thank you so much for joining us tonight. "ac 360" starts right now. good evening. first it was the i.t. guy. now members of the mar-a-lago household staff might also end up testifying against the boss. that's what multiple people familiar with special counsel jack smith's classified documents investigation are telling us, and it's a cnn exclusive. they say federal prosecutors may call as witnesses a plumber, a maid who cleaned the former president's bedroom, a chauffeur, and a woodworker. people who might not get a lot of attention on a trump property, but who see and hear a lot on the job. people who cnn has also learn have had already been talking in detail to investigators. they're now likely witnesses. so are secret service agents, sources tell us, and others who are in the room when the president was captured on multiple recordings, apparently showing off a classified military document about bombing iran. . >> let's see here. isn't that amazing? this totally wins my case, you know. >> uh-huh. >> except it is highly controversial. see, as president i could have declassified it. now i can't. >> now we have a problem. >> isn't that interesting? >> yeah. >> look, we -- and you probably almost didn't believe me, but now you believe me. >> no, i believed you. >> it's incredible, right? bring some cokes in, please? >> we don't know who brought the coax. remember walt nauta who still working for him is a co-defendant in the documents case. joining us now sharing a biline on the exclusive, kaitlan pol polantz. who might be called to testify? >> it may very belle well be the person who brought cokes. we don't know who it is. what we do know is there is a long list of potential witnesses in this case that we've been able to cobble together, and they are people that are notable people around donald trump during his presidency, after his presidency, at his club. but there are also people who are moving in and out of the club, who might not have been that noticed by the club visitors, who were there or even trump himself. but they were people who noticed things. and the things that they noticed we heard about a woodworker, for instance, someone who was installing crown molding in trump's bedroom, and that person noticed a stack of documents that looked rather suspicious, so suspicious to him, that he thought they were movie props. looked like classified records of some sort. that person we were told doesn't actually know what he saw, but this is the sort of person who could be called to testify at this trial in florida to provide the picture of what it was like around mar-a-lago where all of these images that we've seen in photographs exist of documents and boxes. and there were real people there in these spaces moving about, a maid, a plumber, a chauffeur as well, knowing that something was off and thinking about that, and then relaying that to investigators. >> reporter: have prosecutors laid out why they think these individuals would be good witnesses? >> they haven't, anderson. and we don't know whether they will for sure be called to testify in this case. they might not be. but our understanding is they are people that spoke to investigators, some of them multiple times. some of them testified before a grand jury in this case. and when you look at them on the whole, it appears that they are the people who provide this picture of what it was like at mar-a-lago after the trump presidency, how trump himself was functioning, how he was behaving, and where these classified documents may have gone, how they had moved, who may have touched them, and who may have been around them on a day-to-day basis. >> and what is the former president's reaction? >> one of the things we heard as paula reid and i were reporting out this story is that he has been quite protective of his fief dom. so mar-a-lago in florida, this club he spends so much time at. when he heard the maid who cleans his bedroom suites is someone who investigators wanted to talk to and who could be a potential witness in this case, when he heard about that, he went ballistic, we are told, and he has been quite unhappy whenever he has learned about the people being approached by investigators. but the other thing important to note is how his lawyers are responding to this case an what's happening right now, anderson, is that they trying to get this trial pushed after the election next year. we're waiting to see what the judge does right now. it is set for may. she has said she is going to tell us if that date will hold, if there will be other dates that we're moving, and that's a really important thing because there is a difference here between these people that live in south florida, that work around donald trump, that worked at the club. are they going to tell their stories publicly before the election or not? >> by the way, do we know, do they still work at the club? >> some of them do. some of them have left. as we were reporting out the story, i was learning more and more about people who left, and actually, one person who was initially having a lawyer from the trump legal fold and got a new lawyer and cut a cooperation agreement with the prosecutors in this case to become a key witness, that person's name is usil tavares. he was still working at the club in recent months and left because the start of the season was coming around, and he felt it was time for him to leave working at mar-a-lago. he put in his resignation letter, and then trump was very unhappy that he had actually stayed on as an employee at the club after he had been sharing information that was damaging to the former president with prosecutors. >> katelyn polantz, thanks. with me elie honig, kaitlan collins, host of "the source" coming up at 9:00. elie, how important could this source be? >> this is a dream scenario for prosecutors. ordinarily in the federal system, when you're a prosecutor, you build your case on a cooperator, who is now your witness. what happens? the defense lawyers stand up in closing and they say folks, you're going convict my client based on the word of a criminal? and then we prosecutors stand up and say to the jury, look, we'd love to call honest, hard-working people to come in and tell you about a crime, but that type of person inside on the inside of a crime. here they're literally on the inside of a crime. these are honest, hard-working, regular folks, had nothing to do with the crime. even if they can't give the whole story a to z, they can give important details. they saw a box here or there, overheard a conversation. if i'm a prosecutor, this is the best case scenario. >> is it clear what trump world thinks of all this? >> they've kind of known that a lot of these people have been called in to speak to investigatorers. usill tavares, he is not really there during the summer, he starts this time of year, these are just regular people working these day jobs. some of them have now been ensnared in this. one is named as a codefendant. usil was still working when he offered his resignation later. we were told it wasn't because trump found out, but they kind of happened around the same time as one another. what katelyn said about the maid there -- >> do they have an h.r. department there. >> can you be fired -- >> if you're a witness in the investigation. i don't think they have any liaisons to help them that i have found out about. but the maid part that trump went ballistic that the maid was asked to speak with investigators. part of it was a maid who often went into melania trump's suite and cleaned that. anything legal dealing with trump that involves melania, it irritates him because then he is the one getting in trouble with her. >> elie, cross-examining employees, will they be tried to be painted as anti-trump somehow? >> the smartt way to do is point out they have limited knowledge. okay, maybe you saw a box in this closet, but you don't know how it got there, you didn't hear conversations around it. you try to limit the impact. what i think trump's team is likely to do is just that is claim they're anti-trump, claim they have an agenda. i think the former is the more effective way to go here, but i wouldn't bet on them doing that. >> but a lot of these people like trump. they worked for him. they don't see him in the view of a political lens. yes, he was the president, but also he is their boss. he is the one who employees them at the club. with carlos, named in a superseding indictment, that's an important thing to keep in mind, because these are people who are pretty loyal to him in that sense. but they're not wealthy. they don't have a ton of resource, and they've been called before investigators. they can't exactly go out and just hire their own attorneys. a lot of them have trump provided attorneys. i think that raises another question here as well. >> this makes them even better witnesses. if they don't have an ax to grind with trump. i also love looking at this from a prosecutor's point of view, that they're not sidney powell, they're not mark meadows. they're just regular folks. and ultimately who you have to appeal in a jury trial are the jurors who are going to have the same kind of jobs as these people have and see them as relatable. and to the lawyer point that kaitlan made, this is a time-tested trump tactic. pays for his own lawyers, of course, but pays for lawyers for everyone around him. it's not illegal to do that. it's common. but it naturally has the everything of deterring potential cooperation. but these folks, they get subpoenas, they understand they have to tell the truth, and at least some of them have done just that. >> and what about the secret service agents? >> this is a really interesting question. this actually came up in the clinton investigation by ken starr in '98. ken starr wanted to talk to some of bill clinton's secret service agents. it was litigated. the court said they can testify. there is not some special privilege or protection. you don't want to create a situation where secret service agents are trying to distance themselves so they don't hear something. that could be dangerous. yes, if necessary, you can get testimony from secret service agents. >> this may not even go to trial before the election. >> yeah. >> she's hinted that she could very well push it baas the election, judge cannon has. >> i think it's fairly likely she does that. we're looking at a may trial date. we have a march day on the federal january 6th trial. i think what this judge is doesn't want to make trump go to two trials consecutively. >> elie honig, thanks. kaitlan collins, we'll see you at 9:00. kaitlan is going to be interviewing the former trump attorney jim trusty, since resigning from the legal team. we'll see that at 9:00. last night's presidential debate. chris christie, as you might know a former u.s. attorney governor. good to see you. a plumber, a maid, a chauffeur and a woodworker are among mar-a-lago staffers and contractors who federal prosecutors may call to testify against former president trump and his two co-defendants at the classified documents trial. does that indicate anything to you about the depth of the prosecution's case? >> the breadth and the depth. of the prosecution's case, anderson. as you know, i did this for seven years as the u.s. attorney in the fifth largest office in the country. we did over 130 political corruption cases without a defeat. what you want to see in a witness list is a broad and deep witness list that can cover every potential contingency, every potential exit ramp that the defendant may have to try to justify his or her conduct that you believe based upon your evidence is criminal. and so i think that you're seeing is just how thorough jack smith's investigation has been, and there is no one who has seen or heard anything at mar-a-lago regarding these documents who is going to be immune from testifying if they believe they have relevant information. >> cnn is also reporting that prosecutors may call to testify people who were in the room at the former president's new jersey golf club when he discussed, allegedly shared the plan to attack iran. how important would it be for jurors to hear from those witnesses? >> very important, because as you know, donald trump has said that he showing around some news clips and not anything like that, even though his words were contrary to that. so i think you're going to need something to corroborate the tape, and the corroboration, best corroboration will be the people that were actually at the table and can say exactly what they saw he was flashing around and showing them. so i think it makes sense to do that. and if their evidence is as the prosecution has alleged, that's going to be a real problem for donald trump. >> there is as much talked about "new york times" poll from over the weekend shows as you know that trump leading biden in five out of six key swing states. the poll also indicates about 6% of voters potentially determinative margin which switched their support in the states from trump to biden if the former president was convicted, sentenced in a trial. if trump is found guilty some time next year before the nominating convention, do you think the party would possibly change horses midstream? is that even possible? >> sure. because the process will not be over at that point, anderson, and that's why i'm saying i'm in this for the long haul. i'm in this to the convention. because circumstances are going to change and change significantly. and not only because of the trial that starts on the day before super tuesday, but there is going to be testimony coming out all through that period of time that's going to be extraordinarily damning of the president. my guess is, my first witness would be mark meadows, not some rogue democrat prosecutor, not some product of the two-tiered system of justice that donald trump talks about, but a founder of the freedom caucus from north carolina who served as his final chief of staff has immunity. and anderson, he is going to be sitting 20 feet from donald trump in the federal courthouse in washington, d.c. and telling a jury under oath that donald trump committed crimes right before his eyes to try to overturn the 2020 election. that is determining type of evidence. and i believe, and i've said this, the walls are closing in. he will be convicted. you will see people change their votes and run from him in droves, not only when the conviction happens, but as that evidence begins to develop and people hear it from folks like mark meadows under oath. >> he didn't show up to the debate last night, but in a new interview with univision, the former president reiterated his willingness to use the department of justice to go after his political opponents if he wins back the white house, saying, and i quote, if i happen to be president and i see somebody who is doing well and beating me very badly, i say go down and indict them, end quote, according to a transcript released by univision. it's unclear to me who he thinks he would be running against if he wins another presidential term. being constitutionally barred from running a third time. nevertheless, do you have any doubt that that's what a second term of a trump administration would be, a retribution, four years of retribution? >> no. he has said i will be your retribution. i think about how different for all the folks out there who are undecided about what to do in this election, think about how different donald trump is in 2023 than he was in 2016. in 2016 at the convention, he said "i am your voice." now he is saying "i am your retribution." this is outrageous. and think about it. you had good folks like bill barr who were keeping him on the rails and stopping him from doing stuff like this at the justice department. nobody as good and decent and honest as bill barr is going to agree to be donald trump's attorney general if he ever became president again. that's another thing voters have to think about. the fact is that 40 of his 44 cabinet level officials have said not only wouldn't they work for him again, they wouldn't support him to be president at all again. this is incredibly damning from people who worked with him every day as president, anderson. >> yeah. >> and so the end of the day, you will see him try to do things like that. it's only going to be the country that can stop him. when we have to stop him is right now. we can't let him get the nomination or get in front of these folks. you mentioned him not being on the debate stage last night. it's the third time in a row. it's disgraceful. i think he doesn't want to be there because he knows i'm going to be there because i've been holding him to account since the minute i got into the race. anybody out there who wants me to be on the stage, go to chris christie.com. donate a and keep me on the debate stage. i'll be there when donald trump shows up and you know i'll hold him to account. well take a quick break. later, new video just in of american airstrikes on iranian targets in syria, plus an up close report on the fighting in northern gaza from our oren liebermann who is embedded with israeli troops. back with presidential candidate chris christie. i want to focus on the debate and the campaign trial ahead and the iowa caucuses getting closer. you called the former president a coward for skipping yet another debate last night. clearly the strategy is not hurting him with republican voters. isn't it smart for him not to show up? >> i don't care whether it's smart or not, it's wrong. it's wrong, anderson. he's asking for the republican nomination for president, yet he won't discuss his record? and i understand why he doesn't want to. if i were out on bail in four different jurisdictions, i wouldn't want to have to explain it. if i had promised to build a wall and have mexico pay for it and now call the people who believed it dumb for believing it, i wouldn't want to explain that. i wouldn't want to explain $7.8 trillion in debt when i sid i was going to balance the budget. i understand you don't want to, but you have an obligation to the voters to be able to do it. and i know the polls show right now that it's not hurting him, but i believe it will as people start to get closer to this. they're going to make their decision to vote. and i bet you in january he'll be at one of these debates in either iowa or new hampshire because the polls will force him to. >> you're heading to israel tomorrow. on the debate stage last night, you said the fact that israel and their intelligence agency failed to protect israeli citizens from the october 7th attacks you were referring, what do you want to see the israeli government do about that failure? because benjamin netanyahu has not accepted any level of blame at this point. chiefs of intelligence services of the military over there have. he has not. obviously there is going to be some sort of a reckoning once the fighting has stopped. what do you think he should do, or they should do? >> well, look, his first obligation, anderson, is to win the war. and that's his first obligation is to protect the territorial integrity of israel, to make sure he protects the safety and security of his citizens, and to degrade hamas so they can never do this again. those are his obligations. we're going to have plenty of time for an after action report afterwards to figure out how high up in the chain the responsibility goes and whether it includes the prime minister or not. but in the end, we know that it was a failure, because there is no way that hamas should have been able to do that on october 7th if the intelligence community was on top of their game. so we know mistakes were made, but the reckoning will come later on. first and foremost is to protect the territorial integrity of israel, protect the safety and security of its citizens, and degrade hamas