tv MSNBC Live With Stephanie Ruhle MSNBC May 24, 2018 6:00am-7:00am PDT
fan. the solo movie comes out tonight. so i'm going to go do that, yeah. >> that's big. i love it. it looks good. happy birthday to you. that does it for us this morning on "morning joe." thank you for being with us. we'll see you back here tomorrow morning. for now, stephanie ruhle picks up our coverage. >> hi there, i'm stephanie ruhle, with a lot to cover this morn, starting with dual briefings. the white house will allow some democrats to review highly classified documents relating to the russia probe. in a separate briefing, the president still pushing his absolutely nonsense unproven claim that some sort of spy infiltrated his 2000 campaign. that's the president lying to you. >> when they look at the documents, i think people are going to see a lot of bad things happen. we now call it spy gate. >> no, sir, you do, and it's a lie. only you and the base that you're speaking to irresponsibly do. and sidelines, the nfl announces
a new policy requiring players to stand during the national anthem or remain in the locker room. >> you have to stand proudly for the national anthem. or you shouldn't be playing. you shouldn't be there. maybe you shouldn't be in the country. >> and follow the leader. a federal judge rules the president cannot block his critics on twitter, saying it violates the first amendment. why are so many people blocked? we begin with not one but two intelligence briefings. the first, the fbi and the justice department are set to share documents relating to the man, the president, has falsely called a spy. here's a question, are the facts going to back him up? a great team to break it down. i want to remind everyone what we're talking about. these meetings are focused on a single fbi informant, an fbi informant. that's a normal course of business for the fbi who spoke
to three trump campaign officials as part of an undercover operation back in 2016. the feds reportedly set the whole thick in motion after getting word of suspicious contacts with russia. president trump and his allies are arguing the operation is proof of a vast conspiracy, part of the so-called deep state that is out to get him. the president's allegations led to republican demands to see related documents, which led to the meetings today. >> a lot of bad things have happened. we now call it spy gate. you're calling it spy gate. a lot of bad things have happened. i want them all to get together. they'll sit in a room. hopefully they'll be able to work it out among themselves. i hope it's not so. if it is, there's never been anything like it in the history of our country. i hope it's not true, but it looks like it is. >> it's unclear to me why you're telling the american people. starting today at high noon,
originally, it was just supposed to be a briefing with the fbi director, the director of national intelligence and justice department official and two republicans. trey gowdy and devin nunes. that has now changed. after democrats complained of being cut out of a loop, a second briefing was added. that will include members of the so-called gang of eight. democrats chuck schumer, nancy pelosi and top republicans and democrats on the house and senate intelligence committees. there are some changes as well. deputy attorney general rod rosenstein is going to be at both meetings. taking over for one of his top officials. and white house chief of staff john kelly, he's going to be in there, despite the administration, yesterday, saying that he would not attend. adam schiff, one of the gang of eight, talked about the meeting earlier this morning on "morning joe." >> what i would hope to hear at the gang of eight is we have shared with you what we can without compromising sources and without compromising the
investigation. that's all we have to share with you at this point. when the investigation has run its course, when we can be a sured that our sources are protected, we will share more. >> i want to bring in nbc's garrett haake. he's live outside the justice department. a-yi-yi, jared, why two meetings? >> that's a great question. it's one democrats particularly want an answer to, now that the gang of eight is involved in this. the argument, in the form of a statement from schumer this morning, is why bother to have this earlier meeting today with just republicans? why not put everyone in a room together so that everybody gets the same information at the same time? the democrats have been arguing all along here that this is entirely a partisan exercise. this is an opportunity for devin nunes, who has run the house intel investigation and has been seen as a very close ally of the president, to essentially weaponize whatever information that they get. that's why you had this pressure to make this a gang of eight meeting, not just the republicans who had originally
requested it. democrats argued, and many republicans agreed, that the only legitimate purpose to have a meeting like this is for congressional oversight of the justice department. if you're doing oversight, you have to do it in a bipartisan way. so there are a lot of moving parts around these two meetings today, including we're getting some reporting that the second meeting might even happen back at the capitol hill to make it easier for the gang of eight, and have the briefers go to the capitol. so many moving parts. has become such a blow-up scandal, if you will, over the last couple of days. reminds me very much of the memo-gate controversy of a couple weeks ago, where these things get blown way way up and now you've got the opportunity for it to be a little deflated where you will have both democrats and republicans in the meeting. and i'm hearing now in fact that second meeting will happen on capitol hill. just goes to show you how much this has been an ad hoc process driven by the president and his allies over the last couple of
days, and now you're seeing democrats being able to steer this thing back. >> that's sort of exactly the point. it was that memo gate that nunes said was going to be the biggest thing ever. it turned out to be, and i steal this word from republicans, a nothing burger. so this massive meeting that the president called for, let's see how it turns out. my panel, eli stockle, he covers the white house for the "l.a. times." michael isinkoff, author of "russian roulette." and my friend, a columnist for the daily news. mr. stokel, two briefings, more people in the room. that's good for reporters for you and me, better chance of leaking. who is this a positive for, democrats? >> certainly the fact they're having two meetings does give democrats the opportunity to question whether or not this is really on the up and up, and the white house is really playing into that, saying first that john kelly won't be attending the meeting, then sending him
over there. if you step back from it, the president in his own words is telling us really that this is just sort of a branding exercise, the ap reported earlier this week that he's told people it's important to use the terminology of spy gate because he wants it to sound sinister. he's misquoting james clapper in tweets this morning, basically saying that clapper admitted to there being spies in his campaign, when really clapper did no such thing. you could see the president's desperation yesterday leaving the white house, saying everyone is calling it spy gate now. that's not true. he's trying to do that. he's engaged in a branding. he's trying to pound this into the american psyche. just like he has with the phrase "no collusion, no collusion, no collusion." >> the only three people he speaks to are rudy giuliani, sean hannity and himself, then he's right, everyone is calling it spy gate. michael, do you think that these briefings change the narrative for either side? >> no, and i think we already know this how this is going to turn out. nunes and some of the
republicans will come out and say they saw disturbing information about the fbi spying on a political campaign. the democrats will come out and say everything they saw was completely appropriate. but i think, you know, the important thing here is context. the use of the informant, as you just pointed out, is standard fbi technique when they're trying to gather information. the context here was there was legitimate concerns by the fbi about a russian attempt to infiltrate and penetrate an american political campaign. they had paul manafort, a campaign chairman, whose chief guy in kiev was a known russian military intelligence asset who was in business with a putin oligarch. you had the papadopoulos report from the australian ambassador. you had carter page. there was enough there that the fbi, from a counterintelligence perspective, is trying to figure out what's going on. how do you do that?
you use your informant base to try to gather information. there's nothing on its face that seems inappropriate about this. >> then is it smart for everyone who says rosenstein is making a huge mistake, he's doing exactly what the president asked him to do. to michael's point, if this is standard operating procedure, given you've got paul manafort and carter page in the house and the fbi did behave according to protocol, why not say yes, mr. president, you want to know all this innocence, sure, here you go, and we'll tell everyone in the room. because if they don't, it only furthers another conspiracy that he likes to push, which is this deep state, which by the way, mike pompeo, current secretary of state, who was asked about the deep state, said no, sorry, nonexistence. >> rosenstein is operating in a world where somehow this devin nunes has become this powerful in the united states government. a guy who constantly makes you
think intelligence and congressional are oxymorons, okay. so you start there. rod rossstein has one job here, stephanie, and i think it becomes more and more obvious. >> to keep bob mueller employed? >> absolutely. he has to keep himself employed. that is a way of keeping bob mueller employed. he is operating on this fault line constantly. where he tells the president enough of what he wants to hear that he continues to stay on the job and keep mueller on the job. for me, for all of the attacks on rod rosenstein, he's as much an american hero right now as robert mueller iii is. >> okay, so let's say the president is pushing false narratives. let's say we bust holes in them and they make no sense. we watched rudy giuliani talk, you know, say something, then he changes his tune six times over. we can fact-bust them all day. but is trump successful at
creating all of these alternate narratives and chaos which takes not just his base where they want to go but a lot of people out there in the country who is going, this is just too much, let me just pay attention to -- >> he's good in a click bait world. >> we live in a click bait world. >> no, no, but he's good at it. >> he's got 30% of the country that's tuned in to another cable news network right now with a completely different narrative. as long as he's got that base, that solid base. remember, this, for the republicans on capitol hill, these are their peeps, this is their constituency, these are the people they've got to please, and they're hearing this completely different account of what reality is, you know, for trump that works. >> but is it more than just 30% of the country? eli stockols, if 30% of the country is listening to this false narrative, buying it hook, line, and sinker, i accept that. then a part of the country who maybe has a little more money in
their pocket, a little tax cut, who is saying, my life is pretty good, and because of the chaos the president and rudy giuliani created around this investigation, they're starting to tune it out. so does this help the president beyond his 30%? >> i don't know if it helps him beyond the 30%, but you're definitely putting your finger on where we are as a country and the fact these two hem metically sealed world. most people watching fox news or msnbc probably have their minds made up of what they believe will come out of the mueller probe and everything else what they think of the president. and i think you're right, that a lot of people in the middle are tuning it out. >> people in the middle who don't care about politics, if they're not getting a very clear picture of how bad this situation is, what happened when they start to tune it out? >> listen, we have known for a long time, we're living in a post-truth world. that 30%, we're talking about today, they will believe trump if he told them water wasn't wet. we have reached that point.
they believe that any immigrant who comes into this country is coming here to kill someone. they buy into this narrative. you're absolutely right, you know that when they hand him a briefing, they have to give him bullet points so he can understand it. so he comes up with spy gate. he latches on to that. he says you guys are calling it that. no, you're calling it that. >> no, no, sir, we're not. i want to ask you about the winning day for jared kushner. yesterday, i said this is the best day in the trump presidency that they moved forward with prison reform. it's something jared claimed he was going to do. they actually made progress yesterday. jared getting full security clearance, how big of a deal is that? >> you know, that may well be significant, because it's hard to imagine that if jared kushner was still in mueller's sights and they still had stuff on him, the fbi would have ahowllowed t security clearance.
it's based on an fbi report. full information. if there was stuff in there that was a barrier to him getting a security clearance, it would have been really tough for the white house to get it. i think it was a good day for jared kushner. it does suggest mueller's focus is elsewhere. >> i don't believe that. i believe some day if we ever get the full report from robert mueller, i think if it's bold faced names, kushner's name is going to be on this. i don't think it's possible he could have gotten this clearance and that somehow indicates he's in the clear with mueller. i don't believe that. >> so you're saying there's a chance. eli stokols, what's your take? i read this as a very big win for jared kushner. >> i think politically it's a win. in terms of what the public is learning about jared kushner, it certainly does seem exculpatory. >> -- a business win -- >> that's true, but think back
to what steve bannon said in "fire and fury" about jared being, you know, he's greasy, the stuff the government has on him and his family and the finance hearings and the financial dealings with other countries. so i don't know that he's completely out of the woods with mueller, but this could be an indication that yes, mueller is really focused on other things, and certainly there's a sense from talking to people around the special counsel, he hasn't spoken with ivanka trump, he's been sort of delicate in dealing with the president's family a little bit. and is trying not to unsettle the president. just as rosenstein is trying to keep mueller in place, there has to be some strategy here in terms of, you know, at what point will something trigger the president to act and fire the special counsel, and so perhaps they're steering clear of it for that reason as well. >> that is a strategic answer. i left my bob mueller dekoiddec ring at home and i don't know if jared is out of the woods. you can't say that's not a winning day for him. >> no, no, i'm not.
but, again, we exist in a world where there's a referendum every day. it's like there's a great big scoreboard. winning day, losing day. but just because he had a winning day doesn't mean that -- in my opinion, doesn't mean he is in the clear with robert mueller. >> i'm not saying he does. if you're watching a basketball game and somebody gets a ball in the hoop, you have to say you scored, dude. >> you mean like the rockets got way more balls in the hoop than you team -- >> i also happen to love the houston rockets. my dear friend owns the team. and that james harden beard, that thing's a good look. >> no, it's not. >> you know what, you're entitled to your own opinion. up next, we're talking football. nfl releases a new policy. players stand for the anthem or sit and go to the locker room. but first, we just spoke about how democrats finally granted an opportunity to get briefed on the russia probe. the president, he pushed for it, saying he wanted the process to be transparent. guess who found that ironic,
steven co n kon cole colbert. >> we want total transparency. we are getting transparency because it is easy to see through that bull [ bleep ] let's do an ad of a man eating free waffles at comfort inn. they taste like victory because he always gets the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed, when he books direct at choicehotels.com. or just say badda book, badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com.
country. >> that was president trump's response to the new nfl policy banning pl inning players from s a method of national protest. philadelphia eagles defensive back malcolm jenkins tweeted, #the fight continues. what nfl owners did today was thwart the player's constitutional rights to express themselves and use our platform to draw attention to social injustices like racial inequality in our country. everyone loses when voices get stifled. i want to bring in midwin charles. ben white, the host of politico's money podcast. and michael lupica of the daily news. you got to look at the daily news today. the cover, nfl dishonors the flag. midwin, the nfl is a private organization. we knew, given how big this is, they were going to do something. does p does this new policy violate constitutional rights?
>> well, the short answer to your question is no. it does not. private employers have the right to sort of dictate what it is that their employees say on the job. what they say, what they don't say. particularly when it comes to political speech or what have you. but that being aside, i think the problem here is that the nfl's interpretation of what colin kaepernick started two years ago and what nfl players are doing, they have basically subverted the issue. the issue is not about disrespecting the american flag. the issue is drawing a whereness to the issue of plolice brutality. and, and, this is really important, the lack of accountability for doing that. so the fact that these players are trying to draw attention to doing that is not disrespecting the flag. in fact, the flag stands for freedom and justice for, what, all. >> okay, that nuance has gotten lost. when colin kaepernick first
started to do this, he went to a veteran who said to him this is what a soldier does when we're standing at the grave of a fallen soldier. this is the best way to show your respectful fa fuful fallen. this is a broader audience, when the president says you stand with the flag, you stand with our veterans. while veterans might not feel that way, lots of people in the country say right on, i hear you. >> there's aock-eyed narrative on this. stephanie, who died the most popular athlete on earth, muhammad ali. what would the base now -- what would trump's base have said in the late '60s when he refused to enter the draft and go and fight in vietnam?
that was extremely unpopular with the base at the time. he became a beloved figure in this country. my father is a world war ii hero. i said to him yesterday, what do you think? he said, i don't think they should be doing that stuff. i said, let me ask you a question. what's less american, taking a knee as honorable dissent about all of the things you just listed or black balling footballers, in their prime? like colin kaepernick and eric reid. for the stance they took by taking a knee. >> let's actually show. because one of the reasons they're taking a knee is because of injustice. the irony of it, is just happened this week. i want to actually -- do we have the video? milwaukee police released this disturbing body cam video last night of an incident from january where officers tackles and tased nba star sterling brown, despite the fact -- i beg you to watch this video, he
seemed like he was cooperating. that was the moment that unfolded during a confrontation in a parking lot. please watch. >> hold on, i've got stuff in my hands. >> taser, taser, taser. >> okay, so ben, we know that the officers involved in this have been punished. but when the president is saying, you know, these guys are out of bounds, african-american men in sports, those are the most prominent places we see them. we don't see a huge amount of african-american guys running fortune 500 companies or in positions of political leadership. they're leaders in sports. this is their chance to peacefully and respectfully, you know, voice their views. >> of course it is. it makes your blood boil that this stuff happens. it happens to hundreds of
thousands of others who don't have a platform like this. so to suggest that nfl players can't use that platform to respectfully say this is not okay, what is happening here is not okay, and if people see it and see them kneeling, okay, why are they kneeling, maybe i should look into that, why is this happening. of course it's ridiculous and of course they should be able to protest. but i think what trump has done with the nfl has proven that, you know, if you give him an inch, he'll want to take a mile. like they've done this sort of appeasement policy to say, okay, you can't take a knee, and now he's saying maybe these players shouldn't be in the locker room. there's no satisfying him on this. so even going the length that they did was a huge mistake for them. >> that's because when you give an inch to a bully, he'll take a mile. that's just exactly what happens here with this president. >> but that's when you let p let the bully take a mile. and the issue is, he makes -- he creates a false narrative and it works. >> it does work unfortunately. i think what's the height of hypocrisy here with the nfl is this is the same nfl that took
forever with the policy to deal with its players who were accused of domestic violence, players who were accused of using illicit, illegal drugs. >> concussions. >> concussions. are you telling me, nfl, the idea of standing for the flag is far more important than victims of domestic violence? or the use of illicit drugs or accusations of rape? so where are your priorities here? you know, this is really all about money at the end of the date. the nfl was, you know, using viewership and there were issues as to whether or not the loss of viewership was the result of these protests. it's important to remember here donald trump at one point tweeted perhaps these nfl teams should be taxed more. >> okay, but to that point then, if it's all about money, where's the money that stands with these views? because you could make the argument taking a knee respectfully is standing with
the flag. that is what the united states represents. >> i told you, there's a whole bunch of cock-eyed narrativnarr. please remember where this all started. >> could the decrease in popularity have anything to do with mothers like me in 2018, encourage their sons to play something other than football because i'm, i don't know, not up for a world of concussions? >> and the quality -- so often quality was crap last year and there weren't enough stars -- >> and there's a lot more stuff on tv to watch now, i'm sorry, it just is what it is. >> the idea the nfl's decrease in popularity is directly attributable to the kneeling is an absurd narrative and there's other things competing with it. >> remember how this started, at a friday night at a rally in alabama with the president of the united states speaking to a crowd that looked like an sec white football crowd in 1955 calling them sobs and saying
they should be fired. in what world other than his is that okay? >> and the nfl comprises -- you know, the players are 70% african-american. so if you want to sew sort of -- i just question why the nfl would do something like this and sort of sew dissension between their players. these are your moneymakers, you know. you want to make sure you recruit more african-american players, i mean that really is the bulk of the people who are playing for you and your leagues, 70%. >> they took a knee in front of the president of the united states, that's what happened. >> 70% african-american. >> this conversation's not going away. up next, the situation in hawaii becoming more dire now that the erupting volcano is threatening a nearby power plant. whoever came up with the term "small business," never owned a business. there's nothing small about it. are your hours small? what about your reputation, is that small? when you own your own thing, it's huge.
your partnerships, even bigger. with dell small business technology advisors you'll get the one-on-one partnership you need to grow your business. because the only one who decides how big your business can be, is you. the dell vostro 15 laptop, with 7th gen intel® core™ processors. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. that's it? everybody two seconds! "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. with expedia, you can book a flight, hotel, car, and activity... ...all in one place.
everything you need to go. expedia if yor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough, it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. this condition has not been reported with entyvio. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio.
entyvio. relief and remission within reach. i thought after sandy hook, where 20 six and seven year olds were slain, this would never happen again. it has happened more than 200 times in 5 years. dianne feinstein and a new generation are leading the fight to pass a new assault weapons ban. say no to the nra and yes to common-sense gun laws. california values senator dianne feinstein
end up like that of former libyan leader gadhafi. after north korea claims to have destroyed its only known nuclear test sites. and facebook says it will now ask you to review and make choices about the private information you share online. the company has already been done in -- it's already been done in the european union and it's now making it available everywhere. according to "the new york times," tech giant apple has signed a deal with volkswagen to turn some of the transporter vans into self-driving shuttles for their employees. and after three weeks, three weeks of destroying structures and swercorching land, authorit fear the big island's power plant is now being threatened. >> reporter: as you can see, this massive fissure behind me is still spouting lava, about 150, to 150 feet in the air. we're not far from that power
plant they're concerned about. some lava's actually made its way on to the property but officials at that power facility say it is safe. still, they are very concerned about this, especially locals who live in this area, concerned there could be some type of toxic combination here. the national guard says 1,000 people now only have one route out because so much lava has spread all across this area. geologists say it's unclear when any of this volcanic activity will stop. dozens of homes have been destroyed. 2,000 people are still forced out of their home. stephanie, back to you. >> those images in hawaii are stunning. think about the toxic gas being let off. we'll continue to monitor that. up next, different kind of volcano. trump administration looking for ways to raise tariff, eyeing using our national security as an excuse to go after foreign cars. i thought national security's what they said when we were talking aluminum and steel. what exactly is the target here?
first, you know, it is graduation season. that means a lot of high-profile commencement speeches. "the tonight show" found many of the speakers had one thing in common. they disagreed with president trump. >> don't just accept the status quo. >> we continue to support the status quo. >> we have to do it together. >> all together. >> and you do it separately. do it separately. >> stop comparing yourself to other people. >> i amb better than those people.
you're in luck. it's my favorite part of the show, money, power, politics. foreign automakers are livid this morning after the trump administration threatened to impose new tariffs on imported cars and car parts of up to 25%. i'm completely confused because i thought last ones were now holding. why are we throwing these ones out there right? the launch of an investigation into auto imports to determine whether they, quote, threaten to impair the national security of the united states. the department cites section 232 of the trade expansion act of 1962. an authorized the agency to determine, quote, the effects of imports of any article on the national security of the united states. president trump has asked commerce secretary wilber ross to carry out the probe. joining me now, cnbc squawk box host and "new york times" founder of deal book, my friend
andrew ross sorkin. ben white still with us. andrew, i want you to get into your whole perspective on president trump master negotiator. i noticed you tweeted you were speaking to a fortune 100 ceos this rn mooing who said this tariff idea is nonsense. >> the idea that he was so upset about was that imported cars pose a national security threat to the united states. which is patently absurd and ridiculous that, you know, most of the -- >> spies are hiding in the trunks. >> most of the cars sold in the uts united states, 80% of them are made in the united states. bmw, so many other, you know, foreign automakers make their cars here. there's no national security threat. you throw off the entire supply chain. plenty of u.s. automakers source their parts in china and elsewhere. you wind up just raising the prices for both domestic made cars. there's just no smart rationale for doing this.
i think the only thing you could make the argument for is he's trying to, you know, rattle the saber on nafta. >> all of this speaks to how ill informed the president is. 58 percent of cars sold last year in the u.s. were made in the u.s. 78% of them fall under nafta. so i wonder who's doing their homework here? >> the homework is -- and i don't want to normalize this. but the homework is almost irrelevant to what's really happening which is this is part of some grand chess game that he's playing both with china and with mexico and canada. that's what this is. and he throws out these very outrageous -- whatever you want to call them, ideas. because if he puts it out here, he think, i'm not going to get that. i'm not even going to get here but i may get here. >> i get that. >> that's all that's happening here. i think we look at this and we go, it's crazy, and it is. and by the way, the question is, at some point, does the other side say, yes, this is crazy,
and we understand the game of what you're trying to do here, and so we're not -- no, we're going to give you nothing. that's the quote. at what point do they say we'll give you nothing? >> the question is, is it it's so crazy it might work in that when the person you're negotiating with on the other side of the table is a crazy person, you're like, i just got to get something done here, or do you say they're certifiable, no thank you? >> right, that there's no point in negotiating with you when you're throwing out these crazy things. >> it's like talking to dr. evil. >> i wonder whether he is playing this grand game of chess. like is there some overarching strategy here. >> i don't want to make it too complicated. in this instance, it's a very specific game of chess. it could be checkers. >> it could be. what this really came from is i'm told by senior people in the white house is president trump has been watching fox news, he's been watching people commentate on the china talks and that he didn't get anything from them in these recent negotiations. that made him really mad.
he said, i have to do something tough. plus he's had a bee in his bonnet on imported german cars forever, for whatever reason, even though he's driven them. >> andrew, he keeps talking about the tariffs. and then it's uh-oh, forget it, we're not going to do it. when i had to watch on your network this week, whether you're talking steve mnuchin or wilber rosetting it's not going to happen. i want to say boys, you're the one who put it on the table. >> we talked to wilber this morning. by the way, wilber was actually very honest this morning, surprisingly so -- >> notice how he just said surprising. >> no, i was surprised, because he really explained how much division there really was inside the white house on this issue. because for the most part, steve mnuchin on monday said everybody singing couple bkumbaya. we understand inside the white house there are two very different factions. one continues to be a globalist fashion. one is a more hawkish approach to this.
>> and wilber is in the camp with peter navarro. they're the ones who snuck into the white house that wednesday and said steel and aluminum tariffs and we have the ceos coming tomorrow. >> when you hear that though, the question is always where's trump. that's it is -- it's not -- we keep talking about -- where is trump really? and that, by the way, maybe this is the poker hand he's playing. i'm not sure we really know. but i'm not sure he knows either. >> except that in this one, if you were to tell me on health care, he doesn't care about that, he just wants to be on the winning team. as it relates to trump, america first, america only, that is his jam. >> that is his jam. i think, you know, internally he likes the idea of tariffs. he thinks that we're being taken advantage of by other countries and the tariffs are a good way to make up for this. i think ultimately he cares about adulation. i think that's where he gets to push back against the rosses and the navarros and everything else. >> president trump just sent a
letter to kim jong-un canceling the june 12 summit. remember, mike pompeo went, they had a face-to-face meeting. whether you're talking lindsey graham or the president of south korea, moon who said president trump should receive a nobel peace prize for this. even in the last couple of days, sarah sanders said listen this kind of back and forth this is to be expected. i'm thinking what are they going to do with those comb memorativ coins. how's the market going to take this? >> the market is not going to take this well. i don't want to speculate because it's too early but to the extent we will, this can be part of another grand negotiating dance which is to say if you think kim jong-un was going to cancel the meeting -- >> you're not breaking up with me, i'm breaking up with you! >> it's the preemptive break-up. does that force the issue the other way.
does that mean -- it's how the things really operate. it's not just this is over. think about everything the president has said thus far about how important it is to actually have this meeting. if you're going to say it's over, by the way, then where are we, right, where does this leave us? it leaves us in a very dangerous place, if, in fact, that's what's happened here. >> do you think this is "you're not breaking up with me," i'm breaking up with you? >> yes, it's a preemptive break-up. to assume that kim is going to play this dance and say maybe we can have this meeting. he doesn't negotiate this way. you're talking about an isolated mad man dictator. what you can also see is trump really react negatively with china over this. he's going to blame china for not putting enough pressure on north korea. this is a very dangerous thing for trade if he's angry at the chinese and wants to put these tariffs in and do the trade war because it's their fault this fell apart. >> do you think this puts us back into this trade war territory?
because if it does, there's one thing the chinese is more prepared for a trade war then we are. whether it's they're already geared up to buy their soybeans -- actually, let's go to peter alexander who's live at the white house. this is a huge wow for us. >> that's right, stephanie. sorry, i was just literally printing out this letter. this is from the president to kim jong-un. this is literally happening as we speak to you. the president writes to his excellency, he writes, dear mr. chairman, we greatly appreciate your time, patience and effort with respect to our recent negotiations and discussions to a summit long sought by both parties which was scheduled to fatake place on ju 12 in singapore. we were informed it was requested by north korea but that is totally irrelevant to us, he writes. based on tremendous open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, i feel it is inappropriate at this time to have this long planned meeting. that is a reference to statements from north korea within the last 24 hours
referring to, among other things, the vice president of the united states, mike pence, as a dummy. the president writes, therefore, please let this letter serve to represent that the singapore summit for the good of both parties but to the debt trament of the world will not take place. you talk about nuclear capabilities but ours are so massive and powerful i pray to god they will never have doing used. i felt a wonderful dialogue was opening up. some day i look forward, i look forward to meeting with you. i want to thank you for the release of the hostages. that was a beautiful gesture and was very much appreciated. he ends by saying if you change your mind having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write. he says, the world, north korean in particular, has lost a great opportunity for lasting peace and great prosperity and wealth. this missed opportunity is a truly sad moment in history. the three paragraphs written
from president trump. his name literally signed on the bottom of it to his excellency kim jong-un from the white house within the last few minute, stephanie. >> this is a wow indeed. andrew, you were actually speaking, i cut you off just we the market reaction, what this does to trade. >> this puts a trade war back on the table. it puts depending on what you think much more sensitive geopolitical relationship problem and even the reference to nuclear armorments in the letter. all of a sudden you remember where we were last summer in terms of how we thought about our relationship with north korea, the dangers. this to me puts us in a very tough place. i also think you're right. there is this element of i'm breaking up with you before you break up with me. >> call me. >> remember the good times we
had. things said on twitter. whatever war of words has led us to this very difficult place to be. >> let's bring chris hill in on the phone. we are saying that president trump i'm breaking up with you before you are breaking up with me. that seems to be the case. this is serious business. what is the next move for kim jong-un, for china, south korea. south korean president moon just left the white house a few days ago. >> i think this is very serious business. it suggests that the president could care less about what they said about the vice president.
i think north koreans have been spooked by it. most sports teams know you don't do trash talk before the big game. i think when mike pompeo said yesterday that we are not giving up anything i think maybe that was really the last straw. frankly i think the summit was -- because the administration doesn't seem to want to prepare for anything so the most fundamental thing he didn't prepare for is what the north korean position would be in coming to a summit. they never really addressed thattha that. i think there were a lot of problems and had it gone forward and i could not see a pathway towards a successful summit i think it is probably just as well as the president has broken
up with kim jong-un before kim jong-un broke up with him sbrmpt dhsbrmpt -- >> we have to think who is in the president's ear? it was a week ago we heard from the north koreans going after john bolton for being who he always was, somebody who said we should have a preemptive strike against north korea. that has always been his position and now he is president trump's guy. >> he is literally in the president's ear in this very topic. it was interesting to see him behind the president in the oval office when the president basically tried to walk back some of his comments. john bolton brought up the idea of the libyan option led as a suggestion that the u.s. in effect was willing to follow through on some form of a regime change like took place with moammar gadhafi's ouster in libya. what happened was there was the
nuclear program shut down and then the civil war where he was ousted. north koreans viewed this as problematic. they went after harsh language and then after mike pence in the receipt statement. even though we heard for the president with tough talk about kim jong-un before his tone more recently was that the north koreans have gone after pence but not after president trump himself. to the notion that the president is breaking up before kim jong-un broke up with him it appears that the north koreans were open to the idea of everybody sitting down the one person they had yet to evisc rate was the president himself. >> chris hill, where do we go from here? in terms of national security risk this is a country with
nuclear power. >> i would like to have better fidelity on the question of was john bolton a good soldier or was he doing everything he could to torpedo this thing. i think that is important to understand. i don't think the president asked him very carefully about policy issues. he just liked his swagger on things. the reason i put that as number one is the issue will be in the coming weeks now that the secretary of state is willing to talk to the north koreans at the drop of a hat how about sending an assistant secretary of state? how about sending a special onva or figuring out if we can come out with agreement on what de-nuclede de-nuclearization. i think sending the president first was not a process but more of a stunt.
let's see if john bolton torpedos every potential process going forward. he is many things but stupid is not one of them. he has made clear that he doesn't like people talking to bad guys. he wants bad guys to strip to their underwear and get nothing in return. >> before 10:00 a.m. there is no stripping for anyone here to their underwear especially not little rocketman. marco rubio just tweeted kim jong-un in the words of a wise man, congratulations you just played yourself withdrawing from talks with north korea is 100% the right decision. kju doesn't want to deal and has sabotaged the talks and setting us up to take blame. marco rubio who has been critical of the president this week on zte, what is your take here? >> all of this makes such great television but it worries me that it plays out over twitter
like this. my real take is that to some degree the north koreans were setting this up. i think that is part of it. i think we always had a real question about it. there is a question whether it is bolten who may not have wanted to have the meeting or the north koreans. i think there is a con influence of fainfluence -- >> was it always north korea never going to show up or was it us? if i'm north korea and watching american media and i watch john bolten go on tv with jake tapper and say let's go with the libya model i remember what happened to gadhafi and if i'm kim jong-un i would say i'm busy that day. >> and there was word that he was worried he would get embarrassed. i'm reminded of president trump when he talked about health
care. who knew it could be so complicated to deal with american health care? who knew it could be so complicated to deal with north korea and one of the most thorny geopolitical problems in the world. probably was never going to happen. >> this takes us back to the first thing we spoke about whether you are talking trade or anything else. are they doing their homework? because mike pence said two days ago president trump is focussed on peace not pr. that's simply not true. the president is a pr superstar. >> we wouldn't be in this situation if they were doing their home rwork. it it was happening you would spend months setting it up. whether this or trade or all of these things there is a lot to shoot from the hip.
>> mike pompeo who was the last one to have direct contact is not a shoot from the hip guy. ambassador hill what is mike pompeo's next move. we lost chris hill. then to you. is mike pompeo just going to wait and see what trump tweets? >> he will have to because everybody else will wait and see what trump tweets. >> mike pompeo was a real guy before he met trump. >> in this administration you don't get out ahead of the president if you want to survive. if he wants to do his own diplomacy he won't survive. on north korea, trade, china, we have to hope that he shoots from the hip and everybody doesn't get killed in the process. mike pompeo just walked into a committee and made no comment. thank you so much. i will see you again at 11:00 a.m. now i hand you off to hallie jackson who about six minutes ago her show got blown up.
good luck to you. >> we got this. thank you much. we are starting with breaking news we were reporting on. this letter from donald trump calling off the singapore summit after days of the president sounding skeptical about whether this thing would happen at all. i just got off the phone with the source at the white house who says the president took into consideration totality of events saying this letter clearly speaks for itself pointing out it is very much in the president's voice. no guidance on when it was drafted. it must have been sometime overnight since kim jong-un came out and made the statements calling vice president mike pence a political dummy for an interview on fox and friends in which pence referenced the libyan model. we have reporters on capitol hill where mike pompeo is testifying in front of the senate foreign relations committee. we have teams staking out bob