>> thanks for joining us on this wednesday. >> let's do it tomorrow. "outnumbered" starts now. >> the battling is intensifying over california sanctuary law. citizens have taken action against the measure that shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement officers. now the state attorney general not ruling out arresting those in law enforcement who don't comply with sanctuary law. this is "outnumbered" i'm harris faulkner. former director of strategic communications for hillary clinton adrienne elrod and katie pavlich and in the center seat, fox news senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano is with

us. >> we got a lot of news. a growing wave of resistance against california state sanctuary law. right now, local law enforcement officers are not allowed to communicate with federal immigration officers. that means they cannot warn the feds when a criminal illegal immigrant is being released from custody that day. now, the orange county sheriff is finding a work around. they are posting the prison release dates of all their inmates regardless of immigration status. california's attorney general suggested that he'll punish those who he perceives to be in violation of the sanctuary law. watch. >> state law is state law. it's my job to enforce state law. i will do so. >> that mean laws in the sheriff's department? >> i think i just answered that. >> orange county undersheriff is responding. he said his department is not

doing anything illegal. >> they were threatening. my hope they will read the language of the law that was passed. says in there what we can and cannot do. we cannot communicate with i.c.e. which is a challenge. it's returning us back to a pre9/11 condition legislatively where we can't talk with other federal law enforcement agencies. >> just last night the orange county board of supervisors vetoed unanimously to sue california over the sanctuary law. >> i came over from our colleague show on fbn where we said california is about to suck second from the -- succeed from the union. it seems that way. here's what the supreme court said.

the state legislature can still state employees what state law means and how to behave. i will defend authority to regulate the people that work for it. posting a sign either on the internet on on the jail who is being released from jail is protected by the first amendment. that cannot be interfered with by california law. under california law it's illegal for the sheriff to call up i.c.e. and say, so and so is about to be released. we know you are looking for him. it is not illegal for the sheriff to post list of everybody he's about to release. >> kennedy and i have lived in california. there's a lot of watch what california does because they are so big. there's a lot of information that goes across state lines law enforcement officials along the border. if you're in nevada and you know somebody getting released, can

you say it is happening from your state? i know this guy is getting released in california? >> the law does not restrain none state employees from speaking. >> police in california call their buddies in a different state, you all put this out. >> no, not under the california law. in my opinion that's protected feature. in the opinion of the attorney general of california, that would violate the california statute. very dangerous when the government gets in the business of regulating speech because speech is so integral to our humanity and we take it for granted that we can see whatever thought comes to our mind. but california has. the original california statute interfered with private speech by saying if you own a business and i.c.e. comes knocking you may not tell i.c.e. what you know about the immigration status someone visited who business -- visited your business. that's unconstitutional.

federal judge will validate it. >> kennedy you were recently in california, your former home. is it fair to call a sanctuary state? >> i don't think we have a definition more that. what's interesting about california is it is somassive. it is so big. there has been talk about succession for a long time. or at least submitting up the state. they've been talking about splitting up the north and south. >> what do you do with hollywood? i'm kidding move on. >> there are dimp ways of living -- different ways of living in california. there's different ways of legislating and interpreting the law. aside from that we're asking the wrong questions. now the argument has gotten so absurd. people are so dug in on both sides we're really missing the

point of fixing the immigration system and trying to figure out why are we shielding people who are doing bad things. why aren't we encouraging people to come here and start businesses and raise their kids and help the united states flourish. >> on that principle, this idea that we are debating the rights of illegal immigrants violent criminal aliens and their ability to get away from law enforcement is insane and ridiculous. if you are united states citizen and you commit a crime the u.s. marshal service comes after you where you committed that crime. this idea we're shielding illegal immigrants, they make the argument we don't want the entire community they can't come forward. when you commit a crime as a u.s. citizen, you don't get to decide when to evade law enforcement. you face justice. here we are with california saying they're going to make sure that these people who are

committed these crimes violent ones sex with a minor and reoffenders. it's ridiculous to me. >> on the heels what katie saying what i hear you to be saying, we're talking about protecting people who are not american citizens at this point. >> i had this discussion on this couch with sanctuary cities. ultimately what local law enforcement what sheriff said. they want control of their local community.

>> somehow we've gotten to a disconnect. you can't protect people who want to harm others. >> they're not citizens. >> supreme court said, you probably agree with if, the federal government cannot endeer the state. the feds can't force the state employees to enforce federal law. what a sanctuary city is or sanctuary state, they are not going to resist the feds, can't keep you out, we're not going to work for you. >> clearly lot of discrepancy and federal versus state law here. that's the real issue there's got to be level where both situations are rectified. >> president trump is floating the idea to use the pentagon budget to fund the construction of border wall. president trump suggested the idea to white house officials, advisers and house speaker paul ryan. the president tweeted because of

the $717 billion gotten to erebuild the my tear our military is rich. building a great border wall with drugs, poison pouring in our country is all about national defense. build the wall. white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders was asked about that tweet yesterday. >> i'm not going to get into the specifics the wall continuing to be built currently. we will keep pushing forward until it's completed. >> of course candidate and now president trump has insisted that one way or another, mexico will pay for the border wall. kennedy, there is a lot of waste in the pentagon budget. is there enough to pay for the border wall? >> there's kind of enough. the problem is when you cut taxes and increase spending and this massive spending bill gets signed, something got to give. there's not a lot of new money

for $100 billion for construction of a wall. i got the -- got to come from somewhere. if it is a question of national security the president has a point. instead of creating some sort of new spending apparatus, go ahead and take the money that's already been allocated to the pentagon and use that if the wall gets built, i don't see that happening. >> that's under the thinking that it's defense. we saw ann coulter say, why no have the construction arm of the navy. that's all a question. but the m in that tweet does not stand for mexico. it stands for military. i wonder how this will raid with the president's base and independents and others who really believe the president when he said who was going to pay for this. military only means we're paying for it. >> i'm a person who is not in favor of the wall for a variety of reasons.

for the president's perspective, there's precedent for this. when federal government built the interstate highway system in the eisenhower administration where did that money come from? we're talking about highway from the george washington bridge and route 80. this highway would enable people to get in their cars and drive towards the center of the country should either of the coast will be attacked. it was used to justify the pentagon's budget to build something domestically. the president may actually be on to something here. if you think the wall is image of authoritarians. >> congress has to appropriate the funding. it still has to be appropriated by congress. >> constitution requires that. >> but the question i have for democrats, even if the president is going to make the argument

that's national security issue to build the wall on the united states border as a sovereign country, are democrats ever going to get on board? and republicans who only gave the president $1.6 billion in the latest budget deal for the wall. >> probably not. they probably not going to get on board with it. you -- for daca. we made it clear. kamala harris one of the most progressive senators, said i would support border funding if we can give daca recipients to path to citizenship. >> he said the democrats didn't follow through. did she say it loud enough? >> democrats don't control the white house or the congress.

>> ininnocent -- imminent domain. that is the mechanism that will slow it down. >> in texas private landowners will say, you pay me we'll have a discussion about whether you will take the land. >> i have a question about that. is there money in the wall budget to pay off those private landowners up to 1500 miles of border land in texas. it's like 80% of that is privately held. >> the budget that was signed last week to which lot of conservatives objected, paid for 25 miles of a wall that the president wants to be 2000 miles long. did not pay for any of the acquisition of real estate. you can't put a shovel into the earth until you own the earth. >> right. >> we'll stay on this one. it's a hot topic.

moving on now. new developments in the stormy daniels legal saga. her effort to have the president and his attorney testify under oath is now official. judge andrew napolitano will talk with us on whether this could happen and what we should expect. reaction from president trump to kim jong-un surprise trip to china. why the president appears to be sounding optimistic about their upcoming meeting and positive sign from the rogue nation. mercedes-benz glc...

...with its high-tech cameras and radar... ...contemporary cockpit... ...three hundred and sixty degree network of driver-assist technologies... ...and sporty performance... ...what's most impressive about the glc? all depends on your point of view. lease the glc300 for just $449 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

>> she received $130,000 from cohen. there is legal precedent for deposing a president. bill clinton gave deposition related to a sexual harassment lawsuit from paula jones. u.s. supreme court ruled that the constitution does not offer

sitting president significant protection from civil litigation. daniel's lawyer said he needs to get the president on record. watch. >> we want the truth. we want to know the truth about what the president knew, what he did about it. as it relates to this agreement, we'll test the truthfulness of mr. cohen's statements. we're confident when we get to the bottom, we're going to prove to the american people that they have been told a bucket of lies. >> an attorney who serves respondedly. calling the motion wreck reckless use of the system and keep himself relevant. this is politically motivated. judge, this is getting heated. >> be careful what you wish for. stormy daniels sues president trump in a state court to have a

state judge invalidate this agreement. the agreement is one that was negotiated by her former lawyer and mile cohen. donald trump's name does not appear in the agreement. his name is in there under a pseudonym, david dennisson. then trump's lawyers move the case to federal court. big mistake. federal judge has jurisdiction over the president. a state judge does not. now we have a sitting federal judge -- >> why did they do that? >> lot of lawyers are unfamiliar with the requirements of federal court. they will shy away from their own litigation when they're in unfamiliar forum. >> did the white house consider that she might do a different lawyer. >> nobody knew that was white house was involved in this decision. >> we don't know who made the decision. when michael cohen negotiated

the agreement, according to stormy daniels, he claimed he was not representing the president. now the agreement purports to protect the president. bottom line, as kennedy just said in the intro, the supreme court ruled 9-0 in paula jones versus bill clinton. the motion survived the motion to dismiss. the president has to participate in litigation. will stormy daniels lawyers get to depose donald trump on the validity of this hush money agreement prediction? yes. >> i guess the question is, when you do depose the president, they're asking for two hours of his time. are you really trying to get to the bottom of who was behind the nondisclosure agreement or you looking for ways to undo his presidency. >> i'm not sure what the end game of this is. it was consensual relationship

according to stormy daniels. she is now saying suing because she was called a liar. if an issue of defamation, he is a public figure. the bar is much higher for public figures than it is for a private person. that would be different than it was during the clint -- clinton administration. whether the president will be forced to do this, i'm not sure. i think because the bar was set so low, nobody actually cares. donald trump approval ratings are up by 8% in the last four weeks when all of these stories come out. >> highest ratings we saw for president clinton was during the time he wassis he was impeached. >> there is that danger. the president maybe unpopular especially with the left. i don't think there's a appetite to impeach the president over an nda. >> i do agree with that. public opinion is very important.

that's something this president has to contend with. >> is that different what they knew about donald trump at the ballot box? >> i don't. i don't think stormy daniels interview really changed minds. the more president continues to try to silence these women and attorney, that's where the court of public opinion comes in play. >> avenatti is playing pr role. >> he's trying to get a fancy show. >> new reaction from president trump to retire supreme court calling for the repeal of the second amendment. why the president said that will never happen. what americans think about it. big news coming out of historic meeting between north korea dictator and china's president. does this bring the world closer to peace and to the president getting some credit. we'll debate in a moment. the morning walk was so peaceful.

until... it... wasn't. don't let type 2 diabetes get between you and your heart.

even if you reach your a1c goal you are still at risk for heart attack or stroke. talk to your health care provider today about diabetic heart disease. and find out more at heartoftype2.com. your heart and type 2 diabetes. make the connection.

today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros

even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. ♪ come to my window ♪ ohh ♪ crawl inside ♪ wait by the light of the moon ♪ applebee's to go. order online and get $10 off $30. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. >> white house confirming north korean dictator kim jong-un met

with chinese president xi jinping during unofficial visit to beijing earlier this week. the news comes ahead planned face to face encounter with president trump. what is really getting attention now, china said kim pledged his compliment to denuclearization. president trump tweeted this morning. for years, and through many administrations, everyone said that peace and denuclearization of korean peninsula was not a small possibility. there's a good chance that kim jong-un will do what is right for his people and humanity. look forward to our meeting. this all comes amid big staff changes at the white house. with mike pompeo nominated at secretary of state, john bolton taking over national security advisor. here's retired -- >> i think president trump sees the initiative when he agreed so soon to meet him. i think he put his foot on the

accelerator. that's creating these conditions. >> judge, we saw a difference in the story. we knew about the train that kim jong-un will board. he haven't left his country in many years. >> look, kim jong-un is almost a puppet of the chinese. he's not going to meet president trump without there serious coordination. the chinese are not crazy about this. the beauty, the underlying, beneath the radar screen affect what president trump is doing is greater american influence on the korean peninsula. the chinese don't want that. they want our money, they don't want our influence or our politics. they would be little problematic if the two koreas were to unite under american constructed treaty. >> it mainstreams the situation with kim jong-un and china you're right, it helps to have a buddy that's under your heel.

if you mainstream that person with relations with america, it makes it more difficult for china. >> it's interesting to see this happening. i would be very skeptical of the chinese-north korean relationship. it's not necessarily in the benefit of the united states. china has been saying for years, they weren't for denuclearization of the peninsula. they wanted to push north korea in direction they would stop testing. they didn't want to take that out the question. they have very serious concerns about u.s. military presence on the peninsula and they want to negotiate around that. they want the united states to take a step back from their presence in the reasonable. that's going t -- region. they've been helping north korea to violate sanctions. >> giving them energy. you know what's interesting, we had governor richard on yesterday. this seems to go beyond or

around partisan line. there was agreement this was a huge step. last time we saw anything like it was botched disaster under clinton. >> what i will say, whatever has been working in the past hasn't worked. north korea remains a threat. this is new. governor bill richardson has been work this. there's important there's dialogue here. we got to take a step back. remember that president trump got to communicate with his foreign affairs and national security team. he cannot conduct diplomacy via twitter. >> some of that has worked to get us to the point where kim jong-un -- >> we don't know all the factors. >> if democratics wanted to succeed, mrs. pelosi do you want president to succeed with negotiations with kim jong-un. >> of course, yes i do. we all want that.

i would hope she would say that. >> i think that nancy pelosi despises the president so much. i think the president does lot of stuff wrong. i think here this is one of the areas where what he's doing seems to be manifesting in a positive direction. you're right about those fears of influence china and the united states. these lessons continue to repeat themselves. we saw in the korean war. we saw it in the vietnam war. now, there can be a peaceful transition out of nuclearization on the korean peninsula. that would be such a phenomenal step. this what we have to put party aside for the greater good and for peace moving forward. >> i couldn't agree more. majority of democrats would agree with that assessment.

>> president trump firing back after a former supreme court justice spoke out against the second amendment. actually he said why don't we get rid of that. could we see a change in the constitution? the president says no. attorney general jeff sessions telling the fbi director he's done with the justice department getting criticized over the way the fbi does business. stay close. >> until they get serious about it, the department of justice will blow it off. they are for years and they are doing it now. turn up your swagger game with one a day men's.

♪ get ready for the wild life a complete multivitamin with key nutrients,

plus b vitamins for heart health. your one a day is showing. powerful skincare,s now light-as-air a breakthrough moisturizer whipped for instant absorption feel a light-as-air finish in a flash new olay whips ageless 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. >> presidenpresident trump sayit

to bare arms is not going anywhere. he says outdated. stevens writing, concern that national standing army might pose threat to the security of the states led to the adoption of that amendment. today that concern is relic of the 18th century. the president tweeting, the second amendment will never be repealed service democrats would like to see this happen and despite the words yesterday of former supreme court justice stevens, no way. we need more republicans in 2018 and hold the supreme court. stevens -- here's lindsey graham. >> this is a very bad idea. i'm glad he's retired. he has right to his opinion. i'm up here to protect the second amendment not repeal it. i can't wait to hear what nancy pelosi says and other liberal democrat. see if they will stand with justice stevens or the constitution. >> what about that question of

former supreme court justice saying that entire piece of the constitution bill of rights should be taken away. >> as a person who studied and taught the constitution, i never seen or heard of this. particularly as you pointed out in your introduction to this segment, the justice who wrote a dissent in the case that define the right to keep and bear arms as a personal individual right. the mechanics are cumbersome. it would rare two third -- it would require two thirds vote of the house and senate. the president is correct. it's not going to happen. he is in my opinion, bitter that the dissent that he wrote in the heller case has remained a dissent. because federal judges have become to follow major opinion. that majority of opinion defines right to defend yourself. it's a natural right. even if there weren't a second amendment, you would still have

the right. it doesn't create the right. it prevents government from interfering. >> right to self-defense. which goes to justice stephen's point. the right to preserve your own life is sacred and that exist outside of law and would still be in existence. >> you done lot of work with anti-gun group. you done work with every town. you been heavily involved with the anti-gun rally. i'm sure you will not for repealing the second amendment. you don't are have to repeal the second amendment to make it impossible for people to exercise their rights through legislation and regulation that your groups are proposed. >> what the group that i worked with have proposed including the students in march for our lives, we want stronger gun safety laws. we want more background checks. we don't want an 18-year-old to

buy an ar15. that is what we're talking about here. what is not helpful for the justice to come forward and say, we should repeal the second amendment. i don't think that does anything to help the case. >> should 18-year-old be able to buy a handgun? >> i personally don't think so. i'm not going to get into somebody -- if you're a law-abiding citizen and you meet a number of requirements including your mental health, i don't think it should be an issue. i understand why lot of students don't want peers to by an ar15. >> don't the progressives want to be like europe. want the military and police have guns? >> i'm from arkansas. i grew up a family of hunters. i respect right to own a gun. >> that's not true. groups like every town openly come out and said we want

australian style, u.k. style -- which is what we're talking about here. when you talk about confiscating firearms from a citizenry, that's repealing the second amendment without repealing it. >> organizations like every town march for our lives. they want stronger gun laws. >> i was going to ask kennedy, she brought up, do you want them to be able to buy handgun. some states we can't. can we leave it to the market. they did have restrictions. >> that's fine. dick's sporting goods wants to amend their policies on who and how they sell certain items, i don't have a problem with that. i think punishing people because of their age, deciding when adulthood begins. if that's the metric, then you have to apply it everywhere. you have to apply to driving a

car and entering the military. >> i wounder if it addresser town issue if you let the market decide this. >> the market is a driving force. if you have dick's sporting goods and wal-mart and lot of corporations coming forward saying, if the law is not going to change, we will affect the change. >> we will move on to the next. the fbi is planning to double the number of agents who work on turning over documents to congress. attorney general jeff sessions criticizinged fbi over the current pace saying it's unacceptable. he only gotten a fraction of documents requested on the clinton e-mail probe. fisa surveillance abuses and the firing of former fbi director andrew mccabe. the turn over of subpoena

documents have been a problem. back in 2016, oversight committee chairman subpoenas the full clinton file. here he is this morning on fbi documents production. >> i think it's pathetic. the fbi put out a statement saying, they are looking at this request a request. it's a subpoena. the reality is, i issued a subpoena as the chairman of the oversight committee in september of 2016. you have devin nunez that was looking at this in august of 2017 and had to issue a subpoena. bob goodlatte issued a subpoena in 2018 they're justic just getg geared up. that is ridiculous. >> we've been covering this. you covered these documents for years. do you think this pace will go any faster. now there's double the employees. >> i thought it was interesting what christopher wray had to stay.

his response is, it's not that we're not cooperating, this has been a slow process. you turn around and you see the double of the process. i don't know, i haven't seen the list exactly all they're looking for. i know it's a treasure trove of stuff. does this really answer the call -- it's different when you give somebody more stuff than if you give them more specific stuff. we don't know the answer to that. >> they're looking for a 1,200,000 pages of documents. when one party controls congress and same party controls the executive branch, they work together. eric holder was held in contempt for not surrendering the fast and furious documents. jeff sessions called up chris wray and say you got a subpoena. get it done. the obama justice department faulty examination and unlawful

exoneration of mrs. clinton. that's the document they're looking for. >> what are we still talking about this e-mail investigation that's been long closed. i don't know what else to say. >> i don't know if it is closed. >> there's still lingering questions. >> i don't buy the excuse, -- we should always seek the truth. there's something here that is so rotten and so hidden and it's not about an e-mail account. it's about having an entire senioserver that was unsafe. >> we talked about it so many times and she apologized for it. >> she was unlikeable candidate who did bad things. unfortunately, bad people who do bad things sometime have to answer for them even when the timing is inconvenient for them. >> entitlement. when you see jennifer write being this who was in hillary

clinton's inner circle, she brings it up in her brook -- book. it is about that look is somebody too big to go after? in terms of hillary clinton. that has been maybe that isn't the core, that has been the core of the issue. when you say, let's make it go away. no. >> the fbi looked into this. they closed the case. the fact that we're still talking about this today -- >> we're see what the general report says. hillary clinton top campaign aid trotting out another excuse why her candidate lost to president trump. it has nothing to do with her policy and everything to do with her gender. we'll debate the latest version of what happened ahead. >> we proved she had the qualities you look for in a man. that robbed her of something really important.

>> we have more "outnumbered" in a moment. let's touch base with harris on what's coming up on "outnumbered overtime" in moments. >> thank you kennedy. lot cooking along as we've been on the air. white house confirming north korea's leader met with china's president and talked about the elimination of their anybody program. what will this mean to president

trump's planned meetin meeting m jong-un. to the president's legacy. the president fires back at a former supreme court justice. who says just get rid of the second amendment. that ought to be repealed. the president says that will never happen. what if it does? that and more on "outnumbered" top o -- >> a former aid to hillary clinton is out with a brand new book. it's making the rounds she's talking about why her former boss lost the election. more excuses former communication director said she need a fatal error. >> i had that realization what we done to her miami he female e what we look for in a male president. it's a gut punch. no wonder people thought she was

authentic. we have to go back to square one to fix. >> women who want to lead need to look in a different directi direction. model yourself after a man only get you so far. >> we proved she has qualities you can look for in a man. that robbed her from her own self. it does show that we don't have any model for our young girls and young women who coming up in world now to look at for how to lead. >> what a laughable statement. we have no models for young women. i'm the mother of two daughters they have a tremendous number of women they look up to in politics and sport and music just because hillary clinton lost doesn't mean that people are sexist. she said, we did this to her. hillary clinton was the victim of the people who worked on her campaign?

>> absolutely. this is not a book about why we lost. this is book about moving forward as women. how women can run for president and run for higher office. >> you mean democratic women? >> i don't mean that at all. women across the board. no matter what we want to say here, not everybody who voted for donald trump or against hillary clinton is a sexist. there are standards i think our society put on women who are running for higher office. >> does mrs. clinton recognize she lost because she was a flawed candidate? >> we realized that lot of forces were against us. there were lot of mistakes we made on the campaign. there's no doubt. >> do you acknowledge she was the author of those forces? >> no. >> who was it? >> the media came into play. i don't want to detract from the

the fact this is an incredible book. this is not meant to be a politically devicive book. this is about -- book about women. >> i don't want to be lectured about women. hillary clinton was asked about ivanka trump running for president. this proves this is a women's march it's all about women. it's just for progressive leftist women who want bigger government. she makes a point in shows one of the fatal flaw of feminism. women have to act like men. i think that hillary clinton probably could have maybe acted little more like herself rather than trying to be like something else. half the reason why she lost, she couldn't connect.

>> thank you so much to judge andrew napolitano. one of the fiercest defenders of freedom that i know. >> you're so kind. pleasure team. >> always good to see you. >> great day on the couch.

we will be right back here at noon eastern tomorrow. there's so much news breaking. we're not taking a break. here's harris faulkner. >> as we await the start of the press briefing amid big developments on the north korea front. let's go "outnumbered overtime." i'm harris faulkner. we expect new reaction from the white house to kim jong-un's surprise meeting with chinese president xi jinping. both countries confirming that sit down. which ended with claims that kim is ready to talk about giving up his nuclear weapons and is willing to meet with president trump. the president praising the meeting, tweeted this. for years and through many administrations, everyone said that peace and the denuclearization of korean peninsula was not a small possibility. there's a good chance that kim jong-un will do what is right for his people and for humanity. look forward to our meeting. senior foreign affairs