translator: i want to see the sun so when our houses are rebuilt, we can live if peace, we can live in ukraine, because this is our native home. reporter: a ukrainian official in mariupol saying a planned evacuation has been thwarted by the russian military. he says at least 200 civilians who thought they were on a bus headed to safe points were instead taken into russian-controlled territory in the east. russia capturing dozens of small towns in eastern ukraine, but uk officials say russians have not made any major gains in the last 24 hours. and this as russia reveals its end game in this invasion. top military officials say they plan to take full control over southern ukraine and the eastern donbas region. let s bring in scott mclean in lviv. what more can you tell us about these missile strikes in odesa? reporter: hey, fredricka. one city counselor in odesa called these an easter gift from vladimir putin. this is not the kind of gift that you want to get. we re talk
and avoid a potential perjury charge down the road. so, besides testimony, what would be needed to help prove this case? well, i think you have to have some sort of direct evidence. i mean, we know that congress has been investigating this for quite some time. they ve been able to do more than just question witnesses. they ve subpoenaed records. they ve looked at emails. they ve looked at text messages. this administrative law judge has none of that. all he can do is rely on what was presented in court on friday to make a recommendation to the secretary of state here in georgia. now, one thing we know about our secretary of state, he s a republican office holder, he s fighting for his job this year. so even if this administrative judge says, look, i think there s a reason to consider her unqualified, i don t think the secretary of state is going to make that decision, just given the fact that his job is literally on the line and there s only that testimony to prove the case. all
a law dubbed as the don t say gay bill. back with us again, constitutional law attorney paige pate. even though i said good-bye to you, i didn t mean it. it was a short good-bye. hello again. didn t want to leave. glad to be with you. well, this is a really important topic, you know, because from the outside looking in, i mean, the state government of florida is punishing disney for taking a stance, verbalizing itself against this new law. so would that ultimately be a violation of their 1st amendment to speak as they wanted? i think so, fred. i mean, we have to start with the proposition that a company, just like a person, has the right to freedom of speech. the 1st amendment protects their ability to make statements about things they believe in, things they are against. they absolutely have that protection. the only question here is was
unload a bunch of debt on the taxpayers of florida, so there may be political or business reasons not to even challenge the decision. we ll see. unlike most of florida s new laws that are set to take effect july 1st, this law against disney s reedy creek improvement district doesn t begin until 2023. so, there is time, and in that time for the next year, what potentially could happen? well, disney, first of all, has to decide what ept they wan do. they have not made a public statement what their intentions are or what they re going to sue to undo this action. they ll think about it. they have very good lawyers. they ll decide if this is something they want to do not just from a legal standpoint, because i do believe they have a legal right to do it, but do they want to do this as a business decision. you re right. they have time to think about it. it s not an emergency. they don t have to act next week or even next month. paige pate, i ll just say so long, see ya later instead of