you in this second hour of "chris jansing reports." at this hour, more on the breaking news just in the last hour, an unexpected move from special counsel jack smith. he wants the supreme court to immediately take up whether donald trump is immune from criminal prosecution. what it means for a criminal trial starting before the election. plus, israel's prime minister says it's the beginning of the end of hamas. the escalating push into southern gaza as aid groups warn of apocalyptic scenes on the ground. six killed, dozens injured as more scenes of destruction emerge. and alex jones, the conspiracy theorist who claimed sandy hook was a hoax and made money off of it returns to x and gets a warm welcome from elon musk. our nbc news reporters are following all of the latest developments. we begin with that breaking news on that fascinating legal move by special counsel jack smith. msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin is with me. i know you've had time now to start going through the filing in more detail. what have you found? >> there's a concession in this filing from the special counsel's office that trump's appeal of judge tanya chutkan's decision last week on whether he can end the case on grounds of presidential immunity, that appeal effectively stays the trial, and the special counsel's office is now conceding that. that is why they are asking the supreme court to let the leapfrog the initial level of appeals courts in the federal system, the courts of peals. here it would be the d.c. circuit, and immediately take the case through a maneuver before judgment. in the petition, they effectively say, this is a novel question of federal law that this petition presents to you. you have no precedent on whether a former president or current president for that matter can be immune criminally, and therefore, this is not only urgent, but it is novel, and if you're looking for historical precedent as to why you should do this, you treated the watergates tape litigation exactly the same. we went from the district court directly to you, supreme court, on an expedited time frame. that case was decided in the district court in may of 1974. by july of 1974, there was a decision and trial, not of former president nixon, of course, but others went forward that fall, either on schedule or shortly thereafter the originally scheduled trial date. it will be very interesting to see how quickly the supreme court responds to this and sets a briefing schedule as to whether or not they'll grant certiorari, and on the merits determine whether or not the former president is indeed immune from prosecution. >> lisa, i'm going to put you on the spot. we got other breaking news unrelated to donald trump. this is the case of kate cox. she is the woman in texas who had a pregnancy that was almost certain in nearly every case the fetus does not survive and beyond that puts her health at risk. she was first granted, allowed to have the abortion. then that got stayed. there was an urgency, obviously, to getting this done. but there was no ruling. so what we just learned is that after weeks of what her lawyers say are legal whiplash that have been hellish for her. she has decided to go out of state. offers have come in from kansas to colorado to canada, having said that, does this case point to the need to clarify these new laws and even if they aren't clarified now to move quickly in the courts to make decisions on these kinds of very real world issues that are coming up time after time? >> absolutely. and, chris, it also points to the fact that kate cox is few and far between. she was not only able to secure representation by the center for reproductive rights, but she was willing to go forward and public with her story at 31 years old with two children already, a person who wants a big family. but the ambiguity is the point. that's why ken paxton threatened ms. cox, her doctors, and others with future prosecution, notwithstanding the fact that they had secured that order, and that's why kate cox ultimately decided to take matters into her own hand and leave the state. millions of women throughout this country are looking for clarity, and like kate cox, many of them will not find it in time. >> lisa rubin, thank you, we appreciate it on two pieces of breaking news. overseas meantime, israel seems optimistic about its battle against hamas as they push further into gaza. nbc's hala gorani is in tel aviv. what more can you tell us? what's the latst on the battlefield? >> reporter: the prime minister is saying this is the beginning of the end for hamas, but realistically, hamas is holding 137 hostages. it is still able to launch rockets, and the battle against the israeli military is ferocious across the strip, with many civilians caught in the cross fire or victims of buildings and residential blocks targeted by israeli air strikes, and you have mentioned it in your program today and over the last several weeks, chris, aid agencies are saying that the situation is now apocalyptic. the israeli government has released the names of 20 hostages they say were killed in the gaza strip, in hamas captivity, and this includes the latest confirmed name, sahar bahur killed a few days ago in what we believe was an attempted rescue, though the israeli government and military are not confirming that. now, we are hearing from a released hostage who spoke to the reuters news agency. 34 years old, she was captive with her husband and 3-year-old twin daughters. we're starting to hear, chris, a little bit more from hostages about what the conditions were like in detention. here's how she described her time in hamas captivity. . >> translator: every minute we're waiting is like russian roulette. will they live through the day or not. and the conditions are difficult, conditions that no one needs to live in, especially not children or adults without medicine. we saw that many have already lost their lives in captivity, so each moment is critical, and we need to do everything to put the aim of releasing all hostages prior to anything else. >> reporter: so sharon akuno was held in captivity for 52 days. her twins were separated. for ten days, she did not know how one of her two twin girls was doing. thankfully, they were reunited with 12 other hostages. her husband, chris, remains in detention in the gaza strip. so it must be very worrying for her and her family, and obviously the families of the 137 other detainees. back to you. >> without a doubt. hala gorani, thank you. right now in tennessee, we're seeing more scenes of utter destruction after severe storms and tornadoes killed six people, including a 2-year-old child. nbc's blayne alexander is on the ground in clarksville. what have you been seeing? what have you been hearing? >> reporter: there's no shortage of examples of how devastating these storms were. everywhere you look in this neighborhood, while there are still some homes standing, you see these devastating sights of houses that simply no longer exist. across the storm's path, we're talking about six people who were killed. we're seeing more and more scenes like this. but we're also hearing more stories, chris, we're learning the stories of survival. i want to show you this house behind me. you see the red check mark on the window shutter. they have gone in, checked the home, they have seen there are no more people inside. i spoke with the people who live in the house, though, jeffrey, and his three children and his wife. he tells me that the children were actually inside the home. if you can see right up there where the broken glass is, that's where they were sitting, watching tv. he happened to be outside detailing a car when he saw the tornado on the horizon and decided to get them out. take a listen to what he had to tell me. >> it was a dark cloud, spinning with debris on it. >> reporter: what did you think when you saw that? >> i thought it's coming this way. these houses are made out of paper. get the kids, run. i went inside, and as i'm going inside, power went out. i yelled at my kids, come down and they were walking, and i was like, we got to go there's a tornado. i told them to get in the car. drop the baby and we'll go. and i just drove out. >> reporter: so, chris, this truck here, you're looking at the truck. this is the reason jeffrey was standing outside. he said this very likely saved his family's life because they talk about what the inside looks like. he was right here working on this truck when he saw the storm and made the split second decision to get them in the car and get them out. he says when he and his wife came back, they saw wood, glass, just completely caved in on where the children were. every room was uninhabitable. there was no safe space in the house. that's why they had to get out. this area is littered with stories like that, stories of survival and close calls, and the utter devastation as people are seeing the long-term effects in tennessee. chris. >> blayne alexander, thank you. alex jones, the man convicted of defamation for spreading lies about the sandy hook elementary school shooting is back on x, formerly known as twitter. morgan brennan joins me n cnbc on msnbc, and so he got reinstated by the same guy who pledged never to let him return. and i wonder what the reaction is. this is a platform that's been losing advertisers. >> this is a platform that's been losing advertisers, and this is very notable, sort of the latest development for x, chris. elon musk allowing jones back on x on sunday conducted a poll on the platform that garnered nearly 2 million votes with 70% in favor of the info wars host reinstatement. musk saying the people have spoken, and so shall it be. he has repeatedly said x would be the global town square, and iterated that permanent bans should be extremely rare, and he can not break the law. if jones does spread misinformation, he could be corrected by community notes. this is the crowd sourced fact checking feature on the platform. jones was previously suspended from twitter in 2018 for violating the company's abusive behavior policy. the suspension was deemed permanent under the company's primary management, weeks after apple, you tube and facebook had banned his content, amid that defamation lawsuit against jones for spreading the fall claim that the sandy hook elementary shooting was a hoax, a suit that resulted in a 1 1/2 billion dollars judge against him. musk had previously pledged not to allow him back. the reversal came after a widely watched 90-minute interview of jones by tucker carlson released on the platform. x has been a source of controversy thanks in part to some of musk's own posts. recently he told advertisers trying to quote, blackmail him to go f yourself. i think the broader take away here is that it highlights this broader societal and debate about hate speech versus free speech, where the line lies and also the power that companies have in making those decisions amid minimal regulation, and legal guidelines, companies making content on their own criteria. so right or wrong, for or against, hate speech or free speech, that case can be made about twitter's decision to ban jones and the decision by x to let him back on. on the edge of financial ruin, former trump confidant rudy giuliani is facing what could be the biggest financial blow yet as he stands trial in a defamation case. we're outside the courthouse in 60 seconds. rz ds rz thanks to golo and release, i've got my life and my health back. . $43 million, that's how much rudy giuliani faces in damages as the man oncenown as network's stands trial in a defamation suit brought by two georgiaction workers he baselessly accused of ballot ing. as "the new york times" writes, the trial could not have come at a poorer moment for mr. giuliani who is near the edge of financial ruin. he is being hounded for money, including by his one-time lawyer, and cannot currently work as a lawyer himself because of disciplinary actions against him. nbc's ryan reilly is at the d.c. courthouse. tim miller is former communications director for jeb bush's 2016 campaign and msnbc political analyst. what's the latest in the courthouse, ryan? >> reporter: they're just getting to opening arguments shortly. it was interesting listen to judge howell go through and tell the jurors here who are going to decide how much money rudy giuliani is going to have to pay exactly what the basics of this were. the facts are not really in dispute now because rudy giuliani had blown off this entire process and not cooperated with some discovery matters that were going through. he's already been found liable for defamation, and the jury has to assume that he did a lot of this purposefully, and was purposefully inflicting harm on two individuals who said they famously testified before the d january 6th committee in tearful testimony telling the american public just what this did to their lives, being targeted by trump supporters who believe these lies about the election, and were willing to believe the two election worker volunteers were doing something dubious when there's nothing something of the sort happening. one of the critical allegations he had made about these two individuals is that they were passing around what he claimed was a usb drive, saying they are trying to steal the votes somehow, and saying they're handing around a vile of drugs, when, in fact, they were handing a ginger mint back and forth. that's all this was. we should see extraordinary testimony we're expecting from both defendants, as well as rudy himself is expected to testify in his own defense later in the week. >> ryan, thank you for that. rudy's fighting this case. he's also fighting the georgia election interference case. he's facing possible disbarment. he's put his upper east side apartment on the market because he needs to pay legal bills. all of this because he peddled donald trump's election lies. i mean, i don't know that there are many downfalls this epic. he was once considered presidential material. is he, though? here's my key question, time. is he in any way a cautionary tale for others? >> i think he's a cautionary tale for the whole country right now since donald trump is winning in the polls in 2024. you know, donald trump has somehow managed to, despite being indicted four times, continued to stumble forward in his life and be able to, you know, hang out at mar-a-lago and his club, and has not yet, you know, had to suffer any consequences of his actions. hopefully that is coming, but a lot of people around him have suffered a lot of consequences, the people that have already pleaded guilty in the various trials against him, a couple in georgia. rudy giuliani, i think, is a prime example of someone who has seen consequences for going along with donald trump's lies, and they're deserved consequences. i'm hopeful that ruby and shaye get their compensation for the horrible lies. it's a cautionary tale. is anybody getting the caution? >> that's my actual question. >> the republican party i lock step behind him right now. >> yeah. look, donald trump's leg woes are also costing him an awful lot of money. but he has it because according to campaign finance reports filed with the fec this summer, trump save america super pac spent $20 million on legal fees in the first six months of this year. 2/3 of his political operations total spending in the first half of the year, legal fees, his supporters just keep sending him money, tim. does that continue indefinitely, do you think, or is there a bottom, is there a point at which people say, okay, these 20 e-mails i'm getting every day, asking me for money, i can't keep sending you 20 bucks. >> i think if he loses in 2024, it might stop. he's running the definition of a scam pack right now, and people are funding his legal fee. look, i think there's been a lot of good reporting. "the new york times" has done so. some people have gotten scammed and have automatic prechecked boxes. they don't know they're giving donald trump money. they're happy to give him money, and they don't care how he's spending it. >> to that point, we have learned that the expert witness returning to the stand tomorrow in the civil fraud trial for donald trump was paid nearly $900,000, almost a million bucks to say he doesn't think he committed any fraud. do you think that even raises an eyebrow with his supporters? >> to have somebody tell people that i don't commit fraud, commit fraud. pay for play on saying there's no fraud. i don't think it does. no. i really don't. i think that folks that are giving him money right now are blindly loyal to him, and i think it is unlike what any other politicians relationship with their supporters, and i think we need to be eyes wide open about what is happening with donald trump and the fact that he has this base of support that is happy to let him, they are happy to be defrauded, as long as they feel like he's making the case for them. that's where his power seminating from. >> tim miller, ryan reilly, i want to go to somebody who knows about trump and his money. author of "dark towers" deutsche bank, donald trump, and an epic trail of destruction. it's good to have you back, david, when it comes to expert witnesses, the guy that i was just talking about is an nyu accounting professor, named eli bartov. do you think trump has gotten his $900,000 worth? >> i don't know about that. look, there's a history in these types of trials of expert witness receiving sums of money to testify, and it's clear which side of the debate they're going to come down on. look, there is part of this trial that is going to depend on the judge's understanding of the issues, and they're complex issues. i think having a well regarded accounting professor saying, look, i have spent countless hours, hundreds of hours on digging through this stuff, and i agree with the trump camp's assessment of this. i think that probably does carry some credibility. on the other hand, there's one expert witness on the prosecution's side as well, and i think it's a little unclear how it will really shake out. to me, i'm not that surprised by the fact that the trump campaign and that trump himself is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for an expert witness's testimony. that is something you see a lot in high profile trials, involving complicated concepts. >> very common, but 900,000 seem like a lot to me. >> i would be happy to take a fraction to testify, if it anyone wants me to. >> noted. >> i want to talk about something specific bartov said in his testimony. he has deutsche bank knew what they were doing, talking about giving trump's loans. in your reporting you have explored why banks were willing to do business with trump, so help us to understand that testimony in the context of all of your great reporting. >> yeah, well, i think that deutsche bank did know what it was getting into. when i was doing most of the reporting which was a few years ago, one of the things i kept hearing from the people who had signed off on the loans was that they knew trump had a very pronounced long standing pattern of not just defaulting on his loans but exaggerating his finances as he tried to get the loans. deutsche bank is a bank that had repeatedly made loans to him, some of which he had previously defaulted on. i think the trump camp has a viable argument here that deutsche bank went into this with its eyes wide open. now, that doesn't necessarily change from a legal standpoint. if trump's intent was to defraud the bank in order to get lower interest rates or to get larger loans or even to get some of the other provisions to kind of liberalize, didn't have to put up so much personal collateral, that still under the law can constitute fraud. so i think the question of what deutsche bank knew and when they knew about it is obviously very important, but