soon bse the negotiations continue. thank you very much. >> reporter: you mentioned that you have raised extensively the issue of human rights with chairman kim. i wonder what you would say to the group of people who have no ability whatsoever to hear or to see this press conference, the 100,000 north koreans kept in a network of gulags. have you betrayed them by legitimizing the regime in pyongyang? >> i think i've helped them. things will change. there's nothing i can say all i can do is do what i can do. we have to top the denuclearizati nuclearization, and at a certain point maybe you'll be able to ask me a much more positive question but not much i can do right now. at a certain point i believe he's going to do things about it. i think they are one of the great winners today, that large group of people that you're

talking about. i think ultimately they'll be one of the great winners as a group. yes, sir, go ahead. go ahead. >> reporter: would you ever consider removing the sanctions without significant improvement in the human rights situation? >> i want to know it won't be happening. and, again, once you start that process there will be a point at which even though you won't be finished for a while because it can't happen scientifically or mechanically but you won't be able to go back. once we reach that point i'll that serious thought. yes, go ahead. >> reporter: mr. president, did you also discuss the cost of denuclearization and how north korea will foot the bill while the crippling sanctions remain in place? >> i think south korea and japan will help them very grately. i think they'll help them very grately. we won't have to help them. the united states has been

paying a big price at a lot of different places but south korea which is obviously right next door and japan whi is essentially next door, they will be helping them and doing a very generous job and a terrific job so they will be helping them. yes, ma'am, go ahead, behind. >> reporter: thank you, mr. president. i'd like to follow up on steve's question. he asked how long it would take toedness the korean peninsula. you said a long time. what does that mean? >> well, i don't know when you say a long time. i think we will do it as fast as we can be done scientifically and mechanically. i don't think -- i mean, i've read horror stories, it's a 15-year process assuming you wanted to do it quickly i don't believe that. i think whoever wrote that is wrong but there will be a point at which when you're 20% through you can't go back. i had an uncle who was a great professor for i believe 40 years

at m.i.t. and i used to discuss nuclear with him all the time. he was a great expert. he was a great brilliant genius, dr. john trump at m.i.t. the head of m.i.t. sent me a book on my uncle but we used to talk about nuclear. you're talking about a very complex subject, it's not just like oh, gee, let's get rid of nukes. but the main period of time is that first period when you hit a certain point, you can't go back, it's very hard to go back. >> how long will that take? >> we don't know but it will go pretty quick lyquickly. >> reporter: i wanted to ask again on the sanctions campaign. you alluded at the beginning the chinese are not doing as great a job securing the border as they were before. you expressed doubts when kim went to see president xi. the russian foreign minister was in pyongyang and said there

shouldn't be sanctions while negotiations are you should way d the south koreans are talking about restoring some form of trade so with all of those players appear to be moving toward eroding sanctions. how can you keep the sanctions regime in place. what leverage do you have on these countries? >> i think we have a lot. i think we have tremendous leverage. i believe that china despite my relationship with president xi, a man i have great respect fnd and like a lot. we're having tough talks on trade and i think that probably affects china somewhat but i have to do what i have to do and i think over the last two months the boarder is more open than it was when we first started but that is what it is. we have to do it. we had a -- we have a tremendous deficit in trade, commonly known as a trade deficit. we have a tremendous deficit in trade with china.

i don't think it has the relationship -- i don't think it affects my feeling or my relationship to president xi but when we first started we weren't ady to go that route and as we started preparing and getting ready to do that i think that's had an impact on frankly the border which is a shame but i have to do it i have no choice. south korea will do whatever is necessary to get a deal done. if that means we can't trade, we won't trade. they're definitely not going to trade. if they think, and they would do this with our concurrence, if they think they can do some work because we're very far down the line -- we're actually very far. that document when you read it today, that's far down the line. that's not something that just happened to be put together. this was done over months. and, again, the rhetoric was

important and the sanctions were important. i don't know which one was more importan they were both important go ahead. >> reporter: mr. president, david sanger from the "new york times." i was wondering if you could give us some sense of whether the chairman kim told you how many nuclear weapons he believes he's made, whether he's willing to turn those over first and then whether in your mind you need to do more than was done in e iran deal for dismantling the -- both the uranium and plume p plutonium processes and whether or not you had a sense that chairman kim understand what that involved and had a timetable of shutting that. >> david, i can tell you he understands, he understands it so well, he understands it better than the people doing the work for him that is an easy

one, as far as what he has, it's very substantial. the timeilling go quickly. i believe you'll see good action. as an example, one of the things with the missile side, you're probably surprised to hear that, that was a threw-in at the end but i believe it's going to go quickly. i believe it's going to go fast and it's a substantial arsenal. i used to say maybe it's all talk and no action. but we have pretty good intelligence into that, although probably less there than any other country. you understand that maybe better than anybody in the room. probably less there than any other count country. this is why david i always say this shouldn't have taken place so late into the process. wouldn't this have been better if it was five years ago or 20 yearsing or 15 years ago and we didn't have to worry about not

having a successful meeting like today? and i still love my first interview with you, david. i still have that interview, actually. go ahead. >> reporter: [ inaudible question ] if there is a second summit with chairman kim jong-un would it be in pyongyang or washington. >> we haven't set that up. 'll probably need another summit or meeting, we can use a different term but we'll probably need another one. i will say this, much further along than i would have thought. i've told , i don't want build people's hopes too much. i told peopl thought that this would be a successful meeting if we got along and developed a relationship and we could have got on the this point in three or four months from now but it happened very quickly. a lot of that was because of the foundation put down before we

m met. a lot of things happened very fast. t have, as an example, bringing back the remains. that was not one of the things on our agenda today. i brought that up at the very end because so many people talked to me about it and i brought it up at the end and he was really very gracious. instead of saying well, let's talk about it the next time, he said it makes sense. and they know where many of those incredible people are. where they're buried, along roads, along highways, a i long paths, usually, becauur soldiers were moving back and forth and had to move rapidly. it's very sad. and was brought up at the very end. it's great that he was able to do it. a lot of people will be very happy about that. >> reporter: thank you mr. president. congratulations.

>> thank you, thank you for the nice way you treat us. we appreciate it. it's very good. really beautiful what you do. go ahead. >> reporter: so you -- >> now i'll probably get this killer question. >> reporter: well, i do want to talk about the future of north korea specifically the people. kim jong-un is saying he's wanting a brighter future with prosperity for his people yet we know they live under oppression. you showed him this video of what the future could be like but do you have an idea specifically of the model that he would like to go towards? . economically, is he open to more economic freedom? >> you saw a tape today and i think that was done really well but that was done at the highest level of future development. i told him you may not want this. you may want to do a much smaller version of this. you're going to do something but you may want to do a smaller version you may not want that with the trains and the super --

everything at the top. it will be up to them. it will be up to the people. they may not want that, i can understand that, too. but that was a version of what could happen, what could take place. as an example they have great beaches. you see that whenever they're exploding their cannons into the ocean. i said boy, wouldn't that make a great condo. and i said instead of doing that you could have the best hotels in the world right there. think of it from a real estate perspective. you have south korea, you have china and they own the land in the middle. how bad is that, right? it's great but i said you may not want to do what's there. you may want to do a smaller version of it and that could be although i tell you what, he looked at that tape, he looked at that ipad and i'm telling you they really enjoyed it, i believe. couple more. we'll do three more.

>> reporter: i'm brian bennett from "time" magazine. >> are you undercover again this week? >> reporter: it's entirely possible. do now see kim jong-un as an equal? >> in what way? >> you just showed a video that showed you and kim jong-un on equal footing in discussing the future of the country. >> i don't view it that way. i don't view it that way. i'll do whatever it takes to make the world a safer place. if i have to say i'm sitting on a stage -- i understand what you're getting at. if i have to say i'm sitting on a stage with chairman kim and that's going to get us to save 30 million lives, it could be more than that, i'm willing to sit on the stage. i'm willing to travel to singapore very proudly, very gladly. other than the fact that it is

taking my time, they have given up a tremendous amount. even add the polits to olympics. they took an olympics that w going to be a massive failure that maybe wouldn't have even opened and they made it a tremendous success add that to the list of things that they've done so if i can save millions of lives by coming here, sitting down and establishing a relationship with someone who is a very powerful man and that country has powerful nuclear weapons, it's my honor to do it. >> reporter: are you concerned the video could be used as propaganda.

boarder >> reporter: in the year 2000, president clinton got a request from kim jong-il to travel to pyongyang and meet him and clinton refused, he sent secretary of state albright. >> he did a great and he spent $3 billion and got nothing, they started makiweapon. >> reporter: you on the other hand got a request and right away went here to meet him. do you understand those people who say you gave limb the ultimate present, the legitimacy to a regime who oppresses its people without on going process before you as a u.s. president and the leader of a from world meet and shake hands wit this leader of north korea who is eived to be oppressing brutally his own people. >> i think we just answered the question. >> reporter: but do you understand these people? >> i understand it much better than you do. go ahead. thank you very much. >> reporter: thanks mr.

president. mentiod a couple specific concessions you got from kim, the return of remains and the destruction of the nuclear side. >> and much you said the last thing was an add-on but he gave you his word. if he doesn't follow through on these things what are you prepared to do in response and will you lose faith in this process? >> no, i think he'll do it. i really believe that. otherwise i would n't be doing this. it was the engine testing site in addition to all the other things they've agreed to do. they have a powerful engine testing site that we're able to see because of the heat that it emits and yeah, i'm able to -- i'm very happy. i'll tell you what, i'm very happy with those two points, the two points you mentioned but i think you might be referring to the thing that's not in which is the engine testing site. honely i think he's going to

do these things. i may stand before you in six months and say hey, i was wrong, i don't know that i'll ever admit that but i'll find some kind of an excuse one more, come on. go ahead. >> reporter: thanks mr. president. i just would like to know, were you call chinese presidency when you c back to d.c. to discuss about achievementes that you made today. >> yes, i will. >> reporter: and what's your expectn of china's role to accelerate the process to establish the long-term pace mechanism? >> well, my expectation about china is that china is a great country with a great leadernd a friend of mine. and i really believe that he's happy that we've made this kind of pess and i've heard from him. i may be calling him shortly maybe even before i land. and i have to say, you know, the united states is a great country

and we have set records economically over $7 trillion in net worth addition to what we have, and we arelmost twice the size, the economy of the united states, nobody talks about this because you do hear a lot about china, rightfully so, but the united states now is almost twice the size of the c. we have a great country and we're on a correct path. okay. one more, that will be it. south korea, where's south korea? i think you deserve -- go ahea go. you deserve one, yes. you deserve one. >> reporter: i've got two questions for you, mr. president. first you mentioned the earlier you were going to talk with south korean president over the phone. what do you plan to discuss with him? >> i just want to tell him about the meeting, very successful and he'll be very much involved in the final negotiation. he's a very, very fine gentleman, also a friend of mine

and i look forward to speaking to him. i've already sent word to him about what happened. i sent the document and all the details behind the document. so i'll be talking to him very shortly. >> reporter: if i may ask another question, in signing the peace treaty, do you hope to -- do you plan to work this out with north korea chairman kim only or what do you think about the involvement of south korea and china as a signatory. >> i'd like to have them. there's a question we're supposed to or we're legally supposed to. i think it would be great to have them involved. [ inaudible question ] >> do they have a transcript? they probably have a rough transcript, if you have one. no, they didn't record it. i don't think they recorded it are there any recordings of it?

i wish there were because it is interesting stuff. say it? i don't. we probably have some notes or something, but they have actually detailed notes i would imagine, but we -- we had a great -- we had a great conversation. it was a very heart felt conversation. [ inaudible question ] >> i don't have to fverify because i have one of the great memories of all time. so i don't have to. okay? [ inaudible question ] >> i don't want to discuss it but what we've had is we've had numerous discussions. we've had very important relationships established at mike's level and other levels, in fact, a couple of people are here from north korea. they're in the room. we have a few people in the back also. so when we went into this final agreement, a very importantly, we really didn't go in cold.

we went in with tremendous relationship and tremendous knowledge and i think that's why we got it done. so i'm going to head back. i don't know about you folks but it's been a long time since i've taken it easy so now we can take it a little bit easy and then the work begins again. i hope we've answered your questions and sort of congratulations, everybody, because to me it's a very important event in world history and to be really true to myself, i have to add i want to get it completed. so mike, our whole team has to get to work and get it completed because otherwise, we've done a good job, but if you don't get the ball over the goal line it doesn't mean enough. okay? so thank you and sort of congratulations to everybody in the room. thank you very much. appreciate it. >> all right. we have been watching president trump's live news conference there in singapore following the historic summit between him and

kim jong un. we're just going to see if he's -- i think seems like he's thanking some reporters on his that news conference lasted just about an hour. he started off with some opening kmens and then took some questions. and in doing so, really addressed a lot of the concerns that a lot of the reporters had, a lot of the critics. he talked about this being a comprehensive document, said there was a first step to a bold and brightfuture. talked about what this new chapter in history means between the two countries. at one point he said he even presented chairman kim jong un with a video of what -- >> which we were seeing playing in the background. >> with the economic prosperity of north korea could look like if in fact there is a comprehensive agreement that is reached that lead to that prosperity. i think interestingly there were some reporters that pressed the president on did the united states give up too much in the summit. he pushed back saying all i did

was meet. the north koreans had to give up a lot but interestingly the s coming out of that news conference, the united states announced it is going to stop its war games with south korea. that is certainly something that is going to -- >> which kim jong un said he wanted from the get go. he made clear and it's the reason why they initially said they were going to step down from going ahead with the meeting. the second point of at saying there will be no new u.s. sanctions on north korea. it will remain in place until the united states feels there is some progress being made on denuclearization. the president did not elaborate on what complete denuclearization looked like on the peninsula. verification or you know, being able to verify whether or not north korea does that. >> yeah, i think he said that the sanctions will come off so long as nukes are no longer a factor. i also think the big word of the

day is verify. right? the big v word that we're looking for. verify and how are you going to be able to verify this denuclearization process and he really didn't giver an answer to that at all. >> yep, let's cross over and bring in kelly o'donnell who is in singapore. let me begin first of all with your thoughts on this news conference, the big takeaway from what you've been seeing over the past couple of days juxtaposed with what we've just heard from the president. >> reporter: okay. apart from the substance, what is very striking is the length of this news conference and the range of reporters the president called on. the reason i bring that up is typically when the president does questions and answers it's a small group known as the pool. op ended news conference since the first month of his presidency. that is notable. i think that's an indication that the president felt confident and upbeat about what he thinks he accomplished here. i also think he felt the subject matter was so important that it would be confined to the subject

matter here and wouldn't go off into other areas of the controversies domestically and so forth. so to get a sense of how different that is from what we have observed for the last year and a half of the trump presidency, a very, very significant shift in his willingness to take questions, not only from a range of the tup caers cover him at the white house but international journalists as well. often when he's with a world leader it's only two questions from each delegation. so get a sense there of the bre breadth of what he was willing to talk about. he also revealed a lot about his own thought process through today which is something that over time we will have to evaluate his assessment of kim jong un and north korea's true readiness or preparedness to do the things president trump is saying he is willing to do. to present this video which was played in the room and was presented to kim jong un sort of

a fant sized mocked up potential of what north korea could look like if there's denucleand then support from the other nations which president trump has talked about trying to get their investment if in fact you get that guarantee. there are some bigquestions. the verification part of this is a big question. he seemed to indicate he addressed human rights but he also didn't necessarily address that in the fullness that some people would want. to call the people in the winne winners has some tonal problems there. >> i think certainly that is something that's going to have a lot of people scratching their head when he talked about those that are in prison camps in north korea. >> thank you so much forning us. i want to bring in cal perry along with ambassador to weigh in on everything that we've heard over the last 60 minutes or so. ambassador hill i'll start with

you on this one. talk about your takeaway as to what we heard from the president. are you satisfied so far in wha? did he expand enough on this joint declaration before we wrent live to singapore? >> he seemed to be very pleased with himself. he stayed and just continued to answer questions. you had the impression he might be there all day. he seemed to be very pleased with what he's gotten out of the summit andrankly he wasn't pushed very hard on some of the verbage of some of that disjointed statement which those people who have kind of gone through the exercise during the ton administration and then the one that i was involved in during the bush administration would beg to differ on his analysis that somehow this latest statement was more specific or dealt with these issues better. to me the real shocker was the idea no more exercises or as he

called them, war games. he said that it's -- it's part of a sort of general effort to try to save money as well as to somehow make the north koreans seem less threatened, but you know, the north koreans have asked for that many times and people like myself have always pushed back and said no, these exercises are defensive in nature, you know they are. and no, weir not goi're not g t cancel them. concession was do you think that was that the president said that and in doing so described them as provocative and inappropriate. >> i think that's how the north koreans wanted to describe them but it was astounding to me that the president of the united states woue doing that and he's got a national security advisor named john bolton who just sort of stood by and listened to that so it is very surprising and i think it provides a very powerful signal that he really does want to move

ahead with this relationship, even if our other friends and allies around the world are sort of wondering what's going on. he did say he talked to abe, the japanese prime minister and indicated that you know, the north koreans are going to work the abductees. that's not that easy an issue. i raised it with the north koreans many times and they said work on them and of course nothing ever happened. so you know, i'm not sure i can see the road map going forward. i'm not sure what he's talking about in terms of how they're going to get to this. he said kim jong un is going to spring off the airple when he arrives in pyongyang and get to work on it, but i don't see how this is going to work and i don't have the sense that he does either. so i think there's a lot to be done here and you know, it could have been worse as we say in diplomacy, but -- >> could have been worse. is that a good position to be in though, that's the question.

and i can't help but think about this verificatio word in that i was surprised to not have more detail as to what we can expect from the verification process considering that was the breakdown when it came to the clinton era and their agreement with north korea. >> i think that's exactly right and it bsp sort of two general takeaways i have from that very long winded and winding press conference we just saw. first what the president is really doing today is he's asking by extension the american people and all of our friends and allies around the world to trust kim jong un. so it's a question of trustt he seems to have taken really without any consideration of or contextual intelligence about the history between north korea and the rest of the world. on some of the specifics when you sort of sift through all the talk, you know, at the top of

the list i think is this idea that we will no longer engage in the joint military exercises in northeast asia which i would suggest are the most important military exercises anywhere there the world. this is something that clearly indicates china's importance in this conversation. i think when we look at kim jong un we should always think about china sitting right on his shoulder and one of china's, a longer term objectives is to change and weaken america's military posture in northeast asia. after all their view of the world is asia is for asians and the united states has no place in the western pacific. so they've accomplished a lot. also, some news i think out of that conversation that -- press conference is that the president seems to think that china has been violating the international sanctions on north korea. i think he referred to it as a

weakening border security over the last couple of months. more news about china i think came towards the end of the press conference where the president seemed to suggest that he wanted china to be a cig toir -- signatory or an active i think the human rights . question will continue to dog the administration because it is front and center appropriately with -- when we're discussing north korea. they are the most ooppressive and brutal regime on the panel. >> and let me ask, one of the things i t a lot of people are going to be looking at is how th president showered chairman kim with some prai he called him gracious, he alluded to the fact he was smart. that he was talented, that he was tough. >> one in 10,000 could run north korea like he has. >> the fact he inherited when he was 26 and in a tough position

so to speak. what do you make of the theme has emerged in the way he dejibes chairman kim. >> i think he gave up a lot in th meeting. when you see those flags next to the flags of north korea. this is a mass murderer. this is man who likes to light people on fire. he killed his uncle using an anti aircraft gun. there are over 100,000 people in prisons across north korea. this is one of the countries that has seen famine unlike any place in the world. it bears repeating because donald trump, president trump really put it out there saying that he has found a partner in peace. some of the language that president trump used and again, you know, this was his second press conference. he gets very loose by the end of these press conferences on verifications. he says i don't have to fer vi. i have one of the greatest memories of all time. when it comes to the war games he said they're inappropriate,

very expensive and then he said i know airplanes. six and a half hours from guam, that's a long time. so getting loose with this language when you're talking about a dictator you're sending a message to everybody else around the world that all you've got to do is get to that table. >> i do want to take a listen from some sound jus to get everybody caught up. >> reporter: can you be specific about what assuranceare willing to give to kim jong un? does that include reducing military capabilities? >> no, we're not reducing anything. at some point i have to be honest and i used to say this during my campaign as you know probably better than most. i want to get our soldiers out. i want to bring our soldiers back home. we have right now 32,000 soldiers in south korea. d i'd like to be able to bring them back home but that's not part of the equation right now. at some point i hope it will be but not right now. we will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money

unless and until we see the future negotiation is not going along like it should. but we'll be saving a tremendous amount of money, plus i think it's very provocative. >> i noticed that some of the people were saying that the president has agreed to meet. he has given up so much. i gave up nothing. i'm here. i haven't slept in 25 hours but i thought it was appropriate to do because we've been negotiating ound the clock with them and with us and with john and with mike and a whole team of very talented people, but we haven't given up anything other than you're right, i agreed to meet and i think the meeting was every bit as good for the united states as it was for north korea. sure, they got a meeting. but only a person that dislikes donald trump would say that i've agreed to make a big commitment. >> all right.

joining us now, former dod official and former executive director of the graham talent commission, she is a senior fellow at the atlantic council. it's goat -- great to have you with us. who better to ask about the president talking about stopping the war games and let me get your reaction to that, that the united states is going to essentially end its war games with south korea and the language that the president used calling it provocative? >> first of all my biggest objection that he and we are using the word war games. that's a kim jong un moniker for our military exercises which we have conducted with our allies with the south koreansnd with the japanese, year on year on a regular schedulen order to maintain readine and deterrence.

it's also aimed at any other actors that might want to challenge u.s. interests and the interests of our allies in the region. so the fact that he's from the get go saying that we're going to suspend these exercises is unsettling to me because he's highlighting that and it's unclear to me whether there's a timetable, how many rounds of our exercises is he going to suspend? what's the timetable for that? and that gets to the overall question of course, we don't know what the timetable is for the whole negotiation and he's given this concession right up front to the north korean leader. he can go back, the north korean leader to pyongyang and say hey, i got the americans and the south koreans to agree to suspend those horrible war games. again, what we call military exercises. so -- and i just don't know what we got in exchange. >> we do have bill standing by for us, but first, i want you to weigh in on what the president says north korea has agreed to give up so far in the immediate

future and that is the closure of missile engine testing sites and already destroying new missile site. what do you make of this? >> which was not in the agreement. ironically enough he said he got it after the agreement. >> outside of this really one page agreement that we have. what do you make of that. >> >> right. so they already -- the north koreans already destroyed that facility, but this is, again, typical north korean drama that is actually reversible, you know, i'm sure they have many more missile facilities and again, this is part of the prob. we need to go in and un-venn toir what they have before we then verify my eliminate all the facile theys that contribute to their very dangerous nuclear weapons program to say nothing of other programs like biological programs. so you know, the north koreans when i was there in 20008, and i

went there as part of a very small congressional delegation myself and a colleague to talk about the nuclear process as well as pow/mia. the north koreans exploded a plutonium cooling reactor. >> reporter: something they rebuilt subsequently. so these things are reversible. >> letz's cross over to bill. give us a sense of how you think and i know you've cov the , is going to play out across the region. first the announcement and then more importantly this alarming announcement by the president that the u.s. is going to stop its military exercises there with south korea. how do you think the chinese would respond to that? more importantly how do you think the south koreans and the japanese would respond to that? any idea that they were given a head's up that this would be ancon session or announment today?

>> and to misquote sarah palin, let's see how this hopy changy stuff works like because there was a lot of aspiration in that news conference and i think that was one hour of music to the ears of kim jong un and i think in south korea to answer your question, they will be very, very nervous indeed and there is a question hanging in the air, was president moon fully consulted about what president trump has just announced? he's just said military exercises are off. now, there are military exercises scheduled in two months time in august. he also said he hopes to remove u.s. troops from south korea. i mean, that is a huge change in the military balance in asia, not just what's happening on the korean peninsula. he hopes to remove sanctions indeed. he looks forward to it and no new sarngs sanctions and a lot of that will be music to the ears of beijing and you may have

noticed at the beginning of the conference he took a bit of a swipe at president xi of china saying they've done a great job on the border but later in the last few months not as great as it was loosening control. so he's suggesting china is already loosening sanctions and again, a question hanging in the air, is the maximum press campaign now dead? i mean, beijing may well feel that it is time to ease off on the sanctions and on those key points, no specifics. he did define denuclearization. he very much takes it face value north korea's destruction of a testing site. he seems to place great emphasis on that. he says he has a very substantial arsenal, it will go very quickly. well, the world's foremost nuclear expert says it could take up to 15 years. it's a very complex process and

he did acknowledge it takes a long time scientifically, but he's already started the process and once you start you can't go back. what we've seen are a few explosions at the entrances of tunnels. what we saw way back in the 1990s was the stopping of a k w nuclear reactor. and finally on the idea of, you know, complete verifiable, he said on -- being asked that question he said yeah, we will have a lot of people there and he suggested that it would be americans and foreigners, a mix of inspectors on the ground. but none of that is clear in this -- what he called comprehensive document. i mean, all i've seen at the moment is two pages with four points, one of which simply reasserts what north korea agreed with south korea in april. so i think neither of the

documents nor to news conference will entirely satisfy those who are skeptical. just make one other point because i've been to north korea four times and one point that they repeated and over again was that the military exercises were provocative. and you know, just to make a comment about what one of your contributors has said, in one sense they were provocative. one of the exercises was aimed at the decapitation of the north korean leadership and that's because they were meant to be provocative. provocation was part of deterrence but there's no question it unnerved the leadership in pyongyang so kim has certainly on that score got exactly what he wanted and i know they do drink champagne and drunk whiskey in pyongyang and i'm sure kim and his officials may be doing just that at the moment. >> and maybe on the way back. >> they may be celebrating on

the air china flight. >> it seems like the over arching theme is there were not a lot of specifics even to that 60 plus minutes that we heard from the president. were you at all surprised to hear that the president wanted bout south korea and china to be signatories on an ultimate deal to be made with north korea? >> yeah, well, certainly china has to be because it was a party to the korean war. i think that the -- in the past the deal has fallen down, because of objections to south korea being a signatory to that, but yes, i mean, the whole issue of a peace treaty is immensely complex one. china has to be a party to that, but you know, then there are consequences from what happens to the u.n. command, what happens to u.s. troops on the south korean peninsula. if there's no war, why are they there. it's nice to say let's have --

let's clear this up, let's have a peace treaty, let there be no war, but you know, legally in terms of an international document it is a bit more complicated than that, so they've kicked that can down the road and remember, we were thinking that at the end of this summit there might be some kind of announcement of a peace treaty or an endo the war. as far as we can see at the minute that hasn't happened. >> thanks so much for joining us. then there's the question ayman really of the human rights violations, the atrocities that have taken place in north korea. hallie jackson actually asked how the president could call kim jong un a very talented man when in fact his hand was basically the -- was part of calling for many of these killings that have taken place in that country, if not all of them. the president also touched upon otto warmbier in his talk about 6 ominutes or so. let's take a listen to that. >> i think without the rhetoric

it wouldn't have happened. i think without other things going along, i think the establishment of a new team was very important. we have a great team. but i do. i think he wants to get it done. i really feel that very strongly. >> otto warmbier is a very special person and he will be for a long time in my life. his parents are good friends of mine. i think without otto this would not have happened. something happened from that day. it was a terrible thing. it was brutal, but a lot of people started to focus on what was going on including north korea. i really think that otto is someone who did not die in vain. i told this to his parents. a special young man and i have to say special parents. special people. otto did not die in vain. >> all right.

let's -- i want to get your perspective on a juxtaposition here, on one hand what we just heard there from president trump about the human rights aspect of it, again, referencing kim jong un as a talented man, as a gracious man and also to go back to what we saw earlier this weekend, calling the canadian prime minister dishonest and weak. how do you think allies are reacting to this pivot over the past couple of days in hearing the president talk about enemies and allies like this? >> i mean, i think they continue to be shocked, you know, phil rucker from washington post actually asked the president about this, the juxtaposition, so how he used really harsh language towards justin trudeau flattered kim jong un in hen very weird ways that aren't actually accurate, and he didn't give a straight answer. president didn't give a straight answer. clearly this is part of the way he negotiates i guess, but i

think the treatment of our allies is absolutely not only inappropriate and inaccurate in terms of the criticisms he lobbies on trade, but it's also strategically, you know, ill advised. we need to be standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies right now. i worry about our other adversaries who are watching this, not -- you know, it's not just the north koreans who are the audience here on the other side of the table, if you will, but we've got the chinese and the russians watching. how much steel do we have in spine? will we stand up to them with our allies and in the interest of our allies not just directly of the united states. so vladimir putin could decide to test us right now in the baltics. what would we do? we have an alliance. the president loves to poke and prod and create greater division where there's already some kind of a crack. so i worry very much about the

impact and if i could go back just to the issue, i know human rights is important and maybe let mesojust finish on the human rights by sing we'll get to that later. i mean, i do think that in the first instance we're talking about national security issues. the critical issue is to deal with the nuclear threat and then we'll deal with the human rights issues and i think we have to have some patience about how we're going to approach that. so i give the president a little bit of leeway there. we've given all the other presidents that leeway in other negotiations. but i want to talk about the president's comments about removing nuclear weapon from the peninsula that day. that can only happen is if it reforms sufficiently and that's where maybe the human rights comes into play because as long as the north korean government is a threat to our south korean allies we will continue to have

forces on the peninsula. >> i wanted to ask you, you know, this is sort of happening in a void of a state department that has been largely sort of diminished and/or gutted and in that sort of frame, what happens now if kim goes back, kim jong un goes back and givers a fiery speech or puts out aer one of these videos? what happens then when we don't have an ambassador who could reach out, we don't have a state department that can step in and deescalate that situation? >> this goes to the fundamental challenge with this summit from the beginning. typically summits are the final step, the closer, if you will. the ground work is laid often times over many years on challenging issues such as this one. there's confidence building measures at the middle higher end of diplomacy. none of that exists. so this was very much top down. i think this is something we've seen from this president over the first year and a half across the board on the full range of issues, but it becomes a real

challenge. what the president seems to have done here is put out a one-page aspirational document that is quite vague and he's going to leave the details to an unnamed group and today unfortunately it's a very thin group. they're very capable people at the national security counsel and very capable professionals at the state department for sure. >> i warrant to go back to seoul, south korea. south korea very much a part of these talks, these negotiations, the president saying that he was going to make a call to leaders of south korea after he finished up his press conference. wonder what you're hearing from your end.

summit with preside trump and this is an issue in which president moon has invested very heavily, both personally and politically. he's been trying to navigate this delicate balance of loyalties to both the united states and to north korea and the process that they started last -- in april. there's also some domestic pressures that he needs to answer to. there are local elections here tomorrow, and moon's party's credibility is riding on this north korean issue. he's also facing the issues face anything leader of an economy and people needing jobs, so what comes out ofhis summit was going to weigh very heavily on him in a domestic/political sense. so let's widen the lens, so to speak, and see what we know of this document that's been side. yes, the two sides affirmed the

commitment that was established in april to complete denuclearization, but still nobody isining at that means and we know that it means very different things to each side. the other issue, of course, is this announcement by president trump that they will stop military exercises with south korea. this is going to raise some concern among the south korean leadership and, of course, among south korean people who have relied on the security umbrella for generations now and gives the sense that perhaps president trump is giving up too much. also watching nervously will be japan. japan was counting on president trump to be their voice at the table, to raise the issue of abductees, and also the threat of short-range missiles. so we have no assurances on that yet. so the perception among regional allies to this point has been one of anxiety. they also watch the rupture of the g7 recently, seeing how it

is that president trump can sometimes treat long-time allies and hoping that they're going to gain more out of this process toward a nuclear dealhan -- and hope that they aren't going to be on the losing end of it. >> janice, really quickly, i've been seeing some reports on-line that the south korean blue house, obviously the executive there, the president at this moment, the meaning and intention of president trump's remarks requires more clear understanding. i assume that is in reference to the announcement by the president that the united states will be suspending its exercises with south korea. how is that specific issue likely to play both with the south korean public and with the government? >> well, it's not going to instill a lot of confidence. remember, south koreans, the leadership, has been through this before. when president trump made that surprise cancellation of the summit with kim jong-un, south

korean president moon jae-in was among the last to k at that point his officials at first said, we want to know exactly what it is that president trump means, so we're getting the same sort of response this time. they seem to be learning things on the go. there hasn't been a lot of communication to -- in the weeks leading up to this. there was a phone call yesterday between president trump and president moon and, of course, there will be a visit of secretary of state mike pompeo here tomorrow in order to brief officials on what's going forward. i think what is distinctive about this particular summit over summits in the past has been the lack of coordination integration with other parties leading up to the summit. there have not been diplomatic teams dis patched to beijing, tokyo or seoul in advance of this summit happening today. >> janice, very quickly, we don't have much time left. what do you think is going to be the reaction with the dig the president took about the south korean olympics, saying they

were going to be a failure had north korea not participated? >> well, it was president moon's olympic thaw that led to the april meeting with kim jong-un that led to this histo summit with kim jong-un. so i think that the -- again, this is all part of the south korean diplomacyn saying they want to parse the president's statements and i'm sure that we'll have comments from them later this evening. >> one of the comments that i think has a lot of people scratching their heads. maybe intended to be a compliment to the south korean government, but it comes across as a dig saying kite have been a disaster had the north koreans not participated. although he did thank everyone. >> quickly want to weigh in on this, basically the only way we can withdraw troops from the korean peninsula would be modernization of the north korean regime and a change to the north korean regime. modernization in north korea is not a good thing. >> change. >> change is not a good thing for a regime like kim jong-un's. >> there were bizarre moments

today. >> that's not something he wants. >> bizarre moments. former nba player, the president talking about beachfront property in the north korean capital, a country that is a century behind when you take a step back. a lot that was ridiculous and that was one of them. that's ridiculous. let's not forget, south korean security are reliant on u.s. troops that are there. this was a brutal war. a million were killed. 30,000 u.s. troops died. less than 70 years ago. that's fresh. >> thematically, modernization is not good for an oppressive regime. we've seen that historical -- >> when they can't feed its own people. >> and able to see what's going on outside of the walls of their country, isolated so long and the walls were opened up, then the people recognize what they've been missing really. >> yeah. >> putting it simply. we want to thank all of our panel, cal perry, ambassador edelman, evelyn far cuss. >> our team across the field. bill neely. >> janice mackie friar. incredible two hours or so.

"morning joe" is picking up in two minutes. sponsored by -- oh, look... another anti-wrinkle cream in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair works in just one week. with the fastest retinol formula to visibly reduce wrinkles. neutrogena®.

mr. president, what surprised you the most about

kim? >> great personality and smile. >> is he worthy negotiator? >> he is a worthy negotiator. negotiating on behalf of his people. a very worthy, very smart negotiator. absolutely. we had a terrific day and we learned a lot about each other and about our countries. >> what did you learn about him, sir? >> i learned he's a very talented man and i also learned that he loves his country very much. >> will you be meeting again, sir? >> will you see each other? >> we'll meet many times. thank you very much, everybody. >> wow. something the world has never seen. the sitting president of the united states shaking hands with the leader of north korea. president trump and north korea's kong-un met about half a day yesterday and in the end kind an agreement with four points to it. the united states and north korea commit to establish new relations in accordance w the desire of the peoples of the