tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN July 5, 2017 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
thanks for watching "360." time now to hand it over to don lemon. "cnn tonight" starts right now. this right here, this is the kind of moment that could make or break a presidency. and it could change history. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. president trump and kim jong-un in a showdown that has the whole world watching. and fearing, quite frankly, the unthinkable. north korea armed with a missile that could potentially strike alaska. so what will it take to stop kim jong-un? who will blink first in this? then, there's president trump's first face-to-face meeting with, guess who, vladimir putin. it's on friday in germany. the white house refusing today to release what is on the agenda but we know what they probably won't be talking about here and
that's russia's meddling in the u.s. election. will russfirst, we want to get michelle kosinski who is at the state department. good evening to you, michelle. the u.n. security council held an emergency meeting following north korea's missile test. we were talking about an intercontinental ballistic missile. the stakes could not be any higher. >> reporter: sorry. i wasn't sure if you were tossing to some sound here. sorry about that, don. >> that's okay. >> reporter: yeah. these were some pointed words today from the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., nikki haley. clearly they were directed at china. she was talking about the fact that not only -- not only was this a rebuke of north korea and its behavior, it was a warning to countries that are doing business with north korea. especially china. saying that, you know, these countries think that they are also going to be doing business
with the u.s. and, as she put it, that is not going to happen. and we've seen the u.s. increasingly critical of china. over the last couple of days, they've used words like complicit, aiding and abetting in terms of its role in this crisis. so even though the u.s. has its other statements on north korea, its ways of putting pressu pres its threat of military action which was brought of very clearly today, it still seems to believe that the real leverage is with china economically. and it's made it clear that it's going to continue putting on that pressure, even if that means potentially sanctioning china or companies. as we saw last week with the u.s. sanctioning of a chinese bank. and we could see a lot more of that in the near future. >> china and russia, are they actually working on this together, michelle? >> yeah. they were very aligned today in the security council meeting. this was intense. this was an emergency session in the midst of a crisis but even
yesterday we saw vladimir putin meet with chinese president xi and they put out this joint statement that read like a rebuke of how the u.s. was handling this and it was more of the same today in this meeting. both china and russia saying the same things, that they think dialogue needs to come, first and foremost, even if it's without preconditions. and that's not how the u.s. sees it at all. russia especially, even though this didn't get really heated, that language was pointed, too, right at the u.s. saying that, you know, you need to stay away from this kind of rhetoric and threats that only exacerbate the situation. >> let's talk more about russia now because president trump is set to meet with vladimir putin on friday, michelle. the kremlin says they'd like to establish a working dialogue with the u.s. what's the agenda for the meeting and how will north korea factor into this, if at all? >> reporter: from the white house, very little has come out on what the agenda is going to be. there are very obvious ones.
syria, first and foremost and also in north korea, the secretary of state put out a statement really elaborating on syria and we're expecting to hear from him giving some statements soon before he takes off on the same subject. but they also want to kind of put russia -- just as the u.n. ambassador said today that the world is on notice for the north korea problem, in this statement from the secretary of state, he put russia on notice saying that it has a responsibility and an obligation to work with the u.s. and help ease this problem but also to prevent syrian president assad from using any kind of chemical weapon again. so you can sort of see where this conversation is going in that respect. the u.s. side wants to work with russia and is willing to on de-escalation zones or no fly zones. that's an area of progress. on north korea, it's a little more hazy, not really sure where that could go. we know that russia definitely
has room to put more pressure on north korea economically because it does business with north korea and also has a lot of guest workers within russia that, of course, funnel money back into the north korean regime. >> a lot to talk about and a lot is going to go on internationally, especially as it involves the president of the united states. thank you very much, michelle kosinski. i want to bring in the host of "gps," fareed zakaria. this is a quote, self-restraint is all that is separating the united states and south korea from going into war with the north. what do you think? >> i think that's very wise words and i wish the rest of the administration would follow that lead in exercising restraint. you've heard a lot of things from president trump, rex tillerson and now ambassador
nikki haley that is quite belligerent, kind of threatening war. it's very, very tough for all kinds of reasons. you're talking about almost a world war ii-like except this would have the nuclear trip wire. so in that context, it seems that this kind of public bl belligerence may not be the right strategy. if you think about the way the u.n. security council was brought together to enforce real sanctions against iran which finally brought iran to the negotiating table, there wasn't this kind of public shaming and naming. it was much more intense private diplomacy. the idea that if we start bad-mouthing china, they are suddenly going to say, of course, let's start enforcing these sanctions. no. they've got deep strategic interests. they live next to north korea. we've got to persuade them that it's in their interest.
some pressure will help. i think there's a real danger here that this is getting china's backup, driving into an alliance with russia. look at the results right now. we've had a terrible security council meeting. this is exactly the opposite of what washington would have wanted. >> i said in the opening of the show, this is something that could change a presidency and the whole world is watching and it feels threatening. so you mentioned a little bit in your first answer but, in your perspective, what does a war with north korea look like? >> so we've had wars over the last 20, 30 years that are really insurge general see activities. you've got a small band of insurgents in iraq or afghanistan and they cause a few casualties in a month, certainly on the american side. what you're talking about on the korean peninsula is two massively armed countries, north korea and south korea, which are going to engage in your classic, as i say, world war ii or korean
war-type war. armies, tanks, throwing each other, throwing themselves on each other. seoul, the capital city of south korea, is within miles of the north korean border and north korean's missiles, rockets, can hit it easily. they have prepositioned thousands and thousands of rockets. in the midst of this there are 30,000 troops and north korea has nuclear weapons and the united states is committed to the defense of south korea no matter meaning all the way escalating up to nuclear weapons. so that's the nature of this war. if you talk to anybody who has done a war game on the korean peninsula to actually see what it looks like, you're talking about hundreds of thousands of casualties. >> with the nuclear -- >> with the possibility of nuclear escalation. >> and you said that america is committed to south korea? >> we have a treaty alliance with south korea that is iron clad. >> do our allies even know what
to expect from this administration? >> well, so far on south korea, the administration has not done what it did with the nato allies. so i think we're okay there. but, look, you know, people would always be -- any country would be unsure at that ultimate moment. this used to be the great question in the cold war. do the europeans believe that the united states would risk l.a. for, you know, paris or london and that's part of what keeps this so tense and which is why it seems to me you want a very considered step-by-step approach, first gather your allies together, engage china and russia seriously rather than trading insults. >> that happened on the eve of g20 summit in hamburg, germany. angela merkel said it's more of
a process not about a win-win situation but about winners and losers. is she sending trump a message? >> without any question. she's also said that germany probably has to fend for itself and europe has to fend for itself a couple of weeks ago, which is even more worrying. look, a lot of countries feel that the united states is no longer the kind of guarantor of world order, the country that would set the agenda, that would try to right the rules to maintain a certain amount of stability. the canadian foreign minister a couple weeks ago gave this very eloquent speech where she basically said, thank you, america, for 70 years of having preserved the peace and order but we can see you feel it's not worth it anymore and it means we canadians, like other countries, will start to have to pick up the slack and we'll have to get involved and do more because it's important to preserve this order. so all of these major countries, germany, canada, france, feeling
like the united states is resigning from world leadership and they need to step in and, of course what that would mean is a tremendous loss of influence from america on the world stage. guess what, if you're not setting the agenda, your interests as much as germany's interests or canada's interests. >> stick around. i have a lot to talk to you about, fareed zakaria. more on the president's face-to-face meeting with vladimir putin and why you say trump has put himself in a box when it comes to russia.
we're back with breaking news. fareed zakaria is here. before we get back to fareed, secretary of state tillerson spoke at st. andrews before leaving for the g20 summit in hamburg, germany. let's listen and then we'll have a talk. >> i think as we talk about our relationship with russia previously and we i think characterize it as being at a very low point, we have been engaged with russia for some time now to identify areas that we should have mutual interest in. syria is certainly one that is a very complex situation in terms of how we transition from the conclusion of a successful effort to defeat isis, destabilizing syria so we can begin what will no doubt be a lengthy process of political solutions that will lead to the future for syrians and syrian
people. i think the important aspect of this is that this is where we have begun an effort to begin to rebuild confidence between ourselves and russia at the milita military-to-military level but also at the diplomatic level. we hope that this is going to be the beginning of other important areas that need to be addressed in order to strengthen our relationship. but we're at the very beginning and i would say at this point it's difficult to say exactly what the russia's intention is in this relationship and i think that's the most important part of this meeting, is to have a good exchange between president trump and president putin as to what they see as the nature of the relationship between our two countries. >> and we're back with fareed. you heard rex tillerson there talking about the relationship and the relationship with russia
is at a low point now and identified areas with mutual interest, transition from defeating isis to political solutions in the future of the syrian people and also, you know, this is the beginning of hopefully a relationship with russia that can actually work out. did not mention meddling in the election as part of it. >> it struck me as strange in that syria is important and i would think at a moment like this that might be item three on your agenda with russia. item one would be essentially an act of overt hostility that russia undertook against the united states, the cyberhacking, the defense of the elections. the second would be north korea because it is a massive pressing crisis. russia has a veto on the security council. if you're trying to tighten sanctions against north korea, trying to get implementation of it, you need russia on board. that is the urgent crisis. obviously syria is important but it's interesting that he chose only to talk about syria, which
suggests maybe they are not going to talk about interference in the elections. maybe they don't think they could get any russia cooperation on north korea, which is disappointing on two fronts. >> you say that president trump has placed himself in a box when it comes to russia. why do you say that? >> well, because right from the start, there was always this puzzle of all the countries in the world, president trump, candidate trump had a nice thing to say about only one country, which is russia. everybody else was always -- you know, had somehow swindled the united states. and so there was this puzzle. and then you get the scandals and now trump is in the situation where he seems to be trapped. he's paralyzed himself. he can't seem to make a concession to them and that will raise suspicions, why he is doing this, is he in putin's spot? he doesn't want to be too tough on russia and that's a bit of a
mystery but as a result it's been do nothing. it's really frozen, which is not productive. russia's major power, 3,000 nuclear weapons vetoed at the security council, major issues with them regarding ukraine and syria and now north korea and this is the first time that there will be a substantive conversation. >> did it offer more of a perspective than the president has offered as it. coulds to t could comes to meeting with russia? is this the most we've learned? >> it's more substantive on anything about syria. it's very sensible. you're looking for a political solution and try to find an alignment with russia. but perfectly sensible. the right thing to do. but as i say, kind of odd that that was the only thing he said that they were going to talk about with russia. look, if we know -- so far what we know about the
administration, i think he has no idea what president trump is going to talk to putin about. he was kind of freelancing a little bit. >> that's the thing. he's being very diplomatic, the secretary of state. as we know, donald trump likes to trust his gut. could that be an issue with this meeting, especially with the meetings with the other leaders. >> it could be a huge problem. by the way, a lot of american presidents do this. skilled politicians that governed that job by being skilled politicians and the danger is that you forget that foreign policy is not a branch of psychotherapy. if you have a great relationship with this guy one on one, it's not going to change the deep internal interests of that country. your granddaughter sings and offer the most beautiful chocolate cake in the world and you think he'll abandon the policy china has followed for 50, 60 years? no, that's not how it works. the british secretary promised
nations don't have permanent friends and enemies. they have permanent interests. and our issue is that china has deep strategic interests in north korea. look, it's the next door neighbor. they have worries about it imploding. we need to get at that rather than thinking we can wow similarly with putin, he's a russian nationalist. he has a very clear view. you have to get to him at that level rather than thinking that he can pal around and somehow i forgot and i'll sign up with the american agenda. >> you said the most powerful man -- one of the most powerful men in the world. you met with him a year ago? >> a year ago. >> so tell us, these two personalities coming together, big personalities coming together, take us to that. >> couldn't be more different. putin is quiet.
he's short. he's obviously well-built but he's quite unassuming in many ways until he starts to speak and he's very intelligent, very knowledgeable so he will take you through the history of russian relations for the last 25 years almost year by year and it's a very one-sided russian account on how the west has basically pushed russia around but it's all based on facts and it's imagining a lawyer presenting the best brief he could, you know, bullet by bullet. trump is, shall we say, a lightly briefed person without much knowledge about that history and facts who believes that the most important thing is the eq, the kind of relationship, how it feels, how it looks. >> who wins, who loses. >> it's all atmospheric. it's theater. and so it would be very
interesting to see whether these two end up respecting each other or not. i can't tell. all i can tell you is personality-wise, he tells jokes, he's funny, charming. putin does not. he uses his time efficiently to advance his agenda. >> let's put up juliette kay kayyem's tweet. she says if he doesn't bring up the hacking it's a dereliction or he's scared. do you agree with that? >> if you put a positive spin on it, it would be an act of statesmanship to say, look, i may have benefited this time but as president of the united states, my job is to protect this country and its institutions of government and democracy. we cannot have this happen. of course i raised it and here's what i said. just imagine how statesmen-like
it would be for trump and how it would help him politically. i think he's hurting himself politically by getting into this defensi defensi defensive crouch. get over it. now be president. >> thank you for that. don't miss fareed zakaria on sundays at 10:00 a.m. breaking news to tell you about tonight. congressman steve scalise back in the intensive care unit. congressman steve scalise has been readmitted to the intensive care unit at medstar washington hospital center due to new concerns for infection. his condition is listed as serious. we will provide another update tomorrow, july 6th. we'll keep you updated on this story. we'll be right back.
and laura. good evening to both of you. lauren, i'm going to start with you. nikki haley today on north korea's intercontinental ballistic missile launch, she said this. listen to this. >> make no mistake, north korea's launch of an icbm is a clear and sharp military escalation. the united states is prepared to use of full range of our capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies. >> and this is what the president tweeted yesterday. north korea has just launched another missile. does this guy have anything better to do with his life? hard to believe that south korea and japan will put up with this much longer. perhaps china will put a heavy move on north korea and end this nonsense once and for all. and then your piece for "the washington post" is entitled, "how president trump could tweet
his way into a nuclear war with north korea." so how are north korean officia officials interpreting the president's tweet. >> north korea is an incredibly complicated challenge and problem that has troubled numerous administrations and one that requires a sophisticated strategy in order to figure out how to address it. that simply is not going to be able to be captured in 140 characters. twitter is not the appropriate place to be talking about our north korean strategy. my concern is that, in fact, president trump doesn't actually understand that he is signaling things to both our allies and our adversaries that could lead to real miscalculation and whether it comes to deterring north korea or reassuring our allies that i think is one of the greatest threats that we could face in this scenario right now. this problem deserves a real
sophisticated strategy that is well thought through and brings to bear all of the pieces of our national security tool kit. >> you have an issue with the 140-character diplomacy, don't you? >> yes. this undercut a lot of trump's diplomacy and also was very flippant. on new year's day, kim jong-un in his televised address said we're going to launch a ballistic missile. trump the following day said it won't happen. and then when it did happen, because it was an icbm launch, trump, if he wanted to tweet, if he wanted to say something, it had to be resolute. this was just sort of, oh, kim jong-un, he must not have something better to do, that's not a proper tone in which involves the security of americans. i think that was the wrong way to go. today he had another tweet about north korea and china relations. that wasn't so bad but the problem is he's stepping all over his messages.
>> what about this when he says because laura's piece talked about it, how president trump could tweet his way into a nuclear war with north korea and she explained that but he's also saying that he's hoping that north korea will end this, that china will put a heavy move on north korea. is that realistic? >> well, it's not realistic unless we give china the incentives to do so-and-so far trump has signaled last week there will be costs for unacceptable behavior but hasn't provided sufficient incentives. you know, the one thing, don, that the united states needs to do, regardless of what we think is enforce our own lawns. chine you know, last year, a couple years ago, the u.s. imposed fines of hundreds of millions of dollars on european banks for foot faults on the iranian sanctions and we have let the chinese banks go scott free. so i think that the president needs to have substantive
policies to back up these tweets because otherwise, as laura points out, this is dangerous. >> quickly, before i get back to laura, is he misinterpreting the relationship with china and north korea? >> i think so. the chinese have been supplying equipment to the north koreans. for example, yesterday's launch came off of a chinese transporter erector launcher. that's a real indication that beijing has been weapon uponizing the north koreans and so this is indication that trump doesn't understand this relationship between beijing and pyongyang and until he gets it right, he won't get his china policy or north korea policy right. >> laura, do you want to respond to that? >> yeah, i have to say, i completely agree with gordon. i think, number one, the way the president flippantly conveyed his message in a very vague terminology, i don't know any national security expert who know what is a heavy move is that china would put on north korea. i think some of us could guess. i think that guessing when we're talking about this kind of
scenario is a very dangerous game. >> what do you mean? >> guessing in terms of what does a heavy move mean? some people may interpret that as being some kind of military action that he might be pressing the chinese or urging them to take. some people may say it's heavier sanctions. some people might say it's, you know, it's the proliferation that china is facilitating, as gordon was speaking about. that kind of lack of clarity is really, really damaging to the kind of strategy he may be trying to take. as gordon said, providing incentives to the chinese is important but providing clarity on what we want from the chinese is important. when i worked at the state department and national security council, we'd give the chinese a list of the kind of things we wanted them to do, the steps we wanted them to take, very specifically. if they did not take those actions, it was very clear what the consequences would be. i think that the kinds of
measures that gordon is talking about to be imposing on the chinese are the kinds of things we need to be considering but we also need to be very clear with them in terms of what we want them to do. and that needs to be based on a realistic understanding of the china/north korea relationship and i agree with gordon that we need to understand that the chinese have their own limitations and how farther going to be willing to go. our interests are not their interests and it's very important that president trump understand that. >> i want to ask you quickly, laura here, because you -- we've been talking about this twitter dip mow ma see. you say that the north korean officials will look for clear signals within the president's tweet but is there intention there? is any possible intention and harmony with what this national security team has been saying? >> well, that's the problem, i think. the north koreans will be looking for intention and read
things into his words that he may or may not have intended. we parse the words incredibly carefully. it is based on very, very sophisticated formulas that they have used over time, that they changed to signal particular things. we look incredibly carefully at those. the north koreans mirror us. the perspective of every world capital, the words of the leaders of the country carry the greatest weight. and so i agree with gordon that the president is stepping on his own message and also stepping on the message of many of the members of his cabinet and others who i believe are trying to coordinate a sophisticated strategy and he's getting in their way and completing undermining them. >> gordon, how do you see this playing out? >> i get very worried about this. because as laura said, the interests of the important countries in this are diametrically opposed and it's a
possibility that there may not be clarity and resolution until we're at the brink of hostile sti hostilities and that's unacceptable. >> you wrote a great piece in "the daily beast." i urge everyone to read it where you're talking about north korea and their missiles and what have you. thank you, laura, gordon. >> thank you very much. president trump's meeting with vladimir putin going to full-fledged bilateral talks? and is trump ready? for college. now you drive 300 miles to watch this. yes, nice pop toss! flag dancing? we've been there. and with free hot breakfast and a warm welcome, we'll be there for you. hampton by hilton.
[ barks ] radio: scorching heat today, staywalter!ut there! stop suffering with hot ac. cool it yourself with a/c pro. in just 3 easy steps, enjoy the comfort of 2 times the cooling boosters from the #1 selling coldest air. nothing cools like a/c pro. [ rock music playing ] have fun with your replaced windows. run away! [ grunts ] leave him! leave him! [ music continues ] brick and mortar, what?! [ music continues ] [ tires screech ] [ laughs ] [ doorbell rings ] when you bundle home and auto insurance with progressive, you get more than a big discount. that's what you get for bundling home and auto! jamie! you get sneaky-good coverage. thanks. we're gonna live forever!
a trip back to the dthe doctor's office, mean just for a shot. but why go back there, when you can stay home... ...with neulasta onpro? strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection, which could lead to hospitalizations. in a key study, neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%... ...a 94% decrease. applied the day of chemo, neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta the next day, so you can stay home. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to neulasta or neupogen (filgrastim). ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems, allergic reactions, kidney injuries, and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. so why go back there? if you'd rather be home, ask your doctor about neulasta onpro.
two unpredictable world leaders face-to-face for the first time. what will happen when president trump meets president putin in germany. let's discuss with matthew rojanski at the wilson center, jill dougherty, former moscow bureau chief, and jonathan sanders. he's the author of "the russians emerge." good evening to all of you. jill, you first. after all the talk about donald trump and vladimir putin, their first face-to-face meeting is on
friday. you say this will be a balancing act for president trump. how so? >> if you look at the situation, first of all, anything broadly speaking that president trump does that helps russia, helps vladimir putin, can be pr interpreted negatively. it can boomer rang on him politically at home because we know with all of the investigations and allegations of collusion, et cetera, it doesn't always -- at least the optics don't look good to be kind to vladimir putin. and yet the whole problem is he really does need a better relationship with vladimir putin and basically with russia, these are very dangerous times. and it's very important that the two men sit down and begin to normalize this relationship. but the balance is really tough. >> jonathan, help us understand this. originally it was going to be
a -- and now it's a full-fledged bilateral meeting but there's no official agenda. what does that tell you about this meeting in what is it? >> well, i think the russians very well recognize that the person of the united states is not an agenda kind of guy and they want -- they're not expecting a great deal out of this. what they'd like to see is a relationship at the top between putin and trump that is gracious, that is respectful, that may lay ground work but we need more than the top man to top man relationship. you need all those people in the middle to start talking to each other, to have diplomats talking to each other, engagement on a number of issues and to find a couple of places where we can start rebuilding confidence because confidence building is important in a cold war and boy
are we in a cold war. the election thing has nothing to do with the hostility coming out of the area around the woodrow wilson center called washington, d.c., where if you were to poll members of congress, you might get 100% agreement that russia is a bad and evil place and undoing everything in america and that has to stop and the president has to begin to explain to the americans why he is open to a different policy towards russia. >> okay. so then who else besides the presidents do you, pe expect wi attend that meeting? >> i think mr. tillerson is going to go to the meeting. i think mr. love roth is goiavr go to the meeting. the unspoken person in the room is going to be the approximate earn that putin and donald trump have in common. hillary clinton. the clintons are despised,
disparaged by putin. >> matthew, to you now, since you mentioned the woodrow wilson center, what tactics has trump used with other world leaders and how do you expect him to approach this particular situation? >> so putin really is a master of detail. i think he will be prepared. he may not be looking to get into a detailed conversation, for instance, about what a final settlement will look like for syria and terrorism and how you might move forward on the ukraine crisis, what would be the conditions for relief from american and european sanctions but should the conversation move in that direction and i don't think we can exclude that the president of the united states may mention any number of those issues because they have been very much in the public
discourse. he may also mention the investigation in washington. putin will be the master of the details of all of those questions. my advice, therefore, to the president is -- and i suspect this is going to be coming from very serious experts and fiona hill on the national security council, the message is going to be let's focus on the top line issue here. these are the two world big nuclear powers. we exist in a cold war-style relationship with mutually assured destruction. we have thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other at any given time. we cannot afford to be in a relationship like this. but to get past it, i think the president would be wise to send the message and buys himself a lot of breathing room in the united states and getting out of the box that fareed zakaria described earlier and say you've got to stop messing with american democracy, stop attacking american infrastructure. it's an ongoing problem. it didn't stop in november after
the elections and on ukraine. this was much talked of after november, was there going to be a grand bargain. the president needs to put that to rest and say we're going to try to work together on syria and counterterrorism. there's not going to be a grand bargain where we trade ukraine for syria. he buys himself a lot of political room if he can do that. >> i can feel people shaking their heads when you mention russia meddling in the election saying never going to happen. but we'll see. don't go away. we'll continue our conversation. don't go away. we'll be right back.
if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach.
i was always "tpeople don't stare anymore. i never joined in. that wasn't fair to any of us. i was covered. i tried lots of things over the years. but i didn't give up. i kept on fighting. i found something that worked. that still works. now? see me. see me. i found clear skin that lasts. see if cosentyx could make a difference for you- cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. see me to know... ...clear skin can last. don't hold back... ...ask your dermatologist if cosentyx can help you find clear skin that lasts.
megan's smile is getting a lot because she uses act® mouthwash. act® strengthens enamel, protects teeth from harmful acids, and helps prevent cavities. go beyond brushing with act®. and we're back now with my panel. i'll get to you first in this segment. president putin can be calculated when he goes into meetings like this, and he wants the upper hand. tell us about that. >> well, i mean, there are numerous examples, but i'm thinking of the one with angela merkel, which is really a pretty famous one where he went to a meeting with angela merkel, the german chancellor. she does not particularly like dogs apparently. she is fearful of them, and he brought a dog, and of course, the understanding was he wanted to kind of, you know, put her ill at ease. kind of put her back on her
heels, and he could use a technique like that. there are many things. i don't think he plays golf, but, you know, who knows? maybe he'll final commonality there, or something else. i agree with what everybody has been saying that, you know, putin is going to come very, very prepared, and yet he doesn't really expect a lot from this, so the mere that is correct that he sits down with donald trump is good for putin because, you know, he is back on the stage. russia is not as isolated. after all, he is meeting with the american president. but he knows this is a president who can turn on a dime. i mean, witness what is going on right now with china and north korea. you know, not so long ago at mar-a-lago, president trump and the chinese president xi were best buddies because mr. trump thought china would do something with north korea, and we're
ready to slap sanctions on chinese steel. it can turn very quickly, and i don't think putin will buy into anything other than a meeting hopefully maybe get some sort of -- convince president trump of something putin believes and then move on and let the, you know, top officials on both sides work out details if they even get that far. >> mm-hmm. jonathan, this is what putin said after it was reported in may that president trump shared classified information. remember, with the russian lavrov during the oval office meeting? watch this. >> translator: we see that political schizophrenia is developing, and instantly i had a talk with lavrov and had to e rebuke him giving him a telling of he didn't share the secret with us, neither me nor the
special servicersservices. that was very bad of him. >> do you think putin takes trump seriously? >> yes and no. i don't think he takes him seriously as what the russians would call a serious man. somebody who is well read, thoughtful and philosophical. i think they take him as somebody who is dually the elected president of the united states, and as such, has vast resources at his command, and i think, you know, it was said that psych therapists have been around it, and we have to find out why trump likes them, and how to adapt to their attitude. what do they have in common? they have some interests in common as people who approach
things differently. trump is visceral and putin is a tactician. the seminal influence in his life was learning a form of martial arts. he uses people's exercise and body weight to throw them back and to plant their moves against his moves. he is not a great strategic thinker. neither is mr. trump. >> that was an interesting story there. matt, right now russia is china are pushing their own plan for north korea to stop testing missiles. nikki haley said this earlier today. >> the world is on notice. if we act together, we can still prevent a catastrophe, and we can rid the world of a grave threat. if we fail to act in this way, there will be a different response. >> but the russian deputy ambassador to the united nations is disputing whether the test
was, in fact, an icbm, matthew. how could this complicate that meeting? >> look, don. the simple fact is as it has been stated headline after headline, this is the problem from hell. the united nations security council has imposed sanctions, multiple resolutions and it hasn't solved the problem. china and russia have been part of that conversation. we have a forceful ambassador, but it won't change the basic interest that dictate russia and china's position. i want to comment on two things putin brings to the table. you asked earlier to add to jill's point, putin has been late to every meeting with every world leader that he has ever held. now that is so much of a pattern. he has been late with the pope. he was late to president obama, intentionally late to angela merk merkel. that's not an accident. how late -- he is going to be late. how late will he be with donald trump? ten minutes like he was for
obama? will it be hours like he has been? you watched oliver stone interviews. he kept him waiting for hours. this is part of his tactic, and the second thing he brings to the table is he tangled with russia's wealthy men. with russia's wealthy, powerful, you know, self-centered, highly branded oligarchs. 15, 20 years ago, and he beat them. and putin has an image of trump that trump is a mega-oligarch. he is president of the united states and brings a lot of fire power to the table, but i think he will be thinking about this, like, sitting across the table from one of the guys he tangled with before, and he will employ those tactics to achieve dominance. >> but no dog. >> if trump's afraid of dogs, there will be bdogs. >> thank you all.