and we begin with breaking news tonight. cnn just received the coroner's final report with new details about the death of singer, whitney houston. cnn's entertainment reporter, kareen wynter, is at the los angeles county coroner's office. what are we learning about the sequence of events that led to whitney houston's death? >> well, gloria, i can tell you we know a whole lot more about what happened that day back in february the day before the grammy's when whitney houston was found dead in her hotel room in beverly hills. not just that but the detailed toxicology report just released. it is about 45 pages in length, quite extensive. we are still going through it. it outlines everything from whitney houston's autopsy to the medical examiner's findings through the different drug levels, mainly the cocaine levels. she died. that's one of the contributeding factors in her death. accidental drowning is what it was ruled. what i have been able it decipher so far, the timeline. what happened on that saturday. according to this report, whitney houston's assistant was with her in her hotel room on that saturday, february 11th. she was complaining of a sore throat. she had had it for a couple of days. the assistant said, go ahead, take a bath. i will run out for a bit and i will be back to check up on you. according to this report, when the assistant returned to the room, she entered the hotel room and found whitney houston lying face down in the bathtub. the assistant called the bodyguard and pulled her out of the tub. that's a little bit of a timeline. some other key things i have been able to pull out of this. in reference of the cotan, there was a presence of a spoon with a white powdery substance. bottles of prescription drugs as well as loose tablets found in and around the room, drugs such as xanax, signs of small trauma on her body and finally at the north end of the bathroom, a baggy ripped open with powdery traces and a mirror are a base with powdery remnants on the bathroom counter. it gives you a little bit of information as to the evidence found had her hotel room. they told me we are done with this case, case closed for us. the case isn't entirely closed. beverly hills police, the spotlight is now on them. they have to dem hetermine what happens from here. are there going to be criminal charges. they have said all along, no foul play suspected. nothing seems criminal. they still have to tie up their end of this investigation. we checked in with beverly hills p.d. you see how extensive this is. they are going through this, combing through it. we are expecting some sort of announcement and statement from them once they get to look through this. >> stay with us. thank you. i want to bring in our chief medical correspondent, dr. sanjay gupta, who joins us on the phone from new york. sanjay, from a medical perspective, is there a new headline here? >> you know, i don't think so. as careen mentioned, it is a pretty detailed report really looking at all the things that go into an autopsy with regard to the cotan use and its contribution to what they are essentially saying was a cardiac event, describing what may have been a heart failure due to the cotan use, even a heart attack. that seems to be the same. they have very specific values now which is more important in terms of putting together a timeline that careen was starting to describe there. for example, gloria, talking not only about cocaine found in whitney houston's blood but also how much of the various breakdown products of cocaine were found there. it is only relevant, gloria. what i think they have talked about is the cause of death from a couple of weeks ago now. it does say look, this was not likely a one-time cocaine use. cocaine had been used over the last several hours probably and that's what sort of led to the breakdown product values that are seen in the autopsy report. it is not different to your point than what we knew earlier. >> do we know whether she had a heart attack and then just sort of slipped under water in the tub or whether she drowned or does this make any of that clear? >> the cause of death they are still calling accidental drowning. these are hard things to talk about, gloria. the reason they know that is because if someone is, in fact, still alive when they go under the water, they will continue to breath and evidence of water from the tub will then be found in one's lungs. that's how they determine if someone had an accidental drowning. as far as whether it was a heart attack specifically brought on by the cocaine use or some sort of cardiac event, as they call it, some sort of heart event, it is a little bit more difficult to determine than you might think when someone has a heart attack. there is evidence of heart muscle actually having died. you see evidence of that in someone's blood. if it occurs so quickly, sometimes, you know, it is harder to find. so what they are saying is that she is a woman that had a history of -- she had atherosclerosis, hardening of the arteries, about 60% blockage. when someone takes cocaine, it can oftentimes cause spasm of the blood vessel and cause it to constrict even more. if you compound that with the already narrowed blood vessels, that can lead to an inadequate blood flow to the heart. a scientific description, gloria, essentially, trying to sum marchiarize what we are dri at. >> a detailed report. thanks so much for being with us. turning now to politics, the president has another fight on his hands today. he is getting backed into a corner by, of all people, a judge, who took offense at something the president said monday while defending the health care reform law. >> i'm confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. i just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we have heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activist. >> well, those comments didn't exactly sit well with the federal appeals court judge who ordered the obama justice department to explain just what the administration thinks the federal courts can and cannot do when it comes to health care reform and ruling on it. this judge is clearly angry. listen to this. >> i would like to have from you by noon on thursday, that's about 48 hours from now, a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the department of justice. in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. >> at the white house today, the president's top spokesman was not surprisingly bombarded with questions and spent at least half an hour playing defense. cnn's chief white house correspondent, jessica yellin was there. jess, it was really a heated briefing at the white house today. jay carney, the president's spokesman did not admit at all that the president had overstepped, right? >> that's right. he made no such admission, gloria. he was -- the president said specifically on the president's words that it would be unprecedented for the court to overturn a law passed by a democratically elected congress. since 1803, the supreme court has been empowered to do exactly that. conservative commentators and this lower court has suggested that it was bullying by the president to suggest otherwise. today, carne did a little fancy footwork saying what the president really meant was that it would be unprecedented for the court to overturn any law related to commerce and the economy. so he was sort of reframing the president's original remarks, which is what the president also did when he updated his remarks in his comments yesterday but, again, this is a little bit of parsing and what's really going on here is exactly that, sort of walking back and reframing, adding more nuance to the original comments by the president, which were a little bit messy, gloria. >> in the position when you are the spokesman to walk back something the president said, right? thanks so much. and joining me now, jay seculo, chief counsel for the american law and justice and jeffrey toobin, cnn's legal political analyst. jeff, will et me start with you. did the president make a mistake in seeming to warn the court that it had better leave health care reform alone? >> that's not what he said. he said he thought the law was constitutional and he is, among other things, a citizen of the united states with first amendment rights. >> he is not just an average citizen. >> of course, he is not what he said was, i think the law is constitutional. which he is perfectly entitled to say. most people who know the law agree with him. i just think it was entirely appropriate for what he said. >> jay? >> gloria, i disagree with my friend, jeff, in this context. number one, it wasn't just saying the law was unconstitutional. the president of the united states said nine unelected judges were making this decision and it would be an act of judicial active sicism if they to strike the law unconstitutional. yeah, talking about the train wreck and the airplane wreck, i think what they did this week was complicate the wreck even more and continued that especially as they got to a situation where the president was trying to backtrack on what he said. i don't think that sits well with courts. >> first of all, i give the supreme court a lot more credit than thinking they are deciding their case based on what barack obama says in the rose garden. they are nine unelected justices. >> they are all unelected. >> that's a factual statement. marbury versus madison said that courts have rights to declare laws unconstitutional. that's clearly correct. nothing he said would conflict with it. >> he said it would be an act of judicial activism. that's when the court creates a law or right that doesn't exist. how is it judicial if five justices decide this law is unconstitutional. i am with you. when they get back there, they may vote. we don't know how it will go. five justices strike it down as united states constitutional. are you going to say it is an act of judicial activism? >> mine may be different than yours when the judicial branch overturns the will of the people as reflected in the acts of their elected representatives. it may be good or bad but that's judicial activism. >> let's take a step back for a moment. isn't the basic problem here that people now believe that the court is political? we did a cnn poll about half of the public thinks that the court makes political decisions. maybe this goes back to bush versus gore. isn't the problem that they don't think the court is above politics anymore? >> you know what i would describe the people's attitude, correct. it is a political body. it does respond to politics. i don't see any problem with recognizing the reality of what's going on here. >> jeff, here is the problem. your definition of judicial activism, if the court rules in a way you don't like, they are judicial activists. that's not the way it works. if a court declares a law unconstitutional and five justices decides that's the way it is going to be, you may not like the opinion, you may think it is wrong, that's not what judicial activism is. the big mistake was the president of the united states was the one that pol it sized this in front of two foreign dignitaries, lecturing the supreme court of the united states saying judicial activists. does he have the right to say what he wants, yes but there are consequences to the statement. >> my bugaboo is that huge pieces of legislation should not be passed along party lines as health care reform was. it is not my original thought. it is senator daniel patrick monahan's thought. isn't that part of the problem? no matter what happens now, it is going to be suspect because it is regarded as partisan legislation. >> the president made the statement that when he made the statement about the unelected judges, he said this was passed with wide support, which is not actually correct. it was not wide support. it barely got through, literally by a vote. i think we have to respect the institution of the supreme court. elections have consequences. the president gets to nominate the justices to the supreme court of the united states. that's the way the constitution is set up for good reason. >> and jeff will say it is judicial activism. we will have to have this debate gern. thanks so much to both of you. some of rick santorum's friends are saying, maybe it is time to get out and get ready for 2016. you will hear the candidate's answer. later, wild tornadoes this destructive didn't kill anyone. all right, let's decide what to do about medicare and social security... security. that's what matters to me... me? i've been paying in all these years... years washington's been talking at us, but they never really listen... listen...it's not just some line item on a budget; it's what i'll have to live on... i live on branson street, and i have something to say... [ male announcer ] aarp is bringing the conversation on medicare and social security out from behind closed doors in washington. because you've earned a say. from behind closed doors in washington. see life in the best light. [music] transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses. but when she got asthma, all i could do was worry ! specialists, lots of doctors, lots of advice... and my hands were full. i couldn't sort through it all. with unitedhealthcare, it's different. we have access to great specialists, and our pediatrician gets all the information. everyone works as a team. and i only need to talk to one person about her care. we're more than 78,000 people looking out for 70 million americans. that's health in numbers. unitedhealthcare. now to the wild race for president, never mind the calendar and delegate, game on for mitt romney and obama in what looks like a brutal fight for the white house. the president took the first shots. today, romney hit back and hard. >> he wants us to reelect him so we can find out what he can actually do. with all the challenges the nation faces, this is not the time for president obama's hide-and-seek campaign. >> now, cnn's dana bash was there. pretty tough words. it really was a different mitt romney, gloria. the candidate we saw for months and months tried tying himself into a pretzel trying to convince voters he was conservative. he was gone. written in a big way for him to look and sound like the party's nominee. he gave us a peek you heard in the sound bite against the strategy of the president going into the fall. specifically, the president doesn't stand for anything. his ideas are flexible. he is out of touch. does that sound familiar? >> it sounds a little familiar. they are each calling each other out of touch. >> he was also very specific in criticizing the president on entitlements of all things. a republican bragging that he has a plan on social security and medicare. >> exactly. the point he is making is that the president isn't giving specifics. he has got to then follow up with specifics and that is what he did. he was talking about the fact that he wants to raise the retirement age for medicare recipients and get people with higher incomes to have fewer benefits. he also hit the president on what he isn't proposing. take a listen. >> i would be willing to consider the president's plan. but he doesn't have one. that's right. three-and-a-half years later, he has failed to enact or even propose a serious plan to solve the intelment crisis. >> he also even made fun of him self saying that people are amused by the fact that he has a 59-point economic plan. at least i have a plan. he said, give me a break, we have some plans they are just philosophically different. >> he was surprisingly specific and out front on some controversial things. >> despite going 0 for 3 in tuesday's presidential primaries. rick santorum turned up in the home state insisting he is still a viable candidate. he turned aside speculation he is getting advice to drop out now and wait his turn until 2016. >> next time, you haven't talked to my wife have ousually. >> for all intents and purposes, next time around. >> you didn't hear what i said. you haven't talked to my wife about next time. >> there isn't going to be a next time. >> the last thing we are thinking about is next time. >> john brayben, a senior adviser to the santorum campaign is with us now. thanks for being with us tonight. i have to be blunt tonight. you took a very big shellacking last night. lots of republicans coming out and saying, it is time for rick santorum to consider giving it up. listen to what john mccain said and you will respond on the other side. >> mitt romney has already pivoted to the general election campaign that whether rick san forum stays in or not, it is now base xli irrelevant and mitt has a lot of ground to make up. it has been a very nasty primary. it was unfavorables are high. i am confident he will do very well but the fact is that every day that goes by without being in the general election campaign mode is a day lost. >> so what's your response. he called your candidate irrelevant. >> look, i have a great deal of respect for senator mccain, a great american and also a moderate. i am sure he gravitates towards a moderate like mitt romney. based on the presidential race of four years ago, we saw that didn't go real well. i'm not sure senator mccain is the right one to be putting out political advice. i think you have to remember one other thing. rick santorum with half the state's voting has won 11 of them. in delegates, two others that he tied, michigan and alaska. we only have played half the game. if everybody was saying this about mitt romney caring so much about beating barack obama, why didn't he spend his 55 million in superpac money attacking obama instead of fellow republicans. >> just by saying these things, aren't you hurting mitt romney if he looks like he is going to be the nominee? doesn't that bother you that you might be hurting the republican chances? >> when he was spending $20 million in negative ads, he was also hurting us. we are all republicans. whoever is going to be the nominee, we are going to rally together behind. one thing i will say about barack obama, he is a great unifier. he will unify his entire opposition in november and i believe republicans will win. >> i want to read to you something that a friend of senator santorum's said. republican state sen for jake corpsman, in pennsylvania, he said of santorum, he is a real list. he doesn't have his head in the clouds. he won't stay in it to prove a point. if it gets to the point where he doesn't think he will be the nominee, he will get out. are you hearing that message from friends? >> well, no. we are hearing that message in our own heads. he believed that barack obama had to be beat. the best too do it is a conservative. who didn't agree with the bailouts and didn't agree with cap and trade. we have these big differences. clearly, we think we offer a strong contrast. >> if you were to lose pennsylvania in the popular vote or the delegate count, is that the moment? >> we need pennsylvania, it is critical for us, no doubt about it. it is our home state. mitt romney had all his home states. we have pennsylvania. we also have to win some of the states in may that do line up. >> you have to get to may. >> absolutely. pennsylvania has to give us that momentum. i think that if we can win pennsylvania, we will get a lot of momentum going into may. if we win texas with its delegates, you have a different ball game. >> if you don't w