reports, democracy is never guaranteed. a powerful message from president biden this morning marking 80 years since allied forces stormed the beaches of normandy and warning of the threat against the west today. plus, breaking news here at home this morning, with decisions expected in just minutes from the supreme court as justices near the end of a very busy term. also ahead, a dramatic new twist today in the gilgo beach serial killer case, the new charges the suspect now faces. and later, extreme weather, a rare tornado outbreak in maryland leaving a 50-mile trail of destruction. good morning, it is 10:00 eastern, i m ana cabrera reporting from new york, and we begin this morning with president biden gathering with world leaders in france marking 80 years since d-day when allied forces stormed the beaches of normandy, the turning point of world war ii. the president delivering a powerful message acknowledging that moment in history and warning of threats to freedom
ryan reilly joins us now from the supreme court. what have we heard from the court this morning as they release decisions, and what cases are we still waiting on? reporter: we got three decisions, but none of them were the big ones we re looking for, which both have to do essentially with donald trump. one of them would impact all of the cases that jack smith has brought against the former president, including the one in florida and the one here in d.c. that had to do with his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election and stop the transfer of power in the lead up to january 6th. the other one has to do with a charge that has been used against hundreds of january 6th defendants as well as donald trump himself. it would have to do with two of the charges, of the four charges donald trump is facing here in d.c., and it s the obstruction of an official proceeding charge. and that has been used against hundreds of january 6th defendants, would also impact trump, and the questio
microscopic. interesting. the conspiracy to defraud the u.s. seems fairly straightforward in terms of what that portends and actually means, barb, but what about tampering with the witness? we spend some time talking at the top of the show about how tampering with the witness might not actually mean tampering with a witness, similar, but that it could actually be that umbrella for a potential obstruction of an official proceeding charge. what do you think this might mean, barb? my guess is that the target letter identifies the statutes of investigation without describing a lot of detail. the statute is the united states code section 15 12. as you mentioned, there s an awful lot of stuff packed into
but that voters in battleground states, where the fake electors were advanced, their rights would ve been interfered with by convincing mike pence to disregard the legitimate votes of folks in those 5 to 7 states. maybe somewhere in between, every voter in the country, and something much more microscopic. interesting. the conspiracy to defraud the u.s. seems fairly straightforward in terms of what that portends and actually means, barb, but what about tampering with the witness? we spend some time talking at the top of the show about how tampering with the witness might not actually mean tampering with a witness, similar, but that it could actually be that umbrella for a potential obstruction of an official proceeding charge. what do you think this might mean, barb? my guess is that the target letter identifies the statutes of investigation without describing a lot of detail. the statute is the united states code section 15 12. as you mentioned, there s an awful lot of stuff packed
proceeding charge. what do you think this might mean, barb? my guess is the target letter identifies the statutes of investigation without describing a whole lot of detail. and so the statute is 18 united states code section 1512, and as you mention there s an awful lot of stuff packed into that statute, and the title of it is tampering with a witness. so it could be that maybe donald trump or others suggested to a witness they not tell the truth or something like that, but it strikes me as far more likely it is instead 1212c, that is an obstruction of an official proceeding. so an agreement to do something to disrupt that joint session of congress on january 6th, which has been used again and again on many of the january 6th defendants seems a much more likely strategy here. my guess is there will be things in that indictment that may not be publicly known.