Return to Transcripts main page


Supreme Court Sides with Baker in Same-Sex Marriage Case; Apple Close to Becoming First Trillion-Dollar Company; Apple CEO Addresses Cell Phone Addiction; When TV Interviews Go Wrong, White House Downplays Expectations For Trump-Kim Summit; Giuliani Says His Comments Were For Hypothetical Situation; Trump Uninvites Super Bowl Winners From White House; Hawaii's Kilauea Volcano Has Destroyed at Least 117 Homes; Fuego Volcano Spews Deadly Clouds of Rocks, Gas and Ash; Saudi Arabia Issues First Driving Licenses to Women. Aired 1-2a ET

Aired June 5, 2018 - 01:00   ET


[01:00] JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to CNN Newsroom, live from Los Angeles.


Ahead this hour, expectations for the Trump-Kim summit dropping like a rock. So, how did we get from a very special moment for world peace to maybe it's just a meet and greet.

Plus, in Guatemala, they had no time to escape, dozens are killed after a volcano sends flows of lava and ash.

And, a decision in the legal battle in the U.S. over gay rights and legal freedoms ended on a baker who refused to make a wedding for a same sex couple.


Hello, thank you for joining us everybody. I'm John Vause and this is Newsroom L.A.

It was barely a month ago when the U.S. President Donald Trump was proclaiming that he and North Korea's Kim Jong-un would try to make their upcoming summit a special moment for world peace.

Now, the White House seems to be trying to tamp down expectations. Even the president is saying the June 12th talks are going to be more of a get to know you situation.

Here's CNN's Jim Sciutto.


JIM SCIUTTO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: From the moment the president first suggested a summit with the North Korean leader, his goal had been ambitious and clear.


DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: If the meeting, when I'm there, is not fruitful, I will respectfully leave the meeting.


SCIUTTO: This last week as he met in New York with his North Korea counterpart, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, reiterated the president's intentions.


MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The complete verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.


SCIUTTO: No longer. Now the goal of the June 12th meeting in Singapore, just a meet and greet between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, this according to a source familiar with the discussions.

President Trump said the same publically on Friday.


TRUMP: It's really a get to know you kind of a situation.


SCIUTTO: The plan, a source tells CNN, is to come to a broad agreement on North Korea dismantling its nuclear weapons program. Then negotiations would be handed over to Secretary Pompeo for discussions that could take years.

This, even as the U.S. still has received no assurances that North Korea will give up its nuclear weapons.


MIKE POMPEO, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I believe they are contemplating a path for where they can make a strategic shift, one that their country has not been prepared to make before. This will obviously be their decision.


SCIUTTO: With a downgraded agenda, there is concern growing in Congress that this summit is just for show.


ED MARKEY, U.S. SENATE DEMOCRAT: We're not going to extract concessions by made-for-TV diplomacy by the photo op that Kim wants, and I think that Trump wants as well.


SCIUTTO: Often before summits like this, there is a managing of expectations. In this case, really a massive downgrading of expectations, and not the outside world's, but the president's own expectations for this summit described as recently as last week.


SCIUTTO: Going from a summit where the goal is to have a major agreement, or getting close to a major agreement, to as the president said himself, "a meet and greet" to build the relationship.

Jim Sciutto, CNN Washington.

VAUSE: CNN's International Diplomatic Editor, Nic Robertson, joins us now live from Seoul in South Korea.

And, Nic, this is a summit light on details from everything to where the two leaders will actually meet when they get to Singapore, to you know the big stuff, like who will cover the costs of dismantling North Korea's nuclear program, which one study has put at $20 billion.

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It seems they're going to have a lot of time to save up that $20 billion, doesn't it John? Because at the moment, as you said, the tangible detail just doesn't exist.


It's all aspirational and at the moment, you know President Trump really does see himself, it appears, coming here really just to show Kim that he's willing and this is the man who he'll be doing business with, but let's not worry about the details, let's leave that to other people.

The timeframe here, even you know from what the state department is saying the (inaudible) of the president's first term of office at least. So, their creating an expectation here that this won't even be an issue come the next presidential elections. It really is long-term stuff, without articulating really even what they get to at the end of that, John.


VAUSE: And, the White House continues to insist, on Monday, that the maximum pressure campaign on North Korea through very tough international sanctions would continue. Even though the president said last week he wanted to avoid that kind of language, because everyone was getting on now.

But after the summit, how realistic is it to expect countries like China to stay on board?

ROBERTSON: Sure. Look, President Trump has shown his hand here. He was very bellicose, very loud, calling Kim Jong-un "little rocket man", "mad man", things like that last year. That had everyone worried to the point that they were prepared,

because they though President Trump might do something like start a war and it was worth increasing sanctions.

[01:05] It convinced the Chinese leadership, it convinced many other people and Kim Jong-un among them. It worked, it got those tougher sanctions, it's gotten Kim to the table.

But now, President Trump has really shown that he just want to kind of go this alone with Kim Jong-un, a photo op really at the beginning, not clear what comes after that.

This has given China, Russia and others an opportunity to realize, okay, now we wait for our own best interests. We recognize that President Trump isn't - - the bluster is kind of empty, really, as far as they can see so far. So, let's follow our own national security interests and let's begin to sort of see what deals are out there.

So, for China, what would be the rationale for them to sign up back to tough sanctions? Now they know it might not be in their interests, because President Trump is looking for a deal in him own interest. Plus, there's a trade war, potentially looming, between the United States and China; the good will's gone, the cards are played.

So, President Trump may find it very hard to - - to - - to recalibrate and bring back a maximum pressure type situation.

VAUSE: It could end up being quite an expensive handshake between these two men at the end of the day, but I guess we'll see.

Nic, thank you.

Nic Robertson, live for us there in Seoul.

For more on this now, we're joined by our political commentator's Democratic strategist, Dave Jacobson, and Republican consultant, John Thomas.

So, as we get closer to the summit, the White House continues to sort of walk back expectations bigly.


According to CNN's reporting, "Trump and his aides have suggested the most concrete product of the June 12th encounter could be a peace agreement formally ending the Korean War" - - which would not be a bad thing, "a far cry from the commitment to immediate denuclearization that the administration once insisted would be required for Trump to come to the table".


VAUSE: So, John, is it possible that maybe the president just overhyped what was possible, what could be achieved at this summit and maybe he didn't understand the complexity of nuclear negotiation? JOHN THOMAS, REPUBLICAN CONSULTANT: I'm sure he didn't fully understand the complexity, but I wouldn't - - I think just saying that this is a photo op and a hand shake thing, I - - I - - I think that's underplaying what's going to come out of it.

I think we may see some serious progress here, but the other side of the coin is the president shouldn't say that we have to make a deal or else, because that's giving up a key point of leverage here.

So, to say that he might just shake hands and walk away, I think is a part of a broader positioning game against North Korea, not just politically positioning for U.S. politics.

VAUSE: But, Dave, we talk about leverage and positioning and all that kind of stuff, there seems to be a stunning lack of up-front commitments coming from Pyongyang ahead of this summit. And, you know the language continues to soften on the U.S. side.

DAVE JACOBSON, CNN POLITICAL CONSULTANT: Yes, because if Kim Jong-un is going to get a meeting with the president of the free world, essentially, that elevates him. That's a massive score for his country, right?

In a way that we haven't seen in modern times and if Donald Trump fails to deliver anything meaningful beyond a hand shake, or perhaps just some dialog, but nothing tangible in terms of a deal for denuclearization, I think Donald Trump is going to look like a failure, because it is an expectations game.

Donald Trump is the one who didn't want the meeting, that wanted the meeting, that didn't want the meeting, now we're having the meeting again, like, something's got to get done and if he doesn't, it's going to be a big failure.

VAUSE: Although, John, I'm just wondering if that photo op will be enough? People will see the photograph shaking hands with Kim Jong-un and you know, in a busy world, if you don't have a lot of time for details, they'll just think, "Hey, he did it".

THOMAS: Perhaps public opinion that day, but it doesn't do anything to make us more safe, and I think South Korea's not going to be pleased with just a hand shake. So, he has to start to get something done. I don't know that he has to get something massively, or bigly, done that day, but there has to be something in motion.


I also think what we're seeing differently with the Trump administration, we're seeing diplomacy play out on Twitter. I mean, this is something that . . .


But, usually the making of the sausage is something we're not privy to, so the back and forth - - when deals are being made, although there's a high stakes deal, deals die a thousand deaths often times before they get made, we just don't see them die all those deaths. This time we're actually living it.

VAUSE: Is that a good thing, Dave?

JACOBSON: I don't think so. I mean look at the juxtaposition, right? You've got Donald Trump engaging with the North Koreans over Twitter, and then alienating our allies in Canada and Mexico, or the E.U. with the supposed trade war. I mean, it's unprecedented in conversation.


VAUSE: Okay. Well, the new normal, Trump's former campaign chairman could be heading to jail. Prosecutors are trying to revoke his house arrest, accusing him of witness tampering.


Saying Paul Manafort repeatedly contacted two people who worked and previously assisted in his lobbying and public relations efforts for Ukrainian politicians. Manafort sought to secure materially false testimony concerning activities of an influential group of European leaders called the Hapsburg group, that Manafort once used to lobby on behalf of Ukraine.


VAUSE: As for the president, even before this news broke, he was throwing Manafort under the bus tweeting this, "Paul Manafort came into the campaign very late and was with us for a very short period of time, he represented Ronald Regan, Bob Dole and many others over the years, but we should have been told that Comey and the boys were doing a number on him, and he wouldn't have been hired".


VAUSE: John, so somehow this is the fault of the former FBI Director, James Comey? Does this president take responsibility for anything?

THOMAS: It's a difficult thing. I mean . . .

JACOBSON: Translation - - no.


THOMAS: No, no, no it's a difficult road, because I think the president, if he had been told by the FBI, I don't think he would have hired Manafort.

He hired Manafort because he thought he wasn't going to win the convention, he needed somebody who knew how to whip votes, and Roger Stone told him hey, Manafort's done this before and he brought him right in. But, just to say it's the FBI's fault, I mean that doesn't make sense.

Btu, remember all of these things that Paul is getting nailed for - - it's not about his role in the campaign and Russian collusion, yet. But, I'm just saying all of these news tightening tactics are bad actions that Paul's taken in his private business life, not campaign maneuvers.

VAUSE: And what this all means for the possibility of Manafort getting a pardon remains unclear, but the president has no doubts about himself.


Tweeting this, "As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to pardon" - - in all caps, "myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats" - - they're actually Republicans, "and others continues into the mid- terms".


VAUSE: And, Dave, the president also described the appointment of the special counsel as unconstitutional, which seems to suggest he doesn't really understand what's in the Constitution.

JACOBSON: Right, and like the special counsel, is a Republican.


But, look, if Donald Trump was innocent, if Donald Trump did nothing wrong, or his campaign did nothing wrong, then why would he say that the president can't obstruct justice? Why would he say that he can pardon himself? Why would his lawyers say that they're not going to have him testify before Bob Mueller?

Clearly, there's something there. They're clearly hiding something. The question is what? And whether or not Bob Mueller's going to find that evidence and use it against the president? Right? But, why is going there, if he hasn't anything to hide?

VAUSE: It does look a little odd. John?

THOMAS: Well, I think the president and his attorneys are just trying to protect him from a perjury trap. I think the president knows that there was no Russian collusion, he said it a thousand times. There has yet to be any evidence produced to date, other than processed crimes related to some of these Papadopoulos' and others, showing Russian collusion.

But, when you get - - it's like Chuck Schumer said if the FBI wants to get you, they have six different ways to Sunday to get you.

VAUSE: Well, this first claim was made by Trump's lead attorney, Rudy Giuliani, that basically Trump could pardon himself and that brought out two very different responses from two Republican Senators. First, here's Chuck Grassley.


CHUCK GRASSLEY, REPUBLICAN SENATOR: If I were the President of the United States and I had a lawyer that told me I could pardon myself, I think I'd hire a new lawyer.


VAUSE: And, now what was truly a priceless moment from Ted Cruz.


REPORTER: Senator, the president says he can pardon himself. Would you agree with that?

(PAUSE) TED CRUZ, REPUBLICAN SENATOR: That is not a Constitutional issue I've studied, so I will withhold judgment at this point.


VAUSE: John, it took him 18 seconds to come up with that dodge and that's the best he could come up with? Seriously, he has no opinion on this? He's a lawyer. I mean, this is his thing.


THOMAS: I think we need to look back at when Giuliani made those statements on what 'Meet the Press'? He looks off to the side and laughs like well I suppose he could pardon himself, but he never would because the public opinion would immediately impeach him. So, we're running off on this idea of whether or not he has the power . . .


But even Giuliani was like, if the guy ever thought about doing that, he'd be immediately impeached.

VAUSE: Dave, what is incredibly you know astounding about Cruz, and his willingness to carry water for this president, is that during the campaign Trump essentially called his wife ugly and said his father played a role in the assassination of JFK. I mean, the list goes on and yet Ted Cruz continues to sort of lay down for Donald Trump.

JACOBSON: I think it's largely a function that Senator Cruz is up for reelection and he is trying to you know avoid alienating the Trump slice of the electorate, and prevent them from staying home in the upcoming general elections.


But, he wants to be a Senator. He wants to have - - he probably has future presidential ambitions and so he needs to be reelected in order to like put himself on that trajectory, right? And so, I think the challenge is will those Trump voters stay home, if he goes after the president.

[01:15] But look, it's not just Ted Cruz, you've got like Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, today, came out and said they would have catastrophic implications. Chris Christie, the former Republican Governor, who also campaigned against Donald Trump, said that it was outrageous to even think about whether or not President Trump can pardon himself.

So, there are some Republicans splitting from him, but I agree at the end of the day, like we need those Ted Cruz's of the world to stand up to the president.

VAUSE: Giuliani did actually try to walk back that original statement a few hours ago, while appearing on CNN with Chris Cuomo. This is what he said.


GIULIANI: I said very theoretically the answer is the president can't be prosecuted for anything. There's a Constitutional remedy for that, and of course that would be entirely ridiculous.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: Right, but you could have made the point . . .

GIULIANI: It was a hypothetical that you would entertain in a law school and that's what I tried to say.


VAUSE: The only problem is it's not a hypothetical situation because the president is facing legal jeopardy here, and it's a very real possibility that he is actually possibly thinking about pardoning himself. And, what many have said, and it's not a slam dunk that he can do it, because there is an opinion out there that the president is not above the law.


VAUSE: Is the president above the law? In this country, can he do whatever he wants?

THOMAS: No, he can't, but at the same time in the course of doing his job, he can essentially do what he wants. If he wants to fire people, he can fire people and his justification that he wants to fire them is pretty much all it takes. But, he is held accountable, or can be held accountable, by the Congress.

Giuliani's problem is he is straddling this weird world where he's a spokesperson, but he's an attorney and he wants to answer as an attorney sometimes, but a disciplined messenger at others. And, it's just weird moment - - he keeps stepping in it . . .

VAUSE: He keeps stepping on rakes.

THOMAS: Right. They're self-inflicted.

VAUSE: Totally.

Okay. Let's finish up here with the president starting a very public feud with the Super Bowl winners, the Philadelphia Eagles. He cancelled their trip to the White House, this is traditional for the winners to go there. It was cancelled because a few players decided not to go and they let

that be known long before the invitations went out, but here is the latest Trump Tweet.


"The Philadelphia Eagles football team was invited to the White House. Unfortunately, only a small number of players decided to come, and we canceled the event. Staying in the locker room for the playing of our National Anthem is as disrespectful to our country as kneeling. Sorry."

VAUSE: Here's a statement in response to the you know the invitation being rescinded from the mayor of Philadelphia, "Disinviting them from the White House only proves that our president is not a true patriot, but a fragile egomaniac obsessed with crowd size and afraid of the embarrassment of throwing a party to which no one wants to attend".


Dave, this is a fight the president clearly wants to have because it appeals to his base, but why does he get to decide the definition of patriotism?

JACOBSON: He doesn't. I mean, this is by the way, another example of Donald Trump like changing the conversation away. Like, he should be talking about his 500 days and if I'm a Republican, my tax cuts and all these great things that I've done as Donald Trump.

He's trying to change the conversation away from that, which I just don't get. What I found fascinating, though, was the mayor of Philadelphia, his chief of staff put out this Tweet today basically showing this juxtaposition of you know, Donald Trump's inauguration photo, versus, after the Eagles won the Super Bowl - - we've got more fans than you do, which I thought was fun.

VAUSE: So, John, clearly you know this is a fight the president could have avoided. But, he jumped in boots and all. He loves this stuff and he sees it in his interest, but maybe not in the country's interest?

THOMAS: Well, politically he won the last fight. He's going to win this again. He understands this is an opportunity to do an "us versus them" saying the American flag is bigger than the NFL, and it is, and it has been and it is a wedge.

And so, look, I think it's actually smart politics of the president and he's being consistent on this message, and anytime he has an opportunity to double down on it, he will and he'll win again.

VAUSE: Smart politics, Dave, but is it good for the country?

JACOBSON: No, it's further dividing the country. I mean, this president, ever since the inception of his campaign has divided the country. So, he's doing the complete opposite of that and I think that's the

challenge is you've got these NFL players that are saying, you know, we've got a racist and a bigot in the White House, and I'm not going to step foot in it as long as Donald Trump's the president.

VAUSE: Which is their right?

JACOBSON: Yes, they're expressing their First Amendment right, absolutely. But, I think the challenge is the president's supposed to be the bigger person, right? The president is supposed to invite these national champions to come in, whether they agree with him politically or not, and be the bigger person and Donald Trump isn't capable of doing that.

VAUSE: It's also the people's house, it's not a Trump property, just FYI.

THOMAS: But, it's not about bowing down to Trump, it's about standing for the American flag. It's a whole different thing.

VAUSE: You have the last word.

[01:20] THOMAS: But this, as you say, Trump's been dividing, he's actually been standing up to unite us saying we can disagree politically, but in this moment for the National Anthem, we should be proud to be an American, put that first.

JACOBSON: I don't remember Donald Trump ever saying that.


VAUSE: Thanks, Dave. Thanks, John.

Okay. Well, still to come, many in Guatemala say their relatives have been buried alive when a volcano erupted suddenly.


Engulfing villages in lava and thick clouds of ash, and throwing rocks. More on that in a moment.

Also ahead, Apple shows off its newest bells and whistles as the company value inches closer to a major trillion dollar milestone.



VAUSE: The Kilauea volcano is not letting up on Hawaii, the lava has now destroyed at least 117 homes in the past month alone.


And, it's covering more than 2,000 acres of land. There were about 500 tremors in the summit area over the weekend and a river of lava has entered the ocean at another base, sending a dangerous mix of acid and volcanic glass particles into the air.


VAUSE: When Guatemala's Fuego volcano roared back to life without notice on Sunday, it spewed rivers of lava.


And, these huge clouds of debris, burning rocks and volcanic ash, and hot gas. The deluge buried entire families, killing at least 69 people, but that death toll is believed that it will rise.

CNN's Patrick Oppmann has more now.


PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Guatemala's volcano of fire is living up to its name, after a deadly explosion that killed dozens of people, many more are wounded or are missing. It all began on Sunday when really out of nowhere, this active volcano that has not exploded for months - - has not caused any fatalities in quite some time, suddenly came alive.

Rivers of lava came pouring down the volcano, people did not have time to flee the lava or the flying rocks that many of the village were on fire and damaged homes, whole towns were wiped out. Even now, rescuers are having a hard time reaching many of these small towns/

People said that the people who came down the mountains were covered in ash, many of them were dazed, so they barely escaped with their lives and were worried about where their relatives are.

Guatemala's main airport was closed for several hours, has reopened, although some flights are cancelled. Ash has been seen as far away as Guatemala City and in El Salvador. Really, much of this region is still responding to this deadly, deadly tragedy, many more are feared dead.

[01:25] Guatemala is now in a state of mourning - - three days of mourning, and officials are concerned that more eruptions could be on the way.

Patrick Oppmann, CNN Havana.


VAUSE: Meteorologist Ivan Cabrera joins us now with more on the ongoing threats from the volcano and how the weather could play a role in all of this.


IVAN CABRERA, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Yes, we'll be talking about some rain over the next couple of days and that's I think going to add additional problems here to what is already a calamity, the likes of which they haven't seen in this area, and from this particular volcano, in 40 years. Yes, it had an eruption earlier this year, but obviously nothing like what we had on this Sunday.

So, here's what's happening. We have a seasonal rainy pattern, right? Typical for this time of year in Guatemala to get very heavy rain, tropical downpours, especially through the afternoon hours. That is problematic because when rain mixes with ash, that's when we start getting in lahars - - and I'll talk about that in a second.

But, another thing that officials have been warning about as well, because of all the ash that is in the area, contamination of water supplies could be an issue over the next several days.

This is Mt. Saint Helen's, not our volcano there in Guatemala, but I'm showing you this picture because I think it really gives you a good idea of what we're talking about here, and that's just a word for mudflow, a violent one, in fact, it only occurs when you mix in water.

So, talk about tropical downpours mixing in with that volcanic ash, you could set up a violent mudflow that can essentially go through riverbeds, can be as deep as meters and also moving rather fast at around 20 to 40 kilometers per hour.

We've seen some of those mudflows, some of those lahars destroy entire communities here. So, we're going to have to watch this very closely over the next few days. Why?

Because of this. We have heavy rain that's going to be on the way, not just tomorrow or the next day, John, but this is going to be an ongoing threat, I think, really right through the upcoming days, each and every day, very heavy rain on the way for the area.

VAUSE: Okay. That brings the problem with mudslides and a whole bunch of other stuff.

Ivan, thank you.

Well, for the first time Saudi Arabia has issued drivers licenses to women.


Three weeks before a ban on female drivers is expected to end. Call it baby steps, perhaps - - 10, that's 10 women were given a license on Monday, but another 2,000 will receive theirs next week.

It's all part of a plan by the Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to reshape the economy, which includes more women in the workforce. But, the U.N. is condemning the recent arrests of at least 11 women and rights activists, some of whom remain behind bars accused of undermining the Kingdom's security.


VAUSE: Still to come here. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in the case of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple.


But, the broader debate about religious freedom is far from over.



[01:30:18] VAUSE,: Welcome back everybody.

You're watching CNN NEWSROOM live from Los Angeles. I'm John Vause with the headlines this hour.

A source tells CNN the Kim (ph) and Trump (ph) summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will be more of a meet and greet and that the goal is a broad agreement on nuclear disarmament the details of which could still take years to negotiate.

At least 69 people were killed after Guatemala's Fuego Volcano erupted Sunday with sudden speed and ferocity. It spewed rivers of lava and these huge clouds of burning rocks and volcanic ash as well as hot gas. The death toll is expected to rise as a number of families are missing.

Anti-austerity protests in Jordan have led to the resignation of Prime Minister Hani al-Mulki. But demonstrators plan to keep up the pressure until a proposed income tax reform is scrapped. The International Monetary Fund supported the law (ph) aimed at cutting Jordan's massive public debt. King Abdullah has tapped a former World Bank economist to form a new government.

The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. Jack Phillips said it was against his religious beliefs. And the couple accused him of violating anti- discrimination laws.

But in a very specific ruling the Court said the state of Colorado showed hostility towards Phillips based on his beliefs. The Court did not settle the larger constitutional question of religious liberty versus discrimination.

Well criminal defense attorney Brian Claypool joins me now for more on this. It's good to see you -- Brian. Thanks for coming in.


VAUSE: It was interesting. This case was litigated over grounds of freedom of speech but at the end of the day the opinion written by Justice Kennedy seemed to sort of address the problem of bias -- remember the case was initially heard by Colorado's Civil Rights Commission.

Kennedy wrote that one commissioner had crossed the line when he said freedom of religion has been used just like all kinds of discrimination throughout history whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and mutual enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.

But overall it seems, the Court made it fairly clear that the states are allowed to force businesses, whatever that business is, whether it's a cake shop or anything else, that they have to serve all customers -- gays, lesbians, everyone -- which I guess in the big picture here the cake shop owner he may have won the battle but he loses the war.

CLAYPPOOL: Yes John -- in my opinion the U.S. Supreme Court punted. This was a great opportunity for the Court to rule on the clash between faith and first amendment rights and discrimination.

And instead of reaching an opinion that addressed that issue they used, in my opinion, a collateral issue to rule on this. By collateral, what I mean is well, one of the Civil Rights Commission members made a comment about religion --

VAUSE: And religious beliefs --

CLAYPOOL: -- yes, religious beliefs being used as a propeller for discrimination. But that wasn't really the issue here. The issue to me was whether these, the bakers -- Jack Phillips, the baker -- whether he was losing his right, his belief in religion, and his first amendment right at the expense of discrimination?

VAUSE: Why do you think they punted?

CLAYPOOL: They didn't want to rule on this issue.


CLAYPOOL: It is a tough issue. Let's break it down for example. The first issue that I talk about is whether baking a cake is even protected by the First Amendment. We haven't even talked about that. You know, I would argue as a civil rights lawyer, too, that it is not.

The reason why is these bakers have a right to go out and protest. They could still argue against gay rights. And in fact, these bakers, they declined the gay couple before they even talked about the creative aspect of the cake. So in my opinion the cake is not even first amendment.

But even if it is, you then have to look at an issue of whether that somehow squares with the law. You mentioned it. There is a law, John -- there is a law in Colorado. It makes it categorically clear that you cannot discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. And clearly that's what I think happened here.

VAUSE: David Cole -- excuse me -- he represented the gay couple. He wrote an op-ed in the "Washington Post", and that's his opinion, that Colorado's Commission's ruling -- initial ruling was well within the law. He wrote "The commission's statement that one cannot invoke religion to harm others is actually black-letter constitutional law as is the notion that one cannot invoke religion to avoid complying with the general rule requiring businesses not to discriminate based on the Supreme Court itself did just that in the 1990 Employment Division versus Smith case."

So even if the commission was biased in some way or one commissioner held these beliefs and was sort of biased -- what does that matter if the decision is still within the law?

[01:35:00] CLAYPOOL: You're absolutely right. The Supreme Court using the bias of the commission is a complete cop-out.

The fact of the matter is this. In 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. So are you telling me that gays can legally marry but yet they can walk into a bakery now and they can be discriminated against?


CLAYPOOL: Those two principles are at odds. And that's why I think this Supreme Court did not want to address this issue square on.

VAUSE: Ok. Well, there was this bigger question about discrimination versus religious freedom. And the Court -- part of the opinion is this. "It is a general rule that religious and philosophical objections do not allow business owners to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a mutual and generally- applicable public accommodations law."

Ok. So having that there -- having said that now, if Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the couple who wanted the cake, if they turned up back at the master -- what is it -- Masterpiece Cake Shop, placed the same order. Is it true to say that the owner Jack Phillips he would not have a first amendment right to turn them away at this point? Or is that still yet to be settled?

CLAYPOOL: No. It hasn't been settled.


CLAYPOOL: Here's what I would do. This is what I would recommend. I recommend that a gay -- any gay couple walk into the same bakery tomorrow and they order a wedding cake, and have Jack Phillips deny the cake and then let's have a commission in Colorado not make these comments --


CLAYPOOL: -- about discrimination, religion being used as discrimination. Have them be on the up and up, issue their ruling and then that forces the U.S. Supreme Court then to really come to head with this issue.

VAUSE: Yes. And in fact, the governor of Colorado, Hickenlooper said that, you know, that's what they'll be looking at with this commission. There was some soaring language in this opinion piece by Kennedy when it comes to the recognition of gay rights.

How society comes to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the constitution can and in some instances must protect them and the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts."

You know, so you've got this opinion here which seems to be at odds with the ultimate decision siding with the owner of the cake shop. At the end of the day, given what he has written here, if there is another case that goes forward how much weigh does that sort of stuff carry.

CLAYPOOL: Well, it's not going to carry as much weight.

VAUSE: Right.

CLAYPOOL: Here is what's going to happen. This is going to come up again --


CLAYPOOL: -- in the very near future. And we're not going to have any excuse for the Supreme Court to avoid making a decision that's based on the real issues.

We don't have a ruling today -- John, based on the real issues because the first amendment does not give you a right to violate the law. And that's exactly what happened here. You can't come up with some religious idea that all of a sudden, it is against my religion --

VAUSE: To serve black people --

CLAYPOOL: -- what about white people? And of a sudden, all white people go into a bakery can't get a cake? That just is squarely at odds with the fundamentals in our society -- of civil rights, constitutional rights.

VAUSE: And as you say, it was a great chance to resolve this issue. And forever whatever that is -- I guess it will be settled one way or the other.

CLAYPOOL: We're going to see this again where the cake is going to clash with faith. That's going to happen again. We're going to see it soon.

VAUSE: You can't have your faith cake and eat your cake -- you know, I guess we'll find out.

CLAYPOOL: I think so.

VAUSE: Thanks -- Brian.

CLAYPOOL: All right. Thanks for having me -- John.

VAUSE: Pleasure.

Next here on NEWSROOM L.A., Apple's CEO talks cell phone addiction and what a trade war with China could mean for the cost of an iPhone. [01:38:39] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Welcome back everybody.

Apple is on the verge of becoming the first trillion-dollar company as executives showed off the newest software upgrades on Monday Apple stock rose again pushing it closer to that milestone. CEO Tim Cook sat down for an exclusive interview with CNN's Laurie Segall about Apple's future.


Well, a lot of excitement today. You have over 5,000 developers here for the developer conference. This is where we hear a lot about the latest features we'll see on our phone in the next coming months.

One feature in particular that was really interesting and almost unexpected was a tech addiction tool. It's aimed at helping us use our phones less and taking control back. It's called Screen Time.

I had the opportunity to sit down with Tim cook who cares a lot about tech and humanity and spoke to me specifically about this. Take a listen.


SEGALL: You guys announced a tech addiction tool that will almost help us limit our screen time. So what is the thinking behind that?

TIM COOK, CEO, APPLE: Well you know, we've never been focused on usage as a key parameter. We want people to be incredibly satisfied and empowered by our devices that we ship (ph). But we've never wanted people to spend a lot of time on them or all of their time on them.

And you know, it is a personal thing as to how much is too much. We thought a lot about this and we're rolling out great tools to both make people aware of how much time they're spending and the apps that they're spending them in but also how many times they pick up their point. How many notifications they get? Who is sending them the notifications?

SEGALL: So tell me about your own tech habits.

COOK: Yes. I've been using it and I have to tell you I thought I was fairly disciplined about this. And I was wrong. When I began to get the data, I found I was spending a lot more time than I should.

SEGALL: Like where?

COOK: Well, I don't want to give you all the apps but just too much. And the number of times I picked up the phone were too many.

SEGALL: What do you tell people who are worried they're addicted to their smart phones who are worried about tech's impact on children? COOK: I think ultimately, each person has to make the decision when

they get their numbers as to what they would like to do. And I encourage everyone to look and everyone to make an informed decision and ask themselves if they're picking up their phone 10 times an hour or 20 times an hour maybe they could do it less.

I think the power is now shifted to the user. And that's just been what Apple has always been about is giving the power from the institution to the user.

SEGALL: It's so interesting because there is this idea, who is control? Man or machine. You believe that we as human beings, we can control --

COOK: I absolutely do. I don't subscribe to the machines taking over the world. And I don't worry about that. I worry much more about people thinking like machines than machines thinking like people.

SEGALL: What do you mean? That's interesting. What do you mean?

COOK: I mean forgetting the humanity in things, forgetting that all of our products should be infused with humanity.

SEGALL: I get the sense that that feels very personal to you -- what you just said.

COOK: It does.


COOK: Because it's the reason I'm on the face of the earth. It makes it really personal, right that this is the role I play.

SEGALL: Do you think that tech companies are in a position right now where they can self-regulate with some of these more sticky issues?

COOK: Generally, for me I'm not a big fan of regulation. I think self-regulation is the best. But when it's not working and in some cases it's not work, you have to ask yourself so what form of regulation might be good?

[01:45:01] SEGALL: What kind do you think isn't working?

COOK: Well, I think that the privacy thing has gotten totally out of control. And I think most people are not aware of who is tracking them, how much they're being tracked, and sort of the large amounts of detailed data that are out there about them.

SEGALL: Do we as users just have to re-envision the idea of privacy? Is it a luxury at this point?

COOK: No. To me -- and we feel this very deeply -- we think privacy a fundamental human right. So that is the angle that we look at it. Privacy from an American point of view is one of these key civil liberties that's define what it is to be American.

SEGALL: It's a fundamental human right. Do you think the last year has shown that that fundamental human right could be under attack?

COOK: I think it has been under attack.

SEGALL: Just this morning the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake in celebration of a same-sex couple. As a leader in the community, as Apple has, you know, continuously stood in front of LGBTQ rights, what's your reaction?

COOK: Well, I haven't read the opinion and so I reserve the right to read that and deeply understand. It was very prominent (ph).

But in terms of the general topic, we believe that everybody should treat everybody else with dignity and respect. And that's how we run our company. That's what we expect of each other and that pertains to all communities including the LGBTQ community.

SEGALL: I know that there is this fear (ph) -- the impact on consumers and will iPhone prices go up if there's an escalated trade war? I'd be curious to know -- I know you said you're optimistic before. Are you still optimistic?

COOK: I am. I am very optimistic because no one will win from that. It will be a lose-lose.

SEGALL: Do you think that if that were to occur, that iPhone prices could go up?

COOK: I don't think that iPhone will get a tariff on it is my belief. Based on what I've been told and what I see, I just don't see that.


SEGALL: And here at this conference, you have developers from over 70 different countries. So immigration is in the DNA of Apple. It is why you'll hear Tim speak very openly about immigration practices. And you know, at a very fascinating moment in time and technology where we're talking about tech addiction, we're talking about privacy and politics because at this moment, technology is the underlayer to society.

And you very much see the CEO looking to step into a role to just go beyond, you know, just tech's impact on this whole feature (ph) but also on society. He said, you know, he feels a much larger obligation. He says it's why he's here on this earth.

Back to you.

VAUSE: Laurie Segall -- thank you for that.

Global business executive Bryan Patel joins me for more now on Apple and the rise and rise of the Apple stock.

Well, it's interesting Apple opened its annual conference for developers on Monday and the stock price actually went up. (INAUDIBLE) a historical trend it was only going down over the last 14, 15 years. The stock closed at $191.83 was up almost 1 percent. But to reach this magic tree in dollar mark, it is kind of a little iffy, you know. But basically the stock price reached somewhere around $202.30. So given, you know, what we know of Apple, its performance, you know, the last couple years -- what is that a matter of weeks, a matter of months. I mean how long before we get there? $60 billion come on -- how hard is that.

BRYAN PATEL, GLOBAL BUSINESS EXECUTIVE: Listen -- I think that's underestimated. Everyone thinks like, you know we're joking about it. But I think -- they're going to get to the $60 billion mark.

It wasn't until a few years ago where analysts were going after them saying where's your new product? Where's your new product. This is going to go down.

What has changed is their service? People are focusing on things at their higher margin items and they've kind of diversified to some other different things. So I believe -- I think they're going to get there probably faster than the competitors or anyone else nearby. And I think they've been really smart of how they've been growing their platform.

VAUSE: The most important issue I guess isn't really when Apple reaches this milestone. It's just a number. At the end of the day it doesn't mean a whole lot. What is far more important is essentially, you know, how is the company run as you say? Can it continue to grow? Can it continue to produce revenue?

PATEL: Well, here's the thing. We kind of joke about how the Apple Watches didn't really go off with a hitch. But you think about, you know, the air pods, right? High margins, high in demand --

VAUSE: They forced everyone to get them because they got rid of the jack. It wasn't really innovation.

PATEL: Wall Street loves what -- service models. They love money and they love companies --


PATEL: Apple has transformed themselves, not just to be a hardware company.

VAUSE: Right.

PATEL: And they moved toward this so that means their valuation and the potential higher up is going to go.

Now, they didn't invent the wireless head phone but they are finding ways for you to have it stay in with the Apple family. It's no different from some other companies like Amazon and right that's what they've done too.

VAUSE: It's very clever stuff which basically if Apple gets to this trillion-dollar mark, if it was a country it would have the 17th biggest economy in the world, which is kind of terrifying to think that you know, this company has that much power. [01:49:58] How much though is that to do with the nature of the stock market today? With, you know, surging prices -- and you know, is it simply that, you know, trillion-dollar companies are just not that special? It's something to be expected in this, you know, current set up.

PATEL: You know, I hate to say yes because I think they've worked -- I think out of all the companies, Apple has gotten a lot of scrutiny over the last few years to get to where they got to and to get to that number is a special number. But yes.

I think you're expecting, you are always expecting what are they doing next? How they streamline things? There's always going to be behind them, right. And I think know we're focusing, ok, $1 trillion -- we're not even there yet, we're already going --

VAUSE: Big deal.

PATEL: Big deal, who's next.

VAUSE: Well, I guess because back in the 1980s IBM, you know, this huge company that now is pretty much nothing. It has already been broken up and sold off. It had 60 percent of the S&P. If that was in today's market that would be worth what $1.5 trillion, $1.5 trillion. And look a IBM.

PATEL: Exactly. And things change. I mean you were talking about how big Apple is. We're now talking about just a service section of Apple is as big as Indonesia's GDP, right. And that's a whole different animal.

And I think that's where I think you're going to have to focus. Apple is -- I don't think they're sitjng here thinking that they're talking about hardware and service. They have to have a platform to keep getting the consumers to come and especially millennials and Gen-Zs who are going to outrank the Baby Boomers as well.

VAUSE: The next closest company is Amazon in market cap. Microsoft has actually overtaken Google to move into third place which is kind of a total reversal of fortune for Microsoft but again it's because they've got this diversified stream of revenue which is where Apple has gone as well.

PATEL: It's amazing, right. I mean Microsoft has done a fantastic job. And you think of what Amazon -- what Amazon has done and Microsoft is doing, one word -- Cloud.


PATEL: They're focusing on the Cloud. That's where -- I mean they've got other things going on but and that's where the higher margins are going to live there and I think that's where it's going to be a race to see who gets there first.

VAUSE: And not a coal company among them. Big tech company -- go figure. It's the future. Bryan -- thank you. Good to see you.

VAUSE: Ok, a short break.

When we come back when it comes to the Russia investigation, Donald Trump's lawyers says our recollection keeps changing.

Well, Rudy Giuliani isn't doing much better remembering names as well. We'll explain in a moment.


VAUSE: Well, as the song goes, sometimes a kiss is just a kiss but sometimes that is not a case when it comes from the Philippine president. A spokesman for Rodrigo Duterte says the president's kiss of a woman on stage was an act of endearment towards Filipino workers. Mr. Duterte had delivered a speech to expatriate Filipinos in Seoul, South Korea. Then he invited two women on stage to give them a book in exchange for kisses. Opponents call the move misogynistic as well as an abuse of power.

[01:54:54] Sometimes sitting down for an interview on live television could be a little nerve-wracking; some struggle to get their facts straight, others can't seem to get the names right, either.

Here's Jeanne Moos.


JEANNE MOOS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Before you meet the press, it is best to know who you're meeting and host Chuck Todd is one of those last names that sounds like a first name leaving Rudy Giuliani flummoxed.

RUDY GIULIANI, TRUMP ATTORNEY: It's nice to be with you -- Todd. How are you?

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS HOST: I'm ok. Let me start --


TODD: It's ok.

MOOS: No Chris on this show either.

GIULIANI: I'm not playing baseball.

TODD: Fair enough. But we won't do the last names, Giuliani, right?

MOOS: Tweeted one viewer, "So his new name is Todd Chris. Nice ring to it."

Also a nice ring to the name Senator Harry Reid once blurted out for Wolf Blitzer.

HARRY REID (D), FORMER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: First of all, Blitz, the first -- MOOS: And how about the blitz of Tims President Obama once launched

at Matt Lauer--


Well, I think what it is, Tim --

Well, Tim, first of all.

MOOS: Finally Matt couldn't take another Tim.

MATT LAUER, FORMER MSNBC HOST: I just want to say -- I know you've had a very long week and so have I. You're saying Tim. I know -- it's Matt Lauer, but I -- believe me I completely understand.

OBAMA: I'm sorry.

MOOS: But who -- who could call a former president, President Nixon by another president's name to his face no less. Some rookie reporter -- that would be me 34 years ago.

President Reagan -- sorry, President Nixon.


MOOS: You know what's worse? When Osama becomes Obama.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Obama bin Laden is still at large.

OBAMA: I think that was Osama bin Laden.

MOOS: And it was even worse when a sports anchor intentionally used a female tennis star's player's name Chris Evert to goad then quarterback Jim Everett.


MOOS: A quarterback sat the host. The subconscious makes some weird links like between Lincoln and Clinton.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 41st president of the United States, President Jefferson William Lincoln.

MOOS: But politicians and anchors tend to answer to anything.


OSAMA: Well Tim -- first of all.

GIULIANI: It's nice to be with you -- Todd.

MOOS: Jeanne Moos, CNN --

President Reagan -- sorry, President Nixon. -- New York.


VAUSE: It gets a little confusing. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM, live from Los Angeles. I'm John Vause. Please join us on Twitter @CNNNEWSROOMLA. There you can find highlights and clips of the show.

I'll hand over to Atlanta after this break.