Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Sanders Asked to Leave Restaurant; Mike Huckabee Tweet; Supreme Court Decisions; U.S. to Give North Korea Timeline; Erdogan Wins Race. Aired 9:30-10a ET
Aired June 25, 2018 - 09:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:30:00] POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Start.
Joining us now, David Drucker, CNN political analyst, senior political correspondent at "The Washington Examiner," and Shelby Holliday, politics and business report at "The Wall Street Journal."
And this is a moment, David, where I am glad that my two year old does not understand what we're talking about and cannot ask me questions. Your kids, a little older. They could ask you questions about this.
DAVID DRUCKER, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: You know, my six year old and my -- especially my eight-year-old nephew was asking us questions about this all the time.
HARLOW: Yes.
DRUCKER: It's something we were talking about over the weekend. Luckily, my two-year-old, just like yours, oblivious.
HARLOW: Right.
DRUCKER: He just wants to watch cartoons.
HARLOW: "The Washington Post" editorial entitled, "Let The Trump Team East in Peace" writes, quote, how hard is it to imagine, for example, people who strongly believe that abortion is murder deciding that judges or other officials who protect abortion rights should not be able to live peacefully with their families? Down that road lies a world in which only the most zealous sign up for public service. That benefits no one.
Do you agree?
DRUCKER: I do agree. And I think that there has to be perspective in politics. Now, it is true, it is very true, that the president himself is very divisive. That is his style of leadership. It is polarizing. It is cutting. He does not practice what his wife preaches. That's who he is. And I can understand, and it's perfectly legitimate, that it is going to raise the temperature and that his political opponents are going to want to fight back and are going to want to fight back aggressively.
But there has to be perspective when comparing a divisive American president to authoritarians around the world and past dictators who murdered millions of people. And I have to say this, and this is important, for Democrats that want to win seats in November, they are not going to attract disaffected Republicans --
HARLOW: Right.
DRUCKER: And win control of Congress if they do exactly what their opponents do --
HARLOW: That --
DRUCKER: Because --
HARLOW: Yes.
DRUCKER: Disaffected Republicans that have an issue with Trump's polarizing leadership are going to say, on the one hand, I have a party that I agree with more but I don't like their leadership, versus a party I disagree with more and also don't like the same sort of leadership, what do they think these voters are going to do?
HARLOW: So your point, I'm glad you brought it up.
Shelby, here's what Alan Richards (ph), an opinion contributor in "The Hill" write about exactly David's point. And he's talking about sort of comparisons that some on the left have made to Hitler, the president to Hitler. And he writes, but overwrought comparisons to the Nazis are both historically illiterate and an extreme, strategic misstep. Despite what should have been a slam-dunk for critics of the president, the overwrought rhetoric of Democrats may have -- may have handed the modern day Teflon Don another victory and harmed their long term prospects.
What do you think? Is that right?
SHELBY HOLLIDAY, POLITICS AND BUSINESS REPORTER, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, it also distracts from the big issue that's taking place on the order. We see people talking about Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the restaurant. We see people talking about Nazis and Hitler. And I just covered a story about the Flores Agreement and some policy -- big policy questions Congress is scrambling to solve and it's just not -- that's really sort of absent in this whole debate of how actually should we proceed with our laws and with our policies.
I do think that it's a strategy on the part of President Trump.
HARLOW: Yes.
HOLLIDAY: And when you talk to some people around him, it is a strategy to tweet this divisive rhetoric or to say something --
HARLOW: But, I mean, Maxine Waters, over the weekend -- and, guys, let me know if we have that and we can play it, I mean like she is out there after Sarah Sanders gets kicked out of the restaurant and saying, do more, I mean, continue this position (ph).
HOLLIDAY: Yes. Well, and to my point, I think that's a -- that's -- that's good for Trump. Trump wants that. He (INAUDIBLE) and wants them to (INAUDIBLE).
HARLOW: And bad for her party, bad for the Democrats.
What about the Mike Huckabee tweet over the weekend. So people on all -- all political sides are calling this a dog whistle. Here is what Mike Huckabee posted. Let's pull it up. He posted this picture -- I think we have it -- and it read -- OK, there's that picture flashing some gang signs. Nancy Pelosi introduces her campaign committee for the takeback of the House.
Then, when he was called out, many called that racist, a dog whistle, he shot back saying, absurd to see race in everything as racist. Nothing about race, but about a vile, violent criminal gang. Please understand that.
He said that this was about MS-13. What's your read, David?
DRUCKER: Well, look, I think that there are Republicans that are close to the president that have tried to play this game of, this isn't really racial. This is just about an issue. But there are clear implications.
Look, as a writer, as a reporter, where words matter and pictures matter, these are things that we always think about when we decide what to publish and how to publish it. So I think that -- that Huckabee is actually a sophisticated enough political figure to understand exactly what he was doing. And it fits with a lot of the president's rhetoric, who, when he has talked about the border, has tried to otherize (ph) a lot of illegal immigrants, many of whom are not violent, many of whom are coming to the United States simply because they want a better life for their family. Many Republicans understand that.
And -- but what he does by making this about more than simply border security and demonizing people, he is able to galvanize in his own party more support for his policies.
HARLOW: Yes. So on -- and I want your response as well, Shelby. Just add to that what Glenn Beck said. Sort of pointing to the media in all of this. He said this to Brian Stelter just yesterday.
[09:35:05] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLENN BECK, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR AND FOUNDER OF "THE BLAZE": Don't you understand what you're doing? You're driving people into the arms of Donald Trump. You're driving them into it.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: But that's what I'm trying --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: What do you think?
HOLLIDAY: That's an interesting take. And I'll talk about that in a second. But I also think Huckabee needs to be called out because his tweet was based on a premise that is just simply not true. He is saying that Nancy Pelosi defended MS-13, that she supports this gang in some way. And the reason why he says that is because when Trump called them animals --
HARLOW: Right.
HOLLIDAY: Nancy Pelosi said calling people animals is not a good thing.
So this whole entire argument is not based on any sort of fact. And there is no basis for which -- we -- I mean we shouldn't even really be talking about his tweet because it doesn't make much sense.
I do think, in terms of the media, yes, the outrage, we're seeing more and more articles, more and more polls show that the outrage is kind of numbing people out. It's driving Republicans back to Donald Trump. They're defending him despite the Roy Moores and the Stormy Daniels and all of the negative news coverage. It's all kind of baked in.
HARLOW: Yes.
DRUCKER: Their -- their --
HOLLIDAY: so the outrage is a repellant for them.
DRUCKER: There are --
HARLOW: We have -- we have to leave it there.
DRUCKER: OK.
HARLOW: Sorry. Come back.
HOLLIDAY: Much more.
HARLOW: Have to hit a commercial break. Got to pay for the program.
DRUCKER: Got to pay the bills.
HARLOW: Thank you guys both very much. Good to have you, David Drucker, Shelby Holliday.
The U.S. is ready to release the very first details about how and when North Korea is expected to begin denuclearization. We're going to get a live report from the Pentagon, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:40:29] HARLOW: All right, welcome back. We do have breaking news out of the Supreme Court. The justices handing down two key things.
Let's begin with Jessica Schneider outside of the high court with more. So let's begin first on the case having to deal with a florist and
whether a florist was willing to make floral arrangements for every couple. What did the court decide?
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kate, you know, the -- I'm sorry, Poppy, in the final days of the Supreme Court here, a flurry of activity.
So this case, your right, involves a florist out of Washington state. This, a very similar case to the Masterpiece Bake Shop decision that we got just a few weeks ago. In this case, a florist out of Washington state has refused to make a floral arrangement for a same-sex couple's wedding. Of course, that very similar to what we saw in Colorado, where the baker there refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.
So what's happened here is the Supreme Court has said, we will not take up this case out of Washington state. Instead, we're going to vacate the lower court ruling that ruled against the florist and we're going to send it back down to the lower courts so they can revisit this issue in light of what we decided in the Masterpiece Cake Shop ruling.
It's quite an interesting decision here, Poppy, because the Supreme Court really has avoided the constitutional question as to whether or not retailers, business owners can refuse service on the basis of their religious belief when it comes to same-sex couples, same-sex weddings. And they're, once again, really side-stepping deciding this issue here. They did not decide the constitutional question in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case and they also are not deciding the issue here. Instead, sending it back down to the lower courts to have them deal with it in light of the Masterpiece Cake Shop decision and maybe it will play out a little bit more in the lower courts before they get to the constitutionality. Here at the Supreme Court maybe eventually.
HARLOW: Right.
SCHNEIDER: Poppy.
HARLOW: Yes, I mean it -- look, the Masterpiece Cake decision was a very narrow ruling. And when Kennedy wrote the opinion, it didn't decide the overall constitutionality. And now they won't hear it on this one. That's a very good point.
Jessica Schneider, appreciate you being there at the court. Of course we're still waiting for the high court to decide on the travel ban decision. This is the last week that they will hand down their rulings.
The U.S. is expected to give North Korea specific details, including a timeline about their commitment to denuclearize. This comes two weeks after the president met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore. Our correspondent, Barbara Starr, at the Pentagon with more.
What have we learned about the timeline here?
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, Poppy.
Defense Secretary James Mattis on his way to Asia right now to visit in China and South Korea. And on the Korean question, what we are learning is a senior defense official telling reporters there is now a plan, at least on the U.S. side, they will deliver to North Korea at some point in the coming days a U.S. proposal for a timeline and for tasks. What the U.S. wants to see North Korea do specifically to achieve denuclearization.
The president already saying that that is happening, but there's no evidence it's happening. It is this timeline that the U.S. is preparing to give to North Korea that will tell the world, according to the defense officials, whether North Korea really is acting in good faith and whether it really does, after Singapore, plan to denuclearize.
So regardless of the president's optimism, a lot of hard work being done right now behind the scenes to get it all down on paper, present North Korea with the details and get them to sign off on it.
Poppy.
HARLOW: OK, Barbara Starr at the Pentagon, thank you, as always.
Ahead for us, a woman says she was humiliated in front of her seven- year-old son when a Walgreens pharmacist refused to fill her prescription to end her pregnancy after her doctor had told her the fetus had stopped developing. She will join me live, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:48:45] HARLOW: An Arizona mother, this morning, is calling for a change in Walgreens policy after a pharmacist refused to fill her medication to end her pregnancy. She says her doctor prescribed the medication after telling her that her baby's development had stopped at 10 weeks and that the pregnancy would end in a miscarriage.
Nicole Arteaga detailed the experience in a FaceBook post. Here's part of what she wrote.
I stood at the mercy of this pharmacist explaining my situation in front of my seven year old and five customers standing behind, only to be denied because of his ethical beliefs.
And Nicole joins me now.
Thank you for being here.
NICOLE ARTEAGA, SAYS PHARMACIST DENIED HER MISCARRIAGE MEDICINE: Good morning. Thank you for having me.
HARLOW: First of all, I know what a difficult time this is. I'm so sorry about your child. I know you were really looking forward to having a second child. So thank you for being here despite --
ARTEAGA: Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much. HARLOW: Despite all you're going through.
So you walk up to the pharmacy counter. You try to fill this prescription. What does the pharmacist say to you?
ARTEAGA: He tells me -- well, he asked me if I was pregnant. And once I responded, he told me he wasn't going to fill my prescription. And so I couldn't believe that that was happening. And I tried to explain like what was going on and why the doctor had sent it. And he still had said, no, I'm not going to fill this. It's not -- it's not going to happen.
[09:50:06] And I asked if somebody else in the store could help me. And he told me I could come back the following day and maybe that pharmacist might help me or that he could call and find another pharmacy to fill it, but he wasn't sure what would happen.
So at that point I told him yes and I -- I stepped away.
HARLOW: I know they -- I know they transferred your prescription to another Walgreens, right?
ARTEAGA: Yes. Yes, they did. And I guess in that moment, when he was telling me no that he wasn't going to fill it, I -- look, all I could feel was hopelessness. I -- like the world felt like it was closing in and I was thinking, like, this is my body and I have no -- like, I'm losing control. You know, I couldn't control the fact that my body wasn't going to support this pregnancy. And I wanted this baby. And I couldn't control -- I couldn't control what my body was doing and now here I am trying to make my decision and what I'm going to do and this person was taking that away from me.
HARLOW: You have filed a --
ARTEAGA: And making that choice for me.
HARLOW: You have filed a complaint with the Arizona Board of Pharmacy. And Walgreens responded to this saying they reached out to you and they apologize and they said to respect that sincerely held beliefs our pharmacists have while at the same time the needs of our patient, our policy allows pharmacists to step away from filling a prescription when they have a moral objection. At the same time, they're also required to refer that prescription to another pharmacist or manager on duty and to meet the patient's needs in a timely manner.
They say they're investigating this. But it's legal what happened.
ARTEAGA: Yes, that's what --
HARLOW: So I'm interested in what do you want to change?
ARTEAGA: I want there to be change. I don't know if the law can be changed, but there needs to be change to the policies that they have in place. Maybe educate the pharmacist on how to better handle situations like this where their beliefs and -- aren't compromised. And the customer can still get what they need because I felt that -- I didn't have that option. He didn't pass me on to anybody else. And so that right there, like, they --
HARLOW: Right.
ARTEAGA: There's something -- there's some kind of mix-up with their policies and their guidelines on -- on following that.
HARLOW: So you're saying, Nicole, you can understand this individual's belief, the pharmacist's belief, and you're OK with that individual not filling your prescription, but not the way that he responded to you and not the way he called you out in public and not the way that he was apparently unwilling to have one of his colleagues there at the moment fill it, correct?
ARTEAGA: Absolutely. You know, we all -- I have my own beliefs. I'm not trying to force anybody to believe what I believe. And, yes, he could have just easily passed me on, called the store manager. Unfortunately, in the moment, I wasn't thinking. I didn't have a clear mind to ask, to say, and I was just -- I felt completely shut down and, like I said, helpless. I didn't know what -- what to do in that moment, what else I could do.
HARLOW: Nicole, thank you for being with us. I didn't even, you know, know this could happen, of course, until we read about this. So thank you and let us know what does potentially change on this.
Thanks for being with us.
ARTEAGA: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
HARLOW: I'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:57:55] HARLOW: Welcome back.
Turkey's president in a position to extend his grip on power in a way that goes beyond victory at the ballot box. The country's top election official has declared Recep Tayyip Erdogan as the winner in Sunday's election.
Our international senior correspondent Sam Kiley joins me live from Istanbul with the significance of this victory.
The crowds are overwhelming. What can you tell me about what this means now in terms of Erdogan's grip on power?
SAM KILEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, last year, Poppy, the Turks went to a different set of polls for referendum that changed the constitution to focus presidential power, executive power rather, in the presidency. Abolishing the post of prime minister and establishing under the law the right of a new president to rule by decree, effectively, to post his own -- select his own cabinet and a very much watered down level of legislative oversight.
Now, after winning 53 percent of the vote in this latest election, Mr. Erdogan now can, under the law, use those powers. This is something that his opponent, Mr. Ince (ph) has said is an existential threat to Turkey. But, nonetheless, 53 percent of Turks voted for him. They voted for the constitutional changes last year. And they consistently elected him over the last 15 years. So there is a concern in the international community, particularly the western democracies, that Turkey's drifting towards autocracy. But the reality is, that this is a move that has been endorsed by majority of Turks, notwithstanding the fact, though, that the playing field certainly, according to the OSCE, was not level because -- mainly because of his control of the media, Poppy.
HARLOW: And that's critical given, you know, the need that the United States has for Turkey in terms of being an ally in the region, large U.S. military base there.
KILEY: Yes, absolutely. The Turkish bases in (INAUDIBLE) have been incredibly important in the fight against the so-called Islamic State and, of course, Turkey is the only Muslim nation within NATO.
HARLOW: Sam Kiley, thank you for being live for us in Istanbul on this incredibly important election. We appreciate it. We have a lot to get to. Let's get started.
[10:00:14] Top of the hour. Good morning
