asking the supreme court to fast track a decision on whether the former president should even face trial for january 6th and the supreme court has already responded. also in the documents case, new revelations about what the former president and his associates have been saying to a former employee and potential witness. and later, today's life changing decision by the texas woman caught between the state's strict abortion laws and a pregnancy almost certain to end in the death of her child. that and the court ruling on it just moments ago. we begin tonight with the breaking news. just hours after special counsel jack smith asked the supreme court to take up the question of whether the former president is immune from prosecution in the election subversion case, the court responded. though it's only the court's initial move, it is the speedy first step toward a historic decision, with echos of another landmark case involving the president and the law nearly 50 years ago. jack smith cited that case prominently in his filing today. more from paula reid. what exactly has the supreme court right now agreed to? >> reporter: today the special counsel asked them to take up two constitutional questions in the hope that those could be resolved and they could move ahead with their election subversion case against trump, as scheduled in march. tonight the supreme court said, we'll get back to you soon. now, they're not saying that they're going to take up these questions. they're saying, though, that their response will be prompt. and that's somewhat of a win for the special counsel because timing is everything here. former president trump is litigating these legitimate questions that have never been answered before. the first is whether he is immune from prosecution. the second is whether he is protected from double jeopardy because he was impeached, though not convicted on similar charges. well, it is his right to litigate these questions. this takes time. it could take months, potentially even over a year for this question to go from the district court, where he has lost on the immunity question, to the appeals court to potentially the full appeals court to the supreme court. so, here the special counsel is saying, look, it is a public importance that we skip that intermediary step and just go straight to the supreme court to get an answer on this. >> also jack smith cited this other case about the watergate era from nixon. how does that fit in? >> it's interesting. they're citing a similar investigation from the watergate investigation where the supreme court was asked to weigh in on specific issues. and there the supreme court scheduled oral arguments about that questions about whether nixon had to turn over tapes from the investigation, whether he was protected from executive privilege. six days later, they had a decision. that could move ahead as scheduled. there are other examples of the supreme court allowing issues to skip that middle step, the court of appeals. but this one, this is really the most on point because of course this is a question they would argue is of national importance. and of course we're dealing with, in one case, a current and now a former president. >> would a ruling from the supreme court only apply to the federal election subversion case or would it also impact the rest of the former president's other criminal proceedings? >> reporter: the one case that could really be impacted here is the georgia election subversion case. that is a state prosecution. the question before the supreme court is about federal prosecution. anderson, look, if trump wins at the supreme court here, that pretty much spells doom for fani willis' georgia-based case. if trump loses on these questions at the supreme court, i don't think that's a very good sign for any attempt to launch similar appeals in georgia. but it doesn't mean he won't do it. because at the heart of his strategy isn't necessarily the merits of these constitutional questions. right now it's about delay. their goal is to delay this case until after the election. so, even attempting something like this in georgia, even if he's lost at the supreme court could be advantageous. >> thank you very much. here with me now is elie honig and chief assistant district attorney karen freedman agnifilo. do you think they'll take this up? >> i do think they will, anderson. this is what we call direct review, meaning jack smith wants skip the court of appeals and go to the supreme court. >> because it's going to go to the supreme court anyway? >> right. why take the many months it would take for the court of appeals to weigh in. we know it's headed for the supreme court. also, if you look back at recent history, this tactic of direct review was almost never done for a long time. however, the court supreme court has done it. i have to credit our supreme court expert -- 19 times since 2019. for example, joe biden's student loan program. they granted this expedited relief. and many others we have not heard of. this case is more important than any of those, and this case has more time pressure than any of those. so, i do think they will take it on this direct review. >> karen, if the court does agree to hear the case, what does the timeline look like, and when do we expect a ruling? >> hopefully it will be in time so that we can still have the trial march 4th in front of judge chutkan. because if it doesn't go march 4th, don't forget you've then got the alvin bragg manhattan d.a. case slated to start march 24th. and that will bump into the election. and at that point, it's not going to be able to go forward at trial in the middle of presidential election. and frankly, if donald trump wins the election, when he becomes president, if he becomes president, he could dismiss this case because the doj will be in his control and pardon himself. so, this case going soon and going in march is critical for this case going at all. and it's important that the american people, when they go into the election in november, have the results one way or another or at least get to hear the evidence of this case. donald trump files a lot of frivolous motions. this is not one of them. this is a very important motion. it actually has some merit. and it has to be decided by the supreme court. it's never been decided before. >> and elie, how long do you think the court could take both to hear the case and also to decide? >> so, they have to be wary of course of that critical march 4th date. they have to get it done in enough time in advance. i think if we play this out -- they're giving trump's team until next week to respond. and i think they'll decide by the new year whether they're taking it or not. i think they'll give each side two weeks or so, and i think we'll have a ruling if they take it by early to mid february if i had to ball park it. >> what happens to this case and all the other cases if the supreme court rules trump is protected by immunity? >> it just depends, right? does he have absolute immunity or does he only have immunity for things within his job description or within the outer perimeter of his job? it really depends on how they rule and how they slice and dice this. but it wouldn't make any sense because there is the united states constitution article i section 3 clause 7 that actually talks about when -- if a defendant is -- if a president is impeached and convicted, it only applies to what will happen, they'll be removed from office. it says, nevertheless, it can then -- you can go to trial or charge him otherwise. and that's what judge chutkan found was the constitution specifically provides for a criminal prosecution of a president who commits a crime, even though it's not explicit. trump is actually using that same clause to say and argue in his favor that it means that he can't be prosecuted because there's an impeachment process and therefore it's double jeopardy. so, they're each using the same clause and interpreting it differently. and it's important for the supreme court to weigh in and determine which one will dictate exactly what happens here. >> there was also, elie, this separate filing, jack smith indicating a plan to call this expert witness. i want to read this. he was, quote, extracted and processed data from the white house cell phone used by the defendant and one of the individuals determined the use of the period on and around january 6th. and number four, specifically identified the periods of time the phone was unlocked and twitter application was open on january 6th. so, basically, they don't necessarily have access to -- phone. he was -- he's not somebody who sends a lot of messages, supposedly. what would they find from the phone, and why are they doing this? >> this is so important because cell phones have now become evidentiary bonanzas. when i started as a prosecutor 20 years ago, not everyone had cell phones. now they can tell you virtually about everything a person is doing. if we look at what we know from the reporting, this data will show prosecutors where donald trump was because your cell phone is always what we call pinging, meaning it's looking for the nearest cell tower. you can tell where a person -- you can geolocate that person with some precision. even though donald trump doesn't email or texts, he used dms reportedly on twitter. you can see drafts. you can see what other apps he was using. you can see photo images. this is now standard that prosecutors do this. >> they're allowed to look at this data? >> yes, they're allowed to look at this data either with consent or a search warrant. and then you send it to the fbi lab and they do what's called dump the phone. they do a forensic dig on it. and you can come up with remarkably specific data. >> would he have had to give up his password? >> he wouldn't have a choice. either he would consent or they would get a search warrant. in order to get in this way, he would have to give up his password or unlock it for them. for breaking news tonight involving the pformer president and the law. katelyn polantz joins us now with the exclusive. what have you learned? >> anderson, this is a story about a series of communications. there's a close-knit circle of people who worked at mar-a-lago, still work at mar-a-lago, under donald trump. and in the crucial period, there was the fbi search last august. and then an employee, a longtime employee, quite close to many people at mar-a-lago, leaves mar-a-lago having been a witness to many of the things that later appeared in the indictment of the donald trump, carlos deal vera, and walt nauta. this person, this former employee, is becoming a witness. and before donald trump and these other men are charged, there's just enough things that raised his attention to make it seem a little bit different because the amount of communication he was getting from not just carlos deoel vera and walt nauta, but trump himself, was unusual for him. these are his friends and people he is working with regularly. the things i have learned through multiple sources, as well as materials that i've gotten, have been able to have a bit of a insight into, is that this former employee at mar-a-lago, he was friends with carl carlos -- you should come to a golf tournament after he leaves working at the club. trump would like to see you. i think trump would really like to see you. he also talks to carlos and carlos says something about, perhaps you want to come back to your job. you could come back to your job at mar-a-lago if you wanted to. there's also some discussions between the two about the attorneys. they want to use attorneys that are within the trump circles, as carlos did. this former employee chose to use an attorney outside the trump circles. there's also an instance where he interacts with walt nauta, somebody he has a less close relationship to. and walt nauta did tell him, you could come back to work at mar-a-lago if you wanted, that walt nauta was also showing up at a gym with this man as well as carlos deoel vera, which was unusual. as this former employee left his job a couple of months after that fbi search before he becomes a crucial witness to investigators, donald trump gets his cell phone number, hadn't called him in quite some time, rarely called an employee like this, and calls him and asks him, why are you leaving? why are you leaving working for me? very possibly at that time knowing that this man could be a witness against him in this investigation. now, all of this may just be how people are exchanging conversations, how people have conversations, how their friends have conversations, what trump is doing when people are leaving. but it all is happening at such an interesting time that the special counsel's office did pick up on this pattern of interaction. they did look into it at one point in time. they were told about several of these instances. >> so, they knew about this? this was previously known to jack smith? >> this was previously known to jack smith. through the reporting i did for this story, it did become apparent that the special counsel's office did several interviews with this former employee. and that former employee did give them this information. and it clearly was something that they were keeping tabs on not just before the indictment of donald trump and others. but it is something that the prosecutors very likely would be looking for now at a time where everything that donald trump and these two other men are doing after their criminal indictment, now that they are defendants awaiting trial, there are many restrictions placed around them. it is the sort of thing that they can't do now. >> katelyn polantz, thanks. it's fascinating. more breaking news, what the texas supreme court just decided about a pregnant woman's appeal on an emergency abortion, hours after she left the state to get one. rudy giuliani in court how much he's to pay for falsehoods he spread about 2020 election workers. that and what he said after court when we continue. more breaking news. shortly before air time, the texas supreme court overturned a lower court and ruled that kate cox cannot get an emergency abortion. it came just hours after she left the state. her effort to end her pregnancy with a fetus with an almost-always fatal genetic defect and the state's effort to block it have already drawn national attention. ed la ed lavandera joins us now from dallas. what more do we know about her efforts to get an abortion outside of texas. >> reporter: remember everything came to a screeching halt on friday after republican attorney general ken paxton appealed the lower court's ruling of this temporary injunction that granted kate cox the legal right to get an abortion. that case was taken to the supreme court. because kate cox was waiting in legal limbo for much of the weekend, it is a hellish weekend. she remained laid up in bed most of the weekend. it was after that she decided today to leave the state, to go elsewhere to get the abortion. as you mentioned, just hours later, after that announcement was made, the texas supreme court issued that ruling. and essentially it was siding with ken paxton here in texas. so, the bottom line, anderson, if kate cox wanted this abortion, she had no other choice but to leave the state. >> ed lavandera, thanks very much. the man once known as america's major, rudy giuliani, today said he does not regret what he said about two 2020 georgia election workers. quoting, everything i said is true. a judge ruled what he said was false and defamatory. giuliani said what he said at the end of the first day of part two, the part in which a jury will decide how much to pay in damages for those falsehoods. >> it's disgraceful what happened. >> reporter: rudy giuliani spent the days after the 2020 election traveling state to state, falsely insisting the results were rigged. >> i don't have to be a genius to figure out those votes are not legitimate votes. >> reporter: in georgia, he focused his fire on two unsuspecting election workers in fulton county. >> a tape earlier in the day of ruby -- and one other gentleman. they should have been questioned already. their places of work, their homes, should have been searched for evidence of ballots, for evidence of u.s. deports, voter fraud. >> reporter: shay moss told the january 6th committee her life changed forever the dejany publicly spread conspiracy theories about her. angry election deniers showed up at her home, and ruby freeman was forced into hiding. >> i've lost my name and i've lost my reputation. i've lost my sense of security all because a group of people starting with number 45 and his ally, rudy giuliani, decided to scapegoat me and my daughter, shay, to push their own lies about how the presidential election was stolen. >> i second guess everything that i do. it's affect my life in a major way, in every way. all because of lies. >> reporter: giuliani claimed moss and freeman plotted to kick ballot watchers out of state farm arena, the spot in fulton county hosting the ballot counting. he also pushed the false narrative they had brought in suitcases filled with fake ballots for biden and scanned them into the system multiple times. and giuliani described surveillance video from that day he claimed showed ruby and her daughter exchanging usv memory sticks containing a fraudulent vote count. >> when you look at what you saw on the video, which, to me, was a smoking gun, powerful smoking gun. quite obviously surreptitiously passing around usb ports as if they're viles of heroin. >> you don't put the votes under the table and in the middle of the night count them. we would have to be fools to believe that. >> none of that was true, was it. >> none of it. >> reporter: asked giuliani if shay described what her mom was handing under the table. >> what was your mom handing you on that video? >> a ginger mint. >> ginger mint. jessica schneider joins us now. to be clear, rudy giuliani has already been found libel of defaming shay moss and ruby freeman. >> a jury in this case is going to determine just how much he actually must pay. he already ohs them $230,000. that's for failing to respond to parts of their lawsuit. this mother and daughter, they're asking the jury to award them between 15 and $43 million. they say that's from the reputational harm they've suffered from giuliani's comments and emotional distress. you said tonight, even though he's been found libel for defamation, giuliani is still insisting that he spoke the truth. he was outside the courthouse claiming once again that these were engaged in changing votes, even though we know that's false. >> formerly america's mayor continuing to defame these people. coming up, israel said today it is dismantling hamas. we'll take a look at the fight on the ground and talk with an emergency coordinated with the group doctors without borders, who is inside a key hospital serving cecentral gagaza, where fightingng has intenensified. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. loud explosions in northern gaza today, as israel's defense minister said that hamas' last strongholds there are surrounded. he repeated a claim last week that hamas is near a breaking point. he didn't cite specific evidence to confirm these claims. to that point, the idf released these photos today, claiming these men are members of hamas and isl