[ grunt ] stay connected when the power goes out, with storm ready wifi from xfinity. and see migration in theaters now. tonight on 360, breaking news, the supreme court takes the case that could knock donald trump off one state ballot and possibly redefine parts of the constitution. president biden launching

his campaign year with a full throated accusation saying the former president is quote willing to sacrifice democracy to put himself in power. and the latest batch of unlocked documents of jeffrey epstein. we begin with breaking news. the supreme court 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 anniversary. >> 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 violence. never, never, never. it has no place in a democracy. none. >> the former president for his part is campaigning in iowa where he said in so many words i know you are but what am i. >> joe biden is a threat to democracy. he is weaponnizing law enforcement for a high level election interference. that is why crooked joe is staging his pathetic fear mongering campaign event in pennsylvania today. >> joining us now, cnn senior supreme court analyst joan and chief legal affairs correspondent paula. so what can you tell us about the court's decision? >> 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 will likely be the biggest test for chief justice john

roberts. he will be under enormous pressure to build consensus behind the scenes after oral arguments to craft a decision that does not appear partisan. there have been a lot of question about partisanship around the court. so this is an enormous challenge for him. not only to decipher the constitutional questions. but as, to broadcast to the country and the world this is an organization that makes decisions based on the facts and the law. >> joan, what is the timing of how all this will play out? >> it will be very swift. the day for everyone to keep in mind is february 8th. that is when the court will hold oral arguments and everyone will hear what the nine justices ask. the oral arguments will be live streamed. they will hear from the parties all around and maybe the challengers, the trump voices. there might be other voices allowed in. by then, there will be an array of briefs coming in.

the first set coming in, in a matter of two weeks. that will really show, anderson, a full throated approach first to defend donald trump's claim that he should not be taken off the ballot. and then, the other side will come in about two weeks later. but 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 big broad questions as to whether is this the role of the judiciary to actually decide a question that is so politically charged? down to did donald trump actually engage in an insurrection? so there is 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. >> colorado is obviously not the only state where there is a question about former president

trump being on the ballot. how does the supreme court decision affect the other cases? >> it depends on what they will say. the expectation is they are going to provide some clarity on this constitutional question about section three of the 14th amendment. the so-called insurrectionist ban. this has been litigated across multiple states with varying outcomes. but if they don't offer clarity on that constitutional question, you are going to continue to see these challenges proliferate. in the past 48 hours we have seen new lawsuits in illinois and massachusetts. the job of the supreme court to again interpret and offer clarity to the states and to other courts on constitutional questions. so that is what we expect here. whatever they say would be binding on the states. but as joe noted it is not clear exactly which issues they are 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 that they could potentially weigh in on. like did he engage in an insurrection? i expect they might try to stay

away from that and try to be narrow. focus on the constitutional issues. whatever they say, they are the final word on interpreting the constitution. >> joan, you have been covering the supreme court for years. do you have a sense of what is going on behind the scenes of this decision? >> well you know, they came to the bench today for the first time in the new year and the first time since these cases had arrived and i was there in the courtroom. they handled for some early minutes. a lot of routine business. that is when they left the bench. took off the black robes and all sat around a conference table in a small room off the chambers of chief justice john roberts. and that is where they had to decide what were they going to do there. this is 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, taking the case and we will iron out some things later. i'm sure they saw this marching toward them. now they are ready to act swiftly on it and i think they realized the moment for them themselves. that however they rule, they will set a tone for how to regard democratic norms as we are on the eve of such an important set of primaries. then the ultimate election in november of this year. >> joan, paula, thanks. more perspective from karen and jennifer. and rick, author of the soon to be published new book, a real right to vote. how a constitutional amendment can safeguard american democracy. so, jennifer, you have oral arguments scheduled to begin february 8th. what does the timing look like to you? >> it is obvious the court wanted to jump in quickly. everyone is talking about the

fact that the decisions were stayed. 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 who wanted donald trump off the ballot won so it kind of hurts them if he ends up on the ballot. so the court recognizes the stakes with the approaching primaries. and really wants to get this done quickly. the parties briefed all of this below. it is not like anyone will be disadvantaged. the court will have enough time to decide. but they will move it swiftly. that says a lot about the stakes and how important they are treating this in terms of their own legitimacy. >> i want to play some of what trump's lawyers said on fox. >> 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 will step up. those people will step up. not because they are pro trump, but because they are pro law and pro fairness and the lawness is very clear. >> how do you interpret that? >> sounds like a dog whistle to me. 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 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. >> right, her argument just on the face f it doesn't make any sense that 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, does the 14th

amendment apply to the president? he is not named as a title or a job description. i think it is clear it does apply to the presidency. another question i think he 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 there are potentially going to consider whether it applies to trump is does it make sense? is this a qualification like age or where you were born that a state can just determine like that or is it complicated, something that congress has to decide and determine what is an insurrection. and whether someone engaged in it. i think that will be the major question they will grapple with. >> we don't know how narrow a ruling the supreme court might come back with. there are 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 or whether the president incited an insurrection. >> they didn't narrow down the list of questions. so probably it is just too early. maybe we will get that order that will tell us. but, everything has to break the way of the challengers in order for trump to be off the ballot. there are just so many ways that the supreme court could decide to keep trump on the ballot. that the odds have got to be with trump here. but as i think about this, trump's opening argument is leave this to congress. that actually seems quite dangerous. let me run for office. let me win election. and come january 6, 2025, let's congress decide if i'm eligible to run. that sounds like a recipe for real political instability. and i hope the supreme court is not going to embrace that argument. it would give them an out, but set up the country for a really dangerous period of time.

>> jennifer, the court doesn't have to address all the issues. >> i think they have to decide on a ground common to all states. there was some due process in colorado. that will not be good enough. sure, they could decide for example, office of the presidency 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 need to be convicted of it. merely that they engaged in it. >> right. and that is exactly what courts do. right? they take evidence, they make factual findings and put the factual findings about what trump did up against the legal definition in the statute or the section of the constitution. and they make those judgment calls. that is what courts do every day. which is why it is hard to say that they can't do that here.

but i think we all know that the court is looking for an out here. i think they are looking for a way to keep him on the ballot because they are worried about the chaos that will ensue if he is off. >> only clarence thomas was on the supreme court for the bush v. gore in 2000. do you see parallels? >> here, the stakes are different. right? 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 republican voters have the chance to know if the candidate they are considering supporting can serve as president. it is different than a recount. yes, the stakes are similar. the legal issues are very different. as you think about what it will 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 is 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. >> karen, do you think justice thomas should have recused himself from the case? there are questions he could be impartial. but an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case told cnn they have no plans to ask for justice thomas to bow out. >> well i think it makes sense given the fact that his wife testified before the january 6th committee and gave testimony and evidence that she was 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 january 6 report as part of the

finding, that makes it a direct conflict for her. that is his wife. and i think he has to recuse himself. if it was any other court, they would recuse themselves. >> but that decision is socially up to him? >> solely up to him. >> i appreciate it. coming up next, a closer look at the former president's take on january 6th. the facts and what his attempt to reshape the facts say about him and the moment we are in. and the man who put the national rifle association at the center of republican politics, wayne lapierre stepping down. where that leaves the nra and its political clout, ahead.

♪♪ ♪♪ new double pollo fit bowls. only at el pollo loco.

(♪♪) (♪♪) the new festive family meal. starting at $24. now celebrating at el pollo loco. we played you a moment ago, what president biden and former president trump said about january 6. what their different framing about it says about the year to come. 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 the 6th. >> president biden as you heard at the top called attention to the threat of political violence and the former president's refusal to disavow it. the former president said the real political violence is the prosecution of him. which isn't new. it is part of a familiar albeit remarkable pattern he has had since january 6th of trying to recast the attack as something else. and transforming the violent mob into, in his lights, martyrs like himself. we have a sample of it in chronological order accompanied by video of what we saw happen. >> go home. we love you. you're very special. >> it was zero threat.

right from the start. there was also a love fest between the police, the capital police and the people that walked down to the capitol. there was such love at that rally. you had over a million people. and they 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 have 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 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 this

week put it, one attack, two interpretations. because there is simply no evidence is support. whether or not president biden is focusing on it to make a political point, his description of january 6th matches the facts of what happened. and if the last three years of new video and witness accounts and trial testimony, congressional hearings have done anything, they have only further narrowed what little room for interpretation there ever was. it is mainly down to whether the former president will be criminalically responsible. that is for a jury to decide. the rest is a matter of fact. because his legal and political future rely on him persuading the world otherwise, that is what he has been doing now for years. gaslighting. and for millions of americans, it is working. new polling out this week shows that 25% now say it is probably or definitely true that the fbi instigated the january 6th

attack. not trump supporters. 26% said they are not sure. let's than half say it is false. welcome to 2024. joining us now, two senior political commenters. congressman, is a former member of that committee. the january 6th committee and lived through the horrors of that day in washington. i'm wondering what your thoughts are on president biden's speech was today. >> i thought it was pretty good. i think he is 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 is really struck me of late is just how honestly whiney, how victimy, how weak, how complaining donald trump is. and i think it is important to call out. it is not just taking gratuitous shots. donald trump has convinced his base that he is this tough rugged american standing up for the small guy and the truth is,

donald trump is a victim in his own mind. he is whining and he is not running to make america great again. at least not this time. he is 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 the sane right, and the center, and the left to uncomfortably unite this year because there is a lot more on the line than the issues we disagree on. >> president biden begins his reelection campaign with his approval ratings at or near all time lows for his presidency. do you think his message, defensive democracy, be an effective call to action for voters? >> i think this was an important speech today. because there has been disspiritted feelings among his

base. people have been waiting for him to take it to trump. this is an issue that unifies them. and to see the president deliver the speech as strongly as he did today. as passionately, that is all very important. is it sufficient? probably not. because i think as important as i believe, perhaps as you believe, as many americans do, they also have issues relative to their day-to-day lives. and their feels of security. so when the president talks about the future, it can't just be about democracy. it also has to be the day-to- day issues that concern people. >> i want to play another part of the president's speech. >> because of you, the will of the people prevailed. the attack on january 6th

happened. there was no doubt about the truth. >> it is remarkable. according to the washington post university of maryland poll, 25% of americans say it is probably or definitely true that the fbi instigated the january 6th attack. i just find that incredible. >> it is outrageous. a couple of things going on there. one of them is to believe the january 6 was fbi led, but to think that part of that is a tribal tattoo. and now become a price of entry to be a republican to see you believe the january 6th thing was led by the fbi. it could never be the messiah that has come to bless us, donald trump. the complete leadership, not just, donald trump will say what he says. but republican voters also look to all the other second tear leaders. people running for president. people in congress, people in

the senate. all the way down to county chairman. and when every one of them are saying donald trump is a victim of the deep state or 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 to any of my republican colleagues listening, you'll have to look at yourself in the mirror some day 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 a part of any way. >> do you see president biden rerunning the campaign he ran essentially the first time around? keeping the focus on the soul of america and the former president's threat to it? >> first of all, we should look back. we look with a cloudy lens on

that. that was certainly how he ran at the beginning of his campaign. at the end of it, 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 is a little bit of mythology that it was all about the soul of america. and this one can't be all about that either. he is the incumbent now. it is very important for biden to be on the attack. and not just about democracy. but, he should hold a clear lens up against what trump's actual record was. and remind people what the years are like. if you think the years were chaotic now, think what they were like when we woke up

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? biden has to make this case and he has to do it on a daily basis. >> thank you. now, the former president campaigning in iowa where just a bit ago, he fired back at president biden. details from kristin holmes. so, kristin, what did the former president have to say? >> reporter: he didn't take on biden's threats, arguments that he was a threat to democracy. he 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 didn't go after any of the substance of the speech. but went after the event as a whole. take a listen. >> the caucuses were going to

finish the job, get it done and actually be stronger than ever before. it is hard to believe because you see the damage done. no president has ever. you can take the ten worst presidents in the history of our country, add them up, put them together and they haven't done the damage that joe biden has done to this country. what he has done to this country is unthinkable. biden's record is an unbroken streak of weakness, incompetence, corruption and failure. other than that, he is doing quite well. that's a hell of a list. crooked joe is staging his pathetic fear mongering event. his weaponnized government. he says i'm a threat to democracy. he's a threat to democracy.

what >> he is trying to make fun of his stutter there. trump's closing message is about joe biden. he is also asking them particularly to essentially were they happier for years ago economically? if so, bypass this process and put me in the white house. that is part of his key message. one thing i want to point out, you used fear mongering, something donald trump has been accused of doing. shortly after he made that remark, he said migrants were coming over the border and democrats wanted them to, to sign them up to vote in the next election which obviously, there is no proof of that and we have not heard that in any way. but just goes to the fear mongering aspect of all this. something donald trump has done in his campaign. >> is he going after his rivals

in the republican primary? or is he just kind of doesn't even need to? >> this was the most we have seen him go after nikki haley. hitting nikki haley in new hampshire. here is what he said about her tonight. >> nikki haley has been in the pocket of the open borders establishment her entire career. she is a globalist. she likes to globe. i like america first. and nikki haley's campaign is being funded by biden donors. did you know that? because they are trying to get her in particular. i think they have given up. you notice they are sort of like out of here. >> and anderson, he went onto say awe the polls showed her surging were made up and lies. but speaking to a senior adviser, they are taking it

very seriously. they see her rise and they are trying to stem any kind of momentum she has, particularly here and in new hampshire. >> kristin, thank you very much. coming up, why one of the most influential gun rights advocates is out of the nra. also the school shooting in perry, iowa. details about what happened and the sixth grader murderered and the principal shshot tryining t sasave more kikids.

dais ahead of a civil trial, they are accused of misusing nra funds. lapierre had to apologize to the nra. this was a month after the 1995 oklahoma city bombing, a domestic terror attack on a federal government building. he has led the organization since 191. so what more to talk about the reasons for his resignation? >> the timing is quite interesting but the board of directors was meeting in the dallas area. according to a statement released by the nra, that is where wayne lapierre notified the board he was resigning.

the statement says he cited health concerns as the reason for his resignation and they went onto say the resignation will take effect at the end of this month. january 31st. >> so, lapierre and some of the other top executives go on trial in a civil case monday over allegations of fraud. what are the details on that? >> that's why the timing of this is so interesting. this is days before the nra and other executives with the organization are set to go on trial. theessentially they accused the organization and these mean of violating laws governing non- profit organization. mismanagement and fraud. they used millions of dollars for personal gain for themselves, family, friends, and vendors. accused of losing $63 million

for the nra. the attorney general in new york said that l lapierre's resignation validating their lawsuit. >> he has been the face of the gun rights movement in america. put this in context for us. >> this is massive. wayne lapierre has been synonymous with the rifle association for decades. been a face for the push for gun rights across the country and touted for years their ability to elect politicians. trying to strike fear in the politicians that would vote against any gun rights issue. and he has a long history of controversial remarks after the sandy hook elementary school shooting where 20 children all very young elementary school

children and six adults were killed. the only way to stop school shootings is to get more guns into people's hands. these are the kinds of comments that really infuriated many gun control advocate organizations across the country. every town says this is just a sign that 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 learned the name of the young boy murdered. a sixth grader shot three times in addition to five others injured. his name is emir jolif. he was just 11 years old. we learned about one of the heros. the school's principal who is in critical condition. he was shot trying to save the lives of kids by talking to and distracting the shooter. what have we learned about the other shootings in this, veronica? >> reporter: there are actually seven people injured in this

attack. of those, two students and a faculty member remain in the hospital. that faculty member identified as the principal of perry high school. he is in critical condition. still in the hospital. they are saying they are hailing him as a hero saying he acted selflessly and put himself in harm's way to protect his students. here is what the superintendent of the perry community school district had to say tonight. >> mr. marburger, he was a hero. and i know that it helped the way he approached the situation and it saved some lives. >> another victim who remains in the hospital tonight is a student who has been identified by his mother on facebook. megan jeffrey says her son sage was shot a total of 12 times

directly. he is in pain, recovering in the hospital. he is terrified to go to sleep. terrified to be left alone. and said he is in complete disbelief this is even real. anderson? >> what are officials saying about the investigation of any possible motive? >> right now authorities are focusing on any evidence on social media. posts the shooter made before the incident and potentially during. they are looking at a tiktok video believed to show the shooter inside the school bathroom posing next to a blue duffel bag with the caption now we wait. he later died from a self- inflicted gunshot wound later on. they are also interviewing witnesses and victims. just ahead, the biggest release of documents related to jeffrey epstein that contain new details about a lawsuit connected to him and the names of his associates. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

today saw the biggest release yet of documents of jeffrey epstein. more than 1600 pages were released today on top of the 100 releases in the previous

two days. we have been reading this latest batch and joins us with details. anything new? what did you learn? >> a little more about the orbit that jeffrey epstein lived in. some of these famous faces he was associated with. there was an employee of his who gave a deposition in the case and what he testified, too, is that he recalled seen 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. now trump and bill clinton have not been accused of any wrong doing in this case and clinton's team says he hasn't had contact with him in 20 years. prince andrew reached a settlement with the accuser in this case. and he has denied any wrongdoing. but there are other names that came up in this document dump today. it just said he had called for

epstein. you can see there on the screen. just a handwritten note noting that. his lawyer had written a book he published in 2020 that epstein and harvey weinstein were friends but had a falling out when harvey weinstein was too aggressive with one of epstein's favorite girls as he put it. another thing that came up, david copperfield, the magician. a woman paid to give massages testified about him being at the house doing magic tricks. he questioned me if i was aware that girls were getting paid to find other girls. one of the plaintiff's lawyers in the case was quizzing a woman who worked for epstein and asked if she was aware that copperfield had obtained tickets for epstein to give the girls but this person didn't answer any questions about it. copperfield's team has not gotten tack to us. harvey weinstein is in prison

after being convicted in new york and la for unrelated sex crimes. >> and there was news today about the remaining names redacted. >> yes. so, there has been this misconception there was a list of names that was going to be released and instead, it's the names, you know, hidden in all of these documents we have to go through. so, the miami herald had asked the judge, there was a court created list. just so they could go through all of these and try to decide what could be unsealed and what couldn't. so they asked for that to be unsealed. it is a key for anyone looking at it to try to understand it better. the judge wasn't going to unseal it because people might try to figure out who the still sealed names are. if it is all listed alphabetically. she said in the interest of their privacy, she was not going to let this list go. >> why would some remain sealed? >> some because they were minors at the time. they were victims. they have never been public. they have always maintained their confidentiality. if there was a list

alphabetical, it stood the chance someone might figure out who they were. >> thank you very much. it is important to remember that jeffrey epstein might never have been arrested on federal sex trafficking charges in 2019 had an earlier deal negotiated with authorities 12 years earlier been allowed to stand. randy kaye has more on that story and the allegations of sexual abuse. some of the details a graphic. >> reporter: all jeffrey cared about wawas go f find me more e girls.s. >> repeporter: bacack in 2 2006 fbi began investigating jeffrey epstein's alleged activities with young girls. they are in their 2020s and 30 . some spoke to the miami herald. >> i have seen hundreds of girls go through jeffrey's swinging girl. >> reporter: dozens of them, all with similar stories of sexual >> he would want us to stand next to him, and he would masturbate while he stared at

us, touched us. >> it ended with sexual abuse and intercourse. and then a pat on the back. you've done a really good job. thank you very much, and here is $200. >> reporter: epstein reportedly paid more if the girls engaged in oral sex or intercourse. they all say epstein wanted them to recruit other young girls to bring to him. >> by the time i was 16, i brought in up to 75 girls, all the ages of 14, 15, 16, >> reporter: 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 never before seen the exclusive palm b 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, 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 the 2014 court document, one of the women, virginia roberts, claimed she had been an underage sex slave to epstein. claiming he forced her to have sex with some of his powerful friends including prince andrew, the duke of york, once at an orgy. she would have been 17 at the time. the prince denied all of it. in 2022, prince andrews settled for an undisclosed amount. and a u.s. district judge agreed to dismiss her lawsuit against him. weeks earlier buckingham palace stripped him of his military titles. according to a royal source, told him he could no longer use

his royal highness. donald trump and the two high-profile attorneys, none of them been accuse of wrong doing. trump once told new york magazine about epstein. he's a lot of fun to be with and even said he likes beautiful women as much as i do and many of them are on the younger side. federal investigators had identified at least 36 girls and were still building their case when suddenly in 2007, epstein madede a sweetheart deal. this non-prosecution agreement 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 coconspirator. none of those people were identified, leaving many to wonder if other powerful people were having sex with underage girls at epstein's homes.

the deal shut down the fbi's investigation into additional victims and accomplices, 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 were 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 in part by epstein's friend and defense lawyer, and signed off then by alexander acosta, former president donald trump's secretary of labor. >> he is suppose to be protecting these victims, and he was protecting jeffrey epstein, a pedophile. >> reporter: despite a federal law that 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. >> based on the evidence, professionals within a prosecutor's office decide that a plea that guarantees someone goes to jail, that guarantees 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 acosta and other officials violated the crime victims rights act by not notifying the victims. the judge noted prosecutors misled the victims by allowing them to believe a federal

prosecution was still a possibility. >> it's scary because this is our government that is suppose to protect us, but has done everything to protect a pedophile. >> reporter: of course, anderson, the story did not end there. epstein was suddenly arrested again, and this time he was charged federally. those charges included one count of sex trafficking of minors. he was facing up to 40 years in prison. he was had 66 years old at the time. so while he was awaiting trial in jail, he did take his life. as you heard in our story, we mentioned bill clinton and donald trump. neither trump nor clinton have been accused of any crimes or wrong doings related to this case. in fact cnn reached out to bill clinton and his spokesperson referred to us in a 2019 statement saying clinton had flown on epstein's private plane, unaware of epstein's terrible crimes. cnn also reached out to donald trump based on these new documents that were released. a trump's spokesperson didn't really give us a formal comment

simply attack the media. anderson? >> randy kay, thanks.. we'll bebe right bacack.