tv KPIX 5 News at 11PM CBS June 12, 2018 1:37am-2:12am PDT
congratulations on the historic summit. >> thank you very much. congratulations to everybody, by the way. congratulations to everybody. >> you signed a document with kim jong-un. it's essentially a piece of paper. yesterday we had a briefing from the secretary of state, moike pompeo. he said previous presidents have signed off on pieces of paper only to find that the north koreans didn't promise what we thought they had or actually reneged on those promises. what makes this time different, mr. president? >> you have a different administration, you have a different president. you have a different secretary of state. you have people that are -- it's important to them, and we get it do done. other groups, maybe it wasn't a priority. i don't think they could have done it if it was a priority, frankly. i don't think they honestly could have done it if it was a priority. and it would have been easier back then. foe would have been much easier if this were ten years ago and five years ago. i'm not just blaming president
obama. i mean, this goes back for 25 years this should have happened. i was given a very tough hand. i was given this, i was given the iran deal and plenty of other problems. but we are -- we're doing really well. the iran deal, i have to be honest, i did it because nuclear is always number one to me. nuclear is number one. on the iran deal, i think they're different from three or four months ago. i don't think they're looking at syria as they were with total confidence. i don't think they're so confident right now. that being said, i hope that at the appropriate time after the sanctions kick in -- and they are brutal what we've put on iran -- i hope that they're going to come back and negotiate a real deal. i'd love to be able to do that. right now it aep's too soon for that. >> you also talk about
establishing diplomatic relat n relations. >> yeah. >> changing ambassadors. how long before that happens? >> good question. hopefully soon. we'll have to get things moving first. very -- little bit early. we have to get things moving. yes, go ahead. hi. >> can you clarify when you said you're stopping war games. so you are stopping the military exercises with south korea? >> yeah. we've done exercises for a long period of time working with south korea, and we call them war games. i call them war games, and they're tremendously expensive. the amount of money is incredible, and south korea contributes but not 100% which is certainly a subject that we have to talk to them about also. and that has to do with the military expense and the trade. we're doing that. we have a new deal in terms of the trade deal. we have to talk to many
countries about treating us fairly. the war games are very expensive. we pay for a big majority of them. we fly in bombers from guam. i said -- i said, where do the bombers come from? guam. nearby. i said, oh, great, nearby, where is nearby? 6.5 hours. 6.5 hours, that's a long time for these big, massive planes to be flying to south korea to practice and then drop bombs all over the place and then go back to guam. i know a lot about airplanes. very expensive. and i didn't like it. that i did say -- i think it's provocative. i have to tell you, jennifer. it's a very provocative situation, one -- when i see that and you have a country next door, so under the circumstances that we're negotiating, a comprehensive, complete deal, i think it's inappropriate to be having war games. so number one, we save money. a lot.
and number two, it really is something that i think they very much appreciated. >> does north korea give you something in return, though? >> we've gotten -- i've heard that. i mean, some of the people that -- i don't know, maybe they mean it, i don't always want to go against the press because i just don't, especially not today. this is too important. but i noticed that some of the people are saying that the president has agreed to meet. he's given up so much. gave up nothing. i'm here. i haven't slept in 25 hours, but i thought it was appropriate to do because we've been negotiating for literally around the clock with them and with us and with john and with mike and a whole team of talented people. we haven't been giving up anything other than you're right, i agreed to meet. and i think the meeting was every bit as good for the united states as it was for north korea. but i just wrote down some of
the things we got, and they -- you know, they -- sure, h -- th got a meeting, but only a person who dislikes donald trump would say that i've agreed to make a big commitment. sure, i've agreed to take a period of time and come here and meet, and that's good. but i think it's great for us as a country, and i think it's good for them. but what did they do to justify this meeting? secured commitment for complete denuclearization. that's the big thing. they secured the release of three american hostages. they already gave them to us two months ago. these people now living happily back in their homes with their families, and it was pretty rough for them to put it mildly. secured the commitment to recover the remains including these of fallen heroes, and they're giving a commitment,
they're starting it immediately to recover the remains, and i just went through how many people asked me about it. i was amazed actually. so many people would ask me is it possible, is it possible. at that time we had no relationship to chair kim or anybody else in north korea. it was a closed society. so we're getting the remains back. secured the halt of all missile and nuclear tests for -- how long has it been, seven months you haven't had a missile go up. for seven months you haven't had a nuclear test. you haven't had a nuclear explosion. i remember a nuclear event took place, 8.8 in the richter scale. and they announced, i heard it on the radio, they announced that a massive, you know -- a massive earthquake took place somewhere in asia. then they said it was in north korea and found out it was a nuclear test. i said, i never heard of a richter scale in the high
eights. and if you look, there's been no missile launches. they've blown up their missile area that's going to take place. that has not been written into the contract, we're going to give you the exact details on that. but they secured a halt of all missiles and all nuclear tests. they secured the closure of their single primary nuclear test flight -- test site, all three of them, they're in an area that's common around each other. they secured the closure. they secured the commitment to destroy the missile engine testing site that was not in the agreement. i got that after we signed the agreement. i said, do me a favor, you've got this missile engine testing site, wehet is e of the heat. it's incredible the equipment we have, to be honest with you. i said, can you close it up -- going to close it up. we maintained the ability to
apply sanctions. i had 200 sanctions i was ready to put on last week -- i thought it would be disrespectful, 300 very big ones, powerful ones. and i said it would be disrespectful. jennifer, when you look at all of those things that we got and when we got our hostages back, i didn't pay $1.8 billion in cash like the hostages that came back from iran which was a disgraceful situation what took place. so we've gotten a lot. when i hear somebody in the media say that president trump has agreed to meet like it's not a big deal to meet. i think we should meet on a lot of different topics, not just this one. and i really believe a lot of great things can happen. yes, go ahd, please. sir, you just listed off a lot of things that you say you
got in this meeting. it wasn't too long ago, though, that you said you defined success of this meeting by north korea giving up its nuclear weapons. >> that's what they're doing. >> can you talk about how you -- >> sure, that's what they're doing. >> kim jong-un for a complete, verifiable, irreversible, and can you say why you didn't secure those details in this agreement? >> because there's no time. i'm here one day, we're together for many hours intensively, but the process is now going to take place. and i would be surprised, mike, if they haven't even started already. they have started -- they blew up their sites. they blew up their testing site. so -- i will say, he knew prior to coming -- this wasn't like a surprise. it wasn't like we've never discussed it. we discussed it. mike discussed it very -- very strongly with his counterpart in north korea. they knew that this was, let's say they didn't agree to that, i
couldn't sign any -- there was no agreement that could have been signed. ey there. and it wasn't a big point today because this had been taken care of any other thing -- this was taken care of before we got there. when we brought that up today, you see the language, it's very strong. it's in the document. yes, ma'am? >> thank you, mr. president. could you talk about the military con sque-- consequencer north korea in they didn't follow through -- >> that's a tough thing to talk about. i don't want to be threatening. i don't want to be threatening. they understood that. and you've seen what was perhaps going to happen. and you know, seoul has 28 million people. we think we have big cities, you look at new york where it has eight million people. we think it's a big city. seoul has 28 million people. think of that. it's right next to the border. right next to the dmz.
it's right there. if this would have happened, i think -- i've heard, oh, 100,000 people -- i think you could have lost 20 million people, 30 million people. this is really an honor for me to be doing this. i think, you know, potentially you could have lost, you know, 30 million, 40 million, 50 million people. the city soefl, one of the -- city of seoul, one of the biggest in the world, is right next to the border. >> you once spoke about fire and fury. that no longer the case? >> at that time we needed, perhaps, fire and fury because we could not have allowed that kind of capability from the standpoint of the united states. and certainly japan wasn't going to allow it either. japan is right next door. >> one more thing, mr. president. could you tell us about the video that you showed before this? >> yeah. >> and did you show that to kim? what was the goal there? >> today, yeah. we had it made up by -- i hope you liked it. i thought it was good. i thought it was interesting enough to show. one in english and one in
korean. and we had it made up -- i showed it to him today during the meeting, toward the end of the meeting. and i think he loved it. we didn't have the big screen like you have the luxury of hav. we didn't need it because we had it on the cassette and ipad, and they played it. about eight of their representatives who were watching it -- and i thought they were fascinated. i showed it to you because that's the future. that could well be the future. and the other alternative is just not a very good alternative. just not good. i showed it because i really want him to do something. i don't think i had to show it because i really believe he wants to -- i think he wants to yes,ead.how's staten island fer, okay? >> going well. >> he wrote the best story about boisland fey,hat he' never
ten ad story. sir. >> i'that ha. a long time ago. >> mr. president, it's been a busy week for you on the international stage. you're leaving the summit here in singapore having determined that kim jong-un is a talented man. you left the g7 summit a few days ago in canada having determined that prime minister trudeau is weak and dishonest. what do you say to america's am lice who worrya -- america's allies who worry that you might be jeopardizing our longtime alliances and worry you might be treating our historic friends as enemies and our historic enemies as friends? >> first of all, i think it's a very fair question. i had a very good meeting with the g7, and i left the meeting -- and i'll be honest, we are being taken advantage of by virtually every one of those countries, very seriously. now the united states because of bad management at the top, because of presidents that didn't care about trade or didn't understand it or whatever reason, for many years with china being obviously the most successful at it, bhe ni is sec
billion we lost. they were represented at the meeting. and we're being takencanada d h advantages over us in terms of trade deficits. we have a big trade deficit with canada. i was reading where -- not a surplus, it's even 17 but could be 100. you know, they put out a document -- i don't know if you saw it -- they didn't want me to see it, but we found it. perhaps they were trying to show the power they have, it's close to $100 billion a year loss with canada. they don't take our farm products, many of them. they charge what was 270% but somebody told me the other day that a few months ago there is up to 295% for dairy products. and it's very unfair to our farmers and very unfair to the people of our country, the workers, the farmers, the companies. and we are not able to -- they have tremendous barriers up, they have tremendous tariffs.
when i put in a countervailing tariff just to get us up a little bit so the balance isn't so much, it's like this -- they said, that's terrible. i said, what's terrible? we have to catch you a little bit. we have to have a little even . i say this with many countries. we came -- we finished the meeting really everybody was happy. and i agreed to sign something. i asked for changes, i demanded changes. the changes were made. in fact, the picture with angela merkel who i get along with very well, where i'm sitting there like this, that picture was we're waiting for the den because i wanted to see the final document has changed by the changes that i requested. that was a friendly -- i know it didn't look friendly and it was reported as nasty both ways. i was angry at her -- actually, we were just talking, the whole group, about something unrelated to everything. very friendly waiting for the document to come back so i could read it.
i left, it was very friendly. when i got on to the plane, i think that justin didn't know that air force one has about 20 televisions. i see the television, and he's giving a news conference about how he will not be pushed around by the united states. i say push them around, we just shook hands. it was very friendly. look, countries cannot continue to take advantage of us on trade. the numbers are out. over the last couple of years and over the last many years but over the last couple of years, this country has lost $800 billion with trade with other countries, the biggest being china. $800 billion. $151 billion with the european union. they don't take our agricultural products barely. they don't take a lot of what we have, and yet they send mercedes into us. they send bmws into us by the fa d it's veryai our workers. i'm going to straighten it out, and it won't even be tough.
okay. thank you. >> mr. president -- >> go ahead. go ahead. [ inaudible ] >> i would like to involve congress, yes. no, i have a good relationship with justin trudeau, i really did. other than he had a news conference that he had because he assumed i was in an airplane and i wasn't watching. that's going to cost a lot of money for the people of canada. he learned -- you can't do that. you can't do that. we left, we had a very good relationship. i've had a very good relationship with justin. i have a good relationship -- i have a very good relationship with angela merkel. but when nato -- we're paying 4.2%, she's paying 1% of the much smaller gdp than we have. we're paying 4.2% on a much
larger -- we're paying for it, anyone can say from 60% to 90% of nato. and we're protecting countries of europe. and on top of it, they kill us on trade. we just can't have it that way. unfair to our taxpayers and to our people. no, i have a good relationship with justin, and i have, i think, a very good relationship with chairman kim right now. i really do. i think -- i hope it's good because if it is, we're going to solve a very big problem. i think we've gone a long way to solving it today. should we keep going for a little while? i don't know. up to the legendary sarah huckabee sanders. should we keep going, sarah? okay. we'll go. i don't care. hey, you know, just means we get home a little later in the evening, right? go ahead. sure, go ahead. go ahead. >> hi, mr. president. how are you? from the "times" of singapore, welcome to the country. >> thank you very much. >> i hope you enjoyed our food. >> beautiful country, i did.
>> i wanted to find out, you describe this as a process. what is the immediate next step? is there some ongoing dialogue? >> yes, we're getting together next week to go into the details. secretary pompeo -- yeah, next week with john bolton and our entire team to go over the details and to get this stuff done. we want to get it done. he wants to get it done. we're also working very much with south korea. we're working with japan, we're working with china to a lesser extent, but we're working with china. >> you're coming back to singapore? >> i would come back gladly. your prime minister was fantastic. we were with him yesterday, he did a great job, very welcoming. it probablefence actually. a great place. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. president. >> yes, ma'am? >> thank you, mr. president. what was it about that first interaction with chairman kim this morning that made you decide not to walk away after you said that you would know within the first minute if he
was sincere or not? >> i've said that about relationships. i've said that about people. you know, in the first second -- i was generous, i said five seconds. you know, in the first second in some cases. sometimes that doesn't work out. but sometimes it does. from the beginning, we got along. there's been a lot of groundwork. this wasn't like we went and started talking about, as you know, right, we didn't just come in and start talking about these very complex subjects that have been going on for 70 years. we've been discussing this for months. once the rhetoric stopped, once they did a great thing -- you know, north korea did a great thing by going to the olympics because the olympics -- and president moon will tell you this, the olympics was not exactly doing great. people didn't feel like being bombed out of the opening ceremonies. they weren't exactly selling tickets. and as soon as -- as soon as the
chairman, chairman kim, said let's participate in the olympics, it sold like wildfire and was a great success as an olympics. it was a great success. he did a great thing. since that time, pretty much since that time -- as you know, the delegation came froou korea who just met with north korea. they came to the white house. they told me lots of things including the fact that they'd be willing to denuke. we have one of the great people here today. they were willing to denuke. and once that started, we have been really talking about that from the end of the olympics when the delegation to say various things including denuking. >> if i may, in the document that you signed today, north korea agreed to commit to denuclearization. to borrow a phrase that you have used to criticize your predecessors and political opponents, how do you ensure that north korea is not all talk, no action, going forward?
>> i think can you ensure anything? can i ensure that you'll be able to sit down properly when you sit down? you can't ensure anything. all i can say is they want to make a deal. that's what i do. my whole life has been deals. i've done great at it. i know when somebody wants to deal and when somebody doesn't. a lot of politicians don't deal. but it is my thing. again, this could have been done, i think, easier a long time ago. i feel strongly, my instinct, my ability or talent, they want to make a deal. and making a deal is a great thing for the world. it's also a great thing for china. i can't imagine that china is happy with somebody having nuclear weapons so close. china was very helpful. i think he wants to make a deal. can anyone be certain? we'll be certain soon because the negotiations continue, okay,
thank you very much. >> you mentioned that you have raised extensively the issue of human rights with chairman kim. >> yes. >> i wonder what you would say to the group of people who have no ability whatsoever to hear or see the press conference, the 100,000 north koreans kept in a network of knew lags. have -- gulags. have you betrayed them legitimizing pyongyang? >> no, i think i helped them. things will change. i helped them. all i can do is what i can do. we have to stop the nuclearization, we have to do other things, and that's a very important thing. at a certain point hopefully you'll be able to ask me a much more positive question or make a statement. not much i can do right now. at a certain point, i believe he's going to do things about it. i think they -- i think they are one of the great winners today, that large group that you're talking about. i think ultimately they are going to be one of the great winners as a group. yes, sir, go ahead.
go ahead. >> would you ever consider removing the sanctions without significant improvement in the human rights situation? >> no. i want significant improvement. i want to know that it won't be happening. and again, once you start that process, there will be a point at which even though you won't be finished for a while because it can't happen scientifically or mechanically, but you're not going to be able to go back. once we reach that point, i'll start to goive that serious thought. -- to give that serious thought. go ahead, go ahead. you first. >> mr. president, did you also discuss the cost of denuclearization and who's -- how north korea's about to foot the bill while the crippling sanctions remain in place in singapore? >> i think that south korea and i think that japan will help them greatly. i think they're prepared to help them. they know they're going to have to help them. i think they're going to help them greatly. we won't have to help them. the united states has been paying a big price in a lot of different places.
south korea which obviously is next door and japan which is next door, they'll be helping them. i think they're going to be doing a very generous job and a terrific job. so they will be helping them. yes, go ahead. behind, yes. >> thank you, mr. president. >> thank you. >> i'd like to follow up on steve's question. he asked how long it would take to denuclearization the korean peninsula. you said a long time. what does that mean? >> i don't know when you say long time. i think we will do it as fast as it can be done scientifically, as fast as it can be done mechanically. i don't think -- i mean, i'v readorror stories, it's 15-year process, okay. assuming you wanted to do that -- i don't believe that. i think whoever wrote that is wrong. there will be a point at which when you're 20% through, you can't go back. >> how long -- >> my uncle was a great professor for, i believe, 40 years at mit. i used to discuss nuclear with him all the time.
he was a great, brilliant genius, dr. john trump at mit. i think he was there 40 years, i was told. in fact, the head of mit sent me a book on my uncle. we used to talk about -- talking about a very complex subject. not just like, gee, let's get rid of the nukes. it takes a period of time. the main period of time that i'm talking about is the first period when you hit a certain point you can't go back. it's hard to go back. >> how long will that take? >> we don't know, but it's going to happen quickly. go ahead. >> thanks, mr. president. i wanted to ask again on the sanctions campaign. you alluded at the very beginning that the chinese are not doing as great a job securing the border as they were before. you expressed doubts when kim went to see president xi. the russian foreign minister was in pyongyang and said there shouldn't be any sanctions while these negotiations are underway. and the south koreans are talking about restoring some form of trade. so with all of those players
appearing to be moving toward eroding sanctions, how can you keep the sanctions regime in place? what leverage do you have on these -- on these countries? >> i think we have a lot of leverage. ihink we vendous leverage. i do believe that china despite my relationship with president xi, a man who i told you i have great respect for and like also a lot, you know, we're having very tough talks on trade. and i think that probably affects china somewhat. i have to do what i have to do. and i think over last two months the border is more open than it was when we first started. but that is what it is. we have to do it. we had a -- we have a tremendous, tremendous deficit in trade, commonly known as a trade deficit. we have a tremendous deficit in trade with china. we have to do something about it. we can't continue to let that happen. and i think that has had an impact on my relationship in
terms of the border. i don't think it has a relationship, you know -- it affects my feeling or my relationship to president xi. but when we first started, we weren't ready to go that route. and as we started preparing and getting ready to do that, i think that's had an impact on, frankly, the border which is a shame. i have to do it. i have no choice. for our country, have to do it. south korea will do whatever's necessary to get a deal done. if that means we can't trade, they're not going to trade. they're definitely not going to trade. if they think -- and they would they would do this with our concurrence if they think they can do work because we're far down the line -- we're far. that document when you read it today, that's far down the line. that's not something that just happened to be put together. this was done over months. and again, the rhetoric was important and the sanctions were important. i don't even know which was more important. they were both important.
go ahead. >> mr. president, david sanger for "the new york times." i was wondering if you could give us some sense of whether chairman kim told you how many nuclear weapons he believes he's made, whether he's willing to turn those over first, and then whether in your mind you need to do more than was done in the iran deal for actually dismantling both the uranium and plutonium processes and whether or not you had a sense that chairman kim really understood what that involves and had a timetable in his own mind of shedding that. >> i can tell you he understands. he understands it so well. he understands it better than the people that are doing the work for him. that is an easy one. as far as what he has, it's substantial. very substantial. the timing will go quickly. i believe you'll see some good
action. i mean, as an example, one of the things with the missile set, you're probably surprised to hear that -- the missile site. but i believe that it's going to go quickly. i believe that it's going to go fast. and it is a very substantial arsenal, there's no question about it. i used to say maybe it's all talk and no action. but we have pretty good intelligence into that, although probably less there than any other country. you understand that maybe better than anybody in the room. probably less there than any other country. we have enough intelligence to know that what they have is substantial. this is why, david, i always say that this shouldn't have taken place so late into the process. we're -- wouldn't have this been better if it was five years ago or 20 years ago or 15 years ago, and we didn't have to worry about not having a successful meeting like today. and i still love my first
interview with you, david. i still have that interview actually. yeah, go ahead. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> my question is if there is a second summit -- if there is a second summit with kim jong-un, will it be in pyongyang or -- >> we haven't set that up. we'll probably need another summit. we'll probably need another meeting, we can use a different term. we'll probably need another one. i will say this, we're much further along than i would have thought. i did not think we'll be -- i told people i didn't want to build up hopes too much. i told people i thought that this would be a successful meeting if we get along, developed rape, adevelo develdevelop -- we developed a relationship, but it happened quickly. a lot of that was because of the foundation that was put down before we met, a lot of things happened very fast. we didn't have as an example
bringing back the remains, that was not one of the things that was on our agenda today. i brought it up at the very end because so many people talked to me about it. i brought it up at the very end. he was gracious. instead of saying let's talk about it the next time, he said it makes sense, we will do it. and he know -- they know where many of those incredible people are, where they're buried, along roads, along highways, along paths usually. our soldiers were moving back and forth rapidly. it's very sad. he knew, and -- and that was brought up at the very end. and -- you know, it's great that he was able to do it. a lot of people will be happy about that. yes, go ahead, please. >> thank you, mr. president. emma roberts, america news, thank you -- >> thank you for the nice way you treated me. thank you, it's beautiful what you do. go ahead.
>> so you -- >> now i'll probably get this killer question. >> i do want to talk about the future of north korea. >> go ahead. >> specifically the people. kim jong-un is saying he's wanting a brighter future with prosperity for his people, yet we know they lived under oppression. you showed him this video of what the future could be like. but do you have an idea specifically of the model that he would like to go toward? economically, if he opened to more economic freedom? >> a good question. you saw a tape today. i think it was done really well. that was done at the highest level of future development. i told him, you may not want this. you may want to do a smaller version. you may want to do a smaller version. you may not want that with the trains and everything, you know, super everything at the top. it's going to be up to them and up to the people what they want. they may not want that, i can
understand that, too. that was a version of what could happen, you see the great features whenever they explode cannons into the ocean -- wouldn't that make a great condo. i explained, you know, instead of doing that, you could have the bhoeftsds -- the best hotel world. you have south korea and china and they own the land in the middle. how bad is that, right? it's great. i told them, i said, you may not want to do what's there. you may want to do a smaller version of it. that could be, although i tell you what, he looked at that tape, he looked at that ipad, and i'm telling you, they -- they really enjoyed it, i believe. okay? yeah, go ahead. couple more, we'll do three more. go ahead, go. >> brian bennett from "time" magazine. >> hi, brian. am i on the cover again this
week? go ahead. so many covers -- >> entirely possible. >> i know. >> do you now see kim jong-un as an equal? >> in what way? >> you showed a video that showed you and kim jong-un on equal footing discussing the future -- >> i don't view it that way. see, i don't view it that way. i'll do whatever it takes to make the world a safer place. if i have to say i'm sitting on a stage, i mean, i understand what you're getting at. if i have to say i'm sitting on a stage with chairman kim and that's going to get us to save 30 million lives, could be more than that, i'm willing to sit on the stage. i'm willing to travel to singapore proudly, very gladly. again, you know, other than the fact that it is taking my time, they have given up a tremendous amount. even add the olympics to it.