tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC August 9, 2017 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
msnbc i've. >> thank you, we begin this hour with a nuclear standoff. we will watch for news of the escalation with north korea. today, mixed messages from the president's team a day after donald trump promises furry in response to the fact they have a miniaturized nuclear warhead. so our word of the day is threat. >> north korea best not make any more threats to the united states. >> he probably didn't mean to say threats. they threaten all of the time. >> they will be met with fire and fury like the world has
never veseen. >> the united states knows we will not launch a preevenp premptive attack. >> general james mattis just issued a stern warning to north korea. they should cease any actions that would lead to the end of their regime on the destruction of their people. and they're on the same team, but are they on the same page? rex tillerson offering an alternative take on the president's unprecedented comments. >> i think he just want today be clear to the north korean regime that the u.s. and their ability
to and willingness to defend itself, and i think it was important he deliver that message to avoid any miscalculation on their pair. kelly o'donnell is in bridgewater. the first question that a lot of people had was "is it off of the cu cuff?" members of congress surprised by it, what have we learned since then? >> there has been an attempt to give us more insight into those words. general kelly and others on the national security team are well aware of the tone of the statement of the president prior
to delivery. the worlds are their own. the words were discussed beforehand. they were clear that the president was going to respond to north korea's threats with a strong message in no uncertain terms. what we hear from that is the president's choice of words was his own. the tone, the strength, the forcefulness, they say was in fact known by the chief of staff and the president's national security advisors. . the fact that we have had to have a couple iterations and comments, and some thought his words for not appropriate at this time. they are trying to fill in a little bit of the positioning with to be unified against north
korea, but to not spark something by the president's re rhetoric. typically, there would be a conversation before the president who knows cameras will be there. that a question about the biggest story of the day was likely. and that is exactly how it played out. so the president could anticipate he would be asked. he was ready with a comment, and now today some of the fallout about what was behind those words, fire, fury, and power. >> and you had your way to make your way to seoul, and that region has as much as stake as anyone. what is the reaction there? >>. >> it would take less than two minutes for north korean missiles to hit this city, so they have most to lose here. the official reaction has been
really very calm, they say there is no imminent crisis, and they simply continued to watch for signs of more provocation from north korea. a calm, official statement, and under that there is real anxiety. the u.s. intelligence assessment means that the neighbor to the north of here is nuclear equipped. this is a nuclear nation, and secondly, the fiery rhetoric coming not from pyongyang, but from washington nap is new, not something they heard from any u.s. president, and they don't quite know how to judge it. what is donald trump's red line, if indeed he is drawing a red line. what does he mean by a threat, and they are listening to mixed signals and mixed messages. you just said that james mattis issued a new statement. and he is warning the north
koreans saying if you issue any statements you will lose. they said we don't want a war, we don't want regime change, we don't want to move troops north of the 38th parallel. so who salespeoples for the administration. president trump's statements quite extraordinary. analysts that are optimistic here would say that jim jong-un will not launch any attack because survival, self preservation is the key, but you have two relatively inexperienced and predictable leaders, and south korea really, you know, there is anxiety here. they were satisfied last week with new u.n. angsts, i think that satisfaction has now given way to real concern, kris. >> thank you, both. a democrat congressman that r s
represents california and is a member of the arms services compete, nancy is a former deputy national security advisor at the white house under president clinton. appreciate you both being here. congressman, your colleagues have condemned the president for his comments and i just want to play what senator mccain had to say. >> we have to be careful what we say and what we do. i believe my hero, teddy roosevelt said walk softly, but carry a big stick. >> congressman, given what you saw and heard on your visit what do you think are the implications of the president's statements and him doubling down
a little bit. you don't make big threats that you don't know if you can keep. north korea and south korea has been threatening for years, we have to be very, very measured. this is a very, very dangerous situation. dangerous for the 30,000 or more americans on the peninsula in immediate arms range, and to say nothing of the south koreas of which there are 30 million in direct sight of those missiles as well as the artillery. this is a time for everyone to take a deep breath, think back, just a few days ago we were on track for serious sanctions and serious pressure on north korea, and we had china, russia, the united states, the entire security council of the u.n., all working together. and then the president comes along with a unnecessary, in
fact harmful statement that upsets all of that. we have to get to the negotiation table. >> to your point, secretary dilldill -- tillerson suggested that it will be unique, but they're trying to, it seems to me, calm some of the nerves that have been created by this. is that the net effect, or because there does seem to be conflicting statements. rex tillerson is not just adding confusion? >> it, well, it is chaos. you skraent a presidecan't have winging it on a situation like north korea. that's what he was doing. you have for me, one of the first times i have seen this administration get it right. they had a very cautious approach to the sanctions.
ambassador hailey deserves high parade for the unanimous vote in the u.n. security council. it's very hard to get china and russia on board. tillerson had a very productive visit out there. the message is the world is with us and we're tightening the pressure on north korea with unprecedented sanctions, and they managed to get china to start taking the lead, they have the most influence over north korea, and that's the way to get the crisis back from the brink. that was all blown up by the president's statements. >> are we on the brink right now? >> no, i don't think we are, but if we keep on this path, we will be. we need to step it back, and as congressman said we were on track and we're getting off track. it means to have a disciplined president that speaks after only thoughtful consideration. >> congressman, "the washington
post" reported, and since then we just heard that the comments by the president were all trump. he came up with the words, not something he put together with the help of his national security team. i want to play for you what former deputy advisor ben rod rs said here on msnbc. >> it is usually carefully crafted. we would preview any new language with the allies, and it seems in this case none of it happened. >> he was part of the meetings where they carefully crafted every world. >> what is a serious problem is
the president. he is uncontrollable. it is clear kelly was not able to control him. he goes out and says dangerous language in a dangerous situation and sets off a fire tomorrow. we were on a very, very good track as the ambassador said and as i said earlier. we have to get back to that welcome take a deep breath, mr. president, go play golf for five days and don't tweet. let us get back under the situation where we are headed towards the negotiations. rally our allies on this. we had them lined up and the president goes and throws everything into chaos. i pray that kelly gains control of the white house, and tries to get this president to tone it down twob be rational and
thoughtful, and to stop tweeting and mouthing off word that's are extraordinarily dangerous. >> we're almost out of time. i want to ask you what you think the implications are of the staffing particularly at the state department. only 36 have been filled, 29 are holdovers, 48 positions have vacant. jack reed said those gaps will be exploited by our opponents, and a number of people pointed out some of the missing positions are people that deal with the korean peninsula. >> it's very concerning, we need a full team to deal with the rest of the world pap process where you're getting professionals, your team, north korea is the most difficult problem we face. i agree with ben's comments, you have to have a deliberate
process and carefully consult within the government and abroad. that includes having a full team on board to try to figure it out. you cannot wing this crisis. if we do, we'll be in deep deep trouble in is far too dangerous to have a president making it up on the fly. just dangerous. thank you to my guests. we just want to remind folks we're keeping our eye on the state department. an on camera briefing any time now. we'll monitor it for headlines and bring them to you and they will be asking largely about this crisis with north korea. as we continue, the russia probe hones in on trump's former campaign chair, paul manafort. his home raided by the fbi. what agents were looking for and what it could mean for the mueller investigation is next. comfortable you are in it.
with president trump facing a crisis on the world stage, we're keeping an eye on the briefing. north korea the top question if not the only question that we'll get today. we'll have that for you. in the meantime, as he faces that crisis, we're reporting new developments in the russia investigation. that the fbi is following a money trail left by former trump campaign trail left by paul manafort. a spokesman confirming fbi
agents executed a search warrant at one of his homes. he has always cooperated and did this time as well. they say the raid was carried out by agents working for robert rauler. tom, a great story, who do you know about what those agents are after? >> thanks, we learned they executed a search warrant which is unusual. appreciate previously we have seen subpoenas, this was an actual predawn raid with a warrant asking for documents related to international banking and tax matters. we know the agents that visited
the home in alexandria, virginia came out with a big trove of material. >> the timing is fascinating, isn't it? the day after he went in to talk to staffers. >> the timing were interesting. on the very day of the raid, paul manafort was scheduled to testify in front of the senate judiciary committee. why a white house advisor, a former white house advisor asks us and we quoted him today, why did they need to aggressive raid when he was cooperating and willing to testify. indeed, one of the points may be do -- to emphasize they are
ratcheting up and leaving nothing to chance. >> and chuck grassley, the committee chair, turned over about 400 pages they wanted on august 2nd. so obviously or for speculation, they didn't think he was turning everything over? >> they seemed to have concern about documents that were possibly left behind. it was 400 pages of e-mails, corresponden correspondenkor spon -- correspondence and notes. what we know now is they were apparently seeks broad evidence and putting the array of information, particularly around banking and tax information. these are areas where paul
manafort may be personally vulnerable. one of the theories is bob mueller and his team want to put pressure on paul manafort so if he has information on others beyond the meetings that he participated in, that they're applying strong pressure. >> i want to bring in joyce, a former u.s. attorney, and also retired fbi agentm manny gomez. you can see the scene, it's the dead of night, they're going in in flak jackets. tom said it is unusual. not a swornt, bearch warrant, b
essentially a raid. >> robert mueller is taking the investigation very seriously. there would have been a situation where they didn't believe his testimony beforehand, the day before, and they said you know what? we're going to get a search warrant to go in hard. number one, to possibly recover any evidence he may be lying about or hiding. and to esend out the message to everyone in the investigation that they will be taken seriously and harshly if need be. no one wants that predawn knock on the door by the fbi in flak jackets et cetera so their neighbors and friends can see they're in trouble. no one wants that if is stressful when it happens. i have done that many times in my career. it's a tactic, sending a message that robert mooueller is to be
taken seriously. >> was it just to paul manafort? how do you read what we're learning now? >> prosecutors can't get a sw t search warrant because they think something might be going on. in this case, mueller would have had to convince a federal judge he had probable cause to believe there was evidence of criminality at this specific location, and judges take that seriously. they have to establish that evidence of criminality will be found in the location you seek to search. perhaps something that happened in the testimony didn't match up with other evidence that was already in muler's possession, but the exconstitution of this
search warrant signalled not just to manafort but other people that mueller is seriously in business and perhaps further along than people expected. >> this is clearly not a case where we hear from paul manafort's spokesperson who says we're fully cooperating but they felt something different? >> i think that is what we can conclude from what happened here, it may be that manafort was cooperating or tlirting wflh cooperating. there was perhaps concerns that evidence may have been destroyed. >> so where does go from here? you know you have been on these raids, how do they divy up what they got there and how long does it take? >> the computer forensics unit
looks at anything computer related. documents readily analysts and they will put together an analysis of what's going on. if they have a legal search warrant, signed by a judge, they may have already had enough evidence for a jury, but the evidence will be gathered, robert mueller is here to stay and he will take this to the logical conclusion. a lot of people don't know that lying to an fbi agent is a crime in and of itself. all of these people being interviewed, if they're lying,
starting right there say a v problems to deal with. >> thank you to my bestguests. up next, the president went rogue when he made the fire and fury comment. is it a sign that kelly can't get control. the press briefing running late, we'll have it when it starts. stay with me, mr. parker. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker.
as chief everything officer, lynne smith, gets ready to launch the school year. binders, done. super-cool notebooks, done. laptop setup, done. that's mom taking care of business. but who takes care of mom? office depot / office max. during our "taking care of back to school" sale, order online and pick up in-store in just one hour. and she's off... to another important business meeting. office depot / office max. ♪ taking care of business it's ok that everybody ignoit's fine.n i drive. because i get a safe driving bonus check every six months i'm accident free. because i don't use my cellphone when i'm driving. even though my family does, and leaves me all alone. here's something else... i don't share it with mom. i don't. right, mom? i have a brand new putter you don't even know about!
just a reminder any moment we could expect a live on camera briefing when it begins. meanwhile the escalation comes while the new chief of staff is to bring order tore the white house. john kelly is making a statement, and the washington post says in an administration that split into factions, he has asserted himself as a rare a political force. he has running operations and
his process in a way they hope will lead to tangible results. joining us now, robert costa. also with us, eli stokels. today, phil rucker said trump's fire and fury threat to north degree k korea was absolutely his own wording. the president took a little heat for his comments and it seems while kelly has been getting control of some of his aspects, maybe in turms of research. >> the last few days has been n
unsure. hr mcmaster, the general, the national security advisor providing the president with information. he is making them from his gut and instincts, not on talking points, that is unsettling troiss on both sides that thinks the president may be out there on a limb with some of these statements not listening to these generals. >> and they report about this on. >> going feud. which fwhb a better white house would settle the mat what happens they should question mr. bannon's. his habits have been responsi e
responsible. >> it is clear, i will leave the editorial aside and reference our report by our white house team. as bob wrote about today, it is clear he is trying to impose a sense of order closing the door of the people in the oval office going in and out all of the time. trying to restrict the information flow to the president. he told people according to one source that he is there to manage the staff, not the president, and of course that leaves us where we are today. the president is often the one out making some of these statements that suddenly disrupt everything, overtake the news cycle, and send that staff scurrying to react rather than get out in front of things.
they never seem to know, including kelly, everything that will come from the president's twitter feed, or from his mouth. >> one of my favorite parts of your story, and a great story, was the amazing anecdote they're having a white house staff meeting about taxes and they're all waiting to hear what the new chief of staff could think about the whole tax situation and he basically says i pay taxes and i don't like it. i'm paraphrasing, but i wopnder how a chief of staff, for someone like donald trump, who they hope will be guided by a more steadying force, can he stay a-political? >> we'll have to see. it is early in his tenure. i think it is telling when you look at his time at the department of homeland security, he reflected the president's objectives with the travel ban, muslim majority countries. he really executed that instead
of objecting to the president's aims. there is a sense in the west wing that is how he will be as chief of staff doing what president wants and if he is going to be that steadying, gie guiding, or moderating force, it will be done one on one. not during meetings. >> one of the jobs is to make sure that the president's agenda moves forward, right? that involves congress, but you have the president going back and forth now with mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell said the president has excessive situations. then you have the president tweeting senator mitch mcconnell says i have excessive expectations, but i don't think so. seven years of hearing repeal and replace, why not done? you have to get your head around what is realistic for any chief of staff to do, including congress that seems to be going against their sitting president. >> the relationship between the
white house and republicans seems to be deteriorating a little bit. i was going to reference dan scavino, his tweet this morning, poking mitch mcconnell in the eye. it will be difficult for them to control some of the subordinates. they need mitch mcconnell if they want to do something as big as tax reform. you would think they want to reign in some of the shots they're taking. but then he goes out and echos that message on twitter, the president clearly speaking to that base and republicans across the country, but it has some impact going forward and it might be one of those things that kelly wants to speak with the president about behind
closed doors. we're going to the state department briefing. this is heather talking about the briefing. >> the american public and perhaps the rest of the world exactly who they should be listening to in the u.s. government when it comes to north korea and what the united states policy and posture is? >> i think the united states and some of you may disagree with us, but the united states is on the same page. whether it is the white house, the state department, the department of defense, we're speaking with one voice and the world is speaking with one voice, and we sthau when it came out of the u.s. security council. the united states and other nations condemned north korea for their destabilizing activities. they continued to take part of the two icbm launches in less than a month's period of time and the world remains very concerned about that. >> you don't think that the president's comments are at odds
with those of the secretary's and other officials? or is this kind of a good cop, bad cop routine here trying to coax the maximum you can get from the north korea government. >> we talked about our pressure campaign, the united states pressure ul campainited states campaign. it is working. it is ratcheting up the pressure on north korea. the president spoke about this yesterday. secretary tillerson spoke about it today, and they spoke about the president's words, and he said the president is sending a strong message in the kind of language that north korea understands. the president is a very effective spokesman. does that mean, and this is my last one, does that mean you
have come to the determination that you, the only way to get through to kim congrejong-un is the same bombastic -- >> there is lots of ways to get through we believe, our issue is not with the people of the dprk, it is with the regime itself. that message has been strongly sent throughout this administration when the president, secretary mattis and tillerson agree the top security issue for the united states is the safety and security of americans but would be dprk and the destabilizing activities for the legal, nuclear, and ballistic weapons that continue to take place. >> so in the president's remarks and in the secretary's comments about the president's remarks, saying it was the kind of language that north korea would
understand, is that something, an approach the state department was involved in yesterday? >> the state department, the secretary, and the president have ongoing conversations. they spoke earlier today. this pressure campaign is something that we're all in agreement on. so nothing has changed in that regard. >> can you extrapolate, the president and the secretary spoke today? >> they did. >> when he was in guam or on the plane or --? >> i'm not sure, intransit as he is on his way back to the united states. what point or time, i'm not sure. >> can you qualify what time zone. >> that's a good question. >> thank you. >> i believe it was -- >> do you have any idea how long it was? >> in the last 24 hours for
about an hour. >> i have l have to check on the first call. >> a call with general kelly and the president and the secretary on monday morning. monday morning east coast time. >> right, okay, so we have two calls then. okay. >> andrea, could i follow up? the secretary's call was well after the fire and fury language. senator mccain and others, republicans and democrats, have complained it was bombastic, not helpful said senator mccain that no other president, nottizeen ho -- eisenhower or reagan would have used that language. and the criticism is that it implied the use of nuclear force, is that the way the secretary read it and did the secretary have any early warning
from his earlier phone dhaul this would happen, or was he nl speaking to the president in the after math? >> you know, as people look at this and some consider comments to have been a alarming, i would have to go back to this. let's consider what is alarming. what is alarming fwop icbm tests in a month, two nuclear tests last year. when there is an why in china i get a lot of calls asking if it was another nuclear test. let me finish, please. it is a big deal what is going on. it is concern to the world, not just the united states. those are alarming provocative actions on the part of north korea. >> my question is given those provocations from north korea,b
extreme, is it help to see the language that he has used. >> the president spoke to kim jong-un in a language that secretary tillerson said in the kind of language he will understand. we would like to see results. the pressure campaign, we see that working. the international community is in agreement with the united states and many of our partners and allies on putting additional pressure on north korea. the secretary happens to be coming back. i know you want to obsess over statements and all of that and try to make a lot of noise out of that, bhau ut what is import
to ream is at the meeting they put out a strong condemnation of north korea. we're all singing from the same hymn book. a lot of us have respoporten the success from asean meetings and the following days, it doesn't take away from that, but perhaps what has under cut the previous success. >> i don't know if i agree with you on that. >> saying all options on the table, that has been a real aggressive response. is that a new type of policy? using whatever options available to us including -- >> secretary mattis addressed this issue earlier in a strong statement that he issued today. i will read a little to you.
the united states and our allies have demonstrated capabilities and unquestionable commitment to defend ourselves from an attack. kim jong-un should note that it poses a threat to the global security and stability. the dprk must stop isolating itself and stand down the pursuit of nuclear weapons and so on. >> your choice of the word obsess we're not obsessing. this is the president of the united states threatening a nuclear armed country with fire and fury to the likes of which the world has never seen. i don't think it is obsessing to want to know what -- to have a further clarification of what that means and what you're
preparing to send fire and fury raining down on the north korean regime. >> i'll let the president's statement stand for itself. >> it's not obsessing to want to know more. >> you know, i see a packed room of journalists here, normally there are not half as many as there are today. it shows -- >> they're all here for you -- >> they're here for you. >> hi. sir? >> steve dorsey from cbs news. can you tell us about the incidents in havana affecting government workers there. >> we're certainly aware of what happened there. give me one second here. that's why we had a late start, getting recent updates for you on this. some u.s. government personnel working at our embassy in havana cuba, on official duty --
>> we have andrea mitchell there, we will continue to listen in on that, but a lot of information in a very short time. here to talk about it, general wesley clark. they work to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons, and i will start with you general clark, if i can encapsulate what we just heard, she said this is part of a pressure campaign. part of the president speaking to kim jong un in a language that he understands, and accuses the media of obsessing over this statement, a statement by the way which a lot of people took to imply that the president was threatening war against a nuclear power. i want to know what you read into those statements. >> well, i thought that the prth's statement was excessive, it was hyper bolic.
what you do is you feed into the escalation of rhetoric which ends up frightening people in the region, and especially our south korean allies living under the day today threat of nuclear and nonnuclear attacks by north korea. so i would have said that what secretary mattis said was good. what secretary tillerson said is fine, but what president trump said is it went beyond the bounds if may be pure trump, but it overstated to t to such an extent that they might go after guam. so that wasn't necessary. >> and paul, it was interesting because even as we all know what all of those people have said, that general clark just said, the state department
spokesperson says we're all singing from the same hymn book. >> no, i think this is part of the problem. when she was asked directly when secretary tillerson spoke to th someone earlier in this broadcast said the president went rogue. he said those words himself. now, normally if you have someone say a secretary of defense or an under secretary that says something off message, they're reprimanded or maybe they're shown the door. inic the person that's off message is the president himself, the commander in chief, the person with the singular authority to launch a nuclear attack. that's why this is such a problem. now, granted, yes, it's semantics, it's language, but he seems to immediately go to the most extreme option, and that's what's on unsettling, to our allies, to our own military. and then it's the job of secretary tillerson and general mcmaster and so on to real things back in. it's lost time, it's lost prestige and that is what makes this dangerous. >> and when you look, jep, at
america's military options, and we keep talking about the fact that none of them are good, i thought andrea asked one of the key questions here, which is that when you're dealing with something this serious, when you're dealing with something that has not just the american people but our allies and our enemies on edge, andrea asked about the lack of a national security enter agency process. and i wonder how much of a problem you think that is, that clearly the president made this statement that came from his gut, from his belief that he wanted to speak to kim jong-un in his own language but didn't go through the usual, if not vet right leg process, even notification months. >> no. it's extraordinary, really. i can't imagine a previous top leader, certainly none of my colleagues as senior officers, as nato commanders, we wouldn't pop off with a statement like that without having our public affairs officer there or our political advisor. i can't imagine that a president clinton or president bush would shoot from the hip like that on
something this significant. the enter agency process is critical, but here is another thing that has come out in this process that didn't quite come out today, and i believe it should have. we're pressuring north korea but for what? what is our objective? if our objective is what some have said, which is they've got to give up their nuclear weapons and missile programs, well, that's probably not an achooefbl objective, not by pressure, not by diplomacy. and maybe my general warfare on the korean peninsula might be the only way you get it. but you've got to make sure we know what our objectives here. it seems to me that this enter agency process, if it is working, hasn't done a very good job of sorting through the objectives. we may not like the fact that we might now be subject to an attack by a north korean strategy icbm with a nuclear warheadful that's a terrible thing to consider. however, the united states has been working against that for 20
years. we slowed it down, and now it's here. and i think if we say our objective is to make it go away, you're only one course of action and it is not a good course of action. >> so what is an achooefbl objective and what does the united states they'd to be doing from your perspective that it's not right now. >> i think general clark's point is very well taken. the state department spokes woman talked about pressure. the pressure campaign is working. well, i'm not so sure the evidence is in. but what we saw at the u.n. the other day with the security council unanimously endorsing very strong sanctions, we have not seen that in six or eight years. and so there's an opportunity here. we have the international community on the same song sheet. let's give it time. let's see if china kblemts those sanctions and coerce the north back to the negotiating table. now, the other side of that equation is the united states and our allies, we need to have a clear list of things we're willing to offer, we're willing to entice the north koreans.
is it a fun thing to do? is it easy? no, it's not, but the stakes are so high, we have to try, and not just once, but many times. >> paul carol, general wesley clark, we appreciate of you being with us today. we're going to continue to listen in to the state department briefing. and we'll have one more thing for you when we come back. thank you so much. thank you! so we're a go? yes! we got a yes! what does that mean for purchasing? purchase. let's do this. got it. book the flights! hai! si! si! ya! ya! ya! what does that mean for us? we can get stuff. what's it mean for shipping? ship the goods. you're a go!
you got the green light. that means go! oh, yeah. start saying yes to your company's best ideas. we're gonna hit our launch date! (scream) thank you! goodbye! let us help with money and know-how, so you can get business done. american express open. i ...prilosec otc 7 years ago,my doctor recommended... so you can get business done. 5 years ago, last week. just 1 pill each morning, 24 hours and zero heartburn. it's been the number 1 doctor recommended brand for 10... ...straight years, and it's still recommended today. use as directed. let's take a look at some numbers: 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age-
and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now to learn more. ♪ (bell mnemonic)
american b. 29 bomber called box car dropped anatomic bomb on the city of nagasaki japan killing 70,000 people. it was the second atomic bomb the u.s. dropped on japan. the first just days earlier in hiroshima killed 140,000 people. today at nagasaki's peace park the names of more than 3,000 survivors who died over the past year were added to a marble vault by the prime minister. forever sealed, nofr forget en. now here we are with the threat of nuclear war, arguably closer than it's been in more than seven decades and the world is watching. can the president of the united states bring us back from the brink or will kim jong-un go rogue no matter what? so we'll leaf you with the. words from the commander of enotice la guy, after fulfilling his order, lewis said as the bomb exploded, we saw the entire
city disappear. i wrote in my log, my god, what have we done? that wraps things up for this hour. i'm chris jansing in new york. katyy terr will be back here with you tomorrow. ali velshi picks things up right now. >> important words. thanks, chris. i'm ali velshi. we begin this afternoon with sharply escalating tensions between north korea and the united states. north korea says it is serious rl reviewing a plan to strike the u.s. pacific territory of guam just hours after president trump warned that any more threats from the rogue nation would be met with fire and fury. we've heard a lot of reaction to president trump's heated rhetoric, including from john mccain who spoke out on facebook earlier today. >> i'm very concerned about the level of rhetoric that president trump employed concerning north korea and then there's the counter charge about guam and all. we can spend a whole program talking about it. >> right now the real danger is the uncertainty created by the
president's words, and therefore, undermining u.s. credibility. >> i did think the president's statements were over the top. he shouldn't have said that. >> could this be a deliberate plan to talk about fire, fury and power the likes of which the world has never seen to sort of out crazy a crazy leader in north korea? >> not a chance. this is just impulsive, ill thought out action that is unlikely to do anything but move us more toward a confrontation. the. >> i think the president -- what the president was doing is sending a strong message to north korea in language that kim jong-un would understand because he doesn't seem to understand diplomatic language. and i think the president just wanted to be clear to the north korean regime that the u.s. unquestionable ability to defend itself, will defend itself and its allies, examine i think it was important that he deliver that message to avoid any miscalculation on