and he wanted to kind of scrub the internet or scrub people of speaking poorly about him would even gaugeed in that. that s the irrespective or if it would have done some random tuesday before the candidacy. dana: hold that thought. right now believe it or not the supreme court is expected to issue one or more new opinions. some of the high-profile cases are possible ruling on trump presidential immunity, gun rights, abortion access, and social media censorship. we have shannon bream on stand by for that. now to another potential decision gripping the nation. we are waiting for a verdict in the new york trial of former president donald trump. day two of jury deliberations underway now. welcome to a new hour of america s newsroom. i am said america s courtroom. i m dana perino. good morning. bill: good morning to folks at home. if we get immunity today from scotus, that would be a whopper. dana: do you think it would short circuit this? it could happen. bill: right n
The latest news and information from around the world with host Ana Cabrera. Fierce once again. Ana. Thank you, dan, for that report. The weather he talked about is crucial here. The fires they create their own weather systems. And video from the ground can help us show just how deadly and dangerous this fire has become. Its hard to explain just how large its gotten. And this might help. The video was recorded today by a passenger on a flight from sacramento to seattle. That is not a cloud there. That is a plume of smoke. Cnn meteorologist is joining us from headquarters. Help us understand how large and how powerful this inferno is. Well, ana any time you have a fire whats going to happen is its creating its own localized weather environment. And this is a big, big challenge. You showed that picture or the video a secretary ago. But i want to drill into the picture. Because you can see the Towers Clouds from the plane. Okay so the plane flies around 30,000 feet. You can see the clouds
therefore, we re going to come down like a ton of bricks on you. i think it is very revealing, frankly, about how nervous they are that people would actually start reading the report. it was very interesting, mitt romney went on sunday and said i have read the report and i don t see all of the elements of intent, i don t see all the elements. well, i wrote a piece today saying what do you mean? six of these categories of behavior have all of the elements according to mueller. what s your explanation? and his office really didn t have any explanation. someone thought of an excuse, and that s what the republicans are doing, coming up with one kind of silly, picayune excuse after another rather than saying in a bunch of instances there was intent, there was action, it was tied to a proceeding and that s what makes obstruction. it wasn t one incident, it was a whole bunch of them. by the way, with regard to mcgahn, understand what they are
ruled against basically the identical argument in the harriet meyers case. that was then settled out on appeal. but this is a tough one. i think the previous argument is going to prevail across the board at the d.c. circuit. this is one whether or not there s a testimonial privilege that applies to former close advisers that likely will go all the way to the supreme court. yeah, so this is a closer issue, it seems, chuck, that s harry s point here. it s always been the case that the white house says, for instance, you can t call my current white house counsel before congress. that s fairly established. this question here, there s both procedural but to me the bigger thing is mcgahn. mcgahn is a key figure because of what we know he told mueller and what he saw and the desire not to have this guy basically saying what he knows in front of everyone. there s an irony here, chris, and you touched on it in your opening. almost everything we need to know about what mcgahn knows is in the
a district court previously ruled against basically the identical argument in the harriet meyers case. that was then settled out on appeal. but this is a tough one. i think the previous argument is going to prevail across the board at the d.c. circuit. this is one whether or not there s a testimonial privilege that applies to former close advisers that likely will go all the way to the supreme court. yeah, so this is a closer issue, it seems, chuck, that s harry s point here. it s always been the case that the white house says, for instance, you can t call my current white house counsel before congress. that s fairly established. this question here, there s both procedural but to me the bigger thing is mcgahn. mcgahn is a key figure because of what we know he told mueller and what he saw and the desire not to have this guy basically saying what he knows in front of everyone. there s an irony here, chris, and you touched on it in your opening. almost everything we need to