from jack smith. the high court says it will fast track consideration of trump's claim that he's immune from prosecution in his election case. plus rudy giuliani in court today. the jury is set to decide how much he'll pay for defamatory lies that threaten the lies of two election workers, lies he is still pushing outside the courtroom. also the pregnant woman at the center of a flash point in america right now, has just left her home state to get an abortion, as the texas supreme court has just ruled against her. we'll have the latest. i'm kaitlan collins, and this is "the source." tonight, we have exclusive reporting in the trump classified documents case. a phone call that apparently is of interest to special counsel jack smith from the former president to a former longtime employee in mar-a-lago, who was there for key conversations surrounding that case. more on that important reporting in a moment. but also we have major news about the nation's highest court on jack smith's second case against donald trump, which the special counsel is warning could be delayed indefinitely if the justices don't intervene. he's asking them to move and to do so quickly. now, the supreme court has agreed to at least put its consideration of whether or not to hear that case on a fast track. at the heart of this is trump's argument that he's immune from prosecution. by doing this, jack smith is essentially leapfrogging passing appeals court on the matter, where it was likely headed next. likely trying to beat trump at his game that we know his lawyers are at least pursuing here of delaying his legal troubles. jack smith is arguing that, quote, nothing could be more vital to our democracy than holding a former president accountable. the supreme court responded just hours after he made that filing and gave trump's team a deadline of nine days from now. trump's claim has been that presidents are exempt from being prosecuted in federal court for crimes that were committed potentially while they were in office. he has now until december 20th to respond to this expedited ask by jack smith. he responded to jack smith's filing unsurprisingly by criticizing him. he does so on a near daily basis, saying he is, quote, attempting to bypass the appellate process. here's what his legal team has argued previously about the case. >> this is -- this is going to be the most important civil rights constitutional case in decades. everything that president trump did was while he was in office as a president. he is now immune from prosecution for acts that he takes in connection with those policies. >> that is john lauro, trump's attorney. but now jack smith is asking the high court to use an unusual procedure here. but it does have historical precedent because it's the same maneuver that was used with president nix lg regarding his refusal to turn over tape recordings and other documents. justices rejected the claims of immunity and moved quickly so one of the watergate cases could keep moving. the question of whether or not that applies tonight is a big one. i'm joined by cypress vance jr., and temidayo aga guo williams. thank you both for being here. cy vance, let me start with you. it's almost bigger than him in the sense that if they agree to take this up, the precedent this could set. >> it is obviously a very important step jack smith has taken. i think he has made the right call in terms of trying to expedite this, given the calendar that the -- the political calendar and the court calendar. and tim and i were talking. it's fascinating just what the court will do. but i think he's done the right thing by expediting it. i don't think the issues that jack smith presents are particularly novel. we know from nixon that a president can be investigated while in office. we know from the case i was involved with, trump v. vance, that a president can be investigated for conduct prior to when he was in office. i don't think donald trump says he can go to fifth avenue and shoot someone while he's president and be immune from office. that prosecution might be delayed while he was president or having committed another crime, but i don't think the president's arguments, in my view, really can surmount the precedent that has already been set in the supreme court about the constitutional protections of a president. >> yeah, and clearly what the trump legal team has been trying to do here is, kind of, drag this out. they're going to an appeals court here. jack smith is basically trying to go over that and say eventually this is going to go to the supreme court. i might as well go to them now. what do you make of the fact that they went and the supreme court justices responded quickly not necessarily what they're going to do with the case but at least fast track what they will do for the case. >> i think it's a positive sign for jack smith. i think it shows they're taking it seriously, that they're going to act swiftly. i think it makes it more likely we're going to get to a quick resolution of this case. it's clear the former president wants to have it both ways. kaitlan, as you know, before judge chutkan, he was asking her to basically stay all deadlines as they were going up to the circuit, trying to slow things down there, because he says he needed a higher court to rule because he would be harmed if the case went forward and he was ultimately found to have immunity. jack smith is basically calling his bluff. he's saying, if you think you have immunity, let's go to the ultimate decider now. it's bold but i think it's what's required. if you have a delay here, i think it's president trump would never see a day in the courtroom if he wins the presidency. >> how do you think the courtesies this. you have been on the other side of the trump delay tactic. they don't shy away from it. they openly acknowledge this is a tactic of theirs, to delay this past the election. how do you think the supreme court looks at this? >> you know, in our own experience in litigating to the supreme court in trying to obtain trump's tax returns, first of all, the -- every court at every level treated it seriously. the district court, appellate court, second circuit, and the supreme court in terms of moving the case in its calendar. i think they will treat this as a serious issue. i don't know how they come out, but i do think that they will -- they understand the importance and the timing of smith's request. and i think they will respect that is my guess. but i -- but how they rule on it -- in my view, if they're looking at supreme court precedent, i think i know how they would rule on it. i really don't know what they're going to do. >> that's a good question. do you think they would grant it? >> well, i think that they would grant the expedited hearing. and i think on the merits -- >> they'd reject it. >> they'd reject -- >> that he's immune. >> yeah, they'd reject immunity. >> there's a question tonight about the make-up of who's going to be hearing this. there's two democratic senators saying -- one saying he should consider recusing and one he should flatout recuse because his wife, ginni thomas's efforts to overturn the election, to push to overturn it. is that something that is likely here do you think? >> i think it's unlikely that justice thomas will recuse himself. i think the calls for that consideration are very appropriate. you know, the committee had messages between ginni thomas and the joint chief of staff mark meadows about the issues president trump is charged with. and she was expressing her support for overturning the election results to mark meadows, as he was playing train conductor for all kind of folks trying to get messages to the white house. i think if you imagine this same scenario and you found out, for example, that judge chutkan's husband was involved with these issues, i can guarantee you the former president would be calling for her to recuse herself. so, i think here, when you find the facts, as justice here, his wife, having access to the white house -- she doesn't have access, in my opinion, because she was somehow purely a conservative leader. it's because of who she's married to, which is a supreme court justice. i think it does undermine the court's independence to have justice thomas weighing in when his wife was involved in the same orbit of criminal conduct. >> i have a strong feeling he's not going to recuse himself. we know part of trump's data that is something -- jack smith, we don't know how much. but he does have part of it. he's planning to use it in this case. we're also learning something interesting about trump's use of the phone, cyrus. we're reporting three months after that search of the mar-a-lago, after the documents case, the florida case, that trump took the unusual step of calling a longtime employee who had quit. essentially was calling him repeatly, that there are interactions talking about offers of legal representation, repeated reminders he could come back to work for trump. why is that something that jack smith is interested in? >> well, assuming it's admissible it's to prove that trump, under, i think, the theory was trying to circle the wagons around all the witnesses who had relevant information and those that he had a personal connection with would be within that circle of wagons. i don't know the facts. but if i were -- but based as you described it, that's what i think jack smith would be doing, was that in response to subpoenas, in response to investigation, the former president was reaching out in a way that, in one sense, might seem appropriate. but it's for the jury to decide what was his intent when he did that. >> yeah. it wasn't mentioned in the filings, but we'll see if it pops up anywhere else. cyrus vance jr., temidayo, thank you as always. joining me now, anthony scaramucci, who had a brief stint as a communications director for the white house. maybe better known as the much. i mean just curious what you think is, kind of, going through donald trump's head right now, as jack smith is here surprising everyone by going past the appeals court, going straight to the supreme court, and basically trying to cut off trump's known strategy of delaying his legal troubles? >> i think it's a brilliant move by jack. but if you really want to get inside the president's mind, he's very, very wary. you've got 91 counts, four big indictments. it feels like he is the al capone of our current political system, meaning people think he's untouchable, just like they did with al capone or somebody like john gotti, but they actually are not untouchable. so, he's very, very worried. i do know that he thinks because he appointed six of those -- excuse me, three of those justices but he has six that are conservatives, i do think that he thinks he's got a good shot there. he thinks that that court is politicized and will tip to his favor. and obviously jack smith doesn't think that. i certainly don't think that. and i think it's a great strategy, kaitlan. we'll have to see what happens. but i think the president is very worried. >> whether or not it works. when you say, he's very worried, it's not out there to say that what he is staring down right now potentially is a second term as president or, if he does end up going to trial, as is scheduled right now for at least one of these cases, this one at the heart of this, in march, that he could be potentially facing a prison sentence if they are successful in a conviction. i mean, is that all he's thinking about at this point do you think? >> i do. and i also think that mark meadows -- i mean, we're leaving that out of the equation. but this is not -- you know, he's not able to say on certain things that this is a witch hunt by democratic leadership or democratic district attorneys or attorneys general and so forth. he's not able to say that. you have one of the key witnesses ran the freedom caucus and was his last chief of staff. so, that's right inside the wheelhouse. so, that's another reason why he's worried about these people that have access to his phone or he's talked to on the phone. kaitlan, you covered him for a long time, and you had sources inside the white house that were always concerned about the president's morality and his judgment relating to what was legal and what wasn't legal. and i think jack has evidence that proves a lot of illegality on the part of the president. and so, the question i was going to -- would love to ask cyrus or others is, are they able to submit proof of what the president did to the supreme court, or is this a procedural case in front of the court in terms of what's going on with immunity while you're president? and so i think that's at issue. i think if jack comes at this thing with five or six smoking guns, i'm just wondering what justice w justice who wants there to be impartiality and who wants to preserve the american democracy, how they would view those facts. >> would you like to weigh in? i'm curious about your thought on it as well. >> sure. i think the supreme court today is a very different court than the one we appeared before several years ago. it is, as mr. scaramucci said, three now trump appointees. i like to believe, even though i think the supreme court has been perceived as perhaps the most political court in the country rather than the least, i like to believe that the justices will call it as they see it under the law. and my own personal view is that i think the issues of presidential immunity in this case are not that unclear. and i think if they follow the law that's been -- that started with nixon, went through clinton, went through trump's last tremendous vails to the supreme court, they'll conclude that, as some had said before, no one is against the law. no president stands immune from investigation or prosecutions once he or she is no longer in office. when you're in office, it's a different -- perhaps different kettle of fish because you have a country that the citizenry has elected you to lead. when you leave that office, you lose those immunities. >> we will see what they decide. thank you very much for that. good questions, scaramucci. thank you very much for joining us as well. ahead, there are major developments in the case we have been following here closely of a pregnant woman in texas. she sued to have an emergency abortion. the texas supreme court has just weighed in, ruling against her. her desperate decision now to leave the state because of her health. also the old russian opposition leader, alexei navalny missing, according to his attorneys. more on that mystery of his wrashts coming up. there's been a dramatic turn for the texas woman who was at the center of a legal fight to end her high risk pregnancy. kate cox's doctors say that her unborn child has a fatal genetic condition and will not survive and that her own health is also at risk. she's been in and out of the emergency room, we are told by her attorneys, and now they say she has left the state of texas to have the emergency abortion procedure elsewhere. that came just hours before we learned that the texas supreme court tonight ruled against her, reversing a judge's ruling last week that gave her permission to seek an abortion, to have an exception there. joining me nont is anna navarro. you know her well as part of the cnn family, but she has a personal experience to share about this, about what women just like kate cox are going through, and she joins us now. i'm so glad you're here, especially given what we've just heard from the texas supreme court in this filing. i want to read part of it. they said in this that no one disputes that her pregnancy has been extremely complicated. they say, any parents would be devastated to learn about their unborn child's tricemy 18 diagnosis. but even serious ones do not pose the heightened risk to the mother that the exception encompasses. what do you make of that? >> you know, i have so many feelings right now. i am heart broken for this mother. i am infuriated. and i am indignant as a woman at the idea that politicians in austin texas and state capitals and all sorts of states and judges who are not doctors are questioning what the medical advice to this woman is. looks, kaitlan, i had the news given to me that i had an ectopic pregnancy. that means the fetus is not viable and if you don't terminate the pregnancy, you could die in the process. i know what it's like to get that heart wrenching news. her news is much worse. she's 21 weeks pregnant. she's fighting for her life. she's fighting for her fertility. making her give -- taking away her choice, taking away her right, taking away her ability to get health care in her own state -- i've heard so many people say online cavalierly, casually, oh, why didn't she go to another state? do you know what it's like to have to terminate a wanted pregnancy and not be able to go and lay down in your own bed, not be able to cry into your own pillow, not be able to lean on your friends and your family and your village where you live, not be able to go to see your doctors, to have to go out of state, stay in a hotel, incur that cost, incur those extra days of missing work? do people understand what that takes, having to leave your village in order to have to go beg for your life and take care of oyour own health somewhere else? that is cruel. that is inhumane. that is certainly not american, and it's certainly not god's will. shame on those politicians in texas telling this woman what she can or cannot do. and i want to remind america that it's not just texas. it's also debra thor berg in florida, the woman who had a fetus who are had a baby that had no kidneys and who was told that child was certainly going to die. and she couldn't get an abortion in florida and had to hold that baby in her arms for 90 minutes, as that baby gasped for air and died inner her arms. and it's 14 other states that have laws like this that are incredibly restricted. for people who think, maybe this is just texas or maybe this is just florida, no. every woman in america should be indignant at the idea that politicians are telling us and telling doctors what to do. criminalizing doctors -- criminalizing doctors, criminalizing women. where do we live? it's horrendous. >> and i just want to say, first off, thank you for sharing that because i know that there are a lot of other women probably watching right now who have had similar experiences. so, just -- you saying that out loud i think is really powerful. and when you talk about what a woman goes through who has to have this procedure, what it means in the aftermath of that, i also thought about with kate cox, you know, she left the state of texas today to get this procedure. there are a lot of women who can't afford to leave their home states to go and have -- i think about my home state of alabama, there are a lot of women who can't afford to go out of state to somewhere that they can get this procedure. >> that's right. the woman i mentioned in florida, debra, could not afford to go out of state. it's so -- do people understand the amount of people who don't have the savings to be able to one day or the other -- it requires looking for a doctor out of state. it requires paying for travel. it might require paying for child care. it requires -- in your home state. it requires staying in a hotel, stay something where as you recover. you know, this is not like getting your nails done. these are procedures that require days off and recovery. and you're doing it, what, in hay hotel in a different state that you have to -- and some of these states -- in places like florida, in places like texas, in the southeast coast, you have to drive thousands of miles to get to a state where you might be able to get this done. it just -- it is cruel. it is callous to think, oh, she can go to another state. listen, w