Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Supreme Court Sides with Baker; Trump Talks Pardon for Himself; Conway on Misleading Statement; Allies Respond to Tariffs. Aired 12- 12:30p ET

Aired June 04, 2018 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Wow. Scott McLean, thank you so much, bringing us another new perspective of the threat there from the Kilauea summit.

And thank you all so much for joining me. "INSIDE POLITICS" with John King starts right now.

JOHN KING, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Kate. And those images again, just, wow.

Welcome to INSIDE POLITICS. I'm John King. Thank you for sharing your day with us.

A bizarre but bold power play. The president says he can pardon himself if he wants and his top lawyer says the president cannot be prosecuted even if he shot the FBI director in public. It's all part of an effort to bully the special counsel.

Plus, the international outrage over new Trump trade tariffs grows. A call with France's president described as testy and terrible. And Canada says, if this is how the president treats his neighbor, then it will retaliate in kind.

And Bill Clinton is trying to plug a new novel, but his latest effort to find a public role runs into an old issue with a new Me Too twist.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Nobody believes that I got out of that for free. I left the White House $16 million in debt. But you typically have ignored gaping facts in describing this, and I bet you don't even know them. This was litigated 20 years ago. Two-thirds of the American people sided with me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Back to that later.

But we begin the hour with very important breaking news. A Supreme Court victory for a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a same sex couple's wedding. The ruling, 7-2. The case was one of the most anticipated rulings of this term, held out as a potential landmark test of the line when religious liberty competes with the question of discrimination and gay rights. But the high court, in the end, skirted that debate. Instead, it decided the Colorado case on more narrow grounds, leaving the broader constitutional questions for another day or another case.

Let's go straight to CNN's Supreme Court reporter Ariane de Vogue.

Ariane, break this down, what did the court do here? Why is it important?

ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: Well, you remember, this has always been the collision between religious freedom claims and LGBT rights. And the Supreme Court did rule narrowly in favor of that baker. Remember, the baker refused to make the cake for the same-sex couple for their wedding. They sued and the lower court ruled in their favor. But Kennedy here reversed for a 7-2 court. He said the state violated the baker's religious freedom by showing hostility to his religion, but he really kept to the specifics of this particular case. He pointed to an earlier hearing by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and he said that those commissioners said that Phillip's beliefs amounted to discrimination and he showed that those comments by the commissioners showed animus. So this is a win for Phillips, but it's not necessarily that big religious liberty case people thought would happen here today.

KING: And, Ariane, in a lot of the reaction as we see it play out across the country, there seems to be some surprise about Justice Kennedy here. Why?

DE VOGUE: Well, what Kennedy did really is straddle two sides of his jurisprudence. Remember, he's the guy who wrote Obergefell, cleared the way for same-sex marriage. And in that opinion, he talked about the LGBT rights and their dignity. But in this opinion, he nodded to religious concerns and he said, look, the commissioners' hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. And he did say, look, other cases are going to come down the pike, but those must wait further consideration.

So, for today, it's this narrow victory for the baker, 7-2. And more cases are likely to be coming down the road to the Supreme Court.

KING: Appreciate the quick reporting and insights, Ariane.

And with me in studio here also to share reporting and their insights, CNN's Dana Bash, "The Wall Street Journal's" Michael Bender, our legal analyst, Joan Biskupic, and Mary Katharine Ham of "The Federalist."

So the court did not give us the big landmark decision everybody was waiting for. I'm going to do this a bit in reverse order. In the political debate about this, which happens, everybody reacts quickly, we have Franklin Graham, the conservative pastor, saying we thank God for answered prayer. Today the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake. This is a huge win for religious freedom, Franklin Graham goes on to say. Ted Cruz tweeting out essentially the same thing, a huge victory.

It's not that, though, is it?

MICHAEL BENDER, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL": No.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, it's interesting --

KING: It's important, but it's not sweeping.

BISKUPIC: No. Well, people are going to find what they want in this, not just for political purposes but probably for legal purposes as we go forward because Justice Kennedy laid down some principles from both sides. He spoke about tolerance of religion, and that was something he had brought up during the oral arguments back in the fall. And that has the religious dimension that he highlighted here.

But he opened his statement from the bench this morning and his opinion with regard for the dignity of gay people and their ability to not be outcasts. So I think just as your political folks are trying to find things on both sides, it's really not a huge victory for any person except for, of course, Jack Phillips, the baker, who lost in all the proceedings below, not just before the commission but before lower Colorado courts.

[12:05:22] KING: And it's certainly a defeat for the Colorado commission on human rights in the sense -- civil rights -- in the sense that if you read the decision -- and if you read the transcripts of the hearing, you can understand the decision to a degree. The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decision maker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented and so on and so forth.

Essentially they're saying that the deck was stacked against him because the first arbiter, if you will, the commission, was hostile.

MARY KATHARINE HAM, SENIOR WRITER, "THE FEDERALIST": Yes, and I think that's why it's not broad but it is important because these state commissions do have quite a bit of power in these situations and they have been sent a warning essentially that, hey, open bigotry toward religious people will not be allowed for the purposes of extending tolerance, sort of an ironic situation what was going on here, but that was what was happening. It was fairly clear in the record. In the future, you will not be able to be that clear in the record if you're making decisions based on people's religious disposition.

BISKUPIC: And can I just add to that. The court pointed to a couple statements that were made, but it also said nobody objected, nobody said, hey, that's out of line in the subsequent proceeding. So that's another message. You know, if you hear those kinds of things, speak up to preserve it.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: And you make the point that this is very narrow and this applies to this case and it doesn't have broad, sweeping ramifications. But if you're a Ted Cruz or a Franklin Graham or anybody else out there who saw the Supreme Court ruling as a watershed moment, politically, culturally, legally across the board giving gay couples the right to legally marry, the focus immediately was on religious freedom.

BISKUPIC: That's right.

BASH: And so it may be narrow, but it didn't go the other way, which is huge for them.

KING: Right. Right. If you believe same sex marriage is wrong --

BASH: Yes.

KING: Then you thought you were heading down a slope that you didn't like and this, at least, does not push --

BASH: Precisely.

KING: Which is interesting because we all look to the Supreme Court -- it's the way it's billed -- to clear up these big, tough, constitutional questions. What the court is saying here, if you read the decision, is essentially it's my take on it, I'll read the quote in a minute, is, this is new to a lot of people, which just a couple years ago we said same sex marriage is legal. You're all dealing with this in your own states in different ways and Colorado is different from Texas, is different from here, so let's let this percolate a little bit more seems to be what the court is saying.

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in the open market.

Essentially the court's saying, we're going to stay out of this for now.

BASH: Slow down.

KING: We'll let the state courts deal with this, but we also hope it, it seems to be, they're saying, let's let people, businesses, individuals, just let this settle in a bit.

BENDER: Yes, it's kind of a -- it's a remarkable decision, an interesting decision, back in the political context a little bit of what you -- how you started this conversation. We're in the Trump era where sort of -- this sort of freewheeling, where anything goes, you know, put anything out on Twitter, throw anything up, see what sticks. This is a very careful, very deliberate decision, the first of its kind since the gay marriage ruling a few years ago and we did see that a little bit in -- in the arguments back in December. Neil Gorsuch talked about a sort of slippery slope, a widening discrimination, the possibility of wider -- you know, allowing for future discrimination. Breyer talked a little bit about whether or not these vendors were -- had shown the appropriate concern for religious views. And we see that in the decision today, a pretty strong decision, but a very careful and narrow one.

BISKUPIC: And let me just say one thing about the descent, because going to what kind of moment we're in, the decenters, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonya Sotomayor, basically said, you should have stepped up. This was a moment when you could have extended the principles of 2015 and said these people should be protected. So, I'm sure there will be plenty of civil rights groups saying lost opportunity.

HAM: And I think -- but I think there -- on the other side of this there's a -- there is a position that's not that small a minority that says, you can't discriminate against people with sincerely held religious beliefs. Like, that doesn't exist. That kind of intolerance doesn't matter. The only kind of intolerance that matters is to this one side, the LGBT community. And the court came down in a different way.

BISKUPIC: Yes.

BASH: And that's why -- your point about the court clearly saying, let's take a breath and let this settle in, it is directly related to the 2016 election because so much of what you heard and saw that Trump tapped into with regard to politically incorrect and we're going to take our country back was in part something that maybe even voters couldn't even articulate, but it was this sweeping cultural change in this country that many people in red states and -- that weren't in urban areas don't recognize.

[12:10:11] KING: That's a -- that's a very important -- yes, a very important point, whether it's on global economics, whether it's here in the cultural landscape, the pace of change is so dramatic that it scares -- it understandably scares a lot of people.

Here's a statement just in from Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins. They are the couple, the clients in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Today's decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue, they say. We have always believed that in America you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are. We brought this case because no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment and humiliation of being told we don't serve your kind here that we faced and we will continue fighting until no one does.

So the fight will continue. Their personal fight will continue. The legal fight will continue.

And, again, to the point here of the court trying to strike the balance, you say the decenters say, you know, man up to -- forgive me, but, you know, the two -- the two women justices of the court saying, man up here, step forward on this one. Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason, the laws and the Constitution can, and in some cases must, protect them in the exercise of civil rights.

But the court goes on to say, at the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views. And, in some instances, protected forms of expression. So the court is acknowledging both sides have a point here. And what the majority seems to be saying is, we're not ready to play referee. We want you and different states perhaps to sort this out in your own way and when we get three or four cases we'll settle it. Is that what they're doing?

BISKUPIC: Well, what they're doing is mainly saying, in this case, the facts really go against the commission.

KING: Right.

BISKUPIC: And so that's the main thing. But it -- it --

KING: The hostility allowed them an out, if you will --

BISKUPIC: Yes. Yes.

KING: From dealing with the bigger question.

BISKUPIC: Right. Right. And there are many of these coming forward. So, you know, watch this space.

KING: Watch this space and we will do that and we'll also keep watching the court as it winds down an interesting term.

Up next for us here, here's a novel, legal theory for you, the president's lawyer now says he could shoot Jim Comey in the street, in public, and still not face indictment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:16:14] KING: Welcome back.

We turn now to legal issues of a different sort. Consider these eight words today from the president of the United States, I have the absolute right to pardon myself. That's bold, brazen even. Now add in these nine words also from the same president. The appointment of the special counsel is totally unconstitutional. That first assertion that the president can pardon himself is an open question. There are competing legal memos on that subject, but it has never been tested in the courts. The second, that the appointment of the special counsel is unconstitutional hasn't been argued directly before a judge either. Paul Manafort has challenged the special counsel's legal authority on some questions and a federal judge here in Washington has tossed those challenges out. Mr. Manafort's lawyers didn't challenge Mueller, though, on broad, constitutional grounds is obstructive. The president's lawyers could also go to court if they want. They haven't because at the moment anyway this isn't about winning in court.

Today's tweet storm continues a remarkable bullying campaign aimed at getting the special counsel to back off and aimed at swaying public opinion just in case the matter of Robert Mueller versus Donald Trump ends up before Congress. The president's getting some help in advancing that "I'm above the law argument." His attorney, Rudy Giuliani, says a sitting president cannot be indicted, even if that president picked up a gun and shot and fired the FBI director. If he shot James Comey, he'd be impeached the next day, Giuliani told "The Huffington Post." Impeach him and then you can do whatever you want to do to him.

"Bloomberg's" Toluse Olorunnipa joins the conversation.

It is a remarkable argument the president is making, a remarkable argument Rudy Giuliani makes. Here's Senator Chuck Grassley, just moments ago on CNN, on this very question. Let's listen right here, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R), CHAIRMAN, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: If I were president of the United States and I had a lawyer that told me I could pardon myself, I think I'd hire a new lawyer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Chuck Grassley unimpressed with the idea that the president --

BASH: I love the spin and walk.

KING: Yes, spin and --

BASH: Like, drop the mike.

KING: Yes, yes, thanks for asking me that question.

But we're laughing about it because of Chuck Grassley's style. But the president of the United States, at this moment, we have to stop sometimes. There's such a blur of developments. He's in a standoff with the special counsel. Their -- the special counsel's saying, if you won't come in voluntarily, maybe I will test my power to subpoena you. I can pardon myself, absolutely. Then he goes on to say, I didn't do anything wrong. Why? Why does the president want to do that at this moment?

BENDER: Well, I saw a tweet about him saying he could pardon himself. And what I thought of is, is that this is -- this is a president who's a man who you can't tell him what he can't do. I'm not so sure this is about his legal strategy or his legal case as much as it is about his own approach to the office and his own interpretation of his powers in that office.

We've seen a number of times in stories we've all done. You start reporting something, it gets to the president, he turns around and does the opposite in order to stop that story, only to have that play out a couple of weeks later. So I think a large piece of that was him hearing people saying that he can't pardon himself. He wants to make sure he absolutely can.

Secondarily, this is, as you alluded to, this is part of a -- the PR campaign against Mueller and his team. I think this case is going to be studied a lot more thoroughly and for longer in marketing classes and communications classes rather than law schools when it comes to the president's legal strategy and how he's handing this (INAUDIBLE).

KING: And part of that strategy is, again, Giuliani saying that Mueller can't subpoena the president, that you can't do that when Rudy Giuliani, back in the Bill Clinton's days, he had a very -- had the opposite opinion, he said absolutely the president must comply with the subpoena. But just leave that for you to decide what might be at play here. Here's Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, saying, sorry, Mr. Mayor, you're wrong.

[12:20:01] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), FORMER NEW JERSEY MAYOR: You can tell any time that Rudy didn't agree with something, he said, you'll have to ask John about that, and go back to John Dowd. It's an outrageous claim. It's wrong. They were trying to make a broad argument. Lawyers do that all the time in briefs, even to court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: I love that we have the -- Chris Christie as the Rudy whisper and Rudy as the Trump whisperer. You know, it's like -- it's like a Tower of Babel that we're having to figure out. But actually it's not --

KING: That's not babble?

BASH: It's not. Yes, well --

KING: Which babble?

BASH: The biblical one.

But, yes, that was not meant as a (INAUDIBLE).

But I think the idea is actually it's not that. It's very transparent. It's very obvious. Giuliani has admitted this to me and to many others that this is a PR campaign, that this is a political strategy, much, much, much more than a legal strategy to make sure that the court of public opinion, which is, at the end of the day, if the president is in legal trouble, they are going to be the ones to decide because they are the ones who elect the members of the House of Representatives, and that is where an impeachment proceeding will start. That is where the president and his team want to make the biggest impact right now.

They're very open about it.

KING: Right.

BASH: And they're doing it in the most Trumpian way possible. Rudy Giuliani -- I think he was specifically asked about something like homicide, which is why he responded that way. But, regardless, saying, you know, he could -- he could shoot James Comey. That's something that Trump would say. KING: Right.

BASH: They're sticking in that kind of say outrageous things vain because they're feeling that it's working for them.

KING: They think it's working for them. They also know the special counsel's office will not speak to these issues. It has been essentially silent on these issues. It does its business in court and, therefore, if you're trying to influence the jury, meaning public opinion, people watching at home, Republicans who might have to cast a vote in Congress some day, if it comes to that, they have the stage to themselves right now.

But here's another interesting take on this, is Rudy Giuliani says, my advice to the president is do not go and answer questions from the special counsel. Here's one of his latest reasons for why that's a bad idea.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYER: This is -- this is the reason you don't let the president testify. If, you know, every -- our recollection keeps changing or we're not even asked a question and somebody makes an assumption. In my case, I made an assumption, then I -- then we corrected it and I got it right out as soon -- as soon as -- as soon as it happened. I think that's what happened here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Our recollections keep changing.

TOLUSE OLORUNNIPA, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, "BLOOMBERG": That's a -- that's been --

KING: Our recollections keep changing. Meaning, I don't trust my client?

That's a euphemistic way to putting it, our recollections keep changing.

BASH: We can't get our story straight.

OLORUNNIPA: They can't get their stories straight. They give false statements in public.

KING: They have repeatedly -- they have repeatedly lied in public. So the question is, if you're in a --

OLORUNNIPA: Yes, that's -- that's a more blunt way of putting it.

KING: If you're in an inquiry with the special counsel across the table, not a reporter, the stakes are different.

OLORUNNIPA: Right. And you have to sort of ask the broader question, and Robert Mueller probably knows much more than all of us about why it is that Trump administration and the Trump legal team keeps throwing out all these statements that aren't true and then evidence comes to light and then they have to retract or change their statements. We saw that from the podium of the White House with Sarah Sanders saying the president did not dictate this statement. Later it comes out in this memo from the legal team that he dictated it word for word and the White House never clarified it. So it does beg the question, why is this White House and why is this legal team making so many statements that they have to come and clean up later.

KING: On that point, listen to Kellyanne Conway just this morning. The subject comes up -- again, the -- at least five times the White House denied the president dictated that statement to -- about Donald Trump Junior's meeting at the Trump Tower. His own lawyers say in a letter to Bob Mueller, yes, he did dictate that sentence. Here's Kellyanne Conway.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KELLYANNE CONWAY: I wasn't on that trip. I wasn't involved with that whatsoever. And I only know what I saw yesterday in that letter. So I really can't comment at that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: And another Trump staffer, because of the inconsistent statements by a lot of them saying, I don't want any more legal fees here. I wasn't on that trip. Don't ask me about this again.

HAM: Yes, I mean they were caught red handed on this. And, look, if I were a lawyer for Trump, my advice would be, don't sit down with them because they are, a, they lie about things small, medium and big. B, even when they're not, they're not -- he's not careful. He's not disciplined in what he says. And even people who are careful, and disciplined and truthful get caught up in false statements because they contradict themselves or their recollections do change because we're humans and that happens. The Trump team is more likely to get caught up in that than almost anyone else.

BENDER: It's an unfortunate truth that a lot of times White House reporters have better sources than Trump's own press shop.

HAM: All right, then. Up next for us here, has America first turned into America alone?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:28:50] KING: Welcome back.

The Trump administration today brushing off international outrage, much of it from neighbors and long-time allies, over new U.S. trade protections. The complaints about the new steel and aluminum tariffs were nonstop at a weekend summit of international finance ministers. Here's just a sampling of the headlines from that G-7 meeting. And, remember, the G-7 includes friends, not American adversaries. Team Trump says this is a family feud, yes, but one they say is necessary, even overdue.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX ANCHOR: This isn't the beginning of a family squabble. The family has broken up and has gone into separate rooms.

LARRY KUDLOW, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISER: I know. Sometimes that happens. Sometimes families have disputes.

MICK MULVANEY, WHITE HOUSE BUDGET DIRECTOR: Do you have to break some eggs to make an omelet? Absolutely. Do you have to be tough with people in order to get them to change their behavior? Absolutely. You can't just ask other countries to treat us better and expect them to do it. That's not the way that the world works.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Not the way the world works, according to Mick Mulvaney. Again, just moments ago, this read out from 10 Downing Street. Theresa May, the British prime minister, in a phone conversation with President Trump, saying she believes these tariffs are unjustified and deeply disappointing.

We also have reporting from our Michelle Kosinski that in a phone call with Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, that call described as testy, even terrible.

[12:30:04] So the president's getting some blowback. The question is, will it have any impact?

BENDER: Yes, and the big complaint about these trade actions has been the -- what the economic impact will be.