this sunday, my interview with james comey, the former fbi director on president trump's honesty. >> i have serious doubts about his credibility. >> on why the president cleared the oval office to talk to him about the mike flynn investigation. >> if he didn't know he was doing something he shouldn't do, why was he kicking out the leadership, including my boss? >> on the fbi's reputation. >> i hope they see it as an institution committed to values. >> this morning on ""meet the press" press". >> comey is aliar and a leaker. >> is this the kind of help republicans need to hold on to the house and senate? also, the leaders of north and south korea say they will work to officially end the

korean war. and to denuclearize the peninsula. >> what do you think president trump had to do with it? i will tell you what. how about everything? >> how likely is such an agreement? my guests this morning, republican senator roy blunt of missouri. joining me for insight and analysis are kasie hunt, eddie glaude, maureen dowd and stephen moore. welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. good sunday morning. from the moment james comey told trump about the steele dossier to their awkward embrace two weeks later, to their dinner where comey claims the president asked for his loyalty, donald trump and james comey have had a difficult and adversarial relationship.

the president fired comey in may of last year by his own admission over, quote, this russia thing. ever since then, this russia thing has fuelled their mutual contempt. comey wrote in his book, a higher loyalty, that this president is unethical and untethered to truth. never afraid to fight back, trump tweeted back he is a leaker and liar, he should be prosecuted, he is an untruthful slime ball and it was his honer to fire him. this morning james comey joined me for an interview where we touched on many issues, including president trump's credibility, the stoeele dossie and the hillary clinton investigation. last night we were reminded that comey is never far from the president's mind. >> you watch comey and you watch the way he lies. >> the president lashing out at his former fbi director in

michigan last night. >> i did you a great favor when i fired this guy. i tell you, i did you a great favor. when you look at what was going on at the top of the fbi, it is a disgrace. everybody in this room understands it. >> on a week marked by a diplomatic breakthrough between the leaders of north and south korea and diplomacy at home, the president spent much of his time consumed by the mueller probe. >> what we really should do is get on with our lives and get on with a lot of things. >> the president is having a hard time moving on. on thursday morning, he made a 30-minute call to fox's morning show. >> i watched leaking, lying comey last night. i did -- i hated to do it. >> on friday morning after that historic handshake between the leaders of north and south korea, the president started his day not by heralding peace talks but by renewing his attacks on comey. during that phoner on fox, the

president rushed to distance himself from his personal lawyer and confidant michael cohen. >> michael is in business. he is really a businessman. a fairly big business. i don't know his business. this doesn't have to do with me. michael is a businessman. he has got a business. i would say probably the big thing is his business. they're looking into something do with his business. i have nothing to do with his business. >> in addition to being the president's personal attorney, cohen is an executive vice-president at the trump organization. republicans on the house intelligence committee released results declaring they did not find any evidence of collusion, conspiracy or coordination between the trump campaign and the russians. >> i was very honored by the report. it was totally conclusive, strong, powerful. many things said that nobody knew about. >> very political report, a document that could have been written by the white house.

>> trump 's fixation on his fird fbi director has persisted. >> what about comey? do you watch him on the interview? >> the president suggested he may intervene again. >> if our justice department was doing the right thing, they would be a lot tougher right now on those people, because there's tremendous crime and corruption on the other side. >> joining me now is the former director of the fbi, james comey. his new book "a higher loyalty." welcome to "meet the press." >> great to be with you. >> let me start with some news over the last couple of days, the house intelligence committee report. i'm curious if you believe it proves what the president says it proves. he claims that this report proves there's no evidence that the trump campaign included, coordinated or conspired with russia and that it was all a big hoax by the democrats based on payments and lies. is that your interpretation?

>> that is not my understanding of what the facts were before i left the fbi. i think the most important piece of work is the one the special counsel is doing. this strikes me as a political document. >> did the house intelligence committee at all serve a good investigative purpose during this in your observation? >> not that i can see. >> too politicized? >> it wrecked the committee and damaged relationships with the court, intelligence community. >> when the president says, i have nothing to do with this russia thing -- i know it's something you have heard him say in private. what do you think he mean ss? >> i do not know. i think it's an effort to undermine the investigation the special counsel is conducting. beyond that, i don't know. >> when you first met with him that first time in trump tower, did -- when did your antenna go up? did you treat him suspiciously? were you going into that meeting

concerned based on other stuff you knew? >> yeah, i was concerned about the nature of his commitment to truth telling, based on some of the things i had seen during the campaign. i went in trying to see what he was like as a leader. didn't see things that disturbed me until the lack of questions about what do we do flechlt to p protect the country. >> whether yn you told him abou steele dossier -- >> i briefed him on a small part of it. i didn't get a sense he knew about those. >> when -- i want to ask a question that reince priebus asked you. you said, why include that salacious part if you thought it was not that necessary to the investigation? did you think it was important that he knew? >> we thought it was important he knew. i say we meaning all the intelligence chiefs that put together the assessment.

we thought it was important that he know, because we knew. we don't want to hold that back from the new president. also, the fbi's role is counterintelligence. we do a defensive briefing whether or not something is true, just to let the person who might be the target of a leverage effort, an effort by an adversary to gain advantage, know we have the information. >> you called him unethical and untethered to the truth. based on that, does that mean you think it would not be wise for him to sit down with bob mueller? >> that's a great question. that's one only he can answer and his lawyers can answer. it would be important for a lawyer and client, especially this client, to have a hard conversation about that. i hope that he will allow director mueller to complete his work, whether that includes an interview or not is up to him. >> you have been a prosecutor most of your professional life. is he a witness that you would find credible? >> i would have serious doubts about his credibility. >> the president of the united states? >> yes. >> whether he were under only or

n not. >> sometimes they can tell the truth when we realize the consequences of not telling the truth in an interview or in the grand jury would be dire. you would have to go in with a healthy sense that he might lie to you. >> if mueller is following justice department guidelines that sitting presidents cannot be criminally charged, then doesn't that mean that so long as mr. trump is in the white house, he will never be considered a target of this investigation, only a subject? >> there's logic to that. i don't know whether that's logic what i read in the newspaper. if you can't be indicted given a target is someone on whom there is enough evidence to charge, then you could never be if the president can't be indicted. >> in this case -- that is justice department guidelines. it operates under the guidelines that a sitting president can never be indicted. >> that's the current office of legal counsel opinion in the department.

>> was hillary clinton ever a target or a subject during the investigation? >> sure. she was the subject of the investigation. >> but not a target? >> correct. >> why was that? >> we didn't develop substantial evidence to support a criminal prosecution against her. >> at no time she was ever considered a target? >> correct. >> let me ask you, since you left on may 9, what percentage would you say of what you know about the russia investigation, what you know about the facts, what you believe the facts are, about russian interference, what percentage of what you would say is in the public domain right now? >> that's one i can't answer. i wouldn't answer anyway, but i don't have the math in my head even if i were inclined to answer it. >> let me ask it this way. when the public does learn everything you know, is it going to be something that will be a no brainer to the public? >> excellent second way to ask it. i'm not going to answer. >> do you believe what you know is something that the public

reasonably will be able to understand and it won't be foggy? >> the reason i'm doing -- giving you these answers is i'm duty bound not to talk about what i learned during the investigation before i left and i don't know what's happened since. it's possible things that i knew have changed since then. it's just -- i can't do it without crossing the lines. i'm obligated to abide. >> have you learned new things since you left from the media? >> learn all kinds of new things. >> on the investigation. >> i think so. although, i love the media, but i take it with a grain of salt because i know there are no leaks coming out of the special counsel's office. by necessity, nobody who really knows what's going on is talking. >> i want to ask you about mike flynn. general flynn pledge guilty to makinge ining a false statement fbi regarding the discussions with ambassador kislyak of russia. in the washington examiner, they report that according to sources familiar with meetings that you had, that you told lawmakers

when you were still director of the fbi that fbi agents who interviewed flynn did not believe that flynn had lied to them or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. if that's the case, what did he plead guilty to? >> an example of how you can't believe everything you read. >> this is not true? >> not true. i don't know what people heard me say. they misunderstood. but that's not accurate. >> on the mike flynn plea deal as a prosecutor. some people described it as an incredible sweetheart deal. would you describe it that way? >> no. i wouldn't describe it either way because i can't see what's on the other side of the wall. that is, what's the evidence and the nature of his cooperation. >> when you were invited to dinner by the president on july 27th, that afternoon -- >> january 27th. >> excuse me. thank you for correcting me on that. the day before then deputy attorney general sally yates had briefed the white house that

mike flynn had lied to the fbi. when you got that call to have dinner with the president, did you know going -- did you think going in he was going to ask you about flynn? >> no. i worried it might come up. if you see my memo, i made clear to note it did not come up at all. >> it does come up in february. he says, can you lay off mike flynn. why didn't you tell him that was inappropriate? >> that's a great question. i skasked myself a bunch of tim. i think i was shocked and so focused on trying to remember his exact words and standing there alone in the oval office that it didn't occur to me in the time. >> the reason i ask that, you corrected reince priebus on the proper channels to use to ask about fisa warrants. you never once corrected the president about different ways he should be handling things. is that just -- why was that? >> probably a couple things. it's harder to correct the president. second, remember the atmosphere. he just kicked out my boss who

tried to linger, the attorney general and still been booted out of the oval office. so you have to realize that if he didn't know he was doing something he shouldn't do, why was he kicking out the leadership, including my boss? >> if you plead guilty to lying to the fbi as a cooperating witness, are you ever a good witness on the stand? does that mean you would ever use them as a witness on the stand? how are they credible if you plead guilty -- if you basically plead guilty to lying? >> you can. plenty of witnesses do it and are credible to a jury or judge. they have acknowledged their wrongdoing. plenty of people who tell the truth also lie at times. he accepted responsibility. it depends upon what other evidence you have to corroborate the account of that witness. >> i guess i'm asking, is it more likely he had to have something material that the special prosecutor wanted to get the deal that he got? >> too hard to answer from the outside, chuck. >> there's -- >> it's all speculation. that's the challenge and also

the great thing about a special prosecutor conducting an investigation with no leaks. you do not know what he has or where he is. >> i want to ask you about something that president trump said last night about vladimir putin and this lawyer that was at this infamous trump tower meeting. here it is. >> putin and the group said, you know, this trump is killing us. why don't you say you are involved with government so that we can go and make their life in the united states even more chaotic. >> the president last night -- perhaps he is speculating that vladimir putin is now telling his folks, yeah, say you did cooperate. the lawyer was the woman at the center of the infamous trump tower meeting in july of 2016. what does that tell you? >> putin's instructions are to falsely implicate yourself? >> is that what you heard? >> i don't know what to make of

that. that's one interpretation of what he said. >> does that give you hope he sees that vladimir putin is trying to play games with the united states? >> it doesn't give me any hope that he is seeing or thinking clearly. >> corey lewandowski criticized the fbi saying, when they hired paul manafort, somebody who the fbi we know interviewed in 2014, that he thinks the fbi should have been obligated to tell the trump campaign that he was -- >> i'm not going to comment on manafort. that's not the fbi's job. they do background work on government hires but not to private entities. >> i want to ask you about the clinton e-mail investigation. starting in october, you say in your book that deputy director andrew mccabe told you something about anthony wiener and his laptop and something

involving -- in early october. there's a gap. you sort of -- you don't explain why nothing -- then you sort of fast forward to october 27th. what happened in the intervening time there? why didn't your antenna go off sooner going, anthony wiener? we better get on top of this. >> yeah. i remember somebody -- i think it was the deputy director saying something to me early in october, i think. i didn't index on it because how on earth could there be a connect between anthony wiener and hillary clinton's e-mails? i don't remember even noting it in my head as a follow-up. the next thing i remember is the team coming back to me -- andy e-mailed me saying the team needs to meet with you and met with them and got the full briefing. i don't know what happened in between. i assumed -- it wasn't consci s conscious. i assumed the team was following up to see if there's a connection. >> i want to ask you a final question about loretta lynch. you talk -- you write about your

concerns about unverified information that you thought could embarrass the obama justice department, loretta lynch. it had to do with speculation that -- we think it was a false set of e-mails. that seemed to indicate she had promised the clinton -- don't worry, nothing is going to happen. you were worried about it. why didn't you bring it up to her or the deputy attorney general? >> i don't think i can talk about what contact we made with the leadership of justice about that. so i have to stop there. by the way, i don't agree with your predicate -- i can't describe it because it's classified. i'm not agreed that it was false documents. >> in your book you leave it out there as a hanging meatball that you -- you imply she's compromised. was attorney general loretta lynch compromised? >> i don't believe that. >> it is implied in the book. it comes across that way.

>> i wrote i had no reason to believe loretta acted improperly. i stand by that. this was a factor in my decision making. i had to describe it as best i could. >> so let me ask you this. between that and then the clinton tarmac meeting, which you said at first you thought it was absurd it was an issue but you saw it got traction on cable. why didn't you recommend to her or to sally yates, she should recuse herself. it's the cleanest way out of this. >> that's a great question. maybe i should have. before we had a chance to have a conversation about it, she announced publically she would not recuse herself but would instead accept my recommendation and that of the career prosecutors. at that point, then i have to make a decision. i like her very much but do i stand with her or do i announce it separately. >> i'm going to close with this. susan collins last week on the show, i asked her about your book. here is what she said. i'm curious to get your reaction to what she said. >> i cannot imagine why an fbi

director would seek to essentially cash in on a book when the investigation is very much alive. he should have waited to do his memoir. >> should you have waited? >> i hope she will read it and see that it's not about the investigation. it's about -- not even about donald trump. it's about something much broader that i thought it was important to talk about now. >> i was just going to say, is your -- what's the goal for the reader? what do you hope the reader takes away about donald trump and what do you hope the reader takes away about the fbi? >> i hope the reader takes away that donald trump and barack obama and george w. bush and others illustrate something about the importance of values in the life of this country and about what leadership can and should be. i hope they see the fbi as an institution committed to values and caring deeply about being separate from the political tribes in this country. >> director comey, i would love to go farther, but there's so

many questions you say you can't answer due to this investigation. i guess it means -- can i ask you this? do you believe that director mueller is mindful of the political calendar as he goes through and that the closer things get to an election, the more investigations can play an outside role fair or unfair? >> i'm sure he knows all of that. he is attentive to the calendar. like all good prosecutors, wants to finish as quickly as he can. >> director comey, good luck on your book tour. i would say good luck with book sales, but i think based on book sales, you don't need more luck. >> thank you. i will talk ♪ (music plays throughout) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ when i first came to ocean bay, what i saw was despair. i knew something had to be done. hurricane sandy really woke people up, to showing that we need to invest in this community. i knew having the right partner we could turn this place around. it was only one bank that could finance a project this difficult and this large, and that was citi. preserving affordable housing preserves communities. so we are doing their kitchens and their flooring and their lobbies and the grounds. and the beautification of their homes, giving them pride in where they live, will make this a thriving community once again. ♪

well, we are back. panel is here. lots to chew over. eddie glaude, kasie hunt,

maureen dowd and stephen moore. welcome all. good to see the two of you even -- maureen, i will start with you. comey and trump, what do you make -- is this les mis? >> with macron this week, we saw trump's primate male dominance moves, which he also tried on comey. you ask comey about why he didn't speak back to trump. comey is a very fascinating figure for washington, because usually you get in trouble from an absence of rectitude. he's in are trouble from too much. his explanations, he can't see what he did was wrong because it's -- he is so wrapped up in his image of himself at a.

the funny thing about comey is that it's such a great troll because he is becoming rich and selling all these books to trump haters when they blame him for not making hillary president. hillary says he -- >> what did you hear? >> the last thing he said was that i want to -- i want to get this right. the fbi is committed to value and honor. he besmirched the reputation of the fbi. i agree it should have come out after the investigation. i think from people on the right like me, i don't think he has any credibility anymore. this is all about selling books. i have said this before. hell hath no fury like an fbi

director scorned. he comes across as a personal animosity to trump. i don't think the book will have a lot of lasting influence. >> eddie? >> i think you can hold to claims at once. that is to say he is trying to sell books and that he is absolutely right about the claim that he doubts the credibility of trump. that trump has proven over and over again a propensity to have an uneasy relationship with the truth. he lies. >> at a minimum. >> he lies. >> he admitted he went into his first meeting questioning whether he was going to be truthful. he prejudged. >> no matter our political leanings, whether you are a trump supporter or critic, i think the facts of the matter are very clear. trump lies. comey's book, whether it's to sell money or whatever, is making very, very clear that the man -- >> if you believe him. >> i can't tell anymore which camp hates james comey more.

is it the people that work for hillary clinton or people who are now trump supporters? it does -- this book feels like one of the many political biographies that politicians put out about themselves. this is james comey selling himself as the embodiment of honor and loyalty and the opposite of everything on both sides of the aisle. i'm curious -- his numbers have whip sawed back and forth among republicans and democrats. he was one of the most hated figures by democrats during the campaign. that jumped back around. i'm interested to see if he cops out of this with any -- >> this is my point. going back to the e-mail investigation, that -- his treatment -- i say this as a republican, it did help trump win the election. the way he treated the whole e-mail investigation was political. >> bob mueller still has some positive views as far as the public is concerned. i thought this poll here -- if i were the president, i would be

concerned. will mueller find president trump committed crimes or impeachable offenses. the majority, 56%. more than one in five republican voters now believe. you could say maybe they are the never trump republicans that believe this. that shows that mueller has -- he has kept his credibility. comey may be challenged. mueller is not. >> i think again this is one of the most fascinating kind of personality collisions that washington has ever seen. you've got this former marine boy scout completely straight arrow, and then you've got trump. who is the opposite of that. >> i want to get into the investigation a little bit. we know the president got fixated by michael cohen. he wanted to make it clear michael cohen's businesses. then this popped up over the weekend in grocery stores. the front page of the national enkwiinquirenquire

enquirer. there it is, trump fixer's, secrets and lies. kasie hunt, this looks like the beginning of the president's attempt to separate from michael cohen. >> we have been watching this almost play out in public, the president trying to decide if he is going to try and essentially dismantle michael cohen or if he is going to try to cozy up to him in the attempt to make sure that he doesn't essentially side with bob mueller and give up everything. it seems as though we are moving in the opposite direction. the assumption is now that michael cohen is likely to flip. he wants to avoid prison. they have to mount a campaign to undermine his credibility. >> how concerned should trump supporters be about michael cohen? >> look, i thought the raid on cohen's office was too far. >> do we know that? we don't know why they did it. we don't know the evidence. >> most fair minded people think it was outrageous. it was an invasion of civil liberties. i want to go back to the point

which is important about how many republicans believe that trump is in trouble. i think the reason that this report that came out by the republicans in congress about the investigation saying there was no collusion is a really important point here. it basically is saying, this is now a partisan -- the only way that they're going to get trump is what happened after watergate when republicans turned on nixon. that's not happening. i think it has become -- it is being portrayed as a partisan witch hunt. i believe that's true. >> the house republicans made it more partisan. therefore, it makes it partisan? i'm confused. >> unless democrats can convince republicans that there's something here, then i don't think the investigation is -- >> that's what's interesting about the one in five. even though one in five may believe he has committed impeachable offenses, do they care? do they care? will they hold him accountable for it? i don't think they will. >> i think that's part of why

the -- the way this conversation is going is so dangerous. you say this invasion of cohen's office was an invasion of his civil liberties. we don't have the facts to know that. we are supposed to operate under the rule of law. nobody believes the same set of facts. the people who are in public office are undermining our institutions that apply the rule of law. is it possible that republicans will ever change their minds because they have a completely different set of facts. >> i will have to pause the conversation there. we will pick it up in a few minutes. coming up, could north and south korea and the u.s. really agree to rid the peninsula of nuclear weapons and officially end the korean war? a lot depends on president trump.

bp is taking safety glasses to a whole new level. using augmented reality so engineers in the field can share data and get expert backup in the blink of an eye. because safety is never being satisfied and always working to be better. retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver.

what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. that's it? everybody two seconds! "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. bp's natural gas teams use smart app technology to share data from any well instantly. so they can analyze trends and stop potential problems in their tracks. because safety is never being satisfied and always working to be better.

welcome back. we saw an historic moment this week. for all of the images of the leaders smiling and shaking hands, many experts do remain skeptical about how close we really are to an official end to the korean war and a denuclearized north korea. much will depend on president trump and his meeting with kim jong-un. last night, mr. trump left no doubt who was responsible for the progress in his view so far. >> they were saying, what do you think president trump had to do with it? i will tell you what. how about everything? >> joining me is a member of the intelligence committee, senator roy blunt. welcome back. let me start there very quickly. is the president responsible for everything we have seen here so

far between the two koreas? >> i think the president is responsible for a lot of it. he is a different personality, clearly, than the presidents who have tried to deal with north korea before. you have got four people here that are principal, that are in many ways different. the president, president moon, kim himself, the unbelievably almost empowered leader of china, all of the die maynamics really important in whether we can get to a conclusion or not. for the last couple years, including -- that would be the last six months of the obama administration, north korea has clearly been one of the principal intel committee topics to figure out who they were doing and how they were doing it. >> that's what i'm curious about here. why do you believe kim jong-un is so comfortable coming to the table right now? that to me -- we have to answer that question. we have to know the answer to that question before the president sits down with him.

don't we? >> he is incredibly confident. you can tell that. he is very confident of his own ability to drive media. you viewed that all in the context that is a tie rdictator. >> he didn't believe he was a rational actor. how do you trust dealing with this guy? all of a sudden the president is like, i can handle this. are you comfortable that kim jong-un is a rational actor? >> i think what i have tried to say in the past, he is imp impetuous. he hasn't been exposed to much of the world. that's a scary combination. >> do you -- where would you put yourself here? there's some skeptics here. kim jong-un's grandfather snookered bill clinton. the his snookered george w. bush. how concerned are you that it's

another game? he has a peace bridge to sell you. do you think -- how -- >> we need to be very skeptical. in 2012, the obama administration -- we have a series here of our leaders trying to deal with these tyrants and not having very good success in doing that. they will not be truthful just because they want to be truthful. i think there has to be some determination that -- verification is absolute, that the north koreans walk away with something out of this. frankly, everybody, including the chinese, has to keep the economic pressure on. >> is there a commitment that kim jong-un will ask for that you feel the president -- you would tell the president, don't give on this, please don't give on this? what would that be? >> i think our presence in south korea. >> the last thing -- >> continues to be essential. we have to be thoughtful about that. also, interesting -- i was

interested that kim, for the first time publically, was willing to admit that his country is not everything it should be, talking to the south koreans about the infrastructure. >> he didn't televise the meetings to his people. does that concern you, that this is a media event for us and he is not selling his people on it? >> i don't know whether it was televised. it was covered in the newspapers in north korea, which would have been different than the past. he is out there saying, we are behind you -- economically, inf inf infrastructu infrastructure. everybody knows they can barely feed their money. they don't have currency the world accepts. it's a critical time for him. i think we have to be very skeptical. this is very much whatever they say -- i'm not sure you can trust it, but you certainly have to verify it. >> let me ask you about the iran deal.

the defense secretary testified on capitol hill this week and gave a very interesting answer about his views on the iran deal. here it is. i'm curious what you think. >> i've read it three times, all 156 pages or whatever it is. i will say that it is written almost with an assumption that iran would try to cheat. so the verification -- what is in there in actually pretty robust. >> secretary mattis is being careful perhaps not to say -- telling the president to stay in or out. he is making a case for staying in. do you -- does that interpretation give you more confidence in the iran deal? >> if we stay in, i would be very much where macron was, where he said, we want to stay in the deal but here are three things that have to change. it was one of the more interesting, we're in the deal but here are three things that

have to change. >> that gave you confidence? >> it's the three things the president has been saying need to change in the deal as well. also remember, iran is a bad actor in lots of areas. the iran deal doesn't cover all their bad activities. we can do sanctions on iran even if you stay in the iran deal that don't relate to nuclear. iran is very dangerous. they are on a certain path to have nuclear weapons capability in ten years unless the government would, in a very unlikely way, change its view of itself and the world. >> sometimes it's weird how we're treating kim jong-un versus the iranians. he murdered an american citizen essentially. >> plus his brother and uncle. >> he starved his own people. the iranians don't starve their own people. yet we're sort of now feeling

comfortable cozying up with kim jong-un and demonizing the irani iranians. we're sending odd messages around the world. >> i think you want to be sure you learn the lesson of north korea, which is, don't let countries that have bad incomplicatiincompl inclinations wind up with nuclear weapons. it's foolish to let iran become another north korea. we're not dealing with kim jong-un because we think he's a good guy. >> a couple of political questions. the mueller protection bill went through the judiciary committee that hits the floor. are you inclined to support it? >> no. >> under no circumstances? >> under no circumstances. i have given public advice on this to the white house that they would be foolish not to let mueller complete this investigation. i think there's a serious question here about how much the

legislative branch can manage the executive branch. if we want to have our own investigator, we can create a law that does that. we have chosen not to do that. >> i have to ask you about your home state. the governor -- most republicans want him to resign. is his presence going to negatively impact republicans on the ballot in 2018 in missouri? >> we have to let the situation play out. obviously, what the governor is accused of is very concerning. there's both a legal process and a legislative process designed to deal with that. i have confidence that both of those will reach -- >> you don't think he should resign yet? >> i don't think it's my job to decide whether he should resign yet or not. i think he should have -- >> is it in the best interest of

m missouri for him to stay in there? >> one is the legal process going on. the other is the legislative process. there's no reason not to have confidence in both of those. >> you seem to be hesitant -- you are the only republican who hasn't called for his resignation. >> when you reach conclusions without allowing people to be fully heard, that's not a good thing. the president -- the governor ran on the basis that he had a lot to say about everybody, bad about everybody in politics. he did get elected. there's a way to deal with these issues that i think is more appropriate than a bunch of politicians saying what ought to happen. >> senator roy blunt, as always, thanks for coming and sharing your views. the spread between what americans want the country to once there was an organism so small no one thought much of it at all. 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. to most ...most people.like... but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves.

lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief from fibromyalgia pain, and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain i can do more. ask your doctor about lyrica. if you're elligble, you could pay as little as $25 a month. welcome back.

data download time. there's a disconnect in america between who we want to be and who we think we are. a new report takes a look at our ideals and how the political system functions today. 84% of those surveyed said it's important that thedoms of all a respected. 47% think that describes the country well right now. 61% say it's important for the tone of political debate to be respectful. a quarter of americans, 25% think we live up to that now. on the political system itself, 83% believe it's important for elected officials to face serious consequences for misconduct. only 30% believe that actually happens. 78% think it's important for democrats and republicans to work together. only 19% think they do. that's a 59-point gap between our ideal and reality. that's the big picture here.

because there are some differences between how democrats and republicans view these issues. only 37% of democrats think everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed in america. for republicans that number jumps to 74%. 38% of democrats believe rights and free doms are respected. 65% of republicans say they are. things they agree on doesn't bode well for the country. less than a third think they face consequences. few think democrats and republicans are working to the. a study requires a look in the mirror, not just by our politicians, but by all of us. this isn't all doom and gloom. it's ha there's agreement about what we believe the country should aspire to be. by our other standards, we're falling short. when we come back, end game, what did the house of representatives chaplain do to get himself fired?

coming up, end game and post game, brought to you by boeing, continuing our mission to kevin, meet your father. kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin trusted advice for life. kevin, how's your mom? life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you. just another day on the farm. or is it? this farmer's morning starts in outer space.

where satellites feed infrared images of his land into a system built with ai. he uses watson to analyze his data with millions of weather forecasts from the cloud, and iot sensors down here, for precise monitoring of irrigation. it's a smart way to help increase yields, all before the rest of us get out of bed.

end game, brought to you by boeing, continuing our mission to connect, protect, explore and inspire. back now with end game. the two koreas, stephen moore, there's skepticism left and right. i thought this was a good example. kim jong-un has a peace bridge he would like to sell you. they talk about the other failed times that were there. then you have a richard cohen writing, trump will exit the summit a failure because he says north korea without a nuclear arsenal is like saudi arabia without oil. why do we think kim jong-un is ever going to give up nukes? >> that's a good question. thank you for reminding us in

your interview with the senator that this is a tyrant. he murdered his own people. there's no freedom in north korea. his father, as you said, starved to death tens of thousands of his own people. this is not a good person. we shouldn't normalize him. i do worry a little bit that moon -- i don't want him to be -- >> moon, meaning the president of south korea, he's too anxious. >> or any american politicians. this is a bad guy. the only reason -- this is one of the poorest countries in the world. the only reason they matter is because they have a nuclear weapon. if trump, with leaders of south korea, can disarm north korea, that will be a huge bonus for trump. i think it's a huge advance for freedom and security. >> as president trump himself will tell you. it was something else last night. me! >> the crowd was screaming nobel, chanting nobel.

>> you have seen this before. presidents, i think they get -- this is not new except he is more outspoken. he wants this big moment. they all want their grand moment, whether jimmy carter, bill clinton -- they want great man moments. >> it's going to be fascinating. you have the 71-year-old and the millennial. they have a lot in common. they are spoiled. they got the family business. they have the talent for lying and cheating. they love fawning. except kim goes farther on the fawning thing, because he had his uncle killed partly because the uncle was clapping half heartedly. >> and kim jong-un is a better golfer. >> we have ever reason to be skeptical. i'm glad people aren't talking about how big their buttons are anymore. that's really important. >> dialogue has been elevated. >> the second thing is this.

i remember in october of 1990 when east germany and west germany unified. no one thought that was possible. no one imagined it ever to be possible. we marked supposedly the end of the cold war. here we are. i don't know who president kim is in his particulars outside of the descriptions we have of him as a bad actor, as a tyrant. what we know is that on that island -- on that peninsula, there are people with interest, just as china has interest, as japan has interest. what will happen we don't know. i do know in 1990, something happened that we never thought could happen. >> i'm with you there. i think having that moment, just that handshake moment, it's something i didn't think i would see. >> my big question just quickly is china. is it in their interest? how much are we, in our -- how much is president trump essentially pushing or allowing the global order to shift towards china? >> they want a divided korea that's denuclearized.

they fear the united korea. >> they are the ones who enabled -- this is the trump -- china enabled north korea to have the weapon in the first place. >> i want to move to the house chaplain. kasie, this is your beat. >> for better or worse. >> i don't want to make this a theological debate inside the catholic church. it just seems executive producer put it, they disagreed on who the chaplain of the house of representatives to be. it seems symbolic of our polarized era. >> i think that's a good way of looking at it. how this spilled into the public is also a product of our incredibly polarized -- the house of representatives, democrats angry about this. there have been more catholic democrats than catholic republicans, that's not true anymore. i do think that the speaker has put himself in a situation where whenever the next chaplain is likely going to have to be

catholic. >> what do you make of this? you epitomize the debate inside the catholic church in your column. >> i think that paul ryan decided that he didn't really need a chaplain anymore, because the house republicans have already sold their souls to president trump. >> wow. is that your mike drop? >> yep. >> mike drop. >> i will say, being catholic is a very important part of speaker ryan's identity, which is part of why this surprised me. >> the whole thing is surprising because of that. >> i grew up -- >> we're running out of time. a theological debate broke out. thanks for watching. we'll be back next week. if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." >> you can see more end game and post game on the "meet the press" facebook page sponsored by boeing.

hundreds stopped at the u.s./mexico border as the so-called migrant caravan approaches a tipping point. >> they're our brothers and sisters. there shouldn't be a wall between us. >> are you watching that mess that's going on right now with the caravan coming up? >> one step closer to a denuclearized north korea. new specific details and president trump's latest tweets overnight. are you game for space tourism? hundreds have already reserved their seats aboard a pricey spacecraft. could you be next? avengeers infinity war crushes all competition at the weekend box office and dee throwned "star wars" records. "early today" starts