tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC May 17, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
i do count on pg&e to keep our firefighters safe. that's why we ask for their help. that will wrap up this hour of msnbc live. katy tur picking things up right now. >> craig melvin, thank you very much. >> safe travels over the pond. >> you've just blown our cover. we were saving it for the end of the show. now everyone knows. >> sorry. >> just wait for it. wait for it. craig melvin, thank you. it's 11:00 a.m. out west and 2:00 p.m. in washington where today the president of the united states sarcastically marked the one-year anniversary of the mueller investigation, quote, "congratulations, america. we're now in our second year of the greatest witch hunt in american history. and there is still no collusion and no obstruction. and despite the disgusting, illegal, unwarranted witch hunt, we have the most successful first 17-month administration in u.s. history, is "it"?
>> if there was collusion with the russians, they would have used it. >> "it"? is he implying there isn't "it"? and what about all the times the president used wikileaks on the trail? couldn't have be "it"? and if so, isn't that trump clearly using "it "? headline two -- senate intel's break with house republicans. the senators instead siding with the intel community's assessment of the probe that russia intended to help trump win the presidency. headline three -- more heat for the president's personal attorney, michael cohen. t"the new yorker" reported that an an northern muanonymous sour it. four, "the washington post" detailing that he solicited a $1 million payment from the qatari government in 2016. they wanted advice on trump.
headline five -- the special counsel has hit roger stone with a subpoena. and "crossfire hurricane" isn't just a lyric from a rolling stone song. headline six revealed it is also the code name the fbi gave the fledgling at the time investigation in july of 2016. remember yesterday we saw the president's yearly financial disclosure in which he finally listed the money he paid back michael cohen for the stormy daniels payment. and the senate judiciary committee made its own disclosure with the release of 2,500 pages of so-called trump tower transcripts. that is where we are today. one year into mueller's probe. one year of a so-called witch hunt that's resulted in 19 people being indicted.
19 people being charged with crimes. five pleaded guilty, including the president's former national security advisor and former campaign manager. our big question today. >> senior fellow with the r street institute. chuck rosenberg is a former u.s. attorney and former senior fbi official. he is also an msnbc contributor. chuck, i never get to see you in person. welcome to new york. >> it is a pleasure to be here with you. >> i want you to try and answer that big question. after all of those headlines in the last 24 hours, everything we've learned in the past year included, is the president himself any closer to serious legal jeopardy today than he was a year ago? >> probably. because as investigations progress, as the mueller team learns more and more, katy,
anybody who was in their sights to begin with are probably even more so now. right? so hard for us to specifically know. but this thing isn't going away. the mueller team keeps advancing. and it seems like the president, if we believe the reporting, is absolutely a subject of the investigation. >> paul, what's your take? >> well, i agree with chuck that the president's conduct is definitely a subject of investigation. i think, though, that one thing that you left out was the reports from mr. giuliani's conversatio conversations, that the special counsel is probably going to following the doj policy and not indict a sitting president because that's doj policy. so i think the president's jeopardy, if you will, is much more likely in the long run to be political than it is to be in the criminal arena. >> do you trust that that's actually what is happening, that mueller would say that we would not indict the president to his own attorney? >> well, i have taken everything that mr. giuliani says with a grain of salt. that seems an appropriate way to
approach his statements. on the other hand, it is the case that the department of justice's policy against indi indicting sitting presidents goes back to the nixon era, almost 45 years old. so that's not new news and i do suspect strongly that mr. mueller, an employee of the department, is going to, in the end, consider himself bound by that policy and that he'll take the opportunity to file some form of report with the department that lays out what he knows, and that -- but then the ultimate resolution for the president. not for anybody else. president is unique in this regard. but for the president will have to be in the political arena. >> there is still some argument about that. that is a question that could go to the supreme court if mueller decided he did want to indict the president. >> that's right, katy. paul's right. this has been the policy of the department of justice. however, it's never been litigated.
and so it is conseeceivable -- don't know that it is likely but it is conceivable that mueller would ask to challenge that. if rod rosenstein, the acting attorney general, for purposes of this investigation is amenable, they could challenge it. >> is what rudy giuliani is ultimately trying to do is say there is no reason robert mueller can subpoena the president for an interview because he can't indict him so you can't subpoena somebody you can't indict? >> i think that's too narrow a way to look at it. you can also subpoena witnesses because they have information about other people and other crimes. we keep talking about the president being interviewed for the president's own criminal liability. but if he knows stuff about paul manafort, if he knows stuff about michael cohen, if he knows stuff with jared kushner, all of that is fair game for a grand jury. so there could be lots of other reasons why the mueller team would want to interview him. >> paul, do you think he will end up sitting down for an interview? >> i think it is almost certainly the case that he will. he'll couch it as a voluntary interview at some point. he'll try very hard to narrow it
in terms of scope of the questions and time, which is to his benefit. but in the end, in my own judgment, the prospect of the president refusing to speak to the special counsel will do him too much political damage and he understands that. >> what about what giuliani was just asserting a moment ago in that big, long introduction we did, that there's nothing illegal about digging for dirt from a russian source? >> well, let's distinguish between something that might be a crime, and it may or may not be, and something that's a really, really, really bad idea. so sitting down with russians to gather information, dirt, on your political opponent is a really bad idea. and so from a counterintelligence perspective -- whether or not it is a crime, katy -- this is not something we would expect from the nominee or the staff of a major party in american politician. >> paul, at the very least he wades around wikileaks, said he
loved wikileaks, used it to his advantage at the end of the campaign. >> i think that's right. i actually would be a little more forward leaning than chuck is. i think that soliciting dirt from a foreign source is soliciting a thing of value from a foreign source and the receipt of things of value from foreign sources for american campaigns is illegal. normally that's money. normally a russian could not contribute to donald trump's campaign or hillary clinton's, for are that matter. but research that you purposely seek to receive is an effort to circumvent the fec rules against foreign source influence. >> what do you think happens next, chuck? what's the next move right here for mueller's team? are we going to see an interview sooner than later, do you think? >> hard to say, katy. they're going to continue to do what they've been doing for are at least a year, if not significantly longer. they're going to look through documents, they're going to read e-mails, they're going to subpoena records and they're going to interview people who are willing to talk to them.
don't forget, you have two trials pending. they need to try paul manafort. >> what about these sars? suspicion activity reports that disappeared from the government database. your guess is they're probably with robert mueller. correct? >> let me just unpack that a little bit. s.a.r.s. -- suspicious activity reports that bank file -- >> hold on one second. we have donald trump. this is a conversation he's having with reporters next to the head of nato. >> thank you very much. it is an honor to have secretary of state stoltonberg. our relationship is very good. together we've increased and raised a lot of money from countries 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 that 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. >> thank you so much. thank you so much, mr. president, for hosting me and my delegation once again at the white house. let me thank you for the leadership you show on the issue of the fed 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 now spending more on defense. all allies are increasing their defense budgets. >> do you give me credit for that?
>> you have helped do that because your leadership has been important and it has had real impact. and we see that because all allies increase and add billions to the budget. so that's important because we live in a more unpredictable world. and then we need strong nato and we need to enlist more in our security. >> thank you very much for being here. it is an honor. >> well, 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 -- 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 if it doesn't, we go on to the next step. >> just typical thing that north korea does? >> i really don't know. 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 reed but oftentimes what you read if it is 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, then we will -- 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 a second time. kim jong-un had a second meeting with china which was a little bit of a surprise meeting. 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 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 they've taken out of the united states. and that's not going to happen anymore. but there has been a big difference since they had the second meeting with president xi. with that being said, my attitude is whatever happens, happens. either way, we're going to in great shape. >> would you consider personal outreach to kim to get him moving toward -- keep him moving -- >> no, we'll see what happens. you have to want to do it. with deals -- that's what i do is deals. with deals you have to have two parties that 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. president xi, a 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 is never going to change. but i will say this. we are continuing to negotiate in terms of location. the location as to where to meet, how to meet, rooms, everything else.
and they've been 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 -- [ inaudible ] >> well, i've been telling china that we are -- you people have been covering trade and you've been covering china and you've been covering everything for a long time. have you ever even seen a negotiating of trade? nobody's ever seen anybody from our country even negotiate on trade. trade with china -- and with other countries. i'm not just blaming china. china's the biggest. but trade has been a total one-way street. right outside of this nation, you take money out by the bucket loads into other. whether it is 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, we can't do that anymore. we just can't do that anymore. it is a much different situation. but with all the years and all the years that you've covered trade and nations and wars and everything else, you've never seen people come over from china to work on a trade deal. now will that be successful? i tend to doubt it. the reason i doubt it is because china's 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 the $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. [ inaudible question ] >> zte 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. i certainly said i would. he asked me to do that and i would do that. out of great respect -- i like him, he likes me, we have a great relationship. he asked me if i'd look at zte. don't forget, it was my administration with my full knowledge that put very, very strong clamps on zte. it wasn't anybody else. it wasn't president obama. it wasn't president bush. it was me. i put very strong clamps on zte.
they did very bad things to our country. they did very bad things to our economy. the one thing i will say, they also buy a large portion of their parts for the phones that they make -- and they are 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 anything we do with zte is always -- it's just a small component of the overall deal. i can only tell you this. we're going to come out fine with china. hopefully china's 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. okay? is i'll let you know about, as time goes by, will 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. yeah, steve? [ inaudible question ] >> well, 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 gadhafi. 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, he'd be running his country. his country would be very rich. his people are tremendously industrious. if you look at south korea, this would really be a south korean model in terms of their industry, in terms of what they do. they're hard-working, incredible people. but the libyan model was a much different model. we decimated that country. we never said to gadhafi, 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 wooshd hae s have, i could tell you, i was against it from the beginning. because look what we have right now. we spent $7 trillion -- can you believe that? $7 trillion in the middle east right out the window. you might as well throw the money right out the window. and we've done a lot of infrastructure. we just had 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 is pretty sad. but the model, if you look at that model with gadhafi, 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 is going to be very happy. but this is just the opposite. i think 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 meant. just the opposite. because if you look at -- again, you look at syria, that was a total decimation. >> what security guarantees are you willing to get to -- >> we're willing to do a lot and he's willing to, i think, do a
lot also. i think we'll actually have a good relationship eye sassuming have the meeting and eassuming something comes out of it. he'll get protections that are very strong. syria never got protections. or anywhere around the middle east. 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 planned to do and that's what we do. >> would you raise u.s. troop levels as a possibility? >> we're not going to say that. we will say he'll have very adequate protection and see how it all turns out. i will tell you this -- the best thing he could do would be to make a deal. i have a feeling though, for various reasons -- including trade. because they've never had this problem before. china's 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, a 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. >> all right. thank you. >> please start making your way towards the door. >> thank you. >> donald trump talking at length with reporters alongside secretary-general jan stoltonberg. we'll be watching out for more questions from the president. back to chuck rosenberg to talk
about the suspicious activity reports that we were discussing before we went to the white house. but first let's go to nbc's hans nichols who is standing by for us. hans, there was a lot in that discussion right there with the president in regards to north korea. break it down for us. >> well, number one, president trump seems to suggest that china has somehow influenced kim jong-un and changed his thinking on what he wants to do in terms of negotiations with president trump. the president seemed to be going both ways on whether or not in meeting would take place, that june the 12th meeting. at one point he said that the north koreans were even negotiating about the location of the meeting. unclear if the president was talking about the location inside singapore, on what sort of back-and-forth there. i think the most significant thing in there was this idea of making distinguishing comments about the libyan model. remember, the libyan model is what john bolton, national security advisor, talks about. and that is complete and total denuclearization with verifiable claims. it happens instantly. there isn't any sort of phased
back and forth. the president was trying to make a difference between that denuclearization model and then what happened in the 2011 air campaign against libya. in all of that, i've got to say, as the president was trying to make this distinction, he actually ended up threatening kim jong-un again, suggesting that a fate similar to gadhafi would await him. let me read it for you. he said, that model, referring to libya model, that model would take place if we don't make a deal. throughout that, president trump was trying to give assurances that kim jong-un would not be ousted from power. but in one moment we did hear from president trump saying if negotiations fail, he can expect to have a fate like moammar gadhafi. >> wow. hans nichols at the white house, hans, thank you very much. i'm sorry to the viewer at home that we're jumping around so much. but let's go back to chuck rosenbe
rosenberg. we were talking about all the headlines that have piled up in the last 24 hours in regards to the special counsel's investigation. one of them that could have links to the special counsel's investigation is this new report about michael cohen and these suspicious activity reports that suddenly disappeared from financial databases. an official leaked those reports asking the questions, why did they suddenly disappear? you think you know why. >> well, i have a good guess. >> okay. >> first, let me explain. if a bank sees something in your account that's suspicious -- right? the amount of money, the frequency of money, the source of the money, they can file a report with the treasury. these are usually leads for investigators. there's something odd going on in katy tur's bank account. we'll take a look. from time to time, there is a perfectly legitimate law enforcement reason not to have some of these reports in the database. maybe a very sensitive case. there's other reasons that i can't really go into here. but there are legitimate non-nefarious reasons to take
these reports from time to time -- it's rare -- out of the master database. number two, if we already have an investigation of you, katy, i don't need a suspicious activity report. i have all the underlying bank records. by the way, including the suspicious activity reports that the bank would have filed, because they would have kept a copy. >> so mueller probably has them. >> mueller has them. >> chuck rosenberg, thank you very much for being here. we appreciate it. and thank you to the viewer at home for being so smart and so wicked that you follow us even when we jump around from topic to topic. now we're going to jump one more time. it is a tale of two russia investigations on capitol hill. on the senate side, that intel committee now says they agree with the intelligence community that russia interfeared in the 2016 election to help candidate donald trump. that announcement contradicts the conclusion of house intel republicans last month. their report found there was not enough information to definitively claim that vladimir putin had a clear preference for donald trump. congressman chris stewart is a
republican on the house intel committee. he joins me now. congressman, what do you think of the two pretty different conclusions that are coming out of this? one from the senate and one from the house? >> yeah. well, i respect the senate's work, and i would just respectfully disagree, at least with one part. if i could make maybe a larger observation -- i said this earlier, by the way, many times. when it comes to was russia trying to hurt hillary clinton or trying to help donald trump, that's nearly impossible to know. you actually have to crawl inside vladimir putin's head to really answer that question. i think our committee's focus wasn't necessarily on that question. our concern was mostly, did the cia and other intelligence agencies go through the proper procedures, did they vet their own conclusions, did they share those and ask for other inputs. that's where we found that there were deficiencies and that was the conclusion of our committee and the thing that we found a little bit troubling. >> congressman, with all due respect, the senate intel
committee interviewed a lot more people, we believe, than you did. and their conclusion -- along with the intelligence community's conclusion was that, yes, they may have been trying to denigrate hillary clinton, hurt hillary clinton. but that was to help donald trump. remember, this was 1 of 2 options election. if you're hurting hillary clinton, you are helping donald trump. why do you -- why did you in the house intel committee not interview paul manafort or michael flynn or george papadopoulos or anthony scaramucci or reince priebus or k.t. mcfarlane or sam nunberg or natalia veselnitskaya or stephen miller on keith kellogg or george nader or dan scevinop. >> we only have limited time. you can keep listing people there. >> i'm done. >> i don't agree automatic all
with your contention that they interviewed more people than we did. they may have interviewed other people, but i don't know that either one of us know that they interviewed more people. none of those people had direct bearing on this one question that was, did the cia follow procedures. i don't think there is a single person that you mentioned who could cast any light at all on that question, and many of the people that you mentioned -- i'm sure you know this, katy -- we could not interview them because they were under indictment by the special counsel, and that puts them out of bounds for us. we can no longer talk to them. the thing that we were interested in, and the thing that our report states, is that the cia, the other intelligence agencies, maybe rushed to judgment on this. and that's a meaningful thing to consider. look, this was an important conclusion by the intelligence community. this was -- this is about a presidential candidate that was already very controversial, as we both would agree. and for them to come to a conclusion about what our
expectation would be is that they went through every hoop that they dotted every i and crossed every t, if you will. again, we had concerns that they maybe didn't do that. >> let me ask you a question about the intention of the investigation. are you saying this investigation intended to find out how the cia was operating and not whether or not donald trump coordinated or his campaign coordinated with russia, or whether or not russia tried to interfere in our election? because -- >> no, no. >> that's what i thought the intention was of this investigation. you are talking about the cia and their practices. if your intention was that, why would you not interview maybe the ones that are not under indictment in this list that i mentioned but people who would certainly have a little insight on how the campaign was being run and what donald trump did day in and day out, and potentially -- >> katy, you know the answer to the first part of your question. of course we looked at whether russia had meddled.
i've said from the very beginning russia meddled. i said as early as august, before the election. i was in moscow and i came home and said to you and many others, russia's going to meddle in our elections. we clearly knew they would, and they clearly did. our investigation looked at that. i honestly don't know why you asked me that question. >> well, because you turned it around and asked me about the cia. let me ask you one final question. >> because that -- well, look, because that was an important part of this. we had something like 47 recommendations. only one of them -- only one of the recommendations -- >> but it didn't point you in the same direction that the senate got to which was vladimir putin was trying to help donald trump and hurt hillary clinton. they could have helped point new that direction or helped you figure out whether or not there was any coordination. i know you didn't rule it out but i certainly didn't find any evidence of it. so far obviously the senate intel report is not concluded but their update doesn't find it
one way or the other either. but final question to you, congressman. and we appreciate having you on. do you want to see robert mueller's investigation come to a conclusion when he's ready or do you want to see it stopped now? >> i've always supported mr. mueller's investigation. we've always said that he should have the time and the resources to complete lis investigation. i do hope that he does it as quickly as possible. i think, like we felt on our committee, we owed it to the american people. we owed it to the people who are under investigation to say what we know as quickly as possible. i would hope mr. mueller would have the same expectations. we'll let him work on his own timeline and see what he comes up with. >> republican utah congressman chris stewart of the house intel committee, thank you very much. joining me now, betdy woodruff, politics reporter with the daily beast and msnbc contributor. and thnatasha bertrand, an msnb contributor with "the atlantic."
guys, thanks for being here. let's talk about this mueller investigation one year in. betsy, we asked a big question at the beginning of the show, whether or not donald trump was in more legal jeopardy. we had our legal eagles get to the point of that. but in following of this for the past year, what do you think have been some of the biggest revelations so far? >> i think the reality what's going on with paul manafort is incredibly important. in some ways we're sort of inknoi innocuated that the guy who was running president trump's entire campaign, in charge of making sure everything worked properly, was in charge of scores and scores of people going into the pro vention is now going through a protected, messy legal battle that could potentially result in his being incarcerated. under any other president the manafort story would be front and center, dominating the news.
i think over the course of the last year the sort of fall of paul manafort has been something that hasn't -- i don't think we fully grasped the seriousness of. >> one of the other things we learned about yesterday -- and yesterday was just a flood of headlines having to do with this investigation -- was roger stone's social media advisor getting subpoenaed. natasha, you've written a lot about roger. what do you know about this social media advisor? >> yae. yeah. this is someone who had access to roger stone's twitter account throughout the 2016 election. he also did social media for roger stone's political action committee and really the purpose of his work there was to weaponize social media. now we don't actually know what mueller wants from the social media director. does he want things related to roger stone's twitter account on its own? or does he want things related to the political action committee? it's worth wondering whether there is a question that robert
mueller's trying to answer about whether the social media director knew through roger stone in advance when wikileaks would be publishing the material so that he could then target, which was exactly the tool he came up, and use that tool to weaponize the disclosures that wikileaks made. so this guy is in the center of a lot. of course, roger stone's twitter feed itself during the election we know that he was communicating with wikileaks during the campaign. he exchanged direct messages with them. he says that he turned over everything to the relevant intelligence committees in congress, but this guy -- i think his name is jason sullivan, the social media director for roger stone, he did have access to stone's twitter account. and if he did, maybe he'll be able to disclose more information about who roger stone was talking to via twitter, apparently one of his favorite methods with im. >> and what roger stone knew when he tweeted. it will soon be john podesta's time in the barrel right
before -- about a month before those wikileaks e-mails from podesta's e-mails started coming out. roger stone, as far as we know, has not been interviewed yet by special counsel. there are few others that have not been interviewed by the special counsel. the president being one, don jr. being another. i don't believe jared kushner has been interviewed by the special counsel. betsy, who else would you be looking at to be called in before this investigation is over? >> that's a good question. one person i can tell you who has not been interviewed is the vice president. even though he seemed to be adjacent to many of the big decisions that mueller's interested in, especially the question of james comey's firing which is related to these broader obstruction of justice issues. my understanding is that the vice president has not yet been brought in by mueller's team. one person who has been brought in though who's very close to those decisions is don mcghan. "the washington post" reports that he's been interviewed at least twice by the special counsel's team. i can confirm that's definitely correct. mcgann is someone who is of significant interest to the special counsel. his proximity to this very important question of why the president decided to fire james
comey when he did, and whether that was designed as a way of trying to undercut a counterintelligence investigation. it is a really important one. so mcgann is in a position to know a lot about why that decision was made, how that decision was made, and that clearly is a question that's front and center for mueller. . >> don mcghan, white house counsel, also campaign for the campaign. betsy woodruff and natasha bertrand, ladies, thank you very much. today there was a show of force to get stalled sexual harassment legislation on the senate floor. a bold move, but will it work? i'll ask the woman who did it right after the break.
during the fall, everyone who has medicare may be eligible to choose a new medicare health plan. but you may be able to choose a new plan right now. if you answer 'yes' to any of these questions: are you turning 65? do you have both medicare and medicaid? do you have medicare? and are you losing employer health coverage? if you answered yes just once, you may be able to choose a new medicare health plan right now. call humana at
the number on your screen to see if you qualify. and we'll send you this helpful medicare decision guide. the call is free. and there's no obligation. humana has nearly 30 years of medicare experience and offers a wide range of all-in-one medicare advantage health plans that include medical and prescription drug coverage and valuable extras like: a 24-hour nurse advice line. the silver sneakers fitness program. and mail order prescription coverage. all for an affordable monthly plan premium. and, in some areas, no plan premium. with humana, you'll get more than original medicare alone and have the peace of mind of knowing you're covered for doctor visits and hospital stays. plus, routine physicals and preventive screenings. and when it comes to prescriptions, in 2016, humana's medicare advantage prescription drug plan members saved an estimated $6500 on average on their prescription costs. so call a licensed humana sales agent at the number on your screen, and say yes to
available now. gillette. the best a man can get. -- not have to wait any longer. so i urge my colleagues to do the right thing now! to swore thupport this bill. fix our system here in congress that's failing our members on this issue of sexual harassment. >> this morning the new york lawmaker used a rare procedural tactic to try to take her sexual harassment reform legislation to the form of the senate. senate -- the bill which has bipartisan support from 3 2 senators was introduced last year. a letter was sent signed by the
women asking it to be taken before the full senate. mcconnell's effort says there is a bipartisan effort under way. reporters on the hill say they're told they're close to releasing a bill but there are sticking points. the big one -- settlements. some senators don't like the idea of paying that money out of their own pockets instead of with a taxpayer slush fund. joining us now, senator kirsten gillibrand. thank you very much for being here. >> how are you? >> i'm good. remind us what exactly is in this legislation. >> basically, the process today is so broken, if are harassed in one of these senate or house offices you might have to wait up to three months to even report the harassment because there's mandatory mediation, there's counseling, there's cooling off. it is just broken. so we need to fix the system and also, today there's a lot of settlements that are being paid by the taxpayer. so we want to make sure that if the member of congress is the one who's harassing someone in his or her office, that they
will pay any settlement, it will not be paid by the taxpayer. >> i'm glad you brought that up. according to our reporters on the hill there, they're saying that's one of the sticking points right now, that there are some senators out there who don't want to be paying that money out of their own pockets or don't want that language, at the very least, to be in the bill. who are the people that are saying no to that? >> well, i'm not sure. i just know it's been 100 days since the house of representatives passed this bill unanimously. so there is no excuse that we can't have a vote on it. all that's waiting is the political will to call up the vote. and i think we can find a bipartisan agreement here. already on my bill we have 30 co-sponsors, widely bipartisan. our rule 14 amended bill today, ted cruz is supporting it. this is very widely bipartisan. it's got people like patty murray and elizabeth warren and jeff merkley.
>> what's the block here? is it going to work? are you going to be able to take it to the floor and go around mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer? >> i'm hopeful that we have a group of people that are working hard right now to find bipartisan resolution. i'm very optimistic that we'll be able to get that done in the next week or so. but we just have to keep raising our voices. this is something that's important to me and my constituents, it is important to over 30 members of the senate. we've had every female letter of the senate rigwrite a letter tor leader saying we want a vote. i think when there is the political will, we will have the vote and there is enough common ground that we can bring this across the finish line. >> can somebody accuse you of getting 2020 politics involved here? that maybe you're using this as a way to get a little louder in an effort to raise your profile for a 2020 run? is that an accusation that you think is fair? >> very unfair.
and ridiculous because i've been working on this issue of making workplaces safe for men and women who work in them nor a very long time, whether it's in the u.s. military, whether it's on a college campus, whether it's in the u.s. senate or in the house of representatives. this is an area where i feel very passionately because when you discriminate against people in the workplace, in whatever form it takes, you are making it harder for people to earn a living, harder for people to earn their fullest in this economy. when you don't value women it undermines all of us. it undermines the middle class. these are big issues. with the me too movement being as powerful as it is transforming workplaces all across society, why should congress not take this opportunity to make their workplace safer, too? >> it is certainly interesting that it has been 100 days since the house passed it and the senate is still talking about it. let's talk about the mueller investigation, if you don't mind, just for one minute. >> sure. >> robert mueller's a year in
now. what are your thoughts on how this has gone one year in? >> well, obviously this is a very important investigation for the american people. we need to get to the bottom of it. people deserve transparency and accountability. they need to know exactly how did russia try to undermine our elections. whether any americans were involved. whether there was collusion. whether there was obstruction of justice. whether there was money laundering. these are serious, serious allegations that need to be fully investigated, and i believe that robert mueller is doing that credible investigation right now and he will provide transparency once he a he completed. it is a complex investigation. that's why it takes time. >> how relevant is robert mueller's investigation going to be for 2018 voters? >> i think people want transparency and accountability. they want to know our electoral system is safe so they want that level information about if it is safe, how to we prevent what happened in the past from happening again. i also feel that people feel
washington's broken and this culture has only gotten worse. the president promised to drain the swamp. well, he lined it with the most elite of the elite. so we do not have administration -- an administration that has cabinet members that are speaking for the people and fighting for the people in the way that was promised. so i think that issue of washington being broken is as relevant today as it ever has been. >> one last question. have you talked to chuck schumer or mitch mcconnell getting that legislation to the four in two weeks? three weeks? >> yes, i've been working with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis. a number of our committees have been working on this. senator klobuchar has been working night and day to get this moving forward, as has senator schumer. >> new york democratic senator kerstin gillibrand. good luck out there. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for coming on. donald trump is now having a
bilateral news conference with jan stoltenberg, the head of nato. >> -- summit in july that will be both interesting and exciting. i've had the great pleasure of getting to know secretary-general stoltenberg over the last year. we've work very closely together and improved very much with respect to everybody the burden sharing and we have really strengthened that i toe and the nato alliance. the strong working pardoner? ship we forged to produce significant increases in member state contributions. we've worked very hard on that. and i will tell you the secretary-general has been working on that for a long time before i got there. but i think i can say with surety, more progress has been made in the last year and half than in many, many years. we are delighted to report that last year as a result of our joint efforts we witnessed the single largest increase in
defense spending among european union states and canada in a quarter century. that's quite a spectacular achievement so i congratulate you. i congratulate you very much. we really have worked in many respects, but 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 will be able to handle the ones that 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. unfortunately, we pay much more than the%. which is probably unfair, and unfair to the taxpayers of the united states. but the 2% number that's met, poland, estonia, latvia, lithuania, greece, and the united nations. and they are right up to snuff. they paid. they were on time. they paid the number that they
are supposed to be paying. we have some that don't. and well, they will 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 of state general and i have discussed, more work needs to be done. we are 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 n. 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 is a very big beneficiary. far bigger than the united states, frankly. in addition to, that a you know, they are buying massive amounts of gas from russia and paying billions and billions of
dollars. so i think that's something we will be discussing later and we will be discussing that in our meeting and probably long before the meeting. we are going to successfully confront the full range of threats, and we are 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 reaffirmed our commitment to article five and the mutual defense pack. we renew our call on nations to demonstrate their commitment to the alliance through their actions including by increasing their defense contributions under article three requirement for preparedness and military capacity. you have to be prepared. never know what's going to happen. i have also called on nato to improve its counter-terrorism 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 secretary general stoltenberg, he listened to me, and they have a great counter-terrorism operation. we appreciate that. i was there for it 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 ten and 20 years ago you wouldn't have even thought about it. i also discussed with secretary general stoltenberg our commitment to stopping nuclear proliferation, including the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. we want a future of safety, security, 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 destabilizing activities all across the middle east.
no matter where you go, no matter where there is problem, there is iran right behind it. and we are not going to have that any longer. i have said before, our nations must be strong from within to defend ourselves against threats outside. the strength of nato alliance does not depend on military alliance alone but the history that long united our civilization. now we must renew these ties and rededicate ourselves to our shared heritage. our heritage. we want a heritage of peace. strength, but peace. strength, but peace. i want to thank you, secretary general for joining us at the white house of it is a great honor and for working with us to fortify the nato alliance which has proudly stood for seven decades as the bullwork of freedom prosperity and security,
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 are doing. unfair that some countries fay and some countries work and some countries are loyal and terrific and other countries aren't. we just can't have that. so we are working on that together. a great honor to be with you. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> 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 a strong nato. i would also like to thank you to 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 the afghan government, and also in iraq, where we also plan to launch a new training mission at the summit -- at the nato summit in july. on defense spending i would say that i agree with you. we have to do more. and i would like to thank you for your leadership. and it has really impact -- it is impacting allies because all allies are now increasing defense spending. they are adding billions to their budgets. 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 cutting budgets anymore, and more and more
allies are at 2% of gdp for defense. but i also agree that we have to do more, so allies will continue to work on defense spending because we need to invest more in our security when the world is more unpredictable, as it is today. we also support your efforts to try to find a peaceful negotiated solution to the crisis on the korean peninsula. the aim should be to denuclearize the korean peninsula to make sure there are no nuclear weapons there and also to stop not only the development of nuclear weapons but also the missile program. therefore, we support the initiative and the work for having the 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 this 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 to address these issues and many others. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> mr. president? sir, could you clarify the context of your use of the word animal yesterday in -- >> yes. well it has nothing to do with this meeting i'm referring and you know i'm referring to the ms-13 gangs that are coming in. i was talking about the ms-13. also, if you look further onto the tape you will see that i'm actually surprised you are asking this question. 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 are coming into our country. we are getting them out. they come in again. we are getting them out. we need strong immigration laws. we have the weakest laws in the entire recalled would. 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 refer to them as animals. and guess what. i always will. but we are getting them out by the thousands. but it is a big, dangerous job. and they are able in some cases to come back in, or new groups come in, also from the gangs. thank you. >> mr. president? >> yes. >> do you want nato the play a bigger role in syria? [ inaudible ] >> i think we helped syria actually by withdrawing from the iran deal which was a terrible deal for the united states, i think for the world. i think syria -- hopefully syria will start to stabilize. you see what has been happening. it's been a horror show. i have great respect for the people of syria. these are great people. i know people from syria. these are great people. it was a great culture before it was so horribly blown apart, a place where people would go,
where they had tremendous professional people, as you know, doctors and lawyers and -- it's friends of mine from the middle east that say we used to go to syria. that was a place to go. and you look at what's happened. it's so sad. but i'd like to see syria come back. i think we have gone a long way to helping it with what we did with respect to the iran deal. you will see what i mean by that over time. a lot of things will happen. >> [ inaudible ] nobel peace prize [ inaudible ] for north korea. what do you want you have to achieve in the upcoming summit to have the nobel peace prize. want to have peace in the world more than anything else. more so than the nobel peace prize, or anything else. i would like the see peace ideally in middle east but in the entire world. i think we have a chance of doing it. north korea is going to be very important. it i