welcome to cnn news central. embryonic healer alongside boris sanchez. we are witnessing history at the supreme court. unprecedented oral arguments have wrapped on whether a state can borrow former president trump from running for president under the 14th amendment insurrectionist ban. >> based on the sitting in questions from the justices, liberal and conservative alike, the court seems highly skeptical of colorado's decision to remove donald trump from its republican primary ballot. and, fearful of the pandora's box it could unleash in national elections going forward. full slate of reporters and analysts tracking this. let's start with cnn senior supreme court analyst, joe

misty brook, she was inside the court for the arguments. joan, we could hear their voices and some of the questions. there was some connotation of disbelief. you are in the room and you saw their facial expressions. walk us through it. >> early on you could sense that the momentum was with the trump side. the trump legal side, i should stress. donald trump, as he appeared, he was trying to defend himself on the acts of january 6th. but the legal history here behind the 14th amendment section three, the colorado supreme court said should bar him from running again. and again it only got more and more. his lawyer didn't face the kind of skepticism we are really here from justices who are critical of different positions. and then, you know, when jason marie got up to represent the colorado voters, that is when you could really feel like the case was almost over. it felt like it ended pretty early, just in terms of the

atmospherics of the room. the justices were not interrupting each other much. they were kind of pulling back. even though they had started the morning on the edge of their seat, waiting to hear the arguments, and remember, to reverse the colorado supreme court, the supreme court has to find only one flock. just one. anything. the multitude of grounds that our audience heard today, only one. that will send it back. let me go to one comment from justice kegan on the left. this will kind of give you a feel for the skepticism that came to the colorado voters. >> i think the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who should be president of the united states. if you are from colorado -- wisconsin, or you are from michigan, and really, what the michigan secretary of state did is going to make the difference between weather candidate a or b is elected, that seems

extraordinary, doesn't it? >> you know, there were very practical considerations as justice kegan raised, but there are also historical ones. they came across the whole bench, even to justice brown jackson. >> paul, what did the questioning tell you about whether or how the justices may be touching on a myriad of issues? the one about whether or not trump isn't insurrectionist. >> going into today it was widely expected that the justices want to avoid this issue. instead, they are focusing on more constitutional questions where they could build consensus. and that was largely true. one justice, brown jackson, she did raise this issue at the very end of trump soils are arguments. let's take a listen. >> president trump did not engage in any act that could plausibly be characterizes insurrection. >> so why is this not an insurrection? >> your apply brief says that it wasn't because, i think you

say, it did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow the government. >> that's one of the many reasons. for an insurrection there has to be an organized concerted effort to overthrow the government of united states through violence. -- >> so the point is that a chaotic effort is not an insurrection? >> it's an effort to throw the government either. none of the criteria it was met. this was a riot, it was not an insurrection. the events were saint shameful, criminal, violent, all those things. but it didn't qualify as insurrection as the term is used in section three. >> it's notable, she asked about it because she was a frontal trial judge. after the initial batch of arrest following january 6th, she oversaw some of those cases before she was elevated. she made it pretty clear how serious she thought january 6th was. what a threat it represented to democracy. it would be surprising if the justices really tackle this issue. but she at least got on the record with that question. >> harry, you are also in the room. you mentioned to us a moment ago before we one hot air that

you could hope clerks with olena kegan for the supreme court justice, marshall. you heard the exchange she had with murray there. it didn't seem like he satisfied her request. what does it mean when a liberal justice asks a question of someone representing colorado voters. the decision made by the colorado supreme court. she finds the answer insufficient. >> it means the whole court, more or less, wants to go that way. they are casting. about jones is right, all it takes is one. but really the interesting part of the three hours of argument is they are casting about for what the one might be. and chief justice roberts is going to dearly want the court to coalesce around one rationale and, will they do that? this is one of these historic cases where you want the court as much as possible to speak in one voice. what was interesting to me about the argument is the missing man, donald trump. the missing kind of text, as paula says.

did he engage in insurrection? are the terms of the 14th amendment section three met? that was all set to the side and they were looking at different things. very legalistic reasons to just get this off their plate because everyone assumed that with k gain, if they were to affirm the cascading effects would be mayhem on the election. and that is something they dearly don't want to be responsible for doing. >> maybe you are missing me here, but up present case, the griffin case. this was mentioned. i just heard it around there, i know, but this is important because this goes to the heart of what is congress's role? this is something that a lot of voters and people who were just interested in following this maybe have not considered in this. what is congress's role when it comes to this particular part of the constitution? what is the line of questioning

from the justices? >> toledo really seemed to be into this,. the chief justice of the united states, after he had retired and he was sitting by designation as a court of appeals judge, he says congress is the person -- congress is the entity that must decide. congress enacted something. that's all gone away, but it now goes to the historical point, congress, is it them who has to do something in order to authorize at least a state, at least colorado, to have this impact of taking a federal official off of the federal ballot. that is where aledo stood. but again, we had five or six different possible rationales. and they are really casting about for common ground. >> and that came into play when chief justice, john roberts, asked the hypothetical question about whether a self admitted insurrectionist could be on the

ballot. i found out to be an interesting exchange. >> great. i a self admitted insurrectionist. i come to the secretary of state -- i want to let you guys know first. i say i am a self -- what he was getting at is power. can a single secretary of state, even with phenomenal proof, just say okay, you're off the ballot, with all of the cascading affects the assumed would happen when when state does that. so it was actually a way of expressing doubt about the prospect that one state could blind others -- even with the strongest of proof. it goes to the general point that they want to deal with proof, they don't want to deal with whether trump engaged, they want out of anything having to do with trump. but still. they want to reverse it. >> there was a question of colorado solicitor genre, who was defending the ruling to remove trump from the ballot in colorado on the primary, it really seem to be getting at the question of whether the way

this happened in colorado violated trump's right to due process or not. and i wonder what you guys thought about this exchange with this listener general saying there was a five-day trial, whether you think it will hold luster. >> it won't because it doesn't matter. because as colorado voters admitted right from the start, and the colorado justice general knows, it's not about a due process question. there were claims from donald trump early on that his due process was violated. but that is not a core issue here. where it goes to is this idea about how any process would be -- when they take more globally about how one state could do this and then have it in for wisconsin, illinois, maine, whatever. but originally, when this case was first heard, trump forces felt like this five-day trial was not fair. one other thing i will mention about the general, the justices

gave her time, they were not going to give -- usually it's just two parties. the secretary of state said, you know, we should really be in on this case. we know what colorado wants. they gave the solicitor general time. but boy, i don't know if you can tell, they had nothing to ask her. it was, like we are done. we are done. so it just shows that the train is moving and it's moving fast. >> yeah, we want to get a read on the missing man, as harry alluded in these arguments. let's go to west palm beach and send it to christian holmes who's been tracking reaction from donald trump. the former president answered questions from reporters, give a very winding reaction, a winding statement. it hit on a number of different things. what did he say about the supreme court case? >> if you don't a lot of different things. not all of which were about the supreme court. it very quickly turned into a campaign speech. he learned all of his legal problems together, calling them election interference, which isn't surprising. he also had a revisionist look

at january 6th. he did comment on those arguments that he was watching them, and that he thought they went well. here's what he said. >> well, i'm a believer in our country and i'm a believer in the supreme court. i listened today and i thought our arguments were very strong. an argument that was very important is the fact that you are leaving and every race, we are leading in every state, we are leading in the country against republican and democrats and biden. you're leading in the country by a lot and, then you take the person that is leading everywhere and say hey, we're not gonna let you run? i think that's tough to do. but i'm living up to the supreme court. >> reporter: obviously some of the arguments we heard were not about whether he was leading but whether or not they can take him off the ballot in general. this is something he has continued to argue across all of his legal cases, that this

is just because he is the front runner or that democrats don't want to run against him. i will note that it was interesting that he did not go to the supreme court today. that was clearly a calculated decision as we have seen, time and time again, he has used these various cases -- the fraud case in -- opportunities for him to talk about political persecution. while he did talk about, it he did so at his home in florida, not in front of the court. you hear him continuing to say he has this higher level of respect for the court. it is also an indication of how his team is handling this particular case very differently as they are arguing in front of the highest court in the land. >> one last question to paula. what happens next? >> well, we will get an opinion at some point. there is some expectation that they might want to give voters some clarity ahead of super tuesday. but really, the challenges is the chief justice to find a place, wherever it may be, where he can build consensus. that could take some time.

now, that is what is next for the justices, what is next for the trump team? well, they will need to start working on a different case that they intend to appeal to the supreme court. that is the issue of presidential immunity. they just lost that of the circuit. they have signaled that they will appeal to the supreme court. also an open question that they will first ask the full sort. the circuit tried to make it harder for them to do that, but that is something they could litigate. what gives you the right to deprive us of that snap? they don't expect they will win on merits here but it's all about delay, delay, delay. and just another reminder. i mean, the supreme court, such an enormous influence on the 2024 election cycle. >> yes, so much to stay tuned for. thanks so much for their perspectives. much appreciated. harry, an insurrectionist, i can't believe it! still ahead on cnn news central, staying on top of all the headlines out of the supreme court. plus, cnn's live from the southern border in texas. residents are saying that the border deal that died in the

senate, and what should happen next. plus, in vegas, the stars are out. we are heading and hearing from super bowl performers, post malone, usher and mcintyre, we are heading to vegas in moments.

legal experts agree that the supreme court's ruling on whether the former president trump can remain on the colorado ballot will have nationwide implications. what is less clear is whether the decision would endanger his ballot eligibility and other states. the cnn political director, david chilean, joins us now. to dig through that and more, first off, i was hoping you would address the hypothetical that we heard in court today from justice alina kegan. >> yes, and you played in the last segment, justice cake and was probing this notion of, well, how could it be this one state could actually decide the election? let's say it was in colorado. let's say it is battleground states, wisconsin or miss again. let me show you how bizarre or outlandish and hypothetical that is. this is road to two 70, this is the current race ratings if it is red or pink it is leaning towards trump. it is safely in trump's camp,

if it's light blue or dark blue, it's leaning towards biden or safely in biden's camp. the yellow states are the true toss-ups right now. i just want to fill in some of the hypothetical. let's say that donald trump actually were to win in arizona. so he wins the whole sun belt. we have nevada leading the way, arizona, georgia, those competitive states go trump. let's say that this congressional district in nebraska goes to biden and the omaha area. let's say biden restores a bit of the blue ball and pennsylvania and wisconsin indeed fall to biden. we have michigan leaning trump right now. but if trump were invalidated by the ballot in michigan like alina kegan said today, look what happens? he drops down to two 68. this then becomes -- whoever wins michigan would win the presidency in this scenario. so this does become a decisive state. and that is not something that is kind of out of the realm of

possibilities. >> it's important when she brings that up, and we can walk through this, the state at the heart of this case here, colorado. so would that have real impact in the battle for two 70 if trump was actually not on the ballot here? >> i mean, it could. we will see how it plays out. but right now in our race ratings we have colorado leaning blue. joe biden went last time by a pretty significant margin. it is not clear that the trump people are going to fully campaign here. so honestly, look at donald trump's numbers, i mean, if it were a battleground state, if it stays blue, it doesn't really affect trump's numbers whether he's on the ballot or not if indeed it is leading towards joe biden. >> if obviously colorado were to stay, i, mean looking at the justices, it seems clear they are leaning in one direction. if colorado gets to do what colorado wants to do, other states might say hey, we want to go that direction too, it's not just a matter of colorado. maine as well, the secretary of state has said that trump is ineligible to appear on the ballot. what implication does not have? >> maine is one of the two

states. maine and nebraska. they give out electoral votes by congressional district. donald trump actually, in the second congressional district in northern maine -- he's currently leading his. white he won this electorate in maine four years ago in 2020. watch this total. in our ratings right, now he is at two 72, he is barely winning the presidency again in this scenario. so obviously if he is off the ballot in maine, then he can't win the electoral vote. if instead joe biden were to win the vote, obviously he would have to fill in the map. when you are dealing with this close of a range, even losing the one electoral vote, it gives donald trump almost no cushion here. so he would have to make sure that he is winning these other clearly toss-up states on the map. >> so helpful when you take a certain map like this, david. thank you so much. >> let's expand the conversation with dave williams. the chair of the colorado republican party and opposing the decision by the supreme

court. dave, great to meet you in person. we've talked about this already before. you are in favor of keeping donald trump on the ballot in colorado. you're in the room here today, which is great. you are also in the room for the arguments made before the court. what did you make of what you heard? >> we witnessed a thoughtful, deliberative questions from all the justices. but clearly the momentum was in favor of donald trump on the merits that we presented in our briefings along there. >> reporter: it's interesting that it got this far to the supreme court. because, as jason murray, who is arguing the case for colorado supreme court pointed out, donald trump had the opportunity early in the case when it was still at the local level to present witnesses. he opted not to. it didn't seem like he fought that case as the early as he could have. do you think that was a mistake in letting it get that far? should the trump team have gone after this case earlier? >> the trump team brought witnesses, they brought their own experts, they even appealed the initial trial decision to the supreme court.

the findings as well. they did present a case and the defense for what was being accused by the petitioners. i don't think they made a mistake i just think they understood that the court system in colorado will probably be biased against them. >> there was a hypothetical but i found interesting that was brought up by chief justice john roberts. he asked jonathan mitchell, who is arguing trump side, whether a self admitted insurrectionist, someone who says, i want to undo constitutional -- of the united states could wind up being eligible to be on a ballot. do you think that is right? so -- let's go back in time, post confederacy, someone who says i want to secede from the union. today belong on a ballot? >> reporter: well, anyone who engaged in an actual rebellion against the united states shouldn't be holding offices or running for office. but i think the point of the question was to get at whether or not one person, a secretary

of state, a small group of people, could actually disqualify someone like donald trump who is the leader in the polls. >> your argument would be the january 6th was not an insurrection? it's an argument that's been made multiple times including today by jonathan mitchell. he said it was a riot. would you want the supreme court to weigh in on that? and give their thought on what happened that day to clarify their position? >> i could see a scenario where it's helpful that they would weigh in on it. but i also think that we don't even get to that point if we just look at the law itself. if we look at the merits of the case, and we follow the arguments that were put forth by donald trump's team, especially our briefings that we put forward in the supreme court, i think it comes down to, does this 14th amendment section three even apply to president trump or other presidents? >> reporter: you have a narrow ruling where they don't even look at the question of insurrection. today look at the 14th amendment and if it's self executing? there's a question there as well. it's ambiguous.

>> yes, they should focus in on that question because we can have 50 different policies in different states on how to achieve this specific question. >> is it possible that some of the arguments that they made in favor of the 14th amendment -- i say they generally, in favor of the 14th amendment could potentially remain ambiguous? that they have a narrow judgment based strictly on the question of whether trump is in office or not. would be in favor of that? what do you think? >> ultimately we want him on the ballot, however we get there is certainly helpful. but this question is to be put to bed. this is an amendment that was put forward post civil war. no one really thinks it should be applied 100 plus years later to a city or former president who they are accusing of insurrection. it was never contemplated before this. >> at this, point it appears based on their questions, we are headed towards a situation most likely in which the supreme court sides with your view of the law.

if they don't, and donald trump is removed from the ballot, what is the parties plan moving forward? >> it would be uncharted territory for us. we would certainly look at caucus-ing and removing ourselves from the primary so we can allow our voters to decide which candidate they want to support and ultimately send delegates to the national convention. the bigger problem is, what happens for the general? and the other thing that the justices talked about, which i thought was very thoughtful, is the cascading effect that it would have if they upheld the decision by the colorado supreme court. i think it would be a constitutional crisis in the making, it would create chaos all over the country. it would have fertile a tory effects with states looking at getting rid of joe biden on their ballots. we can't go down that road and we certainly hope the supreme court doesn't. >> they've, williams we have to leave it, there i appreciate your perspective. thanks for sharing. >> of course. >> still to come this afternoon, a warning to -- the climate crisis. as the planet gets hotter and

hotter, scientists just made a huge lead towards limitless clean energy. we will explain in just moments.

i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e.

the senate is moving forward with major foreign aid packages that will provide billions of dollars for ukraine and israel after republicans killed the broader border security deal wednesday. it also included some of this aid here. the new deal is a slimmed down version of the bill. the portion of the border is stripped out. all of this playing out on capitol hill. >> reporter: texas border town residents say they are frustrated and confused as to why politicians can't work together to pass legislation that would help alleviate the

migrant crisis. cnn's covering the story from all size. they are speaking with some of the residents in eagle pass, texas. first, let's go to the capitol with cnn's manu raj you. manu, final passage of this bill can still be days away. the senate is supposed to be on recess next week. what is next for this package? >> we expect the recess to be played and we expect the major push to try to get this massive package. more than 95 billion dollars worth of aid to ukraine, israel, taiwan,. something that was supposed to be paired with border security provisions. new border policies that even have been negotiated for more than four months. republican killed the plan and operations because of opposition from house republicans, former president donald trump, and senate republicans who believe that the provisions are too weak and did not want to move forward with the plan if it had a future in the house. today, moving, forward the aid package opened the debate.

60 7:32 was the vote today. 17 republicans voted to move it ahead. including senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell, number two senate republican, john soon. the potential future leader as well. one in three republican leadership -- 's voted against it. this plan will take some time to go through all of the hoops and the process here in the senate. one senator can slow down the process. that is senator rand paul of kentucky. he told me earlier today that he plans to drag this out, which could delay final passages until the middle of the week next week. that is continuing to keep the votes. some of the senators are noncommittal on voting forward on final passage is. we will see how that ultimately plays out as it goes through the process on the floor. here is also the big question, if it gets out of the senate, what happens in the republican- led house? the speaker of the house, mike johnson, has been noncommittal on moving on such a package. he has called for these issues to be dealt with separately. we could run into headwinds in the republican house, even if it gets over the senate.

>> now, what are you hearing from residents where you are? what's happening in washington? >> as we've been reporting for months, from eagle pass, this is an area that has really become the epicenter of this immigration crisis. this battle, this area, around what is known as shelby park in eagle pass. this is where the state of texas has taken over several miles of the river front. looking out over into mexico, it is kind of the epicenter of this battle between state authorities and the federal government immigration officials. it is just a great deal of frustration. many people here view this area as having become the stage for this political theater as we have spoken with residents here in the last few days. this political theater, the show that they are watching, it is not something they like. >> do you feel like you are kind of helpless as toxic politics continues to rage? >> it's frustrating. >> how long are we going to be

going like this? >> it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. >> you, know capturing that frustration, the democratic state representative from eagle pass wrote a letter to the speaker of the house in washington. the letter goes on to say that eagle pass, after the collapse of the border security deal in congress, that it has been put on the backburner and has been left hanging out to dry on its own. matt there's a feeling of frustration. they feel like they are on the front lines of this. politicians are using this location and issue for their own political gain. it is a theme that runs across democrats, republicans, independents, whoever we speak with here. >> the view of washington from eagle pass must be quite something. ed lavandera, thank you so much. manu rogers, thank you. this just in, manhattan d.a. has indicted several migrants in connection with an assault on and wipe the officers outside of a shelter that was

caught on camera. we have a live report next.

breaking news into cnn, the manhattan d.a. has announced the indictment of several migrants in connection with an attack on two new york city police department officers outside a times square shelter last month. what you're seeing is the attack caught on camera. cnn, and gloria pazmino, has been following the story for us. gloria, i understand that we just heard from the dea and the mayor. what did they share with the community? >> reporter: that is, right for us. mayor eric adams a district attorney alan bragg making a presentation of the evidence that they have been able to gather so far as they work to identify the people behind this

attack. the big headline here is that they have indicted seven people believed to be associated with this assault outside of a migrant shelter in times square, which took place last week. the other big headline is that they are still looking to identify and apprehend to other individuals that are believed to have been involved in this. so, in addition to presenting us with some still images from the video evidence that investigators have been looking at, district attorneys really tried to drive the point of the difficulty behind this investigation -- the fact that they haven't been able to successfully identify everyone. there is a reason why he's doing that. it is because he has got a lot of criticism because the -- there were five people who were initially arrested after the incident took place and they were released on bail. listen to a bit of what the

mayor had to say about the attack. >> the overwhelming number of migrants and asylum seekers -- biden and they are pursuing the american dream. district 20's office and nypd will partner with each other to pursue those laws in our city. this is a despicable act, it was not only an attack on the individuals who wore the police uniform but it was an attack on our symbol of justice. >> so, again, bragg sort of defending his decision that his office did not pursue bail on some of these cases. stressing the fact that it is his job to make sure that the right people are apprehended. that's the right people are prosecuted. and that the wrong people are not put in jail. he said that has been the primary factor behind these decisions. obviously they still have a lot of work to do, trying to identify some of the other people that were involved.

he is asking the public to take a look at the video and the still images in hopes of identifying them soon. boris? >> reporter: gloria has me no, live from new york. thank you so much. breonna? >> reporter: it is caucus day in nevada. hours from now, republican voters will get a second chance to choose their presidential candidate. this time, former president trump is on the pellet. he faces no serious opposition to win the state's 26 delegates in the caucus that is run by the nevada republican party. his gop rival, nikki haley, opted for about a state run primary election and it is really choice. the state gop said candidates could participate in one or the other. the primary was held two days ago and the result was a resounding defeat for haley. none of these candidates options on the ballot received more votes than she did. joining me now is the former chair of the nevada republican party, amy takhini and. amy, isn't haley's camp -- amy, there is -- i mean, very

clearly it is a poor outcome for haley. but then you had the current chair of the nevada republican party, michael mcdonald, promising to deliver 100% of nevada's delegates for trump. that is not normally what you expect of a gop chair person. how are you reacting to this? >> sure, you use the word chose. they were not given the choice. they were literally threatened, they were told that they would have to pay $55,000 to participate in the caucus. that is an exorbitant amount of monte, number one, point very well that a majority of the candidates wouldn't be able to participate at that level or even make it to nevada after they pay that amount of money. also, two, the chairman himself is one of the fake electors that has been indicted. we've had six of them better at the leadership level at the nevada republican party. also, we know last year, the same leadership was invited to

an event at mar-a-lago to prepare for the upcoming election. so you have the individuals who have decided to -- after our state mandated primary, because why? trump has lost not just once here but twice. so they don't care about the turnout. they just want to make sure that they can handle a win and give mr. trump all of the 26 delegates and say, look what we did for you, sir. here you go. >> reporter: you hear this all accusation coming from the trump camp, especially in the past, rigged elections. when you think of this one, do you think of this as a rigged election? >> 100%. how can you honestly believe that this is going to be up and up when you have an indicted individual that spearheaded the nevada republican party? basically willing to throw themselves on the railroad tracks for this man.

you know, we do have none of these candidates as an option. it is well known that the followers of mr. trump were heavily pushing that campaign strategy. and so they are allowed to participate, as a voter, in both the primary and the caucus. that is exactly what they did. and i will tell you also, the nevada republicans have been disenfranchised by this because your average voter does not pay attention to the nuts and bolts. they are very confused, quite honestly very angry, but they have all of their options walking into the primary. and so if they participated, i actually had a number of people who said that i wasn't sure. and they were so mad that they just chose none of the candidates. >> reporter: you still have donald trump doing extremely well. i mean, he is just far ahead of the other candidates, including nikki haley. and that is including in her home state of south carolina. haley is trailing him, 26% the

latest washington post poll. at what point should she consider stepping aside? >> well, i have to applaud her for actually standing up to a bully. and i also think to, the fact that she didn't cave to the nevada republican party tactics, i think that was a wise choice on her part. i do think that she continues -- hope that she continues with the momentum and with some reasonable, rational republicans who can continue donating to her campaign and see her through super tuesday where a third of the delegates will be allocated. i know that there are lots of people who are looking for an option, somebody who's not donald trump that is surrounded by chaos and toxicity. somebody who is not just worried about themselves while they are manipulating their base. >> amy tore kane, and thank you for being with us, we appreciate your time. >> thank you. the super bowl is just three days away.

everyone from chiefs, niners nation, they are ready for the kick off. also, taylor swift fans. nonetheless, we are live from las vegas after a quick break.

this ad? typical. politicians... "he's bad. i'm good." blah, blah. let's shake things up. with katie porter. porter refuses corporate pac money. and leads the fight to ban congressional stock trading. katie porter. taking on big banks to make housing more affordable. and drug company ceos to stop their price gouging. most politicians just fight each other. while katie porter fights for you. for senate - democrat katie porter. i'm katie porter and i approve this message.

>> i do believe in myself. i believe i am a bad answer. the countdown to the super bowl is on. just three days until super bowl sunday, the chiefs and niners taking the field in las vegas. also one of the most anticipated entertainment event of the year. >> yeah, this weekend usher is set to take center stage in the super bowl halftime show, but he may not be the only big-name making an appearance. i mean, he just isn't. cnn's coy wire is making an appearance. in vegas covering all the action. tell us what we are expecting here. >> you just missed on my dance moves on the red carpet, where nfl honors will be tonight. we will learn who the mvp and other cool awards are. usher said that there will be a

surprise guest in his performance. he said katy perry gave him advice, he said his performance is going to be 15 minutes as opposed to the normal 13 minute set. here is usher on what it means to him to be this year's choice to be the super bowl halftime performer. >> las vegas has been amazing brave. having 100 sold-out shows and residency, and to have the next one be the crescendo, which is the super bowl, this has really, really given my time here in las vegas on incredible button at the end. >> all right, it's going to be interesting to see. maybe usher will bring ludicrous into the halftime. there were some more surprises. we just got back from this incredible event where record number of to wish children, children with dealing with critical illnesses were surprised that they got to go to the super bowl this year and meet some star players. check this out. >> a record number of kids here at the super bowl, and in addition to having a chance to have a shopping spree, we were able to surprise them with all of the stars that make the nfl

says right. >> this game is bigger than us. an opportunity to get grounded, get that utility back. >> it is good for being someone other than yourself. they show up and show his love. >> what is a man walking in and seeing you light up all their faces? >> of course it's good to see. it means a lot. it is moments like this, the most precious, being able to get back in any type of way. >> all right, so tonight the nfl honors right here, they will be walking this red carpet. demar hamlin up for come back player of the year, michael parsons of for defensive player of the year. who will be the mvp? the 49ers have brought purdy and christian mccaffrey up. hopefully doing some usher dance moves on the red carpet, bringing us the latest. >> cannot wait. thank you so much for that report from las vegas.

we have breaking news just into cnn. we want to go straight to evan perez who has an update on a key story that we've been tracking for quite some time. evan, bring us up to speed on this special counsel's report regarding president biden's handling of classified documents. >> reporter: yeah, we just received this report produced by special counsel robert hur . 345 pages in all, and it details the mishandling of classified documents by the president of the united states. and the bottom line on this report, obviously, the most important part of it is the first line where he says we conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. he goes on over 345 pages to describe the various ways in which documents were mishandled , including the fact, they say, that the president willfully retained classified documents after he left the vice

presidency, that he kept documents in a home in virginia that he was renting at the time, that during a period thereafter he was writing a book and he shared classified documents with a ghost writer who was helping him produce one of his memoirs. during that time, classified documents were shared with that ghost writer, the special counsel described some of the evidence that supports some of that information, including the fact that there were recorded interviews, audiophiles that the ghostwriter provided to the investigators that show the former vice president at the time, president biden now, that he was sharing information that he knew was classified related to afghanistan, to his opposition that happened late in the obama presidency. i will note a couple of things. this was a very, very thorough

investigation according to the special counsel. they say that they interviewed 147 witnesses, they reviewed 7 million documents. they found classified documents not only at the delaware home of the president, but also at the biden center, which is a private center that the then vice president had established after he left the vice presidency. and also, they found classified documents in about 300 boxes that the fbi searched at the university of delaware. these were president biden's papers from when he served in the senate. one other very important point here, the special counsel goes into chapter and verse about why they are not going to charge the president. it is not only

because he is the sitting president, there is a doj prohibition on charging a sitting president with a crime. what they talk about here is that they believe the evidence that they have would not be able to be sustained, would not be able to sustain a conviction if this was brought before a jury. one of the reasons why as they say that despite the fact that he did bring these documents home, that that then vice president when talking to his ghostwriter simply was inadvertent in some of the documents, and some of the sharing of that classified information. they also say it is clear that joe biden has a faltering memory , he is an old guy. they point that out and they say that for those reasons they don't believe they could sustain a conviction against joe biden. i will note one other thing, that part of this investigation appears that the ghostwriter in this case who was working with joe biden