captioning sponsored by cbs on "face the nation," a mix of hit and misses for the trump administration, as tehe the nor korea complete the nuclearlation. >> i'm not going to give you what's going to actually happen because we don't really know. that's nice, thank you. i just want to get the job done. despite the optimism there's chaos in the cabinet as the

nominee for va secretary ronny jackson withdrew after shocking allegations of mismatch. . plus scott pruitt took fire from congress for possible spending and ethic violations at the epa. >> if i were the president i wouldn't want your help. i just >> but there is good news for the president. as mike pompeo was confirmed as secretary of state and sent off on his first official trip as america's top diplomat. we're hear about plans for that face-to-face meeting with north korean leader kim jong-un with john bolton, to south carolina republican john gowdy will weigh in about russian collusion. jay johnson will also be here. plenty of political analyses all ahead on "face the nation." good morning and welcome to "face the nation." i'm margaret brennan, we got a lot to cover today.

and we begin with president trump's mid national security advisor, former u.n. ambassador john bolton welcome program >> glad to be with you >> you have the south korean lady diplomatic breakthrough do you believe that kim jong-un is ready to negotiate away his weapons or trying to soft end his image >> i don't think we know at this point. if he made a strategic determination that north korea would be better off without nuclear weapons, then we got something to talk about and i think the president would be eager to capitalize. but it's clear, we're here where we are today, because of the pressure that the trump administration has put on north korea. comic pressure, political military pressure, this is widely recognized president moon of south korea said the opportunity for the olympics, north south summit woman have occurred without the pressure campaign, the prime ministers

and japan and australia, the president chance and chancellor of germany have all said the same thing, that's why we're here now and it's up to the north koreans to show us they do intend to give up nuclear weapons >> arguably north korea walks in in a position of strength economic weakness perhaps but this nuclear program is further along than ace past administration has encountered. >> because of the mistakes of 25 years of past administrations >> is it a requirement that kim jong-un agree to give away the weapons before you give any kind of concession >> i think that's right. i think we're looking at the motto of 2003, 2004. we're also looking at what north korea itself has committed to previously. and most importantly, i think going back over a quarter of a century to the 1992 joint north, south denuclearation agreement where they committed to give up weapons and plutonium reprocessing. what was got other issues to

discuss swell, the ballistic missile programs, their biological and chemical weapons programs, keeping of american hostages, the abduction of innocent japanese and south korean citizens, there's a lot to talk about. >> will the u.s. accept this invitation from the north to expect the nuclear site when it's taken down in may as promised >> we'll see exactly what that is. the >> the south said that's what the north. >> the north, well, it's interesting because we've been to this place before. i hope it's a sincere commitment but i'll read i was sentence, if i may. in a gesture demonstrating its commitment to halt its nuclear weapons program, north korea blew up the most prominent symbol of the plow tone yum to the incremental progress that's been made to end the nuclear weapons program. june 27, 2008, "new york times," now, the self saying "new york

times" last month reported that president trump will have difficulty with north korea because new satellite evidence suggests that north korea is expands its plow tone yum commitment. we don't want to see propaganda from north korea >> you haven't seen dis men tellment >> we've seen words so far. >> they said they will give up nuclear and ballistic missile testing. they haven't conducted any recently. that's true that could be a positive sign or it could be a sign they've reached a level of development where they don't need testing now. we've seen this in other contexts as well. president trump is determined to see this opportunity through. hopeful that we can get a real breakthrough. but we're not naive in the administration and a lot will ride on this meeting with kim jong-un. >> so the headlines that from is that clear saying kim jong-un

woul would abandon. >> the north korean play book is a rich resource >> but if it borders on the united states >> i don't think it does. if you look at the decision to give up nuclear weapons, as a real strategic decision that north korea has to making what we want to see from them is evidence that it's real, and not, not just rhetoric. in the case of bolivia, for example, and it's a different situation, in some respects those negotiations were carried out in private. one thing that libia did that led us to overcome the skepticism was they allowed american and british observers into all their nuclear related sites. so it wasn't a question of relying on international mechanisms, we saw them in ways we had never seen before. >> that sounds like you want inspections before any kind of sanctions relief >> i think it would be a

manifestation of the strategic decision to give up nuclear weapons, doesn't have to be the same as libia but something concrete and tangible. maybe kim jong-un has ideas, and we should hear him out >> according to cbs's reporting singapore is the preferred location between president trump and kim jong-un. when will you make this determination on location, and how important is it? >> well, i think that when the president is ready to announce that he'll announce we're still working on the location, we're still working on the date. >> he said within the next few weeks, three to four >> the president is ready to go, we're eager to come to conclusion so we can do all the logistical planning. of i don't want to preempt an planning >> is there any update on the three americans held prisoner in north korea, will they be held hostage to the success of this diplomacy or do they need to be released before the president walks in >> i don't want to get into the discussions that we've had. i'll just say this, these three

americans are at the top of the president's mind. in exchanges between normal nations these people wouldn't be held. i think north korea should look at this very seriously >> this is a gesture though that they're not required to take before the meeting? >> it would be a demonstration of their sin sirty. we're waiting to see the decision. >> can you tell us anything about the status >> i'd rather not get into the discussions at this point. but it's very much on the president's mind. >> i want to ask you about this other big decision upcoming on the iran nuclear deal, you've been public in the past about skepticism. and it's led diplomats and privates to question whether you'll be a broker who could actually present another option to the president. if the europeans can pull off a side deal, a fix. to the nuclear plan. do you actually think it's possible to keep it

>> if it's the president's decision, one thing people have to keep in mind i have a changed roles here. when i was a private citizen, i could say whatever i wanted. it was the great luxury. >> in march you said it cannot be improved and it simply blue smoke and mirrors. >> >> what i said was what i believed. but that's not my job now, my job is to give advice to the president. he'll make the decision. it's his call. i'm the national security advisor, not the national security decision maker. and in fact, on the iran nuclear deal issue, i have presented him with options and i'll continue to do it. of right up until he makes the decision. i think that's critical for the proper functioning of the national security system. and it's my obligation to do that. >> if secretary at her pompeo can crack a side deal, you're open to accepting it and keeping the iran nuclear deal >> i think it's a question of the president being open to make the final decision. it's the job of his advisors to give advice.

he's the decision maker >> if they want to put sanctions back on iran on may 12th, does that mean the u.s. has withdrawn. >> there's a variety of things that could happen and i don't want to get into a discussion of what the hypotheticals might be, but certainly, withdrawal is under investigation. the president said this repeatedly. his views on the nuclear deal have been uniform, consistent and unvarying since the campaign of 2016. and we'll see what happens. >> the world is watching. thank you so much >> glad to be with you. >> john bolton thank you for coming on, hope to have you back soon. >> thank you very much. last week there were several new developments in the multiple investigations related to russian influence in the 2016 election. former new york rudy giuliani met with robert mueller in his new role.

giuliani promised to put pressure on mueller to end his probe quickly in a phone interview with fox, the president reversed himself in whether he'd get involved into allegations that former fbi director james comey leaked classified information when comey gave memos detailing conversations with the president to his attorney and a friend. >> i have decided that i won't be involved. i may change my mind at some point. because what's going on is a disgrace. >> republicans on the house intelligence committee released the results of their investigation into russian ties to the trump campaign. their verdict? no collusion. committee democrats released a rival report saying they refused to investigate all possible leads and accused them of a cover-up. as for the president, he responded to the week's developments in a performance before supporters in michigan last night >> look how these politicians

have fallen for this junk. russian collusion. give me a break [cheers and applause] >> what about comey? do you watch him in the interviews? what about comey? what about comey? >> and hopefully help us answer that question. what about comey? we turn now to tray gowdy. on the house intelligence and judiciary committees and also the head of the house oversight making him a busy member of congress, we appreciate you being here onset. former fbi director, james comey said the house intelligence committee that you work on was a wreck and the report was a political document. how do you respond? >> this way. i have more confidence than executive branch investigations than i do congressional. i wouldn't say it's a wreck. the witnesses we talked to no one said they had any evidence of collusion. and i participated in almost every one of those interviews

and i'm the one who asked the questions. so from the standpoint of where these matters are best investigated. i don't think it's in congress right now for a myriad of reasons, one of which, margaret is when you start with a conclusion, which adam schiff did in march of 2017. you have evidence of collusion, then you never, ever share it with anyone? that investigation is not likely to turn out well. >> you have asked adam schiff for specific evidence that he refused to hand to you >> he doesn't have it. he can't give me what he doesn't have. adam, before we ever started, said he had evidence of collusion and this is exactly what he said. more than circumstantial but not direct. let's lay aside the fact that there is no such thing as more than circumstantial but not direct. >> there's also no such thing as collusion as you point out as a legal term. >> it's conspiracy which is why i always ask the evidence of collusion, coordinating or

conspiracy, the crime is conspiracy, if there's collusion, even if it doesn't rise to a level of crime. my fellow citizens want to know that. it's important to know that. even if it doesn't rise to a level of a crime. but there was no evidence of collusion coordination or conspiracy that we found. >> you do write about a number of ill advice. meaning the trump tower meeting with donald trump junior, you issued a number of recommendations and warnings about the system sort of not being braced for any kind of attack or attempted attack here. what should people make of this? >> well, the real disappointment is we're supposed to look at four things, what did russia do with whom if anyone did they do it what was the u.s. government's response in 2016 and the issue of the dissimination of classified material. unfortunately the focus was always on that second prong, not just what did russia do but with whom if anyone did they do it? i ask a lot of tough questions on the trump tower meeting. i was tougher on steve bannon than any democrat was. when the transcripts come out. i think my fellow citizens will see the republicans did take it

seriously. but when all you're interested in is seeing the president indicted, then yes, that investigation will not turn out well from a bipartisan standpoint >> you never got to interview michael flynn, former national security advisor >> we don't get to interview anyone under indictment, their lawyers should be fired if they allow us to interview them >> a point to make though because clearly the mueller investigation has a broader set of people they're talking to. but the president, when he looks at your report feels vindicated are you saying he should not? >> be careful how i phrase this. no report, best we can do is say what we've learned. i can't say what's in the universe of witnesses we have not talked to. and i have always maintained i am awaiting the mueller investigation. they get to use a grand jury. they have investigative tools that we don't have. executive branch investigations are better than congressional ones. so we found no evidence of collusion. whether or not it exists or not,

i can't speak to, because i haven't interviewed the full pan ply of witnesses >> do you plan to investigate former fbi director james comey who shared personal memos that the president said now were classified and accuses him of a crime >> congress is not well equipped to investigate crime. i have complete confidence in michael horwitz who's the inspector general. and investigated andy mccabe and made a referral to the department of justice, i trust mr. horwitz to investigate. i never accused comey of committing a crime. i accused him of doing things i don't agree with. but accusing someone of committing a crime? congress shouldn't do that >> does your committee have questions for the fbi? >> i think judiciary would be the better place to ask those questions and we should but we should not interfere with ongoing ig and or criminal probes. >> the president said this week during an interview on fox, he

was disappointed with the justice department and he might change his mind and be involved. do those comments concern you >> it depends on what he meant by it. if a president said that the department of justice is going to advance my agenda, you may think president obama had certain ideas with respect to criminal justice reform. that attorney general holder did a very good job of carrying out. if that's what he men i want a department of justice that will advance my legislative agenda, there's nothing wrong with that. i think they're ought to be -- i said it a number of times, prosecutors should have all the resources and independence and all the time they need to do their jobs. and my position has not changed. >> i want to ask you as well about your committee's investigation or possible investigation. at the epa scott pruitt testified this week, what is the status into his behavior >> we got documents friday, we are scheduling witness interviews, the natural chronology of investigations to

be gather the documents, schedule the witness interviews then draw your conclusions at the end. what usually happens with congress is we draw our conclusions on front end and go in search of whatever evidence we want to validate that previously held wrong conclusion. we're going to do it the way i'm used to, gather the documents, interview the witnesses then share it at the appropriate time. >> any timeline? >> things don't ever move as quickly as i would like them to. we had a little bit of hick cup scheduling the interviews but i think we reached a meeting of the minds, we'll interview the witnesses and we got permission to start scheduling those >> at the v a, there's a lot of talk about a personnel matter, dr. ronny jackson who is the president's physician was the nominee, no longer is. he's still an employee, been accused all sorts of things, allegations of handing out prescription drugs, fostering hostile work environment,

possibly drinking while on duty. do you think, as chairman of house oversight, that this should require looking into? >> i think some of those allegations do warrant being investigated. i don't think you want members of congress deciding whether or not the prescribing of ambient is within the course of professional medical practice, i can't think of anybody less well-qualified to decide whether ambient should be prescribed. than a bunch of lawyers. that's a medical license issue. hospital work environment would be some combination of the veterans affairs committee. and house oversight, but this is a pretty good example of reaching the conclusion and then going in search of the investigation, and investigations that your viewers should have confidence in. do it in the reverse order, level the facts, that's just not done in the political environment >> there have been questions about background checks repeated with other members of the president's staff with others as well. on this front, he's still the

president's physician. if any of these things are true, wouldn't that warrant looking into >> i would hope to the extent he has security clearance, it should have already been investigated, if it deals with this medical license, there's an entities that shouldrinvestigate that. if the deal is with a hostile work environment or things intrinsic within that office, we have inspector general, there are number of entities who can within their jurisdiction conduct an investigation. the notion all of that should be done by congress, particularly whether or not medicine should be prescribed. i can't think of anybody you would less want making that decision than members of congress. >> congressman gowdalways good to talk to you. >> yes, ma'am, you too. . >> margaret brennan: we'll be back in a minute.

we're joined by president obama home land security jay johnson who is now a private citizen. of coming back to washington to talk to us. .

i want to pick up with where we're talking with trey gowdy into russian interference and collusion with trump campaign. you were at the helm at homeland security when all of this was happening. in the report, dhs is faulted for not designated election systems until january 6, 2017. why did you wait until two months after the presidential election to do that >> first, i think it's unfortunate that the committee's report was basically republican only. there was not a bipartisan consensus and for the committee that oversees our intelligence committee that's unfortunate. i think trey would agree with that. i designated it would be critical structure on jan 6, 2017 as i was leaving office. i had raised the idea with state officials in august, 2016, there was a lot of misapprehension about what that would meaning

they thought it would mean the federal take over binding operationals directives and i told them it was not. it was something that was voluntary in nature that the states seek our assistance but the priority was to bring our horses to water and encourage the states to come in and seek our assistance so we put the issue of critical infrastructure aside, which was becoming a hot button issue and in the end, we did get 36 states to come and seek dhs's cyber security assistance. after the election it came back to the issue and designated election infrastructure, critical infrastructure, i'm glad i did it. we should have done it years before and i'm pleased that secretary kelly after i left and he came in basically reaffirmed that designation. >> there's a lot to take into here in terms of whether we're prepared now and actions that we're taking, we have to take a quick break, stay with us. and we'll be right back, more with former homeland security secretary jay johnson.

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. 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. >> a lot more "face the nation" coming up. you can watch the rebroadcast of "face the nation" on the digital network, cbsn at 11:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern time every sunday and of course go to the website, "face the nation."com nation."com.

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. ♪

. >> margaret brennan: we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation"

. >> margaret brennan: welcome back i'm margaret brennan. we continue our conversation with homeland security secretary jeh johnson. let's pick up where we were talking about the house intelligence committee report into alleged collusion and russian meddling in 2016. in the report, which you acknowledged you wish it weren't just a republican paper because it is so serious. but the conclusion is that the intelligence committee should immediately inform presidential candidates when they discover legitimate counter intelligence threat to the campaign and notify congress. and they fault the administration for not doing that when you were in office. >> well, i think that's a legitimate recommendation. any time a campaign is the

target of a hack, a cyber hack, the campaign itself should be aware of that to take proper action. >> why weren't they where of the trump campaign >> i believe it's the case that at various points along the way, the right people were informed. certainly the dnc was informed of what we saw and what we were seeing at the time. the fbi and eventually dhs was working with dnc but i agree there should be more methodical way of doing this. and this was not the first time, by the way, in 2016 that a campaign had been infiltrated in some way by a cyber attack and typically law enforcement and dhs will work with a campaign to make sure they take corrective action. you'd have to ask the fbi about the relationship with the interaction with the trump campaign but yoga with the recommendation >> you've testified publicly that when the administration did

decide to make public evidence they had of russian interference attempts, october, 2016 one month before the election. >> october 7, 2016 >> you said the media was not paying attention to it too much because of the access holiday report coming out but doesn't the administration bear some responsibility for not detailing more doing more background and sharing more information with reporters >> actually, the house intel report i think does a decent job of laying out the different considerations that went into that attribution, and we had to declassify a lot of very sensitive intelligence to get that, you have to be concerned about compromising sources and means. of so we said, as much as we could say at the time without serious's he jeopardizing our

mean, at the highest level there was an attempt to interfere with the ongoing political campaign, a number of us thought it was very important that we tell the american voters what was going on at the time before the election then after the election, we came back and much greater detail to tell the american public exactly what happened. >> you wish that alarm bell had been a little lighter? >> i wish that the alarm bell had been heard by more people. as you point out. the access holiday video was released the same day, and speculation on the next several days was whether or not candidate trump was going to drop out. and our statement was literally below the news that day >> i want to ask you as well about james comey colleague, former fbi director,s his new book, he writes about you in it and a phone call you made to him telling him to be quote very careful when he briefed president trump about the so-called steele dossier. why were you telling him to be

careful >> first, jim has been a friend for 30 years from when we were federal prosecutors together. it's in the case in washington when you're in a senior position like fbi director or secretary of homeland security it's a lonely place and very few people, north or south of you or sitting next to you will take the time to warn you if they think that you're about to do something that is treacherous, perhaps a mistake. >> did you think it was a mistake >> i was concerned when i heard the plan for the director of the fbi to one-on-one brief mr. trump about this dossier. jim and i had discussed over time the hoover era history of the fbi. my only grandfather and jim knows this, who was a so he isiologist has an fbi file of several hundred pages so jim and i talked about the history of the fbi, and he and i literally, he literally finished my sentence and i said there's a

fine distinction between telling somebody just so you know and telling somebody just so you know and don't mess with us. and i was concerned that the president elect was going to hear the latter and not the former message. and jim understood that. and i think he did his best. >> would you have done the same thing if you were in comey's position? . >> that's a good question, i was not in the fbi director's position. but i was concerned about what he was about to do, and felt as a friend, that i should talk to him because i had met mr. trump during the campaign and the transition. >> and you advised otherwise. all right. well, thank you very much for coming on. coming on. >> pleasure to be on. >> we'll be right back with the political panel, don't go away. , for fast pain relief. tylenol®

to bring together a group of remarkable people. to help save the universe... from paying too much on their car insurance. hey, there's cake in the breakroom... what are you doing? um...nothing? marvel studios' avengers: infinity war, in theaters april 27th. now...where were we? brushing only reaches 25% of your mouth.

listerine® cleans virtually 100%. helping to prevent gum disease and bad breath. never settle for 25%. always go for 100. bring out the bold™ nakamura. we're joined today by david nakamura covering the white house for the "washington post." susan paige is the washington bureau chief at usa today, jamelle bouie and jonah goldberg a senior editor and author of suicide of the west how the rebirth of nationalism and poplism and identity politics is destroying american democracy. david, good morning >> i'll answer the whole thing, margaret. it was quite a moment. you know, i've been at a number of these and it's not the first

comedian to make some of the type of joke that were made yesterday but it was awkward. i was at a table with the "washington post" and with congressman mark meadows, a trump supporter and hard conservative and and he and his wife were not really reacting trying to keep a straight face when these things were happening. the rumor in room was notable for the reaction journalists had. >> margaret brennan: because of how harsh >> i think the focus the journalists including myself is this was supposed to be a celebration certainly of the work that's done their student scholarships, it's something that we're talking about first amendment and that's what it is to be celebrated. sometimes i believe these things can go over and sort of overshadow that. >> susan, when the trump campaign held this rally. which was kind of counter

programming, michigan, the announcement said the fake news media to toast themselves and the president said why do i want to be stuck in a room with a bunch of fake news liberals who hate me. . did it change it at all. >> i think any time you can have a screening of the president attacking the press and next to it you can have a journalist dinner with a comedian attacking the president in the very critical way, the comedian, the that to reenforcing a narrative that is not helpful. but they're on the beat every day in terms of access and other issues. but this -- and it's been awkward there no question, but this is different, when this week a poll came out that showed a majority of republicans say the press is aiming at american people. not a defender of democracy, and that's an impression we need to do everything we can to shows that not true and not the case,

and we're motivated not by partisanship but by a search for the truth >> you talked broadly about identity politics and populars on nationals in your book. where does this piece of it fit in this narrative about the media >> i'm not a huge fan of the correspondence dinner i've been to a bunch of them. one of the problems is that it feeds into a narrative if that's the word, warning that is really useful to populus. say, hey, looking you know, when it started becoming sort of like an east coast version of the oscars, with who are you wearing and all that kind of stuff. i think washington press core lost track of himself, i was someone who dinged president trump often for his narcissim, the institutional that was on display from the correspondence dinner i think was a gift to president trump, the crudeness towards sarah hackabee-sanders was a gift to the white house. it let's them double down on

their either persecuting us story line and i think it was a really bad note fort washington press corp >> some of the push-back from comedians and others has been the president made personal attacks on people in the past and there hasn't been the same sort of horror by people in the administration that was expressed last night. is that a fair defense or is this sort of bringing everyone down in terms of what the bench mark for behavior should be >> i think it takes a little bit of both. it's fair to note that the president has is vulgar, is vulgar, has insulted private citizens. the president famously could not bring himself orrin famously could not bring himself to condemn white supremist protesters. i consider to be vulgar. it's sort of funny to see defenders of the administration

say hold on these jokes were too much given who they had to work for or who they are defending. i do want to make a larger point, and its relationship to the american public, which is i hope we can avoid presence here that the press's problem of legitimize with the public goes back decades. mistakes made by the press corp and an active organization against the press, to think that something about this dinner represents the problem, i don't think it's quite true. i agree with jonah's criticisms of straight up the spectacle of it all but this problem of press legitimacy goes back a long time and we should be careful not to think of it solely in terms of events like this. >> david, the president talks about the va, ronny jackson his personal physician withdrew this

week, amid a number of detailed allegations. the president last night at his rally had this to say. i want to play you the sound bite about the senator making these allegations. i'll read it john tester of montana started throwing out things he heard, well, i know thing about tester that i could say too. and if i said them, he would never be elected again. >> he's trying to make this an issue the way it was handled i think the bigger issue goes back again to dr. ronny jackson, the amount of unsourced allegations that were put out there i think somehow being found all of these things are being found to be true about what was said, we don't know the extent of what was true and wasn't i believe trump trying to make this an issue for tester and make this a partisan issue. even though i think the bigger question is how much vetting did the white house do about the

candidate and what were the real credentials beyond personal conduct the of this is a doctor who do get high marks from president obama in his administration. he doesn't have any management experience and this is a troubled agency, and for trump, if he can sort of make this a got you, but democrats undermining him that's what he's going for. >> should we expect the presidency to be campaigning in montana? change the race >> i'm sure republicans hope he is, that's a state that went with him in a big way, six months from next tuesday is the mid term election and i think that there are those in the white house who are concerned that the president is not aware of what peril he stands, if the house is controlled by the democrats, after the november mid terms or the senate. how his life will change in terms of investigations and subpoenas, much less passage of legislation and i think there is an effort by those close to the president to give him awake-up call about campaigning in montana about adjusting some of his behavior and some of his

rhetoric to help end endanger republican candidates in a lot of races where you might not expect the republicans to be in trouble >> i want to come to both of you on this, but jamal, i believe it's the first time kanye west was -- he and the president had a back and forth this week, the president praising him. and saying that kanya performed a great service to the black community by praising president trump. and that prompted an online exchange about whether black people have to be democrats. this is chance rapper out saying this, what do we make of this? and the president is talking about it >> i think that the best lens to take to this is a way to begin to understand the political demands within the african-american community. i think there's this idea because a large majority, the overall majority of black americans democrats reflects for the broad liberalism within.

it's more for black americans and this has been true basically during every single period of american political history where they could participate fully or partially. kind of a central judgment black americans are making with regards to the party system, which of the two parties will hurt us less? and voting decisions go from there. and so there are a lot of conservative black americans, conservativism is different than white americans but they're still conservative, they won't vote for -- they won't feel the republican party is looking out for the best interest. 60 years ago it was the reverse. for me that's my take away. a political science lesson, history lesson about black political behavior. >> jamelle, what do you make of this >> i resent having to have a strong opinion about kanye west one way or another. similarly shania, twain who said she would have voted for trump but she's canadian.

i believe one of the problems we have is not only is our sort of lifestyle being politicized. partisan affiliation is being invested. with feed meaning, politics is being lifestyled. the entertainment world, as i said on here before, donald trump broke the blood brain barrier between politics and entertainment and seems that everything is now flooding in. and a lot of us just want save harbors where not everything has to be about either donald trump or politics in general. and it doesn't seem that's the way the culture >> because trump talks about it. i just note quickly that trump has 50 million twitter followers he retweeted kanye west signed on that account the same day the president said he wanted pictures of mike pompeo's visit to north korea. you can see what's on donald trump's mind. >> as i said, first time kanye

west, >> making history. >> margaret brennan: we'll be right back in a moment.

ok between north and south korea. been tracy file this report from seoul. >> reporter: it was just one step but it made history. kim jong-un became the first north korean leader to cross the border into the south. then a diplomatic dance. as kim invited you south korean president moon jae-in to step across the demarcation line into north korea. that was the first of several unexpected moments as south korea rolled out the red carpet for its nemeses from the north. the two leaders seemed to form an instant rapport. at one point, kim jong-un said he would no longer interrupt the president's speech with early morning missile launches. of course those weapons and the north agreeing to get rid of them was the goal of the summit. but there was no talk of how or when or what north korea would

demand in return. kim jong-un declared he wants peace and prosperity and an official end to the korean war but all of that rosiness is competing with reality. president moon, a former human rights lawyer is negotiating with a brutal dictator known for some of the worst human rights abuses on the planet. the south korean are giving kim jong-un the benefit of the doubt hoping he's a different and more honest north korean leader. he showed some evidence at the summit acknowledging that the roads are in such terrible shape he'd be embarrassed if president moon had to travel on them. >> that was cbs news correspond tracy. we're joined now by ian bremmer, "us versus them," the fairly of globalism. good to have you here.

moon jae-in seems to totally change the topic, we're not talking military strikes, we're talking about diplomatic breaks. >> first of all big win that the united states and the trump administration were able to push the north koreans to this point, both carots and sticks offering a summit, not talking about human rights also saying you don't get this right we'll squeeze you really hard, maybe military strikes. that's all possible. but you can't talk about pre-emptio pre-emptio pre-emptio pre-emption military strikes if they're taking about making peace. if trump wants to have a meeting with kim jong-un and declare this a great breakthrough and a historic win, he can do that but the idea he can force denuclearization right now lost significant >> what did you make of john bolton who was on this show and

repeatedly mentioned bollibby beeian model? >> gadalphi ended up dead and if you're kim jong-un the idea of denuclearization is almost unconceivable. also given a run, one of the things interesting to watch on the clearly bolton, private citizen wants it dead. bolton national security advisor on your show saying let's see what the president will say. that's the self imposed deadline may 12th, kim jong-un's meeting is after that. i think there's a lot of pressure on trump right now. yes, he can rip it up but don't rip it up before. give macron and merkel a chance

to work it out. let trump have a chance to blame them for failure. then rip it up. first get your deal done with the north koreans. >> i want to talk about your book here, "us versus them." it's a fascinating read. you really lay out a pretty damning vision of where the world is headed. and various structural issues that you say we're not talking enough about, that populus aren't the problem they're the symptom >> i have a hard time saying that trump is the fault of the, more divided country than i've ever experienced. especially because it's not just in the u.s. it's across all of the advanced industrial democracies in the world today, except for japan. where they have no immigrants and the population is shrinking. we have big economic issues where a lot of people feel left behind by globalization.

social cultural issues left behind, big security issues where enlisted men and women in the family left behind because the united states is sending them to wars that fail, they come back a lot broken, veterans administration doesn't work with those heros and now we have technology not only displacing more workers than globalization ever did but dividing us in terms of what we watch and follow and like. that's structural. that's why trump won. that's why bernie sanders was who he was. that's why merkel just got destroyed in her last election. that's when the italians had the worse out come for the established political parties since world war ii. i mean, only macron has won of the globalist and he almost didn't make it second you round. in america, we think everything is about us but we recogniz we're not so unique, this is happening all over the world.

we have to stop what's happening with trump. we can get rid of trump. probably not impeach but he's going at four eight year, not fixing any of these problems >> it's a fascinating political analysis and it's one i recommend you have a tall drink because you highly a lot of really key issues that we should be talking about we got to leave it there. and thank you for coming on the show. we'll be right back. scalpel

scalpel taco! taco!

are you one of the millions of americans whose love for jack in the box tacos has turned into an obsession? no tacos here. hi. i'm jack box and i'm here to help. by giving the taco obsessed what they need most. even more tacos. introducing my $3 taco deal with three of the tacos you love and a refreshing drink for just three bucks. so if you have a taco obsession... clear! taco! taco! ...don't beat it, feed it. . >> margaret brennan: that's it for today. - [announcer] the following is a paid presentation

for lifelock identity theft protection paid for by lifelock. - [narrator] what happens if a thief steals your identity? it happens to millions of americans. we asked people to share their stories of identity theft. - someone had opened up five or six credit cards in my name. i didn't know if was gonna affect me being able to get an apartment, even open a credit card. - i took out mortgage money, wasn't me! can you imagine what that's like? - somebody hacked into my email account, took all my emails. i had financial information on there. - and had we figured it out in the beginning, we wouldn't have been in this deep and he wouldn't have gotten us so hard. - [narrator] millions of americans have been affected by identity theft. what can you do to make sure you're not victimized? find out with lifelock member tom jourden. - today's technology makes identity theft easier and easier. if you use a smartphone, shop online, use public wi-fi or fill out forms or applications, you're at risk.