fighting russians as the head of the private military group wagner says the kremlin will no longer take his calls. russia filed a barrage of hypersonic missiles across the country. the new york times reporting the manhattan district attorney is signaling charges against trump are likely. and the coe of fox ko corporation breaking his silence as we go inside the relationship between rupert murdoch and donald trump. o outfront tonight, russian versus russian. putin refusing to help the private army, the wagner group, that s according to the chief of wagner tonight claiming the kremlin will not take his calls anymore. translator: to get me to stop asking for ammunition, all the hot lines to offices, to departments, et cetera, have been cut off from me. they ve also blocked agencies from making decisions. it s pretty incredible, and it could be significant because the wagner group of course is responsible for the small successes putin has notched in this war. the u.n. e
andrea mitchell has more news now. right now, the supreme court ruling 6-3 that the president of the united states does have immunity for official acts. in the most anticipated case of the year, the supreme court redraws the line between presidential and private acts, saying that he can be prosecuted for unofficial acts, but denying donald trump s request for complete immunity. much of mr. trump s alleged conduct in the federal election interference case could be off limits. that case now further delayed into after the election as the case is going back to the district court to decide what is official and what is not before there can even be a trial. plus, continuing the fight. the biden family circling the wagons after the president s disastrous debate performance. elected officials willing to give him a few days to prove he s up to a grueling campaign. privately, many of them are questioning whether this was one bad night or something more serious. good day, everyone. t
recall what i said. i do recall there was a good deal of internal debate about that signing statement as you can imagine. i do remember it would be controversial internally. it s hard to imagine you can t remember that controversial issue. given our concerns about your views on executive power, it s important for you at this moment, please, to clarify for us the power of the presidency in this age of donald trump. senator, thank you, first, thank you for your comments about my wife and daughters. my daughters are will return this afternoon for return engagement and experience democracy once again in action and i appreciate that. on morrison versus olson, a couple things at the outset. first, that case did not involve the special counsel system. i have written repeatedly that the traditional special counsel
your care. we ve known each other since law school. we ve been friendly since law school. your devotion to this. respectfully i believe you re talking about a statute that has not been in place since 1999. secondly, special counsel system i ve specifically written about multiple times. thirdly, if there were some kind of protection for cause protection or some other kind of protection that were different from the old independent counsel statute, i ve said that i would keep an open mind about that. so i have not said anything to rule that out. finally, i ve reaffirmed repeatedly or i ve applied repeatedly the precedent of humphries executor for traditional independent agencies and have never suggested otherwise. i have referred to that as an entrenched precedent. and i referred to us v. nixon as one of the greatest decisions in
writings about the morrison case, which was talking then about the 1980s case in which the supreme court upheld that. then at the independent counsel system. and i ve concluded, maybe i m wrong, but i ve concluded that the reason they keep bringing it up and bringing it up is that they may be trying to create some confusion between the old system, which you were criticizing, which should justice scalia criticize, if i understand correctly, which senator durbin criticized, and others did. and i wonder if maybe they are trying to create an impression in the public that you were criticizing the current system. so i just want to give you one more chance to make it clear. in your writings about the morrison case, were you criticizing the current special counsel system? thank you, no i was not.