The court does say that in the particular kicircumstances of h phillip was treated, his religious views didnt get the respect of the commission that initially ruled against him. He cites Commission Members that said appeared to be dismissive or hostile to Jack Phillips religious views. The 13r50eSupreme Court this w marred as soon as the Commission Said those things. All the Court Decision today says is, because of the way Jack Phillips was treated below, he wins. But the decision also says, were not expressing a view about the larger issue that made this case so interesting. Which is, can other bakers, florists, people who print wedding invitations, who provide services, people who sing at weddings, play the organ, do the deejay services, all those businesses, can they refuse to serve samesex couples . Has written all the important gay rights rulings here from the Supreme Court, including the 2015 ruling on samesex marriage. With that in mind, he basically is saying, we have to keep t
have independent crabration of what he said. so i would be very careful about that because people are presumed innocent and we do have a very high standard of convicting people in this country. my only pushback would be the president s message now isn t that he s innocent, his surrogates are not saying he s innocent. your friend rudy giuliani s whole reason for being alive is talk about the fact a president cannot be indicted, a president cannot obstruct justice. no that he didn t engage in this criminal conduct. by the way, that s what i way saying yesterday and to you earlier, i think it s a flawed approach. by the way, would this be the first time the president s legal team took a flawed approach? fair enough. frank figliuzzi, i m guessing what michael cohen said yesterday was old news to robert mueller. i understand them being in communication with him at least since the summer. so if they wanted to corroborate any of what he said with other documents and e-mail and witnesses
this is caused by president trump. it is now immoral. no longer a human issue, a political issue. this is new day. i want to welcome our viewers and around the world. this is 6:00 a.m. in new york. gai 21 of the government shutdown and the mueller investigation is set to dominate the stage again for president trump s nominee, william barr. in a few hours, barr goes before the senate judiciary committee and barr is expected to say mueller should be allowed to finish his investigation and the report should be made public even though he has been quite critical of that in the past. you may remember the unsolicited memo barr sent to the justice department last year, claiming the president cannot obstruct justice. we now know who bar shared that letter with and we ll tell you
that, you know, obstruction in this way, firing comey, the president is allowed to fire whomever he wants, whenever he wants, but there are other ways to obstruct justice. and as you were just talking about with pardons, et cetera, et cetera, it seems to me that the democrats are going to come down and focus more on the obstruction issue and maybe try and get him to say, well, what would constitute obstruction from a president? setting aside where you think the president cannot obstruct justice, i.e. comey. we don t know that mueller is just looking at comey on obstruction. he might be looking at other things. i agree with that. he said to intervene in something that he has a personal stake in would be an abuse of power. well, we reported not too long ago that the president has called up matthew whitaker, the acting attorney general, to raise the question about the prosecution of his former fixer and attorney michael cohen and
obstruction. it seems reasonably obvious. i should say this though. bill barr did not say in his memo or at the hearing that a president cannot obstruct justice. he said he cannot obstruct under a particular reading of a subsection of a particular statute. i don t agree with that, but that s a mainstream conservative view of the article two authorities to run and control the executive branch. i do believe that the premises of your question is exactly right. the obstruction is the collusion. that s where we should be looking. it was interesting to hear bill barr explain how a president can break the law. for a member of the president s family or business associate was under investigation and he tries to