tv Outnumbered Overtime With Harris Faulkner FOX News March 28, 2018 10:00am-11:00am PDT
noon eastern tomorrow. there's so much news breaking. we're not taking a break. here's harris faulkner. >> as we await the start of the press briefing amid big developments on the north korea front. let's go "outnumbered overtime." i'm harris faulkner. we expect new reaction from the white house to kim jong-un's surprise meeting with chinese president xi jinping. both countries confirming that sit down. which ended with claims that kim is ready to talk about giving up his nuclear weapons and is willing to meet with president trump. the president praising the meeting, tweeted this. for years and through many administrations, everyone said that peace and the denuclearization of korean peninsula was not a small possibility. there's a good chance that kim jong-un will do what is right for his people and for humanity. look forward to our meeting. senior foreign affairs correspondent greg look forward
to your report from london. >> now it is official what is being called unofficial visit by kim jong-un to beijing for that summit with chinese president xi jinping after secret motorcade, the red carpet was rolled out for north korean leader and his wife. kim jong-un meeting a foreign head of state makes sense, china the key diplomatic for north korea. those two key take aways from the talk that you noted correctly, harris, first the commitment for denuclearization. we never heard that directly from north korea and commitment to meet with president trump. it should be noted, those two points weren't broadcast by north korean state media we did hear it from chinese media and readout that china relayed to president trump. the timing is absolutely
crucial. kim jong-un said to meet in the summit with a south korean president. most importantly with president trump in may. this visit is seen as a way for china to reassert it' itself diplomatic process. i have a contact very close to the south korean president what he told me, this complicates the process a bit. china does not like north korea's nukes. it wants u.s. to give up a missile system in the south, wants to back off on the military drills with south korea. might even like to see some of the u.s. troops get out of there. there's a bit of a mixed situation here. the final note on all this, north korea has promised denuclearization in the past even with other leaders in other chinese sessions. it's north over yet. >> i don't know how many leaders
are engaged with very social media fashion. it will be interesting to see. thank you. acting undersecretary of state for public affairs says the president's pressur campaign isg fruit. >> the pressure is working. recognizing the destabilizing threat that north korea poses on the region but the world. without this maximum pressure campaign this thing wouldn't be happening. tremendously pleased to see president xi of china reaching out to president trump yesterday. telling him that north korea reaffirmed commitment to denuclearization. >> great to have you on the
program today. missile defense has been something when we talk about north korea certainly is pertinent. do do you think there's a possibility that kim jong-un look to cross the world and said, if i meet with president trump, now he's got a new security advisor, john bolton, they will mean what they say. maybe i talk to china and get their take on it. >> i do think that ambassador bolton move overing to the national security council bolster's president trump's credibility. if all the other options fail. i think that is definitely true in contribute to the maximum pressure campaign. i'm in the category where i'm not very optimistic that these talks are going to result in the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. i'm pleased that the pressure campaign from president trump is bearing fruit. by that i mean, you have china cooperating and actually
enforcing sanctions. >> i don't know how you measure that when you have china kind of sticking out its boot saying, we're going to help out north korea when they need step. we're going to make sure they have energy. this doesn't sound like help. i want to go back what you said why are you not optimistic? >> even china significantly cut trade with north korea and have been enforcing the sanctions, north korea still relies on china. what makes me little bit uncomfortable is that when you see the two xi jinping with kim jong-un shaking hands what that conveys to me, it completely takes away the possibility that the united states with use preemptive force. what that will promise is chinese involvement backing the north koreans. then you have war between united states and china. >> is there any of this that china didn't see coming?
>> i don't think so. i think china has been watching. the thing about president trump that sort of throws a wrench into the predictability, he's doing everything his own way. not really by the book. you got these tariffs between the united states and china putting pressure on china. he has maximum pressure campaign that's really working. everybody believes that president trump might actually use military force unlike the previous american presidents. you have china guessing. china doesn't want the united states going to war in north korea. you might have created a situation in which it's possible. miracles can happen in which the chinese might say i want to be a power broker here point to help the united states solve this problem. >> you talk about also just the weapons and all of this. xi and president trump talking, north korea promises will look
at that weapons situation with nuclear weapons. what's your take on that? you sit on a council that talk about missile defense. >> well, the reason that north korea wants to have nuclear missiles that can reach the united states because they can blackmail and coerce the united states and allies. that not acceptable for the united states to allow that to happen. with the latest missile test, they've proven, they are close to proven they can hit the united states a nuclear weapon. that's why missile defense is so important. it's not the only solution. you brought up a great point. chinese don't want the united states to put a bunch of missile defense systems in the region. but president trump is moving in that direction and has put some increased money in the budget to do that. the chinese have an interest in keeping north korea on a leash and not necessarily completely resolving the problem because they do keep the united states from building our alliances in
the region. >> look at syria and the missiles. the uss carl vincent when it moved up next to vietnam and china was trying to take some of the islands in the south sea and do what it wanted to do with those, those are signs from this country and this government and this president that the game has changed. we will watch it with you. thank you very much. my next guest says she believes this beijing china summit may not be in america's best interest. you're one of those people i know. >> harris, i agree with your prior guest. there's no evidence that north korea ever wants to give up its nuclear weapons. let's look at history too. north korea has broken every single arms control agreement that it ever signed.
it didn't follow through on the commitment it made to george w. bush administration. we found out that north korea was possibly building a plutonium reactor while the obama administration was exercising strategic patience. they don't share our interest. they want to unify the korean peninsula under the north korean regime. this isn't just about nuclear weapons. big problem with north korea is proliferation. we found out that they sold 40 tons of chemical weapons and supplies to syria. let's say you got rid of the nukes and what happens to those program? it's a bad problem. >> it's complicated too. when you talk about syria component you have to bring in russia. it's part of the game on the ground too. then the question begins how much pressure could you count on russia russia to help you out with north korea. zero.
we do have to do what the president is talking about. >> the problem is that by sitting down with kim jong-un, president trump has legitimatized him and agree there's something to discuss. it's great that he has -- >> so, under clinton's era, when they sent secretary of state madeleine albright. i say a because legitimatization or legitimatizing somebody, why has that changed game? >> you have to put this in context. >> does it matter? >> it does. >> don't you want to have a conversation? >> democratic administrations including governor bill richardson and republican administrations like george w. bush have appeased north korea
from more than a quarter century it's brought us to where we are now. i'm not saying president trump will do that. >> it's brought to where we were before this current president. >> it's worse today. when you appease north korea, they didn't have nuclear weapon. they have chemical weapons. they are shipping them around the world. they have potentially icbm that can hit washington. that's why it's so -- >> you want to do more of the same? >> you have to do more of the sanctions. >> you want to do more of the same and not back it up what this current president and national security advisor is talking about. >> i think that's great. when i'm saying, sitting down with kim jong-un at this particular moment, i don't think we pressured them enough. let's see what comes out the talks. >> no one will say it will happen today. >> you never know what donald trump will do. it may not happen. the only productive thing in north korea is for kim jong-un
to leave. to be overthrown, regime change. i agree with john. i think john has north korea right. >> okay. do you think that kim jong-un looks across the world and says, and has respect for that? >> i think that john bolton, mike pompeo are the two of the best picks. if you get regime change in north korea, it is entirely because president trump mean what is he says and he's reestablishing u.s. deterrents. >> you don't see it with un. that is fascinating. good to have you. we look like christmas today. i love it. the white house press briefing set to begin. we'll bring you that live as we await trump administration reaction from the meeting. we'll also be watching for a
possible comment on reports that president trump has floated the idea of having the pentagon not mexico pay for his long promised border wall. how likely is that to happen? stay close. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop.
some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you.
more dependable...le have discovered something stronger... longer lasting. in a chevy truck. and now, you can too. see why chevrolet is the most awarded and fastest growing brand the last four years overall. current competitive owners can get a total value of over eleven thousand dollars on this silverado all star when you finance with gm financial. find new roads at your local chevy dealer.
you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig- really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party.
>> president trump is floating the idea having the pentagon to pay for border wall. he suggest the idea to white house officials and house paul ryan. he wants the department of defense to use the money awarded in the omnibus spending bill. some are asking whether that's constitutional. >> the president will work with white house counsel to make sure action he takes is fully within his rights and his executive authority. >> what the white house arguing to fund the wall by using pentagon dollars? >> it's complicated. you laid out there. frankly they have been careful about sharing details as legal team continues to examine the consequences. into explain why this is
problematic. there's long standing rules and laws that restrict reprogramming of federally appropriated dollars by a president. what does that mean? the congress sets aside $700 billion for the military. you can't just take part of that and use it for something else that's not military related. others have argued this. the president is the commander in chief. that means well, border defense is part of national security. that falls outside of congress's purview, he can do with the money what he like. i should pass this along here, you remember that tweet back on 25th when he suggested that the wall should be built by the m, as in by the military. yesterday the press secretary sarah sanders tread carefully on the subject. >> wall continuing to be built currently. we'll keep pushing forward until it's completed in the way the president feels necessary to
defend the country. >> is it true that mexico will not pay for the wall? >> ly -- i will not go beyond what the president already said. >> whether it's mexico or congress or the military, the president has promised to deliver a wall and to be fair, there's some new construction under way. mike pence saying the wall is coming. >> last week president trump signed into law border wall funding that will provide for nearly 100 miles of border wall. let me make you promise, when it comes to building the wall, we're going to build it all. >> all right, sounds like campaign style pledge there. to be clear, it's about $641 million than set aside in the omnibus for wall construction.
that's existing designs. we'll keep close on it. i'm sure it will come up again. that's coming your way hopefully within the hour >> let's bring in republican congressman mike gallagher a member of the house homeland security committee and armed services committee and marine in his past. i want to start with that military veteran part of you. what's your fake on spending money after a decade of no raises for men and women in the military. spending that money now to build the wall? >> i support the administration's desire to secure the southern border. when i was on active duty, i worked for the drug enforce of - enforcement agency. i seen that firsthand. we have to secure the border.
i don't think this is right way to do it. we fought tooth and nail over the last year to finally give the military the resources that they need after eight years of devastating cuts. we cut the pentagon by 22% in real terms, at the same time the world has not gotten safer. to add another rock to the path of the military which is struggling to meet the demands of a very clear-eyed ambitious national security strategy and national defense strategy that talk about preparing for the long term great power competition request states like russia and china. i don't think it's right approach. there are ways that we can find to secure the southern border. i share the constitutional concerns. the constitution is clear. no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in appropriations by law. to shift this money around will be a violation of law and require reprogramming, rare congressional approval. that's a debate we can have. but taking it from the military is not the right move in my opinion.
>> congressman gallagher, when we look back for precedence in this, we had on judge andrew napolitano last hour, he said, there is some precedence when you look at road building and taking some money from the army core of engineers under defense budget for large roads and projects. there's press defense, because this is the defense, national security portion being able to use money without necessarily going through congress. what do you say about that? >> certainly we could have the debate about whether to increase amount of funding we give to army core of engineers. we give about $3 billion annually which is allocated for existing projects. but those come from separate funds. just by way of reference, $25 billion, which is projected to cost this project is what we gave navy for their shipbuilding account. ii support him in that regard.
if we starting to rob peter to pay paul, we're in a difficult position. that require separate congressional action if we're going to reprogram any of that money. but also in the house, i understand that the senate can't vote to keep the lights on. that's frustrating. we in the house continuing to have the debate now on a big immigration bill which will include robust border security. i voted for a comprehensive border security solution. we need to be having that debate. we can't surrender now. >> the complicated nature is that the president want to get something done here. ann coulter floated the idea why don't you use the navy construction side. so there's ideas to pull funding from different places. the president watched democratic party walk away from the table when they should have gotten
something on daca recipients. he's looking across the sea here, republicans and democrats, not putting some of those national security issues on the table. >> listen, i share that frustration. i feel like i've been banging my head against the wall. new member of congress for the last year trying to fathom what's going on. i thought the administration unveiled generous framework on immigration with respect to the daca recipients as well as border security. i can tell you, you never get 100% what you want. you have to be willing to compromise. there are some people in the other party that seem fundamentally unwilling to do so. i share that frustration but how we do things in a constitutional republic also matters. we can't create an end run around the constitution or around congress power of the purse. when conservatives, myself among them, were not exactly
enthusiastic about obama coverage everything through executive order. i stand ready to work with the white house. we want to talk about increasing funding for the army core with the defense bill, part of the broader package. we can't rob money and resources from the military. at time of growing international crises. >> this comes under the defense of our border. the defense of a country. can you were part of as a marine. you helped defend. you know the need is there. also, this comes under the guise this is what the american people wanted when they hired donald trump to be their president. this a key issue. this is something me promised. talk to me about the politics of this by not having mexico pay for it.
>> it's a matter of our sovereignty. we should, it may require difficult and painful choices between other priorities that we don't have the ability to fund, we should be willing to spend the resources necessary to secure the southern border. it's not just a matter of border security it requires internal enforcement. you know majority of people coming here illegally aren't crossing the rio grand. >> some of them hanging out in california. in the white house is right to suggest -- exactly. the rake to suggest that this is a national security issue. it's not the same as saying this is a core department of defense concern. this is far more of department homeland security area, border patrol area authority. anyone serving on active duty now or anyone who's wearing
uniform, we have our hands full dealing with the problems abroad posed by isis, iran, north korea, china, russia. for too long, because of cynical decisions made by career politicians in d.c., we held troops hostage for sake of other priorities. just when we have this small victory, we can't take resources away from the men and women in uniform who desperately need them. we're just beginning to claim out from this massive hole. >> it's north of $700 billion. it's not small. i understand what you're saying timing of it and the kind of points that have happened and the recent history with spending for the military and cuts. i totally get it. i want to thank you -- representative gallagher. we managed to muscle through it. i appreciate your time. we'll see what the president does on this. thank you. we'll see what the white house says about that. we are waiting that press
briefing. also it's after kim jong-un's historic visit to china that the white house confirmed. president trump has said he's looking forward to meeting with the north korean dictator. we development hear more about that. white house is touting new trade deal with south korea. being described visionary and innovative. how big of a victory for the president is this and for the united states? can we get the same results with other countries? >> very good news for america. the trade deal was one of the three worst trade deals in american history. only behind nafta and the wto. ♪ piano music >> vo: they share one planter.
and last season, it was a flowering disaster. this year, they're not messing around. miracle-gro guarantees results with rich potting mix that uses ingredients fresh from the forest... and plant food that adds vital nutrition so you'll have three times the blooms. they bask in their success. miracle-gro. three times the beauty. one powerful guarantee.
and limit imports on south korean steel. a senior administration official provides the agreement as visionary and innovative. president trump tweeted this. u.s. trade rep just announced an agreement in principle with south korea on cars. great deal for american and korean workers. let's focus on security relationship. this story is not ahead of the game here. giving president lot of credit. kind of not in the headlines. why is that? >> it's also just a general -- most of the media rather see the president distracted about other things. he's doing exactly what he came into office to do. one of the biggest things he talked about was trade.
this south korea deal is one of many we'll see. leveling the playing field. >> timing of it is so interesting. this president could be meeting with the other side of the peninsula north korea. i want to talk with you about what exactly the deal does and why it's being called innovative? >> what is innovative it goes back -- it's an agreement that was very slanted against the american interest at the time. we saw that in the growth in the trade balance we had with south korea. what it did, it took some of the things put in place and south korea came to the table and said, to get exemption from the steel tariff, to will allow more cars in the country. they will allow more workable relationship with their customs folks. not just on cars but things like that are important to the midwest and my district like agriculture. >> i'm seeing word steel pop up. the performance was taking heat for steel tariffs at all, let
alone those that touch china. talk to me about success being contagious? what do you think? >> when you have outlook of life, that is contagious. this president has an outlook. america is a leader in the world. i support the president in that. when we step forward and recognize the good in our country we recognize the good around the world and products and ideas and property, when we show that light, that puts our country in the light that it should be. too lates we get bogged down thinking of the problems we have here. we're the leader of the world. the president really sets that example in these deals. wanting to look ahead. >> sometimes we see people across the political aisle from you, democrats saying, that tariffs and the such, there's a risk in getting tough with these trade deals. why do they say that? >> harris i'm not sure what the democrats want to do. they want to play political
games trying to defeat this president in november in the house majority. i think that's one the things we got to look at. they got to figure out what they want to say yes to. they got to quit living the past. democrats understand businesses are profiting from tax reform. their members in their districts taking that extra income and applying it to their college loans or buying new pair of tennis shoes or having that special vacation. when they have to acknowledge that the economy is doing better, business doing better, they're grasping at straws. that kind of attitude not looking forward in american thinking. we got to put ourselves in position to lead. >> bottom line, you see the south korea deal as a big deal? >> i think south korea is big deal. it's the first of many deals with the president talked about repositioning ourselves in trade deals around the world. when we're repositioning we want what is best for our country but
also what is best for their country, that' that's a win-win. the president is looking at that for our country. >> congressman collins from the great state of georgia. i understand visiting kansas city, kansas, say hello to the nascar track. good to see you. >> i understand you have a big presence out here. >> i was there for a long time on fox. that's true. >> kansas city says hello, harris. >> thank you. we are waiting to hear from the white house on heels of few things. a historic meeting between north korea's kim jong-un and chinese president xi jinping. among other things, we'll bring you that when it happens live. after more than 20 years rosanne is returning to the show.
today, smart planning is helping the new new york rise higher than ever. as the world leader in unmanned aerial systems, we're attracting the world's best talent to central new york. and turning the airport into a first-class transportation hub. all while growing urban areas into vibrant places to live and work. across new york state, we're building the new new york. to grow your business with us in new york state, visit esd.ny.gov.
because you're a good hearted person who can't do simple math. >> my favorite part they find tout that liberal sister voted for jill stein. >> yes. she said nobody know who that is. little bit of trivia for you. rosanne barr started her comedy here in denver. in interviews leading to up this premier season, she was saying that she would hope the show would get 6 million viewers. try 18 million. rosanne owned the night. that show took people straight to the corner of politics and humor. most of the original cast is here. character dealing with issues many average americans face living paycheck to paycheck, unaffordable healthcare and family disagreements about the last presidential race.
>> jackie believes every person should grow up to be president. >> we know who's liar and who's on fire. >> rosanne connor much like -- it came surprise to hollywood. barr commends the president for shaking things up. the original show which ran from 1988 to 1997 was not known for tackling politics head-on. the working class connor family back in house on that couch and rosanne and her sister still going at it. >> how have you voted for him. he talked about jobs. he said he'll shake things up. >> have you looked at the news? now things are worse. >> not on the real news. >> i wonder who she's talking about there. this is a nine episode season.
rosanne barr said she hopes to get renewed. this things keep going the way they are, wouldn't that make sense. >> so interesting. thank you very much. great to see you. let's talk more about this now with emily. this is different. you don't see very many television shows. i don't know any now. where you got the division in the country going on and protrump supporters. >> i think that's reflected in the ratings. this is a huge hole in the market. working class hardly gotten a fair shake and popular culture for years. just rating speak for themselves. there's so many people who don't feel represented in the media. in the idea that among the 63 million people who voted for donald trump there are people who despise him in all form. the most important thing, it was
funny. it's not going to be funny, nobody will pay attention to the politics. i think it's on the right track. >> as media watcher, talk to me about some times that isn't the case. snl had funny episodes. politics is difficult. >> it's actually really hard to do good job at political comedy. it's not easy. it's really hard to do for a broad audience when lot of people who are creating this content live in l.a. they live in new york, maybe they live in washington. they don't have a lot of contact with people. they don't know what's going on in the connor household in illinois. the real connor household in illinois. they found out what resonates in a big way. >> no doubt. the four letter word that rosanne used and sometimes we've heard her use other words was jobs. >> absolutely. she was looking for someone to
shake things up. it's important to combat stereotype of a trump voter. we're looking for someone who seem to understand that and would go in there and change the way things are done. that's what a lot of voters saw in donald trump. >> emily with the washington examiner. people are talking about it. 18 million of them saw it. we appreciate your time. we've got breaking news now. what we're learning we're digging into this at fox, lawyer for president trump approached the idea, this is according to the "new york times," of pardoning of the president's two of former top advisors, michael flynn and paul manafort. this happened some point last year, kind of lead up to discussions with robert mueller and his investigation. this is according to with the "new york times" sources that
they have with knowledge of these discussions. we're told that the discussions came as special counsel was building cases against both manafort and flynn. they raised questions about whether the lawyer, john dowd was offering pardons to influence their decisions whether to plead guilty and cooperate. we're looking at this. we're keeping our eyes on this. we know there's a white house press briefing. we wonder a question about that as well this is breaking at 1:48 eastern. great, another dead end. sarge, i just got a tip that'll crack this case wide open! turns out the prints at the crime scene- awwwww...did mcgruffy wuffy get a tippy wippy? i'm serious! we gotta move fast before- who's a good boy? is him a good boy? erg...i'm just gonna go. oh, you wanna go outside? you gotta go tinky poo-poo? i already went, ok? in the bathroom! as long as people talk baby-talk to dogs, you can count on geico saving folks money.
>> on the daily briefing white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders said to take the mode o -- podium minutes frm now. she will liking address leaders of china and north korea. how it affects president trump's plan and the british ambassador to the united states. joins me live to react to the major sanctions against russia after the poisoning of spy and his daughter. where does theresa may's relationship stand with president trump. i'll ask him top of the hour. >> president trump is slamming a former supreme court justice calls to repeal the second amendment. john paul stevens said its
original intent does not apply to modern society. that is repeal would go a long way toward combating gun violence. but the president tweeted that will never happen. let's bring in power panel. we have both sides here. what do you think of this idea of just get rid that second amendment thing? >> this is an embarrassing radical proposal by an activist judge. sadly this is a proposal that the democratic party is on the path to embrace. this is a hidden agenda the democratic party, they want to take your guns. they want to take your constitutional rights. they are chipping away at the second amendment little by little. this was just a moment where democrats and i would consider john paul stevens a liberal activist judge within the democratic party. this is a moment where they were just honest about what they wanted. >> you concerned that that happens that can be a slippery
slope? >> what that proposals shows how moderate and common sense democratic lawmakers are when it comes to gun safety. they're talking about comprehensive background checkers ban on assault weapons. nobody on the democratic leadership is talking about banning second amendment. what this is, it's about return to moderate common sense proposal. we have the nra, white house and rnc they are proposals are fringe proposals. what the democratic lawmakers are talking about comprehensive background checks. >> i take it from you, you're not actually supportive of repealing the second amendment? >> i'm not supportive of that. democratic lawmakers are not supportive of it. democratic lawmakers are talking about proposals looking at moderate, common sense legislation that majority of the american public support including in fox news poll.
>> this is kind of a lonely zone where the former justice walked out on his own? we've heard similar from people like karl rove. he floated it out there. we heard brett stevens put it out there. why is this discussed? >> i would note something about the democratic party. they are floating so far left. they tell you they're not for something. within short petered of time all of a sudden they are. you look at socialized medicine in 2013 only bernie sanders send supported that. now they have a litmus test in the dnc with those individuals are not allowed. next on the agenda is abolishing the second amendment. it's only a matter of time. in you're for gun reform i hope you're applauding president trump for signing fix nix and
banning bump stocks >> it does not go far enough. we need to do comprehensive background check so that criminals go to gun show and buy a weapon. >> republicans have gotten to the middle ground. we've strengthened background checks. that is not something obama did. you guys controlled all of congress all -- >> no comprehensive background checks. >> thank you, i'll bring you back. turn up your swagger game with one a day men's.
>> harris: grab the news on fox. the president just did a land mark trade deal with south korea. learn about it. we talked about it this hour. i'm harris. here's dana. >> dana: fox news alert. we are awaiting the white house briefing. it will begin any moment as the trump administration welcomes to news that kim jong-un did meet with the president of china. hello, everyone. i'm dana perino and this is "the daily briefing." president trum on twitter saying there a good chance kim jong-un will pursue peace but the u.s. pressure on the rogue nation cannot let up. press secretary sarah sanders didn't say much about the meeting yesterday. when did the chinese government let the white house know about it? >> reporter: well, they said something about it a little later on in the night. you're right, she didn't answer it when she was asked during yesterday's