documents. they have, they are nuclear power unlike iran. they are not going to give it up. >> no. i guarantee it. i will never talk about north korea again if it turns out that they give up their weapons as a precondition. i don't see it happening. >> thank you. anderson is next. >> thanks for joining us, there is a lot to get to tonight. new insight from everything from donald trump jr.'s meeting to the hush money. we begin with breaking news on whether or not special counsel robert mueller can indict a sitting president. rudy giuliani what he says was told about a possible indictment. what did giuliani tell you? >> reporter: he told me that mueller's team informed trump's

team orally, not written form, that they have concluded that the justice department can't indict a sitting president. this is a conclusion based on existing justice department guidelines. guidelines that have been in place since the nixon years. at that time the office of the counsel department -- concluded that the president has a lot on his plate. and not something that should happen. the clinton administration reaffirmed those guidelines. it has never been challenged in court. ever. so it was not a given that mueller would follow these guidelines and a big question on whether he would try to challenge them if he had enough in his quiver that he thought he needed to use to potentially indict the president. but now what i am hearing from rudy giuliani is that the mueller team made clear they are not going to go there

>> the sniignificance of this t the team, does rudy giuliani think they are in the clear here? why would they need to interview him if he was not going to be indicted for a crime? >> to be clear, rudy giuliani, he would not, he says over and over again, as do other members of the president's legal team that he did nothing wrong. the answer to your question is this does not mean that the president is in the clear. because just because the the justice department guidelines don't allow for the indictment of a sitting president, it doesn't mean that we won't see the findings that robert mueller has, could be pretty incriminating potentially against the president. we understand that at the end of the investigation, robert mueller will have to do a

report. and they have to give that information over to capital hill. if it is something that really requires the attention of the united states congress in particular, the house of representatives and because constitutionally they are the ones that would start potential impeachment proceedings then you might see it go that far. we are not there yet. a lot way of saying the president in no way shape or form he is in the clear. as to what the special counsel wants to ask the president and the trump team hasn't been able to get back because they don't know exactly the details of what robert mueller wants to know. >> when giuliani came on board, didn't he say, in two weeks we will get an idea for this. it has been more than two weeks. >> yes, and that was his hope and he told me he thought that was going to happen and now they

are clearly in a holding pattern. the trump team doesn't want any potential interview to happen until after what we expect the summit in mid-june. but hoping to get the ball rolling in conversations. having said that, nobody on the trump team thinks that donald trump should do an interview and that is another thing they are preparing for. what if the special counsel's team say we demand an interview and they send a subpoena. and it would be a lengthy process if that happens. but they don't know if they are there. >> i want to bring in john dean, carrie cordero and maggie haberman. is it possible that juliani is giving this interview and talking about this to get this narrative out there. from a legal standpoint, i have

heard several legal analyst say it is not law. but didn't somebody during the ken starr time write a different legal opinion. >> we don't know if rudy giuliani is an accurate representation. if it is correct that in fact the special counsel's office has told them that they are adopting the view in the prevailing justice department. that a sitting president would not be indicted. that might play into what the president might have brought in impeachment counsel recently, if that timing matches up. there are different opinions in independent counsel memoranda.

the prevailing rule is that the sitting president cannot be indicted. but there was, you are correct, there was a different memoranda that was written during the time of the starr investigation. all of these memoranda that were written in the justice department were historical. written in the '70s, and some in the late ''90s. not written specific under the regulations of the special counsel versus some old independence special counsel. have they conducted their own legal analysis. >> john dean, i know you are

familiar with rudy giuliani siting to dana. what do you make what he is arguing here? >> well, i think he is suggesting that well, first of all, he is drawing out in his argument that the department of justice is going to follow the existing policy. that policy is indeed historical. it happened first in 1973 when spiro a spiro agnew was subject to a criminal charge for bribery as vice president. and the department of justice then issued a first opinion, olc saying no mr. agnew, you are wrong. we can indict you, we can indict the president. so giuliani is put it ting it o there that it is not in his

favor. this is a counterintelligence investigation as well as potential criminal investigation. so they really want him for the broadest of reasons. >> maggie, is this paradoxically an incidence where robert mueller's past could help the president? >> that is what the president's people are hoping for. i don't know what rudy giuliani said is what happened. i know that is his presentation of what happened. when i spoke to him. and i am assuming he had the same conversation with dana. he described it to me when this came up in their meeting two weeks or so ago with mueller's team, mueller did not say they were going to adhere to the doj guidelines. so assuming all of that is true,

yes, i think the reading that the president's people have had for some time, his legal team and his broader group of advisers is that mueller has a history of being cautious and history and a more conservative reader of the law who is not going to want to go ahead and break new ground. and they assume, if you can't indict, then you can't issue a subpoena. i think the chances based on my reporting of an interview having voluntarily are smart. >> you say that based on the latest you are hearing. >> what i hear from people, is that while giuliani continues to keep this door open, because they don't want to look like they are snubbing mueller, there is literally no one on the president's team except occasionally the president who

thinks he should sit for this interview. >> i definitely heard the same thing, and these are connected, the whole notion of a subpoena versus the question of whether the president could be indicted and gloria borger talked to another source familiar with the legal plans by the president who said this notion, this question, what do you think, can the president be indicted. was brought, this was leading them to this for the explicit reason of trying to make the argument well if that is the case, then you have no right to subpoena him. >> this is exactly what i heard. >> so carrie cordero, from a legal standpoint, is that a solid arguments. if there is concern about mueller issuing a subpoena, the

trump team arguing if they want to fight the subpoena which it seems like they would, the argument to the court would be there is no need for a subpoena if there is no underlying crime, that would be an indictable crime. can a subpoena be issued even if an indictment is not possible to be tendered? >> as dana said at the opening of the show, none of this has been ruled on by the supreme court whether or not a sitting president can be indicted or receive a subpoena. so because these are actions and indictment that couple out of the grand jury, then an argument can be made that they can be linked together. i would also add that the legal analysis that would need to be conducted on either of these issues really is specific to which particular potential crime we are talking about and what

role the president was in at the time. the analysis would be different if the special counsel is looking at activities that took place during the course of the campaign. this goes to russian collusion type activities but cooperation or any kind of coordination that took place with the russian influence effort on the investigation. if a different type of analysis would need to be conducted if what they are looking at is whether or not an indictment can be launched on obstruction, in particular whether or not the president's exercise of his constitutional authority, of his presidential authority could be abused and so for example, on obstruction, so the specific example would be you know, the firing of director comey which the president's team would likely argue was simply an exercise of his authority, whether or not that could be found to be an abuse. >> maggie, i want you to reiterate what you said based on

your reporting, that there is nobody currently on the president's team except occasionally the president himself who talks about actually sitting down for an interview. >> right. they talk about an idea of keeping things going with mueller. look, if mueller's team came back and said yes, we are willing to narrow it down to these three topics, then i think you might hear a deeper conversation. but since nobody there generally believes that is what the special counsel is likely to do, they see little value in going forward. one of the reasons, if not the plain one that john dowd quit, is that he did not agree with the president's desire to go with the interview. everybody is with john dowd and there is again, just a president who at times sounds a boastful note and talks about who wants to be interview and in private

seems to get this is a hot stove. everybody stick around. we are getting. details ahead. the president's new financial disclosure released. why it wasn't disclosed previously. before nexium 24hr mark could only imagine... a peaceful night sleep without frequent heartburn waking him up. now that dream is a reality. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? what? directv gives you more for your thing.

your... quitting cable and never looking back thing. directv is rated #1 in customer satisfaction over cable. switch to directv and now get a $100 reward card. more for your thing. that's our thing. call 1.800 directv. ♪ ♪ keep your insights from prying eyes, so they won't be used by anyone but you. the ibm cloud. the cloud for smarter business. the ibm cloud. with tcalled audible.le app you can listen to the stories you love while doing the things you love, outside. binge better. audible.

feeclaritin and relief fromwsy symptoms caused by over 200 allergens. like those from buddy. because stuffed animals are clearly no substitute for real ones. feel the clarity. and live claritin clear. huge day in washington regarding the russian investigation. the senate judicial committee dumping thousands of documents. the so-called tower meeting. his and the white house's explanations for that meeting change as you know multiple

times but the transcripts released today are giving new insight into the reality. regarding phone calls to one unknown person immediately after the meeting was set up. jim sciutto has details. >> reporter: transcripts make clear that the 2016 trump tower meeting with russians trump's son was expecting the russians to supply dirt on hillary clinton. this is despite president trump his son and others repeatedly claiming otherwise. after some small talk, began by saying something in effect, so you have some information to us. admitted that he was quote listening to information about hillary clinton adding quote, i have no way of assessing where it came from but i was willing to listen. this is a direct contradiction

of the blatantly misleading story put out by the white house. those interviewed say however that the russians did not deliver the promised dirt and focused on their remission of removing sanctions. saying that a discussion began to infuriate jared kushner because it was so unfocused. jared kushner who was sitting next to me, appeared somewhat agitated by this and said i have no idea what you are talking about. don jr. testified that the meeting happened 20 to 30 minutes. donald junior said he believes there is a delta among the original purchase and what took

place. don junior said he did not explaining that he wouldn't bring him anything unsubstantiated especially from a guy like rob before i knew what it was about myself. don junior made an 11 million phone call to a blocked number. asked if he remember who the call was, he said he doesn't. a full year later, after the new york times first broke the existence of the meeting, the white house claims the meeting was primarily will adoptions. >> i never spoke to my father

about it he said. but the white house has acknowledged that the president himself took part in crafting the misleading response. >> the president weighed in as any father was. >> so what do we know about the followup after the meeting? >> well we learn from these transcripts that rob goldstein, this british pub list in november he began e-mail the russians and others about setting up a followup to the meeting. we know the russian lawyer who was in that room as well, she reached out to the trump campaign after the election again to follow up what was discussed in that meeting. so again, here, and apologies to folks at home who might have trouble keeping up the

explanations. the true focus of the meeting was denied and that statement about it being about adoptions and the idea that it was a one-off and that appears to be the fact they look to arrange a follow up to that meeting in trump tower as well. >> appreciate the details. back to carrie cordero, john dean, and maggie haberman. >> i had a different perspective on it. i agree there were a number of stories that appeared in conflict that we heard at the time. and i didn't see a ton in this transcript at least for don junior that had not been reported previously. a lot of that detail has been out. however, i think what you were going to see, a lot of members of the senate primarily democrats focus on is areas where he had no recollection.

for instance he had no recollection whether he spoke to his father about the meeting is the giant take-away. one specific sentence where he explained he didn't speak to his father in the course of drafting this statement which his father had a hand in. board air force one in response to the time's question about his meeting. and he said that he didn't do that because he didn't want to involve his father in something that he had nothing to do with. and then made a phone call to a blocked number and then his father has a blocked number. the transcript in seeing them in print is different than what we heard dribbling out from the testimony but it is going to raise questions yet again that existed for the year. jo >> he is not denying that he spoke to his father. that is a critical question here. whether or not donald trump at

that point knew about this meeting, because it is pretty significant. it would be hard to believe that don jr. didn't mention it to his father because in that meeting and in the e-mail he learned that the russian government was backing his father's campaign according to the e-mail and had dirt on hillary clinton according to that e-mail. >> it would be remarkable if he hadn't told his father. everybody i think just by its counter intuitive to think that he didn't call his father. and an i don't recall response is not a good one. let me tell you about nixon's chief of staff who had memory problems. he was indicted for perjury. i counted some 60 occasions in this testimony where don junior either could not recall or

didn't know and was hedging. >> carrie, is it difficult to prove somebody knows if theys saying they can't recall. >> the way it would be proved is the testimonies of other witnesses. as it relates to the crafting of the statement board air force one trying to explain the trump tower meeting. it is not going to be just don junior's word for it. hope hicks was also involved in this. and there are other individuals who will be or have been interviewed and what will become clear over time to investigators is whether or not those different interviews, people have different recollections or maybe some people have more detailed recollection than

others. but clear that his interview with the senate judiciary committee was very heavily lawyered interview. >> maggie, it does seem to be a convenient thing to forget about. i don't know how many people who have blocked numbers or people that they call regularly who have blocked numbers. he seemed to remember other specifics about other matters. >> for the reasons you just said, it is going to raise lingering questions and i think that he is going to continue to get pressed on that issue. i do want to say one thing about something john dean said before, i agree it is counter intuitive to agree that he did not tell his father. the one thing that is worth bearing in mind about having donald trump as your father, the condition i could see it that he didn't tell him, would be that

he didn't tell him before him or tell him after because this meeting did not yield anything. if really there was nothing actual actually offered of substance, then i could see aworld where he did not personally tell us father because his father would be irritated about that. >> even if his father was learning the person in the russian government was backing his campaign. >> i think it would not have been offered as one piece of information. it is impossible to know what was said. it is not as outlandish a possibility. >> there is no privilege for donald trump jr. no employee, no privilege for a child, right? >> no. no executive privilege and one of the reasons i lean to the fact that it is counter intuitive is that between three and six days after this meeting

in new jersey, donald trump goes out and promises his audience on a big speech on hillary clinton. he never gave that speech based on new information. and that indicates that he knew what was coming. >> thank you very much. next, a new financial filing show he did indeed pay back michael cohen. and that filing has been referred to rod rosenstein. one question we will talk about with michael avenatti next. a hospital in bermuda. a hospital in bermuda. what? what happened? i got a little over-confident on a moped. even with insurance, we had to dip into our 401(k) so it set us back a little bit. sometimes you don't have a choice. but it doesn't mean you can't get back on track.

great. yeah, great. i'd like to go back to bermuda. i hear it's nice. yeah, i'd like to see it. no judgment. just guidance. td ameritrade. that skills like teamwork, attention to detail, and customer service are critical to business success. like the ones we teach here, every day. ♪ ♪ ♪ raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens ♪ ♪ bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens ♪ ♪ brown paper packages tied up with strings ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ these are a few of my favorite things ♪ i think, keep going, and make a difference.

at some point, we are going to be able to beat als. because life is amazing. so i am hoping for a cure. i want this, to uh, to be a reality. um, yeah.

well there is more breaking news, a new financial disclosure by president trump. for the first time the president is confirming that he paid back michael cohen the fixer. what the report doesn't say was the repayment was for the $130,000 that cohen facilitated with stormy daniels. the office of government ethics have sent the financial documen documen documen documen documen documents rod rosenstein. rudy giuliani said he first

revealed this on hannity to get in front of the filing. >> not entirely. the reason he disclosed on hannity had little to do with the filing. and he also knew that documents had been obtained in connection with the fbi raids that were going to make those previous statements falsities and the problem is that they didn't try to get out in front of it when they should have which was months ago. >> the other thing that rudy giuliani has said is that the president himself didn't really learn about these repayment until about ten-days before either it was the hannity or "fox and friends," interview he gave back-to-back. we don't know when the president became aware of the payments.

>> well it is worse than that, according to the financial disclosure that was filed today, the reimbursements occurred in 2017 by their own admission. and the president signed that under penalty of perjury. >> i guess giuliani's claim was he didn't know what those payments were for. would have signed that as money he would have routinely sends to michael cohen. >> that doesn't make sense. we have heard story about story. i was on this show with david h schwartz on many occasions and the money was never reimbursed and michael cohen did this on his own. >> there is no evidence at this point of when the president became aware of the payments. >> we don't know if the president knew about it as it was happening or before, at this point, you have no evidence in

your lawsuit that you have been able to come across that indicates when the president knew. >> i don't understand what the argument is. what the president signed today states the reimbursements were made in 2017. i don't understand how does somebody reimburse a payment and not know about it. >> as i recall from an interview on erin burnet, he says mr. cohen took many things like this. and it was a retainer. >> i don't buy it. i don't think the american people are going to buy it. they have heard story upon story. this whole thing doesn't make any sense. and also, if you think if you look at michael cohen's statement in march of this year where he said he facilitated the

sae statement and did not receive reimbursement. that is deceptive. because he had already been fully reimbursed by mr. trump fully. >> he said, and i think it was said, total of 460,000 that the president had given to michael cohen in various payments. and this financial disclosure talks about 100 to $250,000. >> again, every time m mr. giuliani, the truth is elusive. >> my next guest wrote an op-ed

that the president needs to come clean. i want to talk to the former general counsel. the fact -- the former director of the government ethics says the referral is tantamount to the criminal referral. >> we have looked at the president's financial disclosure, he says that he didn't need to report the debt to mr. cohen and we disagree and note that although you provided information about it this year, he provided none last year and the office of government ethics sent that to the department. you may find this to be of interest. and that is absolutely equivalent to a criminal referral particularly if the office of government ethics

decides what does or doesn't need to be reported, the president doesn't get to decide that and hasn't provided any counter argument as to why the agency determination was wrong. >> what do you make of what he said? >> there are two issues. one is the issue that mr. avenatti raised that there is a discrepancy between the president's sworn statement and personal financial disclosure. so that is one issue. but the other issue is the legal one that you know, his conduct is being referred to the department of justice for potential prosecution. >> how come the office of government ethics refers to something like this. >> not common at all. the ultimate letter to the department of justice is very, very out of the ordinary. you know, what appears to have happened is the president tries

to sneak in the debt to mr. cohen, footnote on page 40-something of his report. since you provided enough information we'll let it go. but then of course sent the letter to the department of justice also saying note this want reported last year as it should have been. >> why wouldn't the president have to disclose the exact amount. saying it was anywhere between $100,001. and then 250,000. >> the use of the range is okay. but the discrepancy is hard to explain. it may be that the number mr. giuliani gave included not just the 130,000 repayment but other legal fees that mr. trump was paying to michael cohen for

his work. >> or possible other deals that michael cohen was making for the president. >> absolutely if that is the case, those should be reported this year or last year depending on the finding. >> thank you very much. reported code name for it has ties to a legendary rock band. i will speak to one of the reporters who broke this story next. ess. can you send that to me? yeah. our smartphone plan gives you talk text and data with unlimited carryover for just $15 a month, no contract. all with nationwide coverage... tracfone. for moments that matter. all with nationwide coverage... a hilton getaway means you get more because... you get another day in paradise. get a sunset on a sunday. get more stories to share. get more from your summer getaway with exclusive hilton offers. book yours, only at hilton.com

and taking cared abof the boys.e zach! talk to me. it's for the house. i got a job. it's okay. dad took care of us. is part of a bigger picture.

that bigger picture is statewide mutual aid. california years ago realized the need to work together. teamwork is important to protect the community, but we have to do it the right way. we have a working knowledge and we can reduce the impacts of a small disaster, but we need the help of experts. pg&e is an integral part of our emergency response team. they are the industry expert with utilities. whether it is a gas leak or a wire down, just having someone there that deals with this every day is pretty comforting. we each bring something to the table that is unique and that is a specialty. with all of us working together we can keep all these emergencies small. and the fact that we can bring it together and effectively work together is pretty special. they bring their knowledge, their tools and equipment and the proficiency to get the job done. and the whole time i have been in the fire service, pg&e's been there, too. whatever we need whenever we need it. i do count on pg&e to keep our firefighters safe. that's why we ask for their help.

well the president likes to end his campaign rallies with a song you can't always get what you want. a different song from the stones that provided the code name. the code name cross fire hurricane. the "new york times" has a fascinated look. adam, can you explain what cross fire hurricane was and when it began? >> it was the fbi code name in the investigation of the russian meddling. and it came from a rolling stones song, "jumping jack flash." >> and when did it actually

begin? >> the investigation actually began july three 131st. >> i understand within hours of it opening agents were dispatched to london. >> shortly after that, strzok was on a plane and headed to london to interview an australian diplomat who had drinks with george papadopoulos, a campaign adviser and this was the same strzok who was having text messages with the woman who was dating. >> that is true, yes. >> based on your reporting, it doesn't seem like agents were willing to open up. >> it seems they were exhausted

from the hillary clinton. and they were not eager to jump back into another politically fraught investigation into a presidential candidate. >> and was this all initiated by the report about papadopoulos talking to the australian official? >> yeah. that was the genesis of this investigation when george papadopoulos, you know, had too much to drink and disclosed that he might have information about hillary clinton e-mail to this australian diplomat and the s l australians got concerned about that. and they thought this was too important. and they let an fbi agent sit down with this diplomat and mem moralized this person's conversation. >> i understand some of the doj

and the fbi think the agents could have been more aggressive in the investigation. >> strzok is an aggressive agent. and wanted to take steps that others were opposed to. they could have taken more overt steps or interviewed papadopoulos earlier. they could have interviewed carter page again. so i think there were discussions about whether they should take steps to do these interviews but they were worried they would leak. >> thanks very much. i appreciate it. >> the latest between the plan summit. next.

♪ ♪ keep your most valuable insights hidden from your competitors. the ibm cloud. the cloud for smarter business. the ibm cloud. at t-mobile, we don't just see uniforms. we see the people behind them. so we're committed to helping veterans through job training when their service ends... and to hiring 10,000 veterans and military spouses to be part of our workforce in the next 5 years. because no matter where you serve... or when you serve... t-mobile stands ready to serve you.

so we provide half-off on all family lines for military.

the trump administration is still trying to figure out what north korea men when the lead negotiator said his country wouldn't uni laterally give up the nuclear program if the sues

trying to drive them into a corner as the north threatened to cancel the summit between president trump and kim jong un. the president had this response today when asked about the standoff. >> we haven't seen anything. we haven't heard anything. we will see what happens. we'll see what happens. we'll see. time will tell. >> well, even as he was saying that, white house press secretary sarah sanders tomd press that the white house wasn't caught off guard which put a speed bump in the talks. >> what is the reaction to the north korea saying they won't be boxed in. >> we fully expected this. the president is used to and ready for tough negotiations. and if they want to meet we'll be ready. and if they don't that's okay too. >> you said this was fully expected did you believe they would pull back at some point. >> we know this is kind of i guess a standard function that can often happen. and you know, we're not

surprised by it. but we're going to continue moving forward. >> earlier i spoke about this with david axelrod, a former senior adviser to president obama and fareed zakaria. now that north korea is saying they're not forced into forced nuclear abedinment. it seems their definition of denuclearization is different than the rest of the world. >> the crucial thing is what you said anderson, as we've all been saying. the odd thing about this impasse is that perfectly predictable, indeed predicted. this is why many of us cautioned that perhaps the best way to approach this summit would be to start at lower level negotiations, figure out what exactly they mean by denuclearization which they have traditionally always meant first you end the u.s. south korea alliance. you get rid of american troops. then we feel less threatened and don't need as many nuclear weapons, et cetera. >> that's traditionally the

preamble to the summit. traditionally there is legwork and meetings before the two leaders get together. >> historically presidential summits have been the cap stone of a long period of negotiation, not the beginning point. when they are the beginning point you end up in the situation we are in. if this falls apart where do you go next? how do you restort start things in it leaves everyone bewildered and becomes dangerous. it's also why you don't set expectations high. donald trump has been showering praise on kim jong un for absolutely no reason. he hadn't made changes in policy. trump made the concession which was after 20 years the u.s. president agreed to meet with north korea before it denuclearized. we made a concession trump showered praise on him when you reach the perfectly predictable impasse nobody seems to know what td. it looks like amateur hour at the white house. >> david, president trump makes

it clear he is undertaking something here that no other president has been able to do and frankly willing to do. he hasn't batted down the possibility of winning the nobel peace prize for it how much does he have riding on the summit taking place? >> well, he -- too much is what i would say. i think that he -- his behavior has raised the stakes for himself. and one of my big concerns about this whole thing from the moment that he signalled apparently on his own that he was ready to have this meeting is that he now is under pressure to produce something from such a meeting. and kim is aware of that as well which may be part of why he is -- he is balking, i mean the north koreans have a long history, to paraphrase a friend of mine they think the shortest distance between two points was is a curve. the notion this was a straight line into productive negotiations wasn't right. but trump has put himself in a

vulnerable position by raising the stakes so high for himself and standing at rallies showered with nobel chants and something. he needs to produce something from this meeting. i think he is creating the sense that maybe he can't walk away from the table. >> it's interesting what you said fareed that he gave away this big card which the north koreans wanted which is a face-to-face meeting between the president of the united states and the leader of north korea without getting anything in return. tom friedman from the times just yesterday saying the same thing about moving the embassy to jerusalem that this was something that you know the -- that netanyahu clearly wanted and the president just agreed to do it without getting anything from netanyahu in terms of stopping you know the -- anymore settlements built in certain areas of the west bank or whatever to further the peace process. >> exactly and trump's northbounding style seems far from being the master of strategic approach that he is often aclaimed it is it seems

impulsive, somewhat emotional, not well thought through. as david says it raises the stakes. he has to get a deal. here is the killer he needs a deal better than the iran deal because he just rejected the iran deal which means no nuclear weapon was be 98% of enriched uranium has been to be shipped out or destroyed. plutonium pagway dismanteled that is a tough zpleel how do you get a deal like that in a meeting even if it's a day or two between donald trump the president and kim jong un you have to have all the issues knowing the issues hammering is out and in extensive ways. >> the president has it backwards. he is approaching this like a television show, like a real estate deal. it's far more complex. abeven if he were to strike some sort of deal on coming out of that june meeting, there would be a very complex set of

discussions to define what it actually meant. >> fred zakaria, david axelrod ngs thanks. with this to get to including the breaking news on rudy giuliani with dana bash about his discussions the robert mueller investigation team. e that skills like teamwork, attention to detail, and customer service are critical to business success. like the ones we teach here, every day. and customer service are critical to business success. what? directv gives you more for your thing. your... quitting cable and never looking back thing.

directv is rated #1 in customer satisfaction over cable. switch to directv and now get a $100 reward card. more for your thing. that's our thing. call 1.800 directv. no one thought much of itm at all.l people said it just made a mess until exxonmobil scientists put it to the test. they thought someday it could become fuel and power our cars wouldn't that be cool? and that's why exxonmobil scientists think it's not small at all. energy lives here.

good evening thanks for joining us for the second hour of 360. one of the many questions looming over the mueller investigation and the white house can the special counsel diet the sitting president. the president's lawyer rudy giuliani got an answer. dana bash spoke with him and talks with us now. explain what giuliani had to say. >> he told me that through a conversation that the trump legal team had -- with the mueller special counsel team, it -- it was made clear orally, giuliani said, that the special counsel is going to adhere to historical justice department guidelines. what the guidelines say is basically that a sitting u.s. president can't be indicted. this goes back to the nixon administration. it was reaffirmed in the justice department of the clinton administration. and