Concession at all. Was Michael Dreeben essentially admitting the attorney for the special counsels office, essentially admitting that these facts were so strikingly intertwined in a colloquy with Justice Barrett that it would be very difficult to separate them out on remand. Thats how i interpreted his statements, at least. Well, and to translate that for people watching, that means that basically, if it wasnt official act, they would not be able to use that potentially at trial. He was arguing they should be able to use it to paint a bigger picture. But trump has argued, total immunity. He has not said, well, some of these are private x. This would mean the case could at least in part go forward and go to trial. We believe that without the official acts charged in the indictment, there is no case. Weve been very consistent in our position from the start, starting with the District Court proceeding through the circuit. Now at the the us Supreme Court, that what were talking about is ab
good evening, i m abby philip in new york. tonight, the special counsel bets big on the supreme court. how big of a bet? well, every single check and balance on all presidents might be at stake. jack smith is wagering that the justices will side with him. he is wagering that the high court will see the wisdom in answering this question sooner rather than later, is donald trump immune from prosecution? now, the special counsel writes like he s running out of time, and in a way, he is. the normal appeals process would give no guarantee that the high court considers the immunity question before next november. now that is, i don t have to remind you, when america chooses its next president. how the court rules may reshape democracy as we know it. the justices have never said yes or no that a president can be criminally prosecuted for crimes they perpetrated while president, a ruling that the constitution does not offer a get out of jail free card would put trump in immediate elec
reports, ukraine s president takes his plea for military aid right to washington. zelensky meeting with senators on capitol hill right now. he ll be at the white house this afternoon. what zelenskyy says he needs for the war. plus, it is a busy day for disgraced politicians. rudy giuliani back in court for day two of his defamation trial. how much will he have to pay to election workers? in new york, george santos just walked into court as we hear talk of a plea deal. what could that look like? and the texas supreme court rules against a woman seeking an emergency abortion. what this ruling means for women s healthcare in texas and beyond. thanks so much for joining us on this tuesday. it is 10:00 eastern. i m ana cabrera reporting from new york. we begin this morning with a desperate plea from a war time president. right now ukraine s president zelenskyy is in a closed door meeting with senators on capitol hill, making his case for more aid. you see him there arrivi
have reacted with fury to a draft agreement due to be signed in the coming hours. it includes a range of actions countries could take to reduce emissions, but makes no direct reference to phasing out fossilfuels which had been in an earlier d raft. the eu is threatening to walk out, a representative of small island states says it would be like signing their death certificate. our climate editorjustin rowlatt has the latest. when the new draft was released, there was confusion. negotiators and journalists scrolled through the pages. the realisation slowly dawning that the agreement had changed. a landmark deal to get rid of the fossil fuel responsible for climate change had seemed within reach. now it appeared to be being snatched away. eamon ryan is one of the eu s lead climate negotiators. if the text doesn t change, will you walk away from the deal? this text will not be acceptable. would you walk away? if this doesn t change, it will not be accepted as a text. so what
emissions, but makes no direct reference to phasing out fossil fuels, which had been in an earlier draft. the eu is threatening to walk out. a representative of small island states says it would be like signing their death certificate. our climate editor, justin rowlatt, has the latest. when the new draft was released, there was confusion. negotiators and journalists scrolled through the pages. the realisation slowly dawning that the agreement had changed. a landmark deal to get rid of the fossil fuels responsible for climate change had seemed within reach. now it appeared to be being snatched away. eamon ryan is one of the eu s lead climate negotiators. if the text doesn t change, will you walk away from the deal? this text will not be acceptable. would you walk away? if this doesn t change, it will not be accepted as a text. so what went wrong? a group of oil producing nations led by saudi arabia had openly opposed the deal. they said there wasn t enough to compensate for t