xfinity rewards presents: '1st and 10gs.' xfinity is giving away ten grand to a new lucky winner for every first and ten during the big game. enter daily through february 9th for a chance to win 10gs.

with the ultimate speed, power, and reliability the xfinity 10g network is made for streaming live sports. because it's only live once. join xfinity rewards on the xfinity app or go to xfinity1stand10gs.com for your chance to win.

tonight on three 60, the state of the british royal family. what we're learning about the state of king charles's health after what started as a common medical procedure ends in a cancer diagnosis. also tonight, there's breaking news just today after learning what is in the tough new bipartisan border security legislation. republican senators signaled a deal may be dead. plus, the latest from southern california. reeling from more than a month's worth of rain in barely a day. good evening, we begin tonight with king charles. just a week ago he left the hospital after treatment for a benign enlarged prostate, and was said to be doing well. today we learned that he has been diagnosed with cancer and has already started treatment for it. as you might imagine, this has come as a shock to the public in the uk and around the world.

his son, prince harry, is returning to the united kingdom to be with his father. cnn's richard quest is with us tonight. also joining us is cnn chief medical correspondent dr. sanjay gupta. richard, the official statement from buckingham palace says, quote, during the kings recent hospital procedure for benign hostage enlargement a separate issue of concern was noted. subsequent diagnostic tests identified a form of cancer. what more can you tell us about this announcement, because obviously they're not saying what kind of cancer? >> no, that is the great unknown here. nor do we know whether there was a suspected something before he had his procedure for his enlarged prostate. we don't know how much they feared they were going to find, or whether, as the statement says, they discovered it on the way. what they have told us is that he will not be doing any public facing duties. so no more tours, no more openings, no more doing anything where he would have to be out and about.

but, he is going to continue with his affairs of state, holding things like council meetings and dealing with the famous red boxes, the boxes that were government documents go to the monarch wherever he is in the world. i guess what they are preparing for here is the i don't know. they're not telling us what kind of cancer, they're saying he's having outpatient treatment, but not telling us what regime it is or how debilitating or anything about it. nor have they yet put on the table, anderson, this idea of counselors of state being necessary, or anything even more extreme. i guess this is all about preparing the public for what has happened and, sort of suggesting what might happen next. we are very short on detail. >> explain what the councillor's of state's. >> the counselors of state. these are people who are under, by law, they can step in and

take the place, or do the duties of the monarch. it is defined by law who it is. so it is, for example, it is obviously some of the slings, it is obviously the children, harry and william are in their. beatrice, andrew's daughter is there. now what they did recently was charles, very recently, extended the list of numbers of people who could be counselors to his sister, the princess royal, and his youngest brother, prince edward, the duke of edinburgh. what would happen is that, if he became unable, for whatever reason, to discharge his duties -- it is a bit like the constitutional path that temporarily hands over a bit of power to the vice president. the counselors can act in his name, but not, anderson, on the big stuff. not on appointing prime ministers, not on that. if things got so that he was

incapacitated, which is a long way down the road, now you're looking at something called the regency act of 1937 amended. and a whole different process would come into play and that process, either temporarily or more long term, that would remove power from the king and then, of course, it would go to william, who is now, of course, of age. we are in new territory here, anderson. uncharted to an extent because we have just learned all of this and we are now both hearing he is positive in his attitude, things are believed to be okay, the treatment is underway, but at the moment, on the other extreme, many of us say, well what happens if? that is where we are now. >> sanjay, first of all, what we know about the recent hospitalization and how would they, if you go in for a prostate -- dealing with prostate cancer, how would you

discover something else? >> first of all, he didn't go in at that time for suspected prostate cancer, as you may know. it was for enlarged prostate. he was having symptoms, but there's no indication that it was prostate cancer, nor is there any indication that it is prostate cancer now. what we do know is that it was january 17th that he said he was going to have this procedure. january 26 he was admitted to the hospital for the procedure, it was in the hospital for a couple of days, up until january 29th. then it was a week later when he announces that he has this form of cancer. so that week in between is sort of the interesting time. did he know, at the time that he was discharged from the hospital, and then announced a week later? if not, that might mean that some results of tests came back during that week. so you do a prostate operation, they may have collected some tissue, they examine that under the microscope, expected it to be normal looking, but instead they found some forms of cancer? or, when you have an operation,

you do a work up. you get some blood work done, you get imaging tests, and again that is pretty routine stuff, anderson. but, in that case, maybe they found something and worked it up and subsequently found it was this other form of cancer. what we do know is that, whatever it is, the treatment is expected to be outpatient. that was another piece of that statement. >> it has already begun? >> it has already begun. so, outpatient therapy versus inpatient therapy. that argues against the likelihood that this was needing a surgery, for example. a separate operation fort ever this form of cancer is. was it something on his blood work? was it something on his imaging? or was it something from a biopsy that was done during his hospitalization? that is what we don't know, anderson. >> richard, i want to go back to your point that we are in uncharted waters. that this is -- we haven't really seen this situation before in modern times. in our graphic we showed the

duke of york as one of the potential counselors. i assume that he is no longer in that mix? >> no, anderson. he would not be one of the counselors. it officially is, but i cannot see any scenario -- >> he officially still is? >> that the duke of york would be made one of the official -- oh yes, so is harry. harry is still officially one of the counselors, but the received wisdom is that it is -- they wouldn't even put it in the realm of possibility. neither harry nor the duke of york, prince andrew, would be used as counselors of state if needed to. that was one of the reasons, by the way, that the king did increase the numbers by adding the princess royal and the duke of edinburgh, his two siblings. because they dropped off the end, in a sense, when harry and

william were born. it is all settled by law. >> sanjay, finally, the palace statement said the king is grateful to his medical team for their swift intervention, which was made possible thanks to his recent hospital procedure. what type of test have the king has had during this day? what sort of test, they do a work up, might reveal something? >> you know, when you're getting an operation, there is generally a pretty standard work up. blood work, for example, and again, i want to be clear. we don't know what kind of cancer this is, but blood work could reveal an underlying blood cancer, for example. but you also might get imaging in that area of the body around the prostate. you have bladder, testings in that area. it sounds like they were likely surprised by whatever it is. they are going in for this pretty routine prostate operation, for benign prostate problem, and then it sounds like they found something, they saw something, maybe they even biopsied and that is where,

seven days later, after the hospitalization they say that he has this former -- it could've been during that time that they evaluated whatever they found and said, yeah, we didn't expect this. we are surprised, but here it is. >> sanjay, richard quest, thank you very much. i want to go next to buckingham palace and cnn royal historian kate williams is joining us tonight. which has been the reaction so far in britain? >> anderson, people here are in shock. it is on all the front pages, all over social media, everyone is talking about. people really are stunned by this news because everyone thought the king was fine. he went into hospital, he looked great coming out, we saw him just this week. camilla is opening a cancer center on thursday, she was asked about the king, she said he is doing his best. so everybody thought the prognosis was that he would be up and about in a month, but now we have this shocking news that he does have cancer, he has started treatment, and what we don't know, just as richard

was saying, it is uncharted waters. we don't know what cancer he has or what treatment he is having, but also how long he's going to be out of action for. east doing is but in terms of out and about meeting people, doing what we expect to see kings doing. queen elizabeth the second set that we have to be seen to be believed, and he won't be doing that. we don't know for how long. it could be six months, it could be longer. we just don't know at this moment. >> it is interesting because the palace, all along, has said the reason that they announced he was going in for, because enlarged prostate, was to raise public awareness. and it did, apparently, many people call their doctors to make appointments themselves. they're not revealing what kind of cancer the king has right now, or what kind of treatment he's receiving. does that surprise you at this stage? >> well, what we are seeing, anderson, is really an unprecedented level of transparency from the royal family. for example, the kings

grandfather, george the sixth, no one knew that he had long cancer and an operating theater was set up behind me and buckingham palace and even his daughter didn't know. she went off on a tour to kenya and he died while she was there. the queen, if she was ill, elizabeth the second, we didn't know until the day that she passed away. charles is a very different monarch and he said in his statement that he wants to open, and be open about his cancer, to stop speculation, but also to aid public understanding of cancer across the world. this is a disease that one in two of us attend -- we can have a cancer diagnosis. 1000 people in the uk are diagnosed every day, it was world cancer day yesterday. the influence of royals talking about conditions like this can be very significant. but there is only so far that we're going to be told. this is what the royals have been rustling west throughout the 20th century, ever since they left cameras into the coronation of the queen. how much information to give. and, these days, you can't just catch it all up. there are camera phones, leaks,

social media. i think, eventually, the king will tell us what cancer it is he has been suffering, from perhaps via a charity event. but i certainly think we're gonna see updates in the next few weeks thanking people for their well wishing, but also saying this is how long we can expect to see the king away from the public eye. i think that when the kingdoms say what kind of cancer he has had, it will be help people and, as you're saying, getting checked, early checked, because it's key diagnosis and key to saving lives. >> how significant do you think that prince harry will be traveling to the u.s. to visit his dad? >> i think it is very significant, and it's one reason why they did have to announce it. otherwise people would be saying, why is that prince harry coming? we haven't seen him since the coronation, is rushing over a reason. this is a family, it is a business and family. it is a moment of reconciliation. harry is here to support the king and he is, just as we were discussing with richard there, he's one of the counselors of state. so if there is a situation where, if at the king has to

have an operation and anesthetic, the counselors of state will step in for that moment. we do expect about four of them, he's got but for them to do it. harry, theoretically, it would be key in that role. he would be a councillor of state in that role if he is here. so we don't know how long he's going to, stay but i do expect him to be arriving tomorrow, or the day after. it is clearly very serious and it is something that he wants to be by his father's side for. >> kate williams, thank you very much. coming up next, lawmakers who demanded tough border legislation is now trying to kill it. the signs they are succeeding and what a conservative house republican makes of it. also, a lot of reports from the flooding in southern california where new flood warnings are now up and new rain is falling.

breaking news tonight, just a day after the public got its first look at, it a key republican senators are signaling tonight that could have new bipartisan border deal could be dead. a pumpkin leaders are saying in a statement today that any consideration of this senate bill in its current form is a waste of time. it is dead on arrival in the house. we encourage the u.s. senate to reject it. this is the bipartisan legislation negotiated by democrat chris murphy, independent kyrsten sinema, and the staunchly conservative oklahoma republican janks lankford, who seems to have delivered on this. at least according to what used

to be republican priorities, according to a month ago. drastically shortens the asylum process, funds more immigration courts and judges, permits a president to close the border when officers encounter more than 4000 asylum seekers a day, and mandates it when they top 5000. senator sinema put it today, that if our law were in effect, this reported would have been closed every single day this year. today, the union representing border control officers endorsed the measure saying it would, quote, codify into law authorities that u.s. border patrol agents never had in the past. that is the same border patrol union, by the way, that endorsed put donald trump in 2020. we've been reporting for weeks, now this is legislation that house republicans demand, it even refusing to consider eight ukraine and israel without it. it we have also been reporting that they can imposing it when the former president came out against, despite not having seen it, and now they have, take a look. >> any republican that supports it, supports open borders. >> have you read all 370 pages

of this? bill >> or working through. it we've about 50 pages more to, go but from what we can tell, and i am going to put forth a statement once we finish reading the bill, the measures that we feel are extremely undesirable that keep our border open, that water down the asylum system, it is not good for the -- >> that's the opposite, it's why masking. >> the fox anchors actually right. the bill makes it harder for god to get asylum, and easier to shut down the asylum process entirely when the number of asylum seekers gets too large. these are all points that many republican lawmakers attacked the belong before seeing it and are still doing now that they have, or, as she said, we have been reading, it which means not xi, but maybe her staff. so, as the former president of course, quoting him on president -- the ridiculous border bill is nothing more than a highly sophisticated trap for republicans to assume the blame on what the radical left democrats have done to our border. just in time for our most important ever election. don't fall for it. that, and not policy, appears

to be a driving many republicans tonight, even though some, mainly the summit republican, leaders know they ought to be doing otherwise. >> this is a humanitarian and a security crisis of historic proportions. senate republicans have assisted, not just for months, but four years that this urgent crisis demanded action. it is now time for congress to take action on several national security legislation that finally needs those challenges head on. >> in a moment, colorado republican congressman ken buck, right now, let's go to melanie zanona with the latest on capitol hill where a meeting between gop senators has just broken up. what have you learned about the prospects for this bill in the senate? >> anderson, at this very, moment it looks like this deal to secure the border is destined to fail on wednesday. senate republicans met for over an hour this evening at the capitol where they discussed the deal. we are told there was a robust

and animated conversation, but leaving the meeting, republicans signaling that the appetite and the votes just aren't there inside the gop. in fact, james lankford, is the lead republican negotiator on this package, told our colleague ted barrett that he does not expect the votes to be there for the procedural vote on wednesday. remember, the senate needs 60 votes in order to advance any legislation so, this is a very ominous and damning sign for the prospects for the steal, and it's also a huge blow for republicans like lankford, like mitch mcconnell, who have been trying and hoping to -- for additional ukraine aid. but, as mcconnell has noted in private behind closed doors, the politics of this issue has just really changed for republicans. a huge reason for that, anderson, is former president donald trump who has been lobbying privately and publicly, republicans to reject this deal. >> melanie zanona, thank you very much. joining us now is colorado republican congressman, thank

you for meeting with us. have you had a chance to review this and have you made a decision whether to support it or not? >> i have skipped the bill, i have not read it completely. i've talked to my staff about the bill and, frankly, we won't make a decision one way or the other until the senate passes the bill with its amendments. i have no idea what the bill is going to look like a few weeks for now. my understanding with wednesday vote is a lot of the senators asked for more time to read it and that is why they're going to delay until after wednesday, to consider it on the floor. >> the national border patrol council, the labor union of border patrol workers that has allied itself in the past with the former president, they have come out in favor of the bill is saying, while not perfect, the border patrol act of 24 is a right direction. it's far better than the current status quo. do you put much weight in their opinion? >> i absolutely do. frankly, anderson, irresponsible to say that something is dead on arrival when we haven't even seen the

final product from the senate. we have to have a starting place and this bill may be the starting place to try to deal with border crisis. i want to look at the bill more carefully, i want to try to improve the bill to the point where we can pass it in the senate and in the house. >> are you saying that your house colleagues have been irresponsible by saying that it's dead on arrival? >> i think it's irresponsible to say something is dead on arrival when you don't even know what is in it because it hasn't passed the senate, yes. >> members of the house has claimed that the bill expands work authorization for people coming across and incentivize legal immigration. the house bill did that, as well. according to senators, their bill would only extend them for the course of asylum here, which would be like three months. so it seems like, with this senate bill, at least what they're saying is that the asylum process would be radically overhauled. more judges would be hired, more money put into courts, as you well know the asylum process is absurd.

people can wait seven years before an asylum hearing. meanwhile, they're in the country and they are working illegally. because they're not allowed to work legally. does that, i mean, the idea of reforming the asylum process, i assume, it is important to you? >> it's absolutely important. making asylum more clear, that it's not for economic reasons, it is only because of credible threat of harm that you can get asylum and that standard is raised in this bill. it should be raised. hopefully that slows down the process. i would still be in favor of a remain-in mexico policy, where people can apply for asylum, but they aren't in this country until after a decision is made. >> that is the crazy thing about the asylum process now, even though it takes years, as you pointed out, many of the claims that people have, which are coming from economic reasons. they want a better life for their family, which is understandable. but that doesn't mean that you

get asylum. asylum is for persecution, political persecution, religious persecution, whatever it may be. a lot of those claims could be easily adjudicated very quickly if only the court system wasn't so backlogged? >> that's right. part of the reason it's backlogged is because we have had this large, large number of people come across. so, if there is an expedited review process, i believe that message will get out and, hopefully, slow down the flow of people. but it will take some time to hire these judges and find a space for them and staff. so it's not something that the bill passes in three weeks, it is going to happen very quickly. this is going to take a year or two to put this whole process in place. >> the former president has said that only a perfect bill is acceptable. obviously perfect is impossible in politics. if you believe there is a national security crisis on the southern border, and a fentanyl crisis, which there certainly

is, are you okay with an imperfect bill that saves lives and makes serious progress in the short term? >> i am fine with an improved immigration process. we need to fix our legal immigration process so those folks who want to come to this country to improve their economic status, give their kids a better chance at life, and they have a skill that we need in this country, i'm absolutely in favor of fixing our legal immigration process. at the same time, we have got to make it absolutely clear that we don't have an open border. certainly not drug dealers and human traffickers. >> congressman ken buck, i appreciate talking to you. thank. you >> thank. you >> more breaking news tonight, historical levels of rainfall in california. they produce flash floods and more rain coming. nick watt joins us live from l.a., next.

breaking news from southern california, flash flooding, mud, and rockslides are still threatening the los angeles area tonight after historic levels of rainfall. almost a foot of rainfall in some places over three days. this video received a short time ago, a man trapped on top of his car surrounded by floodwaters in the san fernando bally. he appears to be on his phone. later a fire rescue through is able to reach an. you see polls that test the ground underneath the water to make sure the path is safe. all in all, 1:41 year old man already confirmed dead after a tree fell on him in his backyard. more than 500,000 people have faced power outages, the slow- moving storm is expected to shift towards the san diego area, which is now preparing for flooding. our nick watt joins us from beverly crest, one of the los angeles neighborhood that has sustained significant damage. what are you seeing tonight, how is it?

>> well, anderson, i'm still seeing rain. that's the headline. it started raining late yesterday morning, late sunday morning here in l.a. at just has not stopped since. we are actually in a lighter band right now. but, if you look at what has happened, this is a lane, it used to be elaine, now it is basically a river. roads impassable, a chaotic commute right now. you mentioned rainfall totals, well, we just got the totals for the time since the system moved in. bel air, right now, top of the charts. they have had nearly a foot of rain in the last couple of days. if you see these cacti, it gives you an idea of the kind of weather where we are more used to around this part. >> the hollywood hills, rain lashed not a sunkissed. rain slides, mudslides, homes evacuated, homes lost. >> this is the foundation of

10334 caribou lane. and this is where the house sits now. >> reporter: sunday was the wettest day in los angeles in nearly 20 years. more than four inches fell downtown, that is more than a month's worth of rain. that is a water rescue underway. the l.a. river rose seven feet in just nine hours. some creeks are up over 12. all of this, down to a so- called atmospheric river up above. a conveyor belt of moisture fueled by el niño and the unusually warm pacific. atmospheric rivers can carry a 20 times more water than the mississippi. the el niño is now classed as very strong, only the fourth time it has reached that level in 50 years. combined with oceans already

warm from climate change, it is super charging these types of storms. el niño also changes the jet stream, making storms more likely to take aim directly at california. this one has been moved slowly, creating rivers of rain, mud, and debris. >> it sounded like a plane crash, or even a freight train, or something like that. >> reporter: the storm sliding through beverly hills, l.a., and beyond. 40 million people now officially at high risk level for for excessive rainfall. remember, this state was recently in a megadrought, then record rainfall last winter and now this. on sunday, hurricane-force winds cut power to over half 1 million customers, mostly further north, hitting 77 miles per hour at the san francisco airport, peaking at 102.

angeleno today is told to exercise caution if you must commute. schools closed in more mountainous malibu, but state open across much of l.a.. the mayor says angelenos are not just used to this kind of weather, but with climate change, they are likely have to get used to it. we are expecting this rain to stick around through tomorrow, and then the rain might move away and it might even come back. the problem is we have had quite a lot of rain the last couple of weeks. these hillsides are already saturated, 120 rock mudslides already. the fear is that more of these hillsides will just slip the more rain we get. anderson? >> seeing that house swept off its foundations, incredible. nick, we appreciated. these are pictures of when the homes damaged by those mudslides triggered by the heavy rains. the house is owned by my next guest, join me now is dion perot now. dion, thank you for being with

us. how are you doing, how is your house? what are you seeing right now? >> do you want to see? >> sure. >> so, it is just a big mud pocket right now. it is kind of dark outside so i don't know if you're going to be able to see outside, but will go in my bedroom first. >> your bedroom -- i read there is three feet of mud or so in your bedroom? >> so, this is where the mud came into my room. i hope you can see it. >> wait, is that a glass sliding door? >> yes. >> it broke through that? >> it broke through. so there is that, that's the outside. the mud on the floor is like maybe four or five inches?

and then -- i'm just going to go out to the backyard because -- >> what time did the mud come into your house? >> this is the backyard. >> wow. oh my gosh. >> so, yeah. this is it. >> is your car okay? are you able to get out if you need to? >> yeah, what i did was this morning we saw that the bedroom had been breached. i pulled the car out of the garage because i wanted to make sure that it didn't get stuck. if there is any kind of structural damage, i didn't want the garage door to be compromised. so i just pulled the car out. >> you must have been terrified with this happening in the

night? >> the thing is, it was slow. i heard at four a.m. a crack, so i thought maybe one of the trees had come down, or had been coming down. i looked out because it was 4:00 in the morning and dark. i saw a little bit of mud, literally mud and water. i went down stairs, i had a houseguest, i went downstairs and asked her to put towels, because i didn't want the mud to get into the house. that is when i called the fire department. they came out, they said it looked okay, just stay on the front of the house. we were in the front of the house, i was calling my insurance guy. we heard a big huge crash and we went back there and that is when that big huge -- but it was only at that 0.3 feet tall.

now it is about seven feet. >> that's incredible. >> yeah, it is pretty bad. >> dion, i'm so sorry for it going through. so many people are. keep up your spirits and i appreciate you talking to you. we'll check back in with you and see how things progress. do you think insurance will pick this up? >> that's the question of the hour because there are basque this year. there are bass and has her heart and the police fire chief, and they asked her about that. originally my agent said that they don't usually do anything with slides, but they asked her about it. so when she came to the house, the news crew is here, and one of the journalists asked her about that. so we will see. >> dion perraneau, we appreciate it. you stay safe. coming up, the former

president making the case stay on the ballot in colorado. it's his team's last filing before and ordinance on front of the supreme court on thursday. it will take a look at their latest court filing, next.

three days ahead of oral arguments before the supreme court on whether donald trump may remain on colorado's primary ballot. the former presidents legal team today called the attempted to move him, quote, anti- democratic in a new filing.

they all compared to how elections work in the, quote, socialist dictatorship in venezuela. colorado has cited section three of the 14th amendment known as the insurrection clause as justification. other states are seeking to ban him has cited the same clause. joining me now is jessica roth former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at the -- school of law. and cnn legal analyst and defense attorney karen -- former manhattan chief assistant district attorney. jessica, what sticks out to you about the latest filing? >> well, the introduction sticks out. it was clearly addressed to the public as much as it was to the court. it included that phrase that you alluded to about what people do in socialist dictatorships. it really tried to frame this as an action to try to keep the republican front runner off the ballot. he even cited his recent victories in iowa and new hampshire. but then he pivoted to the more technical legal arguments that are this abstinence of the case, and really reiterated the arguments he had made in his opening brief, really leaning into the idea that he is not -- the presidency is not an office

of the united states, to which section three applies. he also really emphasize is that he did not engage in insurrection within the meaning of that term. and, also, the section 3 is essentially not self executing. that there needs to be some action by congress that would authorize states to make these educations of whether or not he is disqualified. those are the three primary arguments, there are two additional ones, but that is where he folk says most of his -- >> karen, in the filing, just gets point, the attorney says that he is the presumptive republican nominee and the leading president -- and by the people for the people, the american people, not courts or election officials should choose the next president. based on that basic principle, would it be enough to persuade the majority of the court or will the key be the 14th amendment in section three? >> there certainly are other factors that could disqualify someone from being put on a ballot. ages one. you have to be 35, for example, to be elected president.

so, it will just depend on whether the supreme court thinks about this as a qualification, as engaging in an insurrection more like a qualification or if it is more a technical off-ramp that either, as just saying, doesn't applaud the presidency. he didn't take an oath to support the constitution, he made a bunch of arguments like that and it's all about interpreting what the framers meant when they drafted to the 14th amendment, section three, back in the time of the civil war. >> it's possible the supreme court just may avoid the whole insurrection thing totally, isn't it? >> their only have to going to get to the question of whether he engaged in insurrection, if they find that the president is it covered by section three of the 14th amendment. that is why, i think, you've heard a lot of people focusing attention on that particular issue. because there is a sense at which that is the easiest offer him for the court decide that trump should stay on the ballot because he's not somebody to who section 3 applies. it's only if they are entertaining the decision that finds against him on that

question that they would have to move on to the next issue, which might be, it doesn't have to be this one, but it might will be, did he engage in insurrection as they understand that term? and and that would actually, really interestingly, may require them to look at the facts that were presented and whether donald trump engaged in what could be defined as insurrection. so i will be interested to hear vacant that issue on thursday. >> the trial court judge in colorado found that it did not apply to the presidency, to the office of the presidency. it was the supreme court colorado that said, no, it does. so, the supreme court could use that as an all ramp, as justice saying. >> also, march 4th was to be the start of the trial -- the federal election interference case. that has now been postponed based on the d.c. appeals court ruling. what is the timeline on that? >> i mean, everybody who has guessed when the d.c. circuit is going to rule on presidential immunity i think has been wrong.

everyone thought it was going to have happened already. so, it could happen anytime. and then, after that, there are a few more appeals that could happen to continue to delay it. for example, donald trump could ask that the entire d.c. circuit rule on the case because this was only before a three judge panel. he could also ask the united states supreme court to hear the case. >> it could drag on for quite some time? >> it could, it could get mandated back to the trial court. but, there is still a lot in play, so i think that we all have to get back to the manhattan d.a.'s office a case to be the first case to go to trial. >> came freeman and -- we appreciate it. ahead of the south carolina primary, presidential candidate nikki haley is attacking former husband trump and president biden over their age. the question, in a state with a lot of retirees moving in, is that message resonating with

voters? that is next.

republican presidential candidate, nikki, haley is requesting secret service protection. her campaign says it's due to threats she's facing as the former presidents last remaining opponent. with less than two weeks to go until primary voters go to the polls, the south carolina governor is sharpening attacks on donald trump, including about his age and president

biden's. the question is, in a statement so many retirees and more moving there all the time, do voters agree with her? cnn's kylie atwood reports. >> reporter: these are people making decisions on our national security. these are people making decisions on the future of our economy. we need to know they're at the top of their game. >> reporter: nikki haley not backing away from her argument that the american president shouldn't be in their 80s. >> mandatory mental competency test for politicians over 75 years old. >> reporter: it has been a critical piece of the 52-year- old pitch to voters from day one, one that she is both sharp and -- >> why are we allowing ourselves to have to aid-year- old who can't serve eight years, who both are diminished, whether it is in their character or their mental capacity? >> reporter: and played with in recent weeks. >> the six cents, remember that one? i see dead people. >> that's what voters will say if they see you and joe on the ballot. >> reporter: often to an audience filled with retirees,

like this bar in hilton, south carolina. >> i just don't think our country should be with somebody who is going on its way out out, when we still have so much young blood. >> reporter: for 69 year old maureen bolger, the idea of moving to a new generation is energizing. south carolina was the fastest growing state in 2023, largely because of an influx of almost 40,000 retirees and haley is betting that they get her argument. >> i think older people see it to. they know that we need a new generational leader. >> reporter: 61-year-old anna memo is one of them. >> whether it does the biden ticket or the trump ticket, i do feel that it is a very important to look at age and consider age and cognitive skill. >> reporter: but not everyone considering the state's former governor founded to be the best. >> i do think that we still have people who are 78 and 80 that can be senators and

representatives. >> reporter: for edward spears, currently an undecided gop voter, it's just part of the game. >> she wants to be elected. if i was a younger candidate i would do the same thing. it's just a strategy. >> reporter: your 82, do you find her arguments about age and not finding an eight-year- old in the white house offensive at all? >> no, it's just politics. >> reporter: -- like a carole ingrate car-t who moved full- time to hilton head nine years ago -- >> i think she's a mean person. we read her book. >> reporter: the tactic of going after trump's age has not been a decisive factor because they are squarely set on voting for the former president. >> it's like casting the seniors. and that is not right. because we are individuals. >> reporter: but if she weren't doing these age things, it's not like he would go for her if she had left that argument in the past? >> if trump were not running, yes i would. >> reporter: now, as you said on the outset, anderson, nikki

haley's campaign said they had their best fund raising month to date in january, bringing in 16 point $5 million. his campaign manager said to reporters today that they are committed to continuing to fight, so long as they have the resources to do so. they clearly have some significant resources right now. they said they will go the distance. the question is what is going the distance actually mean? haley has committed to competing here in south carolina and super tuesday, but that will be largely contingent on what things look like for her after the primary in her home state. anderson? >> kylie atwood, thanks so much. next, maria retired fighter fire and the historic moment days after the 9/11 attacks.