tv MSNBC Live With Katy Tur MSNBC June 1, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
that's going to do it for this friday. i'll see you back here tomorrow morning on "today." >> tomorrow is saturday. >> every day, katy tur. >> every day is saturday? >> no. every day i'm working. >> what about sunday? >> i'll be working this sunday. >> you weren't lying? >> i don't lie on tv. >> but off tv? >> all the time. >> stephanie's here. she's riling me up. >> is there another royal wedding? >> it's a royal block. it's 11:00 a.m. out west and 2 p.m. at the white house. president trump is meeting with north korean spy turned diplomat kim yong-chol in the white house office. the right hand man of kim jong-un arrived 45 minutes ago to deliver a letter from the north korean letter to president trump. right now it appears as if they're still in the oval. first, across the country, the prices on items you could use
every -- stephanie's making faces. let's start again. the prices on items you could use every day could soon go up. in the market for a car, a washing machine, an iphone, planning a get away? want a can of beer after work, you may soon have to pay more. and if your job is tied to any of these products, pork, apple , levi's, harley davidsons, jobs head quartered in iowa, kentucky, pennsylvania, take notice. president trump has launghed a trade war -- launched a trade war on our allies. first, steel and aluminum after trade waltalks crumbled. and the european union, mexico and canada are retaliating with tariffs of their own. with friends like president trump -- it's not just our
national allies who don't like it, it's also his own party. paul ryan, today's actions targets america's allies when we should be working with them. senator hatch, tariffs a hacks hike on americans. ben sass dubbed them dumb saying make america great again should not mean make america 19 29 again. we are asking this big question today. will trump's trade war hurt his supporters the most? before we answer that question, we can't ignore the good news on the economy. today's jobs numbers were better than expected. the jobs rate dropped to the lowest rate in 18 years. why is the president still getting flak for that? joining me, stephanie ruhle and ben white, and chris lou.
stephanie, first off why is the president getting flak for the jobs in your opinions? >> it's all in the tweet. president trump gets the numbers, gets this data the night before. it is held in top secret. the lockup around these numbers is massive because it's market moving. an hour before the number is published, the president tosses out a tweet at 7:20 in the morning, all eyes on the jobs number, i think it's going to be. well no -- correct. we know you know that. this is what you do to me. i can't. yes, the president knows that number. at the very least, he's saying don't focus on any of the bad news. only focus on the good news, because i have the good news, and at the worst, he's telling the market ahead of time, and while there wasn't -- we didn't see price action. we saw a huge volume action at 7:21 in the markets after the president said it. >> why don't presidents do this normally? >> for what stephanie just said.
this is one of the most sensitive pieces of federal data. we literally put it under lock and key, a hand full of people have access to it, and as stephanie said, this has the potential to move markets. we know this is a president who is making late night phone calls, early morning phone calls. does anybody believe he's keeping this information secret when he's talking to people late at night? when i was the deputy labor secretary, i did not see these numbers until a half hour before they were released. and i sat in a room. i was not allowed to use my cell phone. i was not allowed to leave the room until 8:30 until these things came out. this is one of the most closely guarded secrets, and the president should not be giving a hint about it an hour before -- >> reporters covered it. locked in the room. no cell phone. this is the granddaddy of data. >> if he's talking to people the night before when he gets the data, if he's hinting about it or telling some of his big business buddies about it, is that a problem legally at all? >> well, it's a problem because it violates federal rules on who can disclose this information.
it's not only they can't talk about it by 8:30 when the number comes out. there's an hour after that that federal officials are not allowed to talk about the number. supposed to let the market react and then spin it. if he is talking -- we don't know he is the night before, but if he is they could buy dow futures and go long on treasuries. do any number of things. you have to ask the question. >> the markets might look at it and say what's the big deal? he's the commander in chief and can do what he wants. >> they can, unless the sec decides to investigate. larry summers said if anyone in the clinton or obama administration did this, there would be investigations. i reached to the sec earlier today and they said no comment. i assure you all eyes will be on it. just like it's unprecedented when mnuchin said i'm bullish on
stocks. that's dicey business. >> let's talk about trade and tariffs. prime minister theresa may issued a statement saying i am disappointed at the unjustified decision by the u.s. to apply tariffs to eu steel and aluminum imports. the u.s., eu are close allies. our steel and aluminum industries are hugely important to the uk, but they also contribute to u.s. industry including in defense projects which bolster u.s. national security. did the white house expect our allies to react this way? especially the allies have have imposed their own tariffs? >> i'm sure. how else could they react if we are look agent the closest allies, canada, mexico, european union slapping tariffs on their exported steel and aluminum. of course they're going to retaliate. the big problem for president trump is the steel and aluminum industry employed like 140,000
people. the manufacturing industries that use it, millions of people. you're going to hurt the manufacturers. the people who work the manufacturers, and you're not helping that many people with the tariffs. >> what's likely to be the consequence? what will regular folks see? will prices rise in basic goods? >> yes. >> will jobs be impacted? >> yes to both. good on the president and administration for wants to attack this head on. they are addressing this in a more aggressive fashion than previous administrations, but what they're doing is going to result in the opposite of what they're looking to do. it's stunning to watch larry kudlow stand by the president when if you've listened to anything he's said over the last 20 years, being a free markets anti-tariff guy, he's said how dangerous this type of conduct is, and it is. >> chris, what do you make of the tariffs from the eu and canada and mexico targeting specific districts like harley davidsons and pork and apples.
districts that are held by some top republicans? >> well, that's exactly right. this is not just about u.s. consumers paying more when they buy a car made of steel or buying a six-pack of beer made out of foreign aluminum. these are producers of u.s. goods. these are corn and producers in iowa. cranberry and citrus farmers. it's going to have a dramatic effect. and the eu, canada, mexico and others are targeting donald trump's base here. and so the very people who have supported him along the way are going to be the most hurt. and let's not forget on top of this the gas prices that have been rising over the last year. they are at a level now that they have essentially offset whatever tax wind fall people in the bottom 20 % have received. for most people notwithstanding today's numbers, they're not feeling particularly good about the economy. >> and those gas prices are exactly what president trump went after obama. we haven't seen gas prices at this level since 2014.
in 2014 and 2012, that's when president trump took to twitter saying look at gas prices, blame obama. >> what does this mean for the 2020 support? >> i think it's a problem for republicans if you see job losses in the manufacturing sector based on tariffs. if people are unable to hire people because their prices are going up, that's bad. i think there's a political level where if trump looks like he's getting tough on china, his base likes it, but it's fewer jobs, less economic growth, that's bad for republicans. they want him to be talking about tax cuts and growth. >> what's the timetable? is it going to happen before 2018? >> it's happening now. aluminum and steel prices are already going up. it's already impacting construction projects. it's already impacting people who use this stuff. it's realtime right now happen. >> after wilbur ross had an interview holding up a can of soup and a beer can saying it's
negligible. they came out and said no, it's not. it could potentially cost thousands of jobs. >> thank you both. >> chris is staying with us. >> kicking us out. >> i'm kicking you out. >> not leaving. >> they're saying let's go. that's enough. >> got it. in other news. his conviction was fishy. that is why mr. trump says he gave dinniesh d'souza a pardon. >> he said you've been a great voice for freedom, and he said that i got to tell you man to man you've been screwed. he goes i've been looking at the case. i knew from the beginning that it was fishy.
but we held an injustice had been done, and using his power he was going to kind of clear the slight. >> who could be next? rod blagojevich? martha stewart? roger stone suggested they might not be the only beneficiaries of a presidential pardon. it has to be a signal to mike flynn and paul manafort and even robert mueller, indict people for crimes that don't pertain to russian collusion, and this is what could happen. but if trump does go that route, could it backfire? joining me is the white house reporter for the los angeles times. and also still with me chris who served as the white house cabinet secretary and assistant to president obama. is there a pattern in the people that the president is giving his pardons to? >> reporter: you see a pattern
of people conservatives, and people in da s'soud'souza's cas. the through line seems to be the president's belief these people have been treated unfairly by the justice system. he spoke to a few of us who were on air force one yesterday at length about his belief that the blagojevich sentence was just way too long. it was ridiculous. he had gotten 18 years. you could tell the president was basically pressing this idea that the people he's looking at pardoning, they do happen to be famous. they've been con viced of white collar crimes. he believes the sentencing has not fit the crime. >> chris, what do you make of the pardons? do you think they could backfire if the president goes the route of those in the russia investigation who might be indicted on crimes not directly
connected to laund -- do you think there could be backlash or it could backfire? >> i absolutely think if he starts pardoning people in the mueller investigation, this would precipitate a constitutional crisis. i'm amused by the fact that senator corker yesterday said what trump is doing on tariffs is an abuse of authority. pardoning a potential witness would be an abuse of authority. so far this republican congress has shown little to try to reign in this president. they've set forth a couple of red lines. this would krcross a red line. if nothing else, this would gin up the democratic base in the mid terms. >> chris, you tweeted about a comparison to a bill clinton parten in his last day in office and the scrutiny that received. why do you think dinesh da 'soua
d'souza's deserved the same scrutiny? >> none of them went through the office that scrutinized these to make sure the people deserve the pardon and to evaluate them in the context of all the other people requesting pardons along the way. in the bill clinton example, that precipitated not only a department of justice investigation but also investigations by congress. at the very least, the fact that this one went around that process and is based on crimes for which other people in the mueller investigation may be accused of is a problem on many levels. >> is it fair to say he could use it as a trial balloon, the pardoning of these political loyalists? conservative commentators, conservatives, as a potentially trial balloon for the things that could come later to make it
seem like this is normal. i've been pardoning people all over the place. maybe with blagojevich, he could say i also pardoned a democrat. and also martha stewart doesn't like me, but i pardoned her. >> that's what he said she's a democrat and doesn't like me, but i'm considering it. i think it could be a smoke signal to those involved in the mueller investigation. the president will never say that, but it does seem like he's thought this through, and i'll say he didn't bring this up on his own. there was an off the record conversation. this came up after he'd already spoken for 20 minutes in. he had to be asked by a reporter about a pardon. then when he was he had other things at the ready. this was in an off the record conversation. when the members of the press pool who were in the cabin talking to the president asked if it could be put on the record, the president quickly said yes and seemed happy this made its way into the news cycle
and so i think he is interested very much in the public perception, the reaction, to these floats and to the d'souza pardon. >> thank you both very much. and we're continuing to follow breaking news at the white house. president trump is meeting with north korean spy turned diplomat, kim yong-chol in the oval office. the right hand man of kim jong-un went to the white house to deliver a letter to president trump from the north korean leader. we'll keep an eye on this and bring you more as we know it. up next, the president's fixer on tape tlehreatening to destroy a journalist. we have it. later, it's unbelievable. >> i don't know who would be worse. i don't know. how does it get worse? but she was going to beat. she was favored to win, and she slot -- she lost.
the book included details of a sworn deposition in which trump's first wife claimed donald trump had raped her. donald trump has denied this. >> if you think that i'm misinterpreting what's happening, if you think i'm misinterpreting some of the facts here. >> you know you are. listen, my friend, don't be a smart ass with me. do you understand? >> i'm giving you an opportunity. >> i don't need your opportunity you little [ bleep ]. i know exactly who you are and what you do and i know the story you plan on writing. i'm warning you. tread very [ bleep ] lightly. because what i'm going to you is going to be [ bleep ] disgusting. >> joining me now is tim mack, he's now a reporter for national public radio who published the recordings. what was the story you were writing about donald trump? >> so let's put it into context. this was in 2015. this was the very beginning of
the trump campaign. and you remember the context when now president trump entered the campaign with that speech where he talks about mexican immigrants and refers to them as criminals and dug dealers and he refers to some of them as rapists. it was in this context we started looking at this book. i was at the daily beast at the time. looking at this book by a former news week reporter. he wrote a book called lost iq. it included details of what you just described, the claims by ivana trump. i called the trump campaign and said there's this book. there are these claims. do you have a comment? and i said an angry call from michael cohen in return who doesn't work for the campaign. >> are you the only person who michael cohen has threatened in that way? >> i think definitely not. i mean, the story that we wrote here on npr.org talks about this long-time pattern of threats. everyone from megyn kelly who
asked testify questions of donald trump at a republican presidential debate to smaller fish like a student at harvard who tried to pull a prank on donald trump and got a call from cohen threatening to try to get him expelled from college. we have people from a former miss usa contestant, univision with a lawsuit launched against them. this is part of a long history and pattern of michael cohen making legal threats in order to try to fix perceived problems for his boss. >> how effective were the tactics? >> it's hard to say, because a lot of the time we don't know who's been silenced by the threats. a lot of these things are kept hidden and behind the scenes. that's why the audio is interesting. we get a sense of how in private michael cohen likes to operate and how at least at the time the trump organization operated. we have this reporting in which
michael avenatti, stormy daniels' tells us, hey, when michael cohen got her to sign the nda, there were threatening, coercive language used at the time too. it really feels like part of a larger pattern. it's hard to know how effective it is, because if it is effective, people don't speak up. >> what do you think, if anything, it means for the claim that stormy daniels was, number one, threatened by somebody she believes could be part of the trump orbit, but also believing he was pressured to signing the agreement? >> we put a longer kind of seven-minute audio file of the conversation between me and michael cohen on npr.org. you hear a guy. this is not his first time making legal threats like this. or taking a tone like this. and so i think it gives some credibility to claims that michael cohen acts in this way more than once. and it's not an isolated incident. i think our reporting shows
that, and so it does give some validity to what stormy daniels said about whether michael cohen might have threatened her verbally. >> thank you. >> thank you. he was a spop spy for north korea. he was called a murder this morning. now he's a top diplomat. what is he doing with donald trump right now? and for the last hour at the oval office? quick question. do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? yes? great! then you're ready for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. sweet! e*trade. the original place to invest online.
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 say no to the nra and yes to common-sense gun laws. californians are leading against donald trump. our senator should, too. kevin de león is the only candidate for senate who passed laws protecting immigrants from trump... and helped dreamers stay in school. he led bold action against climate change. and only de león fought for universal, medicare for all.
democrat kevin de león the only true progressive for senate. change california now is responsible for the content of this advertising. one hour, 11 minutes and counting. that's how long top north korean -- the top north korean official at the white house. kim yong-chol arrived shortly after 1:00 p.m. with him a personal letter from kim jong-un to president trump. cameras caught john kelly escorting the former spy turned diplomat to the oval office. as far as we can tell, they are still inside. for the latest let's get to kelly o'donnell at the white house. and jeffrey lewis is the director of the east asia nonproliferation program at the institute of international studies at monterey. he's also the author of the 2020 commission report on the north korean nuclear attacks against
the united states which is out later this summer. kelly, was this meeting supposed to last as long as it has. >> reporter: they had not given us an idea of the expectations. i checked in with senior white house officials. they say with the president, only mike pompeo and his chief of staff john kelly. you might see a scenario where there would be an important meeting where other members of the administration, especially from the national security counsel or the national security adviser would be in such a meeting but officials tell me it is just pompeo and kelly with the president. of course, there are interpreters and so forth. no real readout of the individuals on the north korean side. but this is a lengthy meeting. clearly there are subjects worthy of talking about. it does take longer with translation, of course. perhaps there's a review of what pompeo was able to accomplish. there's a review of the advanced team in singapore doing their
level of preparation, or perhaps it's a getting to know you session and talking about the issues that are on the table. as we've been outlining here today, this is a senior north korean official who has a very long history with the kim family and has been at the top of the intelligence in north korea. has carried out some of the harsh and deadly acts that north korea has been responsible for over time, and in this iteration is representing kim jong-un as his right arm, if you will, in the oval office. what a remarkable change we have seen since last summer when we were covering the president during his time at his home in new jersey when a lot of this bubbled up, when we first heard fire and fury, and little rocket man. those sorts of things are being pushed aside at the moment. the president has continued to be signaling a willingness to move forward but also an uncertainty about could
something derail this. an hour plus is notable. and we don't yet know if the president will address us as through the pool to the american people after this meeting. we don't yet know if that will happen. so this is one of those cases where we're literally watching things unfold minute by minute to see what comes next. >> kelly o'donnell at the white house. kelly, thank you. jeffrey, let's talk more about kim yong-chol. give us more detail. >> reporter: well, he is the person who sit as atop the security apparatus in north korea. he's believed to be responsible for the sinking of a south korean ship that about eight years ago was sunk by a north korean torpedo killing 40-some sailors. he's a tough character. and whenever he shows up, for example, in south korea, he's usually met by protests by people who are outraged that he
gets this sort of treatment. >> general mckrcaffery earlier called him a murder. >> he is. i don't think that means we shouldn't talk to the north koreans. i think you to engage with people like this. you know, i wouldn't overdo it, but the reality is that when north korea doesn't get its way, it's perfectly willing to grab people and ransom them, and it was willing to do things like sink that south korean ship. north korea is willing to kill people to make a point, and he is a person who has been responsible for those kinds of decisions. >> he's delivering a letter to the president from kim jong-un. we haven't seen the letter, but in your expertise or knowledge of north korea, your knowledge of kim jong-un, what could potentially be in that letter? >> well, look, i think the big take away from this whole
process is that the north koreans are resisting being specific about what they're going to give. i think that's because they're not going to give up their nuclear weapons. they're trying to milk this for photo ops. and they didn't need to hand deliver the letter. they wanted the picture of kim going in to the white house. so having said that, i think the letter probably will be fine. i suspect it will be aspirational. it will say nice things. but i expect it to be pretty short on specifics. >> jeffrey lewis, thank you. and after the break, what the trump administration's no tolerance policy looks like from the view of an immigration attorney working along the southern border. and later this hour, it is unbelievable. >> in reference to the president's tweets this morning, did the president go too far with his tweet in the deeply personal nature? >> i don't think so. i mean, i think the president
has been attacked mercilessly on personal accounts by members on that program, and i think he's been very clear that when he gets attacked he's going to hit back. irds tweeting) irds tweeting) this is not a cloud. this is a car protected from storms by an insurance company that knows the weather down to the square block. this is a diamond tracked on a blockchain - protected against fraud, theft and trafficking. this is a financial transaction secure from hacks and threats others can't see. this is a patient's medical history made secure - while still available to their doctor at their fingertips. this is an asteroid live-streamed to millions of viewers from 220 miles above earth. this is ai trained by experts in 20 industries. your industry. hello. this is not the cloud you know. this is the ibm cloud.
here is donald trump with kim yong-chol, the top north korean spy, also secretary of state mike pompeo. they've been in the presumably the oval office now for a little over an hour. we were just talking about this earlier in the block. kim yong-chol was delivering a letter to the president from kim jong-un. this is ahead of what could be a summit between the president and the dictator of north korea on june 12th. remember, the president cancelled that meeting and the north koreans came back pretty conciliatory, and now it seems they're working to make this meeting happen. kim yong-chol was in new york yesterday meeting at length with mike pompeo, and then he travelled to d.c. today. kelly o'donnell is at the white house. kelly, do we expect the president or anybody in the office to potentially give us more of a readout of what happened in this meeting?
>> reporter: certainly i expect that senior officials will give us a readout. the big question will be will the president want to do that himself? possibly even with the secretary of state. we have not been given guidance to that effect yet. what's also notable here, just by the body language and the diplomatic hospitality for the president to exit the oval office with his guest to be a part of this farewell, when we measure things in gestures and movements in how a president interacts with world leaders, that's significant. often a meeting would not bring the president outside after, sort of continuing the conversation trying to show what we can only interpret by looking at the pictures as at least positive signs about what went on. a meeting of more than an hour with the secretary of state mike pompeo and chief of staff john kelly along with the president in the oval office. by any standard, that is significant. when you look at a president's calendar, past presidents including, the amount of time
that is afforded to any one topic during a workday is significant, and meetings of real value can be far shorter than one hour. even with world leaders. so as we look at this today, what does it mean? where do we go next? we hope that the president will want to give the american people a readout as quickly as possible. that's our hope. will he do that. we've not been advised that he will. here we see the president talking toward the residence portion of the white house. the diplomatic reception room which is where the vehicles are assemb assembled. while we see members of the north korean party, u.s. officials are always responsible for the security of any foreign dignitary when they're inside the united states. >> we have nick christoff joining us from the new york times. nick, what do you make of this body language? >> you know, i think that it's pretty clear that they -- that
both sides very much want a summit meeting to take place. both sides have a good deal to gain from it. and i don't think that the u.s. is going to get what it originally was anticipating, the denuclearization, but i must say i still think if we start a process that is going to be an awful lot better than exchanging missiles. i think that one can -- >> what could a more realistic deal look like? >> i think we'll be headed for essentially north korea blowing up some icbms. they'll claim that's all of them. we won't know. they'll freeze production of plu tone yuchl. they'll say they will freeze production of uranium. we won't know. they'll freeze testing of long-range missiles and of -- and nuclear tests, and then
meanwhile they will get some reduction in sanctions, especially from china and south korea. >> let's make a parallel. how does this administration with a straight face make a deal like that with north korea and still try to say they were justified in ripping up the iran deal? >> it will be complete hypocri y hypocrisy. people like myself, frankly, will say that that hypocrisy is better than the consistency of going to war with north korea just to be consistent with a terrible mistake they made in the case of iran. >> are we going to be able to check in on north korea? check in on their missile production? >> so i don't think they will allow even as rigorous inspections as iran allowed. i think that we will be able to see they have frozen production at plutonium at one of their main nuclear sites, but we don't know where all their facilities are. and so -- and i don't think
they're going to allow americans to travel all over the country. so we'll be able to verify some little bits but not most. >> it seems like the president and the secretary of state are talking to reporters. >> it was a get to know you kind of a situation. mike has spent two days doing this. we've gotten to know their people very well, and we will -- you people are going to have to travel, because you'll be in singapore on june 12th. and i think it will be a process. it's not -- and i never said it goes in one meeting. i i think it's going to be a process. but the relationships are building, and that's a positive thing. >> what's your stance on what the north koreans are willing to do on the issue of denuclearization? >> well, i think they want to do that. i know they want to do that. they want other things along the line. they want to develop as a country. that's going to happen. i have no doubt. japan is involved, as you know, and south korea is very much involved. we're involved in terms of
getting everything, everybody wants the united states, so we're going to help in the process very much without us it wouldn't happen. but i think that you see a lot of very positive things including with china. i think you see a lot of positive things happening with president xi who has helped me quite a bit with this. june 12th we'll be in singapore. it will be a beginning. you talk about years of hostility and problems. years of really hatred between so many different nations. but i think you're going to have a very positive result in the end. not from one meeting. >> reporter: you appear to question their sincerity in your letter to kim jong-un last week. have they gone far enough now? >> well, don't forget my letter was a response to their letter. the media forgot that. the media said you had a meeting and cancelled.
i didn't kacancel the meeting. i cancelled it in response to a very tough statement. i think we're totally over that and now we're going to deal and start a process. we're meeting with the chairman on june 12th, and i think it's probably going to be a very successful -- ultimately a successful process informal we'll see. remember what i say. we will see what we will see. but i think it's going to be a process that we deserve to have. i mean, we really deserve -- they want it. we think it's important. and i think we would be making a big mistake if we didn't have it. i think we're going to have a relationship, and it will start on june 12th. >> what can you get done on june 12th? >> this was a meeting where a letter was given to me by kim jong-un, and that letter was a very nice letter. oh, would you like to see what was in that letter? how much? how much? >> can you give us a flavor of
what the letter says? >> it was an interesting letter. at some point it may be appropriate. i'll be able to give it to you, maybe. and maybe you'll see it soon, but really this was a letter presentation that ended up being a two-hour conversation. >> why did it end up going so long? >> because we found the whole subject matter very interesting, and because i really think they want to do something, and if it's possible, so do we. i think all we're going to do is be there on june 12th, and we'll see what happens. mike has been dealing very well. they have a very good relationship with mike pompeo, our secretary of state. it was actually very interesting. this was literally going to be the delivery of a letter, and it ended up being a two-hour conversation with the second most powerful man in north
korea. we talked about almost everything. we talked about a lot. and we talked about sanctions. >> did they agree to -- >> we talked about a lot of things. we really did. but the big deal will be on june 12th, and, again, it's a process. it doesn't go -- we're not going to sign -- go in and sign something on june 12th. we never were. we're going to start a process, and i told them today, take your time. go fast or slow, but i think they'd like to see something happen, and if we can work that out, that would be good. but the process will begin on june 12th in singapore. >> do you believe kim is committed to denuclearization? i believe so. he wants to be careful. he wants to be -- you know, he's not going to run and do things, but i told him to be honest with you, look, we have sanctions on. they're very powerful sanctions. we would not take sanctions off unless they do it.
but the sanctions are powerful. you've seen how powerful in other ways. you'll see how powerful sanctions are when it comes to iran. you see what that's doing to iran. we have sanctions on. and at a certain point, i look forward to the day when i can take the sanctions off of north korea. >> did you talk about human rights today? >> we did not talk about human rights. i think we probably will, and maybe in great detail. we did not talk about human rights. we talked about and they asked about sanctions. it's going to remain what it is now. i don't even want to use the term maximum pressure. i don't want to use that term. because we're getting along. you can see the relationship. we're getting along. it's not a question of maximum pressure. it's staying essentially the way it is. at some point hopefully a deal for millions of people, a deal will be worked out. >> how would you describe the state of relations between the
united states and north korea after your meetings? >> i think they're okay. i think they're good. is it like the relationships we have with a couple of other countries? probably not. right? but i think the relationship we have right now with north korea is as good as it's been in a long time. they had no relationship under the previous administration. there was nothing. it was nothing. they were explaining, it was just a nothing. nothing was done. hey, folks, this should not be up to me. this should have been handled a long time ago. this got to a critical point. they should have been handled many years ago not only by president obama but by other presidents. this should have been done years ago. >> did you offer the north koreans economic aid? >> what's going to happen is south korea will do that. i don't think the united states is going to have to spend. i think south korea will do it. i think china. i think frankly china will help out. i think that japan will help out. no, i don't see the united
states spending a lot of money. you know, we have three hostages. how much money did they spend for the hostages? look, we're very far away. we are very far away. those places are very close. it's their neighborhood. we're 6,000 miles away. so i already told south korea, i said, you know, you're going to have to get ready and japan also. and i think they really want to see something great happen. japan does. south korea does. and i think china does. but that's their neighborhood. it's not our neighborhood. >> mr. president, yesterday you were concerned about the meeting that lavrov was having with -- >> i didn't like it. but it could be positive. i didn't like the russian meeting yesterday. i said what's the purpose of that? but it could be a positive meeting. if it's a positive meeting, i love it. if it's a negative meeting, i'm not happy, and it could be a positive meeting.
it could happen. it could happen. we talked about it. we talked about ending the war, and this war has been going on it's got to be the longest war, almost 70 years. >> it's important in one way, historically, it's very important. but we'll see. we did discuss that. the ending of the korean war. can you believe that we're talking about the ending of the korean war? you're talking about 70 years. >> we're going to discuss it prior to the meeting. that's something that could come out of the meeting. i think that's something that maybe could come out of the meeting. >> where's china on that? >> i think china would like to see a positive result. i have a lot of good relations with chairman xi. he's a great -- he's really a very wonderful guy. he's a man that loves china, however. he wants to do what's best for
china. i think china and president xi would love to see something happen here. >> when you say you're going to guarantee kim jong-un and north korea security how will you do that? >> we will make sure it's secure. when this is over, it's over, it's in the going to be starting up again. and they have a potential to be a great country. and i think south korea is going to help a lot. japan is going to help a lot. i think china is going to help a lot. >> how do you envision that working? >> that's a complicated question but i will see over a period of time. >> when you gave your speech in seoul last november you talked about the bright future should it choose to join the other nations. can you leave kim in place do you think it's going to happen? >> i think it can. i think they can be successful. they are incredible people. i think it's going to a great success. we will see you on june 12th but i'm sure we will see you a little bit before that. in the meantime, how is sarah
doing. >> have you discussed a seconder a third smumt? >> i told him i think you are going to have probably others. wouldn't it be wonderful if we walked out and everything was settled from sitting down for a couple of hours. i don't see that happening. i see it happening over a period of time. frankly i said take your time. it's going the remain as is, but take your time. one thing that was important, we had hundreds of new sanctions ready to go on. and he did not -- the director did not ask -- i said i'm not going to put them on until such time as the talks break down. we have very significant sanctions on that. but we had hundreds -- we have hundreds that are ready to go. but i said i'm to the going to -- why would i do that when we are talking so nicely? >> is this meeting more of a personal diplomacy, a getting to know you. >> a getting to know you meeting plus. and that can be a very positive thing. >> what was your response to the letter?
did you send anything back? >> in, i didn't. i haven't seen the letter yet. i purposely haven't opened the letter. i haven't opened it. i didn't open it in front of the director. i said would you want me to open it? he said you can read it later. i may be in for a big surprise, folk. so long, everybody. >> what's your next -- >> getting to know you -- no. that song popped into my head. oh, he is still talking. >> people are starting to see it. we lose over $100 billion a year with mexico. we lose many many billions of dollars with canada. canada doesn't take -- i mean they areprypry restrictive as the taking our agricultural product and other things. and you know, all of these countries, including the european union, they charge five tiles the tariff -- we don't charge tariffs essentially. they charge five times what we charge for tariffs. i believe in the word reciprocal. you are going to charge five
times, we are going to charge five times. that hasn't been done. no other president brought it up. it's being done now. we are negotiating numerous deals. we are talking about nafta. to be honest, i wouldn't mind seeing nafta where you would go by a different name where you make a separate deal with canada and a separate deal with mexico. because you are talking about a very different two countries. but i wouldn't mind seeing a separate deal with canada where you have one type of product, so to speak, and a separate deal with mexico. these are two very different countries. it's been a lousy deal for the united states from day one. we lose a lot of money, and we lose a fortune with mexico. and it's not going to happen like that anymore. i mean, mexico has taken our car companies. a big percentage of them. and we can't do that. and, look, the american worker agrees with me. obviously, the stock market agrees because when you look at what's going on with the stocks,
they are starting to see i'm right. but if you take the european union and you see the kind of tariff they charge, and then we don't, that's called not fair trade. i want fair trade. i like free trade. but i want fair trade. at a minimum, i want fair trade. and we are going to have it for our workers and for our companies. you know what, the other side understands it. to be honest with you, they cannot believe that they have gotten away with this for so many decades. >> canada and the uk are some of your closest allies. they are complaining loud and long about these tariffs. what do you say to them. >> they are our allies but they take advantage of us economically. i love canada, i love mexico. i love them. but mexico is making over $100 billion a year and they are not helping us with our border because they have strong laws and we have horrible laws. we have horrible border laws. they strong -- they could solve our border problem if they want to. but they don't want to.
when they want to, then i will be happy. but we have a good chains of doing great trade deals that will make america great again. right? that's what we are doing. but america has picked up. we have made about $8 trillion in value since -- you know, we are double the size of the economy of china. we picked up a lot of value, a lot of wealth, since i have been president. more than $8 trillion. that's a very low number because we are talking stock market wealth. i'm talking about beyond that. our companies are doing great. we are doing great. our military is rebuilding. we have a lot of great things going. we are going to straighten out trade. trade is going to be easy. other countries understand. you know, when i talk to them they look at me, and this is in closed doors, not for you people, and they essentially say, we can't believe we've gotten away with this for so long. it's like, you guys can't believe you have gotten away with it for so long.
>> what's on the agenda for -- >> i want everyone to watch. i tell you what. we have such a great -- we have such a great country right now at this level, i don't think we have ever been on an economic scale -- you look at the numbers, 3.8%. we have the lowest numbers of unemployment that what we have had -- is it 50 years? i think it's 50. 50 years, right? so we have the best -- we have some of the best economic numbers we have ever had as a nation. and that goes a long way. and we are building something very special. just remember, we are twice the size -- our economy, twice the size of china. good meeting today. i think it is a great start. >> what's on the agenda for this afternoon. >> a little relaxation and a lot of work. we have a lot of calls set up. calling a lot of the foreign leaders. i am negotiating the trade deals. i'm working. working hard for you people.
have a good time. thank you. >> is he done? i think he's done. nick christophe, what do you make? the summit is back on. he claims he never canceled it. >> well, loovsly that's no more true than anything else. i'm struck that north korea had the worst diplomatic hand in history and they played it so well. at this point they have legitimacy for the first time, their leader meeting an american president of they have a reduction in sanctions. and that will be a big boost to their economy, which is very important to them. south korea is planning on integrating the north korean and south korean economies. they have improved their ties with china, with russia, with south korea. and they have -- no longer have a military threat to their regime all really without -- without giving up their nuclear weapons. but i must say that, i think north korea has clearly gained. -- i think there is a danger
will say if north korea is gainings that a loss to us. peace -- if this is a peace process we are better off as well. it is better for us to be talking than he can changing missiles. >> while we were watching, you wondered whether or not he would press on humanitarian issues. yeah, i was disappointed to see president trump explicitly say he had not raised human rights concerns. look, japan has begged us to raise the issue of japanese citizens who have been abducted by north korea. north koreans acknowledge that it sent kidnappers, and yeah, one 13-year-old school girl walking home near the beach. guys in a submarine grabbed her and carried her back to north korea to train -- train terrorists. i think it's incumbent on us to at least ask for all of these people to be accounted for and returned. >> i'm sorry, they kidnapped them off of a beach in japan, a little girl. >> a 13 yearly girl, and the north koreans said that she --
they acknowledged having kidnapped her. they said she then had died but the bones that they presented purportedly were not her home bones. maybe she is dead. but there are 30 such people kidnapped from japan and more kidnapped from south korea as well. >> wow. >> it's horrifying. and we have to -- we have to -- we should be pushing this on behalf of our allies. >> nick christophe. nick, thank you very much. jeffrey lewis is with us. we have about 45 seconds. what are your top line thoughts? >> i think it's incredible that the president's not asking them to give up their nuclear weapons. he is going to have a summit to get the know kim jong-un. i mean, i'm generally supportive of diplomatic efforts, and so this is better than 2017. but i really wonder if it's sustainable, particularly in an era where i don't believe is the national security adviser. >> we didn't see john bolton
there? >> yeah, does he resign? does he go outside and start attacking? or does it undermine from the inside? this is not the traditional republican view. it's really a question in my mind whether the president can sustain this purely on the basis of his affection for zmooim jeffrey lewis hitting his mark. >> as in the partly cloudy p.m. hour mark. jeffrey appreciate it. that wraps things up for me. chris janicing is here now. >> katy tur thank you. i'm in for ali val she. we have a huge headline this hour. the summit is back on. president trump announcing that on again off again meeting with north korean leader kim jong-un, less than two weeks away is indeed officially happening this. hour, president trump is heading to camp david, we're told, to prepare for that meeting. just moments ago, the president met for more than an hour with the top aide to kim jong-un, who hand delivered a letter from the north korean leader. >> we are