tonight on 360, breaking news on two fronts. special counsel jack smith, asking the supreme court to fast-track a decision from 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 for prosecution in the election subversion case. the court responded. though, it's only the courts initial move, it's also the speedy first step toward a potentially historic decision with echoes of another landmark case involving a president and a law nearly 50 years ago, the height of the watergate scandal. jack smith cited that case prominently in his filing today. more from our cnn chief legal affairs correspondent, paula reid. so, what exactly is the supreme court right now agreeing to? >> reporter: well, today, the special counsel asked them to take up to constitutional questions in the hope that those could be resolved and they could move ahead with the election subversion case against trump as scheduled in march. tonight, the supreme court said, we will get back to you soon. now, they aren't saying that they're going to take up these questions. they are saying, though, that they are responsible, and their response will be prompt and somewhat of a win for the special counsel, because timing is everything here. former president trump's litigating these legitimate questions that have never been answered before. the first is whether he was immune from prosecution. the second is whether he's 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. could take months, potentially even over a year for this question to go from the district court, where he has lost an 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 of 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 decided this other case from watergate era about nixon. how does that fit in? >> yeah, it's really interesting. they are citing a similar situation from the watergate investigation. where the supreme court was asked to weigh in on some specific issues and there, the supreme court scheduled -- oral arguments for those questions about whether nixon had to turn over tapes from the investigation, whether he was protected by executive privilege. theyscheduled oral argument a few weeks out, and then just 16 days later, they had a decision. so, that case could move ahead, as scheduled. now, 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 are 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 also impact the rest of the former presidents other criminal proceedings? >> reporter: so, the one case that could really be impacted here is, of course, the georgia election subversion case. now, that's a state prosecution. the question before the supreme court is about federal prosecution, but anderson, look. if trump wins in the supreme court here, i mean, that pretty much spells doom for fani willis's georgia-based case. if trump loses, on these questions at the supreme court, i don't think that is a very good sign for any attempt to launch similar appeals in georgia. it does mean he won't do it. but because at the heart of his strategy is not 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 if it allows them to delay it just a little bit longer. >> all right, paul arrid, thank you so much. with me here, cnn -- elie honig. also joining us, cnn legal analyst and former ben hatton chief assistant district attorney, karen freeman. what do you think? will they take this up, do you think? >> i do think they will, anderson. this is what we call director review, meaning jack smith wants a skip that middle step court of appeals and go right up to the supreme court. because -- >> first going to go to the supreme court, no matter what. >> right, they know they're taking this somewhere other, so why not have the middleman? why take many months that it would take for the court of appeals to weigh in? we know it's headed for the supreme court and also, if you look back at recent history, so, this tactic of direct review was almost never done for a long time. however, the current supreme court has done it and i have to credit steve atlantic, our supreme court expert. 19 times since 2019. so, it is something they've done in cases we've heard of, 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. >> and, karen, if the court does agree to hear the case, what does the timeline look like and what would you wear when would you expect a ruling? >> well, hopefully it will be in time so that we can still have the trial march 4th in front of judge chutkan, because if it does not go march 4th, don't forget, you then got the alvin bragg manhattan d. a. case slated to start a couple weeks after that, march 24th. and then that will bump into the election and at that point, it is not going to be able to go forward at trial in the middle of a presidential election. 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 is important that the american people, when they go into the election in november, has the results one way or another, or at least gets 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 has never been decided before. >> and, elie, how long do you think the court could take both to hear the case and also to decide? >> yeah, so they have to be wary, of course, of that critical march 4th date. i mean, they have to get it done enough time in advance. but i think if we play this out, given doj until -- excuse me, given trump's team until next week to respond, and then i think they will decide by the new year whether they're taking it or not. i think they will give each side two weeks or so, and i think we will have a ruling. if they take it by early to mid february. if i had to ballpark it. >> and karen, what happens to this case and all the other cases the supreme court rules if trump is protected by immunity? >> i mean, it just depends, right? does he have absolute immunity or does he only have immunity for things that were within his job description or within the outer perimeter of his job? so, it really depends on how they rule and how they slice and dice this. but it would not make any sense because there is the united states constitution, article one, section three, clause seven, that actually talks about when, if a defendant is, if a president is impeached and convicted, it only applies to what will happen, if you will be removed from office. it says, nevertheless, you can then 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 is 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 is an impeachment process, and therefore, it's double jeopardy. so, there 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, you know, will dictate exactly what happens here. >> there was also, elie, the separate filing. jack smith indicating a plan to call this expert witness who, i want to read this, who was, quote, extracted and process data for the white house cell phone to use by the defendant and one other individual, determined the uses of these phone throughout the postelection period, incdi on and around january 6th, and number four, specifically identified the periods of time during which the defendants phones were locked in the twitter application was open on january 6th. so, basically, they don't necessarily have access to data on the phone if you use, i mean, it's not somebody who sounds a lot of messages, supposedly. what would they find from the phone and where they doing this? >> this is so important that cell phones have now become evidentiary bonanzas. when i started as a prosecutor 20 years ago, not everyone had cell phones and you couldn't do that much with them. now they can tell you virtually everything about what a person is doing, who they're communicating with. what we know here from the reporting, this data will show prosecutors where donald trump was because yourself on is always, what we call pinning, meaning it's looking for the nearest cell tower. you can tell where a person, you can geolocating that person with some precision. even though donald trump famously doesn't email or text, he used dms, reportedly, on twitter. you can see that. you can see draft, you can see what other apps he was using. you can see photo images. so, this is now standard that prosecutors. >> and they're allowed to look at this data? >> yes, they're allowed, they're allowed with either consent or a search warrant,. i'm sure the prosecutors who have gotten the proper process for this and then you send it to the fbi lab, and they do what's called dump the phone. they just do a forensic dig on it and you can come up with remarkably specific data. >> what he had to give up his password? >> yeah, so he wouldn't have a choice if they either, either he would've consented to that or if they got a search warrant, he wouldn't have a choice and he would have to give it up. in order to get in this way, he would've had to either give them his password or unlock it for them. >> elie honing, thank so much. karen friedman agnifilo, thank you so much. more breaking news and former involving former president and law, specifically tomorrow classified documents case and his interactions with a potential trial witness. cnn's katelyn polantz joins us now with the exclusive. what are you learning? >> well, anderson, this is a story about a series of communications. there's a close knit circle of people who worked for at mar-a-lago, or 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, who is 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 donald trump, -- walt nauta, his two people who worked for him. this person, this former employee, is becoming a witness and before donald trump and these two other men are charged, oh 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 delivery and wealth not, but trump, himself, was unusual for him. so, these are his friends or people that he is working with regularly, but the things that i've learned through multiple sources -- as well as some materials that i've gotten and have been able to have a bit of an insight into, is that this former employee at mar-a-lago, he was friends with carlos de oliveira, who later became charged in this case, and carlos had said thanks to him about hey, you should come to a golf tournament, after he leaves working at the club. that trump would like to see you, i think trump would really like to see you. he also talks to carlos de oliveira 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, if they want to use attorneys that are within the trump circles, as carlos de oliveira did this, former employee chose to use an attorney outside of the trump circles. there is also an instance where he interacts with walt nauta, who later is charge. someone 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 de oliveira, which was unusual. and then finally, anderson, the one of the things that was so unusual here is as this former employee left his job a couple months after that fbi search, before he becomes a crucial witness to investigators, donald trump gets his cell phone number. had not 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. the reporting that it 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 in these two other men are doing after their criminal indictment, now that they're defendants, awaiting trial, there are many restrictions placed around them. it's the sort of thing that they cannot do now. >> yeah, katelyn polantz, thanks. it's fascinating. coming up next, more breaking news about the texas supreme court justice cited about a pregnant woman's appeal for an emergency abortion, only hours after she left the state to get one. also, rudy giuliani in court, the juror set to decide how much he's going to have to pay for the falsehoods he spread about to 2020 georgia election workers. that and what he said after court, when we continue. more breaking news. shortly before 8 am, the texas supreme court overturned a lower court ruling and kate cox cannot get an emergency abortion. it came just hours after she left the state. her effort to end a pregnancy with a fetus with almost fatal genetic defect in the states effort to block it have already drawn national attention. for more on this latest chapter, cnn's ed lavandera joins us now for dallas. so, what do we know about her efforts to get an abortion outside of texas? >> well, remember, everything kind of came to a screeching halt on friday after republican attorney general, ken paxton, appealed the lower courts ruling of this temporary injunction that granted kate cox the legal right to get an abortion. that case was taken to the supreme court and because kate cox was waiting in legal limbo for much of the weekend, as her attorneys described, it is as a hellish weekend, as she remains laid up in bed most of the weekend. and it was after that that she decided today to leave the state, to go elsewhere to get the abortion. and then as you mentioned, just hours later, after that announcement was made, the texas supreme court issued that ruling. essentially, it was siding with ken paxton here in texas, so at the bottom line, anderson, is if kate cox wanted this abortion, she had no other choice but to leave the state. >> ed lavandera, thanks very much. now, the man once known as america's mayor, rudy giuliani today, said, he does not regret what he said about two 2020 georgia election workers, quoting him now. everything i said about them is true. an actual fact, a federal judge has already ruled that what he said was false and defamatory. that determination came, in part, one of the cases. giuliani said what he said at the end of the first day of part to, the part in which the jury will decide how much he will pay in damages for those very same falsehoods, details now from cnn's jessica schneider. >> 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 that those votes are not legitimate votes. >> reporter: in georgia, he focuses fire on two unsuspecting election workers in fulton county. >> there was a tape earlier in the day of ruby freeman and shaye freeman moss, and one other gentlemen,. it should have been questioned already. there are places of work, their homes should have been searched for evidence of ballots, evidence of usb ports, for evidence of voter fraud. >> reporter: shae moss later told the january six committee, her life changed forever the day giuliani publicly spread conspiracy theories about her at a state senate hearing. she and her mother soon received death threats, angry election deniers showed up at their homes, and ruby freeman was forced into hiding. >> i've lost my name and i've lost my reputation. i have 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, shae. to push their own lies about how the presidential election was stolen. >> i second guess everything that i do. this affected my life in a major way, in every way. all because of lies. >> reporter: giuliani claimed that mauve 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 that they had brought in suitcases filled with fake ballots for biden and then scanned them into the system multiple times. and giuliani described surveillance video from that day he claimed showed ruby and her daughter exchanging usb memory sticks containing a fraudulent vote count. >> when you look at what you saw on the video, which, to me, the smoking gun. powerful smoking gun. >> white obviously, surreptitiously passing around usb ports as if they are vials of heroin and cocaine. >> you don't put legitimate votes under a table, you know? wait until you throw the opposition out, and then in the middle of the night, count them. we