tv MSNBC Live With Craig Melvin MSNBC July 13, 2017 10:00am-11:00am PDT
what about dinner tonight? is it going to be a dinner between friends? >> well, regarding climate, well, we have a number of disagreements which are in particular due to the commitments of -- taken by president trump vis-a-vis his -- during the presidential campaign. so did i. i'm aware of how important that is, but we therefore talked about our disagreement and we actually discussed the matter even before president trump reached a decision. next, should that have an impact on the discussions we're having on all other topics, no, absolutely not. this is the reason why we share the same views and some major common goals on many other topics or all other topics which we've been discussing today and which are moving forward together. next, and well, of course
president trump will tell you about it, but he's made a number of commitments. we're going to be working together. and my willingness to continue to work with the united states on this very major topic. i understand it's important to save jobs. that being said, we shall lead the united states of america work on what its roadmap and continue to talk about it. so today there's nothing new unprecedented, otherwise we would have told you about it. but i believe there is a joint willingness to continue to talk about this and try and find the best possible agreement. as far as i'm concerned, i'm vsm -- i remain extremely attached to the framework of the paris accord, which has been a major international breakthrough, and it is within that framework that i'm working on prioritizing for the european
union. la lastly, as you know, i never very much want to comment who we are and what we are doing, but i can tell you that it will dinner will be a dinner between friends because we are the representatives of two countries which have been allies forever and because we've been able to build a strong relation which is dear to me because it matters a great deal for both our countries and it will therefore give me great pleasure to have dinner with you together tonight. >> i think that i can reiterate. we have a very good relationship, a good friendship, and we look forward to dinner tonight at the eiffel tower. that will be something special. and, yeah, i mean, something could happen with respect to the paris accord. we'll see what happens. but we will talk about that over the coming period of time.
and if it happens that'll be wonderful, and if it doesn't, that'll be okay too. but we'll see what happens. but we did discuss many things today, including the cease-fire in syria. we discussed ukraine. we discussed a lot of different topics. we briefly hit on the paris accord. and we'll see what happens. okay? yes, ma'am. >> thank you. mr. president, your fbi nominee said if someone in a campaign got an e-mail about russia like the one that your son don junior received that they should alert the fbi rather than accept that meeting. is he wrong? also, were you misled by your team in not knowing about this meeting? mr. president, thank you very much. you have heard president trump say that it may have been russia, it may have been others who interfered with the u.s. election.
is president trump taking a hard enough line on russia as you see it? m merci. >> i'll start off by saying first of all i believe that we will have a great fbi director. i think he's doing really well. and we're very proud of that choice. i think i've done a great service to the country by choosing him. he will make us all proud and i think someday we'll see that. and hopefully someday soon. so we're very proud of him. as far as my son is concerned, my son is a wonderful young man. he took a meeting with a russian lawyer, not a government lawyer but a russian lawyer. it was a short meeting. it was a meeting that went very, very quickly, very fast. two other people were in the room. i guess one of them left almost immediately and the other one was not really focused on the meeting. i do think this. i think from a practical stand
point most people would have taken that meeting. it's called opposition research or even research into your opponent. i've had many people -- i've only been in politics for two years, but i've had many people call up, oh, gee, we have information on this factor or this person or frankly hillary. that's very standard in politics. politics is not the nicest business in the world. but it's very standard where they have information and you take the information. in the case of don, he listened. i guess they talked about as i see it they talked about adoption and some things. adoption wasn't even a part of the campaign. but nothing happened from the meeting. zero happened from the meeting. and honestly, i think the press made a very big deal over something that really a lot of people would do. now, the lawyer that went to meeting, i say that she was in the halls of congress also.
somebody said that herv visa or passport to come into the country was approved by attorney general lichblynch. now maybe that's wrong. i just heard that a little while ago. i just heard that. she was here because of lynch. i have a son who's a great young man, a fine person. he took a meeting with a lawyer from russia. it lasted for a very short period. and nothing came of the meeting. and i think it's a meeting that most people in politics probably would have taken. mr. president. >> yes. to answer your question -- [ speaking french ] -- domestic life. and i do believe that both of us have direct relationship with russia. president trump had more than two hours' meeting with president putin during this past
g-20. so myself i had two very long meetings with president putin. the very first one in versailles and the second one during the g-20. and this relationship is very important. we have a lot of discrepancies obviously with russia. but in the current environment, especially in middle east, it's a necessity to work together, to exchange information, to share disagreements and to try to build solutions. so that's my relationship with russia. and we don't have obviously the same relationship as the one with the u.s., but that's a long-standing relationship with russia as well and i think it's important that both of us have direct discussion and contact with president putin. >> one of the great things that came out of that meeting, by the way, even though it's not part of the question, was the fact we got a cease-fire that now has lasted for i guess, mr. president, almost five days.
and while five days doesn't sound like a long period of time, in terms of a cease-fire in syria, that's a very long period of time. and that was the result of having communication with a country. so during that five-year -- five-day period, a lot of lives have been saved. a lot of people were not killed. no shots have been fired in a very, very dangerous part of the world, and this is one of the most dangerous parts of syria itself. so by having some communication and dialogue, we were able to have the cease-fire and it's going to go on for a while. and frankly we're working on a second ceasefire in a very rough part of syria. and if we get that and a few more all of a sudden you're going to have no bullets being fired in syria. and that would be a wonderful thing. mr. president, you have a question. >> translator: you went to luzon
in order to support paris for the olympic games and on this occasion you somehow criticized president trump's policy without naming him. you said that france made a very clear choice to leave its border open and not to build walls to protect its people. do you think the muslim ban and the building of a wall between the united states and mexico? regarding syria as it was just mentioned by president trump, does france stand ready to talk directly with bashar al assad? >> you've mentioned a friend, jim. we told you that paris is no longer paris. you were implying at the time that paris was not safe anymore. you've also said that france and germany are infected by terrorism and, quote, it's terrible because they let people enter the territory. those are very strong words. would you repeat them today?
and do you still believe that france is not able to fight terrorism on its own territory? thank you. >> you better let me answer that one first. that's a beauty. he's the one that asked the question. that wasn't even one of my picks. you know what? ite's going to be just fine because off great president. you have somebody who's going to run this country right. and i would be willing po bet, because i think this is one of the great cities, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, and you have a great leader now, you have a great president, you have a tough president. he's not going to be easy on people that are breaking the laws and people that show this tremendous violence. so i really have a feeling that you're going to have a very, very peaceful and beautiful paris. and i'm coming back. you better do a good job, please. otherwise you're going to make me look very bad. >> and you're always welcome. >> thank you.
>> translator: regarding the first question, like i said, i believe the discussions that we've had today is the proper answer to terrorism. the right answer is strengthen cooperation between our services and never-ending fight against terrorists. this is what we are working on actively together. so in this respect, and there is no difference and no gap between the french and the american positions, when i'll have something to say or i'll say it clearly and i do say who i'm aiming at and when i refer to to those who have been my opponents in the french political battle, i also mentioned the names. so let us not mix up everything. regarding the fight against terrorism, i think that the
right approach is to have the strength and cooperation in the field of intelligence is also to be working together on all the areas of cooperation where we are and i think the decisions which enable us to do more. next, your question regarding bashar al assad, which is an important one. let me put it simply. indeed, we now have a new approach of syria because we want some results and we want to be closely working together with our partners including the united states of america. we have one main goal, which is to eradicate terrorism. no matter who they are, we want to build an inclusive and sustainable political solution against that background i do not require assad's departure. this is no longer a prerequisite for france to work on that because i can only tell you that
for seven years we did not have an embassy in [ inaudible ] and still we have the solution. next we also have a common red line together with president trump. he intervened before i was elected and i said it to president putin after my election, no use whatsoever of chemical weapons. any use will lead to a reaction, an attack against -- a reaction regarding the storage spaces. and next we also want humanitarian corridors. also we want to build a sustainable political stability from syria. this is our roadmap. in order to stick it to, we need diplomatic initiatives beyond our military actions. this is what we've been agreed upon because we want to take an
initiative with the members of the security council and the member countries involved in the process. of course there will be representatives of assad that will ep able us to put in place the roadmap for after the war. but there will also be respectives of these in position and people with different backgrounds and we this talk to all of them against that background. one last question. from an american journalist. >> thank you. >> translator: for both presidents. mr. macron, you had your first meeting with the chinese president during the g-20 summit. what will france do? how will france cooperate with all of these areas with china?
and what do you think personally of mr. xi jinping? how do you want to work can with china? and what do you think of mr. xi jinping? >> he's a friend of mine. i have great respect for him we've gotten to know each other very well. a great leader. he's a very talent man. i think he's a very good man. he loves china, i can tell you. he loves china. he wants to do what's right for china. we've asked him for some assistance with respect to north kor korea. probably he could do a little bit more, but we'll find out. we're now working on some trade deals. he's been very nice. he's as you know, let beef go back in. certain financing go back in. credit card financing and various other things go back in
at my request, which is a great thing for our farmers, so a lot of good things are happening. but we're going to be working on some very major trade components. but president xi is a terrific guy. i like being with him a lot. and he's a very special person. okay? thank you. >> translator: i got to meet him in the margin of the g-7 in hamburg. earlier next year i will be traveling to china. i can not say that he's a friend of mine or that i know him very well because i very much want to see things as they are. but we had some initial contacts which were extremely fruitful and positive. i have a lot of respect for president xi and i would like to say over the past few months he did express his willingness to have the visions of
multilateralism and wanted to commit himself on a number of top topics. i think many of us remember his words in davos and he very strongly expressed his vision of china. we have a number of joint commitments including on climate. he's very committed to that and he told me that he wanted to do more in the field and i can only be happy about it. and like president trump said, trade issues and regarding a number of activities, there areish shouse and differences but a willingness to sort them out and as members of the security council we want to work together on all of topics we've been dismussing today. and china in this respect is a key partner in order to build peace all around the world. china is to play a very specific role regarding the rising
tension, the growing tension in -- with north korea and it's important that china can play its full role in the region. in summary i think he's today one of the great leaderses of our world. implementing a major and boisterous reform of china, society and the economy in china and therefore my willingness and respect as well is to have dialogue, the purpose of which is to continue to talk about the industry of -- civil nuclear industry, economic matters and talk about any difficulties we may have together. very well. allow me to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and once again thank president trump for his visit. and i will be seeing him in a few moments in a friendly atmosphere. >> thank you very much. great honor. thank you.
thank you. >> thank you. >> ending with a handshake, the two from thes conclude their news conference. most notably the president was asked about his son don junior in the russian meeting and he said from a practical standpoint most people would have take than meeting. it's called opposition research. rejoining us is nbc chief white house correspondent hallie jackson and here with me "washington post" opinion writer msnbc contributor jonathan capehart and "new york times" reporter and national security contributor michael schmidt. hallie, these comments by the president at this news conference about the donald trump jr. meeting with the russians and also the suggestion that the russian lawyer wouldn't have been in the u.s. without lynch aprooufg hervey is a, we have to check on that, but the fact is no concession of the fact that this is a foreign -- >> zero. >> -- country adversarial country. >> full-throated defense of his son, andrea. we've seen that in the last 24
hours. president trump saying this on camera, very explicitly, that there was nothing wrong with that meeting, defending his son to about the full extent that he could saying that he believes a lot of people would have take than meeting. let's just be clear on this. political operatives on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly said, yes, people do opposition research, people take meetings about oppo. what tay don't do is take meetings about oppo from foreign nationals. that is what makes this meeting different and even members of congress will say highly ala alarming as you have heard on capitol hill. that's sort of one part of this puzzle. the other part is something you mentioned as well, which is the president suggesting without knowing whether it was true as he acknowledged that the lawyer involved in this meeting was allowed into the united states by the department of justice initially. i will tell you that this is a report that has been circulating. nbc news has not confirmed this information, at least not at this point. we are obviously working on that with national security and foreign policy teams. but the president was sort of making this suggestion, again,
doing what he's done so often in this administration and campaigned before he was president, andrea, which is flipping it around to make it about hillary clinton or barack obama. and so i do think that this was obviously very notable. we thought he was going to get asked about russia. he certainly was. he was also interestingly asked about the chinese president when he was taking his second question typically from a member of the american media, and the president had extraordinarily complimentary word for xi jinping who we just saw last week at the g-20, referenced obliquely north korea but overall far more complimentary. two other highlights to me related to terrorism and also climate. terrorism obviously came up. we knew it would. you heard both emanuel macron and donald trump on the same page relatively on that. on climate, very different views. a little bit of an interesting statement from the president where he said, and i'm paraphrasing, something could happen with respect to the paris accord and we'll see what happens. if it does, it's wonderful, if
it doesn't, that's okay too. remember, donald trump is the one who stood in the rose garden and announced he was pulling out of the paris agreement and that he wants to renegotiate it essentially, leaving the door open to try to get back in. european leaders say we're not renegotiating. this is it. this is done. it's an open question what he meant by that. fairly newsy news conference there with the french president spp. >> and now they're heading off to the eiffel tower restaurant for their friendly dinner as they put it. michael sh schmidt, from a national security perspective, we know the justice department had been tracking this russian lawyer but presumably she had a visa because not only this country but lobbying members of congress as well during that same trip. >> yeah. i actually don't think it's the justice department that signs off on this. i think this would be a department of homeland security thing. this is the same argument that he made about mike flynn when questions were raised about mike flynn's security clearance. he said, oh, well, the obama administration gave him a security clearance. and that was sort of the
diversion there. it was interesting to me that he called it opposition research, which is obviously something of value, and under the federal statutes if you're taking something of value, conspiring with a foreign government, you know, that is illegal. so still, you know, a full-throated defense of his son. he certainly has stayed with him in that regard. >> in fact, the mike flynn security clearance was the routine reupping back before he even joined the campaign, back in -- well, it was in 2016 but it was the reupping of his security clearance as a retired general and had nothing to do with what you would have as a national security adviser, a very different level of security. jonathan capehart, the dynamics are there so interesting. agreeing to disagree on paris but in the presence of the french president, the french press, i think the president didn't want to say i'm not going back there. he was kind of leave it open as hallie and michael just pointed out. >> right. leaving it open. but as we've seen many times
before the president talks big and bold and talks a good game when he is here in the united states, when he's here in washington, when he's at a press conference. but when he's face-to-face with the subject of his ire and his anger and his bombast, he's a completely different person. he's much more genial, much more -- much nicer, and is willing to seem like, oh, i'm not really that person who said all these things. that reporter asked him point-blank, explain to us why you said all of these mean things about france, about paris, about our situation here. >> he said it repeatedly during the campaign. >> repeatedly. and he didn't go there this time. he was gracious. that was the word i was looking for. but when it comes to the paris peace accord, i'm sitting here listening to him e kwaif kate on something he seemed pretty clear on a week ago or so when they said the united states was pulling out of the paris climate agreement.
the other thing, there's only so much you can put on lynch's soldiers for what happened during the last campaign. what he did to try to put the blame on veselnitskaya's presence in the united states, on the former attorney general, is yet another example of the president absolving himself of any responsibility whatsoever on anything he deems wrong with his campaign. >> in fact, the fact she got into the country isn't the real issue. the fact that don junior, manafort and jared had the meeting is the issue. hallie jackson, when we talk about all of his references during the campaign to how terrible paris was, how unsafe paris was, that he had a friend named jim, we don't know -- never gave last name, can't check that out, a friend name jim says he never goes back to paris, he clearly is trying to be polite and be gracious as jonathan just said to his host and this is the diplomatic
donald trump. >> reporter: that's a great way to put it, andrea. it is the diplomatic donald trump. that question was interesting for a couple reasons because of sort of the way the reporter bluntly asked the president, will you repeat that today? remember, this is somebody who in september of 2016 said france is a disaster. today he called it a spectacular country. he said paris isn't paris anymore. did you watch macron's face during that question too? the reporter brought up this friend named jim. it was quite a moment. donald trump was being diplomatic. i think it was jonathan who said he seemed to be trying to be gracious. but he also had a lit lt bit of a warning shot, that dig at the end, and he said you're going to be okay, paraphrasing, because you have a great leader. and kind of turned to president macron, you better not let me down. otherwise i'll be very disappointed in you. it was kind of this warning dig. i read it as a little bit of a flexing of the muscle too. i'm saying great things but, hey, you know, i'm reserving the right to take them back eventually. >> kristen welker, our colleague, was in the room.
kristen, what was the dynamic in the room at that news conference? a little surprising at the end of the day the president would call him out on the traveling white house press corps for that second traveling question, someone representing the chinese press. >> reporter: as you can imagine, we had a lot of questions that we wanted to ask. in terms of the mood within this room, though, it was striking to see these two leaders really trying to in effect set a reset. remember, they had a lot of tensions when they first met. we all go back to that white-knuckled handshake at the nato summit that was extended and got a lot of attention. a very different vibe throughout the day. a lot of back slapping, smiling, shaking hands easily. and that was really at the forefront here during this press conference i thought where you did have some of those lighter moments that you were just discussing with hallie. then i think you saw a president who was really trying to stick to the script. he was really on his talking points, particularly when he was
pressed over that e-mail exchange with don junior, the meet he had with the kremlin-linked lawyer. he really stuck to his talking points i think because he's looking for a reset for the narrative at home as well, andrea, as he continues to deal with the deepening crisis over the russia matter. i think what you saw is these two leaders really trying to show the unity between the united states and of course one of its oldest allies that the critical moment, something that will benefit both of them quite frankly at this very early stage in their relationship. but of course macron has been very insistent, adamant that the paris climate agreement needs to move forward with or without the united states, and even though both of these leader did discuss a willingness to discuss the paris climate agreement, it's not clear there will be any tangibles that come out of it at least on this trip, andrea. >> finally on a couple other quick national security points, michael schmidt, they seem to be overstating the value, the president does, of this syrian ceasefire. it's five days but only one small part of ceasefire that
might be extended beyond. both presidenting saying they need to talk to vladimir putin despite the election controversy because macron had his own issues with the russian involvement in their election trying to overturn it. >> trump seems to be putting a lot in this ceasefire and i can't think of how many times we've seen an announcement of a cease-fire that hasn't held in the past few years with john kerry and everything that's gone on there. so i'm not sure why he's putting so much emphasis on a five-day cease-fire when it will probably not hold and fall apart at some point. a then will he be responsible for that. it seems like he's seizing on this in the short term in a very aggressive way. >> as we speak, rex tillerson, the secretary of state, flying back from the middle east without having reached any kind of an agreement on the controversies between syria and qatar after a five-day shuttle. michael schmidt, jonathan capehart, of course hallie jackson and kristen welker in paris. my colleague chris jansing takes it over in new york. chris?
>> andrea, thank you so much for that. what a fascinating news conference. hallie jackson is right, very newsy, one of the two big stories we're covering, first president trump in paris, and these new disclosures from jared kushner. at least 100 names of foreign contacts he initially omitted on official forms. all right. let's start in poirs. moments ago you saw it, president trump wrapping up that joint news conference with president macron. among the questions the latest rev ligss about russia and donald trump jr. >> i think from a practical standpoint most people would have taken that peting. i've had many people -- i've only been in politics for two years, but i've had many people call up, oh, gee, we have information on this factor or this person or frankly hillary. that's very standard in
politics. politics is not the nicest business in the world. but it's very standard where they have information and you take the information. in the case of don, he listened. i guess they talked about as i see it they talked about adoption and some things. adoption wasn't even a part of the campaign. but nothing happened from the meeting. now, the lawyer that went to meeting, i say that she was in the halls of congress also. somebody said that her visa or passport to come into the country was approved by attorney general lynch. now maybe that's wrong. i just heard that a little while ago. i just heard that. she was here because of lynch. >> my fanl joins me. >> steve, i'm going to start with you and the two main points we heard from the president there, defending this this meeting his son took with the russian lawyer. he said it's standard politics and most people would have taken that meeting. fact check it for us. >> i don't think that's the case at all. we know in the case when vice president gore received incriminating information or issues that were inside the campaign of his opponent, they called the fbi.
>> he said he recused himself as being part of the debate prep. >> the part that bothers me, we do know that fopaul manafort ha some issues to not previously registering as a foreign agent but he's a campaign pro. he was partnered with rick davis who helped run the john mccain campaign. these were not people who were alien to the campaign process, so there's the paul manafort question. but the enthusiasm that donald junior was racing into this and then you saw the subsequent kind of what i call russia hugging after this happened, we don't know what necessarily grew out of this meeting. they say nothing happened. we saw behaviors that had been disconcerting through the entire campaign and also now the trump presidency when it comes to russia. it seems odd to many folks watching it. when you look at that, this
question whether there's true intent to collude, this notion that oh nothing came out of it. intention to collude or coordinate or whatever you want to call it is frankly bad enough and something that i think we haven't heard enough explanation about and it's not the way campaign professionals in any campaign that i've ever seen would behave. >> josh, that takes us to the second part of the fact check i'll ask you about, which is that this was a short meeting and nothing came of it. what about that? >> we don't know that. i mean, you know, not to rag on steving but i mean your answer and i think the way a lot of people have been talking about this has been sort of taking the president at his word that nothing came out of this meeting. i think, you know, these are people who have been lying a lot about a lot of things and we should be very open to the possibility that something did come out of this meeting. you've seen that in an e-mail exchange. it looks like there was a phone call as well between donald
trump jr. and rob goldstone and he says afterward if it's what you say it is, i like it, especially later in the summer. i'm interested to know what they talked about, if they talked on the phone. i'm sure that's something that whatever congressional committee or committees interviewing donald trump jr. will be asking about, but we did get a bunch of stuff later in the summer. we got all these hacked e-mails from the dnc and later from john podest podesta. i would not assume nothing came out of this meeting. >> you're the former secretary of state for john kerry, let me talk about what the president referenced there. he said he just learned about possibly loretta lynch had been responsible for the russian lawyer getting into the country. there are numerous stories on this. this is not from nbc. i want to read to you from what the hill reported. moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the u.s. lawfully but then was granted special immigration parole by then attorney general loretta lynch for limited purposes of helping a company
owned by one of her clients. tell us about special immigration parole, what you can, and how it might fit into this story. >> well, listen, i think like a lot of people i'd never even hear this lawyer's name until a couple days ago when she came up in the context of these news articles. what seems to be going on here is a tactic that the president and his team have used a lot. when one issue or allegation is raised, they bring up a kind of a collateral comparison or side issue to try to kind of distract from the main question. i think andrea mitchell had it just right in the last hour. the question isn't how she ended up in the united states. the question is why when she presented the fact that she might have damaging information about president trump's political opponent, his team was willing to take a meeting with her at the highest possible levels of his campaign and the closest -- people closest -- in closest proximity to the president. that's the question that needs to be answered. when the president is asked
whether doing that is right or wrong, he again answers with sort of a disconnected response that this is sort of what other people would do in a similar situation. it kind of remind you of when you're a kid and your parents say if everybody else were jumping off a bridge, you know, would you? that's not a right or wrong type of answer. i think he owes the american people his view as to whether what his team did was the right thing. a lot of people think it wasn't. >> this is a pretty, you know, broad answer by the president. i don't think we're going to get anything else that we got from him. short meeting. nothing came of it. my son's a good guy. this is something everybody else would do. i've let you all dissect that. but what does that mean for the rest of us? clearly the white house is dug on this, and whatever the senate judiciary committee is going to do, whatever mueller is going to do, that seems to be the white house stand. >> yeah. i hate saying this but it seems to me that the moral and ethical compass that the president has is just unreadable and spinning.
and that's going to require our institutions of government, whether it's the mueller investigation now, whether it is the committee chairs and how they operate with the minorities in this congress, principle and the rule of law and setting kind of norms and ethical standards for how these issues are approached, that tone can't be set by this president because we've seen that these issues don't matter for him. none of these issues that we're saying cross red lines for the broad public of the united states seem not to cross red lines for him, but they scream out when it comes to the form of democracy we have and we're seeing a fundamental test of the system of checks and balances that the founding fathers built into the creation of this country and how our governance system is going to work. so i think we're at a point where now really you're going to have to begin to see the other institutions of government establish and impose norms on this white house and contain
this white house and its inability to kind of walk a straight line on many of these very important principles of how our democracy should run. >> josh, obviously, we're all watching very closely but without much information what robert mueller is doing. he is doing what we all expected him to do. he's being slow, being methodical, hired a pretty full staff with a very broad list of experiences and their legal background. but in the mean time, you have some members of a congress already who, for example, are calling for jared kushner either to step down or be fired. those obviously are democrats. what's your sense on the hill, though, with where republicans are on this and where all of that is going in terms of how republicans feel about what this is doing to them as they're in the middle of this big health care fight and they have a big agenda going forward? >> i think republicans on the hill do not want to be distracted from their legislative agenda. of course they have other roadblocks on their legislative agenda. i think you can separate out there are a few of these committees that are
investigating the matter that seem to be doing it in a serious bipartisan manner, especially the senate intelligence committee. and i think they're working on that and as new developments like that come out, that changes the direction those investigations go. we're seeing don june yor would likely with called up to testify there. in terms of broader political pressure from republicans in congress on the president, i don't think we're seeing it on this issue. you saw it in the refrom most republican members to this disclosure, they're not interested, don't want to be distracted by it, they want to focus on health care. i think as a political matter so long as the president has strong support among republican voters there's not going to be a lot of pressure on republicans in congress to hold him accountable. then you have to mueller investigation. i think a pitfall of that investigation is the most serious wrongdoing here may not criminal wrongdoing. it's not to me that don jr. did anything illegal in taking this meeting. treason is an extremely narrow legal concept, even if this is betraying your country in the colloquial sense. >> i think there's pretty broad
agreement that people who are using the word treason are kind of going way ahead of themselves at this point. >> even this claim he accepted something of value from a foreign entity, you know, assuming there was anything of value that came out of the meeting, you know, i think that's kind of a tortured reading of that law. i think that's a law that's meant to be about campaign donations. basically if you're trying to criminally prosecute around some of these core matters you might not be successful but it sort of loses the big picture. the most important thing is not whether these are crimes. the most important thing is whether they are wrong. cooperating with a hostile foreign entity to interfere in a u.s. election is a morally wrong thing to do, a very bad thing to do regardless of whether it was a crime. >> john, i want to wrap up with you and read one more quote from the president from that press conference. he said i've had many people call up and say, oh, gee, we have information on this factor or this person or frankly hillary. that's very standard in politics. politics is not the nicest business in the world but it's very standard where they have information and you take the information. your comment on that.
>> well, i mean, i can't disagree with his description of politics. >> not the nicest business. >> not the nicest business. but there's some legitimate questions to be asked as to whether his role in politics has made that better or made that worse. leaving that aside, back to the same old line of scrimmage of arguments that i'm just doing things that other people have done. what people need to ask the president is was right or wrong. he's a perp who does not seem to see the world in those terms and i think as josh and steve have both said, the most fundamental question here is was this wrong and people on both sides of the aisle actually seem to agree on that, even if they disagree on some of the technicals and legal issues and implications involved. >> gentlemen, appreciate it very much. republicans meantime are taking another crack at that health care legislation, releasing the latest changes to their plan just a short while ago. will they win enough support to get it pushed through? or is trump care 3.0 going nowhere? from the first moment you met
it was love at first touch and all you wanted to do was surround them in comfort and protection that's why only pampers swaddlers is the #1 choice of hospitals to wrap your baby in blanket-like softness and premium protection mom: "oh hi baby" so all they feel is love wishing you love, sleep and play. pampers only tylenol® rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast, for fast pain relief. tylenol® there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you.
you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans,
they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today. whuuuuuat?rtgage offer from the bank today. you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free! free? yeah. could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. no. go to lendingtree.com for a new home loan or refinance. receive up to five free offers
and choose the loan that's right for you. our average customer could lower their monthly bills by over three hundred dollars. go to lendingtree.com right now. so we finally have it. what may be republicans' last best chance to make good on a seven-year-long promise to voters -- a new health care plan. majority leader mitch mcconnell just leased the latest version
and already democrats are pouncing. but the real question is can mcconnole avoid losing any more gop support? so far two senators, kai koois rand paul and maine's susan collins have indicated they will vote no on this version. that means mcconnell can't afford to lose even one more republican vote. i want to bring in nbc news congressional correspondent kasie hunt. give us the headlines from this bill for starters. >> well, chris, this is a bill that tilts a little towards those conservatives that had a lot of concerns. so ted cruz and mike lee, whose idea to allow insurance companies to sell these cheaper bare-bones plans is incorporated into the base of this bill. now, insurance companies as well as some advocates have argued that, look, this is going to bifurcate the market, make sick people buy more expensive plans that cover everything and healthier people buy these cheaper plans and that's what's going on around the country will ultimately make those pools for very unhealthy people completely unsustainable. and so this is part of the
broader picture, though, that includes concerns for moderates as well. the major change there, the bill has basically kept two of the major obamacare taxes and we talked to lindsey graham earlier and he said, look, we have this problem where a lot of people were concerned that we were cutting medicaid and also cutting tacks for the wealthy and that was untenable and that this essentially moves away from that a little bit and could potentially woo some of those moderate senators that have had concerns. but it's just not clear yet that the moderates that we've been watching so closely are going to be ready to say that they will vote to open debate on this bill. right now mcconnell says those votes will be next week after we get a new cbo score for this bill. rob portman, the senator from ohio, telling my colleague lee ann caldwell that he's still undecided on this. he and shelly moore capito were very concerned about funding for fighting the opioid epidemic, a lot of that included in
medicaid. there's $45 billion more for that, but so far it doesn't seem as though either one of them has been willing to say yes, they will vote in favor of this bill. as you pointed out with rand paul and susan collins already saying they don't even want to start the debate on this, that means that mitch mcconnell can't lose a single other republican senator if he wants to get to 50 votes to pass this bill through the senate. so an incredible amount of pressure on him. we're watching very closely this afternoon to see if there's anybody else. like i said, it would only take one more person to eventually sink this project before it gets off the ground. chris? >> nbc's kasie hunt. thank you for that. i want to bring in the house minority whip, congressman steny hoyer. let's start with health care if we can, congressman. obviously it's not just mitch mcconnell under pressure. he's putting pressure on his members. the white house, the president putting pressure on their members. what's your sense there on the ground? can mitch mcconnell hold on to his votes? >> i don't think so. one update that i've had that i think kasie said that portman
said he was undecided, portman is being reported by the "national journal" as saying he's no on the motion to proceed and no on the bill as it stands. i'm not surprised at that. the changes that senator mcconnell has made still put at substantial risk millions of people in terms of their health care coverage. it doesn't -- it puts at risk pre-existing conditions being covered. it puts at risk a lifetime in annual limits maybe reinstated. as kasie pointed out, this cruz/lee al tern goi-o-i-n-g to lead to people who have any kind of an illness to only have very high cost alternatives available to them. >> so you're feeling confident right now. >> from what i've been told, we now have three united states senators who have said their no on the motion to proceed and therefore when the vote's called next week, my presumption is it will not pass, it will not get
to 51 votes that it needs and therefore senator mcconnell will have to go back to the drawing board or do what he said he would do or drawing board, or do what he said he would do which is improving or making the aca work better. we said all along that we're prepared to work with our colleagues to shore up the areas where it is not working as well. making sure there is alternatives available. we are prepared to work together with republicans. next week if senator mcconnell can't get the votes he wants to people, i hope he does what he said he will do. >> i want your relax to what we just heard from the president of the united states. he was asked to comment on his
son's meeting with the russian lawyer he said it is standard politics, opposition research. when you hear the president say most people would have taken that meeting, what's your reaction? >> i don't think most would have taken that meeting, and if hillary clinton had, he would be on the top of the dome screaming about a rigged election. screaming about cooperating with a hostile government. i don't think is a very genuine comment for the president of the united states to say. of course during previous elections what happened is when governments turned over information, almost immediately the recipient of that information turned it othver to
the fbi and let the fbi know a hostile government is trying to interfere with the election for president of the united states. shortly after that meeting, the republican convention, they struck language that was hostile to russia and put in, because of their actions in crimea, their actions in ukraine and syria. the fact of the mat sere thter donald trump's rationalization of putin's actions, an international lawbreaker, is proof of the fact that there is a conspiracy here, or at least collusion. i don't know if it was criminal or not, but clearly there was working between the trump folks and the campaign, and the russians, and it was stated clearly to try to help trump be
elected president of the united states. should not have happened. it is time for your business of the week. have you ever walked into bloomi bloomingdales and smells coconut in the swimming suits, or powder in the baby section. for more, watch your business weekends at 7:30 on msnbc. what do you think? hate to play devil's advocate but... i kind of feel like it's a game changer. i wouldn't go that far. are you there? he's probably on mute. yeah... gary won't like it. why? because he's gary. (phone ringing) what? keep going! yeah... (laughs) (voice on phone) it's not millennial enough. there are a lot of ways to say no. thank you so much. thank you! so we're doing it. yes! start saying yes to your company's best ideas. let us help with money and know-how, so you can get business done.
macaron. joining me now,
a former spokesperson for the justice department, charlie savage, a correspondent with the new york times. making a comment on the president of france, you're in such good shape, calling her beautiful, a man that saw his own campaign threatened by comments on women's looks. >> it's just so inappropriate. it reminds me of just a few weeks ago he had an ie rich -- irish reporter and he asked her to come over and he leered at her. this is an embarrassment for the entire nation. he is talking about the spouse of a head of state of a foreign nation and he is treating her like a beauty contestant in the
pay ge pagent. >> it is official french video that has been posted. >> maybe it is a sign that he is trolling president trump a little bit or they tried to spin it as a lighthearted, good natured thing, and try to pre-emptively prechbt a big media fire storm about it. >> and the fact that it has, i don't know how they run their facebook page there, it's hard for me to imagine that the official page of a head of state, matt, that it happens in a official page -- does anything
come out of this that has not already for this president? >> i think a lot of this is just baked in. we knew it on the campaign. now we see it again. i do think there is something about it happening on foreign soil. it is dit respectful like i said to the pous of a head of state? i think this is a trump moment that will be shown over and over again. >> does it play differently across the pond? many americans are familiar with the tabloids in this the u.k., does it get attention over there, do you expect? >> it will be fun to see what happens, france has a reputation for being less uptight about sexual matters than the u.s., maybe it will be completely