tv MSNBC Live With Hallie Jackson MSNBC May 25, 2017 7:00am-8:01am PDT
gianforte. he asked for the latest cbo score of the republican health care bill, pretty straightforward stuff but then this happens. >> a spramt reads "tonight as greg was giving a separate interview with a private office the guardian's ben jacobs entered the office without permission, aggressively shoved a recorder in greg's face and began asking badgering questions. jacobs was asked to leave. after asking jacobs to lower the recorder, jacobs declined. greg then attempted to grab the phone that was pushed in his face. jacobs grabbed greg's wrist, and
spun away from greg, pushing them both to the ground. it's unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer barbecue. msnbc garrett haake is in boseman, montana. part of the problem, garrett, for the candidate isn't just this audiotape. people in the room also contradict the campaign's claim that the reporter is to blame. what can you tell us? >> reporter: that's right, chris. they mention that in a statement that january ggianforte was gety for an interview with a fox news crew. they wrote up their experience last night and tooled the reporter described what she saw in that room. >> i myself was standing about two feet from both gianforte and jacobs when this happened. there was a table in between us. i saw gianforte grabbed him by the neck both hands, slid him to the side, body slammed him, and
then got on top of him and started punching and then yelling at him. >> reporter: so legally speaking, this is obviously pretty ugly for gianforte, the jacobs audio says one thing, the independence witnesses and his statement saying something all together. last night he was cited for misdemeanor assault. he has to come back to court for that at some point. whether or not he wins or loses today, politically that is the big question. he was leading in most of the polls by margins from 2 to 8 points depending on who you ask coming into today. lot of folks in montana vote early but today this is the top story in every newspaper, it's the top story on local tv. dems are buying ads on facebook to try to make sure this news and that audiotape gets in front of as many montana voters as possible as people head out into the rain and snow today to cast their votes in this special election. chris? >> all right, garrett, thank you so much for that.
mike viqueira is on capitol hill. what are members telling you? >> reporter: it's interesting. we're down here in the catacombs of the u.s. capitol. behind me members are streaming out of a closed door meeting. it was about the budget. what are we asking about? we're asking about the incident in montana. lot of these republican members don't want to talk about it. those that did talk about it don't condone the violence, but express some measure of sympathy for mr. gianforte because of what they term the liberal media. >> you know, we didn't have a course in body slamming when i went into school. i'm sorry iissed that course. >> the left has precipitated this tense confrontational approach throughout the country in recent months. i reject any kind of thing where we use physical violence in a
situation like that. it should not have happened. the law will deal with it. >> i believe we should all treat the press with respect and i try to lead by example. i of course hope that the republican is successful today because i think his views are the views of the people of montana. >> reporter: peter king of new york said hey, this is nothing. i'm from long island. this happens all the time. all joking aside, however, chris, this is a state that president trump won by 20 1/2 points. the idea that this could be a close race an at-large race representing all of montana, a deep red state, definitely has republicans worried. they were worried before this incident, they're more worried now. >> mike viqueira, thanks so much. i want to bring in our panel, michael steele, msnbc analyst jill benningson and suesan delpurcio. michael steele, you led this party for many years. my question is, do you think
that this is a joking matter or do you believe that you might have some sympathy for greg gianforte as one member suggested? >> i don't have any sympathy for what he did. it's stupid and boneheaded. put your big boy pants on. you want to play with the washington press corps, this is your reaction? it's beyond crazy. look, i'm a republican from maryland and washington, d.c. you live in that crucible with a hot press all the time. that's how you forge your own strength to go out and do your job teen represent your people. if you can't even answer a question on the cbo, what are you going to do when it's really important questions like you know, the essence of health care, taking people off of health care, putting people on health care. this is not complicated stuff for any candidate. you keep a cool head, you're up in the polls going into election day, you take the questioning and you move on.
>> is it complicated, michael, for some of those republicans, because on one hand, criticizing him on the other hand saying i hope people vote for him. >> look, you want to send the republican to washington. i get the politics of that. he has the advantage of having about three-quarters of that vote already been -- >> a republican even if that republican, as you said, can't stand up to the pressure and may have assaulted -- i get your point. >> -- the citation is out there, may have assaulted someone who asked him a request he. >> understood. here is the reality. three-quarters of that vote has already been cast. >> i'm not asking about the reality. i'm asking whether or not -- i'm serious, michael, whether or not you could in good conscience say vote to are this guy whether or not he may have attacked a reporter. >> i couldn't do that, i can't speak for any other republican. i could not do that. i mean if you're asking me the answer is no. if you're asking some of the voices that we heard on capitol
hill, the answer is apparently yes. >> yes. >> so that's their reality. what i'm saying is probably from the perspective of some of those folks they're going the vote has been cast in large measure by early ballot and mail vote. so that outcome may already be fixed. the real question becomes if he does win this, what is the response at that point to welcome in someone who approaches the press with this particular attitude. >> you know, one hand you could say okay, as we've heard, this is all about the liberal media, and we're sick of it. this is also a president who made a concerted effort to discredit the media, so much so the committee to protect journalists which defends press freedoms in totalitarian areas issued a statement and donald trump did a robo call for gianforte. let me play a little bit of it.
>> you have to get to the polls tomorrow and vote for my friend, republican greg january tor fay for congress. he's a wonderful guy. he knows how to win. he's going to win for you. so get to the polls and vote for greg. that's greg gianforte. you'll be very proud of him for years to come. anks a lot. >> mike pence campaign for gianforte, and from republican leadership there's been silence. >> all of that support was before the incident happened, and yes. is it time for them to say i support? you have a number of newspapers that have said we endorsed him. we're pulling our endorsements. what happened here? >> they should call it out first and foremost like michael steele, say it was wrong, he shouldn't have done it.
to date we haven't heard an apology. we heard that statement. >> the opposite actually. >> but also to be fair when we asked other people, republicans to come out, we haven't heard the opponent come out, the democrat in this race decline to comment on what happened in that incident. so even the democrat there knows, it's election day right now. the voters are going to decide. republicans in washington should just keep quiet because they can for 12 hours, they can keep quiet. the bigger problem is, what do they do if they wins? with 70% of the vote already in place, there say good chance that he's going to win. and it will be problematic for the republicans, because that's going to be the firestorm in the news. >> if he would win, they have to work with this guy. >> yes, but he will have won. the people will have spoken from montana. >> to michael's point just to be fair, three-quarters of the vote was cast early. >> that's right. >> they made their decision. >> let me be clear. i don't know if you talked to any republicans down in d.c., i did yesterday, about this race
in particular, they didn't worry about the race yesterday. montana is a funky state, i know a lot about the state. they won 50 out of the 53 last senate races. when they vote statewide they don't think about how they voted for president. i don't think any democrat carried montana since lyndon johnson. democrats tend to win governor's races and senate races there when you vote statewide. i think there's a chance the democrat will win. but i think it's a problem for republicans. how do you deal with this? but the other problem is, free prix d prix dom of the press and freedom of religion which republicans revere. if you don't are severe all of the first amendment you have a problem and that's a problem for them going forward. if you think it's okay to attack a reporter for asking you a question, when you go to washington, this is going to be on the outside, not on the inside of the power structure there. >> all of this started with that question on the cbo score, which
concludes 23 million more americans will not have health care under the republican house health care plan. the elderly, the poor will be particularly hard-hit, premiums will sky rocket. combine that with a budget proposal, and then hear what the secretary of housing and urban development had to say. take a listen. >> i think the health care bill in the senate is going to be written by senators. we're involved in extensive discussions three days a week with every single member, all 52 of us, trying to come up with an approach on health care, that can get a minimum of 50 votes in order to pass the senate. >> i think poverty, to a large extent, is also a state of mind. it has the right mind-set. you could take everything from them and put them on the street, and i guarantee you, in a little while, they'll be right back up there. and you take somebody with the
wrong mind-set, you can give them everything in the world, they'll work their way back down to the bottom. >> michael steele, if this is any other time in history, if this is any other administration, what happens as a result of that comment by ben carson, anything? >> i don't know. i just, i'm trying to find the logic of it, but the reality for me is a very simple one. i believed in what jack kemp said about a rising tide lifting all boats and republicans were of the mind-set we expand opportunity for everyone. the hard core reality in 2017 you have to have a boat first and the party should be less about taking the tools away from people to build their boat and more about providing them with access to the tools they need so they can create that opportunity, so when that tide of prosperity comes in, their boat rises, too. and i think that that's the mind-set the party has. this budget doesn't reflect that mind-set and that's going to be
a big problem going out to the country, and expressing openly why it's important to cut these programs and slash these programs at the same time you're shifting resources up the chain, if you will, to those who in the minds of a lot of people don't need them. >> michael steele, always good to see you. thank you so much. in the meantime, right now, because we see some vehicles arriving, president trump's high profile, high stakes trip overseas. kelly o'donnell is traveling with the president and joins us from brussels. obviously there's already tension going into this meeting. we have all seen that picture so many times from the oval office, the lack of a handshake between angela merkel and president trump. our allies were already wary. he called the organization obsolete before eventually walking that back. now, he is facing the ire of the brits over intelligence leaks. what is the white house saying about that? >> reporter: chris, good to be with you. there is an intensity to this visit from president trump and
rarely does our moment to talk together live on television coincide with the president rolling up. we were peering over the edge of the platform here to watch the president's motorcade arrive. all of the leaders of nato have been in some ways on pins and needles and with a lot of apprehension about president trump because of the criticism he has shared and trying to walk it back about nato and nato is important to this alliance of 28 countries. so what president trump comes away with from his first meeting here with this decade's old organization will be critical. the intelligence matter that the british have raised is certainly something that stands out. this morning in the united kingdom and here, when she arrived the prime minister theresa may said she plans to give a stern warning to president trump about the sharing of intelligence that appears to have happened at a law enforcement level related to the manchester bombing. so here's a sense of how theresa may is going to approach her meeting with president trump. >> we have a special
relationship with the usa. it is our deepest defense and security partnership that we have. of course that partnership is built on trust, and part of that trust is knowing that intelligence can be shared confidently, and i will be making clear to president trump today that intelligence that is shared between law enforcement agencies must remain secure. >> we see the president -- >> reporter: the white house reaffirms -- >> i was just just saying -- i don't know if you can see that the president is now entering, we have a second camera that's inside there, as he arrives at nato headquarters. go on, kelly. >> reporter: i can't see the pictures from here. i can see it by my eyes but not the camera you're seeing. so the president also has a bit of a moment today with the new french president. of course you remember sort of the trappings of that election in france, had a lot to do with a more trump-like figure who was defeated by emmanuel macron and
today the handshake moment was also a way of gauging how these two new world leaders would aju adjust to each other. quite of the fact macron seemed to hold on tightly to president trump's hand perps aeat o two longer than president trump appear comfortable with. sometimes those are just spontaneous moments and sometimes they read more into the nature of a brand new relationship. they had lunch today. also today we expect the president will participate in the big events of this summit, if you will. he will make remarks, they will also unveil a special memorial to 9/11, which will be something very special here. it's the only time that nato has invoked the attack on one is an attack on all and the nato countries coming together after 9/11 to protect the united states by extension of this core belief of nato. so there will be that ceremony as well, and waiting to hear how president trump addresses nato in this moment after manchester,
and also with the tensions that certainly exist. chris? >> thank you so much, kelly o'donnell. i want to bring in "the washington post" national security reporter devlin barrett. obviously in any other circumstance, where you didn't have a terror attack and these questions about leaks, russia would always be at the top of the nato agenda, but your big headline this morning from "the washington post" is how a dubious russian document influenced the fbi's handling of the clinton probe. talk to us about this document and the pivotal role it played in the investigation. >> right, so the document is something the fbi received in march of 2016 at the height of the campaign and it claimed through a couple layers of hearsay that there was a secret agreement by then attorney general loretta lynch to not let the fbi investigation of hillary clinton go too far. what officials have said since then is that document and the allegation contained in it played a big part in fbi
director james comey's decision to basically cut lynch out of the final decision-making process on the clinton case. the document cites an email, doesn't have the email inside it but claims, the author claims to have seen an email describing this secret agreement, and it basically it's multiple layers of hearsay involving four people. and what we found when we, the reporter, called up those four people is that none of them know each other, andhey all deny having any cversations remotely like this. d what happened was, as time went on, the people within the fbi became convinced that frankly, the document was just not reliable at all. >> wow. okay. devlin, thank you so much. great bit of reporting. this isn't the only major headline on russia. this is from the "new york times" this morning. the headline says "top russian officials discussed how to influence trump aides last summer." sources tell "the times" that american spies learned that senior russian intelligence and
political officials discussed how to influence former campaign chairman paul manafort and top foreign policy adviser michael flynn. the "new york times" says russian officials appeared confident flynn and manafort could be used to help shape trump's opinions on russia. our next guest is qualified to a talk about all of this, former u.s. ambassador to russia, alexander who also served as nato's deputy secretary-general. mr. ambassador, good to see you. let me start with this new reporting that's out there from "the washington post," and the "new york times," about russia allegedly trying to influence what was going on here. what do you make of it? >> well, it fits in with a lot of the other rumors and hearsay that underscores the need for a thorough investigation. whether it's true or significant piece of evidence i don't know. >> if it's true, would any of it surprise you? >> no. i think the russians do like to
influence developments in our country. this isn't a brand new thing, but they took it to a new level in terms of their interference in the 2016 elections. but i wouldn't be surprised if they thought they could generate some influence through building up relationships with mr. flynn and others. >> i want to ask you to put on your hat as a former nato deputy secretary-general. what does donald trump need to do? what does he need to say to allies? obviously there were a whole lot of concerns before about some of the statements about nato in general, and his push to get more money from some of these countries, but now you have theresa may saying in absolutely stark terms, this is not okay. you guys cannot b leaking intelligence. you hear it from their homeland secretary. we heard it from police officials. what can he do here to allay some of these concerns among our
allies? >> well first of all, our allies have a lot of concerns where president trump stands on nato and his relationship with europe, does he still value nato a luninchpin of u.s. security a does he have the allies back, the famous article 5 commitment to come to the defend of any ally is something he stands by without any conditions. i think the meeting is an opportunity for mutual reassurance. can he reassure them on that and allies can assure him that they take seriously his demand that they shoulder their share of the responsibility for the common defense. i think on those issues you're likely to see a positive outcome. but the theresa may comments underscore there's a lot of lingering doubts about the president's approach to allies, and to russia. the same applies to the reports coming out of the meeting with lavrov in the white house two weeks ago. they're wondering whether his failure to criticize vladimir
putin about anything reflects russia or stick with the allies and demand russia change its behavior, particularly get out of eastern ukraine before any reset in relations. there's a lot riding on this meeting beyond defense spending, i don't know fighting terrorism. it's the basic trust in president trump's approach to the alliance the united states has. >> i want to ask you of the joint appearance from president trump, chancellor merkel i mentioned earlier in the show that chilly meeting they in the oval office, even the handshake wasn't exchanged. it looked decidedly more chilly than the meeting he had with the russians for sure. what are you expecting here and what's going to be at the top of angela merkel's list to talk to the president about? >> i think angela merkel on one hand is part of the european side of the alliance that has to reassure president trump they've heard his complaints about defense spending. he's not the first president to
say the europeans haven't been carrying their responsibility. so i think she, being the biggest european ally, can make a big difference s inaying that she's going to move to reach the 2% of gdp goal as promised by 2024, but at the same time i think she will lead the chorus in seeking assurances from president trump that he stands by article 5, he has a principled approach to russia, despite his lack of criticism of vladimir putin, and that he sees europe as a strong partner, rather than as a problem in dealing with global problems. >> ambassador vershbow good to see you. >> you're welcome. >> stand by with me for remarks from the president and german kans lorre angela merkel. we'll be back with much more in a moment. earning your cash back shouldn't be this complicated.
i need the phone that's where i happen to be... to be the one that rings. i need not to be missed phone calls... to not be missed. i need seamless handoff... canyon software. from reception, to landline, to mobile. i need one number... not two. i'm always moving forward... because i can't afford to get stuck in the past. comcast business. built for business. we're waiting for remarks set to begin any moment from president trump and germany's angela merkel at ceremonies at nato head quarters and trump is holding a series of meetings
with nato leaders before he heads to sicily for a meeting of the g7. joining us anne gearan, steve clemm clemmens, editor at large of "atlantic." article 5 as you know is part of the nato streety that says an attack on any member is an attack on us all. what are you expecting to hear from him, steve? >> well, i'm expecting him i hope that he will basically say that article five applies to the united states, that we will consider an attack on any of our nato allies an attack on the united states just as they invoked article 5, when the united states was attacked during 9/11. he'll ununveiling a statute of 9/11 in a brand new nato building. this is basically trying to get to the bottom line of whether
they trust him and he needs to convey they can trust him at a time of extraordinary doubt at u.s. behavior, when t uk is threatening to shut off intelligence to us at a time he's spending a lot of time hugging russians and kicking our allies in the teeth. it will be a lot of doubt and skepticism but that's what he has to try and solve. >> anne, as you know, many of the papers over there, the uk in particular are not shy when covering some of this stuff, and there's been a lot of juxtaposition of both the meeting with angela merkel and the russians and also now of course blazing across the headlines these livid accusations about the leaks in intelligence. give us your sense on how president trump can possibly navigate these waters. >> well, certainly on the question of sharing of british intelligence, they allege, the brits allege most likely by u.s. intelligence that's sort of in a
way plays to an argument that trump has been making in relation to other matters, right, that he says there is shameless leaking of intelligence by u.s. intelligence officials, intended to harm him. this certainly wasn't, if indeed it was a leak via u.s. intelligence didn't have anything at all to do with him, but i could see him linking the two, if he even discusses it. i agree completely with steve that the main thing that the nato allies are going to be listening for is something very, very different and much more long lasting, which would be a reaffirmation of a united states commitment to the alliance and to its founding principle that an attack on one is an attack on all. i do think it would be difficult for trump to get out of today without at least making a nod to that. >> so i just want to let people know what's going on. you're very familiar with this,
anne, as i am, having covered these meetings before. this is what they call a family photo. those of us in the press pool, very friendly acronym for t leaders who are natomembers, and they get together and they alys do an official photograph here and of course, you see angela merkel there, in the red, right in the center. let's talk a little bit, if we can, anne, about exactly the perception there, and is there, would you describe what's going on there as trepidation? would you describe it as trying to manage what they see as an unconventional president? how would you put that contextually? >> i would say there is great, great uncertainty and trepidation i think isn't too strong on the part of many of the key nato allies, germany included. trump has gone back and forth in his public statements on what he sees as the utility of nato.
germany clearly will sign up as will other countries to the principle they should be paying more for the collective defense, which is trump's main ask, but they are waiting with great uncertainty and considerable angst for what he says about what he sees as their value to him. >> what never ceased to amaze me as i traveled particular lay cross europe but in other parts of the world is how much average citizens follow exactly what's going on in the u.s. that just as is happening here stateside, it's gone exponentially higher with donald trump quwho was known to a lot before he became president because they obviously, many of them could see "celebrity apprentice" over in other countries there. in terms of the perception of america, how do you think this
presidency, a, has impacted it, but maybe even more broadly, does he have an opportunity, the general view is that he did well -- okay. i'm being told we're going to listen in. hold on. >> chancellor merkel you were in berlin the very night when the wall came down, and therefore we welcome you here to brussels to the new nato headquarters and the floor is yours, please. [ speaking in german ] >> translator: modern buildings like the building of this headquarters is a reference to the future. however, if we are to find
convincing answers for the future, it is good to remind ourselves of what we have achieved in the past, and what we can build on. this fragment of the berlin wall embodies the history that during the cold war has left its mark on nato for many decades. however this wall symbolizing something that has been a determinant factor for my life for many years, because i lived on the eastern side of the wall, and that is the division of berlin. it is an expression of the fact that if we stand firm as did nato, if we can rely on the courage of our friends from central and eastern europe, and former gdi, we can bring down a
wall and make it something to be remembered. our alliance is united in the awareness of the importance to cooperate, to insist on freedom and we all are united in the trust that it is not isolation and the building of walls that make us successful but open societies that share the same values. ladies and gentlemen, with the end of the east/west conflict, a new era began, a new era bringing new challenges and new dangers, but we continue to be an alliance, built on shared values, showing solidarity towards its members. germany will never forget the contribution nato made towards making our country become reunited, and this is why we will continue to make our contribution towards security and solidarity as members of this alliance. [ applause ]
>> and there you see angela merkel. she is going to be giving or dedicating here one of the many artifacts from major monuments in history. hers from the berlin wall. president trump's will be from 9/11. as he's introduced by the u.n. secretary-general stoltenberg, let's listen. >> -- and europe. we saw the strength of that born after the 9/11 attacks against united states. president trump, those attacks struck at the heart of your own hometown in new york, and for the first time, nato invoked our collective defense called article 5, one for all, and all for one. hundreds of thousands of european and canadian soldiers
have served shoulder to shoulder with u.s. troops in afghanistan for over a decade, to help ensure it never again becomes a safe haven for international terrorists. it is our solidarity that keeps our nations safe, and when our open and free societies come under attack, we stand up for our values and our way of life. that is why a strong nato is good for europe and good for north america. the 9/11 and article 5 memorial will be a daily reminder of our vital bomb, and today, we will commit to do more in our common struggle against terrorism. so mr. president, it is a great honor to have you here, and a great honor to give you the floor. please. >> thank you.
thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much secretary-general stoltenberg, chancellor merkel, thank you very much. other heads of state, and government, i am honored to be here with members of an alliance that has promoted safety and peace across the world. prime minister may, all of the nations here today grieve with you and stand with you. i would like to ask that we now observe a moment of silence for the victims and families of the savage attack which took place in manchester. [ moment of silence ]
thank you. terrible thing. this ceremony is a day for both remembrance and resolve. we remember and mourn those nearly 3,000 innocent people who were brutally murdered by terrorists on september 11th, 2001. our nato allies responded swiftly and decisively, invoking for the first time in its history the article 5 collective defense commitments. the recent attack on manchester, in the united kingdom demonstrates the depths of the evil we face with terrorism. innocent little girls and so many others were horribly
murdered, and badly injured while attending a concert, beautiful lives with so much great potential, torn from their families forever and ever. it was a barbaric and vicious attack upon our civilization. all people who cherish life must unite in finding, exposing, and removing these killers and extremists, and yes, losers. they are losers. wherever they exist in our societies, we must drive them out and never, ever let them back in. this call for driving out terrorism is a message i took to a historic gathering of arab and muslim leaders across the region, hosted by saudi arabia.
there i spent much time with king salmon, a wise man who wants to get much better rapidly. the leaders of the middle east agreed at this unprecedented meeting to stop funding the radical ideology that leads to this horrible terrorism all over the globe. my travels and meetings have given me renewed hope that nations of many faiths can unite to defeat terrorism, a common threat, to all of humanity. terrorism must be stopped in its tracks or the horror you saw in manchester and so many other places will continue forever. you have thousands and thousands of people pouring into our various countries, and spreading
throughout and in many cases we have no idea who they are. we must be tough. we must be strong, and we must be vigilant. the nato of the future must include a great focus on terrorism, and immigration, as well as threats from russia and our neighbors eastern and southern borders. these grave security concerns are the same reason that i have been very, very direct with secretary stoltenberg and members of the alliance in saying that nato members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations. but 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying, and what
they're supposed to be paying for their defense. this is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the united states, and many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years, and not paying in those past years. over the last eight years, the united states spent more on defense than all other nato countries combined. if all nato members had spent just 2% of their gdp on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional nato reserves. we should recognize that with these chronic underpayments, and growing threats, even 2% of gdp is insufficient to close the
gaps in modernizing readiness and the size of forces. we have to make up for the many years lost. 2% is the bare minimum for confronting today's very real and very vicious threats. if nato countries made their full and complete contributions, then nato would be even stronger than it is today, especially from the threat of terrorism. i want to extend my appreciation to the 9/11 memori and museum in new york for contributing this remnant of the north tower, as well as to chancellor merkel, and the german people, for donating this portion of the berlin wall. it's truly fitting these two
artifacts now reside here so close together at the new nato headquarters. and to ask once what the new nato headquarters cost. i refuse to do that. but it is beautiful. each one marks a pivotal event in the history of this alliance, and in the eternal battle between good and evil. on one side the triumph of our ideas over a toe tollitarian communist ideology ben on the oppression of millions of people and on the other a painful reminder of the barbaric evil that still exists in the world and that we must confront and defeat together as a group. as a world. this twisted mass of metal
reminds us not only of what we have lost, but also what forever endures the courage of our people, the strength of our resolve, and the commitments that bind us together as one. we will never forget the lives that were lost. we will never forsake the friends who stood by our side, and we will never waiver in our determination to defeat terrorism, and to achieve lasting security, prosperity and peace. thank you very much. it's a great honor to be here. thank you. [ applause ] >> the president of the united states in a dedication ceremony for a new part of the nato headquarters in brussels, not open yet but this part of it a commemoration to major moments in the alliance's history and so you saw angela merkel speaking. they have given a piece of the berlin wall, and you saw part of the wreckage of the world trade ceer, but the president using
this dedicion an portunity toake some pretty pointed remarks essentially scolding as he has in the past members of nato who he feels aren't giving their fair share of support to bring up what has been a point of contention between the president and angela merkel, and that is immigration, and what he believes is that strong link to terrorism, and even if you are to read the faces of some of the folks there, to their perhaps amusement or bewilderment, bringing up perhaps the cost of how much that building might be. i also want to say that, while that was happening, and before he goes into a meeting with theresa may, the white house is also released a statement on the leaks about the manchester attack, and we're going to get to that in a second, but before i want to go quickly to our two guests, steve clemmens and anne gearan for reaction. steve, let me start with you.
>> just in very short form, i hate to say it but this speech by donald trump to the assembled leaders of nato was a fail. he did not mention article 5. he did not go and restate one for all, all for one. he did say we would not forsake our friends but as you noted he hectored them about cost. he made a joke about the fact that he didn't ask about the cost of the nato, the new nato building they're standing in front of. they didn't get anything that would assure them that the heart and the skeletal structure of nato is still sound and works well. and i'm fairly shocked. >> anne gearan, are you shocked as well? >> a little. he did, trump did mention article 5 but only in the context of it having been invoked once on behalf of the united states. he expressed gratitude for that.
but he didn't take what would be the obvious next step that the nato allies were listening for, as steve said, and say the united states thanks you for that, and remains committed to doing the same, should it ever be required. instead, he kind of added a couple of additional mandates to nato that will probably sound like conditions to some of the people listening to him. he said he wants a greater focus on terrorism and immigration, neither of which are core missions of nato which of course as everyone knows founded as a cold war alliance of europe and the united states against russia, then the soviet union. he mentioned russia, the alliance needs to be firm in pushing back against russia. that is something that will be welcome to all the ears there, but the terrorism and immigration focuses are not
things that most nato members see as the key reason the alliance exists, and it will cause internal divisions among many of those nations. remember, there are nato alliance members who have membe extremely different approaches to immigration and migration, from the middle east and north africa. there are already tensions in europe over that, and it's something that nato has tried in many ways to not have to take a unified position on. it would be difficult for many of its members. >> thank you so much for that. i want to go to the statement that was released by president trump on the leaks and the intelligence sharing. the criticism we heard, pointed criticism, from theresa may. the alleged leaks coming out of government agencies are deeply troubling. these have been going on for a long time, and my administration will get to the bottom of this. the leaks of sensitive information pose a grave threat to our national security.
i'm asking the department of justice and other relevant agencies to launch a complete review of this matter. and if appropriate, the culprit should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. there is no relationship we cherish more than the special relationship capitalizing special and relationships, between the united states and the united kingdom. obviously, this white house would like to get out ahead of this meeting. >> and get out ahead of the nato meeting? >> in talking to theresa may. >> they had to put something out because it is obviously going to come up between the two of them face-to-face and it'll be an issue. on a larger scope of what we saw there -- i know you want to talk about the statement -- >> i think you can put it in the context of, did he do something with what we just heard to say to them, we're all on the same team here. i'm going to work with you whether it's intel or nato? >> in fact, if we ever saw a
president of the united states squander an opportunity to put a stake in the ground around moral leadership and a moral high ground, i can't think of one. he lost every opportunity to speak to the issues all of his counterparts are thinking of. he didn't mention the paris accords. he could have invoked article 5 and said, we will live by article 5. he would have won applause right away, off the bat. nothing he said won anybody over. if you look at the pictures of the faces, which we will probably all see in the newspapers tomorr, they are bemused and surprised at the lack of substance, i think, of what he said. >> i think the biggest take away when looking at this overseas trip in totality is that he had a warmer reception in saudi arabia. the president of the united states gets treated better in saudi arabia, warmer reception, than at nato. he ignores the moral consequences in countries like saudi arabia. he tries to take down publicly the nato leaders. that is a huge problem.
when it comes to the statement, the other thing the president has to be concerned about is that we had the incident with israel. the leak that the president is, in fact, responsible for. then we see this with england. how can he say he's going to get to the bottom of his problems when he can't even control what's coming out -- what his folks are doing outside? it is a big issue for this president. let's face it, we are safer today in this country because of our relationships with israel and with nato. that really does hurt us. >> let me pose something to both of you and let you think about it. this is a man who, as he likes to remind people, defied all expectations in winning the presidency. he did it by knowing his base and speaking to his base. it's something he's continued to do consistently as president. when he brings up terrorism and the fight against terrorism and immigration, when he brings up pay up, you owe us, nato members, he is speaking to what is a diminishing base that he
has. i think there's no doubt about that. there are people who support him, who are watching it, who will appreciate that. but who is going to go to him and say, it's not an election anymore. you're representing the united states. these are the issues that the folks that are there need to hear about. let alone whether or not you should make so many broad statements, standing in front of a piece of -- >> so far, no one said it to him. a lot of -- he's been criticizing privately his staff and what's going on. there's a lot of concern, should there be shakeup. it's got to be a shakeup with the president himself. if he doesn't change, which a lot of people don't think a 70-year-old man is going to change his ways, he is going to continue facing these problems. what will affect him are two ings one, poll number once he's below 35%, you can't govern a country successfully with that number. when members of the republican party decide, we may have to
bypass the president to get agenda items done, and let's see if he is willing to veto them. the republicans are concerned about their mid-term elections. >> meantime, i have to bring up that barack obama met with angela merkel today. they had a little ceremony discussion at the brendonburg gate. president obama said repeatedly, i'm not going to step on the toes of the current president. yet, there he is with his old friend, angela merkel. what do you make of it? >> he was in europe for a week before this. i think he was in italy before this. i think he and the former first lady had been traveling. i think they have a warm relationship, and i think she probably invited them. i don't know the circumstances of the visit. i don't think he is stepping on this, by the way. we're not showing footage of that. we're focused on donald trump and nato this morning. i think that to susan's point a moment ago, i think he is at his low level here at 36%.
he's having trouble governing. when you get mitch mcconnell, who says on the health care bill right away, it is going to be hard to get 50 votes, after he had a celebration two weeks ago in the rose garden, obamacare happens to still be the law of the land and he hasn't budged the senate one bit, it reflects a 36%, 40% he's at. you can't govern there. >> joel and susan, thank you so much. sleeve, ed, thanks to you, as well. president trump, by the way, is set to get down to business as a dinner meeting with leaders of the member nato nations you just saw. important conversations ahead given the president's remarks a few moments ago. we're watching all of it. back in a moment. >> announcer: it's time for the your business entrepreneur of the week. michael is a frustrated musician turned urban wine maker. he started city winery to put together all of his loves. it's a restaura, a winery and a music venue.
he's expanding to five cities. watch your business weekends at 7:30 on msnbc. >> brought to you by american express open. visit openforum.com for ideas to help you grow your business. rdsn help you take on a new job, or fill a big order or expand your office and take on whatever comes next. find out how american express cards and services can help prepare you for growth at open.com. find out how american express cards and services oscar mawe went back toig the drawing board... and the cutting board. we removed the added nitrates and nitrites, by-products, and artificial preservatives in all of our meat. every. single. one. why? for the love of hot dogs. we rbut we are not victims.ack. we are survivors. we are survivors. we are survivors.
and now we take brilinta. for people who've been hospitalized for a heart attack. we take brilinta with a baby aspirin. no more than one hundred milligrams... ...as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study brilinta worked better than plavix®. brilinta reduced the chance of another heart attack. or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor,... ...since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent,... ...heart attack, stroke, and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily,... ...or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers,... ...a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding,... ...new or unexpected shortness of breath, any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor about brilinta. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca... ...may be able to help.
some build walls to keep people out. but these are walls that welcome you in. within these walls, california's educators create safe places for every student to learn and grow. where teachers open minds to history... unleash creativity... and show our kids the future. some build walls to divide us. but the california teachers association knows these are walls that bring us together. because quality public schools build a better california for all of us.
thank you for watching this hour of msnbc live. you can find me any time on social media @chris jansing. now, ali velvelshi. >> quite a speech at nato. have a great rest of your day, chris. backlash after the republican candidate in a montana special election is accused of attacking a reporter hours before voters head to the polls. the question is whether this is going to have any effect on the race. plus, more revelations in the russia investigation here at home. how the controversy is overshadowing the president's trip abroad. british leaders reportedly furious at the united states for alleged leaks in the manchester terror investigation. what uk's prime minister is expected to tell the president when the two meet later today at the all-important nato summit