that's what is so confusing so to many people right now. >> ed, just hours before this opinion came down to leave the state to get her abortion, how are her lawyers responding to what we learned last night? >> they said she simply was running out of time. she is now 21 weeks pregnant. she felt like she needed to make this decision. after the attorney general had appealed to the supreme court, they essentially paused that lower court ruling, giving her the permission to get the abortion legally and waited for three days for the texas supreme court. so because of that, they described her situation as being in legal limbo and described the weekend as hellish for her. that's why she arrived on monday and made the decision to leave the state to get this abortion. and what many critics of the abortion law and the situation in texas is saying is that texas supreme court ruling really sends a signal to many women across the state of texas that you cannot go to a court and get that permission and expect it to stand. >> ed lavandera, thank you very much. you're right, what's happening in texas with her case has huge implications across the country. >> cnn legal analyst elie honig, historian, leah wright and errol louis join us now. elle, let's start with you. the specifics of this case, the specifics of this law, esp especially when it comes to medical exemption. >> texas has a law the woman can only get an abortion if a woman's life is in danger. both said she is facing a serious medical issue and qualifies for the exemption. >> do women have to go to the courts and get sign off from the attorney general as ms. cox had to do in this case. that's the bigger question. who do we want deciding these issues? texas law is not clear on that, on who gets to decide. >> can i read the texas law. here is the statute. in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment the pregnant female has a life-threatening medical condition. places the female at risk of death or poses serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is induced or performed. >> serious risk of bodily function. that's where there's some uncertainty. >> the texas supreme court, leah, said in their ruling on this, this does need to be clarified. we need to clarify this. there's a case of 20 women now before the court making this argument for clarity. the question is what does clarity look like in this? what will this mean for so many women relying on the law to be clear so when their doctor says this is necessary, then they don't fight the courts for it? >> for anyone watching or anyone interested in women's rights in reproductive rights and abortion rights, this is a horrifying decision. it essentially says -- it's essentially the state of texas clarifying it. saying, no, you don't have a right and your doctor doesn't have a right. in fact, the government has a right to step in and be in that room as you're making decisions about your health, the mother's health and this entire situation. and so, for i think a lot of people a lot of people who are watching this and observers trying to pay attention to this, this is a manifestation of everything people warned was going to happen after the 2022 abortion rendering from the supreme court. so texas is starting to become clear that they believe they have the right to intervene and to make these decisions. and of course, the people who pay the price are low-income women who can't afford to leave the state and can't afford to get abortions or reproductive help. >> one note before we move on, the original filing by kate's lawyers had the doctors in there, quote, saying that doctor believes in good faith that exercising an abortion right is her best medical judgment. it seems to be that language. doctors are going to have to at least for now be much more direct and clear. believes in good faith isn't enough as standard for this court. >> and there's very real concern about whether that invites lawsuits. whether there's liability issues, whether their license is at risk. the ambiguity right now and the clarity is so necessary. i think, elle, kind of building off of elle's point, errol, there's a lot of calls from republicans saying it's hyperbolic to say something like this could happen in the immediate aftermath of roe. we're now here. this is becoming major, major political issue. we have seen it in state referendums and midterms and seen it in off year elections just a couple weeks ago. it's striking to watch republicans try and kbgrapple wh this, including nikki haley. she's been on a surge. she was asked about this specific issue before this decision came down. take a listen. >> i don't know the details of the case that you're referring to. what i can tell you is i don't think that this issue needed to be in the hands of unelected justices. it needs to be in the hands of people because it's a personal issue for every woman and man. >> wow. that's is very dilemma that many republicans will be in. 20 cases to 200 cases setting up in, effect, fertility courts. case after case after case that it won't be a matter of going to your doctor if you want to preserve your life and your health and your future fertility, you have to go to the state of texas. you have to ask a bunch of judges or attorney general whether or not you'll be able to do that. it is exactly the horrific scenario that the opponents of the court have laid out and here we are. and so in you look at all of the different instances, whether it was by referendum, seats that flipped, democrats are going to take this and they are going to run on it. they're going to run on it like crazy and find a lot of success because a case like this really sort of -- you can't contain it. it's not just confined to texas. people all over the world are watching this now and a lot of people are going to make very serious political decisions based on it. >> errol, elle, leah, stay with us. we have a lot more to get to. two battles colliding in washington. one could face the future of democracy overseas. ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy takes his appeal for more war funding to lawmakers and president biden starting at 9:00 a.m. president biden is trying to secure $60 billion in additional military aid for ukraine. budget director warning that cutting off aid now could, quote, kneecap ukraine on the front lines. just this morning, russia claimed it advanced signi signif significantly. listen to this stark warning. what he thinks will happen if the west stops supporting ukraine. >> when it stops in a week's time, everything will be down. when it comes to ukrainian defense. can you imagine, when they stop supplying ukraine with weapons. they will have up with week to live. >> that's as clear as it can be from vladimir putin. in washington, in a city that is very in a different place from where he addressed joint session of congress. that's what you are looking at, a year ago, december of 2022, standing ovation for him then when zelenskyy does visit d.c. today, republican lawmakers are expected to take another step towards starting an impeachment inquiry of president biden. let's go to lauren fox on capitol hill. striking to see then versus what zelenskyy is walking into now. talk to us what happens on the hill today. >> reporter: yeah. that bar is so high for zelenskyy. it's really an impossible task given where so many of these republican lawmakers are right now on the issue of more funding for ukraine. you know, it's interesting. last night i talked to senator mitt romney about whether or not there was anything zelenskyy could say to sort of change republican's mind about insisting border security and proposals to change border security need to be part of a deal to provide ukraine with additional aid. he said, no, it's really up to democrats to be compelled by zelenskyy's address today to members. you know, there were other members who have long been opposed to more additional funding for ukraine. people like senator jd vance i talked to last night, who called zelenskyy coming to capitol hill really more of a dog and pony show at this point. so you really see there just how difficult it's going to be for zelenskyy to change some of these republican minds. now, he'll have a very important meeting after that all senator's briefing with the speaker of the house mike johnson. if you remember, when he came back in september, kevin mccarthy was still the speaker of the house of representatives. now, the person who has the gavel is mike johnson. and it's going to be up to the speaker to decide whether or not he is willing to put additional aid for ukraine on the floor given the dynamics of his conservative members within his conference. here is what he said last night about what he's going to be talking with zelenskyy about. >> but i don't think it's a radical proposition to say if we're going to have a national security supplemental package it ought to begin with our own national security first. i'll explain to him while we understand that, i made my position very clear, literally since the day i was handed the gavel that we have to take care of our border first. >> reporter: and the senators working on that border proposal, they are even starting to say that it's very unlikely that there would be a border proposal announced by the end of the week, which means lawmakers are likely going to head home for the holidays without any additional aid for ukraine being sent, despite the stark warnings from the white house that that money is running out. phil, poppy? >> it's remarkable just how much things have changed in less than a year. lauren fox, thank you. keep us posted throughout the morning. for more on the impact of this essential ukraine funding, let's get straight to cnn's nick paton walsh on the ground in zaporizhzhia. for ukrainian officials watching this, what are they thinking right now as the very real possibility of no more aid in the near term comes into focus? >> reporter: yeah, it's important to point out it's probably unlikely there won't be any aid, won't be enough to make a difference or possibly keep some parts of the lights on here in ukraine's front line areas. real dent in moral. just by the stalling we have been seeing on capitol hill, because what kept ukraine buoyed over the past months, is the notion that the west is entirely behind them, with all of their resources. on the front lines, we heard from troops palp bli angry. one guy we saw zip tying a makeshift rpg head to a cheap drone to fire at the russians, kind of suicide drone attack. really furious at the idea that this aid may begin to slow. we hear from ukrainian soldiers saying they will fight on until the end. they have to. they have no choice. otherwise it's russian occupation. but i think a sense of dismay frankly that this change in political climate is immediately potentially impacting them in the weeks ahead. look, the front lines here have not yielded the kind of counteroffensive victory the billions of dollars of nato aid had indeed hoped for. that is playing exactly into putin's hands. he doesn't have an electoral cycle really to worry about. he has an enormous capacity, tolerance for pain and casualties. he had a large budget behind him and he was waiting for that moment of western unity to begin to shatter. that seems to be happening now. and there are indications that putin's not just digging in defensively, potentially thinking of places to advance. another town in the east that russia is willing to throw thousands of soldiers out to die in order to take it and even today a major ukrainian mobile network subject to a hack we may possibly guess reasonably russian might have something to do with it. so ukraine still under attack, but now having to think about the idea of defending itself without the unequivocal u.s. aid and western aid it's been used to that kept it essentially able to fight this long. phil? >> you see the real impact on the ground. nick paton walsh, thank you for the reporting from zaporizhzhia, ukraine. well, the fate of harvard's president in clear focus this morning. what we just learned about her future. and cnn has new and exclusive reporting on donald trump's classified documents case. what our team of reporters uncovered about the person who unledgedly moved some of the boxes at mar-a-lago. that's coming up. ♪ now to cnn exclusive this morning that reveals that donald trump and his associates repeatedly contacted a mar-a-lago worker and witness in this case before any charges were filed. this is the same long-time employee who did move several boxes that you see there for trump and was privy to conversations between the former president and his two co-defendants in this case. katelyn polantz broke the news. she joins us from washington. what's the significance of this? >> reporter: phil and poppy, we're talking about somebody who was very in touch with the mar-a-lago world, had worked at the club for a very long time. had a lot of connections there and was witness to a lot of things that ultimately became part of the charges against donald trump for mishandling classified documents and trying to obstruct the probe. somebody who moved boxes, overheard conversations. that person, that former employee, had left his job after the fbi searched mar-a-lago and became very apparent donald trump could be charged with a crime and was being looked at by federal investigators. but before trump was charged. so the employee leaves his job. at that point in time, he remained in contact with many people from mar-a-lago but also was noticing just a pattern of conversation about what his status was. would he be using his own lawyer? or would he be hiring -- or be wanting to use a lawyer that was paid for by donald trump. some people were asking him about that. there was a close friend of his who also worked at mar-a-lago who essentially indicated to him that maybe trump would really love to see you in an up coming golf tournament. you could get free tickets and come. there was also this discussion with him where as he left his job at mar-a-lago, donald trump took the very unusual step of calling him on his personal cell phone to see why he was leaving the club, a couple months after the fbi search of trump's property in florida. all of this taken together, it's a pattern of communication that the special counsel ultimately did hear quite a bit about. they looked into it. it could just be conversations among friends and colleagues. at the very least, it's a window into how this community works of people that have worked for donald trump, that they kept close tabs on one another. that they were keeping in touch and discussing what was happening with this investigation before the charges came about. but it also is notable in that it is a little bit unusual for donald trump to call this person and for these conversations to be happening in the way that they did. >> maybe he's just a big golf fan. we don't know. i want to go back to something you noted, that was the offer of a trump-financed attorney. there are a number of individuals involved in this case that have co-defendants using trump-provided attorneys. how does this all play into this? >> reporter: well, it has played into it because the special counsel's investigators have been asking a lot of people about that. we know that from all of the reporting that we did about grand jury testimony and parts of the investigation, it was a question that they were asking a lot of different people if they were being provided attorneys by trump. and then it's something that the special counsel investigators have followed up on, too, as donald trump is headed to trial next year, making sure that people who are represented by lawyers in trump world, whether those lawyers represent a bunch of people, there isn't some sort of conflict of interest. but it isn't totally abnormal for a corporate entity to pay for lower-level staffers, employee's lawyers of the employees. >> really interesting reporting. thank you very much. and new developments in the mystery surrounding jailed putin critic alexny navalny. his legal team lost contact with him. a mysterious billboard popped up in russia urging people to vote against putin. there's a last-minute scramble to get a climate deal done. overnight deadlines set by negotiators passed with no deal. the most contentious issue is the decision to move the reference to the phase out of fossil fuels the main cause of the chaos. we're going to dig deeper next hour into whether r a deal cana actualally get donone. stay w with us. you're probably not easily persuaded to switch mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. ♪ an offer of golf tickets, legal representation and reminders that a job at mar-a-lago is still available, that is according to our new reporting what donald trump and his associates repeatedly offered a former mar-a-lago worker-turn witness in the classified documents case. back with us now, errol louis, leah wright and elie honig. the fact that these offers and calls from trump and a former employee who is not named, aftered after the search but before the charges, is that relevant here? >> it is. this is one of those issues, common sense people all understand what was happening here. they were trying to make sure this employee stayed loyal. trying to make sure this employee didn't flip on them. i'm not sure the evidence that was unusual enough that, a, a judge would admit it and, b, you could make that argument to the jury. yeah, that it's witness tampering. to me alone this does not make out witness tampering. okay you called someone who left their job. let them know the job is still open. offered to take someone to a golf tournament. however, it might fit into a broader pattern we've seen here. we have already seen charges of obstruction and then obstruction upon obstruction in this case relating to hiding the boxes, tampering with the video surveillance, trying to tamper with the witnesses. >> it's fascinating reporting. not totally sure what it means going forward, but just a great example of our team's work what is, i think, very outfront right now what the special counsel did yesterday in terms of going straight to the supreme court to challenge former president trump's immunity claims. errol, what did you take from this, decision to go straight to the supreme court? >> first of all, it's something they're entitled to do. it's not super, super rare to go and ask for -- >> can you explain that, why? >> look, normally there's an appeals process. you go through different levels and then the supreme court decides whether or not to take a case and that can take months or even a year or two. but what we saw in the case that comes to mind that probably most viewers might remember is back in 2000 when there was a real question on the table about whether or not votes were being counted properly in florida, the supreme court took up the case immediately and they resolved it because we needed to have a new leader of the country. you can ask for that. in this case, it's not quite as dramatic and it's not quite as urgent. but what jack smith is saying is that, look, if we've got an election that's about to start, if what is at the end of all of this is that the president cannot be prosecuted for any reason, for anything that he did while he was in office, which is basically the case that his lawye