the shrapnel littering their body, with the broken bones. inaction by those with influence is allowing the killing of children. this is a war on children. >> reporter: amid u.s. calls to protect civilians, israel has distributed leaflets in gaza with links to this online map, dividing the entire interritory into a group. israel says it's warning palestinians which blocks to avoid. [ speaking in a non-english language ] "i'm asking you to look at this map carefully," this israeli spokesman says in arabic, "and move from your residence as instructed." but with unreliable internet access, it's unclear how many gazans will get the message. it's also unclear now when there will be more hostages released. mediators say talks are ongoing, despite the fighting. but until there's a new pause, relief for so many families may have to wait. anderson, behind the scenes, negotiations are continuing to try and agree a new pause in the fighting and of course to get more hostages released. but tonight, for the first time in more than a week, gaza is once again being shaken by israeli bombs. >> matthew chance, thank you. let's go to cnn's jeremy diamond with a view of the fighting from orb ka lon here israel's border with northern gaza. what have you been seeing this evening? >> reporter: well, anderson, it's been relatively quiet over the last hour. but earlier this evening, we saw heavy military activity inside the gaza strip, flares, explosions happening inside of gaza. but also the most significant barrage of rockets being fired from gaza into israel that i have seen in weeks. we saw dozens of rockets being fired from northern gaza into israel, including towards our position in sderot, israel. we heard very loud explosions as the iron dome system intercepted those rockets right above our position. what's most significant about this is we could see the rockets coming up from gaza in the northeastern-most city of beit hanoun, which is a city where the israeli military has been operating on the ground for weeks now. and despite the fact that the israeli military has said that they are in control of northern gaza, this just goes to show that hamas still has the ability to operate there, still has the ability to fire rockets from there towards israeli towns and cities. it also comes, of course, after a week during which hamas, according to military analysts, may have had the opportunity to regroup and to reassess, effectively, move its operations around, during that time period. that was a concern that military analysts had of that fragile truce that we saw over the week. but the israeli military is not only once again carrying out its bombing campaign in gaza but also moving its ground operations further south into southern gaza. that is what israel's military and political leadership has been telegraphing for weeks now, and we have watched as if that plan has started to move into action today. of course, the result of that, the result of the bombing campaign in particular in southern gaza today, resulting in the deaths of 178 people, according to the hamas controlled palestinian ministry of health in gaza. and of course, once again, we are seeing devastating images of people wounded and injured, including women and children. anderson? >> jeremy diamond, thanks very much. we want to get perspective from the former prime minister of israel. i spoke to him just before air time. >> mr. prime minister, what's your response to the report from "the new york times" that israeli intelligence obtained a blueprint for the hamas attack more than a year before october 7th? >> it's basically probably the investigation committee will find more. >> do you believe that a report like that would have gone all the way to the top, to the prime minister? >> no, i don't think that netanyahu could be held responsible to the fact there was no tactical kind of early warning or so. that's a huge fail of our intelligence. >> there are high levels members of the military, intelligence services, who have accepted responsibility for their part in the failures of october 7th. the prime minister has not. do you think that's something he should do at this stage? >> look, i thought in any normal country, he would resign on the 8th of october in the morning or the evening. and in the uk, if he would not have resigned, his members of cabinet would have called upon him and convinced him, so to speak, to resign. but israel is not a normal place in this regard. so, he tried to survive, in spite of all the, kind of, evidence. he basically -- policy that hamas is -- liability for five years and was ready to bribe them with protection, qatari protection money, in case that amounts to 1.5 billion over the five years. and half of it went to equip and prepare this attack. so, anyhow, it's a major, major -- >> what you're saying, what some viewers may not understand. i just want to clarify. you're pointing out that you're saying netanyahu was essentially propping up hamas and undercutting the palestinian authority in the west bank. the idea of that was that because hamas would be unacceptable on the world stage that there wouldn't be a two-state solution because the palestinian authority was viewed as so weak and corrupt and hamas was the only major player. so, nobody would accept that, and that was a huge miscalculation. >> yeah. basically netanyahu said in his own words that whoever support blocking the path toward two-state solution should support his attitude of paying the hamas 3 million cash. >> there are a lot of people now, hundreds of thousands of people, in the south. is it possible to wage war against hamas on the ground in the south with all those people around? >> i think that we will see certain differences in styles because of the different nature of the problem in the south after all the cities from the north were moved to the south. it's too dense in population to run the same kind of -- we had in the north. but there will be a lot of pointed attacks against targets in khan younis, any other place where we feel -- hamas forces governing capability. but when we look at the overall picture, we should bear in mind the following. when the armed forces got the directive to destroy hamas, they said clearly to the political -- that it will need many months or more. and somehow everyone knows from our experience that usually you don't have it. it legitimately evolves within several weeks or a few months. so, this contradiction had to be closed. that's the responsibility of the government, of the parties, to make sure that the two clocks are synchronized. for reasons unexplained -- but not very complementary to our government. >> former israeli prime minister ahud barack, thank you. i want to talk more about what the prime minister was talking about there. john miller is here. people have used the term, failure of imagination. you don't think it's a failure of imagination or of intelligence. >> i don't think. i think a failure of imagination -- which is a term coined by the 9/11 commission, using terrorist airplanes. al quaeda failed to mention it. you can't say it's a fall your of imagination. from the times they say the israelis had the 40-page plans book. you don't need to imagine. it was all laid out. >> very detailed exactly how the attack took place. you're saying it's a failure of leadership. >> that's right. a failure of intelligence means your intelligence collection fails. you didn't find out about it. they did. or your intelligence analysis fails. >> the analysts were right on target. >> the analysts were pushing this, saying, we've got to consider this real. and the leadership -- and that's where the failure is. the failure is military and intelligence leadership. the burning question that has not been approached yet either in that article or with anybody coming forward saying, here's the answer, is, when they had that intelligence and that analysis, how far up the chain did it make it? >> did netanyahu -- who saw it? >> exactly. this is the kind of level of intelligence, based on my experience in the office of the director of national intelligence at the fbi, where we briefed in the white house regularly, that would have ended up on the president's desk. >> you would think a shocking report that says hamas has these capabilities that israel doesn't even realize they have and they're imagining and planning this massive attack, you would think that would go to prime minister netanyahu. >> you would think that. and you would think if it didn't right away because they considered it -- because of confirmation bias. it's not how we're thinking, so we're thinking it's possible but not likely -- that when reservists on the fenceline were reporting suspicious activity, men showing up with maps, bulldozers being pulled in. >> doing a trial run where they were executing hostages. >> where they saw the actual training happening in camps and saw communications with the results of that, that one thing would be added to another which would be added to another, which should make, as they said before 9/11, all the lights flashing red. we didn't see that here. we saw the opposite. so, there's going to be a reckoning. and it's not just between the public officials and the politicians. anderson, you know this because you've been talking to them nightly for weeks. when the families of those taken hostage, when the families of those killed, when the families of those left for dead and raped, when those families form that family's group, the organized group, and they demand answers, this is going to be something that the government is going to, you know, probably not survive. >> the -- i mean, the -- what sort of capability -- it's impressive that they were able to get this report. i mean, the fact that, you know, they had a detailed report by hamas a year ago shows they do have -- i mean because that was a big question. how could this have possibly happened and they didn't know about it? the intelligence people did know about it. it just didn't -- >> right. and i mean, you've got the report. so, that's a paper document you can look through. but you've got the signals, intelligence, where they're picking up reports on the training. you've got the witness reports from the reservists seeing activity on the fence line. that's way too much to write off in the spirit of confirmation bias which is, it just doesn't fit with our political assessment. >> it's also incredible you think they had, like, in one military location on the border six people on duty that day given they knew this plan was at least out there. john miller, thank you. >> thanks. next, two court rulings on the former president's claim that he cannot be held legally accountable for trying to overturn the 2020 election because he was acting in his official capacity. and later somewhere george washington is smiling, mythical cherry tree and all, after the george who could not tell the truth, george santos, is expelled from congress. more now on our breaking news that the federal judge overseeing the former president's indictment on election interference has denied his attempt to dismiss charges based on presidential immunity. the judge tanya chutkan writes, quote, defendant's four-year service as commander in chief did not bestow upon him king. another setback for the former president in a federal court in washington. a three judge appeals court decided he can be sued in civil court related to his actions during the january 6th riot at the capitol. the decision was unanimous, sought to distinguish between campaign speech and -- for the president. it's a victory for the -- others who may now seek civil damages as well. perspective from maggie haberman, political correspondent for "the new york times," also the author of "confidence man: the making of donald trump and the breaking of america." also carolyn polinksky, lecturer at columbia law school. how big, maggie, of a blow to the former president is this? >> look, it was always a long shot that this was going to go through or that chutkan was going to rule on his side. she's made very clear in previous rulings how she views some of the claims his lawyers have been making. it starts the clock on an appeal that they are going to go through the courts, possibly go up to the supreme court. no one knows how the supreme court will rule, if they will even take it up. they don't have to. they have generally not sided with trump on any of his election-related issues. they obviously have other issues. if they send this back or if they rule against him, the clock then starts on the trial. but this buys time for his team. so, this is not a surprising rule. but it is a very, very lengthy ruling, and it refers to the nixon pardon. it refers to a number of things that counter what trump's team is arguing. >> caroline, what stood out to you in these rulings? >> i think, look, earlier today when the d.c. circuit came out with the ruling with respect to the civil context, that was an easier bar to meet. presidential immunity is really a thing that has been recognized by the supreme court since nixon versus fitzgerald. trump was trying to push it further in the criminal context. not surprising that chutkan waited, i think, for, sort of, her superiors to come out with the ruling this afternoon and then immediately -- i agree with maggie. i think she wants to keep that march 4th trial date. this is the one thing that could potentially throw a wrench in those plans. if the case is somehow stayed, pending an appeal, certainly i think he certainly will appeal this ruling as well as the d.c. circuit ruling. and i think it is rife for a supreme court review. >> do you think it's likely it would be stayed? >> you know, just as maggie was saying, you never know what the supreme court is going to do. they could take it, they could not. they could stay, they could not. i think that is the question mark here with respect to -- it's looking more and more like that's going to be the only trial that will, sort of, get in under the gun before the election. >> is it clear to you, maggie, what other arguments the president might make to try to get this thrown out? >> i think this was a big one. i think getting it thrown out is going to be very, very hard. this was really it. this is the shot. it's possible someone was suggesting to me that the supreme court could take up the gag order issue that seems a little less likely than this one because it's a presidential power issue and it's a little broader. the other one is specific to trump as a defendant. i think this is it in terms of their shot of getting it thrown out entirely. next up is trying for an acquittal or trying for a hung jury. those are their best hope. this is a case that being tried in d.c., trump's allies and advisers think is unlikely to go his way, just based on the events and based on what the jury pool will be. but that's down the road. >> there was also, maggie, the pretrial hearing in the georgia election case. what stood out to you there? >> it was interesting listening to this argument that there was some suggestion it should start in 2029 or something like that, well, well, well down the road. what you've heard over and over again from the trump lawyers is there's such a volume of discovery, this is such an exotic case, and they've said this in various ones. we need time to go through everything for discovery. we need time to look at the evidence in the mar-a-lago documents case. there are clearance issues there. there actually are on the january 6th case too, although it's a little less so. it doesn't surprise me that they're talking about a delay. a delay of that much was surprising to me, and i would be mostly surprised if it works. >> and in georgia, the presidents are arguing that this violates trump's free speech rights. >> by the way, they made that argument today in the check-in motion as well, which she denied. the 2029 date, that was under the scenario in which the judge asked trump lawyers, what would happen if you were to be elected president? essentially it would stop the clock on that time to prosecute. but i have a different perspective because i'm a defense attorney. i think the august 2024 date is a bit aggressive. there are -- there's a backlog in the criminal -- in fulton county, georgia criminal court. and it cuts both ways. any criminal defendant shouldn't be above the law. i think fani willis is trying to push this case through. she wants to get it in before the election. i think it's pretty apparent. >> maggie, which of these cases do you think the former president is most concerned about? >> i think he's concerned about all of them. honestly, i think he's more concerned about the federal ones. the documents case concerns him, except for the judge in that case, which is one of his appointees, and the fact it's a more favorable jury pool based on the counties around the courthouse. the january 6th case angers him for a variety of reasons, and you can see it when he talks about the election. it relates to an event that he considered humiliating, which is having to leave the white house. so, i think all of these things tie together. he's angry about the manhattan indictment for different reasons. i mean, there's no case that makes him feel good here. they're all bad. but they are most -- they are most concerned right now about the january 6th one because they think that's the one -- >> humiliation having to leave the white house as opposed to the humiliation of having his supporters break into the congress -- >> we've heard him defend that. so, that is not something that i have heard him sound any concession of shame about publicly. to the point about fairness versus a speedy trial, though, i think th