Skip to main content

tv   The Journal Editorial Report  FOX Business  June 1, 2019 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT

6:00 pm
♪ . >> welcome to the journal editorial report i am paul gigot special counsel robert mueller made first public remarks since he took over russia probe two years ago, saying that there was insufficient evidence to proof a broader conspiracy between fr campaign and moscow during 2016 election but noting that his office did not conclude the president trump was innocent of obstruction of justice special counsel claiming charging the president with a crime was not an option. >> if we haded confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime we would have said so.
6:01 pm
we did not however make a determination as to low the president did commit a crime, under longstanding department policy, a president cannot be charged with federal crime while he is in office. that is unconstitutional charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. >> a former justice department prosecutor welcome back. good to have you here. >> thanks paul so that here is the larger question for me, what do you think he was trying to accomplish with this statement? because if he only wanted to say, as he said he did, within four corns of his report, why issue a statement outside thank you four corners of that report. >> that is exactly the right question, what is interesting here to keep in mind, he is not independent council he is special counsel means still was operating within the chain of command of doj so this is almost like a line prosecutor telling boss hey, by the way, i am going to do a press
6:02 pm
conference talk about findings very unusual circumstance the fact standing alone in the first plaids is crazy the second he didn't want to take questions just wanted to make statement where he is emphasizing i am not giving you any thing new if that is the case give a written statement, so i think he was trying to banning the gong say i am done last you hear from me i am going to be a farmer cincinnati still a maybe i don't think it worked i think there was daylight when he talked about obstruction piece of this how olc opinion controlled or did not control findings if you look at report read it does not say weefrp refusing to make findings because of the olc opinion to the contrary it talks about the thorny issue of criminal intent when it comes to proving obstruction by the president, there is daylight there that i think is aggravating ag barr. >> daylight between his report was more sxav about criminal intent on obstruction of justice and his statement,
6:03 pm
mueller's statement this week basically said the reason we didn't at least the implication was the reason we did not indict on obstruction because we couldn't because of this order, and that has turned out to be the thing that democrats have grabbed said aha, now it is our job to help with impeachment do you think to move ahead with impeachment some of them any away do you think he intended to give that impetus to impeachment or accidental? >> it is hard to know any time you try to summarize two easier of investigation, as barr has been finding out in recent weeks, too, you are always going to be did you find leaving something out overemphasizing one component over another but again to have any distance between what he said at that hearing, the other day, and what is in the report, is the intriguing part makes won motivation it soundeded like somebody wanted to emphasize we never really had a shot determining whether a violation of the obstruction law and reality is there is --
6:04 pm
you know, volume two is all about the facts there is not that big a dispute over the facts it is the legal significance of them, i think why barr is saying hey he could have reached an opinion rosenstein and i he were happy to do so -- >> what happens if congress does zie a statement we're not sure what you meant come up tell us i think the democrats in the house and i had know lindsey graham in senate is suggested he might do it they might call him up can he resist that now? >> he will with i think he can try. i mean resigned so not something that really fits under oversight capacity anymore because he is no longer with doj, what is interesting i think a big case of be careful what you ask for, that if the democrats think they will get a lot of mileage out of emphasizing, kind of obstruction light or obstructionesque facts in the report they have to know republicans will spaebd bun of of time asking how this probe started off how team was
6:05 pm
comprised, and prooert strzok lisa page a lot would come out of the he hearing not pretty, for one side or the other so i suspect there is a lot of posturing here i am not sure anybody wants to put him under oath on witness stand. >> he could say i'm sorry i said what i am going to say not going to say i am appointing you to page 322 i am not going to go beyond that, i suppose that would be his could be his response. >> right. i mean, of course, with congressional testimony, as opposed to courtroom tis big speech maybe an incidental question mark at end not shire nonanswers don't feed the beast in terms of pulling stuff out from report or comments will be getting on evening news. >> is as you look at the report, now, after several weeks what mueller said this week do you think there is a case for obstruction of justice charges to be brought if not in indictment then impeachment? >> the political question is impeachment question that is
6:06 pm
very different kettle of fish than criminal indictment. >> let's talk about criminal. >> sure, on criminal side here is what i would say i think the report does give this acknowledgement there are two types of obstructionist classes here, at least potentially obstructionist one public statements public actions by the president, be i meaning comey or be i meaning this probe the second yells at underlings get rid of this guy of that guy i think problems with each one but in terms of proving criminal intent the issue in white collar cases the issue here, obstruction usually works in shadows not in front of 350 million people. so tweets would be a real unusual basis for saying there is a criminal intent as opposed to a personal embarrassment or political frustration intent. >> the other thing is there was nothing in the end that i could that was obstructive no pardons you offered probe went ahead full steam fbi counterintelligence investigation, not obstructed
6:07 pm
you have to say where is the crime other than you know, is it a crime to rage like king lear in the white house against mueller. >> right, a great point this is what makes it into kind of a night making sure law school question academic no underlying crime report was very clear on that yes, you can still obstruct investigation into something that is not a crime or turns out not criminal but becomes much less apple latable likely you get 12 people to agree there is a criminal intent beyond reasonable nl doubt very hype technical in category of perhaps, the law permits much wisdom condemns as folly, maybe should not have been tweets there should not have been king lear mojts not type that leads to criminal prosecution. >> james thanks for being with us appreciate it when we come back robert mueller puts the ball in congress's court with
6:08 pm
an nancy pelosi resist growing calls from democrats to begin an impeachment inquiry. >> with respect to impeachment questions at this point all options on the table nothing should be ruled
6:09 pm
6:10 pm
6:11 pm
smooe constitutional requires a process other than the criminal justice system, to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. >> that was former special counsel robert mueller putting ball in congress's court suggesting that the constitutional leaves it up to lawmakers to pursue charges of wrongdoing against a president as calls grow from members of congress 20 to democrats to begining impeachment house speaker nancy pelosi seems maintaining wait-and-see approach. >> nothing is off the table, but we do want to make a compelling case armclad case
6:12 pm
that even the republican senate at the time seems not an objective of the past that we have to take as a country. >> bring in "the wall street journal" columnist big and. >> let's, before we get to the democrats, let's talk about mueller, what do you think he was trying to accomplish. well i think he wanted to put his report say what he what he did. and kind of defend himself, i think unfortunately, the worst part of that statement was when he said if we could have expected to him exonerated him we would for a prosecutor before department of justice logto tanning as though a prosecutor's job to exonerate, totally up ends presumption of innocence ought to ply even to donald trump by ep people who don't like him i think was outrageous the same thing jim
6:13 pm
comey did with hillary clinton we won't prosecutor not enough to prosecutor, but she did all awfully things. i think in the future they have to narrow what the special counsel -- i don't like special counsel rather they get rid of it but narrow what special counsel does what kind of report he issues he or she issues try to avoid some frdz. >> my view is that by dint of what he did what he did not say put thumb on side of impeachment gave some encouragement to democrats who want to impeach do you agree with that. >> simply by virtual of the fact he refused to exculpate donald trump of obstruction i don't understand why he held that press conference he went to say i am not going to tell you anything i haven't already told you sounds like begging not to be called to testify impeachment hearing -- >> should not have made a statement at all. >> exactly what -- no matter what he said it would have been political and somebody would have to call him up ask what he meant and why didn't you say x, why did not you say y, why can't you come to a
6:14 pm
decision about obstruction, that was your task after all. >> why -- i mean as i look at it the evidence, he laid out, the analysis he offered on obstruction, i don't see a case for obstruction myself looks like nothing obstructionisted went on merry way every witness he wanted could call every warrant issuing wanted to issue he could what issue was what was the obstruction? >> well, that is he gets someone in court in front of a jury find out how far they will go what impeachment is a jury of congress. >> i mean things like, dangling pardons in front of paul manafort, that could be considered obstruction the president has bully pulpit can influence potential witnesses there was no crime. underneath -- >> underlying crime no collusion. >> he did not pardon manafort. >> know didn't the most important thing to recognize extraordinary circumstance at work of president was being falsely accused of treason
6:15 pm
with nuclear weapons aimed at us by pundits and media a right to defend himself big stakes he made a bill chinaiain bill on the reason did not find obstruction of justice if you read between lines rule at justice department said you can't anxiety a sitting president. >> right. >> that is pretty -- >> -- i mean, what then you are saying i should not take the job what he could do is look, the government at the attorney general would in end make that call, if he recommended charges. >> right. >> o attorney general would make that call, that is what he should have let them if he thought there was proof criminal activity he should have said he could have said we found evidence of criminal activity then let the attorney general explain that you can't bring charges against the sitting president. i think he is trying to have it both ways, we couldn't -- we -- we couldn't find the president was guilty but we couldn't find was not, not
6:16 pm
guilty so congress you go -- i mean agency mr. barr said in interview, the other day, you know, the -- the executive department the department of justice prosecutor is not the investigative arm for congress congress has its own methods primarily impeachment. i just think this is -- trampling over constitutional line. >> speaking of congress no i it is -- nancy pelosi's job she resisting pressure building last time you were here you said we will see is she going to how will theed. >> good job so far proern her enormous has been very cool went on jimmy kimmel to talk about this i think a bunch of of people think impeachment throwing inferring the air only way to get to the top of the polls i think other people bernie sanders and joe biden who think nancy pelosi is their protector impeachment would be a disaster for presidential hopes. >> 40 members of congress house democrats want won in trump states really don't want to have --
6:17 pm
>> they don't want that, i think unfortunately, i think mrs. pelosi doesn't want impeachment recognizes would put those people at risk doing a curious job has control over a lot of committee i think a lot of them locked up egging it on when she talks about president is involved in a cover-up, plunged us into a constitutional cries that is attorney general came and committed a crime before congress, she is feeding the people and the movement she claims not to. i think. >> she is saying basically he committed about impeachable offenses we don't want to impeach. >> -- 80, a good line for 2020 kind of putting herself in a position dammed if she does dammed if she doesn't if she says all this people would rightly say why don't you impeach. >> thank you gentlemen when we come back kayla harris rooms out plan to address so-called grnd pay gap what proposal would mean for 80 million american workers.
6:18 pm
>> i am going to announce the first ever national priority on closing that pay gap.5
6:19 pm
6:20 pm
at comcast, we didn't build the nation's largest gig-speed network just to make businesses run faster. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. there is reward. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? there is the moment. beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. ♪ ♪ every day, comcast business is helping businesses go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond. it's a revolution in sleep. the sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now during our memorial day sale.
6:21 pm
it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this. so you wake up ready to hit the ground running. only at a sleep number store. don't miss the final days to save $1000 on the new queen sleep number 360 special edition smart bed, now only $1,799. ends sunday. sleep number. proven, quality sleep. >> in america today women for the same work for the equal work on average make 80 cents on the dollar, but women make 61 cents on the dollar latinaings make 53 cents on the dollar, and this has got to end. paul: california senator and 2020 democratic hopeful kamala harris teaming up to eliminate
6:22 pm
so-called gender pay gap the stat we will talk about about that women make 80 cents on dollar compared to men the proposal would require every u.s. business with a hundred workers or more to obtain an equal pay certification from the federal government, by somehow approving they are not paying women less than men for equal work "the wall street journal" editorial board members, alee shah kyle, kate, kyle you have written about this take on that 80% wage gap that just a minute. >> raw media if you gather up all women full-time in the yu states all men working full-time in the united states, you pick them, person out of the middle of each that is 80 cents on dollar what that that leaves out is choices, it leaves out occupations, it leaves out people working more overtime less overtime studies trying to compare apples to apples, there is a harvard study boston transit employees said women transit employees 89
6:23 pm
cents on dollar for men entirety of the gap made up of people making paid time -- sorry unpaid time off, and overtime men worked a lot more over very time when kamala was roing out you heard clip at the top said 80 cents on dollar for equal pay for equal work either she doesn't know what that statistic means or trying to be. >> women leave workforce to have families they take less overtime that is really the explanation not widespread discrimination, by the way, is the illegal -- >> right it is illegal, to discriminate based on sex i think there is one other thing we should think about wages are not the only way that employees he employers compensate employees. we know women tend to prefer as they have children more flexible arrangements, more
6:24 pm
autonomy over work, and these trade off also make want to make instead of higher sar salaries i don't think we want in a situation managers have to be exactly equal on dollars and cents because that might force women to make they don't want to make, in modern economy can't measure kaez yee very hard to measure giving managers no flexibility to offer a raise doesn't sound like test pe for higher salary sounds like slower wage growth for everybody. >> i think what is scary you have seen trump administration, and before that the obama administration tried to do this by fiat, they've gone after oracle, google, federal contractors. >> discrimination on wages. >> basically they go through -- may be -- do kind of paint
6:25 pm
by number analysis, basically manipulating data you can manipulate data however it is very easy to do. >> do you believe going was systematically discriminating, post politically correct company on planet. >> all, attorneys working with google government bureaucra bureaucratscluding sounds like proposing companies would have to prove they are nots discriminating as opposed to somebody having to progressive discrimination. >> her plan would apply to companies with a hundred workers or more the federal data there is about 130,000 of those companies across united states it covers 80 million employees in private sector, and bay this would have to be done within three years being enacted the problem in my mind
6:26 pm
there is norms he consequences of trying to put you know federal bureaucrats in between you and your boss, in those performance reviews, in salary negotiations, and she is not taking account of that, by the way, some reaction to her proposal i think, agrees with that so l.a. times had editorial saying we are glad someone is talking about this issue but maybe this is not smartest way to go about this. >> l.a. times probably doesn't want brats in the equal employment commission dictating what they have to pay editorial writers. >> so i guess testament o.c. would administrator. >> a history liberal charges against companies, and basically bureaucrats mid level bureaucrats as said they go through database, maybe subpoena documents, they say hey we have information here looks like you are
6:27 pm
discriminating, proof that you say you are not. >> i don't think the issue i think in background pretty fast as other proposals come out one every two days in elizabeth warren i think will get lost quickly. >> when we come back frustrated by crisis at border president trump says he will impose tariffs on ail comortdz goods from mexico what it means for u.s. economy and future of the usmca tried agreement next. >> we are going to do something very dramatic on the border. because people are coming into our country, the democrats will not give us laws they will not change laws. ndo isn't just the theme park capital of the world, it also has the highest growth in manufacturing jobs in the us. it's a competition for the talent. employees need more than just a paycheck. you definitely want to take advantage of all the benefits you can get. 2/3 of employees said that the workplace is an important source for personal savings and protection solutions.
6:28 pm
the workplace should be a source of financial security. keeping your people happy is what keeps your people. that's financial wellness. put your employees on a path to financial wellness with prudential. but super poligrip gives him a tight seal. snacking can mean that pieces get stuck under mike's denture. to help block out food particles. so he can enjoy the game. super poligrip.
6:29 pm
6:30 pm
6:31 pm
administrate would from mexico beginning june 10, and would gradually cleef that tariff until flow of undocumented immigrants across border is stopped saying in statement quote mexico cannot allow hundreds of thousand dollars to pore over land into our country, violating sovereign territory of the united states, if mexico does not take decisive measures will come at significant price we are back with alee shah, kate, and kyle. so kate this is a new tactic
6:32 pm
by president usually issuing tariff in response to trade problems this is immigration part time what do you make of it? >> well paul i think really lace to rest theory that tariffs about goernting better trades deals if going to use tariffs to follow that immigration problem. the president is invoking a law here emergency powers law that he does have broad power that congress ceded over time since 30s but not unlimited fight a new frontierer what we've seen in trade wars. >> i guess fundamental question is -- is mexico to blame? for the problem at the border on a. >> even president acknowledges mexico isn't to blame congress needs to fix this by laws mexico has been cooperating helping with the trump administration, by keeping asylum climbants, that they
6:33 pm
can work staibd in mexico what incentive for mexico to cooperate if the president is going to slap tariffs and punish them. >>is incentive would be if you don't, do whatever he wants, we are going to there are 370 -- 371 billion dollars i think what mexico sold to united states, last year. you put 25% tariff on that, that is -- >> u.s. companies -- right. >> u.s. consumers. >> right. >> also doing damage to u.s. economy as well as mexico's economy, this is i suicide in my opinion. >> other thing if you are mexico you just signed a u.s. -- usmca agreement to redo nafta, you just negotiated steel and aluminum tariffs after much hard negotiations suddenly slapped with this unilateral basis for something, that you -- that you are not causing those central americans to come to the united states. >> you have to any domestic
6:34 pm
political forces mexico president has a public thing has to answer to doesn't want to be shown backing down or weak, i mean with luck can come to agreement tariffs never take effect but to put economic damage in perspective, so tax itself tariff would be 15 billion dollars to start with, if tariff rat chested up to 25%, 58 billion dollars on everything from avocados to pickup trucks, and according to one analysis about two-thirds of the imports from mexico are intermediary goods parts, so if you are working at auto shop or you know, a -- air-conditioning manufacturing facility hae indiaa bringing stuff from mexico assembling so going to hurt jobs those companies may not even it may not stem illegal immigration the mexico economy accurate first quarter 37% economy is imports, exports excuse me a lot to u.s. if tariffs threw
6:35 pm
mexico into recessions what would that do to illegal immigration. >> i wouldn't help i think the u.s. economy also could be affected by this never mind the -- the tariff impact kate but fact that you have uncertainty business investment, and those decisions. >> that is the biggest risk paul uncertainty we don't know exactly when all this will end. but i have some hope because of the response you have seen from congress you had chuck grassley say right away this goes directly against what congress allows, and some there is suggestion that perhaps congress will fight it there are efforts have been ten asi-- tepid, so far not passing bills by corker or portman like i said a new stage, the hope that is congress can push back. >> you i mean they may pass something would try to restrain president even if ultimately he can veto it hard to get two-thirds to override i guess that is what trump is
6:36 pm
banking on? >> that is what he is banking on, i think democrats have decided if we refuse to deal with president for long enough he will start to do things that are self-destructive, i think that is -- is being vindicated i don't know democrats have a lot of incentive to go along with stopping this trade damage. >> my view you can blame mexico basically distracts from the legitimate point president has congress has to change asylum laws giving intensive for people to come over the border a caseloadser look at trump administration ban huawei, make our network safer? how big a role in growing trade tens between united states and china. >> i could imagine huawei being possibly included in some form of or some part of a trade deal. run with us.
6:37 pm
in the unstoppable john deere gator™ xuv835. and be prepared to go the extra mile. because when others take rain checks... ...we take the wheel. with 3-wide seating, heat & a/c. this is the coolest, most comfortable gator™ yet. nothing runs like a deere™. run with us. ♪ test drive a gator™ xuv835 at your john deere dealer today.
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
instrument of the chinese government they are deeply connected are companies cooperate with united states government that is they economy with our laws? but no president directs an american private company that is very different in china. >> if that is the case, that the chinese communist party wanted to get information, from technology, that was in the possession of huawei almost certainly the case huawei would provide that to them. >> that was secretary of state mike pompeo this week with fox's maria bartiromo outlining u.s. concerns were with chinese tech giant huawei interest of administration effectively banned american companies from doing business with huawei earlier this month, when the commerce department placed huawei on a list of foreign firms deemed a threat to national security, the administration, is also pressuring allies to remove huawei telecom equipment from their 5g networks beijing threatened friday to retaliate
6:41 pm
with its blacklist of foreign companies we are back with "the wall street journal" business world columnist. so you have been critical of the trump administration policy on huawei. why? >> it really began with obama administration, policy keeping huawei out of u.s. telecom networks i understand their concern i have the same concerns but we're not succeeding in protecting networks we should have let huawei come in forced to it compete even terms with companies are on the world networks from components around the wold only way to keep networks secure monitor very closely have lots of i different people's equipment so if something wrong with somebody's commitment you can channel traffic over someone else's part of the network. >> about what pompeo secretary of state if chinese government decided to call on huawei said need to monitor so and so you are in network they would do so -- >> that is a danger. >> would they do so would
6:42 pm
chinese go of the do that i think now they would if you for his huawei out of the western markets, and no longer has a stake in getting along making billions and billions of dollars in the u.s. and europe and japan less reason not to lend he says to that kind of activity. >> what if so they get a couple of things first we ban huawei from participating u.s. networks now the administration i also banning u.s. companies from supplying huawei with crucial components, for example, qualcomm sells 10 billion dollars mod emphasized to huawei. that could really hurt that company this is an escalation and now we have china escalating in kind. you are saying that is a mistake. >> i don't know if a mistake being where do we end up if a trade negotiations huawei is a great hostage to take maybe a big deal the end of the road i don't think this is where we are going now i think we are in a new cold war with china where protecting our tech advantage trying to sabotage
6:43 pm
theirs vice versa big part like with soviet union i think this is a lose lose for both sides knew don't see this ending in a negotiations, that gets a deal? right now? >> there would be very unlikely the one thing only person can deliver that is trump he is -- >> xi as well. >> exactly but our side there is a lot of institutional interests in guth huawei what these policies would do, trump is the one person can stop all this if he wands if he saw a deal. >> how much damage would a real out-and-out cold war tech cold war with china do? >> you know -- our economy -- both economies are very big about domestically it would we huge advantage top europeans get their act together japanese south koreans all business would go to them fu.s and china were at loggerheads not sharing tangibling giant boone for industrialized
6:44 pm
countries. >> i guess, you know there are those -- michael pillsbury others you probably read his book on china basically argue that we are in fact in a cold war with china, we just haven't realized it, china has been in it for a long time stealing our technology, they are stealing our trade secrets. what we need is to actually fight back and this is the first president who is actually trying to do so -- >> there is a lot of troo you go to to go that there are lots of things we cognitive done all along the fact is what trump is trying to do is decouple two economies if that is what he is trying to dos rises china sflef to biography interhe against the powerful china had legitimately pen retreats when edward snowden stuff came out we are penetrating getting into huawei servers if we have a big economic surveyor dependency it limits what we're willing to do. >> if you cut off china from american markets products
6:45 pm
american technology any interdependency the incentives inside china will be greater to basically, create their own fortress china or to work with europe and other countries, o he -- >> the best outcome worst is that china's economy unravels they have serious snainlt brings worse people to power. >> would hurt our economy as well. >> destiny the world -- >> thechy haven't had a recession since you do cho ping instituted reform. >> not 10% growths growth is recession so many poor people coming intour about an economy need work for those people. >> sounds like you are saying that financial markets, should -- have batten down hatches it could be rough ride next year or two. >> dow down 1,000 points in month of may just because this have i think a market is sanguine about how bad this could go. >> they discounted a deal i
6:46 pm
think anticipated a deal everything i am hearing on both sides now, i have to say means suggests won't be many, many months if there is a deal at all. >> short seller once told me secret to trade was realizing people don't recognize how bad things really can get i think that is where we are on this. >> all right. thank you very much still ahead the supreme court side staepz major ruling on abortion, one of the most closely watched cases of the term what tuesday's decision says about the roberts court and willingness to revisit roe v. wade. we built it to help them go beyond. because beyond risk... welcome to the neighborhood, guys. thank you. there is reward. beyond the classroom... there is inspiration. ♪ ♪ beyond work and life... who else could he be? that's what i say. there is the moment. (laughing) beyond despair... there is hope.
6:47 pm
♪ ♪ stay safe. i love you mom. i love you too, sweetheart. ♪ ♪ beyond treatment... ♪ ♪ there is care. say hi to grandma and grandpa. ♪ ♪ beyond technology... there is human ingenuity. every day, comcast business is helping businesses big and small go beyond the expected, to do the extraordinary. take your business beyond.
6:48 pm
6:49 pm
paul: the supreme court side staepd major abortion ruling this week reaching parent xhom in one of the closely watched cases of the term court handed down a split decision on 2016
6:50 pm
indiana law as i understand by mike pence requiring abortion providers to -- justices condemn in place the ban on abortion based race sex disability would have given supreme court first chance to consider, the constitutionality of a state law ricks abortion since kavanaugh placed kennedy on the bench we are back bill mcgunner alicia finley kyle peterson what do you make of the split decision on abortion. >> first of all, they are no hurry to take up this issue. so on the first issue, they basically without even hearing oral without considering oral arguments overturned the decision that said they misapplied, considered undue burden standard under casey
6:51 pm
versus planned parenthood manufacturer weren't arguing that second part. >> this is the big part gender -- >> right, they said we're not going to hear this no reason this is considered by one circuit we usually don't consider cases in less than circuit doesn't allow to perchlorate in appellate court. >> justice clarence thomas 20 page opinion saying with long history of saying the states have interest in this kind of a law this one they wouldn't hear because of the history of eugenics, sooner rather than later the court has to hear this. >> i think he is right brought up, he went to the whole history quite compelling different eugenic movement. >> played into abortion. >> how -- said in many ways also noted justice ginsburg once in defending roe said part of the reason was there
6:52 pm
was concern about population growth in particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. >> that wasn't necessarily her view she was quoting. >> i don't think quoting just saying this is the concern. right? >> but justice ginsburg didn't like that she came back, at thomas in this decision. >> and the question is is it coming back. the disappointing thing about this those of us that are skeptical of roe, this was thought the law that you could uphold without entirely overthrowing roe this was thought the incremeantalist path justice roberts maybe kavanaugh would favor the other one heartbeat measures alabama go more directly at roe alabama would basically rule out all abortions. >> right. >> what do you make of justice ginsburg's reply to clarence
6:53 pm
thomas issuing another warning roe v. wade would be in jeopardy. >> one most interesting thing about it language shows how on the court the left and the right, are just as polarized as americans are throughout his concurrent upon justice thomas talks about mother and child, and just ginsburg explicitly pushes walk says a woman who terminates a pregnancy is not a mother some stark language is most interesting, but i think this will be back, indiana case is essentially that this is an issue not contemplated by roe v. wade, not weather to have a child but whichchild to have so if a mother gets prenatal testing shows, she is pregnant with a girl and wanted aboy or that fetus may have gen blindness something like that does intent matter does that allow her to terminate the pregnancy? just thomas' suggestion needs
6:54 pm
to perchlorate more can be read if another state other than indiana does not have a law like this they may revisit to create much laws to bring it back to the supreme court. >> do you read significance aaleeious didn't have have allies alito, gorsuch with him. >> the only justice on record, for saying roe v. wade should be overturned has done many in defense, this term and encouraging trick to be outspoken we should cake cases i wouldn't read mutual into it other than justice roberts just roberts is trying to form a consensus on the court, bringing justice kagan, briar gorsuch other conservatives on a variety of issues not -- to worry about polarizing the country. >> there isporization on
6:55 pm
abortion for sure if on roe, 54-right. >> i don't think there is a decision any time next few years. >> because don't want to take the case. >> all right. we have to take one more break when we come back hits and misses of the week. let me ask you something. can the past help you write the future? can you feel calm in the eye of a storm? can you do more with less? can you raise the bar while reducing your footprint? for our 100 years we've been answering the questions of today to meet the energy needs of tomorrow.
6:56 pm
southern company take prilosec otc and take control of heartburn. so you don't have to stash antacids here... here... or, here. kick your antacid habit with prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn.
6:57 pm
i want to be an animal doctor.p, but, i can't do it alone. for 100 years, save the children has helped millions grow up healthy and safe, with the early education they deserve. changing a life lasts a lifetime.
6:58 pm
save the children. . >> time for hits and misses of the week kate start us off. >> paul my hit is democratic governor who detailed a bill that would have allowed nevada to join national vote project basically aims to nullify the electoral college, now the for tolerable college forces presidential candidates to campaign in vegas, reno it would have surrendered he nevada's roll choosing next president to go to particular vote so i am glad some democrats are starting to revise, that the electoral claiming is great for choosing a president, hopefully more
6:59 pm
do. >> allysia. >> to u.n. has written a report claiming that digital personal assistants like siri alexa are basically -- tools of the patriarchy enforcing gender normandy for instance if you some guys -- you are hot -- they will say oh i would he if i could i thought trying he to be helpful. >> voice sounds female he rooivenz dismissive trying to be helpful. >> national weather service tornados across united states lots of destruction but relatively few fatalities, that is large part due to better forecasting better warnings a chart on line of tornado cells fatalities per million americans for past hundred years a steady decline everybody lovers to complain
7:00 pm
when weather on they deserve a lot of media that is it for this week thanks to panel and thanks to all of you for watching i am paul gigot hope to see you right here next week. >> good evening everybody special counsel robert mueller today breaking his silence and doing so in a somewhat bizarre fashion. he said his special counsel reports spoke for itself. but then he spoke for almost ten minutes. during which he claimed that his role as special counsel was never to prove that the president committed a crime of collusion or obstruction. and then he claimed he could never have charged him that he found such evidence which, by the way, he didn't. >> but under long standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on