g the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. just in, singer michael bolton revealing he was diagnosed with a brain tumor just before the holidays, writing on facebook that tumor required immediate surgery. he went on to say, thanks to my incredible medical team, the surgery was a success. i'm recuperating at home surrounded by love of family. bolton will be taking a temporary break from singing. the grammy award winner had planned to tour next month. those datetes will be e reresch.

those datetes will be e reresch. "ac 360" starts right now. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com tonight on "360," breaking news, the supreme court takes the case that could knock the name donald trump off at least one state ballot and possibly redefine parts of the constitution. also tonight, president biden launching his campaign year with a full floated accusation saying the former president is, quote, willing to sacrifice democracy to put himself in power. and the latest batch of documents from the files of jeffrey epstein, that and new reporting. thanks for joining us. we begin with breaking news. the supreme court tonight agreeing to review the colorado supreme court decision, which labels the former president an insurrectionist and bars him from the ballot. it comes on the eve of the third anniversary of that insurrection. the news also caps a day that saw the current president speaking bluntly and at length about what he sees as the

ongoing threat his opponent remains. >> trump won't do what an american president must do. he refuses to denounce political violence. so, hear me clearly. i'll say what donald trump won't. political violence is never, ever acceptable in the united states political system. never, never, never. it has no place in a democracy, done. >> the former president, for his part, is campaigning in iowa wrrks he said, in so many words, i know you are, but what am i? >> joe biden is a threat to democracy. he's weaponizing law enforcement for a high level election interference. that's why crooked joe is staging his pathetic fear mongering campaign event in pennsylvania today. >> joining us now, cnn senior supreme court analyst joan biskupic and paula reid. paula, what more can you tell us about the court's decision. >> anderson, it doesn't get any

bigger than this. this issue arrives at a court that has been battered by scandals and controversial decisions, like overturning roe v. wade. this is likely going to be the biggest test for chief justice john roberts, the biggest test of his career. he's going to be under enormous pressure to try to build consensus behind the scenes after oral arguments to craft a decision that does not appear partisan. because again there have been a lot of questions about partisanship in and around the court. this is an enormous challenge for him, not only to decipher the constitutional questions that are in front of them but also to broadcast to the country and to the world that this is an organization that makes decisions based on the facts in the law. >> joan, what is the timing of how all this will play out? >> you know, it's going to be very swift. the date for everyone to keep in mind is february 8th. that's when the court will hold oral arguments, and everyone will get to hear what the nine justices asked.

the oral arguments will be live streamed. they will hear from the parties all around and maybe even not just the trump forces, the challengers. there might be some other voices who are allowed in. by then, of course, there will be an array of briefs coming in, the first set scheduled to come in in just a matter of two weeks, that are really going to show, anderson, a full throated approach, first to defend donald trump's claim that he should not be taken off the ballot. the other side will come in about two weeks later. the key thing here is that the justices have, kind of, left it open ended for the range of issues that it would take on at this point because they have not narrowed this down from, you know, big, broad questions as to whether is this the role of the judiciary to actually decide a question that's so politically charged? down to, did donald trump actually engage in an insurrection? so, there's a chance, anderson,

that we might actually see another order coming from the supreme court before the arguments that ask specifically for briefing on particular issues. >> paula, colorado's obviously not the only state where there's a question about former president being on the ballot. how does the supreme court decision on this affect all the other cases? >> it depends what they say, to joan's point. it's unclear what they're going to weigh in on. the expectation is they're going to provide clarity about section iii of the 14th amendment, the so-called insurrectionist ban. this has been litigated across multiple states with varying outcomes. if they don't offer clarity on that constitutional outcome, you're going to see -- new lawsuits in illinois and massachusetts because it is the job of the supreme court to, again, interpret and offer clarity to the states and other courts on constitutional questions. so, that's what we expect here. whatever they say would be

binding on the states. but, as joan noted, it's not clear exactly which issues they're going to weigh in on. the other big question is, what role does the state have to enforce that section? there are some other cases, other questions they could potentially weigh in on, like did he engage in an insurrection. i expect they might try to stay away from that, try to be narrow, focus on the constitutional issues. whatever they say, they're the final word on interpreting the constitution. >> joan, you've been covering the supreme court for years. given the personalities, the politics involved, do you have a sense of what's going on behind the scenes of this decision? >> they came to the bench today for the first time in the new year and the first time since these cases had arrived. i was there in the courtroom. they handled, for some early minutes, a lot of routine visits, admissions to the bar at the supreme court. that's when they left the bench, took off those black robes and all sat around a conference table in a small room off the chambers of chief justice john

roberts. and that's where they had to decide what were they going to do there. this was the first time they were meeting in person, as all these filings had come in this week. and then, anderson, i have to say, it took several hours for them to announce what they were doing. and i just wonder how much they struggled with whether they were going to already, kind of, narrow some of the issues or if they just wanted to quickly get out, as they did, we're taking the case and we'll iron out things later. i'm sure that they saw this marching toward them, and now they're ready to -- they're ready to act swiftly on it. and i think they realize the moment for them themselves that however they rule, they're going to set a tone for how to regard democratic norms as we're on the eve of such an important set of primaries, then the ultimate election in november of this year. >> joan biskupic, thanks. paula reid. more perspective from karen freedman agnifilo, also jennifer rogers. also rick hassan, author of the soon to be published new book "a

real right to vote: how a constitutional amendment can safeguard american democracy." jennifer, you have oral arguments scheduled to begin february 8th. what does the timing look like to you? >> it's obvious that the court really wanted to jump in quickly here because the primaries are approaching, and everyone's talking about the fact that the decisions were stay. the colorado decision to take trump off the ballot was stayed. so, he won't be off the ballot regardless of how long the court takes with it. but the people won below. i think the court kind of recognizes the stakes with the approaching primaries and really wants to get this done quickly. and the parties have briefed all of this below. it's not like anyone is going to be disadvantaged. the court will have time to decide. they're going to move it really swiftly. that says a lot about what they think about the stakes and how important they are treating this in terms of their own legitimacy, understanding they've taken real hits in recent years. >> karen, i want to play some of what the former president lawyer

said on fox last night about this case. this was before today's official decision from the supreme court. >> i think it should be a slam dunk in the supreme court. i have faith in them. you know, people like kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place, he'll step up. those people will step up, not because they're pro trump but because they're pro law, because they're pro fairness. and the lawness is very clear. >> how do you interpret that? >> it sounds like a dog whistle to me. i mean, that is an absolute message to brett kavanaugh through his spokesperson and his lawyer that, look, i went through hell for you, i stepped up for you. if you'll recall, those hearings were quite contentious with the accusations of sexual assault against brett kavanaugh. and basically trump is signaling that he expects brett kavanaugh to step up. >> her argument on the face of it, it doesn't make any sense that, you know, because he went through hell for kavanaugh, kavanaugh should step up for

him, but not because he went through hell for kavanaugh but because he cares about the law. >> yeah. well, the law here -- there are some questions, i think, that the supreme court will have to grapple with. one of them is, does the 14th amendment apply to the president? in other words, is the president an officer? because it's not named. he's not named as a title or a job description in that amendment. i think it's pretty clear it does apply to the presidency. another question that i think he also is arguing, trump, is that he didn't take an oath to support the constitution, which, again, i think that falls flat. but i think where they're potentially going to consider whether it applies to trump is, does it make sense -- is this the qualification like age or where you were born that a state can just determine like that? or is it, kind of, complicated and it's something that congress has to decide and determine what is an insurrection and whether

someone engaged in it? and i think that's going to be the major question that they grapple with. >> rick, we don't know how narrow a ruling the supreme court might come back with. there are obviously questions about whether the president is considered, as we were just talking about, an officer of the government, whether states can enforce the so-called insurrectionist ban, whether or not the former president incited an insurrection. how far do you think they might go? >> in their order today, as joan mentioned earlier, they didn't narrow down the list of questions. probably it's just too early. maybe we'll get that order that will tell us. everything has to break the way of the challengers in order for trump to be off the ballot. there are so many ways that the supreme court could decide to keep trump on the ballot that, you know, the odds have got to be with trump here. as i think about this, you know, trump's opening argument is, leave this to congress. and that actually seems quite dangerous. what trump is essentially saying is, let me run for office, let me potentially win election.

and then come january 6, 2025, when congress counts the electoral college votes, let congress decide if i'm eligible to run. that sounds like a recipe for real instability. i hope the supreme court is not going to embrace that arlgment. it would give them an out, but it would set up the country for a dangerous period of time. >> jennifer, the court doesn't have to address all the issues. they could ignore whether this was an insurrection or not, can't they? >> they can. i think they'll decide on a ground common to all states. the plaintiffs here didn't have standing or there was some due process problem in colorado. that's not going to be good enough because there are other pending challenges. they don't want to just do something on the colorado case that doesn't apply to the other cases. but, sure, they could decide, for example, that the office of the presidency, as karen was saying, isn't included in the offices under this provision. and that would apply to all -- >> even on the insurrection thing, the 14th amendment does not say that someone needs to be convicted of it, merely that they engaged in it. >> right.

and that is exactly what courts do, right? they take evidence, they take factual findings, they put those factual findings about what trump did up against the legal definition in the statute or the section of the constitution, and they make judgment calls. that's what courts do every day. which is why it's pretty hard to say they can't do that here. but i think we all know that the court is looking for an out here. i think they're looking for a way to keep him on the ballot because they're worried about the chaos that would ensue if he's off. >> of all the sitting justices, only thomas was on the bench for the bush v. gore decision in 2000. do you see parallels to that case? >> here the stakes are different. right now we don't know if one of the leading candidates is eligible to run for office. that suggests we really need a decision soon so that republican voters have a chance to know if the candidate they're considering supporting can serve as president. it's different than trying to deal with a recount.

yes, the stakes are similar. the legal issues are very different. as you think about what it's going to mean for the country, remember there are other cases involving trump that are coming to the supreme court, including a really important one about whether he can be criminally prosecuted or whether he's immune. that trial may take place depending on what the court does before we get to the general election season. that decision may end up being much more important than this one if, as i expect, the trump is not going to kick trump off the ballot. >> karen, do you think justice thomas should have recused himself from the case. house democrats question whether he can be impartial given his wife's role in the stop the steal rally. an attorney told cnn they have no plans to ask justice thomas to bow out. >> well, i think it make sense given the fact that she, his wife, testified before the january 6th committee and gave testimony and evidence that she was very much involved in the planning of the rally and the insurrection.

i think because that january 6th report was entered into evidence in colorado and the colorado district court that decided this actually used the jan 6 report as part of the finding as to why it was an insurrection, i think that that really makes it so there's a direct conflict for her, and she cannot -- it's his wife. and i think he has to recuse himself. i think if this was -- i think if it was any other court or any other judge, they would recuse themselves. but i think it's pretty clear here that there's a conflict. >> but that decision is solely up to him. >> solely up to him. >> all right. appreciate it, karen freedman agnifilo, jennifer rogers, rick hassan as well. coming up, a look at the former president's take on january 6th, the facts, and what his attempt to reshape those facts say about him and the moment we're in. and later the man who put the national rifle association at the center of republican politics stepping down as its leader.

where that leaves the nra and his political clout ahead. your stories need to be told.

at contra costa college, you can become a leader in journalism and help shape world views with hands-on experience at the advocate, contra costa college's award-winning, student-run news publication. learn to use digital media to tell stories and gain the research skills needed to uncover truths while exploring careers in media. so what are you waiting for? the world needs you. start your career in journalism today at contracosta.edu

we played you a moment ago some of what president biden and the former president said today about january 6th, when trump supporters violently stormed the capitol three years ago. keeping them honest, what their very different framing of it says about the year to come and the historical moment surrounding it. president biden first. >> let's be clear about the 2020 election. trump exhausted every legal avenue available to him to overturn the election, every one. but the legal path just took trump back to the truth, that i had won the election and he was a loser. so knowing how his mind works now, he had one act left, one

desperate act available to him, the violence of january 6th. >> president biden, as you heard at the top, called attention to the threat of political violence and the former president's refusal, he says, to disavow it. for his part, the former president says the real political violence is the prosecution of him, which isn't new. it's part of a familiar pattern he's had of january 6th trying to transform the violent mob into, in his lights, pmartyrs like himself. we have a sample of it in chronological order accompanied by video of what we all saw happen. >> go home. we love you. you're very special. it was a zero threat, right from the start. it was zero threat. there was also a love threat between the police, the capitol police, and the people that walked down to the capitol. there was such love at that rally. you had over 1 million people, and these were peaceful people.

these were great people. the crowd was unbelievable. and i mentioned the word, love. the love, the love in the air. i've never seen anything like it. if i run and if i win, we will treat those people from january 6th fairly. we will treat them fairly. and if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly. they were there proud. they were there with love in their heart. that was an unbelievable and it was a beautiful day. i call them the j6 hostages, not prisoners. >> clearly the current and former president are portraying january 6th differently, to say the least, which is not the same as saying one headline put it, one attack, two interpretations. there's simply no evidence to support two factual interpretations of a violent mob of trump supporters storming the capitol, which is what happened. it's what it was. it's what we all saw.

whether or not president biden is focusing on it to make a political point about it, his description of january 6th matches what happened. the last three years of new video and witness accounts and trial testimony and congressional hearings have done anything, they've only further narrowed whatever little room for interpretation there is or ever was. right now, it's down to whether the former president will be held criminally responsible. that's for a jury to decide. the rest is a matter of fact. because his political future -- that is what he has been doing for years, gaslighting. and for millions of americans, it is working. new polling out this week shows that 25% now say it's probably or definitely true that the fbi instigated the january 6th attack, not trump supporters. 26% say they're not sure. less than half say it's false. welcome to 2024. joining us now, two senior political commentators, former republican congressman adam

kinzinger, and david axelrod. congressman kinzinger, as you might remember, served on the january 6th committee. as a former member of that committee and someone who lived through the horrors of that day in washington, i'm wondering what your thoughts on president biden's speech was today? >> i actually thought it was pretty good. i think he's doing now what he needs to be doing, which is taking this right to donald trump, calling out his flaws. one of the things that's really struck me of late is just how hon honestly whiny, how victimy, how weak, how complainy donald trump is. i think it's important to call out. it's not taking fortuitous shots. it's because donald trump has convinced his base that he's this tough rugged american that's standing up to the smog. and the truth is donald trump is a victim in his own mind. he's whiny. and he's not running to make america great again, at least not this time. he's running to protect himself from jail. and i thought joe biden did a good job of calling that out.

and i certainly expect and hope he continues to do that as well as making calls for saying we need the same right, the center, and the left to, in essence, uncomfortably unite this year because there's a lot more on the line than just the issues we disagree on. >> david, president biden begins his re-election campaign with his approval ratings at or near all-time lows for his presidency. do you think his message here, defense of democracy, be an effective call to action for voters? >> well, i think it will be to a large number of voters in his base. i think this was an important speech today, anderson, because there has been some disspirited feelings among his base. there's been some divisions among his base. and people have been waiting for him to take it to trump. this is an issue, while there are divisions among democrats, this is an issue that unifies them. to see the president deliver the speech as strongly as he did today, as passionately -- and he

clearly feels passionately about this -- i think that's all very important. is it sufficient? probably not. as important as i believe, as adam believes, perhaps as you believe this issue is, and as many americans do, they also have issues relative to their day-to-day lives that go to the economy and their quality of life and their feeling of security. when the president talks about the future, it can't just be about democracy. it also has to be about the day-to-day issues that concern people. >> congressman, i want to play another part of the president's speech. >> because of you, the will of the people prevail. not the anger of the mob or the appetites of one man. the attack on january 6th happened, there was no doubt about the truth. >> it is remarkable, congressman, according to "the washington post" university of maryland poll, 26% of americans

say it's probably or definitely true that the fbi instigated the january 6th attack. i find that incredible. >> yeah, it's outrageous. there's a couple of things going on there. one of them is, to believe january 6th was fbi-led or whatever -- which is insane, by the way. but to think that part of that is a tribal tattoo. it has now become a price of entry to be a republican to say that you believe the january 6th thing was led by the fbi. because it could never be the messiah that's come to earth to bless us again, donald trump. the other thing that's happening, this complete leadership or a failure of leadership. donald trump is going to say what he says. but republican voters also look to all the other second tier leaders, the people running for president, the people in congress, the people in the senate, all the way down to county chairman. and when every one of them are saying that donald trump is a victim of the deep state or a victim of the fbi or he didn't lead january 6th, i'm actually honestly a little surprised that

any republicans say anything else. because leaders have failed to lead. so, we have to keep telling the truth and shine that bright truth into darkness. and i would say that any of my republican colleagues listening, you're going to have to look yourself in the mirror someday. and this moment is directed at you. you can lead people. you may get kicked out of the tribe, but it may not be a tribe you want to stay part of anyway. >> david, do you see president biden rerunning the campaign he ran essentially the first time around, keeping the focus on the soul of america and, as he says, the former president's threat to it? >> well, first of all, i think we should look back. i think we look back with a little bit of a cloudy lens on that. that was certainly how he ran at the beginning of his campaign. at the end of his campaign, it was a lot about how the covid crisis had been managed. it was a lot about middle class economics versus trump's economics.

so, you know, it's a little bit of mythology that it was all about the soul of america. and i think this one can't be all about that either. the other difference here, anderson, is he's the incumbent now. and so everybody's grievances attached to him and trump gets a free ride and people have a gau zi recollection of what it was like during the trump years. it is very important for biden to be on the attack continually in this campaign and not just about democracy. but he should hold a clear lens up against what trump's actual record was and remind people what those years were like. if you think that the world is chaotic now, think back to what those years were like every day when we woke up every morning wondering what crazy thing the president of the united states had done or said the night before. and ask yourself, is that going to calm the country? is that going to stabilize the future? you know, biden has to make this case, and he has to do it on a

daily basis, not just a periodic speech about democracy. >> thank you. now the former president campaigning in iowa, where just a bit ago he fired back at president biden. details from cnn's kristen holmes. kristen, what did the former president have to say? >> reporter: well, he didn't take on biden's threats -- argument that he was a threat to democracy. he instead tried to make this about issues like immigration and the economy. that is the fight he wants to take on. when he talked about the president, he called him names. he said he was incompetent. and he didn't go after any of the substance of the speech today but instead went after the event as a whole. take a listen. >> these caucuses, we're going to finish the job and we're going to get it done and we're going to actually be stronger than ever before. it's hard to believe because you see the damage that's been done. no president has ever, ever -- you know, i often say you can take the ten worst presidents in the history of our country.

you can add them up, put them together, and they haven't done the damage joe biden has done to this country. what he's done to this country is unthinkable. biden's record is weakness, corruption, and failure. other than that, he's doing quite fair. that's a hell of a list. that's a hell of a list, right? that's why crooked joe is staging his pathetic fear mongering campaign event in pennsylvania today. did you see? he was stuttering through the whole thing. he's going -- he's a threat to democracy. i'm a -- they've weaponized government. he's saying i'm a threat to democracy. he's a threat to d-d-democracy. >> reporter: he was making fun of his stutter there. one thing, trump's closing message is about joe biden. one is he's telling iowans to go out there and do not get

complacent. he's also asking them particularly to essentially were they happier four years ago economically. and if so, bypass all this process and just put me back in the white house. you know that i can do it. so, that is part of his key message. we're seeing a lot of that play out here. one thing i also want to point out is he yiezed the word fear mongering, something donald trump has been accused of doing. and shortly after he made that remark, he said that multiply gallants were coming over the border and democrats wanted them to so they could sign them up to vote in the next election. there's no proof of that and we have not heard that in any way. it just goes to the fear mongering aspect to all this, something donald trump has often done in his campaign. >> did the former president -- is he going after his rivals in the republican primary, or is he just, kind of, doesn't even need to? >> reporter: no, this was actually the most we've seen him go after nikki haley, obviously after a rise in her poll numbers. they just put money into ads on

immigration, hitting nikki haley in new hampshire. they do see a surge in that poll numbers. and here's what he said about her tonight. >> nikki haley has been in the pocket of the open borders establishment donors her entire career, and she's a globalist. you know? she likes the globe. i like america first. and nikki haley's campaign is being funded by biden donors. did you know that? biden donors. because they're trying to get her. well, i think they've, sort of, given up. you know notice they're, sort of, out of here. >> reporter: and anderson, he went on to say all the polls that showed her surging were made up, that they were lies. but i will tell you, speaking to his senior advisers, they are taking it very seriously. they are trying to stem any kind of momentum she has, particularly here and in new hampshire. coming up, why one of the most influential gun rights

leaders is out after decades of leadership. also the school shooting in perry, iowa, more about what happened.

. wayne lapierre, who was the face of the gun rights movement in the u.s. for decades, announced his resignation as the head of the national rifle

association. this happens days ahead of a civil trial -- lapierre had to apologize to the nra for calling them jack booted thugs. he's led the organization since 1991. ed lavandera joins us now with more. what more -- talk about the reasons for his resignation. >> reporter: well, the timing of all of this obviously quite interesting. but the national rifle association board of directors was meeting in the dallas area today, and according to a statement released by the nra, that is where wayne lapierre notified the board that he was resigning. in that statement, the nra says that lapierre cited health concerns as the reason for his resignation. they also went on to say that the resignation will take effect at the end of this month, january 31st. >> so, lapierre and some of the

nra's other top executives go on trial in a civil case on monday over allegations of fraud. what are the details on that? >> reporter: that's why the timing of all of this is so interesting, anderson. this comes just days before the nra, lapierre, and three other executives with the organization are set to go on trial. the new york attorney general brought a lawsuit against the organization and these four executives back in august of 2020, essentially accusing the organization and these men of violating laws that govern non-profit organization, including mismanagement and fraud. they said that they used millions of dollars for personal gain for themselves, families, friends, and vendors. and accusing them of losing more than $63 million for the nra. the attorney general there in new york said that lapierre's resignation today validates their lawsuit and that the trial will go on as scheduled starting on monday. >> talk a little bit about the power he has had -- i mean, he's

been the face of the gun rights movement in america. put this in context for us. >> reporter: well, this is massive, as yo wayne lapierre has been synonymous with the national rifle association for decades. he has been the face of this organization's push for gun rights across the country. they have touted for years their ability to elect politicians that see the gun rights issues the way they do, also trying to strike fear in those politicians that would vote against any kind of gun rights issue and against the organization. he's also had just a long history of very controversial remarks. after the sandy hook elementary school shooting, he talked about how the only way to stop school shootings is to get more guns on the streets and into people's hands. these are the kinds of comments that just really infuriated many gun control advocate

organizations across the country. one of those organizations, every town, says, this is just a sign the nra is in a doom spiral at this point. >> thank you. this happens the day after the latest school shooting, this one in perry, iowa. today we learn the name of the young boy who was murdered, a sixth grader who was shot three times. his name is amir jolif. he was just 11 years old. the school's principal, who is in critical condition tonight, he was shot trying to save the lives of kids by talking to the shooter. what have we learned about the other victims in this shooting? >> reporter: anderson, tonight we have learned from authorities that there are actually seven people who were injured in this attack. of those seven, two students and a faculty member remain in the hospital. that fa youculty member identif as the principal of perry high school, dan mar berger. they're also saying -- they're

hailing him a hero. they're saying he acted selflessly and put himself in harm's way to protect his students. here's what the superintendent of the perry community school district had to say tonight. >> mr. marberger, he was a hero. and i know that it helped the way that he approached that situation, and it saved some lives. >> reporter: another victim who remains in the hospital tonight is a student who's been identified by his mother on facebook. megan jeffreys says her son, sage, was shot a total of 12 times directly. she says he's in pain, he's recovering in the hospital. she also said, quote, he's terrified to go to sleep, terrified to be left alone, and said he's in complete disbelief that this is even real. anderson? >> what are officials saying about the investigation? any possible motive?

>> reporter: right now authorities say they're really focusing in on evidence around social media, posts that the shooter made before this incident and also potentially during. they're looking at a tiktok video that is believed to show the shooter inside of the school bathroom posing next to a blue duffel bag with the caption, now we wait. authorities did confirm he later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound later on. they're also interviewing victims and eyewitnesses, all of this as the community is really trying to heal. anderson? >> thanks very much. just ahead. the biggest release of documents relating to jeffrey epstein. they contain new details about a lawsuit kelkted to him and about the names of his associates. kara scannell and her team have been pouring over them. she joins us next. my sport propels me forward.

contra costa college saw potential in me that i didn't know i had. focus. determination. drive. contra costa college helped me blaze the trail. now i'm a comet, and there's no stopping me. come on, this is your shot. take it. join the team at contra costa college. start today at contracosta.edu i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song.

oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is. today saw the largest release of documents yet related to jeffrey epstein. more than 1,600 pages were released today. that's on top of the 100 releases in the previous two days. kara scannell has been reading this latest batch, joins us with details. anything new? what did you learn? >> a little bit more about the orbit jeffrey epstein lived in, some of the famous faces he was associated with. there was an employee of his who gave a deposition in the case. what he testified to was he recalled having dinner with donald trump at jeffrey epstein's -- in his kitchen in

palm beach. he also testified that he met bill clinton on a plane and on a different plane trip he met prince andrew. trump and bill clinton have not been accused of any wrong doing in this case, and clinton's team has said he hasn't had contact with him in 20 years. prince andrew reached a settlement with the accuser in this case, virginia giuffre, and he's denied wrong doing. but there are also names that came up in this document dump today. one of them, harvey weinstein. his name appeared on a phone message log, one of those old books that are spiral bound. it said he called for epstein. you can see on the screen. just a handwritten note noting that. giuffre's lawyer had written in a book he published in 2020 that epstein and harvey weinstein were friends, but they had a falling out when harvey weinstein was too aggressive with one of epstein's favorite girls, as he put it. another name that came up in a few of these papers, david

copperfield, the magician. i know one woman testified about him being at the house doing magic tricks. and he said to her -- she testified, he questioned me if i was aware girls were getting paid to find other girls. and one of the plaintiffs' lawyers in this case was quizzing a woman who worked for epstein, a separate person, and had asked if she was aware that copper field had obtained tickets for epstein to give to the girls. copperfield's team has not gotten back to us. harvey weinstein is in jail -- prison -- after being convicted in new york and l.a. for unrelated sex crimes. >> renaming names had been redacted. >> there's been this miscon se acception that there was a list of names that was going to be released. instead it's these names hidden in all these documents we have to go through. "the miami herald" asked the judge, there was a court-created

list just so they could go through all of these does and try and decide what could be unsealed and what couldn't. they asked for that to be unsealed so it would be a key for everyone to understand it better. the judge said she wasn't going to unseal it because people might try to figure out who the sealed names are, if it's listed alphabetically. she said for the people should re remain sealed, she was not going to let the list out. >> some are remained sealed because they were may knorrs at the time, they were victims, and they've always been public. they've always maintained their confidentiality. if there was a list that's alphabetical, there's a chance someone might be able to figure out who they were. >> it's important to know jeffrey epstein might never have been arrested had an earlier deal been allowed to stand. randi kaye has more on that story and the al legations of sexual abuse against jeffrey epstein. and we want to warn you, some of

the details are graphic. >> all jeffrey cared about was, go find me more girls. his appetite was insatiable. >> back in 2006, the fbi began investigating jeffrey epstein's alleged activities with young girls, who today are in their 20s and 30s. some spoke to "the miami herald." >> i've seen hundreds and hundreds of girls go through jeffrey's swinging door. >> reporter: dozen of them all with similar stories of sexual abuse, even down to the details of what epstein's genitals looked like. >> he would want us to stand next to him and he would masturbate. >> it ended with sexual intercourse and a pat on the back. you've done a really good job. like, you know, thank you very much. and here's $200. >> reporter: epstein reportedly paid more if the girls engaged in oral sex or intercourse. and they all say epstein wanted them to recruit other young girls to bring to him. >> by the time i was 16, i

brought him up to 75 girls, all the ages of 14, 15, 16, people going from eighth grade to ninth grade, at just school parties is where i'd recruit them from. >> here at epstein's palm beach home is where much of the alleged abuse took place. according to court documents, as far back as 2001, it's believed epstein began luring underage girls here with the help of those who worked for him. most of the girls ranged in age from 13 to 16 and came from disadvantaged homes. they'd never before seen the exclusive palm beach island. the house has since been torn down, but the painful memories for some of the victims remain. >> the training started immediately. everything down to how to be quiet, be subservient, give jeffrey what he wants. and you know, before you know it, i'm being lent out to politicians and to academics. >> reporter: years later, in a 2014 court document, one of the women, virginia roberts, who

today goes by virginia giuffre, claims she had been an underage sex slave to epstein, claims he forced her to have sex with some of his powerful friends, including prince andrew, the duke of york. she would have been 17 at the time. the prince emphatically denied all of it. in 2022, prince andrew settled with giuffre for an undisclosed amount, and a u.s. district judge agreed to dismiss her lawsuit against him. buckingham palace stripped him of his titles, and according to a royal source, told him he could no longer use, his royal highness, in any official capacity. epstein often ran with the rich and powerful. donald trump, bill clinton, and his two high profile defense attorneys, ken star and allen desh wits. none of them have been accused of wrong doing. trump told new york magazine about epstein, he is a lot of fun to be with.

it is said he likes beautiful women as much as i do, and many are on the younger decide. federal investigators identified 36 girls and were building their case when suddenly in 2007, epstein made a sweetheart deal. this allowed him to plead guilty to a lesser charge, just two prostitution charges in state court, and register as a sex offender. he would serve just 13 months in county jail. the deal also granted immunity to any potential co-conspirators. none of those people were identified, leaving many to wonder if other powerful people were having sex with underage girls at epstein's homes. -- and any chance of epstein going to prison for life based on the fbi's own federal indictment that would have charged him with sex crimes. >> i read the indictment. there was multiple allegations of sex trafficking, trafficking girls across lines, using his airplane to traffic girls, witness intimidation.

and then all of a sudden, it disappeared. >> reporter: the deal was negotiated, the in part, by epstein's friend and defense lawyer, allen der sho wits, and signed off by alexander acosta, who was former president donald trump's secretary of labor. >> he's supposed to be protecting these victims, and he was protecting jeffrey epstein, a pedophile. >> reporter: and despite a federal law, which says victims must be notified of this type of deal, epstein's victims were kept in the dark until after it was signed and approved by the judge. >> somebody with money and power was able to communicate with the government in secrecy, in direct violation of the rights of the crime victims. >> reporter: at his confirmation hearing for labor secretary, alexander acosta tried to explain his decision not to prosecute epstein federally. zblf based on the evidence, professionals with a prosecutor's office decide that a plea that guarantees that

someone goes to jail, that guarantees that someone register generally, and that guarantees other outcomes, is a good thing. >> reporter: meanwhile, in february 2019, 11 years after epstein was sentenced, a federal judge here in florida ruled that acosta and other officials from the department of justice violated the crime victim rights act by not notifying the alleged victims of the plea deal until after it was signed. the judge noted that prosecutors misled the victims, by allowing them to believe that a federal prosecution was still a possibility. >> it's scary because this is our government that's supposed to protect us but has done everything to protect, you know, a pedophile. >> reporter: and of course, anderson, the story did not end there. in july 2019, epstein was suddenly arrested again. and this time, he was charged federally. those charges did include one count of sex trafficking of minors.

he was facing up to 40 years in prison. he was 66 years old at the time. so, while he was awaiting trial in jail, he did take his life. we also mentioned bill clinton and donald trump. it's also important to note that neither trump nor clinton have been accused of crimes or wrong doings related to this case. cnn reached out to bill clinton, and his spokesperson referred us to a 2019 statement saying that clinton had flown on epstein's private plane, was unaware, though, of epstein's terrible crimes. cnn also reached out to donald trump based on these new documents that were released. and a trump spokesperson didn't really give us a formal comment, simply attacked the media. anderson? >> randi kaye, thanks. we'll be right back.

this sunday night, don't miss an all new episode of "the whole story." 15 years later, the miracle on the hudson. we'll talk with pilot sully sullenberger and passengers who survived the emergency landing in the hudson river. one whole hour, one whole story only on cnn. the news continues. "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now