by trump attorneys in january of this year to special council robert mil er. this article just being posted about an hour, hour and a half ago. it contends the president cannot illegally obstruct any aspect of the investigation because the constitution empowers him to. if he wished to terminate the inquiry or even exercise his power to pardon. joining me now is one of the journalists with a biline who wrote this for us. charl charlie savage. what stood out? sh where do we start with this? >> this is a really remarkable document to see in real-time, as the fight between the president's lawyers and special counsel or whether mr. trump will talk to the investigators or face a subpoena if yhe doesnt

want to do it voluntarily heats up. this is a lengthy top to bottom defense of the president against the obstruction of justice accusations that he has been facing. it is an argument forw why he cannot be subpoenaed as a matter of law and an argument of why he can't be accused of breaking laws of obstruction of justice no matter what, even if the evidence showed he had corrupt intent when he fired james comey or told him not to go forward with investigating michael flynn. it doesn't matter because they are articulating a sweeping novel theory of presidential power under the constitution under which he cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice because he runs the executive branch and all investigations are subject to his control. >> novel, charlie? also, as you have so well articulated for us and summarized on the article as

well as the 20 pages, they seem to be making the argument, is he above the law? >> that's the implication of theories that statutes that apply to everyone else in the united states, do not apply to the president. because the president is a unique figure in our country, and in our government and in our legal system, he has powers that the constitution assigned to him, and that makes it difficult for another branch of government, congress, by passing statutes, to infringe on those core authorities. this is part of in that famous phrase from watergate, when the president does it it doesn't make it illegal. he overseas the justice department, like -- the commander in chief of the military, law enforcement officer in chief. he can shut down any investigation he wants at any time. he can remove any subordinate official he wants to, and that is authority that he has, so

when congress makes it a rhycri impede an investigation with corrupt innocent, congress lacks the authority to contrain him, even if it constrains everyone else in the country. this is a theory that's been floating around. i mentioned it in the context of nixon, but there is no court press accide press accident to tell us whether or not. >> when you read through it -- this is the physical copy. i can turn it sideways if you want to get a sense of how thick it is. this is the january memo. you put the june memo together, does one seep supercede the other? >> the june memo which was written to mr. mueller's team early on after his appointment arose when word first began to filter out that in addition to investigating whether there was collusion with russia in the 2016 election interference

matter, that mueller was also going to be looking at whether trump obstructed justice in 2017 by interfering with that investigation. so the lawyer -- in that case, his legal team wrote an early memo saying here's why we think you shouldn't be looking at that at all. a lot of constitutional arguments are in that earlier letter. longer one incorporates that and makes an array of other arguments that are more geared towards the immediate issue, which is whether the president should or can be forced to talk to mueller before mueller wraps up the instruction. >> you're part of the fantastic four that have been following this story so well, and when you look at the mood of june last year, compared to january of this year, and even to today, as we hop into another new month here, the tone also perhaps reflects that the time, the context. right? >> well, yes, but also, although

this letter is from january and the other we got it from june, i don't want your listeners to think that this is old. this is foreshadowing and laying the ground work for the issue that is particularly hot right now. we are reaching a clie max in the negotiations between the special counsel's office and president's legal team about whether he will talk to mueller, and if not, whether he will issue a subpoena to try to force him to talk. these arguments that they've been having privately are recorded in this letter but now is the moment when this stuff is really reaching a peak. it's extraordinary to see this documents get leaked all the time. this one is special. i found it quite fascinating to look through this. we're seeing exactly what it is they're saying to each other and they're foreshadowing what the gigantic legal court battle will

infold if there is a subpoena and the president fights it in court. arguments in in memo are what we're going to be seeing in the briefs filed in that battle to come. >> if this is the play book, right? you've been reporting, we've been following certainly those story lines that echo the thinking here, going back to january and, as you're saying, very important given the day that we're at today, as we look at the development of this very story on june 2nd, 2018. you mention the obstruction of justice statute, how the argument they're making here does not apply to fbi investigations. that's a pretty essential argument they're trying to make. >> that's right. this is a really striking aspect of this because it goes to the quality of the legal advice the president is getting from the lawyers who are willing to work for him. they have a lot of arguments that center on a sort of

technical legalistic parsing of a particular federal statute against obstruction of justice, one that says it's a crime to impede a pending proceeding. there's a kourt ruling that says a mere fbi investigation doesn't count as such a proceeding because they're gathering information, not adjudicating anything. also arguments he didn't know necessarily at the time of the conversation that the fbi was actively investigating flynn. so he couldn't have had the intent to interfere with it anyway. all of those arguments are premised on the idea that the relevant law is this one i mentioned, section 1505 of title 18 which talks about pending proceedings. problem is that that is an outdated understanding of obstruction law. way back in 2002, as part of the act after the enron accounting scandal and others, congress

closed the loophole that if someone interfered with the witness or destroyed evidence early on because they thought it might lead to legal trouble or because of the fbi had just started looking at it but hadn't gotten very far, they could get' way with it. in this 2002 law congress said it is a crime to impede a proceeding even if that proceeding has not yet started and is not even about to be started. what that means is, if you impede something that is a potential grand jury investigation, which is a proceeding, or a potential trial, which is a proceeding, even if it hasn't happened yet, that is still obstruction of justice. all the arguments are focused on there was an fbi investigation. he didn't know. they're totally beside the point. it's remarkable that lawyers who are advising the president didn't know that. >> we're about to get some more lawyers in the conversation. but i want to ask you this first. charlie, in terms of new pieces of information that came out from this document, one might be

the story of the president here. it seems like his lawyers are talking about dictation from the president to his son. fill that in for us. >> so one of the things that mueller is looking at is a statement that the white house issued in the name of donald trump jr. when the "new york times" first broke the story about the famous trump tower meeting with the russian lawyer and the fact that donald trump jr. had been promised dirt on hillary clinton from the russian government and eagerly responded to that. in that sequence of this meeting -- it took a while for those details to come out. they put a statement in his name saying we talked about adoptions. and there was nothing to it. and there's been some suspicion that actually, that statement was personally dictated by the president. and in this letter, they seem to acknowledge that yes, he personally dictated that misleading statement because we know that the meeting was

premised on the idea the russian government was going to give dirt on hillary clinton to the campaign. but they say well, so what. it's no the -- basically that's a personal matter between the president and the "new york times." in other words, it's not a crime for a politician to lie to the media and the public. what business is it of yours, bob mueller. that's their defense of that moment. what's interesting about this is mueller is interested in that for other reasons, we think. one is, if trump, in doing -- personally, was personally trying to mislead the public, and cover up these campaign ties to russia, that could be evidence that he wanted to cover up campaign ties to russia and therefore evidence of his motivation and intention when he did other things. like pressure the comey to stop investigating flynn or fire comey other these other things. even though that particular

moment was between the public and "new york times" annd the president is could be evidence of other things. the other thing relevant is one of the articles of impeachment against richard nixon talked about, as one of the items against him, lying to the public and trying to mislead the public about whether there was anything there to the watergate investigation. even if it's not a crime in terms of federal statutes and what you could be prosecuted for in court, lying to the public about -- there is precedent in american history for lies in an investigation like this to be part of what was the bill of particulars in an impeachment proceeding. >> stand by. as always great reporting. if you don't mind, two or three minutes. we're going to bring in the legal panel. all going to join charlie savage, as well as we are in this breaking news cycle right now. a revealing 20-page memo coming from the trump legal team.

we're going to dig deeper. stick around. (vo) what if this didn't have to happen? i didn't see it. (vo) what if we could go back? what if our car... could stop itself? in iihs front-end crash prevention testing, nobody beats the subaru impreza. not toyota. not honda. not ford. the subaru impreza. more than a car, it's a subaru. you might or joints.hing for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. ♪ with expedia you could book a flight, hotel, car and activity all in one place. ♪

we're still following the breaking news into msnbc on the russia investigation. it's a bombshell "new york times" report 20 pages long just out within the last couple hours. a real extensive view, 20 pages long, as i just described, into the thinking of the trump legal team. arguments they make against special counsel robert mueller,

really two memos, one that came out in january of this year, one in jooune. issues, obstruction of justice, also the question of the president speaking with the special council, charlie savage, one of the four journalists who authored this "new york times" piece, washington correspondent. still with us. also barbara mcquaid. and nick, and former assistant special watergate prosecutor. a nice good hardy group. nick, i'm start with you. we were talking before we came on air. i were vigorously going through the text here. of what's the value of it? what did you learn about it? >> to me, the bottom line is trump's got pretty bad legal talent. first of all, the whole idea that he can't be charged with obstruction of justice, the last time that ever happened in this

country is when we were ruled by king george. that's what the whole rule of law is about. president has to faithfully execute the laws. if it he winds up having the corrupt intent to put the ca bosh to an investigation, that's obstruction of justice. if i advise someone to take the fifth amendment that's fine. but if i do it with the corrupt intent to cover up crimes i committed, that's obstruction of justice. that applies to the president. the u.s. supreme court said no man is above the law in u.s. v m nixon. and to go into a grand jury would somehow put the office of the president in a bad light, well first of all, this president spends so much time playing golf, he winds up going

into federal court in los angeles and sue as porn star who he claims he doesn't know, yet he doesn't have time to sit in a grand jury for a few hours and provide testimony, even though the supreme court has held that the public is entitled to every person's evidence? i mean, go through each one of these, and it just doesn't ring true on any of the scores that they're arguing here. >> so, it may appear, switching over to your colleague, that barbara, they may have written this memo, it may have been delivered, but at the end of the day, is it more of a piece to say oh, if it does get leaked, at least the public now knows our thinking, in terms of its legal foundation, as nick is intimating here? there's not a lot of meat, beef, shall we say, going back to an old advertisement, where is the beef in this? >> i agree with nick that i think both legal theories are

really quite unsound, and i'd be surprised if the lawyers think they're going to convince mueller's team on either. whenever there's a leak, i ask myself, who might have had a motive and what purpose. it may be that trump's legal team isn't interested in convincing mueller but in getting this conversation out in the public arena. so that members of -- who are potentially sympathetic can say the president can't even obstruct. >> you think that potentially somebody in the trump legal circle may have wanted this to get out as opposed to other forces in this very debate today, that it helps them more at this time, and in fact, as you know, president trump did tweet out before this article came out, that the doj, what he was intimating here, may have been releasing documents. >> so of course i don't know and i don't want to accuse anyone of anything but when you think of who might have a motive, it seems that especially, with such

flimsy legal arguments the audience isn't so much mueller and his team but the public and those who might be sympathetic to president trump. legal team might have a motive to get people talking about this potential defense. >> as a part of that very discussion and possibility, i think, when you look at some of the wording in the actual document itself, which i think folks who looked through, this does stand out. i'll read what's on page 5. word says this encumbrance has been only compounded by the astounding public revelations about the corruption within the fbi, department of justice department, which appears to have led to the alleged russia collusion investigation. when you look at that very structure-jack of the words, one does to the expect to hear astounding public relations in the legal document. >> you're absolutely right.

we're looking at this two ways. there is the legal aspect and the political aspect. we've seen this very aggressive offensive effort to go after the investigation to undercut the pinnings of the investigation so people will dismiss it, that seems to be a part of what's happening. there's two parts going on. in the end, what we're looking at, this is the most aggressive document, when it comes to this issue that i have ever seen. looking back at nixon, clinton, what was going on through both of those presidencies, that sort of takes both and wraps them around each other, puts them on steroids and wraps them in an american flag and sings yankee doodle dandy. >> what might the reaction. that's nice, and quickly filed? >> i think so. it's total nonsense, the legal

underpinning is very weak. not a lot to it. basically arguing that donald trump is the new king george, which i think he wants to be, obviously, they're arguing legal theories that have already listen rejected by the u.s. supreme court. and it's all a lot of wishful thinking from their sand point. >> executive privilege. >> that's nonsense. executive privilege was decided in u.s. v nicksoxon. none of what mueller is looking at relates to any of it. they're just trying to put up a bunch of flim flam. donald trump is just a flim flam artist trying to sell more snake oil, and this is another way to package the same snake oil he's been selling to the public through rudy giuliani for the last week. >> nick, you've got to let go a little. release what you're thinking here. as you go over to charlie. what about comey?

how does he address the firing? or the legal team. i'm sorry. >> so this is part of the argument that the president trump has done nothing here for which he can be accused of violating a congressional statute against obstruction of justice. remember both nixon and clinton were accused of that. of the it was a different kind of obstruction. it was witness tampering or perjury, sort of stuff outside of a president's official exercise of his constitutional authorities. and so they're saying here, look, removing a subordinate is something a president can do because the constitution gives him the authority, just like they say he can order the attorney general to close a case or pardon anybody. so how do you -- how is it that

congress is allowed to crimin criminalize something that he's em poured to do by the constitution itself. what's interesting is, it is the case that he, the president has broad authority to fire subordinates, direct the justice department to do things and so forth, but the supreme court has upheld several statutes in which congress has restricted that authority. supreme court has said for example, if congress says you can't fire this particular official without good cause, the president can't just fire him for no reason. he's got to have a good reason. just to finish the thought. the question is whether the obstruction of justice statute is one of those things. says he can fire comey for no reason but not the corrupt reason. >> i want the to branch off, going to barbara on this. when i go to the annotation that charlie made of this 20 dash page memo, there's a section the

power to kill cases. the president has the ability to kill cases, paraphrased, here, then therefore, this is not obstruction of justice. does that hold water, barbara? >> i don't think so. i mean he may have the power to kill a case if, for example it was going to have some ramification on a foreign policy matter. charge someone who as a from nant figure in iran or something. like all powers, they cannot be executed corruptly. of the just to draw analogy. a president has an absolute power to appoint a federal judge but not in exchange for a $1 million bribe. similarly if he wants to quikil case but can't do it if it's to protect his skin or someone close to him. >> jack, quickly to you, sum it up for us, 20 seconds. >> when i look at where we are now, they're swinging as hard as they can, reaching out to the

public to try to drive them in a particular direction, i think they're concerned is this going to get knocked down by mueller. if this ends up in the courts, i think the president is going to lose and lose big. >> thank you all for a great conversation. of course barbara, jack, nick and charlie savage, who broke this for us just within the last couple of hours here, one of the four authors of this piece and ts the ones that got hands on. thank you for talking to us and filling us in on the meaning. still ahead for all of us, more on this "new york times" report. joining me next, harvard professor lawrence tribe who has argued before the supreme court 36 times and has a new book out about impeachment. his thoughts coming up.

the first survivor of alzheimer's disease is out there. and the alzheimer's association is going to make it happen. but we won't get there without you. visit alz.org to join the fight.

ithe race for governort. has turned into a scam. gavin newsom's trying to elect a republican who was endorsed by trump. and villaraigosa's being bankrolled by a handful of billionaires. it's everything that's wrong with politics. and none of it is helping struggling families. here's my pledge to you. i'll keep our budget balanced. invest in affordable housing. fight for universal healthcare. and stand up to donald trump. as governor, you can trust me to do what's right- because i always have.

californians are leading against donald trump. our senator should, too. kevin de león is the only candidate for senate who passed laws protecting immigrants from trump... and helped dreamers stay in school. he led bold action against climate change. and only de león fought for universal, medicare for all. democrat kevin de león the only true progressive for senate. change california now is responsible for the content of this advertising. thanks for staying with us. still following a breaking news story. "new york times" reporting it has obtained a copy of a confidential memo. extensive, as you can tell here is their response to mueller's request to interview the president on questions related to alleged obstruction and

collusion. trump's attorneys take the position that while the president has cooperated fully by providing documents, he cannot be compelled to testify and that he could, if he wished, shut down the investigation. for more, let's bring in harvard law professor lawrence tribe, co-author of the new book "to tend a presidency, the power of impeachment." as you know, we have the 20-page memo to get to. broadly speaking, as you've looked through it, what is your assessment, and if the arguments that you see in it regarding obstruction of justice, as well as the subpoena to be interviewed by the mueller team, if that makes it to the supreme court, since you have addressed the supreme court dozens of times here, what would happen? >> first of all, while i was waiting in the green room, i read the entirety of that 20-page memo.

there wasn't nearly as much substance as there was verbiage, and i agree with every word of what charlie savage said about that memo. his analysis was spot on. it's very clear that the memo makes arguments that are so over-the-top that even a conservative supreme court would be overwhelmingly unlikely to reject them from the technical arguments that completely ignore the change in the obstruction statute to the overarching ar e arguments about the president being incapable of violating laws about the proceeding of criminal cases and about obstruction of justice. it's all really nonsense. in fact, the current chief justice, john roberts, a former student of mine, has had a great hero justice robert jackson who

once said the president is commander in chief of the military. he is not commander in chief of the country. he is under the law. of the what it means to be under the law, as barbara mcquaid pointed out is even though he has very broad powers, like the power to appoint judges if he wants, if he is bribed to a point a particular judge, he can be removed for that bribery, a clearly impeachable offense. the whole memo is written kind of on the strange premise we're talking about indicting a sitting president. it doesn't look like that's what is in robert mueller's play book. what is, is issuing a subpoena to a sitting president in aid of getting at the truth. nixon case establishes you can issue a subpoena to a sitting president to make him turn over tapes. the clinton case makes clear that you can make a sitting president testify, even in a

civil case. it's much more important that he should be required to testify in a criminal context, where those in his immediate circle are being gradually indicted and subjected to investigation for serious crimes involving potential collusion with a foreign adversary in order to win the office of the presidency. it's really clear that the reasoning in this memo is so over the top that whatever credible arguments they might otherwise have had, kind of go by the way side. the 13th crihime of a clock tha makes you doubt the first 12. this memorandum is legally shabby. it wouldn't pass muster even in an intrope ducktry course in constitutional law. i'm concerned that the president of all people ought to have better lawyers willing to

represent him. it's not something that the lawyers i know would be eager to do but he must be able to find some conservative lawyers who can make a decent legal argument. so far, we haven't seen that. >> lawyerence, bar ra mckwads - you also -- lawrence was also my professor. nick ackerman. >> i just learned that the other night. i was proud. >> and he is too. so what he asked -- he wanted me to ask you, lawrence, was the issue of corruption. these laws may be in place. establishment of obstruction of justice, the issue of executive privilege but not when you add in the issue of corruption. he really wanted to undermine that. >> i think he's very right. i mean the point is that the president can, for example, in order to protect our foreign policy, decide that a certain

case shouldn't go ahead against a foreign government but he cannot decide a case should be dropped to protect him or his son-in-law or shimself. that is a corrupt endeavor to interrupt an ongoing investigation, whether it's an investigation by the fbi, by a grand jury, or by the congress of the united states, a president who is not a king, who is not above the law simply cannot exercise the kinds of weeping powers that this memo claims. in fact the whole point of our revolution was to establish, among other things that no one is above the law. we don't have a king. we have a president, and the position that this president is taking is really inconsistent with the whole structure of our government. i think that is ultimately what may bring him down. but i'm not ready to call for

his impeachment now. whole point of the book was that impeachment is too serious a weapon for us to brandish it about loosely. we would find ourselves just crying wolf. we need to wait until the situation is right. not that he hasn't done things that crossed the line. but to impeach him now only to see him acquitted by the senate would be simply to give him more power. that's the last thing we need. >> so, as you look and allude to your book here, how close are we, then, that we should discuss that word that you've just brought up, impeachment. you said becareful how you use it. this is alluding to your book. if midnight is that hour, how close are we at the moment? >> it's not a clock. we're not talking about setting speed limits. what we're talking about is

deciding whether, in the whole context, it makes sense to use this particular tool against the president. for example, his pardon of joe arpaio, even before the recent extravaganza of pardons with people like d'souza. even if someone is convicted of defying a court order, to stop discriminating against and mistreating immigrants of color. it's okay, if he's on our team we can send him a signal of out of jail free. and dangling the out of jail free card in front of the people who might be witnesses against this president is something that he's doing continually. that builds up a strong record which will be only stronger if a democratic house conducts full and fair investigations of all that's going on. problem with the mueller

investigation, fair and full as it is, is that when the report is issued to the public, through rod rosenstein and through possible leaks or whatever happens, officially released, it will be filled with redactions. we won't know what the grand jury testimony was. in nixon's case, we had an extended process about ten months of meaningful investigation by the house judiciary committee. very different from what the delawar delaware -- nun es show was about. if we have that kind of inquiry, we might develop the sort of national consensus on a bipartisan basis without which impeachment is not a way to save our democracy. >> very quickly here, because you touched on so many items here, but the pardons we've

sceneri sceneri sceneries entally. some say the pardon system needs to be changed. should it be and why. >> the stystem is fine. this president is using par pardons to blow an elephant whistle to the people he wants to cooperate with him. the change we need is a change in president, no the a change in the pardon system. >> all right. fantastic conversation. it's great to have a teacher of so many that we have on our air. lawrence tribe, always good to hear from you. co-author, to end a presidency, the power of impeach pt. rlg appreciate it. our other big story, north korea. summit, we are hearing is back on. date is the same. place is the same. but there's something different about the president's expectations.

we'll talk with former u.s. ambassador to the united nations. uncompromising protection... advanced connectivity... and one more thing... the world comes with it. the new, reimagined 2019 jeep cherokee. booking a flight doesn't have to be expensive. just go to priceline. it's the best place to book a flight a few days before my trip and still save up to 40%. just tap and go... for the best savings on flights, go to priceline.

thanks forestaying with us. president trump now ten days away from an historic face-to-face meeting with kim jong-un. after several weeks will they or won't they, he says the summit is on. he made the announcement after he met with kim's number 2, kim

yong-chol in the oval office friday. but he's lowering expectations. >> june 12 will be in singapore. a beginning. i don't say and i've never said it it happens in one meeting. talking about years of hostility. years of problems. years of really hatred between so many different nations. but i think you're going to have a very positive result in the end. >> all right. let's bring in first director of national intelligence under president george w. bush and former u.s. ambassador to the united nations. ambassador, thanks for being with us, you've seen the reports out of the meeting there of kim yong-chol who mutt with tet wit president and staff. was it a good outcome and is it good for the setup for the meeting in singapore? >> i think the president is right to manage expectations. best i think that can come out of it it would be the

establishment of some kind of process, some kind of road map toward the ultimate goals, which are both denuclearize of the korean peninsula and normalization of the relationship. i think the president's right to point out that years have gone by with this situation. it started back in june of 1950 when north korea invaded the south. it's not as if this thing started yesterday. and this is the legacy of the korean war that the president is taking on, and i'm impressed. i got to say, but the amount of time he's already -- amount of personal time he's already devoted to resolving this. i think that's one of the elements of the situation that gives rise to hope that some progress right be made in regard to this extremely difficult situation. >> ambassador, if you're sitting on the other side of the table in singapore, if you're sitting

there, and you have the negotiating team as well as kim jong-un there, what does kim jong-un want? does he want money? i understand now one of the sticking points is deciding who's going to pay for his hotel room because it's $6,000 a night. if he wants money, how do they properly get that to him? if he wants respect, how do they give that? >> i think first of all he's going to get a lot of respect just as a result of having held a meeting with the president of the united states. this has been an aspiration of north korea for a long, long time. so, that would be the first point. secondly, i think what he really wants -- i think this is really the key issue. is that a tactical ploy on his part just to get some kind of sanctions relief is i? or does he want to find some kind of long-term solution to the situation on the korean peninsula? if it is the latter, what i

think he wants is some promise of normalization of relations with us, the prospect of integrating north korea with the global economy and getting things back to a place that they just haven't been in the past almost 70 years. >> as you know so well, i say that phrase again, it takes a long time. this is going to be one meeting. so you're going to look for the indicators that show that the -- at least start to this is good. is it going to be as simple as allowing investigators and again from the iaea, is it going to be yes, you can bring in mcdonald's, which would be a grand icon from the west, into north korea? what would be some of the indicators you'd look for? >> you've mentioned a couple of practical things. i think also, perhaps that the level of policy i think it would be some kind of statement that both parties favor denuclearize

of the korean peninsula, that they would like to take steps to bring a formal end to the korean war and like to see progress towards normalization of relations. one specific thing i would really like to see the north koreans commit to -- i don't know if it's too early, but for them to commit to rejoin the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which they withdrew from in 2003, which kind of set the stage for the development of nuclear weapons. >> laying ow the potential plan that might work there. i appreciate it, ambassador. thank you. >> thank you. let's bring in rolling stone senior writer and professor of korean studies. we're looking at the president and you heard the ambassador say here a lot of personal time from this president into this very topic. this potential meeting. now they're saying on in singapore. >> i think that's the big mistake. you don't want to heighten

expectations in the first place, you do not have the president at the united states at the meeting. you don't have kim jong-un at the meeting. you have lower level staffers, not even the secretary of state. and the problem is he's put in place a secretary of state that is not terribly interested in diplomacy, both this one at the previous one. we're looking at a situation where he's built up this meeting as if he's going to solve this. as if he's going to end this. and really, the process, as the ambassador pointed out, takes a lot longer. i want to know how the expectations game is going to play, especially when he comes back with very little other than a hotel bill for a korean dictator. >> as we finish out the week now, and you see the very visit there from kim yong-chol who has his storied history you can talk about better than we can, is this the right precursors to a

successful outcome? absolute absolutely that is for north korea. it was a remarkable successful visit for the north korean. basically he got whatever he wanted out of president trump. there's no need for the president of the united states, even to meet this person who's been black listed, designated by the u.s. and south korea for his alleged roles in lethal attacks against south korea on two occasions in 2010 as well as the massive cyber attack in 2014. the fact that president trump met with him kim suggests that trump is very eager to effect the summit meeting and for the president to say, oh, i told him, take your time, dismantling nuclear weapons. that basically would be construed as carry on, building bombs, further advancing your capabilities to say that maximum pressure is not going to use that phrase anymore, of course the military threat component

went out the window the moment that kim jong-un flashed smiles and made his dramatic outreach to south korea ant the united states. but basically trump said i'm not going to enforce sanctions. it takes time. continual effort, not something you can switch on like electricity. >> in 15 seconds, as you know the six party talks were quite extensive. did not work in the end. moon jae-in. how -- >> south korean president is very eager to engage north korea to go back to the days, 2003 to 2008 when he was chief of staff in the blue house, giving north korea $900 million worth of aid, most of that in cash, that would be a return to a very good

arrange. for the north caroliko regime. >> thank you very much. because dry eye can mean... ...more than... ...just dryness. xiidra may provide lasting relief... ...starting in two weeks. one drop in each eye, twice a day. don't use if you are allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. don't touch container tip to your eye... ...or any surface. after using xiidra, wait 15 minutes... ...before reinserting contacts. chat with your eye doctor... ...about xiidra. ...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors.

new ensure max protein. ♪ with expedia you could book a flight, hotel, car and activity all in one place. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months, ... with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.

tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. other side effects include upper respiratory tract infection and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ♪ otezla. show more of you. covering the major breaking news this hour. bombshell report from the "new york times" revealing a 20-page memo sent from donald trump's

lawyers to robert mueller. it it had 16 points, a breakdown of their defense to all the issues that mueller is potentially looking into. we'll dig deeper into that story after a short break. etty amazin. etty amazin. the world is full of more possibilities than ever before. and american express has your back every step of the way- whether it's the comfort of knowing help is just a call away with global assist. or getting financing to fund your business. no one has your back like american express. so where ever you go. we're right there with you. the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. don't live life without it. you're smart,eat you already knew that.

but it's also great for finding the perfect used car. you'll see what a fair price is and you can connect with a truecar certified dealer. now you're even smarter. this is truecar. delivcrisp leaves of lettuce,s. freshly-made dressing. clean food that looks this good, eaten at your desk. panera. food as it should be. now delivered.

californians are leading against donald trump. our senator should, too.

kevin de león is the only candidate for senate who passed laws protecting immigrants from trump... and helped dreamers stay in school. he led bold action against climate change. and only de león fought for universal, medicare for all. democrat kevin de león the only true progressive for senate. change california now is responsible for the content of this advertising. good day to you, i'm richard lui. we're going to continue to follow the breaking news. "new york times" releasing a bombshell report just within the last