now the fight for his crucial state in a narrowly divided house. plus air strikes resuming in gaza, widening to some targets in the south, where thousands of civilians were told to relocate. and with more than 130 hostages still in captivity, will negotiators strike a deal for another pause? and breaking news on the federal election interference case. another loss for donald trump. hear the judge's blistering new ruling. i'm jim acosta and this is "the source." good evening, everybody, kaitlan is off tonight. i'm jim acosta. we're going to bring you the latest in israel, resuming air strikes in gaza tonight, as its iron dome intercepted rockets tonight. first, to our other major story, the congressman who infamously lied his way into the u.s. house is now out. george santos expelled with an overwhelming number of bipartisan votes, 311-114 after committing an overwhelming amount of ethics violations, not to mention also facing 23 federal fraud and conspiracy charges. a distraction on capitol hill, no sign of the new york republican anymore. literally santos' sign has been taken down outside his office. the lock is now changed on his door. he's now a member of a dubiously elite club of six to get a house eviction, the first time since the civil war someone was ousted without a criminal conviction. an alleged conman, but not a convict, yet. his exit shrinks an already thin republican majority. a special election early next year. new york governor kathy hochul now has ten days to schedule it. disgraced politician, punch line, historical footnote. while we're at it, fraud, accused criminal, conman. the possible descriptions go on and on, almost as long as the list of lies told by george santos. but the story of a man who has compared himself from everyone to rosa parks to mary magdalene is far from over. the original "star wars" was in theaters longer than santos was in office. but the farce is strong with santos. a local newspaper called the north shore leader was sounding the alarm months before n part because even among his fellow republicans, there were questions as basic as his name. >> another congressional nominee. george santos. george, who we know is a friend, he's known as anthony to me. so, i don't know where george santos came into the thing. but that's what it says here. >> what followed was a barrage of bloviating bs, a flowchart of falsehoods, from his education, the prestigious prep school with no record of him, to the fictitious all star volleyball career at a college he never attended. >> told me, i remember specifically, i'm into sports a little bit, that he was a star on the baruch volleyball team and that they won the league championship. >> there were tall tales about being a mover and shaker on wall street with jobs at citigroup and goldman sachs. that never happened. then came the brazen attempts to cloak himself in the world's most horrific moments, lies about being descendants of the holocaust, having lost friends in the pulse night club shooting, and shifting claims to the attacks on 9/11. it's astonishing his past did not check up with him sooner. there were active investigations for check fraud in brazil, and his role in what the s.e.c. called a ponzi scheme. and then there are the accusations of funneling charity money into his own pocket, even funds meant for a disabled veteran's dog. woof. but it seemed shamelessness was his superpower. on display time and again, when he was confronted with his lies. >> i lived an honest life. i've never been accused of any bad doing. >> oh, my god, george santos stole money. george santos bought designer clothes. that's what i buy. i just discovered what onlyfans is about three weeks ago when it was brought up in a discussion in my office. >> santos launched 1,000 late night jokes but lost on jokes about appearing on "hannah montana" or producing the failed "spiderman" musical, what a tangled web we weave. there are also the people of long island. more than 700,000 people in new york's third district santos was paid to represent in congress. >> i feel that i can trust him to represent myself, my interests, or the third district. >> he lied to everybody. >> i think we deserve better. >> george santos, ugh. >> there were the messy interviews, even tantrums in the halls of congress, at one point with a baby in his arms. santos leaves the arms facing multiple federal indictments. the stack of charges include unemployment insurance fraud, lying to congress, falsifying fundraising reports, and scamming the people he was elected to serve. he managed to turn a criminal indictment into a salacious read, as prosecutors detailed a lavish lifestyle, shopping sprees, and online porn. in the end, he did accomplish one thing. he brought republicans and democrats together for one brief shining moment on capitol hill, that's right, a rare moment of bipartisan agreement that it was time for santos to go. i'm joined by former senior adviser to mitch mcconnell, scott jennings, and former senior adviser to president obama, david axelrod. pardon the wrong windup there, but it's a long saga for george santos. i think we probably left some things out there. scott, what's the significance now of george santos now being a former congressman? he can't lie about that. >> yeah, it was a righteous vote. and i'm glad they went ahead and did it. i was a little puzzled i be some of the republicans who in recent days made him a bit of a cause celeb. and it seems to me that the house leadership this morning misread their own conference. i know a few more republicans than not voted to keep santos. you can tell a lot of republicans did not want to be associated with them. they were alarmed by the ethics report. and they were standing by the republicans on the ethics committee and also the republicans in new york who were desperate to tell the leadership, hey, we've got to get rid of this guy. i was really puzzled by their votes. but i suppose, in this case, all's well that ends well. santos is out. he deserves to be out. and this was, if anything, a victory for the institution, for the institutional integrity of the ethics committee process, and hopefully cleansing the republican brand of santos' unique problems, which had been an embarrassment to the entire party. >> and david, as a democratic strategist, do you, kind of, wish he wasn't leaving? >> well, he would have been doa in any kind of re-election campaign. you know, he's facing these charges, as you've mentioned. and he's really victimized the people of his district in a way that i don't think he would ever be forgivable. i think the only term that george santos will serve in a federal building in the future will probably be in a prison, not in the u.s. congress. but, you know, i agree with scott on everything that he said, including, i was baffled as well as to why the three republican leaders voted to save santos. you know, republicans had a choice, and it was a tough choice, which was give up a precious vote in a house that is almost evenly divided and that has been hard to manage as it is, or have a guy on your team who was so radioactive that he threatened to cost them the house in the next election. you know, six of the swing district battles that they have to defend in 2024 to hang on to the house are in the state of new york, three of them on long island. and that's why those new york legislators were so vehement about getting rid of santos, which was, of course, big news in their media markets. >> the new speaker, mike johnson, did not vote ultimately to kick out george santos. the leadership was, sort of, standing by him. what was going on there do you think? >> well, i mean, look, one of it is just pure politics. as david mentioned, it's a narrow majority for the republicans, and they were thinking about, well, when this seat is vacant, we'll have an even narrow majority and there's going to be a special election and we may not win this seat back. this is one of those districts that was represented by a republican that joe biden won. so, there's no guarantee a republican is coming back. you may look at it through the lens of math and they don't want it to be harder than it already is to govern this unruly house republican majority. i happen to think this became a bit of a cause celeb for the freedom caucus guys. and you saw a lot of those guys vote to preserve santos. and i wonder if the leadership was trying to signal something to them. but at what cost? you can see in the votes totals, the so-called normmys in the house republican conference clearly did not want to be associated with santos anymore. this idea of undercutting the members of the ethics committee -- remember, ethics committee is a bipartisan deal. it's evenly split. and as soon as they finish their report, the republican chair could not wait to get to the floor to file a motion to expel this guy. to vote against him and to vote against the people you put on that committee, to do the work that they did, really cut the legs out from underneath. so, i'm glad the ethics committee ultimately prevailed here. but i'm sure that ruffled some feathers. >> a couple things i want to say about this. one is, i absolutely believe the house did the right thing today. but, you know, as with everything else we've seen, you worry about, this is a norm that has now been set aside because generally members have to wait for a conviction before they're expelled from the house. they was so flagrant in his abuses that he invited this. the ethics committee report was so outrageous in the scope of the charges against him that he had to go. but i hope it doesn't become another one of those things where this becomes weaponized and used as a, kind of, partisan weapon in the future. and that's always a fear in this political environment. and the second thing really quick is, this was a failure on the part of democrats as well. you know, part of that ethics committee report was 137-page self-researched document that his campaign produced that surfaced a lot of these scandals that took place before he ever was elected. and somehow the democrats did not make sure that that information was known. perhaps they didn't do the research. and also this was a bit of a media failure because there was a local newspaper there working on this story or some aspects of it. and it just never caught up. it just never caught on because it wasn't thought to be important enough. so, there are failures all around on this one. >> yeah. i mean, the story was just unfolding at that point. no question about it. and scott, here's what democratic senator john fetterman said on "the view" today. i thought this was interesting. let's listen to this. >> we have a colleague in the senate that actually done much more sinister and serious kinds of things, senator menendez. he needs to go. and if you are going to expel santos, how can you allow to somebody like menendez to remain in the senate? >> scott, i mean, i suppose people will give credit to senator fetterman there for going after bob menendez and calling him for removal as well. but is there something to be said for waiting until the legal process plays out? are we going to enter an era here where allegations are enough for members of congress to be expelled? >> well, in the case of santos, the report, as david said, was so egregious. i mean, what they found and uncovered was so bad that the members of the ethics committee felt like, we can't wait. i mean, this guy is really beyond the pale. so, i think if you're going to have an ethics process, you've got to let them make recommendations. that's what you do with any other committee. any other committee makes recommendations to their chamber and you tend to go with the experts on it. that's what the ethics committee is for. every time i hear john fetterman lately, i find myself agreeing with him. he's right on israel. he's right on menendez. he's right on this santos situation. he's making a lot of sense. i think as -- >> pennsylvania -- >> look what -- >> pennsylvania democrat save the state. >> yeah, but, you know, it's not going to help you in an election in pennsylvania, i can assure you, david. but i just think that what menendez is accused of, he's right. if it's true and if you had an ethics committee look at it and say, looks like he's doing things with a foreign country that jeopardizes national security, how could you wait? how could you wait? >> one thing that -- listen, i hold no brief for menendez, and these charges are egregious. but he was indicted before, and he was acquitted. so, you know, these -- this is -- it's a little bit different because, you know, santos was a serial liar. and that was proven, and there was no dispute about the trail of lies that he told. this needs to be adjudicated. menendez denies it. but, listen, i think that if they're proven, that he should go. and i don't think he should be privy to classified information when he's accused of trading on it for his only personal profit. >> yeah. i think we know where george santos is headed next, and that is his own biopic or series of some sort on a streaming service like netflix or max. i have to assume that's the next step. infamy always leads to one of those types of deals these days, it seems. david axelrod, scott jennings, thanks a lot guys, appreciate it. breaking news, a federal judge denies donald trump's motion to get his january 6th thrown out. -- he doesn't have the divine right of kings. plus an american icon is gone. we'll look back at the life and female supreme court justice, sandra day o'connor. she passed away today at the age of 93. we'll be right back. we're back now with breaking news tonight. u.s. district judge tanya chutkan handing down a decisive blow to donald trump and his team, rejecting their attempts to dismiss charges on the january 6th case in washington, d.c. joining me to talk about this, zachary coen. cac ri, what do we know? >> this is really a forceful rebuke of trump's argument that he should have absolute immunity for any crimes he may have committed while in office, and that includes what he said and did after the 2020 election. the judge in this case, judge chutkan, really making clear that she does not agree with what trump's lawyers are arguing in this case. the first passage compares trump to a divine king, says, four years as commander in chief do not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability. she goes on to say, whatever immunity a sitting president may enjoy, the united states is only one chief executive at a time, and that does position does not confer a life long get out of jail free pass. this is an issue, presidential protections, that's going to have to be sorted out by an appeals court before it can go to trial. the judge making clear she has no issues unless a federal appeals court steps in and takes a different side. we'll have to see how long the appeals court can take. it's a major blow to trump's legal strategy in this federal election subversion case. >> absolutely. and a blistering way as well. zack cohen, thank you very much. joining me to talk about this, carrie cordero, and former u.s. attorney michael moore. carrie, what do you make of this ruling and the judge, judge chutkan, i mean, really -- it's almost as though -- i feel like when i read what she has to say in a lot of these cases, it almost sounds like she is talking directly to the former president. you do not have the divine right of kings, and so on. >> she is very clear. she is clear on that point. and she is clear on the point that to the extent that the former president's team makes arguments about what kinds of cases can be brought against a president, she consistently says, but he is not president anymore. he is not the president. and so, it is a different situation when you have someone who is making these claims, trying to use the cloak of the presidency and executive authority, when that seimply isn't his position anymore. that being said, there are unique aspects of these cases that are brought against him. so, he does have unique challenges because the conduct that's alleged was while he was president. >> yeah. >> and now he is also a candidate for future office. so, that's why sometimes these first amendment claims get more attention. >> yeah. michael, i mean, a lot of this gets wrapped up in, well, i was president while this was happening, and i'm running for president. i need to be granted all these favors and special privileges because all these things happened either while i was president or running for president. >> she stung him pretty good in the order. there's no question about it. i mean, she went to great lengths to talk about whether or not a president or former president should have immunity. i do think -- it was interesting to me, there was a little bit of lack in talking about the fact that this happened while he was president. she refers to him repeatedly as the former president. she put up the quote about, well, we have only one president as a time. nobody questions that. the issue is the conduct that occurred at the time that he was the sitting president of the united states. i mean, i do think it's a blow to the trump camp. i also don't think that they were naive enough to think this was going to get settled in the first inning of the game. and that's, kind of, where we are. this will have to make its way up to an appellate court. and ultimately she recognized at the end of her order -- she recognizes these are issues of first impression, and i'm not trying to be overbroad. we're going to hear from nine folks sitting up there at the marble building at some point about what they think of the case. >> yeah. and carrie, what is your sense of it? do you think this might delay things? if it goes up through the appellate process -- and we know the trump playbook is delay, delay, delay -- could this have an effect on the start date for this trial? >> it could potentially. i mean, the judge in this case has indicated she wants to move the case along in a measured way, and she thinks it's in the interest of justice, in the public interest, to move the case along promptly, not too soon that it's unfair to the defendant, but in a way that takes in ado you waccount, the of the environment, and the fact there is an election out there. i think that could delay. i think that also is the point. so many of these claims that are made -- she knocked down claims that his team made on the impeachment, judgment claws, first amendment claims, claims of absolute immunity, due process. they threw everything in there, i think in part, to preserve any potential issue on appeal so they have lots of opportunities to write those briefs that potentially would go to the supreme court. >> michael, it sounds like this judge is determined to get this case started on time, and she wants to get these issues resolved before it gets going. >> i think that's right. i mean, she is clearly one who thinks that there's a public interest in moving the case forward. you know, i agree the public interest has a right in that. i think, though, we also ought to step back a little bit and think about the public's interest in protecting the norms and the institutions that we have. and, you know, what we don't want to do at the end of the day is get ourselves wrapped up like a pretzel just because of a dislike or a disdain of a particular former president. i'm not suggesting that she's doing that, but there's a reason to have a measured process that we don't rush a case like this. because the issues are such great magnitude that we want them decided in the right way. so, i would suggest -- >> you think she's running the risk of that? do you think the judge is running the risk of that, mike? >> well, i think what will happen is that the supreme court will get it or an appeals