with collins can starts now. >> reporter: tonight, straight from the source, the supreme court getting a remarkable requests from special counsel jack smith. the high court says it will fast-track consideration of trump's claim that he's immune for prosecution in his election case. plus, rudy giuliani in court today, but the jury is set to decide how much he will pay for defamatory lives that threaten the lives of two election workers. plus, i should note that he still pushing outside the courtroom. also, a 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 caitlin collins, and this is the source. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> reporter: tonight, we have exclusive reporting on the trump classified documents case. a phone call that apparently is of interest to special counsel's jack smith from the former president to a former longtime employee in mar-a-lago who is 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 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 past the 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 the presidents are exempt from being prosecuted in federal court for crimes that were committed potentially when they were in office. he has now until december 20th to respond to this expedited asked by jack smith. he responded to jack smith's filing, unsurprisingly by criticizing him. he does so on your daily basis, saying he is, quote, attempting to bypass the appellate process. here's what is legal team has argued previously about the case. this is going to be the most important civil rights constitutional case in decades. everything that president trump did 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 trump is asking the high court to use an unusual procedure here, that has historical president because it is the same maneuver that was used for president nixon regarding his refusal to turn in tape recorders and other documents. that is when the justice rejected his claims of presidential privilege and they moved quickly so that the watergate case could keep moving. question or not if that history is applied tonight, and i'm joined by former manhattan district attorney -- junior, and former senior investigative counsel for the january six committee, timothy gunky millers. this isn't just a case about trump, it's bigger than him because if they agree to take this up, the precedent it can set. it's obviously an 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 political calendar and the court calendar. and tim and i were talking. it's a question 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 in, trump v. vance, that a president can be investigated for prior -- for conduct prior to when he was in office. i don't think donald trump says he can get a fifth avenue and shoot someone while he's president and be immune from office. that prosecution might be delayed while he's president or having committed another crime, but i don't think the presidents arguments in my view really can surmount the precedent that has already been subbed in the supreme court about the constitutional protections of a president. >> reporter: clearly what the trump legal team is trying to do here is drag this out. they're going to an appeals court here. jack smith has basically trying to go over that and say eventually this is gonna go to the supreme court, i might as well go to them now. what do you make of the fact that they went in the supreme court justices responded quickly, not necessarily with what they're gonna do with the case, but to at least fast-track whether or not they will hear the case. i think it's a positive sign for jack smith. it was they're taking it seriously, the are going to ask swiftly. they mix it all the more likely that in the long term are gonna hear, it will lead to a quick resolution of this case. it's clear the former president wants to have it both ways. the forecheck, and he was asking her to basically stay all deadlines as there are going up in the circuit. trying to slow things down there. because he said 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's calling his bluff. he's basically saying, if you really think you have immunity, let's go to the ultimate decider now, and i think that's a good move here. it's bold, but it's what's required. because if you have a delay here, i think it's likely that president trump will never see a day in court room if he was a presidency. >> reporter: how do you think the court sees this? you've been on the other side of the trump delaying tactic. they don't shy away from it, the openly acknowledge it. that it's a tactic of there is to delay this past the election. how do you think the supreme court looks at this? in our own experience of litigating to the supreme court and trying to obtain trump's tax returns, first of all, every court at every level treated it seriously. the district court, the pellet, court the second circuit, and the supreme court in terms of moving the case in its calendar. so i think they will treat this as a serious issue. i don't know how they come out, but i do think they will -- they understand the importance and the timing of smith's request. and i think they respect that, is my guess. but how they rule on it, in my view of looking at a supreme court president, i think it will rule on it. i don't know what they're going to. do >> reporter: that's a good question because do you think they would grant it? i think they would grant the expedited hearing, and i think on the merits -- >> reporter: they'd reject it. they'd reject -- >> reporter: that he's immune. they'd reject the immunity. >> reporter: there's a question of the makeup of who's going to be. here just like clarence thomas, there's two democratic senators, that he should -- not one side says he should recuse -- his wife, ginni thomas efforts to overturn the election, to push to overturn, it and behind this case, it's trump's case trying to overturn the election. do you think that it's unlikely? i think it's unlikely for justice thomas to recuse himself. but i think the calls to for the consideration airport pete. the committee had messages between ginni thomas and the chief of staff, mark meadows, about the very issues that president trump is charged with. and she was expressing her support for overturning the election results to mark meadows as he was -- trying to get messages to the white house. i think if you imagine the same scenario you find 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 -- it's because of who she is married, to which is a supreme court justice and i think it does undermine the courts independents 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 that part of trump's data is apparently something that jack smith, we don't know how, much but he does a part of it, he's planning to use. it in this case we're also learning something interesting in a separate case about trump 's use of the phone, cyrus, which is more reporting that three months after that search that the fbi did at mar-a-lago, this is in the other jack smith case, the florida case, trump took this unusual step of calling a longtime employee who had, quickie said he went to pursue another business matter. but he was essentially calling him repeatedly, their interactions, talking about offers of legal representation, complimentary tickets to a golf tournament. repeated reminders that he could come to work for trump. this is reporting from kaitlan pollens. why is that something that jack smith is interested in? assuming it's admissible, it's to prove that trump, under 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 -- based on as you described it, that's what i think jack smith would be doing, in response to subpoenas and response to investigation over former president -- he was reaching out in a way where, in one sense it might seem appropriate, but it's for the jury to decide what was his intent when he did that. >> reporter: it wasn't mentioned violence but we will see if it pops up anywhere else. thank you both, as always. thank you. we >> reporter: joining me now is someone who knows the way that donald trump, ticks what gets under his skin. anthony scaramucci was a brief stint as communications director for the white house. better known as the. mooch mr. scaramucci, thank you for being here. i'm curious what do you think is going through donald trump's head right. now is drought -- jack smith here, is he suppressing everyone by by passing the, postcards tree to the supreme court, and basically cutting off trumps 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 presidents mind, he is very, very worried. you have 91 counts, for big indictments. it feels like he's the all component of our current political system. meaning people think he's untouchable, just like they did with all capone, or someone like john gaudy, but they actually are not. untouchable. so he is 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 you think he thinks he's got a good shot there. he thinks that court is politicized and will tip to his favor. obviously jack smith doesn't think that. i certainly don't think that. and i think it's a great strategy, caitlin. we'll have to see what happens. but i think the president is very worried. >> reporter: whether or not it, works when you say he's very worried, he is not out there to say that what he's staring down right now potentially is a second term as president, or if he does end up going to trial as a schedule right now for one of these cases, this one that's at the heart of this in march, that he could be potentially facing a prison sentence if they are successful in a conviction. is that all he's thinking about at this point do you think? i do, and i also think that mark meadows, were leaving that out of the equation. but this is not -- he's not able to say on certain things that this is a witch hunt by democratic leadership, or democratic district attorneys are attorney generals. and so forth. he's not able to say that. you have one of the key witnesses brand the freedom caucus and was his last chief of staff. so that's right inside the wheelhouse. that's another reason why he's worried about these people and have access to his phone, where he's talked to on the phone. caitlin, you covered him for a long time. and you had sources inside the white house that were always concerned about the president 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 you legality on the part of the president. so the question i was going -- i 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 your president. i think that's the issue because if jack comes out this, with five or six smoking guns, i'm wondering what justice who wants there to be impartiality and wants to preserve the american democracy, how they would feel about those facts if the unfolded. >> reporter: would you like to weigh in? sure. >> reporter: i'm curious about your thought of that as well. i think the supreme court today is a very different than the when we appeared before several years ago. it is as 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, in my own personal view is that the issue is presidential immunity in this case are not that unclear. and i think if they follow the law that's been -- that started with mixed, and went through clinton, went through trump's last -- to the supreme court, they will conclude that as some have said before, no one's above the law, no president stands immune from investigation to prosecutions, once he or she is no longer in office. when you are in office, it's a different perhaps -- different kettle of fish, because you have a country that the citizenry has elected you lead. when you leave that office, you lose those immunities. >> reporter: we will see what they decide. thank you very much for that question, scaramucci. thank you very much for joining us as well. ahead, major developments in the case that we have been following here closely of a pregnant women in texas. she sued to have an emergency abortion, the texas supreme court has just waited in a ruling against. her disposition now to leave the state because of her health. also, jailed russian opposition leader alexei navalny, missing according to his attorneys. more on the mystery of his whereabouts, coming up. ♪ ♪ ♪ it's been a dramatic turn an attack this woman is at the center of a legal fight to end her high-risk pregnancy. kate cox is 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 has been in and out of the emergency room, we are told by her attorneys, and now they say that she is left of 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 tonight is aaron burrow, you know her well as part of the cnn family, but still has her own personal experience about what women, just like kate cox, are going through and she joins me now. i'm so glad that you're here, especially given what we've just heard from the texas supreme court and i want to read part of it for people who haven't said -- who haven't read it, and they said in this that no one disputes that her pregnancies been extremely complicated. she said any parent would be devastated to know that her -- some difficulties and pregnancy, however. even serious ones do not pose a heightened risk to the mother, to the exception in compasses. what do you make of that? you know, i have so many feelings right now. i am heartbroken for this mother. i am infuriated, and i am indignant as a woman, at the idea that was texas, and state capitals, all sorts of states, and judges who are not doctors, are questioning what the medical advice for this women's. look, caitlin, i had the news given to me that i had an ectopic pregnancy. that means the fetus is not viable and that means that if you don't terminate the pregnancy, you could die in the process. so i know what it's like to get the heart-wrenching news, her news is much worse. she's 21 weeks pregnant with, she's fighting for her life, she's fighting for her fertility. making her -- taking away her choice, taking her way her right, taking away her ability to get health care in her own state, i heard a lot of people say online, cavalierly -- why don't you 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 they down in your own bed, not be able to go cry into your own pillow, not be able to lean on your friends and your family and your village? when you live? not being able 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 back for your life and can take care of your own health somewhere else? that's cruel. that is inhumane. that is certainly not american, and it is certainly not god's will. shame on those politicians in texas telling this woman which he can or cannot do. and i want to remind america that it's not just texas, it's also doubled orban in florida, the woman who had a fetus, who had a baby that had no kidneys. and that was told that her child would certainly die, and she couldn't get an abortion in florida and had to hold the baby for 90 minutes as a big gasp for air and died in her arms. there's 14 other states that have laws like this, that are incredibly restrictive. so for people who think this is just texas, or this is just florida, no, every women in america should be indignant at the idea of politicians are telling us and telling doctors what to do. criminalizing doctors? chrome manila zing doctors? criminalizing women? where do we live, is this [inaudible] it's horrendous. >> reporter: i just want to say first off, thank you for showing -- sharing that. i know there are a lot of other aying it 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, you know -- she left the state of texas state to get this procedure, they're a lot of women who can't afford to leave their own states. i think that -- there are lot of women who can't afford to get out of state, to somewhere that they can get this procedure. we that's, right listen, the woman i mentioned in florida, deborah dorbert, could not afford to get out of state. we do people understand the amount of people who don't have the savings to be able to one day or another -- it requires looking for a doctor out of state, it requires paying for travel, it requires paid for -- in your home state, it requires staying in a hotel, staying somewhere as we recover. this is not like getting your nails done. these are procedures that require days off and recovery, and you're doing it what, in a hotel, in a different state? and in some of these states, in places like florida, in places like texas in the southeast coast, you have to drive