New York Times correspondent, best-selling author, and CNN analyst Maggie Haberman said there should be cameras in court so former President Donald Trump can’t “tell people it’s fake news.”

Trump has been indicted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s grand jury investigating the circumstances around hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. According to reports, Trump faces 34 counts in the sealed indictment and will be arrested and arraigned on Tuesday.

Haberman was a guest on Friday night’s CNN primetime coverage, during which she and CNN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson, argued in favor of allowing cameras in the courtroom at Trump’s arraignment and trial so Trump can’t mislead the public about the proceedings:

COLLINS: Yes. I mean, what do you think? I mean, if there is a camera, in the room? That’s a remarkable moment in and of itself. But it could be important to actually get a clear view of what happened inside that courtroom.

HABERMAN: Absolutely. And there is a compelling public interest argument to make. It is absolutely true that New York–

JACKSON: Yes.

HABERMAN: –is really regressive, in terms of cameras in the courtroom. I do expect there’ll be an argument made. I’m not sure what the ruling will be on that.

But it’s interesting. I was thinking, as you were asking that question, there, one of the things we saw over and over, both with Michael Cohen, in terms of Trump, and then other people, in the White House? People have a habit of taping Donald Trump. And they have a habit of taping Donald Trump, because he spins his own reality, and will contradict whatever people say about him.

A camera would be pretty vital, in terms of people understanding what happened, and not being told that something, it’s fake news. And in an era, where Trump is saying that–

JACKSON: Yes.

HABERMAN: –all of these reports are not true? I think there is a compelling argument for it. I am skeptical that it will happen. Just I covered courts in the State. I know how against cameras in the courtroom judges are here.

JACKSON: Yes.

HABERMAN: But I do think there is going to be a compelling argument made.

JACKSON: And even toggling to the actual trial itself, imagine, right, what the public interest in that will be?

HABERMAN: Right.

COLLINS: Yes.

JACKSON: And so, will there be cameras allowed, to depict what occurs, on the day-to-day, because I think certainly people would want to know.

HABERMAN: That’s right.

COLLINS: Yes, obviously, remains to be seen. We’ll see what we do see.

Watch above via CNN.

Dennis Quaid joined Fox News host Jesse Watters this week to issue a warning about the nation’s power grid potentially going dark.

The actor narrated the recent documentary Grid Down, Power Up, a look at the consequences of the power grid going down and the country living without electricity for an extended period of time. Quaid said despite the potential consequences, there is no real plan or funding for a plan to respond to the power grid going down.

“There have been several attacks on substations. I heard about one a couple of months ago. This is not Day After Tomorrow by the way, this is tomorrow, I think. It could happen,” Quaid told Watters, referencing his own 2004 disaster movie. In the film, the world is plunged into a new Ice Age after a massive storm.

Even getting water would become an issue without electricity and it wouldn’t take long for things to revert to a different century, the actor argued.

“Just 30 days without electricity, it would take us back to 1880. You wouldn’t be able to get gas. You wouldn’t be able to get food. The police would stay home and take care of their own families,” he said.

Quaid, who portrays Ronald Reagan in an upcoming film, said federal funding would help the situation, but no one wants to sign for the billions of dollars needed to put in place a contingency plan, especially utility companies.

“This is something that if it does happen, it’s going to make Covid look like a kids show,” Quaid said.

Watch above via Fox News.

Mediaite Founding Editor Colby Hall told Newsnation anchor Nichole Berlie that the latest development in the $1.6 billion Dominion defamation suit is “devastating for Fox News.”

Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric M. Davis issued a ruling that denied Fox’s motions for summary judgment in their entirety, and issued a partial summary judgment in Dominion’s favor on Friday in a scathing opinion that shredded a key Fox legal argument.

On Friday’s edition of Newsnation: Rush Hour, Berlie asked Hall if the ruling is all that damaging, saying the case “is not a slam dunk by any means”:

Nichole Berlie: Well, breaking this afternoon, a federal judge making his decision in the $1.6 million defamation lawsuit against Fox News. The judge has ruled. Dominion voting systems will see its day in court. Dominion leveled its lawsuit against Fox News in the wake of the 2020 presidential election after hosts on the conservative network repeatedly reported the voting system helped steal the election from former President Trump. Both Fox and Dominion voting appeared in front of the judge for a pretrial hearing last week, and Fox called the claims, quote, baseless but unsuccessfully ultimately tried to get that suit thrown out. Joining us now, News Nation media contributor Colby Hall. So, Colby, this is certainly what Dominion had wanted. This is not what Fox wanted. But what does this mean going forward? Because we’ve already talked about, this is not a slam dunk by any means for Dominion voting systems.

Colby Hall: Well, I think today’s ruling was actually pretty devastating for Fox News. The judge made it very, very clear that he had little understanding or patience for Fox News’ argument. So both Fox News and Dominion filed for a summary judgment. The judge rejected Fox, but they did find in favor of Dominion, and his statement was stunning. He wrote, let me to read to you this, “the evidence developed in a civil proceeding demonstrates that it is crystal clear that none of the statements relating to Brennan about the 2020 election are true.” He put that in italics. All caps crystal and bolded crystal. You’ll never see a judge make those sorts of final decisions and choices in a decision like this. So they found 20 instances of Fox News talent saying false statements about Fox. He found that to be defamation. It will go to trial where they will sort of try. The case of malice was basically it was Fox News doing this with malicious intent or were they doing it purposely with knowledge? That will be difficult to prove. It will be a fascinating trial to follow. The media trial of the century probably will occur over the course of the next month.

Nichole Berlie: Right. With more than one and a half billion dollars up for grabs here. Colby, let’s talk about Dominion. When some of Fox’s biggest executives, as well as talent to potentially take the stand. We’re talking Rupert Murdoch talking. Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, is it possible we will see them on the stand?

Colby Hall: It’s possible. I still believe that, you know, they’re asking for $1.6 billion. And Fox thinks, understandably, that’s absurd. This decision today made that number and a potentially agreeable number higher. I think Fox will pay …you know, settlements always happen on the eve of an actual trial. I think if the choice is to depart 1.6 or maybe $1,000,000,000 or have their talent and Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch and other executives take the stand and potentially be embarrassed beyond really hurt their reputation, they’ll pay the billion. They have 4 billion in cash, and that might be the cost of doing business. So you know, I also feel like Tucker Carlson and Sean HANNITY and Laura Ingraham and their executives, these are not dummies. These are talented professional speakers. They do it every night. So they’re going on trial would be a fascinating thing to see for a lot of reasons. And maybe the best case for Fox is to put their best talent on the stand and explain what they were doing.

Nichole Berlie: Yeah, it certainly would be fascinating to watch. No doubt they’re all right. Colby Hall, thank you so much.

Colby Hall: Thanks for having me.

Watch above via Newsnation: Rush Hour.

A spokesperson for Fox News provided Mediaite with the following statement: “This case is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news. FOX will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings.”

Biden NSC Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby let his retired admiral flag fly when he handled an interruption from New York Post White House Correspondent Steven Nelson as he tried to answer a question.

At Wednesday’s White House briefing, Kirby joined White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to field questions from reporters.

After getting his first question shot down, Nelson moved on to a lengthy query about China and fentanyl that Kirby did answer:

STEVEN NELSON: Okay. And regarding —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: And we don’t have a lot of time.

STEVEN NELSON: — regarding China and then —

MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Really quickly.

STEVEN NELSON: –regarding China and fentanyl, Congressman Mike Garcia today called for the U.S. to, quote, “Put a finger on the chest of China to address the root of the crisis.” President Biden talked about fentanyl in Canada recently. He did mention that it’s coming mostly from China. This has been kind of a recurring feature, including in the State of the Union.

President Biden often talks about wanting competition and not conflict with China, but with nearly 3,000 — 300,000 Americans dead over five years, many people — including Senator Cotton, former U.S. diplomats, and victims’ families — have likened this to a modern-day Opium War.

Do you have thoughts on that characterization of this being a war waged by con- — by China? And does — is there a reason why President Biden doesn’t often mention that it’s coming from China?

MR. KIRBY: The President, I think, has just — he’s been exceedingly clear about the dangers of fentanyl and opioids in this country. And — and — (indistinct interruption)

Now let me finish now, shipmate.

He’s been very, very clear about the — sorry — the challenges — the challenges of fentanyl and opioid — opioid use here. And he’s never backed away from wanting to find innovative solutions, cross-cutting across the administration to deal with that.

Watch above via C-SPAN.