tv The Daily Briefing With Dana Perino FOX News May 17, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
hour and coming up in the next few hours, we're expecting potentially a vote to confirm gina haspel as the head of the c.i.a. director. she made it with the support letter out of committee. that's anticipated to happen. i'm harris. here's dana. >> dana: fox news alert. we are waiting for the final vote from the senate. gina haspel's nomination to become the next c.i.a. director. she is expected to be confirmed with a few votes to spare and become the first woman ever to lead the agency. i'm dana perino and this is "the daily briefing." >> dana: the white house again pushing for an end to the mueller investigation calling a witch hunt as it enters its second year. rudy giuliani on the offensesive saying today the mueller team told him they would not indict a sitting president. kevin is live at the white house. kevin, what's the white house saying about all of this? >> well, let me just make it really simple for everybody at home, dana. the white house says there's no way the president is going to be
indicted because there is legal precedent against that ever happening. in fact, you pointed out that rudy giuliani said as much and, in fact, he is pointing to the precedent set back in the nixon years and again in the clinton years. and so obviously, the white house concurs although it is fair to point out we have not heard from from the special counsel's office. rudy says, listen, they've told him they're not going to go against precedence and try to indict the president. leave that to congress if that comes to that. they'll be taking to twitter. the president expressing his frustration once again. a little sarcastically, though, dana, check this out. he says "congratulations, america. we're now into the second year of the greatest witch hunt in american history and there is still no collusion and no obstruction. only collusion was that done by democrats who were unable to win the election despite the spending of far more money"! the white house insists this was a politically orchestrated event from the beginning and what's more, they argue not only is
there no crime, there certainly won't be an indictment. >> the president knows there was no collusion in the campaign. and he has been quite clear about this. it's gone on for over a year. they found no evidence of collusion and still strongly believe that it's a witch hunt. >> despite historical and legal precedent which we just talked about, it clearly lays out the reason that the president cannot be indicted. there are still some on capitol hill, dana, that is convinced the president most certainly can be indicted. >> the president is not above the law. and an indictment, that's the course that robert mueller chooses to go, i believe, would be upheld by the court. it would go to the united states court. it's an issue that has never been resolved in that way. >> respectfully to the former attorney general for the state of connecticut, there are a number of other legal scholars, dana, many of whom i've spoken with even today that insist it is not possible. he is dead wrong on that.
i should point out we're expecting an oval office meeting in a little bit and he's meeting with the secretary-general of nato. in town once again. maybe he'll talk about the cooperation between the u.s. and other nato partners, and maybe how some of them like germany should be ponying up a bit more. back to you. >> dana: thank you. >> you bet. >> dana: the full senate now debating the nomination of gina haspel to become the next c.i.a. director with a final confirmation vote expected any minute. chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel is live on capitol hill. mike? >> good afternoon. this is a big moment. a career c.i.a. officer is on the verge of becoming the first woman to head the agency. at least five senate democrats are expected to support gina haspel's nomination to head the c.i.a. they include a number of democrats who are up for re-election in states that president trump won and also the top democrat on the senate intelligence panel to explain why he supports haspel in this
critical job. >> she is someone who will push back and push back strongly against any attempts by this president to undercut, denigrate or ignore the professional men and women of the c.i.a. and their responsibility, again, first and foremost to speak truth to power, whatever the political implications may be. >> some of the debate on the senate floor has focused on the actions taken by the c.i.a. in the days after the 9/11 attacks. haspel, in recent days, has expressed regret for those enhanced interrogation techniques that were used ahead of this critical floor vote. the chair of the senate intelligence panel noted earlier the importance within the c.i.a. work force of seeing haspel, one of their own, shatter a glass ceiling. >> it may be impossible to measure the importance of that breakthrough. but i do know that it will send a signal to the current work force and to the work force of the future that a lifetime of commitment to the agency and its
mission can and will be rewarded. >> the two republican nos we're expecting are rand paul and arizona senator jeff flake. some democrats tried to force the c.i.a. to declassify more about haspel's career but were not successful. for that, they say they will vote no. >> despite our repeated requests, she decided she would not allow the american people to know who she is and what has she done? this has been and again, painful to have to say this a stark failure of senate oversight. >> despite those criticisms, expect gina haspel to be confirmed soon. dana? >> dana: and mike, if i could just ask you one question. so senator rand paul could not be brought around on this. he did decide to vote for mike pompeo, the secretary of state. >> yeah, apparently, he found this was a bridge too far for
him to go in terms of coming around. obviously, we will see what he decides. how he raises his hand on the senate floor in a matter of minutes. but everything we are hearing suggests that he is still a no. we'll see if he's had a change of heart. but the reason is intense pressure on him with those democrats coming around to vote yes this time around, dana. >> dana: thank you so much. let's bring in congressman adam kinsinger, member of the foreign affairs committee. and we are waiting for the white house that is going to send us some tape. the president is meeting with the nato secretary-general. there's some tape out of the oval office, as soon as we get that, we'll bring it to you live and hopefully you'll be here to comment on it. let me first start with gina haspel. one of the things that the senator from north carolina and the chairman of the senate intel committee was saying that for the first woman to lead the c.i.a., that it really means so much to the people who have dedicated their lives to public service. especially the women. and i'm sure you know some of them who are dedicated staffers throughout the government but in
particular at the c.i.a. what do you hear from them? >> yeah, that's great. i think it's going to send a very powerful message. there are a lot of people that tried to hang on to this idea of enhanced interrogation techniques as the reason to vote against her. the reality is after 9/11, it was a very different world. we were desperately trying to protect our country. and the mission of the c.i.a. was to do everything they could to protect it. so to see somebody that's come up through the career ranks that's really put in all the elbow grease to keep america safe be not just rewarded but entrusted with the safety of this country and especially her being a female is, i think, huge and really cannot be understated how big of a deal that is. >> dana: congressman, our viewers probably know that you did serve in the iraq and afghanistan in those missions. and so, obviously, the impact of 9/11 had an effect on you as well. and i wonder if you think that with her confirmation expected in this hour, that we have turned a corner, perhaps, and that we will not have to
relitigate this enhanced interrogation technique issue again in the future. >> i certainly hope so. there's all kinds of different opinions on this. i actually think they still should be tools in the tool kit in extreme circumstances. but there's people that want to continually relitigate decisions made 17 years ago. and the truth is, since 9/11, there have not been major terrorist attacks on this country and there's plenty of people that have wanted to do it. so hopefully this is a time where we all can kind of, as you mentioned, turn that corner and say let's continue to make america safe and let's look forward and defeat isis and others as they come up. >> dana: we have 1:30 before the tape comes up. i'm not sure what the president said. i'm sure everybody will want to hear it. let me ask you about north korea. sarah sanders saying that, you know, we still plan to go. to that summit, and, you know, north koreans are the ones that suggested it in the first place. where do you think we are on it? >> we're very clear from the
beginning we wouldn't cancel our military exercises. we said that to kim jong un and he came over with the smiley grip and grin. this doesn't surprise me that he's doing this kind of feign pullout of the summit because he's trying to reassert a little bit of himself. it would be the dumbest thing in the world if he actually didn't show up. i think there's probably a 90% chance he does. but i think we have to be very clear and i hope the president is very clear that an understanding that you have to be verifiable with north korea. they're going to play games. and i advise they don't, though. >> dana: i feel like unlike with the iran deal where it almost seemed like the united states wanted it more than iran needed it, that if the shoe is on the other foot this time. kim jong un needs this summit a lot more than president trump does. >> that's 100% correct. he absolutely needs this. if he doesn't, this is the highest we can get in terms of diplomacy. there's really nothing after this except for military action. so it's either let's get a deal that keeps them denuclearized for infinity or maybe military
action and nobody hopes we go that route. >> dana: do you think we're trying to rush it too much, though? it's already may 17th and this summit is on june 12th. >> i worry about that a little bit. when people have already declared, you know, victory on this and said, you know, it's not happened yet. we need to come in wide on this. >> dana: congressman. i called you adam. i have that tape now. this is president trump in the oval office. with the nato secretary-general. let's listen. >> thank you very much. it's an honor to have secretary-general stoltenberg with us, nato has been working very closely with the united states, our relationship is very good. together, we've increased and really raised a lot of money from countrys that weren't paying or weren't paying a fair share. we have a little ways to go. but many billions of dollars of
additional money has been raised and i really appreciate the great job that you're doing. as most people know, you've been extended for a long period of time and i was very much, i think, with my leadership and really the fact is we pushed it very hard because this gentleman does a tremendous job at nato and i appreciate it. thank you very much. >> thank you so much, mr. president, for hosting me and my delegation once again here at the white house. and let me thank you for the leadership you show on the issue of defense spending because it is very important that we all contribute more to our shared security. and it is really having an impact because as you said, allies are not spending more on defense. all allies are increasing their defense budgets. and -- >> do you give me credit for that? >> you have helped to do that because your leadership has been important. and it has had a great impact.
and we see that because all of us increase and the billions, they add billions to the budget. so that's important because we live in a more unpredictable world and we need to invest more in our security. >> thank you very much for being here. it's an honor. >> thank you. >> mr. president, north korea -- >> nothing has changed on north korea that we know of. we have not been told anything. and if it does, that's fine. if it doesn't, i think we'll probably have a very successful meeting. but we have not been told anything. we're just reading stories like you are. we've heard certain things from south korea. but we'll see what happens. if the meeting happens, it happens. and it doesn't, we go on to the next step. >> just typical thing that north korea does? did you expect that? >> i really don't, no. i want to give everybody the benefit of a doubt. i think that i can only say our people are literally dealing with them right now in terms of making arrangements for the
meeting. so that's a lot different than what you read but oftentimes, what you read if it's not fake news is true. so we'll see what happens. we are dealing with them now. we may have the meeting. we may not have the meeting. if we don't have it, that will be very interesting. we'll see what happens. the border is still quite strong. i think things changed a little bit when they met with china. they met the second time as you know, kim jong un had a second meeting with china which was a little bit of a surprised meeting. and we have many of the chinese here today, as you know, big delegations negotiating trade because the united states has been ripped off for many, many years by its bad trade deals. i don't blame china. i blame our leadership of this country from the past. we have been ripped off by china. and an evacuation of wealth like no country has ever seen before given to another country that's rebuilt itself based on a lot of
the money that they've taken out of the united states. that's not going to happen anymore. but there has been a big difference since they had the second meeting with the president. with that being said, my attitude is whatever happens, happens. either way, we're going to be in great shape. >> would you consider a personal outreach to get him moving -- keep him moving towards it? >> we'll see what happens. look, you have to want to do it. with deals, that's what i do is deals. with deals, you have to have two parties who want to do it. he absolutely wanted to do it. perhaps, he doesn't want to do it. perhaps, they spoke with china. that could be right. friend of mine, great guy, but he's for china and i'm for the united states. and that's the way it is. and i suspect it's never going to change. but i will say this -- we are continuing to negotiate in terms of location. location to where to meet, how to meet, rooms, everything else and negotiating like nothing happened. but if you read the newspapers,
maybe it won't happen. i can't tell you yet. i will tell you very shortly. we're going to know very soon. steve? >> what are you going to tell the chinese trade officials? >> well, i've been telling china that we are -- you people have been covering trade and covering china and everything for a long time. have you ever seen a negotiating of trade? nobody has ever seen anybody from our country even negotiate on trade. trade with china and with other countries, i'm not just blaming china. china is the biggest. but trade has been a total one-way street. right outside of the nation, you take money out like the bucket loads into the other. whether it's the european union which you know so well, whether it's japan or south korea or i could name almost every single country in the world. we had nobody representing us. and now, you have somebody that's very good at this stuff. me. representing us.
and china has taken out hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the united states. and i explained to president xi that we can't do that anymore. with all the years that you've covered trade with nations, you haven't seen anyone come over from china to work on a trade deal. will that be successful? i tend to doubt it. the reason i doubt it is because china has become very spoiled, the european union has become very spoiled. other countries have become very spoiled. because they always got 100% of whatever they wanted from the united states. but we can't allow that to happen anymore. we're an incredible country. we have incredible potential. the potential we have is incredible. but we lost $800 billion on trade last year. if you add it all up.
of which china was around $500 billion mark. so we lost $800 billion. can you believe that? is that an amazing thing to even think about? we lost $800 billion on trade. we're not going to be doing that any longer. it was a company that i spoke to with president xi. he asked me if i'd take a look at that because it was very harmful to them in terms of their jobs and probably other things. and i certainly said i would. he asked me to do it and i would do that. i would certainly had a great respect. i like him. he likes me. we have a great relationship. he asked me if i'd look at z.t.e., don't forget, it was my administration with my full knowledge that put very, very strong clamps on z.t.e. it wasn't anybody else. it wasn't president obama. it wasn't president bush. it was me! i put very strong clamps on z.t.e. they did very bad things to our country. they did very bad things to our
economy. one thing i will say they buy a large portion of the parts for the phones that they make and they're the fourth largest company in terms of that industry, they buy those parts from the united states. that's a lot of business. so we have a lot of companies that won't be selling those parts but the president of china, president xi asked me to look at it. i said i would look at it. but but anything we do with z.t.e. is a small component of the overall deal. i can only tell you this, we're going to come up fine with china. hopefully china is going to be happy. i think we will be happy and as the expression goes, when you're losing $500 billion a year on trade, you can't lose the trade war. you've already lost it. we've had horrible representatives in this country that have allowed other countries to get away with murder. and those days are gone. those days are over.
so we just want fairness for the workers of this country and for the united states. that's what's going to happen. ok? i'll let you know about as time goes by we'll let you know as of this moment, everything we know. i mean, north korea is actually talking to us about times and everything else. as though nothing happened. will it happen? will we be going on that very special date? and can some great things happen? you know, we're going to be looking at it very soon. yes? the libyan model isn't a model that we have at all when we're thinking of north korea. in libya, we decimated that country. that country was decimated. there was no deal to keep qaddafi. the libyan model that was mentioned was a much different deal. this would be with kim jong un something where he'd be there.
he'd be in his country and running his country. his country would be very rich. his people are tremendously industrious. in terms of what they do, hard working incredible people. but the libyan model was a much different model. we decimated that country. we never said to qaddafi, oh, we're going to give you protection. we're going to give you military strength. we're going to give you all of these things. we went in and decimated him. and we did the same thing with iraq. now, whether or not we should have, i could tell you. i was against it from the beginning because look what we have right now. we have spent $7 trillion, can you believe that, $7 trillion in the middle east. right out the window. you might as well throw the money out the window. we did a lot of infrastructure, airports approved, you saw that. a lot of things are happening but we spent $7 trillion in the
middle east and look where we are right now. it's pretty sad. but the model, if you look at that model with qaddafi, that was a total decimation. we went in there to beat him. now, that model would take place if we don't make a deal most likely. but if we make a deal, i think kim jong un is going to be very, very happy. i really believe he's going to be very happy. but this is just the opposite. when john bolton made that statement, he was talking about if we're going to be having a problem, because we cannot let that country have nukes. we just can't do it. so that's the way it went. if you look, again, look at syria, that was a total decimation. yes? >> what security guarantees are you willing -- >> we're willing to do a lot. and he's willing to, i think, do a lot also. and i think we'll actually have a good relationship assuming we have the meeting and assuming
something comes of it and he'll get protections that will be very strong. syria had never had protections. if you look at syria, if you look at -- or if you look anywhere around the middle east, look at iraq. you look at libya. with libya, certainly, they didn't have protection. they had the exact opposite. that was absolute decimation. and that's what we plan to do and that's what we did. >> i'm not going to talk about that. we're going to say that he will have very adequate protection. and we'll see how it all turns out. i think this -- the best thing he could ever do is to make a deal. i have a feeling, however, that for various reasons, maybe including trade because they've never had this problem before. china has never had this problem with us. it could very well be that he's influencing kim jong un. we'll see what happens. meaning the president of china, president xi could be influencing kim jong un. but we'll see.
that's just -- look, if you remember, a few weeks ago, all of a sudden out of nowhere, kim jong un went to china to say hello again, second time to president xi. i think they were dedicating an aircraft carrier. paid for largely by the united states. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. thank you! >> it's time to go! please start exiting towards the door. >> thank you. >> thank you. keep moving, please. >> dana: all right. that was president trump in the oval office and he was meeting
with the u.n. -- sorry, the nato secretary-general. but he took a lot of questions on a lot of other things from the press as he's wanted to do in the oval office. especially talking about north korea, the upcoming summit there. as well as a lot on trade. we're going to talk about trade first. let's bring in jon leiber, principal for national tech services. good to have you here. a lot going on on trade. he didn't talk about nafta so much. he did talk a lot about china. and i want to play two pieces of sound for you just to make sure that you heard it and get your reaction to it. let's roll the first one, please. >> the united states has been ripped off for many, many years by its bad trade deals. i don't blame china. i blame our leadership of this country from the past. we have been ripped off by china. and evacuation of wealth like no country has ever seen before. >> dana: he also talked about trade not being beneficial to the united states.
only benefitting china as a o one-way street. watch. >> well, i've been telling china that we are -- you people have been covering trade and you've been covering china. you've been covering everything for a long time. have you ever even seen a negotiating of trade? nobody has ever seen anybody from our country even negotiate on trade. >> dana: it occurs to me, this isn't necessarily anything new that the president is saying there. but i wonder if also, his posturing here in the oval office is actually part of his negotiating tactic with china? what do you think? >> yeah, it's possible. i mean, the president said a lot of things indicating he wants to get tough on china and tough on trade. you know, he talks about $800 billion leaving the united states being kind of sucked out of our pockets and going elsewhere. what he doesn't talk about is the flip side of that which is in exchange for that money we send to other countries, we get stuff. we get cheap stuff that our producers use domestically to build products that americans consume and we get stuff that's put on the shelves that americans buy.
and critically, we also get chinese and other countries investing inside the united states which is one of the reasons that the united states can borrow so cheaply despite the fact that we're running such big fiscal deficits right now. >> dana: uh-huh. let me ask you, then, about the other thing that the president said, he was talking about the chinese who are here today in the united states. this follows a meeting that our delegation, the united states representatives went over to china, they did not hammer out a deal so now the chinese are here. the president says that's quite unprecedented and in your experience, i'm just curious. this unprecedented? does it show that the chinese realize they're going to have to come his way at least a little bit in order to try to get this deal behind them? >> sure, i mean, i think what's happening right now is the chinese are recognizing this is kind of a new era for u.s. trade. they dealt and have good relationships with the obama administration and never had a president so openly threatening the trade relationship that the u.s. has with china today. so i certainly think this is
something they're taking very seriously. a lot of american companies are taking this very seriously because they're thinking to themselves, are we going to have to find new places to supply our goods from for domestic production? and i think this is certainly a new era and trump is doing a lot of things that nobody has done before. in that sense, he's not wrong about that. he has a very different approach. >> dana: can you walk us through, also, on z.t.e., a company that the united states government has a lot of problems with. president trump in the oval office just now trying to explain why he talked to president xi about the possibility of giving some relief to z.t.e. how far back do the problems that our government has go with that company in china and do you think it's warranted to let up on them? >> this is a state-owned company that was sanctioned by the u.s. for allegedly violating the u.s. sanctions on iran and north korea. serious charge. and the commerce department saw it fit to cut off all u.s. supplies to z.t.e., that's how
seriously they took this. by losing access to u.s. supply chains, z.t.e. was essentially put out of business. this is a really tough, serious sanction. and really kind of a law enforcement action. and i think the president sees it all connected, though, he doesn't see this as a matter of z.t.e. violating u.s. laws and getting in trouble. he thinks of this as another negotiating chip that he can use at president xi to get a better deal as he calls it with china on trade. in his mind, all these things are intermingled and you don't get the sense that he's talking to a lot of his advisors before he makes these kinds of announcements. right. >> dana: i have to just learn to follow his lead, jon. thank you for being here. jon leiber, everyone. thank you. all right, we're watching the senate floor as we await the final vote on gina haspel's nomination to become c.i.a. director. and a dangerous situation unfolding in hawaii as the kilauea volcano shoots up a cloud of ash nearly six miles high.
♪ your wing nut has you covered. ♪ hi. ♪ introducing planter's crunchers. a nutty crunch inside a flavorful crunch. ♪ >> dana: the senate intelligence committee releasing a report saying russia tried to interfere in the 2016 presidential election in an effort to help donald trump. after an earlier report from the house intelligence committee concluded that russia intended to sow discord but did not favor either trump or hillary clinton. republican congressman mike honoway led the house investigation and joins me now. we'll talk about this and other things. let me start with that, sir, how do you explain the discrepancy between the house intelligence report and the one that the
senate intelligence committee released yesterday? >> well, our report simply says that we disagree with underlying the assessment by the i.c.a. that, in fact, the russians did favor trump. we don't know which way he did or didn't. we're simply saying based on our analysis of the underlying documents that the i.c.a.'s conclusion is unsupported by the underlying data and so we're not really that much in conflict with what our senate colleagues have said. but we didn't really say they're wrong but we said that data used to come to that conclusion and the path of which it walked was unusual. 90% of what they did, we agreed fully with. >> dana: on that point. so do you think that from your perspective, are those investigations on the hill now coming to a close and the only thing remaining is the mueller investigation? >> well, i think so. we're always open to new information coming available to investigate that if that happens. but quite frankly, nothing has. so with respect to the questions
that my staff was in charge of answering, we believe we answered those. you don't know what else will happen. there's ongoing investigations on the backside of what we did. a warrant and all those things unrelated to what russia did. >> dana: right. we know that the inspector general at the justice department is also looking at those things. i guess it will have endless opportunities to talk about that. let's move on to another topic. one that's very important, i know, near and dear to your heart and certainly from where i grew up, very important one. that is the farm bill. the congressional budget office projects that this year's farm bill that's under consideration would cost $868 billion from 2019 to 2028. it's a long term bill. and you're in the middle of trying to get this to the floor. tell me, sir, what are the big sticking points for you in order to make that happen? >> well, the c.b.o.'s number says they'll spend $112 billion less than what we thought we would have spent. we're in an amendment debate and there's been a lot of amendments
made. we're debating those. there are two in those. one is dismantlement of the sugar program and other would be an overall 10% cut over all these programs that would be basically eliminate them within 10 years which is more about should america's federal government protect its production of agriculture industry from undue and unfair competition around the world? and my answer says yes. so those two are the ones that we'll be debating in a few minutes. >> dana: curious thing for republicans especially and i used to work on capitol hill. i remember it well. the debates about this because the free market, we believe, should prevail but then if you look at, you know, virginia fox, her amendment about the sugar policy, i'd like to drill down on that for a second. why are you against what she calls the sugar policy modernization act? it seems like it has more support than it has in the past but do you think that amendment will fail? >> well, it must fail. quite frankly, if we had a level playing field, we actual had
those free markets that you talked about around the world, then our sugar producers would go head to head. they are the low cost producers in the market. what we don't want to compete against as you saw with announcement yesterday, they have increased their subsidies to the sugar producers to produce more sugar. we wouldn't allow any product into this country dumped into the market at below the cost of production. we fight steel from coming in from turkey. we fought that. our sugar program shows we don't have to fight it every year. >> dana: let me ask you about another point. the work requirements for people that are on welfare. and food stamps. listen to nancy pelosi and how she describes it. >> this is ideological about, i don't know, taking food out of the mouths of babies. that maybe is a priority for them. again and again, we see republicans trying to force a raw deal on working families to pay for handouts to the rich. >> dana: this is always a sticking point. i'm wondering how you think about this, you mean this bill. if you get it to pass the house, how you hope to then get it passed in the senate so you can
get a farm bill done. >> first step first is to get the house version done. we do not take the food out of the mouths of babies. children are not affected by our changes. only working capable folks age 19 to 59 who don't have children under 6 who are not physically or mentally disabled, those are the ones that we want to help them out of their program and on to their own two feet. we don't take the food out of folks' mouths. thank you for making me listen to that one more time. pat roberts in the senate has a different path. he has to have democrat support over there. we'll try to work to get a republican only bill across the floor tomorrow and then we'll go to conference and work out the differences. >> dana: i don't mean make you having to listen to. it's what the democrats are saying across the country and wondering how you guys were planning to debate that and push it back and you just answered it. so mike conaway thanks for being here. >> thank you. >> dana: new eruption at hawaii's kilauea volcano. blast shooting a massive cloud of ash 30,000 feet into the air. jeff is live in hawaii.
jeff? >> yeah, dana, we were just evacuated from the checkpoint into the neighborhood that was hard hit by all that lava and toxic gas because the levels of sulfur dioxide rose so high that hawaii national guard came up to us, and told us, hey, we're getting out of here. we're putting our respirators on and we suggest you do the same thing. this area behind us is the fire station. and this is the staging area now which is at least about an hour drive, about an hour drive from the volcano summit. that's where today, that's where today had that massive eruption at 25,000 feet in the air, sent those ash plumes. from where we're standing, dana, you really can't see that dramatic plume in the air because it is so rainy and cloudy. but i will say that the air tastes differently. it smells differently. and geologists we spoke with a little while ago told us for the folks who are directly downwind from this plume, which we are not, but for the folks who are,
they're telling folks to stay inside. to try to take shelter because this might not be over. >> because this situation, as i said, is dynamic so you can have, you know, the event such as we saw this morning, short lived event. it might, you know, it may have relieved pressure temporarily. but we expect that these kinds, like i said, more groundwater may be getting into the system and we expect similar events could continue. >> they have canceled school in the area because of that poor air quality and the sulfur dioxide. i don't know if you can see behind me over here but it is rather cloudy out here. i wanted to give you a view of what our view is of the area. it's very cloudy. it's raining so you really can't see much. but like i said before, you can taste it. and you can smell it. and scientists are saying that this might not be that big one that they've been preparing for just yet. >> dana: all right, take care of
yourself out there. we appreciate the report. and we're still keeping an eye on the senate floor where we expect the senate to vote on gina haspel's nomination to run the c.i.a. plus our allies trying to figure out what to do with the iran nuclear deal now that the u.s. has pulled out. with some blasting president trump's move. the british ambassador to the united states joins me to discuss in moments. every baby can have the freedom to move their way in pampers cruisers with three-way fit. they adapt at the waist,
>> i'm live in windsor, england. our team has made it. would you look at that? the queen lives back there. today, prince harry and his future bride arrived at the castle for a royal wedding rehearsal. we were there and with them. we talked to them. no. that's not true. but we will show you everything that is happening here and even 3500 miles away from home, we still can't get away from michael cohen. apparently got a lot of money. we'll have royals and wedding. we'll tell you about the bracelets.
top of the hour in just 17 minutes. see you then. >> dana: the c.d.c. says it's safe to eat romaine lettuce again. they issued a warning after an e-coli outbreak that killed one person. the c.d.c. traceed it to farms near yuma, arizona and halted the harvest. the agency says due to the shelf life of lettuce, any sold now would not have come from the yuma area and should be safe. f.d.a. commissioner scott gottlieb will be on "the daily briefing" tomorrow and he'll discuss lowering prescription drug prices and tobacco regulations so we'll look forward to that. fox news alert. kremlin saying syrian president bashar assad has traveled to russia for talks with president vladimir putin. this comes as america's allies in europe are trying to figure out what to do about the iran nuclear deal. now that president trump pulled out of it, the british prime minister says she wants to uphold the agreement while the held of the european council had
some choice words for our president. auto >> look at the latest decisions of president trump, some could think with friends like that, who needs enemies? thanks to him, we have got rid of all illusions. he made us realize if you have a helping hand, you will find one at the end of your arm. >> joining me now is the british ambassador to the u.s. and we're happy to have you here today. we'll certainly talk about the royal wedding as shep smith teased. i want to start with the news. that assad has traveled to russia. what do you make of that? >> i think you have to first ask why president putin thinks it's a good idea to host someone who has gassed his own people, who is responsible for such huge displacement, half million syrians dead as a result of the civil war. extraordinary thing to do. >> dana: it was just this week that your government actually
was very clear with the russians about what had happened in your own country to russian nationals that were living there. >> yes, there's a track record here of russians actually using nerve agents against people on foreign soil and very strong international response to that message hasn't gotten through what we would like to have done. >> dana: certainly the united states and the u.k. have a special relationship. but sometimes it's not without tension. and obviously, iet -- the iran deal is one of those. where do things go here? >> it's one of a close relationship. one of the aspects is when you have disagreements you can discuss them openly and frankly and try to find a way forward. we would like to retain the jcpoa or the iran nuclear deal provided that the iranians stay in compliance. the prime minister met the german chancellor and the french president yesterday.
and that's their position, too, and that was the substance of the joint statement. the disagreement with the united states not about objectives because we all share the same objectives but about meetings and some of the issues that concern the united states like the ballistic missile program or iran's regional activities in lebanon and syria, in yemen, absolutely share these concerns so we want to work on those, on addressing those while keeping the jcpoa, maybe we can work with the u.s. administration on those areas now. >> dana: do you think it's possible that the u.k. and others would help the united states in tightening sanctions against iran? >> i think that's a question for the future and we have to see, first of all, how the sanctions unfolds. i should be clear in saying that we want to support the deal, we are not -- not the u.k., not our european partners we impose sanctions iran.
we're intending to keep to the deal which is meant to stop the iranian nuclear program but also to ensure that there are sanctions against iran. >> dana: is any of that going to color the discussions on trade that the europeans are having with the united states? not just china and nafta but there's this issue going in front of the e.u.? >> yeah, we hope not. we have an exemption as the european union on the measures on steel i think until the end of this month. we would like a permanent extension. we are talking to the administration now. talking to the administration about what they need to grant that permanent extension. we hope we can find a way forward. i mean, the -- these moves -- this dispute is based on national security and we're very strong national security partners of the u.s. so it doesn't feel right to ask that this should be directed against the u.k. >> dana: in the meantime, you
have some exciting news happening over in the u.k. shepherd smith is there for the royal wedding. are you surprised that americans are so excited about this nuptials on saturday? >> i've been here two years. before you come here, you hear how fascinated and enthusiastic the american people are about our royal family. but you have to be here to experience it. and there's extraordinary level of interest and enthusiasm. there's, of course, something special about this one which is that prince harry who is a much loved, much respected, very charismatic figure who serves alongside troops in afghanistan is marrying an american which is very special. >> dana: in a moment, we'll have some president trump's meeting. do we have that now? all right. ambassador, thank you for being here. let's turn to president trump. he's hosting a meeting with the nato secretary-general at the white house. let's listen in.
>> back to the white house as we prepare for the upcoming nato summit in july. that will be both interesting and exciting. i've the great pleasure of getting to know the secretary-general over the last year. we've worked very closely together and improved very much with respect to everybody the burden sharing. and we really have strengthened nato and the nato alliance, the strong working partnership we've forged to produce significant increases in members' contributions. we've worked very hard on that. i will tell you that the secretary-general has been working on that for a long time before i got there. but i think more progress, i can say, with surety more progress has been made in the last year and a half that has been made in many, many years. we're delighted to report that last year as a result of our joint efforts, we witnessed the single largest increase in defense spending among european member states and canada in a quarter of a century.
that really is quite a spectacular achievement. i congratulate you very much. we really have worked in many respects. that was, i think, a big one. we had countries that were not paying what they were supposed to be paying. now, most countries are. not all. and i think you'll be able to handle the ones who aren't, right? i have confidence. this afternoon, i want to thank the seven nato nations in addition to the united states who will meet there, 2% nato defense spending. we pay more than 2% which is probably unfair and unfair to the taxpayers in the united states. but the 2% number that's met is poland, romania, estonia, latvia, lithuania, greece and the united kingdom and they're right up to snuff. they pay, they're on time. they paid the number they're supposed to be paying. we have some that don't. and they'll be dealt with.
as a result of these contributions, nato is much stronger. taking in billions and billions of dollars, more money than they ever have before. but as the secretary-general and i have discussed, more work needs to be done. we're still waiting on 20 member states to meet their nato commitments and spend at least 2% on defense. and 2% is a very low number. the number really should be 4%. 2% is a very low number. in particular, germany must demonstrate leadership in the alliance by addressing its long standing shortfall in defense contributions. germany has not contributed what it should be contributing and it's a very big beneficiary. far bigger than the united states, frankly. in addition to that, massive amounts of gas from russia and paying billions and billions of dollars and i think that's
something we'll be discussing that at our meeting and probably long before the meeting. we're going to successfully confront the full range of threats and we're going to need every member state to honor its obligation. so as we've just said, some do and some don't. today, the united states reaffirms our commitment to article five in the mutual defense pact and we renew our call on nations to demonstrate the commitment to the alliance through their actions including by increasing their defense contributions under article three requirement for preparedness and military capacity. have to be prepared. never know what's going to happen. i've also called on nato to improve its counterterrorism capabilities since the founding of the alliance, terrorism has claimed more lives in nato countries than any other security threat. think of that. this was something that years ago wasn't even a subject. and i would talk about it all the time on the campaign. and in all fairness to the
secretary general, he listened to me and they have a great counterterrorism operation. and we appreciate that. i was, therefore, glad to see last may, nato adopted an action plan recommending the alliance to the fight and to fight against terrorism which is now becoming a fight all over the world no matter where you go. places that 20 years ago you wouldn't have thought about it. i also discussed with the secretary general our commitment to stopping nuclear proliferation including the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. we want a future of safety, security and peace for all koreans and for the entire world. my administration is also committed to working with our allies to halt iran's nuclear ambitions and their destablizing activities all across the middle no matter where you go, no matter where there's a problem, there's iran right behind it. and we're not going to have that
any longer. i have said before our nations must be strong from within to defend ourselves from threats outside. the strength of the nato alliance does not depend on military might alone but also the deep ties of history, culture and tradition that have long united our civilization. now, we must renew these ties and rededicate ourselves to our shared heritage and the heritage, we want a heritage of peace. strength but peace. strength but peace. we want to thank you for joining us, at the white house for great honor and for working with us to fortify the nato alliance that has proudly stood for seven decades as the work of freedom, security and prosperity together, we will make nato and the nato alliance stronger. we need fairness.
we need to be reciprocal. countries have to be reciprocal in what we're doing. unfair that some countries pay and some countries work and some countries are loyal and terrific and other countries aren't. and we just can't have that. so we're working on that together? great honor to do that. thank you so much. >> thank you so much, president, for hosting me and my delegation here at the white house. it's great to see you again. and in uncertain times, we need strong nato so i'd also like to thank you for your strong commitment to our alliance. last time, we met, your main message was that nato had to do more in the fight against terrorism and more on defense spending. all nato leaders agreed and now we are delivering. we are stepping up our efforts in the fight against terrorism. in afghanistan where we are increasing the number of trainers and the support for afghan government and also in
iraq where we all plan to go on a new training mission at the summit at the nato summit in july. on defense spending, i would say i would agree with you. we would have to do more and i would to thank you for your leadership. and it has really impacted -- it is impacting allies because allies are increasing defense spending and they're adding billions to their budget, so your leadership on defense spending has really helped to make a difference. and that's something i thank you for. after years of decline, all allies have started to increase defense spending. no allies are anymore and more and more allies are up to 2% of g.d.p. for defense.
but i also agree that we have to do more. so allies will continue to work on the defense spending because we need to invest more in our security when the world is more unpredictable today. we also support your efforts to try to find a peaceful and negotiated solution to the crisis on the korean peninsula. the aim should be to denuclearize the korean peninsula and to make sure that there are no nuclear weapons there and also to stop not only the development of nuclear weapons but also the missile program. so therefore, we support the initiative and their work for having a summit. we think it's important also to make sure that we still have pressure on north korea. and north korea has to seize this opportunity. this is a historic opportunity to solve the crisis on the korean peninsula. so once again, thank you so much
for your strong commitment to our alliance and i look forward to continuing our discussion and address these issues and many others. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> mr. president, could you clarify the context of your use of the word "animal" yesterday? >> well, it has nothing to do with this meeting but i'm referring and you know i'm referring to the ms-13 gangs that are coming in. and i was talking about the ms-13 and also -- if you look a little bit further on in the tape, you'll see that. so i'm actually surprised you're asking this question because most people got it right. but i'm saying the ms-13, you don't have that where you come from. ms-13, these are animals. they're coming into our country. we're getting them out. they come in again, we're getting them out. we need strong immigration laws. we have the weakest laws in the entire world. we have laws that are laughed at on immigration. so when the ms-13 comes in, when the other gang members come into our country, i referred to them as animals and guess what?
i always will. but we're getting them out by the thousands. but it's a big, dangerous job. and they're able in some cases to come back in or new groups come in. also from the gangs. thank you. >> mr. president, the nato -- >> i think we helped sear yo by withdrawing from the iran deal, which was a terrible deal for the united states, i think for the world. i think hopefully syria will start to stabilize. you can see what's happening. it's a horror show. i have great respect for syria and the people of syria. these are great people. i these are great people. it was a great culture before it was so horribly blown apart. a place where people would go, had tremendous professional people, as