Transcripts For CNNW CNN Newsroom With Poppy Harlow 20180604

The president can put himself above the law. And pardon himself. Kaitlan collins is at the white house. Exactly 500 days after the president took the oath of office, and lets begin with the issue of president ial pardons. The president , his team has been talking about it all weekend, and now the president is talking about it. Reporter yeah, poppy. Not exactly the message that republicans want out there shortly before the midterms, this is what the president is going with this morning, maintaining he is above the law and he could pardon himself if it came to that, saying that it has been stated by numerous legal scholars, i have the absolute right to pardon myself, but the president adds, why would i do that when ive done nothing wrong. He goes on to talk about the special counsels russia investigation saying it is a neverending witchhunt that is led by 13 angry and conflicted democrats. So here, poppy, the president is maintaining that he could pardon himself if he needed to, but he doesnt need to, and when i asked kellyanne conway, the president s counselor, why he believes hes above the law, this is what she had to say. Why does the president think hes above the law . Excuse me . Why does the president think hes above the law . Would he need to pardon himself when hes done nothing wrong . So there kellyanne saying werein hypotheticals, but it is the president himself who raised this possibility on twitter today, that he does have the right to pardon himself, something that is actually disputed. Though the president seems to state it as a fact here. And it goes on to raise the question that the president is saying that he has the right to pardon himself, but he doesnt feel the need to do so, but you have to ask the question, why would the president be asserting he has the right to pardon himself unless one day he thinks he may need to exercise that power here, poppy. Reporter you are not engaging in hypotheticals as you said because the president ght item, bu up, but, b, the letter and the power of the presidency. Anything but hypothetical. Let me get you on the president asserting that bob muellers probe is completely unconstitutional. Reporter yeah, even though the president called on the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton and democrats, he now says he believest it is totally unconstitutional that there was the appointment of this special Counsel Robert Mueller here. I should note that it was the Deputy Attorney general rod rosenstein, someone who is a republican that the president himself appointed that selected that special prosecutor, robert muell mueller. But the president making the argument that is unconstitutional. Now, this argument from the president , this along with him saying he has the power to pardon himself is coming after yesterday his lawyer Rudy Giuliani essentially said the president has these sweeping powers, constitutional powers and that even if he shot the former fbi director james comey there is no way he could be indicted for doing so while hes still the president unless he was impeached. Thats an interesting argument theyre also making. The president has the power to pardon himself, but in need for him to do so because if he did, he would be impeached. But actually, poppy, thats not really conclusive. Because this Republicanled Congress has not establny red lines for this president , regarding the special counsels investigation, so it is actually not clear that they would impeach him if he did th that is a great question for republicans on capitol hill today, poppy. Kaitlan collins at the white house with all of that, thank you very much. Lets discuss this, with cnn legal and National Security analyst Asha Rangappa and daniel gold. Daniel, let me begin with you, tell me why it is completely constitutional . It is pretty simple. These are the special counsels appointment is guided and overseeny regulations that were properly promulgated by the department of justice after the independent counsel act that ken starr was appointed under expired. So it was gone through the proper process, and there are specific reasons when a special counsel is can be appointed, and this falls squarely within those reasons. My producer, haley, is reminding me of a tweet from the president back in october of 2016, talking about Hillary Clinton during the election, writes, if i win, im going to instruct my ag to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, ms. Clinton, because there has never been anything like your lies. He seemed to favor one then. Yes, he did. And interestingly the reason that we have a special counsel is precisely to maintain the independence of the department of justice from the kind of direction and control and interference that the president was alludin to in that tweet. So we also have a Federal District court that has reviewed muellers mandate, this is the manafort case, and it found his jurisdiction and scope in that investigation to be completely legal. So the president is basically making up his own law, but there are courts and judges who are going to actually determine what the law is. To you, daniel, on the pardon power of the presidency. This was asserted initially in that letter that was sent by the Trump Lawyers back in january to muellers team and then giuliani talked about it all over the airwaves yesterday and now the president is saying he does have the power legally, is he correct . Well, it is never been decided, so it is an open question. And there is an argument that the president is promulgating that as the executive i have total power over all executive things and my pardon power is absolute and cannot be checked by the other branches. There are many other legal scholars on the other side who say that the president , the constitution requires the president to faithfully execute the laws. And that that means he must execute them in good faith, and to pardon himself would be done in bad faith. And therefore that is not allowed. Thats sort of the two different arguments on the issue as to wh hean pardon himself and i frankly the bigger issue and the more likely scenario is that he pardons coconspirators or family members who may have information about his own crimes. Thats, i think, what were at much greater risk of facing than whether he pardons himself, but, of course, he needs to establish his absolute power and so he goes and tweets this completely preet biharia says there is a point where congress can take action as well. He said if you abuse the pardon power in a particular way, there is a point where coness can take action as well. The only action would be impeachment, correct . Right. That would be the political remedy here. And thats the one that the president and his lawyers are putting out there. I t they feel pretty confident that right now congress isnt going to take that step. You know, this is the checks and balances system that we had, when you have one branch that is effectively abdicating its role in our constitutional system, this is what a constitutional crisis looks like. So we are now relying, i think, on theourts to determine the legal parameters of some of these incredible claims that the president is making, and lets remember, poppy, this all comes back to his unwillingness to sit down with mueller for an interview. If he cant be indicted, if he can pardon himself, he should not fear being implicated for false statements or perjury, so there should be no reason he cank to mueller. I want you both to stay here, i want you to weigh in on something else. Before that, let me go to Shimon Prokupecz who can tell us more about the fact that there is this one line, shimon, admission, but a very important admission in the letter that trumps lawyers wrote to bob mueller. What is it . That has to doh the don jr. Meeting at trump tower in 2016. Of course, poppy, that meeting was set up on the belief that a russian lawyer was going to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton. Now, the controversy surrounding the purpose of the meeting, but more importantly it was the initial lies in this statement that was provided to the media from the president and also don jr. Claiming that the meeting was about adoptions and now in this letter, this 20 page letter, the president s lawyers submitted to mueller, they admit, they admit the president dictated that misleading statement, despite as you will recall repeated denials from the white house, and his lawyers. Now, giuliani yesterday was blaming it on poor recollection saying that this is one of the reasons why he doesnt want the president talking to mueller about this issue. Heres giuliani. I mean, this is theso you dont let this president test if, you ow, our recollection keeps changing, or were not even asked a question and somebody makes an assumption. In my case, i made an assumption. Then we corrected it and i got it right out as soon as it happened. I think thats what happened here. And despite there, poppy, the recollection issue ry giuliani, soon after that this was revealed that this meeting took place, and questions were posed to the white house and to trumps lawyer jay sekulow about whether or not the president was involved in dictating that statement, they all denied it. Several times they denied that the president had anything to do with it. Over and over again. Thank you, shimon, appreciate the reporting. Asha is back with me as well as beautiful thing about fac is that they dont change. So there is not a recollection problem because theyre just the fact. What do you make of Rudy Giulianis argument here that because the recollection changes, the president shouldnt sit for that interview. Well, basically giuani is saying that he doesnt want the president to sit for an interview because neither the president nor his lawyers can keep the lies straight. And theyre not going to be able we have seens over and over again, poppy, with the trump tower meeting, every the story kept changing, now we know that the president actually at this letwhen he refuted that before. In the Stormy Daniels case, he claimed he knew nothing about the payments there, now Rudy Giuliani has admitted he did. So, you know, they cant keep the lies straight, basically. To inhas lying isnt illegal. And lying to the public isnt illegal. However, it can be used and has been used historically in articles of impeachment, lying to the public against nixon, against president clinton. Legally so it is not a crime to lie to the new york times. Which is lying to the public, by the way. They say it is well, he just lied to one reporter. Lo giuliani admission that were not going to bring him in because of the shifting explanations is a truly remarkable admission. But from a legal standpoint, there is teeth to the argument that by lying to the public, youre not committing a crime. It is hard to imagine that someone who the Washington Post says lies nine times a day to the public, which is our president , is going to be charged with, you know, impeachment for lying to the public, but it can be used. Yeah. It can be used as evidence of his willingness and his intent to obstruct justice. It can be used to make the legal argument of intent. Exactly. So that if he were down the road, for example, to fire the fbi director because of the russia investigation, a prosecutor, hypothetically speaking, the prosecutor would use the fact that he lied about the contents or the subject of that meeting that he dictated that statement to cover up that meeting as further evidence that he is trying to obstruct the russia investigation. It is an important point. Daniel, nice to have you here. Thank you. Asha, thank you as well. A source tells cnn the president s high stakes historic summit with kim jongun could be more of a meet and greet. Well weigh in on that. Also, a medical breakthrough, how women with Breast Cancer may now be able to skip chempy entirely Benjamin Franklin lightning atle. Over 260 years later as the nations leader in Energy Storage were ensuring americans have the energy they need, whenever they need it nextera energy. Anyone can get you, hoday inn express gets you the readiest. This is cnn breaking news. All ght, we have breaking news on a highly anticipated decision from the Supreme Court. Lets go straight there. Our justice correspondent Jessica Schneider is with me. Reporter as were approaching the end of the term here, a lot of big cases and right now we just got one of those much anticipated cases. This is the Masterpiece Cake shop case. This was the case, of course, where that baker refused to bake a custom cake for a same sex couple saying that it violated his freedom of religion and his free speech. Just getting the opinion from the court now, it appears that the court here has upheld the bakers right to refuse to make that custom cake for that same sex couple. Now, again, this opinion has just come down. Our crew is parsing through all of the language here, but this is an opinion that has been written by Justice Anthony kennedy. And, of course, youll remember that Justice Kennedy was also the justice that drafted the majority opinion in obergafel. So going back to some of the facts of this case, this was a case out of colorado, where same sex couple wanted to get married, they went to a local bake shop and they asked this cake maker to specifically make a custom cake for their wedding. The baker said it would violate my religious beliefs if i were to use my skills as a baker to make this custom cake for you. And i refuse. This went through the lower court process, it also went through the california im sorry, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and it determined whether or not this was discriminatory and this went all the way up to the Supreme Court. And the question here is can you violate some of these antidiscrimination laws at the state level purely because of your religious beliefs . And while were still going through some of the language here to see how narrowly this decision came down, it appears that by this ruling, yes, in fact, if you are someone like this colorado cakemaker, you can refuse to make a cake to use your artistic abilities and skills to facilitate a same sex couples request. Again, this was a very contested case, because you have antidiscrimination laws in effect, in various states throughout the country, including this particular case in colorado. But the baker here saying, look, my Constitutional Rights should be paramount here. I should be able to exercise my religious beliefs and not make this cake. So, poppy, a very big decision that we have been waiting for to come down. It has come down today. The Supreme Court weighing in on this, Justice Anthony kennedy, hes the one who has written this majority opinion here, saying that the baker has his within his rights under the freedom of religion to not make cake for this same sex couple. So, poppy, im still waiting to get a little bit more of the details here, a little bit more of the language from this opinion, but a very big Decision Just now coming down from the Supreme Court. Poppy . Jessica schneider, i appreciate you laying it all out for us. Ill let you read that majority opinion by Justice Kennedy and come back to us with more as you have it. Let me bring in our legal analyst paul callan. This is a very significant, you know, one of the top three most highly anticipated decisions to come from the court this term. Lets talk about the majority opinion by kennedy in a moment, but lay out the significance of this and the precedent it sets. It is very important because the Supreme Court already ruled using the equal protection clause of the constitution that gay marriage is a protected right now throughout the United States. So this now deals with other issues. Can local stores and local bake shop like this engage in som act of discrimination against gay people in t united and what this decision is important for is that it is weighing the rights of religion, which, of course, are protected under the u. S. Constitution, as opposed to the equal protection clause which says that all citizens have the right to be treated equally under u. S. Law. So youve got these big constitutional principles at play here in this particular case involving the making of a cake and a small bake shop. And we know that this Supreme Court has ruled narrowly in favor of this cake baker and, again, the argument here by the state, paul, was that it was not about free speech, but of refusal to serve a certain class of citizens and that, the court disagreed with that. The court disagreed with that assertion and it is very notable thatustice kennedy who was long expected to be the deciding vote in this, that it was a 62 ruling, im seeing now, he was expected to be a critical vote in this, that he wrote the majority opinion because he also wrote the majority opinion in 2015 in the famous case on same sex marriage and the line, the striking line from that opinion, was they, mehe wrote this majory opinion. Yes, and of course, it is important to look at that this is Justice Kennedy making the decision. Hes often a swing vote between the conservatives and liberals on the court. Hes hes hard to predict sometimes. Youve pointed out one great example of that. You would have thought kennedy would go the other way on this decision, given his prior history. But i think what you find with these constitutional principles is one thing when you talk about the state, which issues marriage certificataying we notgoing to people, the court says thats an action of the government. And the government cant discriminate against classes of people unless there is what they call a compelling state interest. This on the other hand is a local bake shop and im sure that they probably articulate a very different standard and say, you know, the implications of this decision are less important than the other big decision involving gay marriage. Paul callan, stay with us. Joining me on the phone is our chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. You and i talked about this case a lot when the court took it up, the significance of this case on the merits, and then also the facts that Justice Kennedy came down the way he did and he wrote the majority opinion. Well, this is an enormous defeat for the gay rights movement. Because the question now is what are the limits in terms of religious people when theyre allowed to discriminate. Here we have a cake baker who says i dont want to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Well, what about the Restaurant Owner who says i dont want to see a gay couple because it violates my religious principles or a hotel owner who says i dont want to rent a room to a gay couple because it violates my religious principles. The issue here was, as presented to the court, was that cake baking is such a unique, create ive task, an occupation, that it was essentially like forcing a novelist to write a novel. It was like forcing a painter to paint a painting. That is the limiting principle that the court is applying here because the the court said, you know, cake baking is such a unique Creative Process that the government cant force someone to violate their conscience. The question is, what is the limiting principle there. And there will be future cases. This is certainly an invitation to people who discriminate against gay people from barring them from their businesses. Jeffrey toobin im sorry, go ahead. I want you to weigh in on one of the key quotes thus far in the majority opinion by kennedy. Hes talking about the cake baker here. Let me read this to you. The commissions hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendments guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral towards religion. Philips, the cake baker, was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give fair and full consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which the case was presented, considered and decided. And the court held that the commission theyre talking about, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, this is the court saying that that commission showed hostility towards the cake baker on his religious beliefs. Jeffrey. Thats right. And the there was some dialogue, a transcript where Justice Kennedy during the oral argument was very concerned about this, that indicated tha the commission in charge of enforcing the antidiscrimination law was hostile to the president to the bakers religious beliefs. You know, obviously, you know, no one should be hostile to peoples religious beliefs, but, you know, as always, in difficult constitutional questions, this is a question of balance, competing rights. You do have the religious conviction of the baker, which no was sincere. But we also have a principle of religious discrimination. I mean, of discrimination against gay people. And, again, you have to sort through the limiting principles. There are religions that hold that interracial marriages are a violation of gods law. So can you refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple . Can you refuse to bake a cake for two people of different religions who are marrying each other . There are all sorts of religious principles that are against the laws on the books. And the question is how much and how often and under what circumstances do people who have religious objections to laws on the books, how much do they get to excuse them . So, jeffrey, exactly to that point, of how fars this go, the precedent that this sets, what doors does it open . And what doors are remain closed . Here is another part of the majority opinion that has come down. Quote, 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 an open market. That also coming from kennedy, jeffrey. Well, you know, i think that certainly lays out the dilemma and the problem in the case. But it is also an invitation to more cases. It is an invitation to religious people to say, well, i dont want you in i dont want you to do your wedding cake business, i dont want your restaurant business. I dont want your hotel business. I dont want you in my store. I dont want you and, you know, were going to see more cases. And obviously kennedy is aware of the problem that gay people will be subjected to indignity and dignity is a favorite word of Justice Kennedy, something hes very concerned about. But, you know, it is also dignity is a very vague and elastic concept. And there were a lot of people who believed that the customers of the masterpiece bake shop were treated in an undignified way. To be turned away when they wanted a wedding cake. So, you know, the fact that Justice Kennedy says people who have, you know, that we have to have respect for the dignity of gay people, well, the gay people lost this one and well see if th lose more of them. Jeffrey toobin, stay with me, as we go through this. I want to bring Jessica Schneider back in jessica is outside of the court as the decision has just come down. Jessica, it is a 62 ruling. Do you know which justices joined the majority here and which dissented . Reporter we do, actually. Justice clarence thomas, a staunch conservative, he actually joined the majority in the opinion. But not the reasoning. I do want to talk, poppy, about something that Jeffrey Toobin mentioned, the fact that this opinion, you know, will likely open the doors to a lot of other disputes like this. Because as were reading through this opinion, were seeing that the justices here did not rule on broad constitutional grounds here. They were much more limited to saying that this Colorado Civil Rights Commission really violated the bakers religious beliefs here. They really were very quite narrow in saying that this commission was not tolerant of his religious beliefs and that was something interestingly at oral arguments, Justice Kennedy spoke extensively on, you know, bit torn here as to the rights of this baker, but also while maintaining the rights of gay couples, but then also saying we need to look at how the commission viewed this. In particular, in oral argument, he said that the blatant discrimination would be a front to gays and also said that this Colorado Commission was in his words neither tolerant nor respectful of mr. Philips religious beliefs. I want to read something from the quote where the court talks about the fact that this isnt some broad ruling, this will in fact invite future cases. This is what they said. 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 and these are key words, with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to gnities when they seek goods and services in an open market. So really this is the way that Justice Kennedy is sort of bridging this gap here, saying that, yes, this baker is entitled to act upon his religious beliefs and any commission weighing those antidiscrimination statutes neo be mindful of a bakers or anyone elses religious beliefs but also you need to be mindful of the rights of gay couples. This is somewhat of a narrow ruling and does not speak to this broad constitutional question about whether freedom of religion gives really a blank check to people to not service gay couples. Justice essica schneider, th for that. Steve vladic is also with us. This is not the broad religious liberty decision that many were expecting out of this. This is a very narrowly written majority opinion about yes. About how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated, that it in the courts eyes treated the cake maker with anamous. But this isnt leaving all of the doors open. It is not leaving all the doors open, but i think the typical case is not going to include the kind of fact specific claim on which the court relied today. I think what is really important to take away from the ruling is, yes, jack philips wins, but actually we still dont know if the colorado public accommodations law itself could constitutionally bar other bakers like jack philips in a future case where there isnt the same kind of case specific animous. It is a dodge by the Supreme Court of what was supposed to be a major First Amendment case. You see it as a dodge. Lets talk about Justice Kennedy. We knew he was going to be, you know, an important vote, you could tell that from the oral arguments. It was unknown which way he was going to come down and now he pens the majority opinion, the same personho in 2015 wrote the majority opinion in the same sex marriage case and wrote then, they being gay people, asked for equal dignity in the eyes of the law, the constitution grants them that right, everyone remembers that line from his opinion. And now the fact he wrote this opinion. Striking to you . It is. We should keep in mind this is the same Justice Kennedy who in 1996 in romer versus evans struck down a different colorado law because he thought it was motivated by animous against gays. This is actually kennedy for him being pretty consistent, that for as important as he believes the institution of same sex marriage is and as constitutionally protected as he now ruled it to be, there is still a constraint on when states can act against particular individuals for reasons having nothing to do with broad policy, but that are just about animous against that person. I think thats why it was so important, narrow, hard to see how Justice Kennedy would sign on to a broader opinion that seemed more at odds wi obergerfel. He saves the harder questions about the intersection between religious liberty on the one hand and same sex marriage on the other for another day. I want to correct the record on something, our initial i initially said it was a 62 decision, and wondering which justice did not participate, and we were wrong in saying that it was a 72 decision, just want to correct the record there. Got some misinformation, apologies for that. Let me review part of the dissent, weigh in. This is part of the dissenting opinion. Statements made at the commissions public hearing on philips case provide no firmer support for the Courts Holding today. Whatever oneay think of the statements in historical context, i see no reason why the comments o oner two commissioners should be taken to overcome philips refusal to sell a wedding cake. Theyre saying, reads to me, that if one or two people that are part of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with animous, that should not outweigh the overlying issue that those justices stopped part of the dissenting opinion of discrimination. Thats right. Thats Justice Ginsburg joined by justice sotomayor. From their perspective, there were enough other layers of decisionmaking in this case that even if one or two members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission reflected agast jack philips, that wasnt enough to infect the whole case. Now, i think it is important to stress, Justice Kennedy disagreed, but thats not going to have a whole lot of president ial value. Part of why there is so confuse as to the vote count is because Justice Clarence thomas concurred in the judgment, he actually would have gone further and he would have decided the case not on the narrow ground right. Thats the discrepancy that i mentioned before when i said we were wrong. Lets go to Jessica Schneider. It was a 72 ruling on the case, a 62 ruling on the reasoning, on the rational. Thats exactly right, poppy. And Justice Clarence thomas was that one justice who agreed in the ruling, but did not agree on the rational here. So thats the difference between that 62 ruling and the 72 ruling. When you take the opinion as a whol it was a 72 ruling, Justice Thomas agreed with the majority, but then you get to the reasoning here, it is a 62 ruling because Justice Thomas did not agree with the reasoning in this case. And what is interesting as were reading through this opinion, it is a lengthy opinion, 59 pages, were getting a bit more quotes and a bit more feel as to what these justices were thinking and as we have been talking about, this all came down to the fact that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the view of the majority of justices, that they expressed some animus as to the religious beliefs of the baker jack philips. In theissent here, som of the justices saying that we shouldnt take some of the words of these few commissioners to issue a ruling, such as this, and ill read you from the dissent, statements made at the commissions public hearings provide no firmer support for the Courts Holding today. Whatever one may think of the statements in historical context, i see no reasoning why the comments of one or two commissioners should be taken to overcome philips refusal to sell a wedding cake to craig and mullens. Justice kennedy at oral argument focused on what the commission had said, there was one particular part in the commissions ruling where they kind of mockingly said, to justify discrimination is a disserviceable piece of rheto c rhetoric. That is what the majority of this opinion deals with, with how the commission here did show religious animus. Jessica schneider at the Supreme Court, a 72 decision from the high court on this. The dissent written by Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg, joined in the dissent by justice sotomayor, the majority opinion written by Justice Anthony kennedy. Much more on this. Stay with us. Ancestrydna is only 69 for fathers day. And with twice the detaf other tests. It can show dad where hes from. And strengthen the bonds you share. Give dad ancestrydna for just 69 our lowest fathers day price ever. For just 69 Liberty Mutual saved us almost 800 when we switched our auto and home insurance. Liberty did what . Yeah, they saved us a ton, which gave us a little wiggle room in our budget. I wish our insurance did that. Then we could get a real babysitter instead of your brother. Hey, welcome back. This guy, right . laughs yes. Ellen. Thats my robe. You could save 782 when liberty stands with you. Liberty mutual insurance. It was always our singular focus. To do whatever it takes, use every possible resource. To fight cancer. And never lose sight of the patients were fighting for. Our Cancer Treatment specialists share the same vision. Experts from all over the world, workinclosely together to deliver truly personalized cancer ce. And these are the specialists were proud to call our own. Expert medicine works here. Learn more at cancercenter. Com Appointments Available now. With tripadvisor, finding your Perfect Hotel at the lowest price. Is as easy as dates, deals, done simply enter your destination and dates. And see all the hotels for your stay tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites. To show you the lowest prices. So you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. Dates, deals, done tripadvisor. Visit tripadvisor. Com im a small business, but i have. Big dreams. And big plans. So how do i make the efforts of 8 employees. Feel like 50 . How can i share new plans virtually . How can i download an efile . Virtual tours . Zipfile . Really big files . In seconds, not minutes. Just like that. Like everything. The answer is simple. Ill do what ive always done. Dream more, dream faster, and above all. Now, ill dream gig. Now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. Comcast, building americas largest gigspeed network. Welcome back. The Trump Administration seeming to lower expectations ahead of the summit between President Trump and north Korean Leader kim jongun next week. A source tells our Michelle Kosinski it will be more of a, quote, meet and greet rather than any historic action. The president made that pretty clear on friday as well, saying this would be a meet and greet. Lets talk to ed markey about this. He serves on the Foreign Relations committee. Nice to have you. Thank you for waiting through that breaking new of the Supreme Court decision, we appreciate it. Thank you, historic decision, no problem. Historic decision indeed. You warn against a, what you call a made for tv summit. And now that we know that the president thinks and the source tells Michelle Kosinski this will be more of a meet and greet than any realization of historic action, should the president still go to singapore and still sit down with kim jongun. Without question, the president should begin diplomacy with kim and do so on a personal basis. But he also has to understand that were not going to extract concessions by made for tv diplomacy, by the photoop that kim wants and i think that trump wants as well. Ultimately there is a historic kim family playbook where they negotiate with the United States, they extract concessions, they make actually none on their side as well, that we can ultimately identify as meaningful, and then the problem just continues unabated. And so the president has to be aware that there could very well be a whole series of false promises that the north koreans make at this summit, that ultimately will be meaningless if theyre not accompanied by real action. You called it an unforced diplomatic error in your words when the president canceled the summit and pulled out. But given the norths language and rhetoric about the Vice President , threatening nuclear war in that statement overnight, that caused the president to withdraw from the summit initially, why do you think that was a diplomatic error. No, i think it actually in that sequence, it began, which on bolton saying that with the United States was going to expect is that north koreans would accept the libyan model, that the gadhafi model which leads to the death of m, if thats the model we would be using, they did not go to the table within three to four days after that, and then the Vice President , once again, raised the gadhafi model, the libyan model, which, of course, once again leads inevitably to the death of kim, and then we were th once criticized by koreans for engaging in that language, and then the president pulled out of the negotiations. So it was an unforced error, we should have been more diplomatic in the two weeks before that period of time. We were not. Now were back on track, at least to begin the negotiations, but we have to be realists. We cant be wearing rosecolored glasses going in here. These are dangerous people with a Dangerous Nuclear program that not only threatens their region but could potentially threaten the United States as well. I want you to weigh in on two significant things the president wrote this morning. I wont read the full tweets. But he said, quote, i have an absolute right to pardon myself in one. And in the other, he said that the special counsel is, quote, totally unconstitutional. What do you think the president is trying to do here . Hes wrong on the facts. Hes wrong. The special counsels appointment is completely in line with the constitution. Ident is doing here . Eve the i think what the president continues to do is to try to delegitimize the special counsel. It is not a rule of trump, it is a rule of law that we live under in the United States of america. Even back in 1974, Richard Nixons Justice Department made it quite clear that nixon could not pardon himself. The same thing is true here. It is a rule of law. Nixon made very clear that under our constitution, no one is allowed to be the judge of a case and then simultaneously be able to pardon themselves from any consequences of their own illegal activities. So it is just a continuation of an attempt to delegitimize the special counsel, which is clearly constitutional ver, it seems to be working in the court of Public Opinion among republicans at least and among his base. And that is that our most recent polling shows that these consistent attacks from the president seem to be working and that fewer and fewer people are supportive of and view the Mueller Probe favorably when you look at the president s base and republicans. Does that concern you . I think that may be true for the most conservative of Donald Trumps republican supporters. But in the wide swath of independent swing voters in our country, i do not think they subscribe to the idea that our president is in fact a monarch that president can engage in illegal activities and actually face no consequences whatsoever. And i think if he attempts to take that path, hes going to pay a huge political price at the polls this november. As you know, republicans in the house and in the senate have joined with democrats in proposing legislation that would protect the special counsel. At this point, is that necessary, is it time for that, ou believe tha these statements today from the president are too far, they make you fear he would fire even though he said he wont and his team said he wont but fire the special counsel . I think it would be better if we did pass legislation to make sure that we were in fact protecting the special counsel. I think mueller is doing a very good job in keeping this from appearing to be partisan. But at the same time, if he attempts, if the president attempts to act in a way that allows him to arbitrarily end this investigation, i think that it will trigger the beginning of the impeachment process in the United States congress. I think there will be an uproar across this country and many republicans will feel that pressure and not be able to resist it in a year where every single house member is on the ballot. Thats what happened in 1974. Ultimately nixon w forced to resign in august of 1974, just three months before an electith nixon do so. I think the same kind of phenomenon will be invoked in 2018 as in 1974 if the president tries to act like a monarch. Senator ed markey, appreciate your time today, thank you very much. Thank you for waiting around. Were going to take a quick break. Well be right back. Join tmobile. And get netflix included for ole family. So you can get lost in space in your own backyard. Or get pumped up for your grand entrance. Only tmobile lets you watch your favorite movies and shows in me places, without paying more. Get an unlimited family plan with netflix on us. And right now at tmobile, buy one Samsung Galaxy s9 and get one free. Hesumatra reserve told in the time it takes to brew your cup. Lets go to sumatra. Wheres sumatra . Good question. This is win. And thats wins goat, adi. The coffee here is amazing. Because the volcanic soil is amazing. Making the coffee erupt with flavor. So we give farmers like win more plants. To grow more delicious coffee. That erupts with even more flavor. Which helps provide for wins family. And adi the goats family too. Because his kids eat a lot. All, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. Green mountain coffee roasters. Packed with goodness. President trump says he has every right to pardon himself, but says why would he when he hasnt done anything wrong. But if the president hasnt done anything wrong, why is he so upset about the appointment of a spial counsel which he calls unconstitutional. Joining me now, cnn political commentator Scott Jennings and keith boykin. Scott, let me begin with you. The president says i have the authority to pardon myself. If hes not thinking about it at all, why is he even writing about it. Yeah, i wish he wouldnt write about it. I think it is a distracting side bar issue frankly. It is not jermaine to the current facts. The president has not been indicted, not been alleged to have done anything illegal and this investigation can play out here and eventually be over with without any of that stuff happening. Were swimming in waters that no one has explored. So we dont know whether thats true or not. To me, the ultimate issues here, though, are going to be political and not legal. There are two remedies for all of this, one is impeachment, if we go down this crazy road of pardoning yourself, i agree it would lead to immediate impeachment and the other is political from a electoral perspective, the American People dont like the things that come out of the mueller investigation, they can either vote to throw the republicans and trump out, or they can embolden the republicans if they think mueller has gone too far. I believe in the political remedies more than the legal. Keith, to you, politically, on scotts point, ari fleischer, republican, former press secretary for george president george w. Bush writes on twitter responding to the president s claim this morning, and congress has an absolute right to impeach. This is a foolish side issue, can we all just wait for the Mueller Report and what it has found or what it has not found . Thats significant coming from ari fleischer. It is. Considering hes a republican, former white house aide. It is a reflection that trump does not have support even within the republican establishment, for his argument that he can pardon himself and hes above the law. But theyre unwilling to do anything about it. Thats the tragedy. President is making an argument today that even Richard Nixon didnt make during the height of watergate. He didnt think he could pardon himself. This is the reflection also the president who said he could punish newspaper owners who disa with him, he could punish the Media Outlets who dont like him, che could also punish Football Players that dont stand up for the national anthem, he can punish comedians. He takes an oath of office, like every other president , to uphold the constitution of the United States. Hes not doing that at all with this behavior. Scott, the president is wrong on the facts, when he claims that the special counsel is unconstitutional. Hes completely wrong on the facts. But since you brought up looking at this politically instead of legally, politically are you glad to see the president tweeting that the special counsel is titutional . No, im not surprised hes doing it. I mean, again, i said this a few times lately because i see do you think it behooves yeah, i see a lot of political parallels to the playbook, the white house is running today, to what was run in the 90s by the Clinton White house. They wanted to destabilize the ken starr investigation any way they could, they accused ken starr of doing illegal things like this president has said. The only difference really here is that the president has powerful information dissemination tools that were not available to the clint white house at the time. So he can these messages out more deeply and more quickly. So as a political matter, im not surprised to see them doing this. As a pr matter, i think that the fastest route to getting done with this would be to stop prolonging it. There is a difference here, president former president bill clinton didnt say that the special counsel, special prosecutor in his case, ken starr, was unconstitutional to exist. A big difference here. Well, yeah. But i dont think anybody would sit here and say that bill clinton and his team made it easy for ken starr to do his jo job. No one said that. It is what the trump people are doing. Is there not, keith in the president calling for something completely legal unconstitutional . Donald trump never read the constitution, lets be honest about this. Bill clinton did know the constitution. Donald trump doesnt. Every day he sits in the office and violates the constitution how is he violating it . I could go down the list right now from the go ahead. To the ethical conduct hes engaging in to his behavior attacking members of the press to his attacks in the free speech of athletes and other people in this country, hes behaving in a way that is unconstitutional and, again, he took an oath swore an oath to uphold, preserve and defend the constitution of the United States of america when he became president. He has not done that, scott. And it is a shame that people in the Republican Party are not holding him accountable. Scott, 30 seconds left. Look, there are ways to hold a president accountable. It is called impeachment and called elections. If you think hes not acting within the bounds of the constitution, you can go out and campaign against him and see how many people you get to agree with you. I think youre going to lose that argument. I think it is an overreach by democrats and i think it is a core reason why theyre letting their grip on the possibility of winning the midterms slip away. Scott jennings, keith boykin, out of time, youll both be back, thank you very much. Thank you, all, for being with us today. Im poppy harlow in new york. At this hour with kate bolduan starts right now. This is cnn breaking news. Hello, everyone. Im kate bolduan. Lets begin with the breaking news out of the Supreme Court, a case that put religious liberty up against gay rights. The justices, for all of this, i want to get to the Supreme Court, cnns Jessica Schneider is there. It was a decisive majority ruling in favor of the baker ruling narrowly though on the facts of the case. Lay it out for us. Reporter thats right. A 72 ruling,poppy, in favor of the baker, but in