view trump as somebody who is a martyr in their eyes, they see who what he s doing, they still like no matter how far he goes. asa hutchison, chris christie, they re going to be consistent that. i think that they re going to be calling out other candidates on the stage, it s a distinguishing marketed as to be addressed, and especially as these case hearings progress. it s only going to create more conversation as their primary and presidential cycle continues. it is still a defining line within the gop, and we know that the polling shows that attacking trump does not necessarily win you any more of those voters that are locked in with trump no matter what he does. and matt, it is in an amazing individual to imagine these people onstage, abston supplee running against a formidable opponent, and yet unwilling to say anything about him. unwilling to go there. and yet, having to, or one, depending on how the rnc comes, through other people on the stage we are actually just
enough already, this is just one big attempt to discredit donald trump. and many people are having a difficult time distinguishing between this indictment and previous ones and they re just whitewashing it all as this is just the doj and democrats going after donald trump because they view him as a threat even though this one is much more different, this is much more serious and i think as the facts come out it s really going to have an impact on those who are undecided and those that are ready to turn the page. the charges relate to different things, right? handling classified documents, hush money payments and attempts to overturn an election. i want to ask you, molly because you were just in iowa, first voting state, talking with candidates, presumably about indictments and other legal challenges as well. do they say anything to you in private that they don t say in public about this? do they nudge you and say listen, i know this is a big deal but i can t say it there? or are they
of obstruction of justice, and this indictment reads like a mafia case. here you have, in again these are allegations, and the burden of proof here is high, and they don t have direct and witnesses implicating trump, but this is a scene to destroy evidence three days after a grand jury subpoena lands on mr. trump. it is mind-boggling, and as chuck said, it involves very low level employees whose lives are about to be ruined unless they cut a deal with prosecutors. and as for mr. nauta, there was no sign he s going to do that. his lawyers are paid for by mr. trump. he is completely loyal. he s following mr. trump around. and the other thing that i think about about these obstruction elements is that a lot of regular americans out there who don t follow this very closely, when we hear about the classified documents case, they have a hard time distinguishing what trump did from what joe biden and mike pence did, even though we all know that it is vastly
are about to be ruined unless they cut a deal with prosecutors. as for mr. nauta, there s no sign that he is going to do that. his lawyers are paid for by mr. trump. he s completely loyal. he s following mr. trump around. the other thing i think about these obstruction elements is that, you know, a lot of regular americans out there who don t follow this very closely, when they hear about the classified documents case, they have a hard time distinguishing what trump did from what joe biden and mike pence did, even though we all know that it is vastly different, right? all three men had classified documents in their possession. nobody has trouble, i think, differentiating these incredible obstruction of justice charges. everybody understands what it means to destroy evidence, particularly surveillance video evidence. i have to point out that there s no allegation in this new superseding indictment that they actually attempted to destroy the tapes. remember we read in the new york times
will continue to apply, that they ve co-existed with the first amendment for decades, and people won t be denied access to goods and services. and we will protect the rights of free speech, including those who support same-sex marriage. i m curious about a perspective that was brought about in the dissent from justice sotomayor. your client believes that marriage should remain between a man and a woman. there are creators out there who believe that marriage should remain between people of the same race. would you argue on behalf of folks who do not believe in interracial marriage, because it is their point of view of the world? i would not argue on their behalf, and that s a reprehensible view. i think what is important here to remember, though, is that s not the facts of the case the court decided today. the court said if it is clear that a speaker is distinguishing on the basis of a message they re being asked to create, that they can t be compelled by the government to express a