the former president is facing a criminal investigation into his handling of classified files, after leaving the white house. leading republican house speaker kevin mccarthy reacts on twitter, calling the indictment "a dark day for the united states" — he says that he'll stand with the former president ukraine's president tours the flooded areas affected by a burst dam — as the world health organisation warns that cholera could spread. hello. welcome to bbc news. we start with the news former president donald trump has been indicted over his handling of classified files after he left the white house. here's a short clip of him speaking. i'm an innocent man. i'm an innocent person.

so, donald trump saying he is an innocent man, disputing the claims — and in accompanying written posts, he said: "i have been summoned to appear at the federal courthouse in miami on tuesday at 3:00pm." us media reports he faces seven charges — including unauthorised retention of classified files. it is the second indictment of mr trump, who is campaigning once again to be president. his first was a state indictment — this is a federal case. it's the first ever federal indictment of a former president. prosecutors had been looking into the transfer of files to mr trump's mar—a—lago florida estate since last year. the beachside property was searched last august and 11,000 documents were seized, including around 100 marked as classified. some of these were labelled top secret. (biv anthony zurcher has some of these were labelled top secret. there's been reaction from us republican nominee hopeful ron desantis. he said: "a desantis administration would bring accountability to the department ofjustice." meanwhile, the house speaker, kevin mccarthy, tweeted: "i, and every american who believes in the rule of law, stand with president trump

against this grave injustice." earlier, i spoke to bob costa, the chief election and campaign correspondent at cbs news and, based on conversations with donald trump's inner circle, he shared the former president's reaction to the news. he did not necessarily believe it would happen. there was so—called happy talk in his inner circle from some of his lawyers, some of his advisers, that special counseljack smith would not move forward in such an aggressive way with seven such charges, and maybe it would be a wait—and—see moment as the special counsel investigated not only classified documents, but trump's conduct in and around the january 6 capitol attack. he's in a legal war but also a political war. he's in the middle of a presidential campaign. talking to some of his presidential opponents, they see an opening if he starts to bleed out legally. but also, many republican voters could rally to trump's side.

those thoughts earlier from bob costa. with me isjoe moreno, a former federal prosecutor at the department ofjustice. take us through what we actually know about this indictment.— actually know about this indictment. �* , , indictment. it's interesting heafina indictment. it's interesting hearing the _ indictment. it's interesting hearing the speaker's - indictment. it's interesting. hearing the speaker's quote referencing the "rule of law". because anyone who lies to a grand jury will be prosecuted. that's just a basic tenet. you cannot do that sort of thing and expect to get away with it. and that seems like that's the case that's being brought against donald trump. it's not so much about whether he took classified documents with him from the white house and whether he declassified them properly or whatnot. it's the fact that, when he was faced with a grand jury subpoena some time last spring saying, "turn over all documents with classification markings on them," and then donald trump purportedly said, "here you go — i'm giving you everything i have," and then a month or so later the fbi found 100 more

documents — that's the case. that means that what they're going to say is that he obstructed a grand jury investigation. basically, he lied. and that that's something that no—one — whether you're a former anyone — should expect to be able to get away with. so that's the case. what do we know about how solid the evidence is? because a lot of this has actually played out in the public eye, hasn't it? it’s the public eye, hasn't it? it's not going _ the public eye, hasn't it? it's not going to _ the public eye, hasn't it? it's not going to be _ the public eye, hasn't it? it�*s not going to be a very difficult case for people to understand. and it probably won't be that difficult to prove. i mean, we know the classified documents were there at mar—a—lago. that's usually half the battle, to show the person had national defence information. we know that they were there. the only question thenis were there. the only question then is — did donald trump knowingly make, through his lawyers, statements in response to the grand jury subpoena saying, "i've turned over everything" while knowing that he hadn't? that's the case. there could be some defences there. he could say that, "i didn't realise what was happening" or "i relied on my

attorneys" or "i relied on my aides, who did things without me knowing." those are the kind of details that win fleshed out if this goes to trial. but i mean, as faras if this goes to trial. but i mean, as far as the basic premises of the case, they're not that difficult to comprehend.- not that difficult to comprehend. not that difficult to comrehend. ., , . ., not that difficult to comrehend. . ., comprehend. to be clear, some --eole comprehend. to be clear, some peeple are _ comprehend. to be clear, some peeple are saying _ comprehend. to be clear, some people are saying - _ comprehend. to be clear, some people are saying - the - comprehend. to be clear, some people are saying - the formerl people are saying — the former vice—president, mike pence, was also found to have classified documents at his home. the current president, joe biden, as well. what is the big difference here?- as well. what is the big difference here? ., ,�* , difference here? now trump's auoin to difference here? now trump's going to play _ difference here? now trump's going to play on _ difference here? now trump's going to play on the _ difference here? now trump's going to play up the fact - difference here? now trump's going to play up the fact that l going to play up the fact that it doesn't look like those two are facing charges... it doesn't look like those two are facing charges. . .- are facing charges... right. ..but are facing charges... right. --but he — are facing charges... right. ..but he apparently - are facing charges... right. ..but he apparently is. - are facing charges... right. ..but he apparently is. i - are facing charges... right. l ..but he apparently is. i think the big distinguishing factor is going to be that, by all accounts, mike pence and joe biden were completely cooperative. they welcomed the fbi into their personal property. they said, "please look around. here's anything that i had that i'm aware of. and if i can do anything else to further your investigation, let me know what to do." donald trump, by all accounts, let me know what to do." donald trump, by allaccounts, did sort of the opposite. he had over a year to negotiate when the national archives kept

asking him, "please return these documents. please send them back to the archives where he belong." he gave a little bit, then he got a grand jury subpoena and gave a little bit more, and it took an fbi raid to actually get all the documents back from his possession. that's gonna be the big difference here. 50. possession. that's gonna be the big difference here.— big difference here. so, final auestion big difference here. so, final question on _ big difference here. so, final question on the _ big difference here. so, final question on the time - big difference here. so, final question on the time line - big difference here. so, final. question on the time line here. will we see this actually go to trial in the near future? i know it's frustrating. justice is fair. it's not always swift. and i think i would be surprised at this point if this case would go to trial before next year's presidential election in october. that's how long this could take. so this could very well be playing out well into and past next year's campaign season.— well into and past next year's campaign season. that's really interesting- — campaign season. that's really interesting. all _ campaign season. that's really interesting. all right. - campaign season. that's really interesting. all right. joe - interesting. all right. joe moreno, formerfederal prosecutor at moreno, former federal prosecutor at the moreno, formerfederal prosecutor at the department of justice, it's been great to have your analysis with us tonight. have your analysis with us toniaht. ~ , have your analysis with us i tonight._ thanks, tonight. absolutely. thanks, joe. live now to robert ray, a former federal prosecutor who served as the independent counsel investigating bill clinton, and as one of mr trump's attorneys during his 2020 impeachment.

robert, good evening to you. first up, i want to get your thoughts on this indictment from what we know so far. 0bviously from what we know so far. obviously it's serious and it's a federal case. it looks and appears to me that the former president intends to participate in the process, which is to say that he will appear voluntarily in court, in appear voluntarily in court, in a federal courtroom, in miami on tuesday next week to face the charges. but — and it's interesting that the case is being brought in florida. my guess is that it will be ultimately before a jury, if it ever gets to trial, that it's comprised of where he lives — palm beach county in florida, obviously a more favourable jurisdiction to him as far as a jury jurisdiction to him as far as a jury pool than would otherwise have been the case if the matter had been brought in the district of columbia. and then as far as the charges themselves are concerned, it's

a little hard to talk about them in a vacuum without actually seeing what the department ofjustice has charged, but it looks to be some combination of violations of the espionage act, the false statement statute, the conspiracy statute, and obstruction ofjustice. so those are all serious. and the president has had defences, but they're the usual ones defences make. but also the fact that, as a president and former president, he had certain powers with regard to classified information that no other person in america has. and those are going to be things that the justice department is going to have to overcome in order to prove that he illegally withheld classified information. ok. so we're going — classified information. ok. so we're going to _ classified information. ok. so we're going to come - classified information. ok. so we're going to come back- classified information. ok. so we're going to come back to l we're going to come back to that point. but i want to go back to what you said about this being in palm beach county, florida, about thejury pool being selected from there. why is that significant? i

think it's a jury pool that obviously would be more favourable to him. if you look at the demographics of the jury pool and how these various areas voted in the last presidential election — i mean, the district of columbia is overwhelmingly democratic. not so — not the case — in palm beach county, florida. so - not the case - in palm beach county, florida.- beach county, florida. so, robert, — beach county, florida. so, robert, coming _ beach county, florida. so, robert, coming back- beach county, florida. so, robert, coming back to the points that you made about the certain defences that the former president and his team might bring out here. the powers that he had as a president and then a former president and then a former president — the evidence that we've seen again reported in the public has been that the former president took home classified documents, was asked to return them, and did not comply. so it would seem that thatis comply. so it would seem that that is pretty clear?— that is pretty clear? well, you may think _ that is pretty clear? well, you may think it's _ that is pretty clear? well, you may think it's pretty _ that is pretty clear? well, you may think it's pretty clear, - may think it's pretty clear, but it's ultimately the government's burden of prove to find a violation in the statutes they have laid out before a jury. the president

has inherent powers as the commander—in—chief about whether to classify and cleclassify information. i think there's a lot of evidence, apparently, that has been mustered before the grand jury been mustered before the grand jury about the president's knowledge and understanding that he had to comply with certain procedures, which may be true in the ordinary course, but there's going to be a real battle, it seems to me, over having the government be able to prove that that was the exclusive avenue that the former president or the president needed to pursue, and that he was not authorised to retain this information. if he was authorised to retain it and he declassified it, i don't know that he had any obligation to produce it, frankly. but, you know, that's going to be part of the battle here about, relatively speaking, the powers afforded the president. it's back to how he handles classified material and the former president has made clear that his obligation was to retain information and

ultimately, after a period of time, deliver it up as part of the presidential records act. if it's not classified material, then thejustice department's not entitled to it, or the national archives isn't entitled to it, and it's not entitled to having it returned.— not entitled to having it returned. ., , returned. so, robert, ifi could jump _ returned. so, robert, ifi could jump in _ returned. so, robert, ifi could jump in there - returned. so, robert, ifi couldjump in there - - returned. so, robert, if i. could jump in there - what could jump in there — what specifically do you think that trump's team here — his team of lawyers — what their strategy is going to be? lawyers - what their strategy is going to be?— is going to be? well, i don't know about _ is going to be? well, i don't know about strategy, - is going to be? well, i don't know about strategy, but i is going to be? well, i don't i know about strategy, but what is going to be? well, i don't - know about strategy, but what i do know is that i'll see it when i believe it — there's actually going to be a trial during the election cycle in 2024. that during the election cycle in 202a. that would ordinarily be the expected course. this is a complicated enough case that i imagine the government's case in chief would likely be two or three weeks long. i don't really see how it is possible to have a trial of a former president who is likely to be the republican nominee for president of the united states in 2024 actually facing a jury trial where he would be required to be present and

actually has the right to be present before a jury where he's supposed to take two or three weeks off the campaign trail to be sitting in a courtroom. i don't really foresee that happening, so i think to answer your question about strategy, i think likely the strategy will be, from the defence team, to prolong this so that it does not actually result in a trial before the election in november. just to “um in election in november. just to jump in there _ election in november. just to jump in there - _ election in november. just to jump in there - you're - election in november. just to jump in there - you're saying| jump in there — you're saying logistically there's no way really this can all fit together? there is the indictment from new york where the trial�*s supposed to start in march. he's running for president. there's no way he can fit together, that he can do that and also see this come to trial? ., ., �* to trial? yeah, i don't - i mean. — to trial? yeah, i don't - i mean. we _ to trial? yeah, i don't - i mean, we now— to trial? yeah, i don't - i mean, we now have - to trial? yeah, i don't - i mean, we now have two | to trial? yeah, i don't - i- mean, we now have two major cases, right? both of them are complicated enough. they're not going to be over in a matter of a couple of days once they finally reach a jury. again, i don't see how that case goes forward in march, which is the same month as super tuesday, and a situation in which you're going to compel donald trump to be before a judge and a jury

for two to three weeks, which is what otherwise would be required. i don't see that happening. the question is going to be whether or not judges are going to attempt to help that happen. i'm not sure the american people will... looks like we might have lost our connection to you there, robert. i don't know if you can still hear us. i robert. i don't know if you can still hear us.— robert. i don't know if you can still hear us.- 0k, - robert. i don't know if you can still hear us.- ok, you i still hear us. i can. ok, you can stull— still hear us. i can. ok, you can stull hear— still hear us. i can. ok, you can stull hear us. _ still hear us. i can. ok, you can stull hear us. last - still hear us. i can. 0k, you| can stull hear us. last quick question — you've worked with the former president. how do you think he's taking all of this in and preparing for tuesday?— this in and preparing for tuesda 7~ , ., , ., tuesday? well, nobody wants to be indicted- _ tuesday? well, nobody wants to be indicted. that's _ tuesday? well, nobody wants to be indicted. that's not _ tuesday? well, nobody wants to be indicted. that's not fun - tuesday? well, nobody wants to be indicted. that's not fun for i be indicted. that's not fun for anybody. but i think he's taking it in stride and i think he understands what's happening here and i think there are some legitimate questions about the weaponisation of the criminal justice system with regard to donald trump. i thought that, in the united states, when someone runs for president, that it ought to be ultimately the people who decide about their leaders. i think that he

understands this to be something in which he has to respect the process, but i don't think he's under any illusions that there's not politics at play here. and i think he intends to be combative and to survive this and to be a viable presidential candidate notwithstanding these proceedings. candidate notwithstanding these proceedings-_ proceedings. robert wray, former federal _ proceedings. robert wray, former federal prosecutor, j proceedings. robert wray, - former federal prosecutor, one formerfederal prosecutor, one of mr trump's attorneys during his 2020 impeachment, very good to have you on our show tonight. to have you on our show tonight-— to have you on our show toniaht. . ~' ,, ., ., tonight. thank you for having me. we turn to ukraine now, and the world health organization is warning that cholera could spread in areas of the country now under water — after the destruction of dam in the southern kherson region earlier this week. president volodymyr zelensky visited the flooded areas on thursday. while there, he thanked rescuers — but also criticized international aid agencies, saying they had been too slow to respond. meanwhile, ukraine and russia have accused each other of attacking the dam. just a matter of hours after the visit, the area came under intense russian fire — killing one person — and making rescue

operations even harder. 0ur ukraine correspondentjames waterhouse sent this report. with fighting continuing in ukraine, i discussed the recent developments with ro khanna, democrat congressman from california. we recorded this interview before the news of the former president's indictment. vote thank you so much for joining us on bbc news tonight. i want to start with the situation in ukraine. you sat on the house arms services committee, and there's this key nato summit coming up injuly in vilnius, and the former nato secretary general andress rasmussen said the following.

i support president biden in keeping nato unified. that has to be key as we pull help ukraine push back against the unprovoked aggression of russia. 50 unprovoked aggression of russia. unprovoked aggression of russia, ., unprovoked aggression of russia. ., ., russia. so you would not support _ russia. so you would not support a _ russia. so you would not support a nato _ russia. so you would not support a nato memberl russia. so you would not - support a nato member state possibly putting boots on the ground in ukraine? i possibly putting boots on the ground in ukraine?— possibly putting boots on the ground in ukraine? i believe we need to be _ ground in ukraine? i believe we need to be coordinated - ground in ukraine? i believe we need to be coordinated and - ground in ukraine? i believe we need to be coordinated and i i need to be coordinated and i believe that the president of the united states needs to lead the united states needs to lead the alliance, as we have been, and my view is that the president has been providing the ukrainians with aid, without risking a world war without risking a world war with russia, and they have been very prudent about balancing fat. so i think we need to be unified at nato and we need to let the united states lead. we are the ones who are finding most of this.— are the ones who are finding most of this. what would you sa to a most of this. what would you say to a country _ most of this. what would you say to a country like - most of this. what would you say to a country like poland, | say to a country like poland, if they would consider putting polish soldiers on the ground

in ukraine, would you say that would be risking a further escalation with russia? i would sa the escalation with russia? i would say they should _ escalation with russia? i would say they should make - escalation with russia? i would say they should make sure - escalation with russia? i would say they should make sure that we are leading as nato, and look to the united states, which has borne most of the costs, which continues to supply most of the aid, and i believe secretary blinken has done a phenomenaljob in unifying nato, and we don't want freelancing, because that ultimately weakens the nato alliance. �* , alliance. the british prime minister — alliance. the british prime minister rishi _ alliance. the british prime minister rishi sunak - alliance. the british prime minister rishi sunak held l alliance. the british prime| minister rishi sunak held a press conference withjoe biden and they announce this framework for a new economic cooperation, and our political editor chris mason was at the press conference. he asked them about the prospect of a new trade deal and this is what the british prime minister rishi sunak said. you're the only way we're going to meet those challenges is to work together, to strengthen the resilience of our supply chains, to research the technologies of the future together, and that's what we've announced today, is a

partnership that will deepen our cooperation, to strengthen the economic security and that's good for all our citizens at home. i wanted to ask you about this because you have been talking a lot about economic patriotism, so making sure that the us is producing domestically, that the us is investing in factories at home. there is a deal like this good for the us? we there is a deal like this good for the us?— for the us? we are going to continue — for the us? we are going to continue to _ for the us? we are going to continue to build _ for the us? we are going to continue to build resilience. j for the us? we are going to l continue to build resilience. i think it is a little bit ironic to have prime mr sunak talking about trade when britain basically had brexit, which in my view was for the decline of england. first of all england lost its entire manufacturing base post—world war ii, the united states wants to avoid making that mistake, and then i believe it was a disastrous policy for britain to have brexit, and that is one of the reasons they are facing economic stagnation. i mean, look at the inflation there and the potential recession there, i certainly don't think we need to be learning economic lessons from what's going on.— to be learning economic lessons from what's going on. would you su ort a

from what's going on. would you support a free-trade _ from what's going on. would you support a free-trade deal- from what's going on. would you support a free-trade deal with i support a free—trade deal with the uk at some point? support a free-trade deal with the uk at some point?- the uk at some point? what i would support _ the uk at some point? what i would support as _ the uk at some point? what i would support as britain - the uk at some point? what i| would support as britain faced getting their economic policy rate, and making sure that they listen to people like cameron and tony blair, who view brexit i think as an economic suicide pact, that they repair their relationships with europe. i think they need to worry more about that than the united states. ., , ., ., states. one more question on that, do states. one more question on that. do you _ states. one more question on that, do you think— states. one more question on that, do you think rishi - states. one more question on that, do you think rishi sunakj that, do you think rishi sunak is the right man to get that ship in order, as you say? i defer to the british electorate in who they choose. 0bviously, in who they choose. obviously, as someone of indian origin i think it is a ground—breaking achievement for him to ascend to the prime ministership, and injust that way to the prime ministership, and in just that way i respect that, but i think his economic policies, i hope he has a reconsideration of brexit. i also want to ask you about artificial intelligence, a topic you have been speaking on multiple times. there's been a lot of discussion here in the us about regulating ai, setting global standards. the british prime minister talked about a global summit that will have be

held in london in the fall. if there is a global summit on al, how likely do you think it is that countries like china will actually attend and agree to such global standards? haka i think we have _ such global standards? haka i think we have to _ such global standards? haka i think we have to work- such global standards? haka i think we have to work on - such global standards? haka i think we have to work on it, l think we have to work on it, but ai has been regulated by three entities right now, microsoft, google and 0penai, the folks in silicon valley and seattle, and we want to have —— we need to have the united states to make sure we are coming up with a framework that will happen in my view in the united states, because all of the innovation is happening largely in the united states on it, and i think we then need to make sure that our european allies and other countries are participating. allies and other countries are participating-— participating. congressmen, thank you — participating. congressmen, thank you so _ participating. congressmen, thank you so much - participating. congressmen, thank you so much for- participating. congressmen, | thank you so much for taking time to speak with us tonight. thank you. the us state of alabama has been ordered to re—draw its electoral map, after the supreme court ruled that it had discriminated against black voters. the justices found that the republican—dominated state had drawn up a congressional map with only one district where black voters were in the majority, despite their making up over a quarter of its electorate.

the ruling means that alabama will have to redraw its congressional map to include a second majority—black district. earlier, i spoke to deuel ross — an attorney with the naacp legal defence and education fund — who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs lawyers. deuel, thank you very much forjoining us here on bbc news. you said today this ruling is a crucial win against the continued onslaught of attacks on voting rights. what do you think made this case so important? you know, this was a real test for the voting rights act, alabama through, the case was about alabama's black belt, a region in alabama that is extremely poor, that has a long history of racial discrimination against black voters, but is also the place where martin luther king began his ministry. if this case in which there is a really clear black community that was in need of representation wasn't going to win, there is going to be no case that would win from the supreme court, and the fact that the court found not only that black voters were discriminated

against, but it is a historical and significant when that against, but it is a historical and significant win that will reverberate for years. election law experts are calling it a surprise because this is a court that has chipped away in recent years at the voting act, so why do you think the court ruled the way it did? i think the court ruled this way because in alabama it is sort of undeniable what happened. there is this region of alabama called the black belt that was divided into four congressional districts, when it is very clear that it is possible to divide it into only two districts in which black voters would have an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. the three judges who decided this case initially, two of hwom were appointed by president trump said this was a textbook case of a violation of the voting rights act, so that is what compelled thejustices to come to the same conclusion.

as i said, if alabama is not violating the voters rights act then really no one is. i want to ask you about what the justice wrote, he wrote the majority opinion considered race to heavily during these district lines and is urging a more race neutral approach. what is your response to that? the voting rights act has existed in its current form for 40 years. the purpose of the act, as justice jackson said, is to address racial discrimination in voting so it is impossible to remedy that without thinking about race, without looking at race, without looking at the implications of choosing maps in which white voters control disproportionate power and which black voters have less power. so it is frankly impossible to remedy racial discretion without thinking about race, in the wayjustice thomas is suggesting. in 2013, the supreme court

struck down a key provision of the voting rights act that have a history, making states that have a history of voting discrimination get any voting changes pre—cleared by the federal government, and the argument there was that these provisions are outdated and no longer in line with contemporary voting, so why do you think that is still relevant? that is still so relevant? we are coming up on the ten year anniversary of the decision, and unfortunately congress has failed to respond to that decision. but what i think today's opinion from the supreme court affirms is that the voting rights act is very much needed, that racial discrimination continues to exist in alabama, in places like new york and california, and mississippi and georgia, all over the country, and that is why we need a strong voting rights act that continues to have that preclearance provision. the last question, there are similar cases in louisiana, and texas, georgia, where plaintiffs are suing to require more of these majority minority districts. do you think this ruling will set a precedent for those

other the cases as well? it absolutely will set a precedent. it is a very robust defence and affirmance of the importance of the voting rights act, and i think that the decisions that we have in louisiana, that other organisations have in georgia, in texas, and washington state, all of those decisions will benefit from the ruling from the supreme court, that the voting rights act remains constitutional, and that black, latino and other voters of colour are entitled to representation when they are able to prove violations of that law. thank you for sharing your perspective. thank you for having me. that is our programme for this hour. the team in london will take overfrom us. thank you for watching. take overfrom us. thank you forwatching. sumi take overfrom us. thank you for watching. sumi somaskanda in washington.

hello. love it or loathe it, a spell of very warm weather's upon us, but what will be less desirable, i think, is the level of humidity, which will become particularly noticeable over the weekend. one thing that we do need is rainfall, and we haven't had much of it recently, and we are expecting some showers and thunderstorms through the course of the weekend. let's have a look at the satellite picture, and you'll soon see the sun setting over the storm clouds here, out towards the south. initially, these storms will be very well scattered, so not many of us will actually get them. but it's that humid air to the south that'll start arriving, ithink, friday night into saturday, and then through sunday. that'll also keep the nights really balmy, so some pleasantly warm evenings on the way, too, but quite sticky at night. so here's the forecast, early on friday morning, cloudy skies across eastern scotland, eastern and central england. but out towards the west, it's sunshine, could be a few showers, maybe the odd thunderstorm across the southwest of england, early in the morning,

and then, through the afternoon, it's pretty much what we've had in the last few days, so the cloud burns back to the coast, and just a few coastal strips there, hanging onto that cloud through the course of the afternoon, where it will be a little on the cool side. so maybe only 14 in newcastle and aberdeen. 0ut towards the west, it's sunny and warmer, temperatures could be nudging up into the mid—to—high—20s in one or two spots on friday. then, friday night into saturday, this is the weather map, a weather front approaching. that'll spark off a few showers and thunderstorms during the day on saturday. starts off really sunny everywhere, but then that risk of storms, i think, across parts of england and wales. some of the storms will bring torrential downpours, hail, and gusty winds, but very localised, and many of us will miss it altogether. temperatures low—to—mid—20s, high—20s in one or two spots — we could nudge up to 30 on saturday, which will be a little too hot for some. then saturday evening, look at that, at 10pm, temperatures could still be in the high teens, perhaps even in excess of 20 celsius, in bigger towns and cities. this is sunday's forecast — lots of sunshine right from the word go, and then, that increasing risk of showers

and thunderstorms across some western areas. how about the temperatures? again, typically in the mid—to—high—20s, so warm enough for most of us. bye— bye.