tv Morning Joe MSNBC July 12, 2018 3:00am-6:00am PDT
the world cup and here's another thing. they don't like donald trump either. but that's the reality in the uk this morning as the president wraps up his nato meeting in brussels and heads to great britain. are you all right? in the words of lux eluxenburg' prime minister he has wi-fi on the plane and we'll have to see in the end. good morning and welcome to "morning joe." what are you doing? this is weird. what are you doing? that's rude. >> these pastries. >> yeah. okay, i get it. joe, no. that is not right. >> alex. i can't do the show. i thought i was going to have a full breakfast this morning. you've given me pastries. >> we'll be on the continental
breakfast -- is that a reason to get upset? >> not really. >> the white house said yesterday that the white house chief of staff, for those of u you -- >> i don't like. >> i think it was cheeses. >> he didn't like the cheeses. >> so, actually, john kelly was very distressed yesterday at donald trump humiliating our nato allies. when asked why he was so distressed, he said it wasn't the fact that he was tearing to shreds 70 years of american appliance that have kept us in the center of the world, the white house said, instead, he was displeased because he was hoping for a full breakfast and they only had pastries and cheeses. that really is when you just stop trying, john meacham.
kind of like trump, that tweet last week where it had trump saying you must -- the response, he's not even trying any more. >> sarah's leaving. she doesn't care. >> these people aren't trying any more. >> any chance she is tongue in cheek. >> the soul of america, the author of the best-selling book, "soul of america." >> we found out yesterday, willie geist "the soul of america" is a behind the scenes look at the making of marvin gaye's landmark, "what's going on." >> i have only seen the cover. >> he went to the library. you get the papers. >> we're excited because we're doing a behind the music. >> that's going to be awful.
>> you know, john, vh-1 stopped doing that in 1999. >> why don't you get your beta tape. >> oh, i love that culture. >> but, you know my dad and i loved him for so many reasons but for this especially. that ten years after vhs had crushed beta max he said this is a machine of the future. former treasury official and economic analyst steve ratner is with us and david ignatius. >> still has a betamax. >> and chairman of the financial integrity network and a security national analyst and juan joins us this morning. good to have you all on board. >> so, we have so much to talk about today. but david ignatius, yesterday, john kelly, obviously, distressed by what he was
hearing. kay bailey hutchison and secretary of state head down through most of the session. explain how people who have devoted their entire life, like john kelly too, the p the prote this country and the alliances that have sustained since world war ii. how much of a shock this is for donald trump to be spending his time with nato allies trashing them. >> so, joe, just imagine general kelly, he has served as the military aide in succession, bob gates and leon panetta, he has gone with them to many, many nato meetings like this and watched the way the u.s. officials take care of this most important defense alliance that our country has. he arrives breakfast or no breakfast with donald trump.
and donald trump just takes out and starts shooting away. using language that is inflammato inflammatory, using the most sharp and language. but to do it in that way and it's just obvious he got off that plane ready to pick a fight. why did he do that? why does he think that on his way to a summit meeting with vladimir putin trashing the nato alliance is his best bet? the only thing i can think of this morning, you know how much donald trump likes boxing. you know how they have weigh-ins before boxing matches and they get eye to eye and start trash talking and then they go off to the fight. he's done this twice in a row
now with our european allies before going off with somebody else. maybe this is the weigh-in moment, but sure was strange to watch. >> it's a stress. >> how distressing though, mika, that he attacked canada. he attacked, again, democratic allies before going off and cuddling up with kim jong-un, who was openly mocking him and his administration now. and now he's doing this before he goes to see vladimir putin, too. there's a bit of a pattern here. >> definitely. you can't see this in any other lens but that this is for putin. president trump reportedly arrived about a half an hour late meeting with georgia and ukrai ukraine. much like his late arrival for the council advisory breakfast last month in canada. showing up late this morning, how interesting that trump would go out of his way to insult the
two countries putin invaded in the past decade. now the u.s. president performs shameless acts of trolling on russia's behalf. >> it is extraordinary that donald trump has a meeting with the two countries that vladimir putin invaded over the past ten years and he showed them remarkable disrespect. again, doing the very thing that vladimir putin would absolutely love him to do. >> yeah y think davyeah, i thin. the method and signals that the president communicates is just terrible. it comes not just in the wake of tension with nato raising the issues around defense spending and german depends on russian oil and gas and on a time of raising trade and our
transatlantic partners and our classic ally. and i talked to european diplomats, they are distressed because they don't feel like there is anything positive coming out of the administration and the great fear here of this next sort of period, this next week is not only the tough signals and the ungracious manners of the president in these settings, but what comes in the helsinki summit. will the president give things up that matter to the transatlantic relationship. will he begin to shift policy on ukraine or crimea? will he give up on issues important to the appliance and syria where russia has interest. more important than the symbolism of him arriving late but whether he is shifting u.s. policy fundamentally in the transatlantic context.
>> it is about lunchtime in brussels and tweeting continuing his criticism over defense spending. earlier this morning president trump tweeted, presidents have been trying unsuccessally for years to get germany and other rich nato nations to pay more toward their protection from russia. he had a follow up tweet to that writing germany wants, quote, protection from russia. during yesterday's closed door session he repeated the same lines that nato member states need to pay more for defense. although during that meeting and on twitter, president trump upped the ante. the white house has confirmed that during the working session, president trump told allies they must increase the amount of gdp spending towards defense to 4%. trump also tweeted this morning that doubles the 2% target, which is set for 2024.
and the president is now demanding that allies meet the 2% goal immediately. but the u.s. does not meet trump's 4% figure either. currently the united states contributes 3.3% for defense. meanwhile the secretary of state mike pompeo tweeted about nato yesterday. quote, all nato allies have committed to fighting terrorism. weakness provokes, strength and cohesion protects. this remains our bedrock belief. >> you have a secretary, of course. backing nato. >> and he was in that room while president trump was barking across the table at the secretary-general of nato and had to follow up and come behind him with that tweet reaffirming the united states' commitment to nato. >> we're await agnew ing a >> we're await agnew ing news conference from president trump. >> maybe he'll talk really about
all the cameras in singapore. >> well, the "washington post" reported from someone inside a nato dinner last night where the president was that the president was bragging about the kim jong-un summit and said he called golfer jack nicklaus afterwards to say we had 6,000 cameras at sing pore and that was fantastic. >> that's all you need to know. the buzz was fantastic which is, again, he, you know, we said he was doing it for cheap headlines and also for buzz because now he's got kim jong-un deciding to instead of meeting with the secretary of state. the trade war. the trade war that start would 18 products has now just exploded steve ratner and the markets are very concerned.
>> fighting a trade war on multiple fronts. there are trade issues with china. th this is, of course, not the way to go about it. a trade war with europe and they are threatening auto tariffs and tariffs on jack daniels whiskey. >> wait a second, meacham, are you okay there? can we get oxygen for meacham? >> i'm not sure if they're aiming at john meacham or mitch mcconnell. one of the two of you anyway. how do you conduct diplomacy without allies when you're simultaneously conducting a trade war against them. >> and youed and s could say th thing and couldn't you, david ignatius, united states conducting a trade war with china and we need china to help north korea move towards denuclearization. a that's certainly not happening. >> president trump needs to prioritize. there's nothing more important for white houses than to decide
what is the thing that we want to achieve. and that's why we have a national security council to organize policy so it all goes in the direction of success of the primary objective. that's one thing this group in a year and a half doesn't seem to have learned at all. >> they also don't understand and we can say this, i mean, certainly, people like mike pompeo and general mattis understand it better than most anybody in washington, but donald trump and several others, john, don't understand that it's a very complex, complicated, interconnected world out there. i mean, i remember talking when france was acting listening behind our backs and undermine us and stab us in the back and i remember saying to somebody in the intelligence services and they said, no, no, no, listen.
they are acting terribly, but behind the scenes, their intel people are the best they are. they're fantastic. after 9/11. it was the iranians and david ignatius could correct me if i'm wrong. the iranians who actually helped us get a better grasp of what was going on in afghanistan. it's very complicated world out there and if donald trump declares war on all fronts, then we're going to be ineffective on all fronts. >> two possibilities here. one is it's a lot less complicated than we think. and that he's just now taking to a global stage the ways and means in which he rose to power here. nato is, this is the politics of grievance. the politics of resentment. >> nato is now playing the role of rosie o'donnell. >> he's attacking -- >> i think that's a good
analysis. >> he needs a villain and we mentioned boxing, david mentioned boxing, but, really, his real sport, remember, professional wrestling. that's the most important thing to remember. you pretend to fight, but, still, somebody gets hurt. >> actually a lot of people in this case get hurt. quickly, the other possibility is this is part of an unusually elaborate, potentially unprecedented story of undo pressure being put on the president for various reasons and one interpretation here is he's talking about russia and people being dependent on russia and in business with russia in order to create a dust storm so that if it comes back he is, so is germany. everybody does it. >> no, i think he was certainly using the whole thing to make it seem like he was antagonist.
he likes being one on one, he hates these multi-lateral interer institutiinte institutions. he acts out. he behaves badly every time he's surrounded by a whole group of world leaders. >> he's a golfer naurk eer not player. >> if you look at what he's been doing, willie, the overall, the overall, it seems strategy, it seems to be doing what vladimir putin would want him to do. he's undermining nato. he's saying that vladimir putin is the least of his troubles and he'll be able to get along with him better than anyone else. if you saw this reaction from russian state tv after donald trump, again, attacked germany. and, obviously, also, most critical military alliance. this is russian tv.
>> willie, you're seeing this more and more on russian tv where they're saying, let's just get out of the way. donald trump is destroying the alliance that we have been trying to undermine for decades. >> i don't think putin could have ever imagined it would be this easy. donald trump is doing it for him and just doing it out in the open. he's saying it in press conference that he's trying to peel apart nato. incredibly intense spotlight. what will he say topu putin? talk to him about nato and get
into the things that are actually important or another kim jong-un photo-op with things that don't advance u.s. inter t interests or raise u.s. concerns? we will see on monday. >> wonder, though, when president trump's cabinet, when his policy leaders are going to get, get behind what's right and get behind nato and perhaps abandon this president on this issue. like congress has. >> well, it's so fascinating, one, we've seen it time and again, donald trump will say something ahistorical on russia and embarrassing something that doesn't line-up with the behavior of putin over the last decade. mike pence go to the balkans and deliver a speech and nikki haley on the floor of the united nations doing the same thing.
you'll see mike pompeo and everybody surrounding donald trump saying exactly what we would all want them to say about russia's aberrant behavior. he continues to attack nato and continues to praise putin and continues to play right into vladimir putin's hands. what are we to make of it? >> joe, confounding for two reasons. one, the president is not only stepping over his own administration officials but also his policies. >> i have to interrupt you. sorry. but here is the president of the united states. >> we had an amazing two-day period in brussels and we accomplished a lot with respect to nato. for years presidents have been coming to these meetings and talked about the expense, the tremendous expense for the
united states and tremendous progress has been made. everyone's agreed to substantially up their commitment. they're going to up it at levels that they've never thought of before. prior to last year where i attended my first meeting, it was going down the amount of money being spent by countries was going down and down very substantially and now it's going up very substantially and commitments were made. only five of 29 countries were making their commitment and that's now changed. >> actually what the president just said there about all the contributions going down there is a lie. they continue to go up under barack obama near the end of the obama administration. >> he was lying when he said that. back to the president. >> raised an additional $33 million that's been put up by the various countries. not including the united states.
and the united states commitment to nato is very strong. remains very strong. but primarily because everyone, the spirit they have, the amount of money they're willing to spend. the additional money that they will be putting up has been really, really amazing to see it. to see the level of spirit in that room is incredible. and i hope that we're going to be able to get along with russia. i think that we probably will be able to. the people in the room think so. but they, nevertheless, they stepped up their commitment and stepped it up like they never have before. so, we took in an additional 33. the number could actually be higher than 40 when they give you the final number. the secretary-general giving these numbers today. but we are doing numbers like they've never done before or
ever seen before and you'll be seeing that and i guess you'll be hearing that a little bit later. okay. we have our secretary of state, as you know. and we have john is here. so, if you have any questions for the three of us, mike pompeo just got back from a third trip, as you know, to north korea. he has become a true expert on the trips to north korea. the best way to get there. the best way to get out. and he gets along very well. and he's doing a great job over there. yes, ma'am. >> i have a question. can you tell us whether or not -- >> i told people that i would be very unhappy if they didn't up their commitments very s substantially because they have been paying 90% of the cost of nato and people are going to start and countries are going to start upping their commitment. i let them know yesterday i let
them know that i was extremely unhappy with what was happening. and they have substantially upped their commitment. yeah. now we're very happy and have a very, very powerful, very, very strong nato. much stronger than it was two days ago. >> the president of the united states. >> another falsity. >> just said the united states paid about 90% of nato's expenses. >> not true. >> not true. it's actually closer to 66%. back to the president. >> and your rhetoric helped nato or are you worried that the u.s. is not going to be as committed to nato? a lot of people said they were worried and stressed by what you did yesterday. >> they were probably worried because the united states was not being treated fairly but now we are because the commitment has been upped so much. so now they are. i was very firm yesterday. you have to understand, i know a lot of the people in the room. i was here last year.
i let them know last year in a less firm manner, but pretty firm and they raised an additional $33 billion, i think going to $40 billion. but it's $33 billion as of today. and then today and yesterday i was probably a little bit more firm. but i believe in nato. i think nato is a very important, probably the greatest ever done. but the united states was paying for anywhere from 70 to 90% depending on the way you calculate. that's not fair in the united states. we are in negotiations with the eu and meeting with them next week. we have been treated very unfairly on trade and farmers shutout of the european union. you can say they're different, but basically to a large extent, they're the same countries. ultimately treated fairly on trade and i can tell you nato now is really a fine tune machine. people are paying money they never paid before and they're happy to do it and the united states is being treated much
more fairly. yes, sir. >> did you win any concessions in your meeting and discussions with the german chancellor when it comes to german defense spending and, also, this issue of purchasing energy from russia? secondly, what would you say to your critics that say by creating the scene here at nato, you're only enabling president putin in russia to further disturb things in ukraine? >> if you consider putting up tremendously additional funds at a level that nobody has ever seen before, i don't think that's helping russia. i think that nato is much stronger now than it was two days ago. i think that nato was not doing what they were supposed to be doing. a lot of the countries. and we were doing much more than we should have been doing. frankly, we were carrying too much of a burden. that's why we call it burden sharing. we had a fantastic meeting at the end. -- >> when its come to burden
sharing, as far as the actual expenses of nato, the united states pays 22% of carrying the costs of nato. that's 22%. not 90%. if you want to talk about military spending, it's about 66%. but we will be showing charts later to show that what the president has been saying, not only now, but over the past several days, just been a lie. in fact, europe's been spending more of a percentage of an increase than the united states since 2011. and, now, back to the president. >> discussed it at length today. germany has agreed to do a lot better than they were doing and we had a very good relationship with angela merkel. yes. >> mr. president, hi. >> after all these years, i know, margaret.
>> could you just clarify, are you still threatening to potentially pull the united states out of nato for any reason and do you believe you could do that without congress's explicit support and approval? >> i think i probably can but that's unnecessary and the people have stepped up today like they never stepped up before. and remember the word, $33 billion more they're paying. and you'll hear that from the secretary-general in a little while. he thanked me, actually. he actually thanked me. and everybody in the room thanked me. a great coliee spirit in that rt i don't think they had in many years. very strong. very unified, very strong, no problem. >> mr. president. associated press. you have said previously you wanted the countries to step up their spending at 2%. yesterday their suggestion might be 4% or perhaps 2% at a much
quicker timetable. can you clarify, what did they commit to doing? is that satisfactory to you? >> so, what they're doing is spending at a much faster clip. they're going up to the 2% level. now, you have to understand, some have parliaments and their own congresses and things they have to go to. they're here as a prime minister or a president and they can't necessarily go in and say this is what we're going to do, but they're going back for approvals. some are at 2%. others have agreed, definitely, to go to 2% and some are going back to get the approval, which they will get to go to 2%. afterwards 2% we'll start talking about going higher. but i said, ultimately, we should be in years in advance, we should be at 4%. i think 4%. >> just one more clarification from what the president is saying which is not connected to reality. all the countries have committed to 2%. bob gates went over for barack obama several years ago. since then, the spending has
increased and we're going to be showing you charts to show that actually european defense spending has increased at a faster rate than u.s. defense spending since 2011. now, back to the president. >> but right now we're getting people up to 2% and that will take place over a fairly short period of time. a short number of years. okay. yeah, go ahead. >> hi. we understand your message. >> congratulations, by the way. >> thank you. >> we understand your message, but some people asked themselves, will you be tweeting differently once you board air force one. thank you. >> no, that is other people that do that. i am very consistent. i'm a very stable genius. >> thank you, sir. >> very stable questionable. we'll just go back to the president.
>> do you feel like given the threats you made about potentially leaving nato and insulting german's suggesting they are totally controlled by russia. do you feel that is an effective way to conduct diplomacy. would you be able to be more specific about the commitments that you secure today with regards to increasing financial commitment? is there an updated timeline and specific countries you could cite because a majority of them are already planning to meet that threshold by 2024. >> no, many of them, in fact, germany, in the year 2008, i didn't deal exactly the way you said. i have great respect for germ y germany. my father is from germany. i think we'll see that because on the 25th of july, they're coming in to start negotiations with me. we'll see. and if they don't negotiate in
good faith, we'll do something having to do with all the millions of cars coming into our country and being taxed at a very low level. but, jeremy, i think it's been a very effective way of negotiating. i am not negotiating. i want fairness for the united states. we're paying for far too much of nato. nato is very important. but nato is helping europe more than it's helping us. at the same time, it's very good for us. we have now got it to a point where people are paying a lot more money. and that's starting, really, last year. it really had, you were there last year. and last year we had a big impact. again, we took in $33 billion more and if you asked secretary-general he gives us total credit. meaning me, i guess, in this case. total credit. because i said it was unfair. now, what has happened is presidents over many years from ronald reagan to barack obama,
they came in, they said, okay, hey, do the best you can and left. nobody did anything about it. it got to a point where the united states was paying for 90% of nato. and that's not fair. so, it's changed. we had a really good meeting today. we had a great meeting in terms of getting along. i know most of the people in the room because of last year and because of the year and a half that we have been in office. year and a half plus. but we have a great relationship. everybody in that room by the time we left got along and they agreed to pay more and they agreed to pay more quickly. >> that actually is false. also, there are numerous quotes talking about how our allies are distressed by donald trump and the way he treats nato allies. also, again, let's state again that it was not donald trump that got european countries to start spending more on defense.
facts will show that they actually started in 2011 spending more per year as a rate of increase than the united states. and in part because of bob gates and barack obama's pressure. now back to the president. >> the numbers have gone up a lot and gone up rapidly and now going up further. i think nato will be very, very effective. i'm really impressed. but secretary-general sultanburg has done a fantastic job putting it altogether. and we gave him an extension of his contract, as you know. i think he's done a really good job. i think when i was saying i was very concerned with the pipeline. i don't like the pipeline and when i talk about nato, how do you have nato and is then somebody paying the people that you're protecting against. but maybe we'll get along with the group that we're protecting against. i think that's a real possibility. i'm meeting with president putin on monday and i think we go into
that meeting, not looking for so much. we want to find out about syria. we will, of course, ask your favorite question about meddling. i will be asking that question, again. but we'll also be talking about other things. we'll be talking about ukraine. ukraine was here today, by the way. and, you know, very interesting to hear what they had to say. so, excuse me -- look, he may. what am i going to do? he may deny it. it is one of those things. all i can do is say don't do it again. but he may deny it. you'll be the first to know. >> yes, go ahead. >> mr. president, robert wall with "wall street journal." if the canadians and others don't come up to 2%, what is your tafallback position? how will you up the pressure -- >> they will. they will be up to 2%. it will be over a period of
relatively short period of years. okay. >> thank you so much. >> yes, go ahead. >> so, mr. president, what do you think today support from nato and -- >> georgia, they were here today represented. >> yes. >> and we will talk about georgia in a meeting with president putin. >> they were here and they made a very favorable impression and we listened to their plight. it's a tough situation with georgia. but they made a very favorable impression in the room. okay. yeah, go ahead. go. >> one more question. >> yeah, you really did. go ahead. >> i had a question, as well. nonetheless, i'll ask, sir. will you recognize -- >> go ahead. >> will you recognize russia's and crimia as part of russia? >> that is an interesting question because long before i got here president obama allowed
that to happen. that was on his watch, not mine. people like to say crimia but the fact that they built bridges and they just opened a big bridge that was started years ago and they built a submarine port substantially added billions of dollars. so, that was on barack obama's watch. that was not on trump's watch. would i have allowed it to happen happen? no, i would not have allowed it to happen. what will happen with crimia from this point on? that i can't tell you. again, that was barack obama's watch, not trump's watch. yeah, go ahead. >> jeff mason from reuters, mr. president. >> i know, jeff. >> regarding your summit with president putin, will you be raising arms control issues? would you like to extend new start and raise concerns about viilation violations of the treaty? >> yes. >> as a response to the follow-up meeting would you
consider stopping military exercises in the baltic state if that's something he requests? >> perhaps we'll talk about that, but i'll say we'll talk about those three issues and many more. we'll be talking about it, jeff. okay. go ahead. >> cost almost double as planned as before. i would like to know if you are planning to guarantee the taxpayers that the new money that is flowing in will be spent in the best possible way, especially the money coming from country that several with the public finances. >> well, the money will be spent properly. one of the things that we have. we have many wealthy countries with us today and we have some that aren't so wealthy. they dedid ask if they could buy
the military equipment. we will not finance it for them, but we will make sure they get payments and various other things because the united states makes, by far, the best military equipment in the world. the best jets, the best missiles, the best -- >> just for the listeners who are confused. donald trump continually, continually suggests that individual military budgets from individual countries flow into nato. they do not. there are two separate things. there is that question pertained to the 2% that individual countries would be paying for their defense budget and then you have money that comes into nato and we are not talking about that. the united states pays about 66% of military budgets and only about 22% of nato's own budget. pretty good investment. back to the questions. >> express any specific concerns or talk to you about any
messages that they would like you to take with you when they go to the sum isn't. >> just the opposite of concern. they actually thanked me for meeting with president putin. i look forward to the meeting. they thanked me. they thought it was a great thing that i was doing it and they gave us our best wishes or their best wishes. now, with that being said, we'll see what happens. just a meeting. it's not going to be big schedule. i don't think it should take a long period of time. and we'll see where it leads. it could lead to something very productive and maybe it's not. i think meeting with people is great. we had a great meets with chairman kim and mike pompeo did a fantastic job. i might ask you to say a few words while you're here. >> thank you, mr. president. so y d so, i did. i returned from north korea with
a couple stops here to brussels. we had a productive conversation. there remains a great deal of work to do, but i think most importantly my counterpart made a commitment consistent with what president trump was able to achieve with chairman kim. they intend to denuclearize and going to accomplish it and now the task is to get it implemented. >> just to finish on that, so important. that was an amazing, really an amazing meeting y though gmeeti. and we think we established good relationships and no missile tests and no research. they have blown up a site and i hear they're blowing up another missile site. they have taken down all the propaganda. somebody said there's no more music playing at the border line. the music was going on for many years. they said recently, wow, there's no more of the heavy music and the propaganda. they've done a lot of things and we get back our three hostages.
so, it's a good process. but the main thing is there have been no rocket launches. there have been no missile tests. there's been no nuclear tests and no explosions and no nothing for almost nine months. okay. yeah, please. sure. >> "the guardian." your trip to the uk. lots of protests planned in london and else where. how do you feel about that? >> i think it's fine. i think they like me a lot in the uk. i think they agree with me on immigration. i'm very strong on immigration. i made a point today. i said, you've got to stop. you're ruining -- you're going to have a lot of problems. you see what's going on throughout the world on immigration. i probably at least partially won an election because of immigration. if you look at italy, gesepy who i got to know he won because of strong immigration policies
onnaon italy. i think that's why brexit happened. i don't know what is going on with the negotiation, who knows. i guess that has become a very interesting point of contention. i said i'm going to a few hot spots nato, uk and then we have putin. and i said, putin may be the easiest of them all. you never know. but i'm going to a pretty hot spot right now, right? with a lot of resignations. but i will say that immigration is a very important thing and i told them today -- >> the president has said he's very popular and liked in britain. in fact, he has the lowest rating of any first-year president since the records have been taken. and according to ugov polling only 11% of britains believe he is doing a good job. 67% believe he is a poor president. now, back to the president. >> i think he is going to see about this. but this turned out to be a very
successful summit. i think really that nato is more put together right now, is more coordinated and i think there's a better spirit for nato right now than perhaps they've ever had. it's richer than it ever was. the commitments are made at a higher level than they've ever been made and the money to be paid out faster, far faster. you know the 2% was a range, it wasn't something they were committed to and now it's a commitment. trz there's a big difference. the 2% number. now it's a commitment. a real commitment. i think he's going to see that there's great unity, great spirit, and i think we're going to have a good meeting. regardless of that, i think we're going to have a good meeting. but this was a fantastic two days. this was a really fantastic. it all came together at the end. yes, it was a little tough for a
little while, but, ultimately, you could ask anybody at that meeting, they're really liking what happened over the last two days. a great, great spirit leaving that room. yes, sir, go ahead, please. >> yes, do you think you'll get along with president putin? just tell us, why do you think that? is there something you admire about him? >> well, he's a competitor. he's been very nice to me, i've been nice to him. he's a competitor. somebody is saying is he an enemy? he is not my enemy. is he a friend? i don't know him well enough. but the couple times i have gotten to meet him, we have gotten along. i think we get along well. but, utmimately, he's a competitor. he's representing russia. i'm representing the united states. in a sense we're competitors. not a question of friend or enemies. he's not my enemy. and hopefully some day maybe
he'll be a friend. it could happen. but i just don't know him very well. i met him a couple times and when i did meet him most of you people were there. >> sorry, sir, you are going to the uk. what will be your message on brexit. >> brexit is, i have been reading a lot and it seems to be turning differently where they are getting at least partially involved back with the european union. i have no message. it's not for me to say. i own a lot of property there. i'm going to scotland while i wait for the meeting. i have a magical place, i'm going there for two days while i wait for the monday meeting. but it's not for me to say what they should be doing in the uk. i have great friendships. my mother was born in scotland. i have great friendships over there. we have a wonderful ambassador, woody johnson. and, by the way, woody is doing
a great job. but it's not for me to say. i would like to see him work it out so it can go quickly. is it heart -- i thought you said it was heartbreaking. i said, that might be going a little bit too far. heartbreak. i would say that, you know, brexit is brexit. not like, i guess, when you use the term hard brexit, i assume that's what you mean. the people voted to break it up, so, i imagine that is what they'll do. maybe they're taking a little bit of a different route. i just want the people to be happy. they're great people. and i'm sure there will be protests because there's always protests. but i think they were protests the night of the election both ways. but in the end, we have 206 electoral, 306 electoral votes
and one state said, you know, it was interesting one of the states we won, wisconsin. i didn't realize this until fairly recently. that is the one state that ronald reagan didn't win when he ran the board the second time. he didn't win wisconsin and we won wisconsin. we had a great night. protests. there might be protests. but i believe that the people in the uk -- >> oh, boy. >> the president, of course, wrong again. i don't know how many times he can get this wrong. in 1984 ronald reagan won 49 states, including wisconsin. he only lost to walton mondale's minneso minnesota. the president continuing to lie about basic election results. american results. ronald reagan, again, for the 15th time, white house staff, ronald reagan won wisconsin in 1984. richard nixon won wisconsin, as
well. you don't have to go back to dwightiz izeisenhower. once again, he lies about election results. now, back to the president's press conference already in progress. >> every disease known to m mankind or womankind. we'll start from there. yeah, go ahead . >> afghan service in bbc world service. sir, i would like to ask you, mr. president, that afghan president is going to be here -- >> here right now. >> he is here. are you going to meet him and what have you got to say to him? and when the war is going to end in afghanistan because people are freaked out now and they want to know. >> i agree with that. it has been going on for a long time. we made a lot of progress, but it's been going on for a long time. we made a lot of progress in afghanistan, i will say. yes, your president is here right now. in fact, he is in the room. when i'm finished with this, i'm
going right back in that room. >> one question, please. mr. president, can you tell us what you think about future membership of georgia in nato, please? >> well, at a certain point they'll have a chance. not right now. they just left the room. but at a certain point they'll have a chance. yes, sir. >> reporter. are you going to continue forces in iraq. thank you. >> i think the kurds are great people, incredible fighters and warm intelligent allies in am ee many cases. i do believe they are great people. yes, go ahead, please. >> mr. president -- >> kurds also help us defeat isisi in syria. now, back to the president. >> do you consider him as a security threat for europe or to
the u.s.? thank you. >> hey, i don't want him to be and that's, i guess, why we have nato. and that's why we have a united states that just had the largest military approved. 716 billion next year. no. i hope that we'll be able to get along. i said from day one, whether china or russia working on trade with china right now, i don't see that's an easy situation. that's years of abuse, by presidents that allowed that to happen. i have taken over a lot of bad hands and i'm fixing each of them. china is going to be successfully ultimately taken care of. i have a great respect for their president, president xi, spent two days there, among the most magical two days i ever lived. i think we're going to end up
doing something very good with china. right now we're in a nasty trade battle but i think ultimately that will work out. i think we have a big advantage. you know, we picked up $8 trillion in value and worth since i became president. we're close to two times the size of china. lot of people don't know that. you know, we're going to negotiate a fair deal if that's possible. okay. and russia, are they getting along with russia also would be a very good thing. yes, go ahead. >> we have seen escalation of tension between you and iranians. what's your exit plan? >> i would say there's escalation. by the way, they're treating us with much more respect than they did in the past. and i know they have a lot of problems, their economy is collapsing, but i will tell you this, at a certain point they're going to call me and say let's make a deal.
but they're feeling a lot of pain right now. go ahead. go ahead. go ahead! >> mr. president, do we expect rise of russian influence in macedonia following start of negotiation progress which we have seen in mon-- >> never talk about our future plans. yes, go ahead. go ahead. >> thank you very much. i am from kurdistan, iraq. my question about the government of iraq. after two months election the government in iraq has not been formed. you want to talk about syria and president putin. do you have any information about syria. >> we get along with iraq. spent a great fortune in iraq and many, many lives, thousands
and hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides which i always think about both sides, not just our side. they had an election, i hope we're able to get along, see how that goes. we've already been talking to people that won the election. i was not in favor of that war. i was very much against that war. i never thought it was a good thing. but that's another deck of cards that i inherited and we'll do the best we can with it. >> obviously the president, then donald trump, in 2003 took several positions on the iraq war. one that he was for it, one that he was against it. back to the president. >> i come from very small country northern africa, tunisia. my question, we wish and hope something would be done in the
middle east to avoid more wars and more blood and more killings in the middle east. the peace process that gives everyone -- >> we're looking for peace in africa. as you know, strong list. we're looking for peace. we want peace all over. we want to solve problems. we're looking for peace. africa right now has got problems like few people would understand. they have things going on there nobody could believe in this world. if you saw some of the things i see through intelligence, what's going on in africa, it is so sad and so vicious and violent. and we want peace for africa, we want peace all over the world. that's my number one goal, peace all over the world. we're building up a tremendous military because i believe through strength you get peace, but we have a military like we never had before.
we've given out orders for the best fighter jets in the world, best ships, best everything. but hopefully we'll never have to use them. that would be a dream. to buy the best stuff, to have the best stuff, to have the best equipment in the world, and to never have to use it would be a really great part of my dream. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. i'm going to be going, leaving in a half hour. thank you. >> that's the president of the united states delivering about a 20 minute press conference after a tense nato summit. as john meacham has pointed out, told staff members before the inauguration, day before the inauguration that every day was to be treated like a reality tv show. it is not hard to see how the president decided to frame the apprentice nato. yesterday started out with a
fiery speech, hyperbolic, insulting our nato allies, and now little more than 24 hours later the president comes and delivers a press conference neatly wrapping things up and declaring what can only be called a false piece. also, he made a lot of false statements in there. the first, he said that donald trump forced a 2% commitment, we're going around the table and explain why that's just not true, it is false, it is a lie. second main theme was, quote, when you're more unified than ever before, also a lie. series of quotes from nato leaders, suggesting this is the most turbulent, tense nato summit ever conducted. and three, people have stepped up and committed more than ever. he also continually, steve
ratner, we can go to your chart, i think it will be helpful, he continually said that barack obama and ronald reagan, past presidents were not able to make commitments to get the europeans to spend more. >> you said 2011. >> june of 2011, bob gates went to this nato summit in brussels and talked about a two tiered system, countries paying in and countries that aren't paying in and benefitting from defense of large countries. he started to rattled cage of you have to pay up. >> that was 2011. because the president does not understand how this works, because he didn't from the beginning, and he seems to blur two different budgets, we're now talking about individual military budgets from individual countries.
as far as overall nato budget goes, wrote a piece for atlantic council that showed they only pay 22% of nato's budget, as he wrote in that piece, pretty good investment for what we get out of nato. what donald trump is talking about though overall is not contributions into nato. he kept saying we have 33, $40 million into the conference, just not true. talking about individual commitments. starting with bob gates' demand that they pay more to military budgets, let's look at what's happened since 2011 to show that the dye was cast actually the same year that donald trump began his birther conspiracy campaign, dead serious.
it began five years before he began running for president. >> steve? >> let's look at the facts. as joe said, if you go back to 2011, you can see that the europeans in blue. >> we're in blue. that's more, the blue, we're spending more than europeans? >> this is the rate of growth of spending, you can see the europeans were cutting the defense budget in the post iraq war period, started to increase them substantially, more than we did over this period, and so most recent year, for example, they're going to increase the budget by 4.8%, we're going to increase by 0.7%. in fact, they are increasing budgets. there was commitment made in 2014 to get to 2% by 2024. four countries, they'll get a
good majority of them over that limit by 2024. >> very interesting, that means, willie, europe this year alone is increasing, accelerating their defense spending five times the amount of the united states, and that has been just like the u.s. economy that donald trump tries to take credit for, that has been the case for seven years. >> it has been the case for seven years. in fact, commitment to 2% spending goes back to 2006 when george w. bush was president. the commitment that the president just announced, as you said, he framed it this way, said there's this big problem, i'm going to go in, sheer force of will and negotiating talent, come out with a deal. comes out with today and says i got the deal. jonathan lemire's question was what was the deal, are they up to 4%? no, it was 2%. they committed to that in 2006.
now he said they have to go back and deal with parliament and congress, hopefully they'll get to the 2 percy v% eventually. >> to let you know how long ago that was, 12 years ago, i mean, 12 years ago we in scarborough country were digging into the passion of christ and digging into the jon stewart and asking if he was bad for america. >> that was the show. checking on nato has been fascinating because he was wrong so many times and forcefully wrong. his last answer, question of africa, could not fact check, it literally made no sense. >> he said i like peace africa. >> it was hard to break through. as for nato it is very similar to border immigration issue.
he creates a problem. he creates a policy, creates a fight over it and has absolutely no plan moving forward and we've got hundreds, possibly thousands of children hanging in the balance, some who will be orphaned because of his policy, and he's now taking credit for fixing it. trying to take credit for fixing something with nato and quite frankly the incompetence he has shown in terms of the separation policy, we should be frightened of damage he is doing on the world stage. >> and steve ratner, can't wait to get juan and david on this, go over a few more numbers, what's fascinating is donald trump took credit for a 2% commitment that george w. bush got in 2006. then took credit for pressuring europe to spend more money which bob gates actually got started. just look at your chart in 2011. >> that's all true.
let me show you two of the things that you'll find interesting, one that you talked about a lot this week i noticed was how much europe spends in relation to other countries. you look at the chart, this is the european part of nato, that they spend more on defense than any other country in the world, more than china, more than russia, more than india. if you're worried about russia, you can see nato, europe alone spends almost five times as much on defense as russia does. >> and let's keep the chart up because there's such ignorance and misinformation that's promoted by donald trump, i bet if you went to one of donald trump's rallies after americans listened to what donald trump said, i bet you 99% of those people walking out if asked who spends more money on their budget, europe, china, or russia, defense budget, europe might get 1%.
nato europe remains as we have been saying against putin's expansionism into western europe just as nato europe stopped the soviets from moving west, into western europe. it is just like the border crisis that donald trump made up during the campaign suggesting that mexicans were flooding in, taking our jobs when there was actually a negative net flow from the united states going back into mexico. >> one more fact check for you about donald trump. he talks about 4% that he wants the europeans to get to. let's look how that compares to what we're doing. 4% is the red line here, and you can see that we are peaking about 3.7%. if you look at longer term budget projections, defense spending is down to 2.7%. we're never going to get to 4%
or near 4%, in fact, we're heading back to 2% we want others to do. >> so what is he talking about? >> why is he asking the others to do 4%. can i make a last point my wife asked me to make. it is not all defense spending, humanitarian, assistance, europeans spend twice as much as we do, $12 billion of humanitarian assistance a year. we spend 6 billion. >> great point. that stops revolutions, that stops al qaeda insurgency, stops isis insurgency. >> what was your main take aways from the press conference? >> joe, this was classic donald trump performance in the last two days. he blows into brussels, he's
abrasive on the basis of inaccurate facts, he attacks our europeans allies, then he is mr. sunshine, upbeat in the press conference as i have seen him and announces victory. i solved all these terrible problems i was worried about yesterday. he has a series of accurate or semi accurate comments. suddenly we have the best relationship with nato we ever had, they love me, our relationship with germany is terrific. it was absolutely a classic example of how he operates. come in, turn up all of the furniture over, and boast about how successful you have been in people picking up the mess that you created. i do think when he talks about going to meet with vladimir putin from a standpoint of
strength in nato, he is not listening to voices of nato. they're genuinely anxious about america's long term commitment to their security, no matter what he said this morning. i think that's the biggest take away from this fractioned succe summit. one germany newspaper said this is not a crisis, this is a catastrophe. that was their reaction to what was said. i think another important point of news is when the secretary of state mike pompeo talked about status of negotiations with the north koreans who are reporting to kim jong-un and he said they're on the road toward working out a denuclearization formula. the language he used was a little vague. he said they intend to denuclearize. they're going to accomplish it.
i didn't hear a specific time line, i didn't hear the kind of hard commitments we have been looking for. it is obvious pompeo is in a process of exploring how over time north korea will meet what sounded like a firm commitment at the summit. >> i was going to say, firm commitment this past week when it was repeated made north koreans call us gangsters. it is interesting, you underline the disunity. the president said quote, we are more unified than ever before. i know you make it your practice, it is your job to talk to ambassadors, leaders across not only europe but the globe. give us their reactions to what they've seen the past several days and whether nato was as the president said, quote, more unified than ever before.
>> well, i think the reactions to the initial drop the bomb phase yesterday, reactions were very fiscal cliff, people used sharp language responding to president trump. the reaction to the nato summit as a whole may be this is how he does it. great disruptive beginning and go by the script. he claims credit for a win. what the sum total will be is hard to predict. the summit with putin that european leaders find threatening. the president has to be careful that he is bargaining their securities and the whole of the middle east when he talks about
syria. we'll all be watching carefully for commitments he makes. he wants these things to be successes so he can claim a win. he wanted brussels to be a success. he told us how wonderful it was. he'll want the helsinki summit with putin to be a win, but we'll have to look carefully. what did he give up to get that aura of success. >> the president also worth noting, mika, ignored two questions about the kurds who have done remarkable work in iraq and syria, helping us in efforts to push back and defeat isis. whether georgia could expect to receive nato membership and ignore whether he would recognize inaggravation of crimea and annexation of that
country. >> he sidestepped that, and brought mike pompeo to the microphone to talk about north korea, and that was fascinating. a few times also it was clear the president didn't know the answer to the question or didn't understand terminology used. >> he was asked about hard brexit. he said i just want everyone to be happy. >> doris kearns goodwin, and lawren lawrence oh donl. >> and robert costa. good to have you on board. we are fact checking the president in real time. it is all we can do as we cover this story because it is too difficult to let an entire set of lies over the course of 40 minutes go across the air waves
around the world without fact checking something that's clearly wrong. >> he was about to go to england, and what a special relationship, starting with churchill giving that speech about the iron curtain, and talked about a special relationship. >> he is very popular in england. >> he says he is very popular. >> fact check, 11%. >> you establish a relationship so when churchill and roosevelt are together, it is fun to be in the same decade with you, i wish i could be with you all the time. when radioosevelt dies and he s i don't know what i will do without you. that is gave things to a lot of people and won the war. russia was first our adversary,
then our friend. remember when churchill had to explain why suddenly he was for russia because germany invaded russia. he said if germany invaded hell, i would have to say a good word about the devil. still the idea of developing trust and having your friends and allies with you as they have been with us the last seven years, then saying things and thinking you can turn it around, trust is the most important thing you lost no matter what they say. >> lawrence o'donnell. >> joe, thank you for the job you did in live coverage of the speech. >> fact check. >> live fact check which i needed. i don't know what his approval rating is in england. >> it is 11%, the lowest ever recorded for a first year president. >> but what was it like sitting here with that kind of challenge, with all of this coming at you -- >> so much to choose from. >> you had to pick which one you
jump in on. that's what i was marveling at. when do you jump in, when do you let it slide. >> it is tough for all of us. all of us have to figure out what we look past. for instance, very interesting. at this stage i just never read his tweets unless they make headlines. not like i'm saying i'm not reading his tweets. i know he is going to insult our allies, insult people, i know they're going to be racially tinged. i know what he's going to do. i think it is just part of our responsibility to sift through and figure out what matters. and also how he says they love me in britain. >> if you hadn't done that, we would then have to be replaying every bit of this tape trying to
catch up with 40 minutes of this material. the way you did it is the way that makes sense to me. >> i think, willie, we all should figure out how to do this in real time where we don't interfere with the news that comes out at the press conference, but do get people real facts in real time. it is a 40 minute, that's how he succeeds, one lie on top of another lie on top of another lie. and pretty soon it is hard to untangle those lies in a way that viewers and trump supporters can digest. >> he lays the foundation for a narrative that he wants to continue in a moment like that when he has the stage. the narrative he was creating today is there was a problem, he came in, beat everybody up, walked out solemnly, now nato he says is a fine tuned machine. that's not true. he is telling a story that's not true. before the concrete can set, you have to pick it apart so people
watching the show, people of the country understand why it is so shaky. >> bob costa, seems every time you come on the show, i ask what republicans on the hill are going to do about the latest aberration from the white house on policy, or the latest mistake from the president. i must say in the past few days, republicans on the hill have come out instead fast support for nato alliance. we've seen the secretary of state do the same, of course, secretary of state mattis said when donald trump is attacking nato in the past, nato is so important that if there weren't a nato, we would have to create one. so it does seem in this one area almost all of washington is standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies instead of the president. >> they're watching the president's relationship with the united kingdom.
they say yes, there's a relationship with the west and nato. so many lawmakers, republicans and democrats in washington are often seen at the british embassy, reporters of the special relationship, see themselves as anglofiles. they know it is a fragile moment, maybe wanting a deal on trade. will the president take the same transactional approach without talking about history or moral values, just a transaction, take that same approach to a nation they value in the u.s. foreign policy community with the uk. >> there's also a symbolic moment. >> by the way, you say that comes out of his head.
do you know for 40 minutes, he practiced that in front of his mirror. you practiced this. >> here it comes. >> winston churchill was born, very large, premature baby. >> huge head. >> anyway, he is going to try to become churchill here. get ready for this. there is a great, i didn't practice this, i swear, great line from 1942, he was facing vo vote of confidence, things are going terrible. churchill lays out the importance in politics. british people can face anything with fortitude as long as they're convinced those in charge of their affairs are not deceiving them or themselves dwelling in fool's paradise.
two prong test. not lying toys, not lying to himself. he fails both. >> i do believe people talk as if this fever that we're going through is going to last. i don't believe it will. i believe at the end of the day it will be his inability to tell the truth to the american people and himself that will bring him down. >> do you know, joe, we have a certain miniature narrative you presented about what he said and what's true. that's the larger problem the country has to fight. the narrative presented about the supreme court, what's happening in the last 50 years of social justice, what's going on in the country now. unless that is counted, the one he is giving the people, then we have a problem. public sentiment is everything. you have everything, without it, you have nothing as lincoln said. he is winning the narrative in a lot of ways. >> bring leon panetta into the
conversation. served as white house chief of staff to president clinton and then cia director and secretary of defense under president obama. quite a perspective to the dynamics going on at the nato summit from a chief of staff point of view. i would love to hear that. and the point of view of secretary of defense. what do you do with a president that goes rogue with the facts on the world stage? >> well, we've never seen anything like this certainly in my lifetime. and i think the problem is in the end this is about protecting our national security. it is about our foreign policy abroad. and it's built on pillars that have been established for 70 or more years. pillars of truth, pillars of respect, pillars of strength, pillars of willingness to
cooperate with others. this president basically went in to nato and attacked every one of those pillars and i think has undermined the fundamental trust you need in order to be able to protect our national security. that's what people need to focus on. >> secretary panetta, willie geist. your comparison is one a lot of people made, which is there's an argument these countries have to live up to the 2% threshold, many of them are not. as you said this isn't a country club where some members aren't paying dues, this is a 70-year-old body that protected the west, that has historical importance the president doesn't seem to understand. >> secretary gates has raised this issue with regards to 2%. i raised it when i was secretary of defense. others have raised it. obviously it was a concern that they ought to be contributing more to the relationship. but it's alliance.
a national security alliance. it is not a country club where you pay fees and get rid of members. it's an alliance. military alliance. the reality is that the president ignores the history of that alliance and what it has done in terms of fighting the soviet union, bringing down the walls in germany, helping us after 9/11. continuing to help us in afghanistan. nato is important to our national security. frankly this president is about marketing himself as opposed to dealing with what history is about. he wants to go in, he wants to be showing that he is a bully, can threaten people. and the only reason they're responding is because he is threatening them. that's the act that the president is engaged in here and my concern is it undermines the trust of those we need if we
ever have to face a national security threat. >> lawrence o'donnell. >> i know you had this moment with presidents before. that's the moment where you have a very limited amount of time and you're trying to get through to a president on something that you disagree with, and the way you're trying to steer the president in a different direction. if you could have a moment like that with president trump, if you could have yesterday, for example, what would you have boiled it down to in trying to convey to him what you think he should be trying to accomplish at that summit? >> well, this president as he did today, taking credit for those nations that increased contribution to nato, i think he does deserve some credit, but he should have started the nato conference by taking credit for that, then supporting the fact that the nato alliance is
strong, that the united states is committed to it, and that it will continue to provide the security needs for the world. he didn't have to go in and do the attacks that he did yesterday, which undermines the main story line. he had to come pack today back e could put that story line together again. if you're a president that's trying to pay attention to how you can best present the position of the united states, you could have done a hell of a better job by beginning with a victory speech rather than trying to attack our allies. >> bob costa. >> secretary panetta, what do you believe the russians and president putin are going to try to get out of the meeting with president trump? >> well, i worry about this meeting with putin because again i think this president walks into these meetings without looking at history, without looking at the fact that he is
dealing with an adversary of the united states. the russians are trying to undermine the stability of the united states. that's been their goal. they're undermining the stability of our western allies. they are an adversary. i don't think he sees putin that light. therefore, he is going to go there a little like going into the kim meeting shaking hands, showing the world that two large leaders of big countries can come together. i think putin will take advantage of that to show the world that frankly he can have his way with the united states. that's the problem i'm concerned with because wave shoe've shown weakness in the nato conference and now we're going to go to russia and show weakness with putin. that's a terrible message to send the world. >> we have been serving as fact checker to donald trump. we have someone also helping us
out here who happens to run france. willie, breaking news. >> extraordinary. watched a 40 minute press conference where the president declared he changed nato, got them to pay up and pay more. french president macron denied president trump's claim that nato powers agreed to increase defense spending beyond previous targets. he watched that press conference, said i didn't agree to that. >> donald trump will tweet against him as he did trudeau, maybe accusing the french of scuffing their shoes to make them sound old. mr. secretary, people like you who have committed your lives to this country, i know you have great respect for others who have done the same and you understand the difficult walk they all have to make, the difficult journey. i just wonder what your thoughts
are when you see a man who served this country so proudly, john kelly, and served this country proudly as your military assistant, sacrificed his own son, then had to sit through what john kelly had to sit through yesterday and grimace as the president of the united states was tearing our nato alliance to shreds, then have the white house claim he was angry because he is such a petulent small man that he didn't like the cheese they were serving. what do you even say to that? how does john kelly even deal in that environment? >> you know, i think the key to leadership in this country, and
i recognize every president who's had to be political had to deal with situations, but truth is the fundamental ingredient as to whether our democracy will work or not. if we're not speaking the truth, if we're constantly telling untruths to the american people and to the world, then we undermine our democracy. and in that moment while the president is ranting at that breakfast, i'm sure john kelly is thinking what damage is this doing to our country and to our alliance because he's a marine. he's a first class soldier and dedicated to this country. i think when he hears that kind of comment, it probably turns his insides into a grinder because he is seeing our country being hurt. that's the concern that i have.
this president for all of the entertainment value of this president, he is doing incredible damage to the integrity of the united states. >> john meacham. >> mr. secretary, as someone who has dealt with intelligence, had to create theories of the case, help us think about the allegations and various speculations of president trump and possible influence by the russian state or russian interests on both the campaign and possibly the president going forward. how should we think about that? >> well, it's obvious that our intelligence agencies have clearly established that the russians tried to interfere in our election process and the intelligence that i've seen in time that i was there and i'm sure the president continues to
see shows that russia continues to try to undermine the security of our country. yet the president acts as if those threats are not serious, when russia says they have nothing to do with attacks of the election system, he says i believe them, and it raises a real concern about whether or not this president truly appreciates the fact that he is dealing with an adversary of the united states and the world. every president i served and worked for in the last 50 years, every president recognized the threat that russia constitutes to us and to the world. this is the first president who denies that. i think i'm concerned by that fact. >> secretary panetta, thank you so much for being with us this morning. we greatly appreciate it. thank you for your service to this country.
>> thank you. >> lawrence, so the president now goes to meet with vladimir putin. >> now you can start to get really worried. >> he is going to meet theresa may first whose government because of boris johnson -- >> you have to highlight what france, macron, just did. this is a disaster. >> it is a lot like what trudeau had to do, just go out, make sure everybody has the facts right. >> he had the press conference that followed president trump's. so president macron went to the microphone. said i listened to what the president of the united states said and it is not what we agreed to. the president made that up, says president macron. >> let's talk about the putin meeting, what concerns you. what should we be looking for. >> start with we are never going to know what was said in the putin meeting. we're never going to know.
one-on-one meeting with the two of them plus translators. you can't trust either one of them. the translators won't tell us, maybe you get one or both translator at some point in time, but that's the real stress basically for the world about that meeting is that we will not know what they have said and talked about. we don't even really know why they're having that meeting. why is that meeting happening. why is it just the two of them. who wanted it to be just the two of them and why. >> i just wonder, i am curious about vladimir putin watching this unfold. we know about him, i've heard stories from my father, the man has a massive ego. watching the president make a mockery of himself and the united states as well on the world stage and get undermined
by the much younger president of france, undermined by the much younger leader of canada, undermined by even kim jong-un, is he going to want to be seen with him in some ways? i mean, is there possibly a turn? could the milk curdle? it is not exciting to meet with the president of the united states looking at what unfolded. >> it is, if you -- go ahead. >> what are you owning exactly? >> the milk is curdling. but for the russian to meet with the president, seems willing to forgive, understand past transgressions, something president obama refused to do unless russia reversed some moves, it is absolutely what putin would most want.
nato he sees as fundamentally threatening russia would go into this kind of disarray, wants a weakened nato no longer at his doorstep, no longer united, with internal frictions. he has had enormous fortune that a president of the united states has arrived, he has for whatever reasons brought this state of internal division, bickering within nato, between the u.s. and eu. in this meeting on monday in helsinki, i think syria will be a big topic. it is important to realize that a lot of work to prepare for that scenario has been done between israel and russia, between netanyahu and putin. they worked out a set of red lines for syria that i think are going to be the decisive
parameters agreed to by trump and putin. it shows how complicated it has become, how much putin surged into shaper of these events, and in a sense i think trump is there to ratify the roles that putin has taken in syria more than setting a new course. he couldn't have dreamed of a nato summit that would set up, he meaning putin, set up this meeting with trump in more useful way. >> more detail, president macron continues to speak at the nato summit. he says there's a communique published yesterday, it is very detailed. it confirms the goal of 2% by 2024. that is all. again saying nothing more, contrary to what the president of the united states claimed. >> there's no need for vladimir putin to do anything but warmly
embrace donald trump who has undermined everything that the united states put in place following world war ii, starting with the truman doc, the marshall plan, the creation of nato, the berlin airlift. we could go down the line. that was like a knife in the side of the soviet empire. they loathed every single thing that every american president from harry s. truman to 1991. and yesterday on russian tv you had kmcommentators saying we no have an american president doing the thing we tried to do while the soviet union existed and everything we have done, tried to do since the breakout of the
soviet union, and that is break apart the transatlantic alliance. this isn't the first time commentators said something like this on russian tv. >> that's what mr. putin wants, which is being created by the united states in the hands of mr. trump now. what struck me about the press conference is there was a moment when mr. trump said that's your issue to the press, the meddling issue. your favorite topic. that should be the major topic. whatever happened with russian meddling in the election is more important than validity of that, and intelligence agencies say they meddled, and trump is playing with it as if it is the press' topic. it is your favorite topic. yeah, i'll ask them, they'll say no. he should represent the united states with fury that something is happening to the election system. he said we'll make sure it doesn't happen again. this is central, more than the
other stuff we're talking about, to undermine our democracy as it seems he has done, to not take it as his responsibility as our president, our spokesman to be angrier about that than almost anything else, and he treats it as if he is a joke because the press makes it up, not him. >> the question was asked about meddling. he said i'll ask your favorite question. he said what can i do. all i can do is ask. did you and don't do it again. i think we have a clip. let's watch. >> maybe we'll get along with the group we're protecting against, that's a real possibility. as you know, i am meeting with president putin monday, and i think we go into that meeting not looking for so much, we want to find out about syria, we will of course ask your favorite question about meddling. i will be asking that question again. we'll also be talking about ukraine. ukraine was here today, by the
way, and you know, it's very interesting to hear what they have to say. excuse me? he may. look, he may. what am i going to do. he may deny it. it is one of those things. all i can do is say did you, and don't do it again. >> actually, it shouldn't be the reporter's favorite question, and he shouldn't even ask did you, he should say, you know, mr. president, our four intel chiefs, four men i appointed all said you had a campaign since 2014 to interfere in american democracy. stop it or there will be consequences. stop it or we will -- our counter measures will be more extreme. we have a $19 trillion economy. you have a $2 trillion economy. we have silicon valley. this is an information war you do not want to take on. stop it now.
i think that will do it. lawrence o'donnell. >> that's what any other president in this situation would be thinking about, exactly how specific should i as president be in terms of what kind of threat he would issue in terms of retaliation. that's a tricky thing. and it might be specifics you got, might be more specific, might be less, but it would have to impress. it would have to really land on putin. these are the consequences if you keep this up. not only do we know you did it, but when you continue to do this, here's what happens. >> lawrence, it is remarkable how the last three presidents treated vladimir putin, all underestimating what he is capable of. of course, george w. bush infamously saying he looked into his eyes, saw his soul. barack obama whispering if i can
say his name, wait until the election is over. we'll have more space to do a lot of things. then the invasion of crimea, and barack obama froze. never occurred to say mr. putin, for every troop goes in the ukraine we're going to sent two troops into poland and have military exercises. you want to be humiliated, we could do that as well. not saying he could have done it, he should have done it, but for some reason in the 21st century, every american president seems ill equipped to stand up to the challenge of vladimir putin. >> i think part of that is the surprise in the russian turning backward. seemed like everything was going forward, after the cold war and after collapse of the wall, and seemed like democracy was taking hold. and it did feel like there was real progress going on in russia, so there is that american inclination,
presidential inclination to encourage that, speak first in an encouraging way, try to nurture that and welcome as george w. bush was trying to do. he said it in a way that was easily mocked after the fact, but what he was trying to do was welcome putin into being one of us. and give him that feeling. look at what it feels like to be treated like france. wouldn't you like this. and so there was this what turns out to be overeager hope for russia. it wasn't i don't think personal to putin. it was about russia and what they were hoping were capacities of the russian government. >> one final thing while we have you here. willie will tell you. >> one thing we're sure of he is going to mention to putin is how he won wisconsin. >> like no other person did. >> come out in the briefing, wisconsin, i had no idea.
republicans have won wisconsin seven times since dwight eisenhower. >> it was an embarrassing fact check. >> he knows. he has been fact checked six or seven times. he knows. >> you believe the wisconsin fact has gotten through and he still goes out on the world stage this morning. >> whatever you say is truth at that moment. >> by the way, no one will go up to him and tell him the truth and say you're wrong with his inner circle. remienl reminds me, not comparing donald trump to joseph stalin, but reminds me of stalin's advisers that looked at the map, saying why isn't holland on the map. it is at the netherlands. nobody had the courage to tell stalin through world war ii that they were the same thing. >> i think what lawrence said
was right. there was that moment in time i looked back on it with collapse of the soviet union when democracy was spreading around the world. i remember that exhilarating feeling of something is happening. that's what's scary now, for getting what's happening with trump, democracy is not spreading around the world. dictatorships are taking hold and we have to care about that. it is the central challenge of the time. >> facts have to be checked. >> bob, you talked about how there are a lot in congress, lot of people obviously, a lot of representatives and senators concerned about nato strength. what do you hear about putin's influence on eastern and central europe, sort of reawakening of an information cold war where you have influence of vladimir putin and autocrasy felt in poland, in bulgaria, even italy,
in places in eastern and central europe. is there a concern, pronounced concern on the hill of that trend? >> based on my reporting, joe, it is important not to overstate concern among republicans, if you think about u.s. senators and republicans going to russia to meet with russian officials, not really talking too much about meddling in the 2016 election, you have voices like senator corker who are out there, who are vocal. this is a large body in the u.s. senate and u.s. house of republicans, they first and foremost of mostly politically with president trump. so when you talk to them outside cloak rooms, they're talking about they hope president trump will help them in mid term elections, they're not talking about vladimir putin, they're not talking about helsinki as a worry point, and that's the reality. >> and the reality is also on
the ground. nobody is even talking about russia or mueller in campaigns, even democrats telling other democrats saying don't talk about russia at home, talk about jobs, talk about wages. lawrence, willie and rolling stones fans would tell you for decades people wanted to get their hands on tapes of the rolling stones rock and rule circus. he ended up selling it to the who, they put some performances out. when it came out, there was tremendous buzz. but it is nothing like the buzz i felt around your paperback. "deadly force." this was written in 1983. i remember studying, and people being interrupted. as i am studying, they're like
when do you think deadly force will come out in paperback. i remember the birth of my first son. i'm sitting there, doctor saying i know you know people. when do you think deadly force will be out in paperback. i am tired. i spent 35 years. >> waiting. >> having to answer a question there was no answer to until now. >> today is your day. >> 30 seconds. the reason we're bringing the book back now, set up, four minutes. >> you're playing hard ball. >> civil rights case my father brought against boston police, former boston cop who went to law school in college nights when he was working full time as a cop, black woman came to him, told him the story of her husband being killed by police. he knew right away it was a bad shooting. he took on this story. this is 40 years ago when this happened. no one was paying attention to the problems of police use of
deadly force anywhere in america at the time. and he took on this lonely battle and won, set precedents by taking that case to the supreme court. i wanted to bring the book out again now that we're in an era that people are finally paying attention, started paying attention four years ago with the killing of michael brown and eric garner in new york city, show them where we have been on this subject, historically, show them how much it has changed, good things that changed, but the real story is how much has not changed and how much of the problem feels almost intractable. if i can leave one good positive note on this, one thing i'm glad to report is that i don't believe this story of basically a police murder coverup by police of what happened in boston, i don't think it could happen in boston again today because bill evans, boston police commissioner, kind of leadership from bill brat enand
others forward has changed. we do have these particular areas of improvement we can talk about, but the longer story is how much has not changed and how much police culture has changed. >> it is important for people watching that may not understand the environment in boston in 1975. you talk about the south for a good reason. one of the most heinous photos we have seen regarding segregation is the picture of american flag hurled by a white man in the chest of a black man in boston. for your father in 1975 to start digging around in boston, people don't understand the courage that took. >> they will in this book because this is a history of that period. and all of that racial tension is there. you will read the very casual use of the "n" word by boston
police officers who i am interviewing and talking to about the story which i was researching for years. it is hard, and it is great when you go through boston today, it is great. you can drive through south boston and you you see integration. and the period that i'm talking about, a black person was not safe on any sidewalk in south boston at any point in time. and it's great for me to be back in those neighborhoods now and see the way things have changed. but to know what it was and what boston has come from is part of the story of this book. it's a very -- it's a real cultural history of that period. >> possible. >> and it's important to remember that positive part because that's what we need to go forward. you're right, things are still bad in a lot of places, but unless you remember where we've come from and where we are now with a sense of future, you should be proud of your father. that's exciting. >> it's a difficult subject and the next time someone is shot in the back by a police officer, as antwaan rose was in east
pittsburgh, what i'm going to say right now will be of absolutely no comfort. but we have had these marginal pieces of improvement that have to be recognized. because if they were -- it's been a very hard thing to earn. >> all right. the book is "dead hadly force: a police shooting in my family search for the truth." out noi now in paperwork. lawrence, thanks for being on helping us debrief the president's press conference. we'll be watching "the last word" at 10:00 p.m. eastern on msnbc. robert costa, thank you. doris, thank you. and still ahead on "morning joe," whole show you our latest fact check of the president. [music playing] (vo) from the beginning,
wells fargo has supported community organizations like united way, non-profits like the american red cross, and our nation's veterans. we knew helping our communities was important then. and we know it's even more important today. so we're stepping up to volunteer more and donate over a million dollars every day. so our communities can be even stronger. it's a new day at wells fargo. but it's a lot like our first day. you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.
are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. in the wake of a press conference at the end of a nato summit which was filled with lies and incorrect facts and was immediately refuted by the president of france.
president trump is headed to london. we have a reporter on the ground there and we'll be talking with her in just a moment on what to expect. and packages. and it's also a story about people. people who rely on us every day to deliver their dreams they're handing us more than mail they're handing us their business and while we make more e-commerce deliveries to homes than anyone else in the country, we never forget... that your business is our business the united states postal service. priority: you ♪ until her laptop crashed this morning. her salon was booked for weeks, having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. right now, save $300 on our hp 2-in-1 laptop bundle at office depot officemax
the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999. so lionel, what does 24/5 mean to you?rade well, it means i can trade after the market closes. it's true. so all... evening long. ooh, so close. yes, but also all... night through its entirety. come on, all... the time from sunset to sunrise. right. but you can trade... from, from... from darkness to light. ♪ you're not gonna say it are you? welcome back. president trump is headed to the uk right now, leaving the nato summit the same way he started it, with false claims, attacks on allies and a clear sense that he's looking to pull the united
states away from illustrates friends and toward vladimir put christian. he reportedly arrived late to a meeting with georgia and ukraine. >> the two countries that vladimir putin invited in the past decade. >> joe tweeted about him showing up late this morning, quote, how interesting that trump would go out of his way to insult the two countries putin has invited over the past two decade. so now the u.s. president trolling on russia's behalf? just a short while ago, the president tweeted that he pushed nato money to pony up for more defense. the french president had to refute that that nato powers increased to increase defense spending. while macron's fact check came several minutes after the statement, we fact checked in
realtime pass president lied to the world. take a look. >> i think that nato was not doing what they were supposed to be doing. a lot of the countries. and we were doing much more than we should have been doing. frankly, we were carrying too much of a burden. that's why we call it burden sharing. i was fusing the term a lot today. burden sharing. we had a fantastic meeting at the end. >> when it comes to burden sharing -- >> go ahead. >> and we are putting up a lot. >> when it comes to burden sharing, as far as the actual expenses of nato, the united states pays 22%. of carrying the cost of nato. that's 22%, not 90%. if you want to talk about military spending, it's about 66%. >> after our 2%, we'll start talking with about going higher. but i said ultimately we should be -- in years in advance, we should be at 4%. >> one more clarification from what the president is saying which is actually not connected
to reality, all of the countries have committed to 2%. bob gates went over for barack obama several years ago. sense then, the spending has increased. >> everybody in that room, by the time we left, got along and they agreed to pay more and they agreed to pay it more quickly. >> that actually is false. also, there are numerous quotes talking about how our allies are distressed by donald trump and the way he treats nato allies. we have many wealthy countries with it with us today, but we have some that aren't to wealthy. they did ask me if they could buy the military equipment and could i help them out and we will help them out a little bit. we're not going to finance it for them, but we'll make sure they're able to get payments and various other things so they can buy. because the united states makes, by far, the best military equipment in the world. the best jets, the best missiles -- >> just for viewers and listeners who are confused,
donald trump continually suggests that individual military budgets from individual countries flow into nato. they do not. there are two separate things. there are that question pertaining to the 2% that individual countries have been paying for their defense budget. and then you have money that comes into nato and we are not talking about that. we also, of course, steve ratner, you showed some charts that shows since 2011, since bob gates with went over for barack obama and said you need to start spending more money, that actually european defense spending has gone up. and this year europeans are spinding five times the amount that we are as far as rate of increase on defense spending. why don't you talk about that chart. >> exactly. you can see that right here. the blue line is just the european members of nato and you
can see that after the draw downs post the iraq afghanistan war, you can see they have been increasing faster than we have consistently since 2012. and that is die verging even further. now. of course, the other thing that trump said that was completely misleading is when he asked them to go to 4%. we're only at 3.6% ourselves. and we're actually headed down from there to 2.7%. going down. >> by trump's own budget. >> and for supporters of donald trump that may have been misled, understandably by the president, talking about 4%, that's the chart that steve was showing there. also, those that suggest that europe is a dead beat when it comes to defense spending because donald trump has told them repeatedly, the president has told them that europe is a dead beat, steve had had another great chart that talked about the spending of nato europe to china, to saudi arabia, to russia, india. nato europe, steve, as your
chart points out, spends more money on defense than does china and dwarfs military outlays by russia. >> yes. >> what -- you know, in the southern baptist church, meachum will tell you we sing what a friend we have in jesus. i can tell you looking at that chart, militarily, i feel like singing a couple of bars of what a friend we have in nato. >> yes. the europeans, whose principal responsibility is to defend europe against russia, spend multiples of what russia spend on their defense as that chart shows. and so, sure, look, we all agree that europe had been doing not enough, but they are on a better path now. there's a subtle point -- >> we really need to thank bob gates for that because it started in 2011 when bob gates went over and said you've got to start spending more on your military budgets. >> yes. so the point is, it really has nothing to do with trump. it went on all through the obama years and now it's continuing, as well. one other subtle point to be
made is that it's a little harder for germany to increase their spending. one is their history, the whole notion, and the fact that given the size of germany's economy, if they went to 2%, they would have by far the largest military force in europe and that makes the other europeans -- >> the president felt the need to obsess about his election win on the world stage. surprised he didn't get into crowd size. but he twisted facts with that, as well. >> blame the president on the crimean -- >> blame barack obama on crimea. willie geist, as you know, i tell you often that i wonder the masters in 1987. over-shadowed by jack in '86. >> because nicklaus won in '86 and nobody remembers that i won in '87. how did i do that? >> pulled it out. >> it was unbelievable. a whiskey bottle in my left hand, a 9 iron in my right.
i wasn't even looking. i was walking to the clubhouse. here is the difference between donald trump and me. i actually know i didn't win the masters in 1987. he has convinced himself that he is the first republican president to win wisconsin since dwight eisenhower. he's been fact checked repeatedly. he's been told it's not the truth repeatedly and today he says it again. >> it's a hard one to explain, even for donald trump. it's clear he knows. it's one of the most famous elections, not just in recent history, but in history. a republican president, the revered ronald reagan inside the president won 49 states. and the only reason he didn't win the last one is because it was had the home state of his competitor, walter mondale. >> he said even reagan didn't do it. >> first one to win wisconsin in years. and by the way, there have been seven histories. >> seven others. >> but, john, he watches tv and he's seen himself be corrected
over and over on that. >> i can tell you he's probably watching right now. >> i think he's impervious to fact. i really do. i think he's told himself this story and he does dwell -- this is remarkable. and maybe i'm slightly off about this, but i don't think so. i can't remember a president of any era talking as consistently about his predecessors by name and the elections that produced them in this way. so he's constantly refighting and relitigating. >> none of us can remember a president trashing other presidents repeatedly. >> yeah. >> repeatedly. presidents tend to be respectful of other presidents. and on this wisconsin thing, you would think that even if he doesn't read anything, even if he doesn't watch "morning joe," some staff member would have tugged him on the sleeve and -- >> instead of his chief of staff or instead of his secretary of defense, you have the president of france public areally saying,
no. that's not what happened at this meeting. i mean, this is a huge embarrassment, a humiliation on the world stage. our president is making a mess of himself on the world stage. >> and we've got some extraordinary reporting on how that emergency last second press conference came to be and the meeting that prosecute preceded it. let's go to london now. nbc news chief white house correspondent hallie jackson has that story. what happened here today? >> so let's start from that press conference and work backwards. apparently president trump thought there were so many developments this morning that he wanted to come out and talk to the media about it. there was a note sent around to reporters around 6:00 eastern time. a little later here, of course, local time saying hey, lots of people are head hadding to the briefing room. we don't know what's up. within about 20 minutes, president trump was out delivering what you have been talking about all morning, this free wheeling press conference full of things that simply weren't true and full of things that now diplomatic sources are
pushing back on. let's go to what happened prior to that news conference. why did the president want to come out and talk? there was a planned meeting of these nato allies that had been called that we are now told the secretary general turned into an emergency meeting after the president issued this warning to allies in the room. either do more when it comes to putting more money in their defense budget or else we will do our other thing. this is being confirmed by a senior administration source who tell us that the president basically said to these allies, hey, either spend more on your threshold defense spendsing or the u.s. will need to reassess. and if we have to go it alone as it relates to nato, then we will. this was perceived by some in the room as a threat according to one of our sources. emmanuel macron, he came out and pushed back against another piece of what the president had to say. macron is pushing back on that. he said in no way did president trump issue a threat, but i will tell you that's not how everybody who was in that session perceived this thing. some people did see it as an
ultimatum. and one senior administration official that i spoke to said, hey, don't water down the language too much. this is something that the white house clearly now wants people to know. that president trump went in with this incredible areally tough tone. it's worth noting that he did praise nato and reaffirm the u.s. commitment in that news conference, but that came just a matter of hours after telling these allies, hey, if i don't see some immediate changes, then we will need to reassess, essentially. so that is how the president is now coming here to london, coming to meet with prime minister theresa may and the queen. he's a little bit late because of that news conference. it delayed everything else. he should be landing here within the next two hours and that's going to kick off a whole in the new set of diplomatic challenges for the president. and we even got ton finland yet. we haven't even gotten to the helsinki putin meeting. the president is now coming out of nato which putin, as you know, has worked to undermine. >> you said the president told
nato, if we have to go it alone, we will. he said, quote, we will do our own thing. he was asked in that press conference if he was considering pulling the united states out of nato. he brushed that aside and said we're not going to have to worry about that pau because people are paying now. is that what he was implying in that meeting? we're going to pull out of nato if you don't pay up? >> based on our source saying that's more or less what happened. the idea that it was -- i was told by one source it wasn't an if you don't do x, we will do with y. but it is very clear he was making this warning saying we could go it alone if we have to. you talk about his answer to that in the news conference. he answered the second part of the question which was wouldn't you need congressional authority to do it. and the president said i think i could do it myself, but i don't think i need to at this point, feeling presumably like he said made his message clear in that room. >> but macron came out and said the europeans weren't doing anything differently than what
they had done before. is that an empty threat by trump who obviously isn't pulling out of nato? because he came out of the press conference and said no. so it was just an empty threat. >> and said we're going to stay in it. we're going to continue moving forward. he clearly wanted to have this very tough tone in the room. he is trying to -- and this is something we've seen from this president before, coming out and putting frankly public pressure on some of these countries by saying, yes, we believe that ultimately this threshold defense spending number will go up. we believe it will go up to 4%. but as you heard macron say, nobody agreed to that, right? the president may have wanted it and he may have talked about it, but there was no agreement on that. and our diplomatic source is telling us that's unrealistic and said it would represent the gross militarization of europe. so i think there is a dissidence here on the reality of what people on the ground and president trump would like to see. >> how seriously are the europeans taking this? do they see this as somehow politically driven for whatever
purposes for the president? do they think that this is a storm that passes, or do they have serious long-term concerns? >> so i think that there is a question mark on that as it relates to the diplomates abroad. but let me just say this. this is not donald trump's first in i knit, all right? we saw that last year and we saw how explosive that was. a lot of our u.s. allies understand that a bit better, donald trump how he works, what he thinks, what he says publicly and what he says privately and how that relates to each other. so when i was speak, some experts on this just over the last 24 hours, their assessment was, listen, these relationships aren't irreparable. there's not irreparable damage being done because of the way the president conducted himself at nato. but it ain't ideal. it was sort of the bottom line assessment. we will see how this works moving forward. if president trump goes in there and, in fact, takes a tough tone towards vladimir putin, that would do a lot to alleviate the
concerns of some of these nations. if the president does not, i think that will continue to per pettate those concerns. >> hallie, breaking news on a different front, president trump's legislative affairs director mark short is leaving the administration. this, of course, just as the president tries to push through his supreme court nominee. why now for mark short? >> yeah. listen, this was long in the works. this is something that had been speculated about for weeks. i think we reported it here on nbc that that might happen this summer about a month or so ago. i'm told by a source familiar with short's departure that you told chief of staff john kelly weeks ago that he would be leaving. this is before justice kennedy's announcement, so short did get to see that through the announcement if not the confirmation process. i'm told short will be out by the end of next week. he has been somebody who has been the chief congressional liaison between the white house and members of the hill talking through some of these issues like the supreme court nominee
when things get harry between tt donald trump and members of congress, it's oftentimes short who has to go and try to do the fix, essentially. no word yet on his successor, but i'm told short will be doing some consulting work and heading to the uva. hallie, thanks so much. we'll talk to you soon. and david ignatius, what can we expect from knowing the leadership of theresa may, how she will plan to try and handle this situation, and also what are the world leaders who just wrapped up this summit with president trump, what is their take away from their experience with him? so much of what happened in the room will be completely disconnected from what he said during the press conference. what's the message ultimately from him? >> i respect that world leaders, nato members will realize that they've seen an extraordinary two-act play over the last two days. in which nato has appeared and
the president's comments to go from obsolete to fine tuned. and as the president scripts this play, it's because of his intervention. you know, he saved it from its relevance, a germany that he described as captive to russia by the second day is now our friend and ally. and so i think they'll realize that they're part of this scripted play starring donald trump and instruments in it. he will take that road show now to britain. which is in the midst of a real political crisis. he has been firing zingers, in effect, at prime minister theresa may who is going to be his host at the palace and that her country has -- it's extraordinary. he has been issuing statements
supporting her principal political rival, former foreign minister boris johnston. how will she deal with that? increasingly, we're seeing our partners -- i almost attempted to say our former partners, but it's not that yet -- are learning to absorb this person who likes to dominate, who writes his own scripts, they are loose with the facts. one final thing i would note is we may be heading for a communique problem like what we had after the g7 problem summit in canada with macron, the french president saying -- the contradicting directly president trump's account of what happened. what's the communique, the group statement of these events going to tell us? and will donald trump say, well, no, that's wrong. that doesn't represent what i thought. i'm very curious. we'll see over the next few hours how that plays out. >> and what we're also seeing is
that you really -- beyond the fact that you can't underline just how destructive this behavior is on the part of the american president, on our strategic alliances. but what theresa may is looking at coming her way is the media, fact checking in realtime, pushing back against the president's lies and his made up controversies in realtime and also world leaders pushing back in realtime. and that may ultimately start to snowball against this president because people are becoming less and less and less afraid of him. still ahead, it isn't often that the republican-led house breaks with president trump. but that is just what happened with nato. again, in realtime. inside the chambers unanimously passed resolution expressing support for the alliance. plus, if you thought house republicans treated deputy attorney general rod rosenstein harshly when he testified on capitol hill, wait until
embattled fbi agent peter struck testifies today. we'll preview that just ahead on "morning joe." and now for the rings. (♪) i'm a four-year-old ring bearer with a bad habit of swallowing stuff. still won't eat my broccoli, though. and if you don't have the right overage, you could be paying for that pricey love band yourself. so get an allstate agent, and be better protected from mayhem. like me. can a ring bearer get a snack around here? until her laptop crashed this morning. her salon was booked for weeks, having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. right now, save $300 on our hp 2-in-1 laptop bundle at office depot officemax
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. these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. experts from all over the world, working closely
yesterday the house unanimously passed a solution expressing support for nato. the senate passed a resolution the day before. meanwhile, there was mixed reaction in the gop to trump's criticism of nato. >> he wants to make sure they get to the full percent, whether it's 2% or something they need to be spending. in other words, put your money where your mouth is. >> look, we value our alliance. we value of allies. but you've got to pay your own way. okay? the american taxpayer has carried them on their backs. >> i subscribe to the view that
we should not be criticizing our president overseas, but let me say a kul of things. nato is indispensable. it's as important today as it ever has been. >> it just seems like the tone of what we're doing is -- is something that's not good for the alliance. joining us now, jeremy peters. jeremy, paul ryan. he does not think you should criticize the president on the world stage, yet he does, thank god, on this. why not on racism or other things that have come up in the past which he's said nothing about? we could go down the list, but for the most part, you saw some support for nato there on capitol hill. what are you hearing behind the
scenes? >> it was an interesting caveat. i'm not going to criticize the president while he's overseas. >> then why would you? you couldn't talk about about racism or you couldn't talk about about some of the unbelievably breaking of the norms, concern for, quite frankly, lying, bullying, cruelty, inhumane behavior as pertains to americans at the border to families seeking asylum coming into this country at the border, separating them from their parents. couldn't talk about that, but you can talk about him when he's abroad? >> and interestingly, paul ryan is on his way out. >> yes, he is. >> a lot of the republicans who are on their way out not running for re-election like bob corker have stood up to president trump. that's just not paul ryan. i think this breaks down into two different categories. there are the types of politicians, people on capitol hill like paul ryan, like chuck grassley, who bob and weave every time they're asked to react to something trump has
said or tweeted or done. and then there are the types who genuinely stand up to the president, get behind him -- i'm sorry, stand behind the president and will say, well, you know, maybe the apology tour should end. i heard a lot of that. obama went around the world and he apologized for america. but trump, he's not doing that had. well, what trump is doing, he's turned oh bam in's apology tour, if you want to call it that, into trump's insult tour. i don't know that that's really a place that america wants to be right now. >> no. i would imagine. and, you know, watching republicans respond, john meachum, i'm finding it hard to believe that the reaction on capitol hill today to this news conference that we've watched and had to fact check in realtime because there were so many lies and incorrect facts that you had to stop. the president of the united
states mid speech in order to keep up with so many different problematic things that he said. things that were not true or even lies. how can you find a republican party that would get behind someone like this after a press conference like that on the world stage? hasn't the united states of america just been humiliated? >> well, that's kind of a rolling humiliation. we've been doing it for a while. and it rolls forward. look, the republican party -- >> this is the nato summit. i mean -- >> and he does it every day because it's not as though somehow or another the seasons of diplomacy matter. i mean, this is an absolute ambient reality. he is -- franklin roosevelt would have died of happiness if he had had the cultural mind share that donald trump has. >> yeah. >> there was a linguistics study, i don't know how reliable, suggesting that arguably the most spoken word in the english language in the 20th
century is the word trump. so i think there's not a single member of the senate, there's not a single member of the house that if they don't know what they -- they know what they should do. they are looking at the numbers in their districts and their states because republicans, self-prescribed republicans approve of donald trump at a rate that george w. after 9/11 couldn't touch. we've just -- we're in this tribal moment. there's an evolutionary biological reason for that. history is going to belong, greatness is going to belong to the senators who actually step forward and break away from that campfire and say, as president bush once say, senior, this will had not stand. >> but it's not just being around the campfire in the sense that it's self-preservation. they don't want to end up like mark sanford. they have a president who has this incredible popularity and
they don't want his cannon turned on them. >> by campfire, i mean that literally in the sense of there's safety in numbers. so they don't want to be eaten about by the wildebeast on the savannah. but they need to go out there. maybe they don't care. >> they don't want to be shot by the guy who is head of the campfire for leaving the campfire. it's not so much the wildbeast out there, but it's the -- >> i love it. this is the guantanamo metaphor. >> it is the people who are leaving who -- i think it was trey gowdy, i have never heard about a president this strong with his republican base. they don't want to get thrown out of office for crossing a popular president. still ahead, nato is dominating the headlines, but we have not stopped asking the question where are the children?
live to the border just ahead on "morning joe." (vo) this is not a video game. this is not a screensaver. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪ until her laptop crashed this morning. her salon was booked for weeks, having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. right now, save $300 on our hp 2-in-1 laptop bundle at office depot officemax
- anncr: as you grow older, -your brain naturally begins to change which may cause trouble with recall. - learning from him is great... when i can keep up! - anncr: thankfully, prevagen helps your brain and improves memory. - dad's got all the answers. - anncr: prevagen is now the number-one-selling brain health supplement in drug stores nationwide. - she outsmarts me every single time. - checkmate! you wanna play again? - anncr: prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
president trump were found, strzok will go before a house committee and the oversight committees this morning where he will strike bat at republicans' suggestion of political bias according to remarks object stained by the associated press. he plans to acknowledge his texts were blunt, but also that he criticized hillary clinton, bernie sanders and others. he also intends to say he was one of the only people who knew the details of russian election interference during the 2016 campaign. and that though it could have been derailed trump's election chances, quote, the thought of exposing that information ner crossed my mind. let me be clear unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending my nation did my personal opinions impact any official action i took. i have the utmost respect for congress's role, but i truly believe today's hearing is just another victory notch in putin's
belt and another milestone in our enemy's campaign to tear america apart. >> yairmy peters, we've been following these on capitol hill, but this will be the first time we hear certain sides of the story we haven't heard before and those comments are quite strong. >> can i venture a guess as to how they'll be received? it's not going to matter. this is a show trial. they have made up their minds. the republicans have condemned this man. as far as they're concerned -- >> even the president was tweeting about it from overseas. >> they're practically chanting lock him up. this i do think is one of the unusual cases where aspects of the russian investigation penetrate with voters because to them, when i go around the country and talk to people about what really matters to them, they bring this up as an example of the dishonesty and the corruption within the system
that they believe president trump is subject to. see, it's fixed and this guy is an example of that. and it motivates them. >> as you point out, the president is in brussels this morning and he's tweeting about peter strzok. this is a name that president trump has made a household name. >> yep. >> and he's doing that by design so that he can be the person, peter struck, that illustrates the bias and there was bias in those e-mails in the texts that he sent back and forth with lisa. so peter strzok could become a historical figure in this process. >> as he opponented out, the irony of all this is the fbi did are reveal the hillary clinton investigation and they never revealed a word about the trump investigation before the election. so, in fact, if you want to look at this, the way you could is
that the fbi hurt hillary and helped trump. so what is this all about? >> all those things are are true, but as jeremy points out, it's not going to matter to the people in that room today. >> this is no place for nuances. >> up next, the deadline for migrant children to be reunited with their parents has come and gone. so what now and will they ever be ru united? do they have a process? do they even know what to do? we'll get a live report from the u.s.-mexican border. "morning joe" is coming right back.
and now for the rings. (♪) i'm a four-year-old ring bearer with a bad habit of swallowing stuff. still won't eat my broccoli, though. and if you don't have the right overage, you could be paying for that pricey love band yourself. so get an allstate agent, and be better protected from mayhem. like me. can a ring bearer get a snack around here?
are you ready to take your then you need xfinity xfi.? a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. week ago, the department of homeland security released a joint statement stating that the trump administration has completed reunification of the eligible children under the age of 5 who were separated from their parents at the southern
border. but the administration said earlier this week that not all of the 103 very young children who were in their custody are able to be reunited. "the wall street journal" reports that the administration plans to ask a judge to consider giving asylum seeking parents arrested at the border a choice of agreeing to remain in custody with their children during immigration proceedings or release the children to authorities to be placed with a sponsor. after president trump addressed the migrant crisis by declaring don't come to our country illegally, vice news relays the story of a 27-year-old man named jose who requested asylum and did not cross the border illegally, but was still separated if his 3-year-old son in mid-may. he was told was being taken to the bathroom. they were reunited this week. the "l.a. times" has errored
many asylum seeking families who presented themselves legally had been separated. mariana, what have you heard? >> mika, we came here on the ground to see if these reunifications are actually going to happen because we saw the administration really struggle to reunify the youngest kids, the 103 under 5. and i just want to run through these numbers quickly with you first. that statement put out this morning by hhs. so out of the 103 kids under 5, they were able to reunify 57 as of 7:00 a.m. this morning. 46 of the kids, mika, are not eligible for reunification. that's either because their parents were deported without
them. we know of 12 parents that have been deported without their kids or there were safety concerns regarding the parents or the kids were brought here with someone who wasn't actually their mom or dad. but this is just the preview, mika. this paints a picture at the very daunting deadline ahead in two weeks' time for this administration to be able to reunify more than 2000 of the other children. that's why we came here and we've been reporting in front of the detention facility where 400 of these mostly migrant mothers separated from their kids are being detained in what one lawyer referred to as a prison. we were not allowed inside, so we talked to this volunteer lawyer, jody goodwin. she goes in every other day to try and talk to these mothers. she is our eyes and ears in there. and i asked her, have you seen any movement towards these reunifications happening? she said there is absolutely no knowledge of this happening and these mothers are getting
increasingly distraught because not only are they having to try to get back together with their kids, but they're trying to process their asylum claims in parallel. this is how she described the heart wrenching process. let's listen. >> the government puts every obstacle that you can imagine in front of these individual asylum seekers to that they will give up. they want them to take a deport. they tell them, if you give up your asylum claim, we'll reunify you with your child. that's extortion. extortion for the body of a child. that's inhumane. it's inconceivable, but that's what our government is doing. >> extortion for the body of a child. it goes back to "the washington post" reporting that you mentioned at the top of our conversation here. and one thing that is sort of bewildering to us, m i ka, is
why these mothers are being held here in a place that is not fit for children, right? kids can't be housed there. so if the mothers are in there and the kids are scattered in shelters all over the country, it is hard to reconcile where and when these reunifications are going to happen in a timely manner. >> mariana, thank you so much. zaineb, can you explain a little bit the difference between people's view of america and our values and the rest of the world and how this policy, perhaps, takes our value and deteriorates it in terms of who we are. >> values are the exact right question. if we are reporting the same news about some other country, all of america, republican and democrats, will be horrified at this other country. and now this is happening in america. so let's remember a few things. one is what does asylum seekers mean? your life must be in hell as someone who is an immigrant
myself in this cup. your life must go. you go through hell before you decide to leave your country. because nothing is better than the stability of your own home. so people who are asking asylum here, they are really risking their safety, their stability, their well being, their health and they believe that this is the country that provides freedom, democracy, liberty, respect, all of these things. we are losing these values regardless of which party, again, we're losing these values. so that's one thing. second thing, the terminology that we're using about these kids, catch and release? this is inhumane terminologies the administration is using. and a lot of us are using. this is how you do fishing, not how you deal with immigrants or with asylum seekers who have been tortured and risk all these things. and so we are losing values and these values we all have to fight for it. this is not about parties. this is about our humanity. and we are losing aspects of that. >> let's bring in now democratic
congressman joaquin castro of texas, a member of the house foreign affairs committee. first, congressman, i want to get your thoughts on the separation policy, what we're with seeing at the border. we got news today that hhs that 57 of the 103 children have been reunified. the other 46 do not qualify under the standards set by hhs. can you help americans at home who don't have time to study in and out of this process is why this takes so long. if you have a child and a parent, why has it been weeks and weeks and weeks that these kids have been separated? >> it's a fair question, but it's very hard for me to do that. like millions of americans, i'm baffled by that myself. not only did the trump administration make a decision to inhumanely separate young children from their mothers and fathers, but at the time that they did it, it's become very clear that there was no plan in place to either keep track of the children and the parents which we've asked for from -- to
receive in congress and have not gotten, but there was also no plan in place to reunify these folks. and so that is why they basically have blown past the judge's deadline and these kids have been reunited with their parents. i asked a question in a hearing yesterday of the state department about the state department's role in all of this. because if you think about it, some of these parents have been deported and they may be sitting in guatemala. well, hhs doesn't have an outpost in those countries. it's the state department that has to help in the reunification process. >> congressman, it looks to a lot of people watching from the outside there are too many people standing around helpless. that they can't do anything themselves. and they're counting on you and the united states congress to bang down the door of hhs and dhs and get something done. what pressure can you continue to put on to see that these kids are finally reunited with their families? >> you're right. i think many members of congress
here feel that weight and that pressure of the nation basically asking us to respond. and so we're trying every angle. calling, writing letters, doing everything we can, badgering these folks. you've seen people in the streets protesting. marching. i mean, it's basically all hands on deck. >> jeremy. >> congressman, good morning. this is jeremy peters. so the cause of abolishing i.c.e. has become elevated as an issue on the left right now and i think a lot of people or a lot of politicians, people trying to run for office, are saying that, and i don't know that a whole lot of people really understand what that means to abolish i.c.e., given that i.c.e. does perform a lot of functions like combating drug trafficking and child pornography that i think we can all agree are essential. is this abolish i.c.e. debate constructive? where do you come down on it?
>> well, you know, i think what you're seeing is people's frustration with an organization, an agency, where there's been a lot of abuse, too much corruption and too much secrecy, like we're seeing now. so because of that, there's been a reaction to abolish i.c.e. but you're right, i.c.e. is a large federal agency. and it's not just an enforcement agency. they perform other functions like tracking down human traffickers. obviously, you're not going to get rid of that function. what i do think we need to do is take the enforcement and removal part of what they do and go start over and place it somewhere else. i also think we got to continue to have this discussion. i disagree with folks who basically want to put this discussion in the corner and leave it alone because it may be too politically hot. nothing ever changes if you avoid topics that are tough to talk about, so i'm grad we're talking about it. >> so i want to turn to the president's convulsive diatribe press conference at the nato summit. full of lies and then ending
withblinderring answer that didn't make any sense. there are a lot of problems with that press conference, and what we saw was the president doing that on the world stage, but also congress saying no, but also republicans saying no, nato is important, no, mr. president, we're going to push back. what can democrats do to make their republican counterparts feel more comfortable about standing up to this president when he is clearly out of line, when something is clearly wrong and not right? what give, what negotiating tool, what space can democrats give republicans to do this? >> look, we've tried over and over to work with republicans. some of us have worked with us on specific issues. issues where i know that some of
them sometimes vehemently disagree with the president. but you got to realize, because we're in a political season and you still have some primaries that are coming u and republicans are deathly afraid of president trump turning the republican base on them, it makes it very tough. not only on domestic issues but also on issues of foreign affairs. and i'll tell you, this president, being about as destructive as you can be in terms of our alliances around the world, and i think what you're going to see and what we are seeing is nations start to slowly turn away from the united states and seek allies and partners elsewhere. >> all right, thank you very much. i wonder what's your take away? >> people in the streets of turkey, germany, all of that, looking at establishing new alliances in here. some of these alliances may not be in our interest. he's endorsing. he is actually popularizing not
only putin but the man who is practically a dictator in turkey. american values stood for some things. these are being eroded right now. when they are being discredited, new alliances are happening. these alliances are against american interests. we have to remember, nato was the first group of people who stood up for america right after september 11th. natue in all of its wars, all of its political, international debate. and so now we are actually jeopardizing that. so this is what -- erdogan, for example, there's a picture of president trump working with erdogan who is practically a dictator right now. >> that's who he found himself walking with. >> actually what he doesn't realize, he's giving credibility to these authoritarian leaders who then legitimize themselves even much more in their own
countries and in their own regions. so we are losing far more on the long term than we may think we are right now. >> this president does understand the symbiymbolic nat of his actions. >> you were talking about truth a few minutes ago. or maybe it was a few hours ago. it's been a long morning. the president came out for 40 minutes and made a grand statement he'd gone and shaken up nato. france president macron comes out right after and says "we did no such thing." this is the age we live and it's going to keep rolling this way because he's not going to change. >> yes, yes. >> all right, forthcoming "freedom is an inside job, owning our darkness and our light to heal ourselves and the world." look forward to that. i got a preview. the president still has hours worth of events today in the uk. stay with msnbc for all the fast-moving developments and some big events tomorrow during "morning joe" and "morning joe" first look. that does it for us this
morning. stephanie ruhle picks up the coverage in just three minutes. across the country, we walk. carrying flowers that signify why we want to end alzheimer's disease. but what if, one day, there was a white flower for alzheimer's first survivor? what if there were millions of them? join us for the alzheimer's association walk to end alzheimer's. register today at alz.org/walk. 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.
it's a high-tech revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed. it intelligently senses your movement and automatically adjusts on each side to keep you both comfortable. and snoring? how smart is that? smarter sleep. to help you lose your dad bod, train for that marathon, and wake up with the patience of a saint. the new sleep number 360 smart bed, from $999. smarter sleep will change your life. metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- mbc, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women
have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my mbc with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio.
hi there, i'm stephanie ruhle, with a lot to cover this morning, starting with a fact check. president trump holds an impromptu press conference after two days of very tense meetings. forcefully reaffirming america's agreement to the nato alliance. after telling members if they did not spend more, well, the u.s., we'd be doing our own thing. >> nato now is really a fine-tuned machine. people are paying money that they never paid before. and the united states is being treated much more fairly. >> and any minute now, former fbi agent peter strzok will be on capitol hill to testify. as the house turns up the pressure on lisa page for her to appear as well. >> she has an obligation to come and testify. a subpoena to testify i