tv The Journal Editorial Report FOX News June 10, 2018 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
lasting. for full coverage of the trump-kim summit, please stay tune to this station and fox news channel. and that's it for today, have a great week and we will see you back in washington next fox news sunday. the journal editorial report. ♪ ♪ paul: welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot. highly-anticipated report from the justice's intern al watchdog reportedly expected to formal james comey, that report by justice department inspector general michael horowitz was set to be released next thursday with horowitz to testify congress and what's behind the delay and what should we be looking for in the final report next week?
wall street journal columnist and deputy editor dan henninger, and columnist kim strassel and bill mcgurn. so kim, what do you expect, what are you looking for from the ig report next week? >> well, from some of the reporting that's been out already, it would appear that the report is going to go very directly at comey and other senior leadership for violating property col, meaning their handling of some things and defying authority and with relations, for instance, to comey's press conference that he held clearing hillary clinton which he didn't run past other senior department of justice attorneys, their handling of late find of anthony weiner laptop and the decision to notify publicly that they were reopening the hillary clinton p. i think these are important because they will get to the question whether or not -- the basis of this entire fbi investigation, whether it was handled properly is now what the
special counsel is using to base his on and whether or not there are fundamental flaws from the start. paul: bill, this is not looking into the trump probe, separate issue. what about -- kim focused on the parts close to the election, but really this is going to go back we hope to before the exoneration, public exoneration that comey offered to get to some of the inconsistencies we already know about because, for example, the peter strzok e-mail. >> right. paul: tell us about that. >> i don't think we need a report to know that james comey should have been fired before donald trump did it. it was timing. we recommended that. paul: confirmation when obama nominated him and -- >> part of it was the actions that rod rosenstein layed out in the memo for president trump too about the interventions, not just at the end of the campaign
but at the beginning. look, it seems at every level of the investigation, let's remember, this is an investigation that the democrats demanded because they believed director comey threw the election to trump undermining mrs. clinton at the last moment. there's probably case that he may he cost her votes but that was because of original thing, the july press conference. so you say it doesn't have anything to do with russian investigation, that's true, but it's the same characters, peter strzok, lisa page, mr. mccabe whose wife accepted money for campaign in virginia from hillary-related people. it's going to give us a lot more detail. let's remember when it comes out, it's just the first step, then congress is going to want interview some of the fbi officials and we are told some other agents that have their own -- paul: you think peter strzok and page are going to testify? >> i think they are and i think we are going to learn their
emails -- i mean, look, peter strzok and lisa page, they provided timeline because anything they knew about they blabbed to each other. it's a good timeline along side the other developments. paul: dan, what about the report that andrew mccabe, former deputy director of the fbi who has been telling different sides of the story to james comey, he has asked for immunity in order to testify, what do you make of that? >> i make of that that andrew mccabe feels he has significant legal liability related to the inspector general's report and we are talking about criminal liability as well and, you know, the thing that i am trying to focus on this report is mr. horowitz, the inspector general said he would try to look at whether any of these decisions were made what he calls improper considerations,
improper considerations, in other words, politics. bill was mentioning peter strzok and lisa page who among emails clearly suggested that they were in a panic over the possibility of donald trump becoming president, so the question is, did the fbi handling the hillary e-mail server and going forward at the highest level go off the rails and become politicized and that is what i'm really going to be looking for in the inspector general's report. paul: kim, let's turn the subject to the russia side of this. what do you make of house speaker paul ryan joining trey gowdy in saying that what he seems suggest that is the fbi was not out of line in asking an informant to -- to insinuate himself with the trump -- some trump campaign officials, what's going on? >> well, i think what was important about that paul ryan statement was the fact that he added that they still needed to see the documents, that they
still had a lot of digging to do. i think what we take from that is that paul ryan was essentially saying that trey gowdy has taken rod rosenstein and christopher wray at their word when they say that they didn't do anything improper. and the argument being trump appointees and so they should have the benefit of the doubt. but the fact that even paul ryan said we need to continue looking into this means that they know that they still haven't seen what they were asking for and that might tell a different story. paul: all right, more to come on all of these stories, when we come back president trump claiming absolutely right to pardon himself. questions of power raised by questions of power raised by mueller pro
prepare for your demise, mr. billingsley! questions of power raised by mueller pro do your worst, doctor. i will. but first, a little presentation. hijacking earth's geothermal energy supply. phase 1. choosing the right drill bit. as long as evil villains reveal their plans, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
can be a big bad problem that you could spread to. family members, including your grandchildren babies too young to be vaccinated against whooping cough are the most at risk for severe illness. but you can help prevent this. talk to your doctor today about getting vaccinated against whooping cough. because dangers don't just exist in fairytales. >> i'm not above the law. i do have an absolute right to pardon myself but i will never have to do because i didn't do anything wrong and everybody
knows. paul: that was president trump friday saying he has the absolute right to pardon himself. latest constitutional question that come from the mueller probe. in letter to special counsel in january, the president's legal team went even further with claims of executive power saying, quote, it remains our position that the president's actions heesh by virtue of position as chief law enforcement officer can neither constitutionally or legally and if he could terminate inquiry or exercise power to pardon if he so desire. david rifken, constitutional attorney who served in white house's office and justice department in reagan and george h.w. bush administration. david is also frequent contributor to the wall street journal, welcome. >> good to be with you. paul: the president has right to power himself? >> absolutely.
leaving aside the political wisdom of this. this is actually an easy question. the text of a -- constitution puts two limitations, of the on the united states and impeachment. he indicate at the time there was prerogative which included at that time power to pardon offenses except impeachment and there was debate at the time which involved treason should be removed. the debate solved. there's no serious doubt the president can pardon absolutely anybody including himself. paul: so what about the response, then, that this means in essence the president is above the law because he could presumably pardon himself even if he were accused of corruption?
>> i understand. this is a classical rhetorical argument. to say the president is above the law begs the question of what the law is. the pardon power is to say absolund check o exercise of power as many other instances in the constitutional architecture is not political response and abusive power and that power is impeachment. to be honest, i sort of chuckle when i hear analogies to the king which by the way it's appropriate. by the way, the notion that nobody can be judging own case ignores the proposition that supreme court has articulated in several cases dealing with pardon. it's not a judicial power, okay. he's not judging anybody. he's deciding that a given pardon is in public interest and if he's wrong, he will be punished in impeachment. paul: so what you're saying under constitution check on his authority is political, it is that the congress of the -- the
public can obviously vote him out after one term but also the congress of the united states has the power to impeach him and, of course, they define, congress define what is are high crimes and misdemeanors. >> absolutely, the issue was debated in the context of excluding treason involving a number of framers and the answer was put forward is that if a president because scenario was the president gauges in treason, pardons his associates so they cannot testify against him, and the answer he will get impeached. paul: okay, you raised -- imply that you think it would be a bad idea politically to pardon himself, explain that. >> at this point in time it would be a bad idea. there was an argument to be made which actually made as you know, paul, a number of months ago when the investigation was still going, i suggested that in lieu of firing mueller which i thought was a bad idea and still
is, pardoning everybody, but that was before all of the indictments that came out. at this point in time, they would not be -- paul: he's attempt to go cover up even though there's nothing to cover snup. >> that would be the perception. paul: okay, when you suggested pardoning, you were saying everybody, that including hillary clinton, anybody involved in clinton e-mail case, basically sweep everything of this issue and put it all behind it? >> no, no, entirely behind but one caveat, we were suggesting at the time letting congress, have congress seriously investigate with nobody being able to take the fifth, the idea to treat political exercise and not judicial exercise. paul: right to the bottom of it for the american people, tell us what happened, what about the claims in the president's lawyer's memos that came out last week about the obstruction issue and whether or not in
firing james comey as fbi director that could be determined to be an act of obstruction of justice, i gather you agree with the president's lawyers, why? >> i agree with the president's lawyers. made the same case you last december. it's simple. it's not that the president cannot obstruct justice, while the president is commercing core constitutional powers of his office, like firing people, hiring people, pardoning people, telling people what to do, he cannot possibly be engaged in obstruction because to allow congress to pass statutes that hold him accountable criminally here, in fact, would impede ability to function as a robust chief executive, very simple argument. paul: what if, for example, the president would fire assistant u.s. attorney or an fbi director because he knows that those people aren't investigating friends of his who are corrupt
and might testi against him. in that case, can he still have the right to fire them and not be obstructing? >> he's right. again, the important thing just like with pardons, if he's doing things in a way that amounts, in fact, politically serious and damaging exercise, he can be -- he can be impeached. let me tell you, the problem of holding opposite argument is, you can hobble the president and commerce core functions, remember this, the president is in a unique position, the president has personal interest and chief when he cuetive, how are they supposed to discern whether he pardons sheriff arpaio. paul: thank you, david, fascinating constitutional debate. good to see you. >> pleasure. paul: votersn 8 states went to polls on tuesday, we will have the take aways from the biggest
primary night ♪ rawwggwwrughh! well, i told you they wouldn't have it. rawwggwwrughh! it's ok, it's ok. we've got time. ♪ [impact collision] rawwggwwrughh! [impact collision] ...ughhhh! what!!! seeing your real-life millennium falcon get damaged is painful enough. filing your insurance claim shouldn't be. esurance makes it easy. so you can get on to your next adventure. oh, we gotta pick up my mom.
...ughhhh! ♪ esurance. see solo: a star wars story now playing. hesumatra reserve told in the time it takes to brew your cup. let's go to sumatra. where's sumatra? good question. this is win. and that'n's 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 win's family. and adi the goat's family too. because his kids eat a lot. all, for a smoother tasting cup of coffee. green mountain coffee roasters. packed with goodness.
paul: both republicans an democrats getting good news as primary voters headed to the polls tuesday in 8 states, we begin in california where gop businessman john cox, endorsement by president trump into a spot on the november ballot for governor where he will face off against democratic lieutenant governor gavin nuwsom. keeping open their path to taking back the house this november. we are back with dan henninger, kim strassel and wall street journal editorial board member aallysia finally. >> i think they got a slot in
top 2 in november in competitive district that is hillary clinton won in 2016. gavin newsom is at the top of the ticket and clean path to victory in november. cox is going to be a long shot. paul: republican. >> republican candidate will be a long shot and for most part aside from state senate race where democrats was recalled, denying democrats majority, it was a pretty good night for democrats. paul: what about argument from former colleague that in six of the seven competitive seats the republican share of two-party vote was actually higher than it was for the democrats and therefore the democratic candidate and therefore that that has tended in the past to be a good indicater of what might happen in november. >> right. i think the problem with that is if you look at the republican votes here compare today 2014 and 2016 is about 10 points
lower than and if you just take the difference between the primary, primary vote in the general vote, you're probably -- you're probably looking at losing 4 or 5 seats this year. paul: could be that many unless the republican -- >> really turnout increased in november, that's right. paul: dan, allysia talked about gas tax, it's interesting because gasoline almost 4 bucks a gallon in california. obviously drivers in that state don't like it. could this be an argument that john cox the republican could use to maybe doing better than people think out there in the governor's race? >> oh, yeah, absolutely. at the margins out there in california people are upset about the cost of living and, you know, i think house majority leader kevin mccarthy was correct that it was important to get john cox on the ticket, may not win, probably won't win but you're going need republican turnout in california and in six
of those seven districts that we were just talking about, the voters although they went for hillary the last time, predominantly republican and they -- democrats have nominated progressives in the districts and it's not clear at all that voters in those six-swing districts are progressive and so if you can drive republican turnout it's possible the republicans are going to hold onto a majority of those seats. paul: kim, let's talk about another race in november now setting up robert menendez, the two-term senator from new jersey only got 62% of the vote against a democratic challenger who basically had no campaign, reported spending essentially no money. what does this suggest about whether or not a republican could beat, the republican, can beat menendez in november? >> democrats should be worried about that. it was one of the surprises of tuesday night.
this democratic competitor to menendez spent almost nothing. hugin running in republican primary spent a lot of time or at least some pubng the fact t senator menendez had been admonished by the senate for essentially doing the work of donors, he lobbied the health and human service department, helped get the girlfriend's visa into the country. that does not result in a conviction even though he was charged and charges were dropped but the senate did admonish him and shows new jersey voters are concerned about corruption and if republicans were to put money into this, it could be surprise pick-up. paul: that's the key. putting money. he's already spent 7 million of his own in just primary. >> i think that's right. the national republican senatorial campaign is going to put money into this. we saw in 2014 ed gillespie in
virginia, they did not go into the race, maybe if they had, maybe republicans would have one more seat. paul: i think he would have beaten him. martha, republican congresswoman from alabama, forced to runoff with a challenge from former member of congress bobby brie and people are saying because she had been critical of donald trump during the 2016 campaign, is that now potentially fatal in a republican primary? >> well, we will find out. when access hollywood came out, martha was extremely critical of donald trump, now she's a conservative voter right down the line in the house. she only got 39% of the vote and being forced into a runoff and we will find out in alabama how much political purity is required to serve in the
alabama. paul: thank you, dan, thank you, everybody. still ahead with final preparations underway for tuesday's historic singapore summit, our panel weighs in on what would make the trump-kim sit-down a success. >> we will have a great success. i don't think it will be in one meeting. meeting. i think it'll take longer than alright, i brought in new max protein ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. new ensure max protein. hi, and believe us;uys. we don't want this-- or this for father's day. we want something awesome! (man) man crates has reinvented gifting
with handpicked gear and diy projects guys will love. (second man) most gifts come sealed in a wooden crate with a crowbar. (third man) man crates! it's more than a gift; it's an experience you'll never forget. make his day this father's day. go to mancrates.com/tv for 10% off the perfect father's day gift.
only prolia® helps strengthen bones by stopping cells that damage them with 1 shot every 6 months. do not take prolia® if you have low blood calcium, are pregnant, are allergic to it, or take xgeva®. serious allergic reactions, like low blood pressure; trouble breathing; throat tightness; face, lip or tongue swelling, rash, itching or hives have happened. tell your doctor about dental problems, as severe jaw bone problems may happen or new or unusual pa in your hip, groin, or thigh, as unusual thigh bone fractures have occurred. speak to your doctor before stopping prolia®, as spine and other bone fractures have occurred. prolia® can cause serious side effects, like low blood calcium; serious infections, which could need hospitalization; skin problems; and severe bone, joint, or muscle pain. if your bones aren't getting stronger isn't it time for a new direction? why wait? ask your doctor about prolia.
which is what bush did. a success in singapore would be to get the regime to commit to complete irreversible and verifiable nuclearization. that's what secretary of state mike pompeo did this week that he wanted. ic that's a long shot especially so since you hear president trump starting to walk back. paul: yeah, i think this is a victory for kim just for showing up in the sense that he gets to appear on the same stage with the american president, mary, if you're talking about an outcome here, you said complete, verifiable, denuclearization, does he have to -- does trump have to come out with some kind of a promise on that and maybe a timetable or a process? >> yeah, i think -- i think he does. i think it would be a real setback for the american president to leave without getting anything although he
says that he will walk away from a bad deal, so he has at least made that statement, pompeo was also very careful too to say that if there was no deal done or no good deal on the table, the u.s. pressure in terms of sanctions would increase. i do hope that's the case. my worry here, paul, is that kim will say, come on, mr. president, let's have peace in our time and we can have china come in to oversee denuclearization, we can do it in stages, hey, you can have a whole new market for american exports, we can do deals here. i think there's a real risk that trump backs away from the red lines the admion has set. let's hope he doesn't do that. >> well, dan, twice before, american presidents have agreed to terms with deals with north korean leaders, both times they involved promises of denuclearization and even colluding in one case taking down a reactor the pyongyang
reactor only to reneged on that later after the u.s. had offer concessions at the start? >> yeah, i think the difference here, paul, i think presidents thought there was time to negotiate and the difference now is that we believe, most specials believe that within perhaps 24 months of being able to produce a deliverable nuclear weapon, a missile and that is something that is time frame that kim could use to his benefit by stretching out the negotiations and paul, i would like to try lower expectations with this meeting in singapore. this was not like negotiating with old soviet union where you had old foreign policy structure. this is one individual, kim jong un who is virtually like a character out of james bond movie but he is running a huge armed camp and i think the president, our president trump has to sit down and take the measure of whether this is someone that we think we can do business with.
>> paul: well, let's put the issue of the american side on the bill, the president is a guy who shoots by an instinct, he operates by instinct, somebody who dives in briefing boats, plutonium program and what it takes -- >> of course, that's the jimmy carter strength. paul: no. i'm not saying he can't therefore achieve -- >> right. paul: outcome, all i'm saying this is something who is going to do it on his own instincts. >> i'm not so word about that as he has mike pompeo and john bolton. i couldn't think of two better people to be advising me. actually denuke it is peninsula, if he doesn't he might get fear now and we will know probably before he's reelected that it was a failure. failure in this case would be a capacity by pyongyang to hit the
u.s. reasonable to be skeptical. i remember in the 90's when bill clinton staired across and said if you develop a nuclear weapon it'll be the end of your country and now we are negotiating with his grandson about a nuclear weapon. >> he wants u.s. troops off the peninsula. he wants peace treaty and wants to cooperate with china to achieve goal, and ultimately the stated north korean goal to conquer the south under north korean regime. that's the whole point of the regime itself. so that's what makes me skeptical that he's going to give up nuclear weapons help him achieve the goal. you have to undermine the whole existence of the regime. we have to mention there are a lot of concessions in the u.s. side. north korea didn't want john
bolton, they are criticizing him. he's taken a backseat. trump pulls away from the table and they send nice big letter and the president will sit back legitimizing the regime. that's a lot of good will given on the u.s. side. let's see what's really reciprocated here. paul: all right, thank you all, still ahead, worried about a trade war with u.s. allies, bipartisan group of senators is pushing a plan to give congress the final say over some of president trump's trade actions, we will talk to pennsylvania senator pat toomey about the proposal next. come here, babe. ok. nasty nighttime heartburn? try new alka-seltzer pm gummies.
the only fast, powerful heartburn relief plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. ♪ oh, what a relief it is! but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. some cash back cards send you to get to your bonus cash back. first they make you sign up for bonus cash back and it's only on a few categories. and when those categories change, you gotta sign up again. when does it end?! with the capital one quicksilver® card, you earn unlimited 1.5% cash back on every purchase, everywhere. it's like a cash back oasis. what's in your wallet?
and made old cars good as new. but i couldn't bear my diabetic nerve pain any longer, so i talked to my doctor and he prescribed lyrica. nerve damage from diabetes causes diabetic nerve pain. lyrica is fda approved to treat this pain, from moderate to even severe diabetic nerve pain. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs, and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. now i have less diabetic nerve pain. and i love smoothing the road ahead for others. ask your doctor about lyrica. paul: bipartisan group of senators moving forward this week with legislation that would
curb president trump's trade authority. tennessee senator bob corker unveiled a proposal wednesday that would require congress to sign off on any plans to impose tariffs and other trade restrictions based on national security concerns. the measure would curtail the president's authority under section 232 of the trade expansion act, provision most recently use today impose steel and aluminum tariffs on canada, méxico and the european union. pennsylvania republican pat toomey is a cosponsor of the measure, i spoke with him earlier. >> senator toomey welcome, the president is justifying his steel and aluminum tariffs on national security grounds, what do you think of the argument? >> i don't think you can make the case, paul, as you know a good three quarters of all the steel we consume in america we produce ourselves and importing the balance is not a threat to national security. by the way, our defensive needs are about 3% of our total consumption, so to suggest --
and furthermore, our number one and number two sources are canada and méxico and with canada we have a trade surplus even in steel, so there is just no way that i can grasp how this is a national security threat. paul: he's using authority congress granted him under expansion act. he has the authority. >> correct. paul: what can congress do about it, can you stop it? >> what congress needs to do is take this authority back, i don't think it was ever a good idea to hand it over to the administration, we have been doing that are for decades in and out of trade space, but the fact is the president is in my view misusing the national security provisions as a way to promote a protectionist trade policy. i think virtually every republican senator disagrees with this approach. it's time that we took this authority back and so there's an
amendment to the national defense authorization bill that senator corker and i are pursuing that would do exactly that, it would make a presidential decision to impose tariffs and use the 232 provision as the justification, such a decision would require the consent of congress if this amendment were to pass and i think it's a good step. paul: all right, now, your majority leader mitch mcconnell is lukewarm on the idea of the amendment because he says it's futal, and the house passes it, it's not a guaranty. the president can always veto it and then you have taken a vote and divided republicans for no purpose, what do you think of that? >> what i think is that we are not potted plants here, it's okay to disagree with the president at times even a president of one own's party and to me it's such a time and my responsibility to do what i think is right for pennsylvania and i think trade barriers and tariffs are a bad idea, so i
think we should pursue this. i don't know where it ends. there's bipartisan support for this amendment, i don't know how many votes it gets, maybe it gets more than two-thirds. we just don't know until we have the vote and let it play out. so that's what i think we should do. paul: is this also about from your point of view sending president to the message, don't blow up nafta and be careful about what your trade policy is heading because you could do damage to the economy? >> well, i think actually -- honestly i think the president is already doing some damage. now, let me caveat that which i think the economy is doing fabulously well, i think it's terrific and prospects are great, but one thing that could be a self-inflicting wound that could really hamper the growth that we would otherwise have would be a trade war and, you know, up until now, the president has threatened and suggested lots of policies but only last week did he actually go ahead and impose these tariffs on canada and méxico and
eu, allies, our friends. one of the many ironies is we buy no steel from china, china is a real problem for a variety of unrelated reasons, that's what we ought to be focusing on in my view and, yes, i think we as republican senator who is support trade, we ought to send the message to the president that we are going to stand up for what we believe in. paul: all right, now, where do you think the democrats are on this? because i think i hear them playing both sides on this, claire mccaskal and you have chuck schumer, brown of ohio, wait a minute, he's not protectionist enough. >> yeah. paul: where are the democrats on this, can you get them on your side of the amendment? >> i suspect that they will be divided. hard-core protectionists will vote against the amendment because they see it as pushing back on tariffs and they love tariffs. the more moderate, centrist and
the rare-free trading democrats, if you will, might very well support it. so i think they'll be divided and, you know, we will see if republicans might be divided as well. that's why, you know, you have to have the vote and find out where it lies. paul: a lot of republicans who support the president say, don't worry, this is all part of a grand negotiating strategy to get a better deals and don't worry, he's not going to follow up -- follow through on all of these, do you detect some grand strategy here that i going to turn out well in the end? >> so here is my problem with that, the goals that they have with respect to canada and méxico are pretty well articulated in the nafta negotiations and the administration's goals are terrible. i mean, they want to have the deal expire, they want nafta to go away. they want to eliminate the investor dispute mechanism which is really, really important. they've got the countries
specific component requirements which defeats the purpose of nafta. if i thought that there were a really good constructive goal and this was just kind of an unfortunate tactic to get to that goal, that would be, you know, that would be legitimate conversation to have. i don't see that with respect to canada and méxico. paul: and do you see some damage already among pennsylvania users, consumers of steel and aluminum in. >> paul, i've got a lift that's very, very -- gosh, probably hundreds of companies in pennsylvania that use steel and aluminum and they have all kinds of problems. supply problems, pricing problems, tariffs, they are so many more people that are using steel than produce it, it's definitely having counterproductive effects in pennsylvania. paul: senator toomey thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me, paul.
paul: a decision a victory for religious v mom? dad? hi! i had a very minor fender bender tonight in an unreasonably narrow fast food drive thru lane. but what a powerful life lesson. and don't worry i have everything handled. i already spoke to our allstate agent, and i know that we have accident forgiveness. which is so smart on your guy's part. like fact that they'll just... forgive you... four weeks without the car. okay, yup. good night. with accident forgiveness your rates won't go up just because of an accident. switching to allstate is worth it. the first survivor of ais out there.sease and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.
paul: the supreme court this week ruled in favor of a colorado baker who refused to make a custom wedding cake for same-sex couple, one of the mostly watched cases, not clear victory for religious freedom with majority opinion that suggest the win could be short-lived. we are back with dan henninger, bill mcgurn and allysia finally. dan, how do you read the ruling victory or setback? >> well, i read it as a victory, small victory for religious freedom.
i mean, defended the baker's precommerce of religious belief but, you know, there's a strong view out there that say if the commission, which insulted, remained neutral he may not be able or future people may not be able to defend themselves because there's a strong belief among liberal justices that there should be no religious exemptions for antidiscrimination laws. say the little sisters of the poor and contraception, affordable care act, that sort of thing and i think that issue is still very much in play out there among the judiciary. this is a temporary victory. paul: if they had not -- if they had been neutral in applying principles, if they kept their antireligious bias quiet, the commission could have punished phillips. >> i think that's right. they are laying up the decision
for court to go further in the opposite direction as long as the commission appli neutrally ily across the board, bias towards baker or photographer, then they can punish him for expressing or practicing his religious beliefs. paul: is that why you think bryer and kagan went along, it would allow us to do that down the road. >> some questions, maybe, they are trying to be consistent where they came out on the travel ban where they are taking the position that trump's statements were made bias the whole process. paul: i see expression of bias. >> that would taint the rule-making. paul: interesting, bill, three justices agreed, conservative justices but they filed concurrences, gorsuch on free expression and justice thomas on
free speech and samuel alito, of course, it is -- why would they do that if they didn't fear that dan and allysia was right? >> the defeat would have been catastrophic. the other justices see that this decision could open the way for other defeats down the line. if we are going get into motives and so forth rather than different rights. look, one of the things very personal to me is we've already had some adoption agencies because they are not good with same-sex marriage. paul: ruled out of being able to -- >> moms and dad, can they adopt if they don't support this. that'll be the kind of cases coming up right around the corner. >> i think there's cases, kenly
rules out the catholic priest cannot be force today mary a same-sex couple. generally seems to suggest that public accommodations would triumph over religious freedom. paul: one explicit case he references. >> you have justice kennedy who told us we have the right to define own existences but won't give us ruling wider than baker. it's so narrow and doesn't apply to anyone else. paul: we will have to take one more break, when we come back more break, when we come back hits and misses of the week.
i thought i was managing my moderatear mayer deli fresh. to severe crohn's disease. then i realized something was missing... me. my symptoms were keeping me from being there. so, i talked to my doctor and learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications.
and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible.
>> they call that analysis misses the point. what came out very clearly in the interviews is he doesn't feel sorry at all because the clintons still do not believe any of the normal rules apply to them. -- or interns they believe they get to live apart. former president to have an aitude. >> and a hit to howard schultz. the starbucks chairman who may run for president. in an interview with cnbc complaint democrats are moving too far to the left. we have a $21 trillion debt and he wonders how we will pay it. he says he cannot imagine us paying it without four percent growth sustained. i do not think he will sell that message in the democratic party but he deserves a lot more than that if he can make the case of four percent growth
on a democratic debate. >> i would like to hear that. mary? >> i have a hit that really is more of a celebration of a life of kate spade who tragically took her life this week at the age of 55. she is a classic american rags to riches, entrepreneurial she grew up in the midwest, went to the big apple in new york city. worked her way up mademoiselle magazine with her own money and that of her partner. then husband started kate spa which brought classic good taste and style to really, millions of american women. i have personal feelings for kate spade. my father bought me a business card holder when i went off to work to make me feel professional. and i still have it. we will miss her but we will enjoy her contribution to society. >> dan? >> my hit to the philadelphia eagles football team not for refusing to come to the white house but for killing the
ridiculous practice of having a professional team show up at the white house. they should stay home with the fans that rooted for them. >> >> we begin with a fox news alert. as the president and the north korean leader, kim jong-un or both in singapore. both ready for the historic and high-stakes summit and that eventually dismantling the north nuclear program. this event coming up fast. hello everyone welcome to a brand-new hour of "americas news headquarters". >> the president embarking on what he calls a mission of peace. describing the historic summit is a great opportunity for kim jong-un and the downtrodden people. facing