reports. we begin with breaking news, in the last 24 hours, donald trump suffering two major legal blows when it comes to his actions on and around january 6th. three judges, on a federal appeals court unanimously dismissed trump's claims that he has immunity from several claims connected to the capitol riot. the judge overseeing the justice department's criminal case ruled trump has no protection from prosecution as a former president. let's go right now to nbc's dasha burns joining us from cedar rapids, iowa. where donald trump is expected to speak in this next hour. welcome to you, dasha. how is trump's legal team reacting to these back-to-back losses? >> well, trump spokesperson is reacting to both of these lawsuits, saying in a statement, in a response to the federal appeals court ruling, this is a limited narrow and procedural ruling, the facts fully show that on january 6th, president trump was acting on behalf of the american people. carrying out duties as president of the united states. now, in response to judge chutkan's ruling in the d.c. case, the rhetoric amped up a little bit more. he said that the,uo, radical democrats and president joe biden are trying to, quote, set a dangerous presidents that would cripple future presidential administrations and our country as a whole, in their desperate effort to interfere in the 2024 presidential election action. there you have it. let's not forget, that he is at the same time as these cases are making their way through the courts, also running in the 2024 presidential election, trying to get through this primary, and then on to the general. look, these two rulings are troublesome for the former president. the federal appeals court ruling allows a number of pending cases that we're waiting for what the three judge panel were going to do, that we're waiting to proceed. now, they can move forward, because of what happened here. the ruling from judge chutkan rejects one of trump's best and only claims to try to dismiss this d.c. case. now it is absolutely moving forward. one line from her ruling that really stood out to me, alex, she said that just because, essentially, you are the former president of the united states, that does not confer a, quote, a lifelong get out of jail free pass that case is set to begin in march, that is a case that is most likely to really play out all through the election cycle here. and getting in just before, potentially, super tuesday, set to begin march 4th, alex? >> hey, dasha, i'm curious, since you're there and donald trump was to speak there shortly, have you gotten a chance to talk to anybody there in the crowd, getting reaction? the fact is, these people are out, it's cold, i see how you're dressed, it's the middle of iowa. these people are coming out in droves to see him, do they sympathize with the president? or does anybody see him as a is deserving, i guess these kinds of rulings, and really questioning the way these things, i mean, or maybe really are in droves? they're how crowded is it? >> it's crowded, there's a very long line, i don't know if steve our camera man here can show you. there is a very long line, the event is not set to start for a few hours here. it's not set to start until 3:00 central time, 4:00 eastern. already, people are waiting in line to get in. look, this is a trump event. the people who are here are major fans of former president trump. and i'll tell you, whenever rulings like this that go against the former president come out, his fans come in. they come in, they rally around him. the thing is, there are people here in iowa, especially in iowans, they want to kick the tires of all the candidates. you've got this, 30, 35% of republican primary voters that are basically in the loophole that are gonna be at a sidearm at or what. you've got another 60, 70% that are not certain, or never trumpers. they are absolutely concerned about rulings like this, and about the distraction, most of all, that it poses to the country into the real issues that hit home for them, alex? >> okay, dasha burns, many thanks from cedar rapids. appreciate that. in just a few minutes from now, january six lead investigator tim hey fee is gonna really weigh in on all of trump's legal development. as well as the allegations the new ones made in liz cheney's new book. in the meantime, new today, expelled congressman george santos vowing revenge against at least four congressional colleagues. saying that he plans to file an ethics complaint against them. this, after being tossed from the house in a bipartisan vote on friday. the house ethics committee had found overwhelming evidence of unlawful conduct, he is also facing 23 felony charges, santos maintains his innocence. after the vote, locks on his office were changed, he was marched out of the capitol with a few words, as constituents in his new york district took in all the news. >> congressman, what do you state your constituents? >> excuse me. you guys gotta get out of my way. >> i'm delighted they finally got their act together to get rid of this guy. >> he's a bum. a liar, a bum, a fraud. i mean, he shouldn't be in government. would you hire him? >> he wasn't convicted of a crime, he hasn't done anything worse than any other politician. so, why him? >> joining me now, emily no. new york political reporter from politico. let me first begin with the threat that santos has made to file an ethics complaint against four of his congressional colleagues. he would be doing so as a private citizen. thus far, he has targeted three republican members of congress from new york, and democrat rob menendez of new jersey. is this just a revenge play? does this have any teeth to it? >> maybe not. but he's demonstrated in his 11 months in office that he will speak up. and that he wouldn't go quietly if and when, if they finally have ousted him. i'll point to mike lawler, and nick -- his particular his colleagues around new york state who were vulnerable, who are up for reelection. but have competitive sites in 2024. they have been very vocal in attacking him. in maintaining that he has no place in congress for his alleged fraud. for his apparent lies. he wants to strike back. he's out of office, now something that he told me, told other reporters, that he knew the votes were there for. he doesn't want to go quietly. he loves the public eye. he loves the spotlight. he's out for revenge. yes. >> so, up to the very last minute, as you know, it wasn't quite clear if this vote was going to pass. ultimately, the top four republicans in leadership, they did vote against the measure. what drove the other republicans to push him out, even though it now narrows their hold in the house. >> you're right. it was a bit of a surprise to see so many republicans dismissed the signal from leadership, from steve scalise, from mike johnson, from stefanik, who said they'd vote against the expulsion measure. but i really found that george santos had wronged a lot of his colleagues on the republican, including max miller. of course, he had enemies, opponents, like i said, -- as well as anthony d'esposito. republicans on long island who really iced him out, from the outset, from the time that george santos took office, in january, said they didn't want him there, didn't want to work with him. and i feel that the rank and follow colleagues on the one to able to convince other republicans to come to their side to vote for expulsion, to make sure that george santos wasn't there for next year to, at the very least, serve as a distraction. there is, of course, the concern about the republican party holding the majority in that chamber. there's the short term vision in -- having santos as a reliable republican vote. in the long term, about some of these more vulnerable republicans maintaining their seats. >> so, we have ten days to decide a date for this upcoming election, a special election. how is that going to work out timing wise? how long after the announcement will that date be held? and are there any front runners, by the, way to replace him? >> so, we do expect a special election, which will be very, very heavily covered, which will be very, very expensive, tons of outside money pouring in. it will take place on a tuesday in february, like you said, governor kathy hochul from yesterday, from that vacated seat, has ten days to set a date for the special election, and then it comes 70 to 80 days later. yes, there are front runners, jay jacobs, who is the chair of the new york state democratic party tells me, he and gregory -- the congressman who's in charge of the queens democratic party, will announce the decision on a nominee for that party on tuesday. we expect that to be former congressman tom suozzi. other contenders as well. state senator anna kaplan. among them. we do see that a lot of the other democrats have consolidated behind suozzi. republicans have a much wider view of the play, a lot of top contenders there. >> is this expected to revert to a blue seat? >> that is not necessarily the expectation, it's very much up to the process. a very much a biden district. the trends thus far in the last two local elections have been the republicans have the momentum, that they have taken local seats. and the republicans are really out to hold that seat. they have a number of contenders that would pose a threat to democrats, including a woman named -- a very compelling back story. >> okay, emily ngo, we'll be talking with you to the next couple of months. thank you much. let's go now to the breaking news in the israel-hamas war, right now, israel is bombing targets in southern gaza. also, ordering residents to evacuate after that cease-fire fell apart on friday. israel says it has struck more than 400 hamas targets in the last 24 hours. and according to the health ministry in hamas-run gaza, at least 200 palestinians have been killed since the fighting resumed. this comes as israeli military analysts reportedly warned officials of a hamas war plan over a year ago, but they were dismissed by their superiors. joining me now from tel aviv israel, nbc's david maria. david, welcome. let's talk first about the resumption infighting, and the state of any potential negotiations to get hostages released again. >> alex, hi. israel's military campaign in the gaza strip has resumed. it has resumed intensely. as you said israel says it has targeted at least 400 targets, it's important that these are across the length and width of the gaza strip, including many in southern gaza. before the cease-fire, much of the campaign was focused on the north, now it appears a lot of his focus on the south. that's significant, a large number of civilians were displaced from the north of gaza into the south of gaza. the hamas-run health ministry says that of the 200 growing number, but of the show for 200 or so casualties, deaths since the resumption of hostilities, most of them are women and children. the idf says it is not targeting civilians, it is targeting hamas targets. it says that it is asking civilians who evacuated different specific areas of the south, what we're hearing from people on the ground in gaza. many of them have been made to evacuate once, twice, even perhaps more times than they feel there is nowhere safe for them to go. as far as the negotiations, at this moment, they seem to be broken down. it will seem to have a team mostly from the mossad, in doha, on qatar, to resume those negotiations today. a few hours later, this happened just in the past few hours here local time, that team was withdrawn and brought back to israel. as of now, there are no direct ongoing to go she asians. that doesn't mean that the diplomatic efforts to resume them, specifically on the part of the united states, according to the white house, there are at least eight americans still captive inside the gaza strip. u.s. authorities say they're doing everything possible to resume negotiations for a new cease-fire. secretary of state, tony blinken, was asked about this. here's what he had to say. >> the hostages, as i, said we are intensely focused on that. we're determined to do everything we can to get everyone home. to get them reunited with their families. including pursuing the process that worked for seven days. we had seven days of a pause. seven days of people coming home, reunited with their families. so, we're on that almost hour by hour. >> alex, even if there is a renewal in negotiations, and possibly even a cease-fire, the messaging that we're getting from israeli authorities, is that their intention is to continue this military campaign. idf spokesperson said just today, they consider that this will be a long war, in his words, they wore that is not bound by time. alex? >> i'll tell you, he has been our secretary of state, ceaselessly working on this, including a lot more work to do. david noriega, many thanks. one description of donald trump that came up around january 6th. and it's in liz cheney's new book, and we'll leave you shaking your head. the league 16 investigator joins me next, we're back in 60 seconds. 6 seconds. for your goals okay, great. j.p. morgan wealth management. (christina) with verizon business unlimited, i get 5g, truly unlimited data, and unlimited hotspot data. okay, great. so, no matter what, i'm running this kitchen. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon. honey... honey... nyquil severe honey. powerful cold and flu relief with a dreamy honey taste. nyquil honey, the nighttime, sniffing, sneezing, couging, aching, fever, honey-licious, best sleep with a cold, medicine. the chase ink business premier card is made for sam who makes, everyday products, designed smarter. genius! like 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more, so sam can make smart ideas, a brilliant reality! chase for business. make more of what's yours. a new book, o oath and honor, takes readers behind the scenes a critical moment before the january 6th attack on the capitol. author and former republican congresswoman, liz cheney, quote kevin mccarthy, saying donald trump knew he lost two days after the 2020 election. jim jordan, later telling her, the only thing that matters is winning. mike johnson telling her, we just need to do this one last thing for trump, and the other gop congresswoman, referring to trump as, quote, orange jesus. joining me now, timothy heaphy, for us attorney, and former lead in investigator on the 16 committee. always glad to have, here as i shake my head, reading these quotes from her book, is liz cheney revealing anything you didn't know that might have been useful to the january 6th committee? and what did the committee know, overall, about the roles that members of congress played? >> sure, miss cheney's book has some anecdotes that reinforce our core story, alex. we knew that members of congress were actively facilitating the big lie. and were part of a multi part plan to disrupt the joint session. we unfortunately didn't get a lot of this direct evidence, like liz cheney is recounting in her book. we subpoenaed jim jordan, we subpoenaed kevin mccarthy, and they refused to cooperate. it's very difficult for congressional committee to investigate congress. the enforceability of those subpoenas was a legal issue that was unsettled. and we didn't have a lot of confidence when we issued them that they would lead to real cooperation. so, i would say we developed a lot of circumstantial evidence of the role of members of congress at the very active role of certain members of congress, but we weren't successful in breaking into that black box, and getting direct evidence that miss cheney, who of course, was a member of the republican caucus at the time, was able to share in her book. >> i have to tell you, i'm still rather stunned that not complying with a subpoena, that, legally, is still something that unsettled. i find that stunning. let's move on to win cheney says kevin mccarthy told her that trump knew he lost. can quotes like this be helpful in trump's 16 trial? prosecutor see her as a potential witness? >> well, the prosecutor would certainly like to get information from anyone who had direct communication with the president. so, miss cheney's account of this comes from kevin mccarthy, who had a conversation with the president. that's hearsay. therefore, probably not something admissible in a criminal case. there's a lot of smoke here. we billowed that smoke, but the direct evidence, the fire, is the direct evidence of what the president said, that's the most direct manifestation of his intent. so, people like kevin mccarthy, people that had those direct communications with the president, mike pence for example, they will be very important witnesses. because that's not hearsay. that would be an admission, or a statement by a party opponent that's not hearsay. there are a lot of evidentiary matters that jack smith in judge chutkan will have to sort out. but it all points to further evidence, alex, that the president knew, was informed repeatedly, understood that he lost the election. >> so, yesterday, as you know, donald trump lost to presidential immunity arguments in court, a federal appeals court in d.c. unanimously reject his argument ruling he can be sued in january 6th civil lawsuits. and in his 16 criminal case in d.c., judge tanya chutkan wrote, the presidency does not confer a lifelong get out of jail free pass. tim, how do you see these rulings impacting his 16 trials? >> look, the only thing that potentially impacts them is the timing. this is, we think, an immediately appealable order. jurisdictional question like can a person be subject to criminal charge? it's something that's a threshold issue that the appellate court would have to decide prior to trial. the reasoning, however, is very, very straightforward. just because your president of the united states, does not make everything you do, well president, subject to immunity. only things that you do in your official capacity, things that forward an official function, or potentially covered by that immunity. here, everything he did to disrupt the transfer of power, to interfere with a joint session, the government's position as judge chutkan found outside of a official capacity, it's as if you were to rob a bank as president, that's not anything that facilitates your official role as president. you are potentially criminally responsible for that. this is a very similar incident. things outside of the scope of his official capacity. >> yeah, the extent of a campaign, plenty of presidents don't run again for the presidency. the is that. let me ask about judge chutkan, who has you know, also dismissed his argument that the d.c. indictment violates his first amdmt rights. earlier in the week, she denied his attempt to subpoena, quote, missing records from the january 6th committee. and the judge likened his request to something like a fishing expedition. to your knowledge, tim, what happened to all the committees records? what do you think trump is looking for? >> yeah, there is no missing records. there is nothing here that has been hidden from the public. the committee meticulously documented, categorized, and disclosed our official records. they went to the archives, in the remainer went to the custodian committee, which is the homeland security committee. what he's referring to our videotapes of the transcripts, the written transcripts, which will provide. the videotapes are not the official record. the transcript is the official record. well the tapes i do not believe are classified by the house lawyers as official records, the substance of what the witnesses said in the transcripts were certainly records. not only been archived, but it made public. this notion that there is this treasure trove of information that was hidden is just ridiculous. >> another new filing in the d.c. criminal case suggests that