tv With All Due Respect MSNBC April 1, 2016 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT
for him, and this will -- the never trump, stop trump movement, this will help coalesce it, because it's possibility. >> robert, ruth, thank you much. have a great friday. we'll be back monday with more "mtp daily." it's sunday, it's "meet the press." nbc will bring it to you live, instead of me, my man, ari melber will pick up coverage right now. ari, take it away. you are a watching our live coverage from president obama, the nuclear security summit in washington. the big exception of russia's vladimir putin gathered for the summit preventing terror groups from getting nuclear weapons. president obama talked about it in his opening remarks today. >> because of our coordinated efforts, no one has surk seeded
thus far a dirty bomb of radioactive materials. isil has used chemical weapons, including mustard gas in syria and iraq. there is no doubt that if these madmen ever got their hands on a nuclear bomb or nuclear material, they most certainly would use it to kill as many innocent people as possible. >> president obama also attended a p5 plus 1 group which hammered out the nuclear deal. >> this group, that doesn't agree on all aspects of policy does agree on is that this deal has achieved a substantial success. this deal does remind us that when the international community stands as one, we can advance our common security. >> here is what we'll see in the coming moments. the president will give an opening statement, but take live press questions, and many expect some about donald trump. among other things, he told "the
new york times", he would be open to japan rather than do for many years, umbrella for protection. trump also raised eyebrows by talking about nuclear strikes in that interview with mmsnbc's chris matthews. >> i would be the last one to use the nuclear weapon. >> can you tell the middle east you -- >> i would never say that. >> how about europe? >> i'm not going to take it off the table. >> you will use it in europe? >> no, i don't think so. >> i'm just saying. >> i am not taking cards off the table. >> joining us now for our special coverage is the host of "hardball," chris matthews, as well as msnbc contributor, chris, your thoughts as we await the president's remarks. >> of course what he said to anderson cooper the other night and what he said to me are troubling. presidents are careful about
what they say about nuclear weapons. almost a religious sense. you don't talk about when you use them, when you won't use them. the world hasn't used them hiroshima. the attack of nuclear weapons, tactical weapons, tens of kilo tons. so you don't talk about it. the idea of i think saying i don't want to take it offer the table. that sounds like it's in your arsenal of possible options. it doesn't sound right to people in the middle east, europe. they're close spaces. if you drop a bomb any where in the middle east, if you do it in europe, it hits europe. no way to isolate it as some sort of bullet. it isn't that kind of a weapon. it is an environmental weapon forever basically. so i think it's something you don't talk about it, and he did. >> chris, what you're referencing as well is something
that diplomats and military experts talk about a lot. there are boundaries to how u.s. personnel and the commander and chief or would be commander in chief discuss certain scenarios, so that's really well-known. and those of us who interview candidates know about that as well. donald trump either doesn't know or doesn't care which is the larger question this week, do you think donald trump knows what he doesn't know? >> well, i think nobody knows everything. obviously donald trump is a very smart man. he knows a lot of about a lot of things. i think maybe his ability, this is just in twugs, but the ability to think on his feet, he puts a lot of confidence on his ability to answer any question. the trouble is, there are areas of discussion where even the discussion of them causes trouble. because they're so sensitive. that's why politicians who are used to the business of politics, develop a trade craft,
just like journalists develop a trade craft, they get information, do certain things to get the information. politicians learn how to evade certain discussions, and they do. they don't talk about a lot of these things, certainly with regard to nuclear weapons. i think about it a lot. back in the cuban missile crisis, close as it came to a nuclear exchange strategic weapons, kennedy would say something about how if cuba send ans intermediate range into new york city, for example, there will be a full u.s. response, even then the word was response. he didn't say i'll bomb you with nuclear weapons. it's care that is always used when speaking of nuclear weapons. >> bringing in steve clemmons here, what we expect to hear from the president, who i'm told will be out within moments, he is capping what is an important group meeting, as we mentioned with the notable absence of
russia, the rich uranium, but when you look at what the president is doing, working off an amendment of 1987 nuclear convention, all about the physical control and logistics of this dangerous material. walk us through what is at stake here and what the administration is trying to do. >> our nation essentially defined its most important foreign policy around nuclear weapons and its competition with the soviet union. the attentiveness, have slowly eroded, and what president obama is trying to resurrect, how to manage materials that go into nuclear weapons and nuclear materials and the basic building blocks of that which can be hijacked and stolen and trafficked in, and that can create an enormous set of problems, but to raise the
concern where you continue to have responsible governs. nuclear weapons have fallen off the radar screen. the statement he just put out, he ended that with isis, in looking at what bad terror networks want to do with nuclear weapons and how they want to reconnect with what really is, you know, an ongoing legacy effect of the old cold quar. that's what he is basically trying to focus eyeballs on and get us worried about. >> we do know up to this point today, the administration has been very clear about the fact that the united states basically has been going in the right direction, going from 740 metric tons of enriched uranium, dropping it down to 585. you see it there. these are numbers they've been putting out by the white house. but they're confirmed, and they reflect what they say is progress. yet chris matthews, we're getting a one minute warning
here, how does the president address the fact that the other big player is mia? >> well, he might remind us all of ronald reagan's dream of getting rid of all nuclear weapons. reagan was considered a hawk, i don't think he was, but whatever his ideology, definitely do what we can to absolutely eliminate humanly, all human chance of a use of the nuclear weapon. we don't want to ever, ever, ever have them used again in 19456789 we've got to deal with russia, though, and that is called dip see. we're going to have to do it. here he is. >> we'll listen to the president's remarks. >> i want to begin by thanking the people of washington, d.c. for hosting us, for putting up with more than 50 motorcades. i will make one promise to the people of the city, i will not hold another one in another six years. i want to thank everyone who participated in our meetings.
more than 50 leaders from every region of the world, and key international organizations. at our previous summits, we didn't just come here to talk, but came here to act. i know that the very technical nature of nuclear security doesn't always make for flashy headlines, but over the past six years, we have made significant meaningful progress in securing the world's nuclear material so that it never falls into the hands of terrorists. i want to take a few moments to step back and layout exactly what we have accomplished. together, we have removed the world's most deadly materials from nuclear facilities around the world. with japan's announcement today, we've now removed or secured all the highly enriched uranium and plutonium from more than 30 countries. more than 3.8 tons, which is more than enough to create 150 nuclear weapons. that's material that will never
fall into the hands of terrorists. 14 nations, and taiwan, countries as diverse as argentina and chile, libya, turkey, serbia and vietnam have now rid themselves entirely of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. successfully removing all of ukraine's highly enriched uranium menlant was made not ev more danger by the presence of these materials. as of today, south america, an entire continent is completely free of these dangerous materials. when poland completes its row mofl this year, central europe will be free of them as well. when indonesia completes its work this year, so will southeast asia. in other words, as terrorists and criminal gangs and arms
merchants look around for a nuclear device, vast regions of the world areow off-limits. that's a remarkable achievement. we've made important progress in the united states as well. in addition to new steps i announced this morning, we've improved nuclear security an training. we've consolidated nuclear materials at fewer facilities, eliminated some 138 tons of our surplus highly enriched uranium, which would be enough for 5,500 nuclear weapons. working with russia, we're on track to eliminate enough russian enriched uranium for 20,000 nuclear weapons, which we're converting to electricity here in the united states. more specifically, as a result of these summits, every single one of the more than 50 nations represented here have taken concrete steps to enhance security at their nuclear facilities and storage sites, and that includes improved physical security, stronger regulations, abiding by international guidelines,
greater transparency and that includes international peer reviews. 15 new centers have been created around the world for technology and training to share best practices. as part of our work today, we agreed to keep strengthening against cyber attacks. we bolstered international efforts for international signal smuggling. it has grown to more than 100 nations, including regular exercises to improve the collective ability to interdict shipments. the united states and 36 partner countries, radiation detection equipment at more than 300 international border crossings, airports, and new mobile detection systems as well. finally, as i noted this morning, we've strengthened the treeties for so many of our
efforts. especially our team whose have worked tirelessly for years, con can take enormous pride in the achievements. nevertheless, as i said earlier, our work is by no means finished. there is still a great deal of radioactive material around are the world that needs to be secured. global stocks of blue plutonium growing. greater risk ever theft, and as a consequence, one of the central goals of this summit was how do we build on the work that has been done so that we have an international architecture that can continue the efforts, even though this is the last formal leader summit. so even as this is the last of those leader level summits, today, we agreed to maintain a strong architecture, including through the you united nations,
international atomic agency and inter to carry on the work that is needed to continue this mission. we are creating a knew nuclear contact group, senior level experts from more than 30 of our countries that will meet regularly to preserve the cooperation we've built, to institutional lies this work and to keep driving progress for years to come. at our session on isil this afternoon, there was widespread agreement that defeating terrorist groups requires more information sharing. everybody understands the urgency in the wake of what has happened in brussels, turkey, pakistan and so many other countries around the world. national intelligence, jim clapper, is continuing to engage with the european partners, and today, i invited all the nations represented at this summit to join a broader discussion among our intelligence and security
services on how we can improve information sharing within and among our nations to prevent all manner of terrorist attacks, especially those that might involve weapons of mass destruction. in closing, i just want to say that preventing nuclear terrorism is one part of the broader agenda that i outlined seven years ago in prague. in recent days, there has been no shortage of analysis on whether we've achieved our vision, and i'm the first to acknowledge the great deal of work that remains from negotiating further reductions with russia to dealing with north korea's nuclear program. as i indicated in prague, will not happen quickly and perhaps not in my lifetime, but we've begun. the united states and russian
nuclear is on track to be the lowest in six decades. i've reduced the number of nuclear weapons in our nuclear strategy in an historic deal, we have prevented nuclear weapons to iran. an international fuel bank is being built to promote civil cooperation. i'm extremely proud of our record across the board. we're going to keep pushing forward where ever we can, as i hope future administrations do to bring us closer to the day when these nuclear dangers no longer hangover the heads of our children and our grandchildren. with that, let me take a few questions, and i'm going to start with roberta ramton from route teres. >> i want to ask about iran. iran supreme leader has complained he has not been getting business deals. non-u.s. companies are saying it's hard or impossible to do much business with iran without
at some point accessing the u.s. financial system to do u.s. dollar denominated transactions. so my question is, are you considering allowing such transactions, and if so, is that not a betrayal of your assurances that most u.s. sanctions would stay in place? >> that's not taking. so let me say broadly that so long as iran is carrying out its end of the bargain, we think it's important for the world community to carry out our end of the bargain. they have in fact, based on the presentations that were made by the i.e.a. this morning to the p5 plus 1 have in fact followed the implementation steps that were laid out. and as a consequence, sanctions related to their nuclear program have been brought down. part of the challenge that they
face is that companies haven't been doing business there for a long time. and they need to get comfortable with the prospects of this deal holding. one of the things that secretary lu and his counterparts p5 plus 1, providing clarity about what transactions are allowed. it's going to take time over the next several months for companies and their legal departments to feel confident that in fact, there may not be risks of liability if they do business with iran. so some of the concerns that iran has expressed, we are going to work with them to address. it is not necessary that we take the approach of them going through dollar denominated transactions. it is possible for them to work through european financial
institutions as well. but there is going to need to be continued clarification provided to businesses in order to -- for deal flows to begin. now what i would say is also important is iran's own behavior in generating confidence that iran is a safe place do business. you know, in a deal like this, my first priority, my first concern was making sure that we got their nuclear program stopped, and material that they already had that would give them a very short breakout capacity that that was shipped out. that has happened. and i always said that i could not promise that iran would take advantage of this opportunity and this window to re-enter the international community. iran so far has followed the
letter of the agreement. but the spirit of the agreement involves iran also sending signals to the world community and businesses that it is not going to be engaging in a range of provocative actions that might scare business off. when they launch ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of israel, that makes businesses nervous. there is some geopolitical risk that is heightened when they see that taking place. if iran continues to ship missiles to hezbolah, so part of what i hope happens, we have a responsibility to provide clarity about the rules that govern, so that iran can in fact benefit the iranian people from an improved economic situation. but iran has to understand what
every country in the world understands. businesses want to go where they feel safe, where they don't see massive controversy. where they can be confident that transactions are going to operate normally, and that's an adjustment that iran is going to have to make as well. frankly, within iran, i suspect there are different views. the same way that there are hard liners here in the united states who even after we certify that this deal is working, even after our intelligence team, israeli teams have said it is a game changer, are still opposed on principle. there are hard liners inside of iran who don't want to see iran open itself up to the broader world community and are doing things to potentially undermine the deal.
and so those forces that seek the benefits of the deal, not just in narrow terms, but more bradle broadly, we want to make sure that over time, they're in a position to realize the benefits. david nokomuri. >> thank you, mr. president. as you mentioned at the beginning of your remarks, you just finished a working session with 50 world leaders about combating terrorism, and groups like the islamic state. i wanted to ask you about the prime strategies your administration is using in that effort. in the past several weeks, your administration has killed well over 200 people in air strikes how can you -- why is the united states now killing scores of people at a time, rather than eliminating individuals in very targeted strikes? thank you. >> you know, we have constructed
fairly rigid and vigorous set of criteria for us evaluating the intelligence that we receive about isil, where it might be operating, where al queda is operating. these guidelines involve a whole range of agencies, consulting extensively, and are then checked, double-checked, triple checked before kinetic actions are taken. for the most part, our actions are directed at high value targets in the countries that you just described. outside of the theater of iraq and syria. in some cases, what we're seeing are camps that after long periods of monitoring, becomes
clear are involved in and directing plots that could do the united states harm, or are supporting isil activities or al queda activities elsewhere in the world. so if after a long period of observation, we are seeing that in fact explosive materials are being loaded on to trucks, and individuals are engaging in training in small arms, and there are some of those individuals who are identified as couriers for isil or al queda, then based on those evaluations, a strike will be taken. but what we have been very cautious about is making sure that we are not taking strikes in situations where, for example, we think there is the
presence of women or children, or if it is in a normally populated area. and you know, recently, we laid out the criteria by which we're making these decisions. we declassified many elements of this. we're going to be putting forward and trying to institutionalize on a regular basis how we make these analyses. n you know, in terms of the broader debate that's taking place, david, i think there has been in the past, legitimate criticism that the architecture, the legal architecture around the use of drone strikes or other kinetic strikes wasn't as precise as it should have been be, and there is no doubt civilians were killed that shouldn't have been. i think that over the last
several years, we have worked very hard to avoid and prevent those kinds of tragedies from taking place. in situations of war, we have to take responsibility when we're not acting appropriately. or where we've just made mistakes, even with the best intentions, and that's what we're going to try to continue to do. and i -- what i can say with great confidence is that our operating procedures are as rigorous as they have ever been. and that there is a constant evaluation precisely what we do. >> carol lee. >> thank you, mr. president. you've spent seven years now working on nonproliferation issues, and you said in your opening remarks, you said you hope the future administrations
do the same, and make it a priority. this week, one of the republican front-runner to replace you said that perhaps north korea -- south korea and japan should have nuclear weapons, and wouldn't rule out using nuclear weapons in europe. did that come up at this summit, and just generally, what message does it send when a major party candidate is articulating such a reversal in u.s. foreign policy, and also, who did you vote for in the democratic primary? >> first of all, that's a secret ballot, isn't it? no, i'm not going to tell you now. the statements you mentioned tell us, they tell us that the person who made the statements doesn't know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the kore
kore kore korean -- people pay attention to american elections. what we do is really important to the rest of the world. and even in those countries that are used to a carnival atmosphere in their own politics, want sobriety and clarity when it comes to u.s. elections, because they understand the president of the united states needs to know what is going on around the world and has to put in place the kinds of policies that lead not only to our security and prosperity, but will have an impact on everybody else's security and prosperity. our alliance with japan and the
republican of korea is one of the foundations. one of the cornerstones of our presence in the asia pacific region. it is under written, the peace and prosperity of that region. it has been an enormous boon to american commerce, and american influence. and it has prevented the possibilities of a nuclear escalation and conflict between countries that in the past and throughout history have been engaged in hugely destructive conflicts and controversies. so you don't mess with that. it is an investment that rests
on the sacrifices that our men and women made back in world war ii when they were fighting throughout the pacific. it is because of their sacrifices and the wisdom that american foreign policymakers showed after world war ii that we've been able to avoid catastrophe in those regions and we don't want somebody in the oval office who doesn't recognize how important that is. andrew beaty. >> thank you, mr. president. yesterday, you met with the president of turkey, fairly ugly scenes at the institution. i was wondering. do you consider him an authoritarian. >> it is an extraordinary
important partner in our fight against isil. it is a country with whom we have a long and strategic relationship with. and the president is someone who i dealt with since i came into office. and in a whole range of areas, we had a productive partnership. what is also true, and i have expressed this to him directly, so it's no secret, that there is some trends within turkey that i've been troubled with. i am a strong believer in freedom of the press. i am a strong believer in freedom of religion. i am a strong believer in rule of law. and democracy. there is no doubt that president idirwan has repeatedly been elected through a democratic
process, but i think the approach they've been taking toward the press is one that could lead turkey down a path that would be very troubling. and you know, we are going to continue to advise them to -- and i've said to president idirwan that he came into office with a promise of democracy, and turkey has historically been a country in which deep islamic faith has lived side by side with an increasing openness and that's the legacy that he should pursue, rather than a strategy that involves repression of information, and shutting down
democratic debate. having said that i want to emphasize the degree to which their cooperation has been critical on a whole range of international and regional issues. and will continue to be. and so as is true with a lot of our friends and partners. we work with them, we cooperate with them. we are appreciative of their efforts. a and there are going to be some differences, where there are differences, we will say so. and that's what i've tried to do here. i'll take one last question. this young lady right there. >> thank you, president. mr. president, what do you think -- >> where are you from? >> how can i join support in the
nuclear security, nuclear security issue? >> well, you know, bijan like many countries that participated have already taken a number of steps, and each country has put forward a national action plan. there are some countries that had stockpiles of highly enriched uranium that they agreed to get rid of. there are other countries that have civilian nuclear facilities, but don't necessarily have the best security practices. and so they have adopted better security practices. there are countries that could potentially be transit points for the smanuggling of nuclear materials, so they've worked with us on boarder controls and detection. and because of the location, it's a critical partner in this
process. i should point by the way that although the focus of these summits has been on securing nuclear materials and making sure they don't fall into the hands of terrorists, the relationships, the information sharing, the stitching together of domestic law enforcement, international law enforcement, intelligence, military agencies, both within countries and between countries, this set of relationships internationally will be useful not just for nuclear material, but it is useful in preventing terrorism generally. it's useful in identifying threats of chemical weapons or biological weapons. one of the clear messages coming
out of this summit and our experiences over the last seven years is an increasing awareness that some of the most important threats that we face are trans national threats. and so we are slowly developing a web of relationships around the world that allow us to match and keep up with the transnational organizations that all too often are involved in terrorist activity, criminal activity, human trafficking, a whole range of, you know, issues that can ultimately do our citizens harm, and seeing the strengthening of these institutions, i think will be one of the most important legacys of this entire process. mark, since you had your hand up, i'll call on you. one last question. >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to ask a question about
nuclear policy. through these past seven years, when you've pushed to rid the world of nuclear materials, the u.s. nuclear industry has actually worked to improve miniaturezation of war heads and while it's not developed new classes of cruise missiles, we need to keep up. are you concerned that the technological advances have had the effect of undermining the progress you've made on the prevention side? >> i think it's a legitimate question. i am concerned. here's the balance that we've had to strike. we have a nuclear stockpile that we have to make sure is safe, and make sure it's reliable.
and after the start treaty, the star two treaty we entered with russia, we've brought down significantly the weapons that are active. but we also have to make sure that they're up-to-date. that their command and control systems that might have been developed a while ago are up to snuff, given all the technology that has changed since that time. and we have to make sure that our deterrence continues to work. and so even as we brought down the number of weapons that we have, i've wanted to make sure that what we do retain functions. that it is not subject to a cyber intrusion. that there is sufficient
confidence in the system that we don't create destabilizing activity. my preference would be to bring down further our nuclear arse l arsenal. and after we completed start two, i approached the russians, our team approached the russians, in terms of looking at a next phase forear arms reduct. because mr. putin came into power, or returned to his office, as president, and because of the vision that he has been pursuing of emphasizing military might over development inside of russia and diversifying the economy, we've not seen the kind of progress i would have hoped for with russia. the good news is that the
possibilities of progress remain. we are abide big star two, we're seeing implementation, and although we are not likely to see further reductions during my presidency, my hope is that we have built the mechanisms and systems of verification and so forth that will continue in the future. we do have to guard against in the interim ramping up new and more deadly and more effective systems that end up leading to a whole new escalation of the arms race. and in our modernization plan, i've tried to strike the proper balance, making sure that the triad and our systems work properly. that they're effective.
but also to make sure that we are leaving the door open to further reductions in the future. but one of the challenges that we're going to have here is that it is very difficult to see huge reductions in our nuclear arsenal, unless the united states and russia, as the two largest possessors of nuclear weapons, are prepared to lead the way. the other area where i think we need to see progress is pakistan and india, making sure as they develop military doctrines, that they are not continually moving in the wrong direction. and we have to take a look at the korean peninsula, and it poses the most immediate set of
concerns for all of us, one that we are working internationally to focus on and that's one of the reasons why we have the tri lateral meeting with japan and korea. thank you very much, everybody. have a good weekend. we've been listening to president obama giving his closing remarks at the nuclear security summit and taking questions from reporters there. he took about five or six questions, and he certainly made some news on several items. chiefly, on the discussion about donald trump's comments about potentially rolling back 50 years of nuclear policy in asia, the president saying that it shows that trump simply doesn't know much about foreign policy, nuclear policy, or the korean peninsula, the president added, or the world generally. strong remarks. we're going to bring back the panel, steve clemmons, jesse
macintosh, and katie burns for real clear politics. we're going do the politics and policy. jess, starting in the middle of those, the president was making what he feels is an assessment of donald trump's weakness, but it could also read as a politically devastating attack, at least to those who agree with the idea that donald trump was not speaking very knowledgeable about the long-stanng policy in asia. >> i think the campaign in 2016 and watching the republican side has divulged so much into something that looks like entertainment it's easy to forget or lose track of the gravity here. and watching the president standing on that stage, delivering those remarks today, just now, really underscores what the stakes are here. all of a sudden, the man who sat on your network two nights ago and said he might be willing to nuke europe under some
circumstances, that could be the person that america puts forward on the global stage, somebody who idolizes putin, it's terrifying, cares about knowing even less to succeed a president as thoughtful and strategic as president obama has been. >> you mentioned putin. donald trump couldn't be more opposed. look, if you're going do this, most of this material, this dangerous stuff, is 90% located in the u.s. and russia, you need to try to get them by hook or by crook involved, where is a point out, donald trump has said oh, well, putin, because of his style or personality, is someone to be emulated. it sounds weird, but that's basically part of what trump had said. i want to play now this key part that was interesting, because we know the president is loathed to get into too much detail. knew the questions might come up
and chose to say this. take a listen. >> the person who made the statements doesn't know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the korean peninsula or the world generally. it came up on the sidelines, i've said before that, you know, people pay attention to american elections. what we do is really important to the rest of the world. and even if those countries that are used to a carnival atmosphere in their own politics, want sobriety and clarity when it comes to the u.s. elections, because they understand the president of the united states needs to know what's going on around the world, and has to put in place the kinds of policies that lead
not only to our security and prosperity, but will have an impact on everybody else's security and prosperity. >> caitlyn, i've got to tell you, that was powerful and many will see it through a political pr prism, but the way he just spoke, seemed to be much more trying to speak as a president, concerned about how these things are playing out for the united states internationally, now, not if donald trump is the nominee. not if donald trump is the president. no. right now as the president, his concern about the ramifications. >> the gravity of it right now. what's interesting about that clip that you just played with the president said, that's remarkably what trump's republican's rivals have been saying this week. it just goes to show how much the republican party not donald trump and not the supporting
him, are troubled by that assessment and you're right. what it means right now. and what i think is interesting about this whole thing is that if it weren't for the multiple controversies that donald trump was involved with this -- over the span of a week campaign manager, the abortion comments, other items, this would have been, i think, the key issue in this campaign. >> yeah. >> right now, which just speaks to the state of the race, but i agree with you. i think that is something that i think you'll hear more from ted cruz, john kasich, other republican leaders. >> steve clemmons, when you look at that and if you take donald trump's comments seriously, and i'm referring both to the foreign policy interview in the new york times where he talked about maybe we don't need to do any protection in asia, let them reen and proliferate, which would be opposite what we just saw, and coupled with the chris matthews interview, you have
somebody doubling down on a nuclearized world, which goes against republican foreign policy of the last generation as well. >> donald trump doesn't believe that the institutional framework that the president is trying to preserve and protect for generations so that there is a commons out there, an allergy to nuclear smuggling and trafficking and making the world safe, donald trump believes that kind of activity rips america off. other nations free ride. the american power ought to be up for sale. that we ought to protect countries that pay us off to do it. so it is a very different think. if you listen carefully to the nuance, the way president obama talked about that, you think back, president obama sounds like a republican. what a republican used to sound like with george h.w. bushs, others that had the -- trying to deal with the fact that many
terror networks out there are trying to get their hands on the nuclear weapons. donald trump wants to pull back from all the kind of institutional arrangements that barack obama is trying to preserve and protect. >> yeah, and steve, you mentioned some leaders, also ronald reagan. we could run the tape. he was leading on this meeting with gorbachev, all because there was a view that a muscular approach to protecting america also involved trying to negotiate so that there were fewer countries and inn control of nukes, because that was good for america. when you talk about art of the deal, do you think it's similar to the question i asked chris matthews before we heard from the president. do you think donald trump understands and rejects that entire consensus, or does he not understand it? he thinks it's expensive to be involved with nato and when typically we've thought of it as us getting the good deal of the
bargain, because we're the ultimate arbiters of nuclear force. >> i think both are probably true. he wants to reject the consensus. he is no fondness for the ronald reagan or george h.w. bush positions. they grew up knowing america and the soviets were on a knife edge, now and then, when it came to nuclear exchanges. they know what happened when india and pakistan came within an eyelash of bombing each other with nuclear -- they had a sense of consequence. donald trump doesn't. he sa he has no consequence. it is a forgotten, maybe he never knew it, but the point is, he doesn't have any dexterity or facility or understanding of how consequential and how reckless his comments are. >> right, you see it playing
across the presidential theater as we've been playing all week. also getting serious as some of the panelists mentioning, at the nuclear summit, world leaders ponder what a trump nomination might mean. we're going to do here, coming out of the summit, special coverage, take a quick break. when we come back, we'll have more on this and more breaking news i want to bring you up to speed on bernie sanders, hillary clinton and some calls for apologies right after this break. lp lp reduce my risk of progression. and everywhere i look... i'm reminded to stick to my plan. including preservision areds 2. my doctor said preservision areds 2 has the exact nutrient formula that the national eye institute recommends to help reduce the risk of progression of moderate to advanced amd... after 15 years of clinical studies. preservision areds 2. because my eyes are everything.
e*trade is all about seizing opportunity. so i'm going to take this opportunity to go off script. so if i wanna go to jersey and check out shotsy tuccerelli's portfolio, what's it to you? or i'm a scottish mason whose assets are made of stone like me heart. papa! you're no son of mine! or perhaps it's time to seize the day. don't just see opportunity, seize it!
apology. we were not lying. we were telling the truth. the truth is, the truth is that secretary clinton has relied heavily on funds from lobbyists from the gas and coal industry, according to an analysis down by greenpeace, hillary clinton's campaign and her super pac have received more than $4.5 million from the fossil fuel industry. >> bernie sanders just moments ago, jess mistill with me. they were sort of worried about this at the macro level, this would get nasty between these two candidates who sea think respect each other. at the micro level, we've looked into this. this is not just a political food fight. it is true that there are individuals bu
individuals involved in this. she has got a fundraising strategy, and so does bernie sanders. we're going with it live and brand new, because it seems to be another inflection point in this race. >> it's disappointing, honestly, he has taken it to this negative place when we're doing this really amazing conversation on the democratic side that had been really substantive at the beginning there. and we were able to contrast that with what was happening on the republican side. i thought at that was a much better place for our party and aggressive ideals he seems to be taking because he is so far behind in the rhymery. >> your organization supports hillary clinton. >> correct. >> bernie sanders would say here is, they put out a critique that they believe was accurate. hillary clinton is saying inaccurate and he deserves an apology. do you buy that? >> no, are course not. that they're bank rolled, everything they can to make sure republicans are in power is ludicrous. hillary has taken money from
some people who work in the oil and gas industry. bernie has too. both have robust plans to the climate change. it's a silly attack. one by a candidate that is farther behind than he would like to be, so he is trying to change the subject. i think when we focus on the positive agendas for american families, what hillary clinton is trying do, that's where democrats look great in this. that's we're building the momentum and strongest going into november. >> kacaitlyn, do you buy that? you've got two popular candidate whose have done well with that. donald trump is not 100% accurate when he says he is not controlled by anyone, because if he runs a general election with the rnc, he mate be controlligh by that. is that fair game? >> i think at this point it is. bernie sanders is still in the race. clinton campaign and for understandable reasons wants to
pivot. obviously she ahead in the delegate and super delegates, bernie sanders is well quipped to continue on in the race and he is making clear that he is not going down without a fight. he raised i think $44 million, it was his last hall. >> 44. >> a hall haul. so feels like he has to complete a mission of sorts. staying in this race, at least through the next several primaries. >> what does it tell you when he talks like that about how he would approach going towards a convention? >> right, well, we've talked about the idea of a contested convention on the republican side. i don't think that he will take it there on the democratic side. especially since you do, as jess mentioned, have such a clear contrast. i think democrats would be really unwise at this point to give that up. >> well, and jess, i know for a lot of folks looking at it, it comes at a moment that something united is going on at the danger of donald trump, a neutral analyst, nonpartisan saying he is a gotv machine for democrats.
let's take another look at the what the president said, just moments ago about donald trump. >> the person who made the statements doesn't know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the korean peninsula or the world generally. >> jess, do you think we're going to be hearing more of that attack, the launch from the presidential podium, trump is not just wrong, but essentially ignorant. >> we're going to hear that from a lot of places. irrelevant's becoming an impossible thing not to say, i know that this president is loathed to weigh in to the gop circus. it seems weird to say it diminishes the office on the jokers running for president, but i totally get it. but every now and then, he is going to say something that is so dangerously ignorant that whoever is asked about it is going to be forced to disavow it. we saw that happen today. >> one of the interesting parts of that nuke rclear summit.
that wraps it up for us. i will tell you "hardball" with chris matthews starts right now. cool hand barack. let's play "hardball." good evening, i'm chris matthews, in washington. the president has offered a calm but tough criticism of donald trump's statement this week, on possession and use of nuclear weapons. >> what the statements you mentioned tell us, they tell us that the person who made the statements doesn't know much about foreign policy or nuclear policy or the korean peninsula or the world generally. we don't want somebody in the oval office who doesn't recognize how important that is. >> well, we know who is he