about the mexico and canada. and it's now before them and they'll have to make a decision. that's one that the farmers love to manufacturers love the unions love. it's a great deal for the country. and nafta was one of the worst trade deals ever made. maybe the wto from the time that happened in 95 was worse. from the time that happened china became like a rocket ship. it was flat lined and all of a sudden it joined. wto and became they went through the roof. and very much to our liability, it's with lost tremendous amounts of money over the from that time. we lost a tremendous amount. it was a terrible deal. world trade. and if you look at and a half, nafta has been a disaster for

the country. the u.s. mca is great deal. canada is happy. they're not happy like we're happy. they are very happy. it's good teal for canada and mexico. they want it. mexico approved it in full. canada is waiting for us to improve it. i was with the prime minister who just left him. a while ago. and they're thrilled with the deal. everybody wants it. and hopefully it will be a bipartisan deal. i told that to nancy pelosi. view this as a bipartisan deal. a lot of the democrats want it. especially i would say the farmers. really the industrial areas the unions things on wages and we have things on the environment that few people have ever been able to get into an agreement. it's a very big deal. and it's a great deal. a tremendous support. they have to put it up for a

vote. i think you have a great vote in the house. and you'll get a great vote in the senate. and you have a tremendous trade deal. between the united states and canada. and mexico. and that's going fob something very special. so we spent a lot of time with countries. we do business with australia is an example. japan we're negotiating. they sent us million ls of cars and we send them wheat. what happens is japan is -- you probably saw the things they're doing. opens up many car companies and factories and plants throughout the country. especially in michigan. we have a lot of activity in ohio. beyond japan activity. we have a lot of activity noi. where companies are coming back to the country. with a hot show in town. hottest show in the world. the economy is the best. one thing that every leader

virtually every leader i dealt with said that congratulations it's incredible what's happened to the american economy. we're the best in the world. it's something i started from election day. i put it out yesterday because we took a tremendous boost from the day after i got elected the stock market went crazy. from that point until essentially now. we hit the all time high again for many many times. i can't tell you what it was. many many times. we broke the record. and we're stock market is great. jobs are great. best job numbers essentially in some categories. the minimum you can say in 51 years. it's really more than that. african american, asian american. you saw that. his p hispanic american. the lowest unemployment numbers.

best numbers. and many others too. blue collar workers are doing fantastic. the biggest beneficiary of the tax cuts. blue char we talk about for the rich. it's for everybody. and also for big companies where they are moving here and remember who owns the stocks. the people that own the stock it's not the big companies. it's 401 ks who's numbers are 60% and 70%. and 42%. and all different numbers that are tremendously high. where the other spouse thinks the spouse that's investing in the 401 k is a super-genius. they are very high. if you listen to what i have been listening to. we won't devote time to it. with that attitude their 401 ks will crash and the market will crash. with what they want to do you would crash the market. and the amount of wealth that would be lost would be incredible.

i'd rather wait until later in the campaign to say that. to be honest i want them to go and take these policies -- i don't want them to change them any time soon. it's been interesting to watch what's happening. actually i found it interesting. with that we'll take a few questions and i'm heading to south korea. and i may or may not see kim jong un. we'll be heading out to south korea. spend a day and a half there. with president moon. who is a really good guy. he was here too. i met with him also. and we'll see what happens. please? >> thank you so much for joining us here. we appreciate it. good to have a chance to ask questions. can you tell us more about how this china deal may work going forward? chinese officials told fox news they will not make any

concessions until all of the tariffs have been lifted and want relief on off the blacklist. stop pursuing extradition. can you tell us how you see this unfolding? and if you do meet kim jong un at the dmz tomorrow, would you step across the border into north korea? >> i feel comfortable doing that. i would have no problem. with respect to china, basically we agreed today that we were going to continue the negotiation. which i ended a while back. we'll continue to negotiate. we agreed i would not put tariffs on the $325 billion that i would have the ability to put on if i wanted. that we're fairly advanced depending on where you want to loolk at and where you want to start. pretty advanced. we discussed numerous other

things. we'll save that until the end. we'll see. one of the things i will allow is people are surprised we send and we sell to wa way a tremendous amount of product that goes into the various things they make. i said that's okay we'll keep selling the product. these are american companies that make product. it's very complex. highly scientific. and in some cases we're the ones that do it and the only ones that do it. the only ones with the technology. what we have done in silicon valley is incredible. nobody can compete with it. i have agreed to allow them to continue to sell that product. so american companies will continue. the companies were not happy they couldn't sell. because they had nothing to do with whatever was potentially

happening with the respect to wa way. i didn't do that. we talked about education. and students saying it's harder for chinese students to come in and that's something that if it were if somebody viewed it that way, i don't. we want to have chinese students come and use the great schools and universities. they're great students and tremendous assets. we discussed it. it was brought up as a point. i said that would be just like anybody else. like any other nation. we're going to a point where we're looking if you graduate from a college because the great companies silicon valley and other places we have a problem in our country. that you great number one in the class. from the best school in the country. and they say you have to leave. we can't keep them. we'll make it we'll call it the spark person smart person waiver. we'll make it so they cannot

only stay but maybe they have access to green cards. we want to keep them here. >> we're holding on tariffs. they'll buy farm product. that could happen. this doesn't mean there will be a deal. they would tlik make a deal. i can tell you that. if we can make a deal it would be historic. we have never had a deal with china. we have tremendous deficits. tremendous amounts of money was put into china. 500 million a year. not just surplus and deficit. i'm talking about real, hard cash. it should have never been allowed to happen for the presidents over the last number of years. go ahead, please. >> from the voice of america.

after your discussion with prime minister abe, are you still thinking about withdrawing from the u.s. japan security treaty and what did the prime minister say? >> i'm not thinking about that at all. it's an unfair agreement. i have told him that for six months. it's somebody attacks japan, we go after them and we are in a battle full force in effect we are locked in battle kp committed to fight for japan. if somebody should attack the united states, they don't have to do that. it's unfair. that's the deals we make. every deal is like that. it's almost like we had people that they didn't even care or were stupid? that's the kind of deals we have. that's typical. i told them we have to change it. look, no one will attack us i hope. should that happen, far more

likely it could be the other way. should that happen somebody attacks us, if wrooer helping them they have to help us. he knows that. he'll have no problem with that. yes, please? >> thank you. i have a russia question. i want to clarify is the case also going to need to wait until the end or possible the u.s. would drop the extradition effort. >> we didn't discuss her. that was not discussed. we did not discuss her situation. >> okay. thank you. on russia respectfully, it seemed like maybe you departmid really mean it when you said don't meddle in our elections. >> look at the words. i did say it. we had a discussion. we had a great discussion president putin and myself. it was really a tremendous

discussion. i think they'd like to do trade with the united states. and they have great product. they have great land they have rich land. a lot of oil and minerals and the kind of things we like. and i can see trade going out with russia. we can do fantastic. we do very little trade with russia. which is ridiculous. i can see positive things happening. i did say it. and i did discuss it. >> yesterday former president carter suggested your presidency is illegitimate and only got the white house with help from russia. >> russia, russia, russia. isn't it crazy? carter, look. he's a nice man. he was a terrible president. he's a democrat. it's a typical talking point. he's loyal to the democrats. and i guess he should be.

but as everybody now understands, i won not because of russia. not because of anybody but myself. i went out and camned better, smarter, harder. than clinton. i went to wisconsin. i went to michigan. the night of the vote. i had 32,000 people at 1:00 in the morning on election day. i won michigan, wisconsin. pennsylvania. i won states that traditionally haven't been won by a republican for many years. and this had nothing to do with anybody but the fact that i worked harder and much smarter than hillary clinton did. i'll say this, jimmy carter -- i was surprised he would make a statement. he was not a big thing. i saw the -- democrats like to make the statement. he's been trashed within his

peer party. he's the forgotten president. i understand why. look what happened with iran. it was a disaster. they tied him up in knots. the reason ronald reagan probably became president. so, it's democrat talking point. >> if i can follow up on the question about your comments with vladimir putin about russia meddling. you did seem to be joking there. with the russian president. are we taking that to be wrong? what is it with your coziness with the dictators and autocrats at the sup summits with mohammed bin salman. asked about jamal khashoggi. you did not respond to the question in front -- >> i don't know anybody else would.

>> were you afraid of offending him? >> no. not at all. i don't really care about offending people. i think you'd know that. >> you passed up an opportunity. >> congratulations. i understand your book. is it doing well? >> it's doing very well. i'll send you an autographed copy. >> i get along with everybody. except you people, actually. i get along with a lot of people. i have a tremendous relationship with president xi. nobody else would have the deal we have. we're getting billions of dollars from china. things are happening. we're moving along towards something that could be very historic. but i get along with president putin and mohammed bin salman. from saudi arabia. i spoke to saudi arabia when the oil prices a year ago were getting very high. and i wasn't so nice.

i said you have to get some more oil into the system. what's happening is no good. they did. and people are driving it very low numbers right now. you haven't seen in the old days you have spikes where the gas went to $5 and more. it wasn't so good. i also get along with people that would be perceived as being very nice. we have nice leaders of countries. >> mr. president -- >> prime minister may today. so many. head of australia. japan. abe. they're all fine. as far as i'm concerned. some are stronger than others and tougher. >> if i may. on the case of jamal khashoggi. we have journeyists in the room who object to what appears to be the saudi government complicity and orchestration of the assassination of a journalist.

when you were given the opportunity to call mohammed bin salman out on that. you didn't do it. did you do it privately? >> you see what's happening. 13 people have been prosecuted. others are being prosecuted. they have taken it seriously. and they will continue to. i'd let everybody know i'm not, i'm very happy about the event. if you look at what's going on and right now within saudi arabia, they are prosecuting additional people. there are a lot of things happening at the same time i will say -- nobody said so far pointed directly a finger at the future king of saudi arabia. i will say i spoke to his father a great length.

they have been a terrific ally. they are creating millions of jobs in this country. they are ordering equipment. not only military. but $400 billion worth of actually and more than that over a period of time. worth of different things. and with that being said i'm angry and unhappy about the thing like that taking place. but as of this moment, more than 13 people are being prosecuted and i hear the numbers going to be going up. it's a good question. >> thank you. it's good to know you are further escalation of tension with china. and can you share some details of your interaction with president xi this time? and also if i may, another question on the korea. is it possible that there will be a third one on one summit

with chairman kim within this year? >> it might happen tomorrow. we won't call it a summit. it will be a handshake if it happens. i don't know if it will. i wouldn't mind doing it. i'm visiting the dmz. he's a brilliant leader a brilliant man. he's probably considered to be one of the great leaders in 200 years in china. we just have a very strong, he's tough. he's good. we have a very good relationship. and i said we can't have it where the united states loses this kind of money for the privilege of building up china. it has to be a fair deal. he understand us that. nobody ever came to us. it's true. my presidency could be easier not only for that but many other

reasons. it could be easier. i don't want it to be easy. it's a point in time. i have a chance to do things nobody has done. we're making a deal with china. or attempting. if we don't we'll go back into a tremendous ripe field of tremendous money that would be coming into the country. i feel a feeling over a period of time and again i'm not rushed. i told him i want to get -- it's extremely. i wouldn't say complicated. but intricate. in the meantime our farmers will end up being the great beneficiary. because they did lose a certain amount of money. i went to sunny purdue. the secretary of agriculture. how much money in the best year, did china spend on our farms? buying. he said the best year about $16 billion. i said okay, we're taking in much more than that now every

year in tariffs. and i took $16 billion out of the tariffs. and essentially out of the tariffs and we're distributing it among farmers who have been hurt. because they have been used as a pawn. so china can get a good deal. in the end, the farmers will be the biggest beneficiary. i have made up for the fact that china was targeting our farmers. because they know the farmers like me and i like them. i love them. they love me i guess. it was $16 billion i took it out of the tariff money essentially. and we are in the process of distributing the farmers could not be happier. other than they're unusual. i had them around the table and the farmers said we don't want money. we want a level playing field. most groups want money.

they'll take any way you want to give it to them. the farmers are in a class by themselves in so many ways. they don't want subsidies or hand out. they have a level playing field. unbelievable people. and unbelievable patriots. >> a quick follow up. you made a public invitation to kim jong un. whether it be a bad side if he doesn't show up? >> no. i thought about that. everybody would say he was stood up. i understood that. it's very hard to, he follows my twitter. it's hard -- we got a call very quickly. a lot of people follow it. they have contacted us and they'd like to see -- we're not talking about for extended. just a quick hello. we get along.

like for instance it's a fair question. i really have great relationships with everybody. i think i said a long time ago that maybe i'll be a sleeper on foreign policy. and if you look at what's happened on foreign policy. we're working on iran. they'd like to make a deal. they would be smart. we'll see what happens. i have all the time in the world. they're doing very poorly. they were brutal when i came in. 18 cites of confliction. but i think on foreign policy if you look at what's happening and the other than thing we we're not being taken for suckers anymore. we have countries where we lose on defending them. we defend a tremendous percent raj of the world. they don't pay us for it. and on top of it we lose money with the same country on trade. it's all changing. they understand it. they expect it. they can't believe like i'd ask

prime minister abe, how did this happen? you send us billions of dollars worth of cars and other things and we send you nothing. nobody ever complained. same thing with china. i said you know, you send a car to us. we charge you essentially nothing. 2.5%. you send a car to us, and you pay nothing. we send a car to you made in the united states, we have to pay 45% tariff. how did that happen? he said we kept lifting it. and being honest with me. we kept lifting it and nobody called. i call. i call. go ahead. >> i want to ask about the debate. you saw at least some of the democratic debate. i'm sure you saw the exchange between biden and harris on

bussing. biden thought it was bad policy and tried to stop it. harris said it was an important part of desegregation. including her experience. where do you stand on the issue of bussing? >> before i get into that, i thought she was given too much credit. he didn't do well. certainly. and hab the facts were unnecessarily on her side. she was given too much credit for what she did. it wasn't that out standing. and probably he was hit harder than he should have been hit. biden was hit harder. and as far as that, i will tell you in about four weeks. we're coming out with certain policy that will be interesting and surprising. to a lot of people. >> do you think kamala harris will be a tough opponent? given what you saw in the debate. >> you never know who will be tough. you never know. one that you think will be

tough, it turns out to be not much. and sometimes you think one -- i have seen it. i had 17. governor of virginia remember. he wasn't there long. of the 18, many were all their lives they wanted to be politicians. i never thought about it until about two days before i decided to run. not too much before. and they you know, you look at some of them they're very talented. the resume is great. sometimes i thought the ones that would be toughest were not tough. i should write a book. some of the people that i did in the republican. we had 18. they have 25. some of the ones i thought would be absolutely without question

the toughest were not tough at all. others that people said weren't tough they were tougher. she was given far too much credit for what she did. that was so out of the can. what she said. right out of a box. and i thought he didn't respond great. this was not winston churchill we're dealing with. but it wasn't i don't think nearly as bad as they pretended it to be. >> could i clarify your negotiations and what you agreed to with china. did you agree they can sell to the u.s. or u.s. companies can sell? >> u.s. companies can sell equipment to wa way. i'm talking about equipment where there's no great national emergency problem with it. the u.s. companies can sell their equipment. we have a lot of great companies

in silicon valley and based in different parts of the country that make extremely complex equipment. we're letting them sell. >> on turkey. will turkey face sanctions if it goes ahead with the 400 purchases? >> turkey is interesting. there's another one that i get along with well. he's a tough cookie. he's tough. i get along with him. maybe that's a bad thing. i think it's a good thing. he wanted to wipe out -- he has a big problem with the curds. and he had a 65,000 man army. at the border. and he was going to wipe out the curds who helped us with isis. we have 100% of the cal fate. i called him and asked him not to do it. he hasn't done it. they were lined up to go out and

wipe out the people that we just defeated the isis with. and i said you can't do that. he didn't do it. i have a rels ship. he goes out and during the obama administration he wants to buy our patriot missile. they wouldn't sell. he wants to buy -- he's a member of nato and could be an ally. if he respected the president. he's got a big army. they're fighters. and we're working on province together. we doesn't want to see 3 million people killed and neither do i in syria. that was another thing i mentioned to president putin. please, take it easy. they have been circling that. if i didn't put out a statement six months ago that would have been catastrophic. they have 30,000 tariffs in the province. 3 million people.

getting tariffs is okay. but don't kill 3 million people to get the tariff. so, we get along great. what happened with turkey and i will tell you when it's fair. he wanted to buy the missile. president obama group said no. he kept wanting to buy it. they said no, no, no. couldn't buy it. he needed it for defense. he went to russia. and he bought the 400. made a deal. he couldn't get it. they wouldn't allow him to buy it. this administration meaning this administration previous to mine. wouldn't lem him buy it. he goes to russia, and makes a deal for the s 400. he made a deal. he paid money. a lot of money. and bought did. as soon as he bought it, people went back to him from our country and said listen we don't want you to use that system.

because it's not the nato system. you know the reasons. don't use that system. do us a favor, we'll sell you the -- it's too late. i already bought it. there was nothing he could do. he bought over 100 f 35s. the graets fighter jet in the world. it's really hard to beat something when you can't see it. he bought 100. 116. a lot. and his options for more. now he wants to delivery. he's paid money up front to lock heed. our company our jobs. and they're saying he's using the s 400 system which is incompatible with our system. if you use the system, russia and other people can gain access into the genius of the f 35. honestly, i'm all for our country. he got treated unfairly.

he was told you can't buy, it's the old secret. when you can't have something. he gets something else and they said first we'll sell it. we'll get it to you immediately. he said i can't do it. i spent a fortune on buying another system. similar system. from russia. the problem he baug the planes and they are compatible from our standpoint. national security. so it's a mess. and honestly, it's not really his fault. we have breaking news. donald trump loves turkey. donald trump is on the side of turkey. i'm not. i love our country. i have to tell you, president

who gave us our pastor back. in jail for 35 years. he will be in jail forever. an innocent man. i called him and after a short period of time he was standing in the oval office with me. he was back. he's been from my standpoint. he's a tough guy. he's tough. i get along with him. he was unfairly treated. told he couldn't have it and bought another system. we said we'll sell it to you. he couldn't use it. by that time he bought the plane. it's a complicated deal. we'll work on it. >> quickly on china. there was a negotiation on wa way welcoming students. holding off on tariffs. china agreed to buy more. is this a lopsided agreement?

>> i did agree allow our companies, jobs. i like the company selling things to other people. i allowed that to happen. complex things. not easy. this not things easy to make. very few companies were able to do it. a tremendous amount of money. our companies were upset. they weren't exactly happy. we're allowing that. it wasn't national security. we agreed to leave that until the end. wa way is a complicated situation. we agreed to leave that. we'll see. please? >> thank you. i have a question about the border. i want to follow up on the question about bussing. do you see it as a viable way of integrating schools. does that relate to the policy? >> it has been something they have done for a long period of

time. there aren't that many ways you get people to schools. it's been done in some cases with hammer. instead of velvet glove. this has been certainly a thing that's been used over -- if vice president biden had answered the questions somewhat differently. it would have been a different result. they really did hit him hard. it is certainly a primary method of getting people to school. >> does relate to the policy that you're going to unvail? that you floated. >> it relates everything we're doing. you'll be hearing about it. over next couple months. >> i want to ask about the border. it seems like there's a week to go until the ice raids begin under that deadline. that you imposed. given you have a july recess. is it realistic to think you're going to get a deal to actually reform. asylum law?

>> we can do it -- we can do it quickly. in a day or hour. we can reform asylum quickly. we can get rid of the loopholes quickly. these are horrible loopholes. and the reason that mexico is so good because they do have very tough immigration, they don't have the kind of things and stupidity that we have. where somebody touches one foot on the sand we have to bring them into court. we have to register them. and catch and release them. they go and live in the country and they're supposed to come back in three years for a court case. 2% come back. you know as well as anybody. better than most. the fact is they come back, nobody comes back. 2% come back. it's a horrible system. what we're doing is they come in illegally. we're bringing them out legally. at the request of some very good

democrats, they asked if i can hold it. i did. we have a week left. other than the fact we did get a bipartisan way, i appreciate speaker nancy pelosi. she worked with us. it was humanitarian money. nobody ever had this problem before. we're running hospitals. we're running so many different things for the kids. the kids are brought up because under law the kids are legally used to get other people to come in. if you have a child it's much easier to come in. it's easy anyway. if you have a child it's easier. we have the kids who have been abused. horribly. and we can stop that. with a minor change in the law. it's a terrible thing that they're not doing it. here's what's happening. let's see if you can give that to us. we have the $4 billion in

humanitarian aid. we have that. we can have that number go way down if we stop people from coming up. for instance if we had walls up and the father and the beautiful daughter who drowned and the river is a tough, that has moments where it can be very calm. and it becomes totally violent. and people get swept away. if they thought it was hard to get in, and they wouldn't be coming up. so many lives would be saved. essentially if they would change the law, i said it would take an hour. let's give you two weeks. we'll be removing people legally removing. in other words. >> you're planning for that deadline. it's in place? >> unless we do something miraclous. the democrats it seems want to have open borders. for the life of me i cannot figure it out. i want people to come into the

country. we need them. we have all the companies. we have fox con in wisconsin. autocompanies. today i was with president abe. another company will build a big plant. they need people. i'm all for that. the only problem they have to come in through a process. it's unfair you have millions of people online for years trying to get into a country. they take tests and study. they know a lot about the country. they read. they have to go through a complicated process. these people have worked hard. they have been online for seven years and somebody walks in. welcome to the united states. it's very unfair. we will be removing large numbers of people. people have to understand the laws -- >> in a week? >> starting in a week. sometime after july 4. >> the deal passed does nothing to make. >> that's humanitarian.

we needed that. to take care. we're running hospitals. the border patrol. these are incredible people. they're doing what they nobody ever thought they were going to be doing this. people are coming up. the reason people are coming up is because we're doing so well as a country. past years we weren't. mexico was doing better than we were in the past. we're the hot country in the world. people want a piece of the action. the other reason children are coming up we had a separation policy. under president obama. president obama built the cells. 2014 they were built. it ourned out it was built by president obama. i'm not blaming anybody. i say this, they had a separation policy. i ended it. when i ended it i put out a

statement. it will bring more children up. you're saying a child can stay with the parent. ending it is nice in one way. in term of what we're doing, it makes it tougher. the really bad thing is the cartels and i really think mexico -- they did 6,000. now 16,000 on the border. i think that mexico is looking to swamp the cartel. and those numbers will do it. what mexico is doing is great. without the tariffs they wouldn't have done it. but, they have really so far, it's only a week. the numbers are way down. and so far, a lot of things have happened. >> in the second row. >> two questions. >> would you like me to leave

now? i can stay. we can do this. my problem is this, he stayed up there too long. if i stay quickly. if you promise you won't say, everybody is has hand up. if you want i'll go on. should i go on? >> one more. >> he went on too long. >> we have time. >> i have a flight that leaves when i want it to. >> two questions about iran. a week ago you called off a strike because you were concerned it would kill iranians. >> absolutely. >> did the military leaders provide you with any alternative. a derelict oil rig. >> i have 50 alternatives. i had many. you don't know what sites were.

oil rig. i had many. military leaders did a great job. when we chose and designated certain areas we were thinking ab. i said how many people will die? i'm talking about on the other side. that means a lot to me too. okay? how many people are going to die? they said probably 150. it could be worse. could be less. this is heavy stuff. we would have been 100% -- we have the greatest military in the world. incredible people. lethal. hopefully we don't have to use it much. we have spent you look at numbers $716 billion. we had planes so old. we have brand new f 35s. super-hornets and f 18s. the equipment we have is incredible. the army now has beautiful new things.

everything is we have a military that's really great. hopefully we don't have to use it very much. they came in. and they said this and i asked them a question. they came back a short time later and said about 150 people. i said that's really disproportionate i don't like it. >> here at the summit, what can you tell us has the ball been moved in any particular direction towards easing the tensions with iran? in some of the meetings you have had. >> i have a lot of countries come from for instance come up and look at president macron. good guy. he said i do a lot of business meaning france. with iran. i'd love to see them. sure. anybody can see them. i don't mind talking. it's great. i do think john keri shouldn't have been talking to them. that's delaying the process a lot. he violated the logan act

actually. maybe saying things like if you wait another 15 months maybe trump will lose the election. and you can deal with the person that's easier than trump. deal with the stiff. that will give you everything you want. and that makes it tougher for me to make a deal. that's okay. go. >> you're the you tweeted out the displeasure with the supreme court decision on the census. >> it's very unfortunate. >> are you going to try to delay? >> we're looking at that legally. the census it was shocking to me. it would be not expensive to do a census. it's billions of dollars. billions. they go knock on doors of every house in the country. and get everything. they're not allowed to ask whether or not somebody is a

citizen of the united states? how horrible and ridiculous is that? so, we are looking at that. it wasn't a real decision that this is the way it is. now, right now. tp depends on what happens i guess. it was a strange decision. a very sad decision. not in terms of voting. just a very sad because it was so con vu luted. to get to that decision. it has been to be very hard. >> the justice said your guys were playing politics and decided not to. >> who's really playing politics? check it out. tell me. go ahead. >> mr. president, i think i heard you mention with vladimir putin you had said you spoke

about election interference privately as well. did you speak to him in a sterner tone? >> we talked about. he denies it totally. how many times you get somebody to deny something. he has in the past denied it. also publicly. we talked about it. we talk about a lot of other things. we talked about something that i think is very important. that's putting cap on what he's buying and we're buying from a nuclear standpoint and arms control. he'd like to see arms control. it makes sense. >> what was the context? what was in the mueller report. did you articulate. >> it was a good report. i had 18 people that hated me. mueller who was totally conflicted and obviously didn't like me. we had he was totally conflicted. and yet no obstruction no

collusion. >> the democrats want a do over. or five. they want to get it right. their working to get it right. >> president trump, your administration just unvailed the commission portion of the deal of the century. my question is why were no palestinians members of the white house paets peace plan committee? >> they are a very important part of it. they don't have to be. we're getting started. we have as you know we have a very good david freeman. one of the most successful lawyers in new york who loves israel. jason a great lawyer and talent. jared kushner. if you don't get the deal done it will never happen. the palestinians basically have

not i'm not sure. they want to make a deal. they want to be cute. that's okay. i fully understand. as you know i have ended the money to that was we were paying them $550 million a year. i ended that money. because a year ago i heard they were saying nasty things. wait a minute, we're trying to make deal and help them. we're not going to pay. if a deal is made we would go back on the humanitarian basis. not different from the border. you see the problems. it's terrible. we have a good chance of making a deal. and a lot of people think that's probably the toughest deal of all. and maybe. a lot of people think it can't be made. over the years people say that's the deal that can't be made no matter what. i like to we'll try. i really believe that i went to

other negotiators from past years. i said did you ever take the money away? they were always hostile. they said no. that's inappropriate. and what i have done is said look as long as -- if you're not negotiating and don't want to help make peace. we won't pay you. let's see what happens. they want to make a deal. and i have had a very good relationship with some of the leaders. and obviously i have had a good relationship with israel. the transaction was thrown up in the air because of what happened with netanyahu's election. that was something that came up that who would have expected that. maybe something will happen faster. that will be going on for three months. there's a good chance -- people

say it's the hardest deal. i have heard when i was young i'd say what you think of that, that's tougher than israel and the palestinians making a deal. that was a metaphor. an excuse for a deal that was tough to make. it's probably about the toughest deal to make. i actually think there's a good chance. >> thank you. financial times. can i ask for clarification. are you saying your taking wa way off the -- >> we'll talk about it. we'll be supplying equipment from our companies. our companies make billions of dollars worth of equipment. we are not discussing wa way with president xi yet. i want to see before we get into that. we have to a national security

problem. which to me is paramount. >> are you taking it off the commerce department entity list? >> we're talking about that. we have a meeting tomorrow or tuesday. >> my question is you talk about the economic and trade factors of china. you don't talk about the national security concerns about china. what do you worry about. >> it goes without saying. look what who's done what i have done. i took zte off. i did that. that was a personal deal. and president xi called me and asked for a personal favor. which i considered to be important. he's a leader of a major country. it was very important to him. having to do with where the employees are located and his relationship to the area. it was 85,000 employees. they were out of business. he agreed to pay $1.2 billion penalty. and abort change and including management changes. a much smaller than wa way.

they paid us 1.2 billion. part of the problem is the democrats go out and say if i get $200 trillion. this is terrible what a terrible deal. that's the way politics is. it's sad. we choesed it had we opened it. we had certain changes made. they made changes to the board. they changed the board. they made management changes. and paid money. and have to buy american product. buying american product is important to me. it's a bing thing. it's a big thing. >> are we going to continue on ward? >> yes. >> does anybody say no. >> huh? >> thank you. one question. >> we just left.

>> we have a great relationship. i hope you know that. we spend time together. >> you praised this g 20 summit as successful. yet was it g 19 against one summit if we look at climate change. why is it that you still think ignoring the danger of climate change is the interest of the american people. >> i don't ignore it. we have the best numbers we have ever had recently. i'm not looking to put the companies out of business. or create a standard so high that we'll lose 25% of the production. i'm not willing to do that. we have the cleanest water and air. you saw the report. we have the cleanest air we have ever had. i'm not willing to sacrifice the tremendous power of what we have built up over a long period of time. what i have enhanced and revived.

i'm not willing to do that. they understand where i stand. i'm not necessarily sure i agree. im not sure i agree with certain countries. they're losing the power of what they can do with factories. i'm not talking about political power. that comes with it. i'm talking about the powering of a plant. it doesn't always work with a windmill. with the wind goes off the plant isn't working. it doesn't always work with solar. solar is not strong enough. a lot want to go to wind. which caused problems. the problem with wind in the united states we're subsidying. wind doesn't work for the most part. i don't want to be subsidizing things that don't have to be. united states is paying tremendous amounts of money on subsidies for winds. i don't like it. i don't want to do that.

>> thank you. two questions on iran. >> one. >> iran says it will be on the verge of violating threshold for uranium enrichment. >> you'll see. that's all i can do. we cannot let iran have a nuclear weapon. >> thank you. you met yesterday with president putin. and you touched the subject of venezuela. can you explain what it was said during the meeting about venezuela? and also. >> first of all we're following venezuela very closely.

it's a catastrophe. it's what socialism can do. it was one of the richest countries 20 years ago. among the largest oil reserves in the world. and they don't have food. they don't have water. it's really actually incredible. i discuss it with almost every leader this weekend. we discussed venezuela. we don't ever want that to happen to us or their countries. >> you mention change of regime takes time and venezuela -- >> it takes time. >> do you think it's a possibility. >> so many people are leaving venezuela. it will be a ghost town. it's a bad thing happening in venezuela. nobody has seen anything quite like it. the standpoint they were so wealthy. i know so many people have venezuela living in miami. incredible people.

they call it little venezuela. i know them so well. people that are hard workers. and to see what's happening to venezuela. it's heartbreaking. >> do you think it's a time for change the strategy. do you believe he's the person to lead the country? >> i have five different strategies. i can change any moment. in the meantime, we're helping them from the standpoint of aid. getting as much as we can. they are making a big mistake. they are not making the aid very easy. but people are starving to death. and they have no water. no water. they have oil. no water. we have a lot of things in store if we have to do that. we don't want to do anything. we don't want to get involved in the extent that you maybe thinking. we have a lot of alternatives.

five different alternatives for venezuela. and we'll see what happens. it's doing very poorly. and maduro is doing poorly. it's not working. >> i want to -- >> plit co. >> i just want to follow up on the questions that were asked. >> question. >> about the crown prince that you met with earlier today. i didn't hear you answer the question. did you raise the killing of khashoggi with him? >> i asked him what was happening. and he was telling me that he said 13. it could be more. a large numbers of people being prosecuted. he's very angry about it. and unhappy about it. i did mention it to him. very strongly. he answered very strongly.

they are prosecuting large numbers of people. that was a bad event. >> can i follow up? you mention that the intelligence -- no one had pointed the finger at him. actually the cia did. the intelligence communities. >> i cannot kmernlt on intelligence community. i'm not -- probably -- i guess i'm allowed to do what i want to do in terms of that, right? i can declassify unlike hillary clinton, she decided to just get it out. we can declassify. the truth is that i just don't want to talk about intelligence, but i will say this. a lot of people are being prosecuted and they're taking it very seriously over there. they've done a great job in saudi arabia from the stabbed point of women and a lot of things that are happening in saudi arabia. one of the other things that is very important in saudi arabia. not only are they an ally, not only have they spent tremendous

amounts of money coming into the country, they have bought tremendous amounts of military equipment that we use but they've very much changed their ways as to financing terror, which i can't say for a lot of other countries. if you look at iran and other countries in that area. they're financing terror. it's harder for iran because iran doesn't have the money they used to have. they were given 1.8 billion in cash. saudi arabia's come a long way. in terms of reform, saudi arabia has come a long way. yeah, please in the gold. yeah, you. right. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i'm with the chinese business news in china. a little bit of follow-up on huawei. you said you're going to discuss huawei's entity listing soon. is it a possibility that huawei is going to be removed from the list? >> is it what? >> removed from the entity list?

>> i don't want to talk about it now. year' looking at that very carefully. huawei is very much in play in terms of our country and in terms of intelligence and the intelligence community. we know a lot about huawei but i don't want to mention that now. i think it's inappropriate. we're not making it other than what i told you, we're not making it a big subject. >> another question on the big picture of u.s./china relations, what do you think the u.s. and china should see each other? are we stroo testrategic partne? are we enemies? >> no, strategic partners. if the right deal is structured we could be great for each other. if china can open up, you're opening up the largest market in the world and right now china is not open to the united states but we're open to china. that should have never been allowed to happen. okay. yes, please, dan.

>> thank you, mr. president. on russia, you plan to go to moscow next spring? >> yes. >> do you agree with him that western style liberalism as it's been defined over the post war period is obsolete? >> i didn't hear him say that but he did invite me to the defeat of nazis. russia lost 25 million people, i had heard 50 million people. russia fighting the nazis lost 25 million people. it was tremendous -- they suffered greatly and they're having a 75th -- you could really say celebration of the defeat of the nazis and he invited me and i said i would give it very serious consideration.

russia went through a lot and they lost i guess far more than anybody fighting the nazis in terms of people. and he did invite me and i said we would get back, but we will give that very serious consideration. thank you. >> his comment to the "financial times" before arriving here was that western style liberalism is obsolete. >> well, again, he may feel that way. he sees what's going on. i guess if you look at what's happening in los angeles where it's so sad to look and what's happening in san francisco and a couple of other cities which are run by an extraordinary group of liberal people, i don't know what they're thinking, but he does see things that are happening in the united states that people say how wonderful it is. at the same time he congratulated me as every other leader of every country did for what we've done economicallecon.

we've got the strongest country we've ever had. i'm very embarrassed by what we have in some of our cities where the politicians are afraid. when you look at los angeles, when you look at san francisco, when you look at some of the other cities, and not a lot. not a lot. but you don't want it to spread. and at a certain point i think the federal government maybe has to get involved. we can't let that continue to happen to our cities. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. i'll see 10some of you in south korea. it's been an honor. thank you all very much. thank you. joining us now from osaka -- well, we're going to go through some of the 20 some topics here that the president just went through in osaka, japan. he gave a very wide ranging press conference that lasted over 1:10. everything from the debate performance of former vice

president joe biden to imt migration to president putin of russia talking about china and climate change. he hit many different topics. seemingly in a pretty yoef yal mood coming out of several bilateral meetings with president putin, president xi jinping of china and president erdogan of turkey. he said u.s. companies can now sell to huawei, the chinese tech company, in order to create more jobs on the ground. he also talked extensively about potentially visiting north korea, that his tweet inviting president -- or kim jong-un to the dmz has not yet been accepted. joining us to break all of this down is nbc's kristin welker. kristin, you are there. you asked a great question on federally mandated bussing of the president. with so many different topics, over 20 of them, what was your main take away here? >> reporter: i think you have to

start with north korea. this is a significant headline, the fact that president trump did issue that really remarkable tweet inviting kim jong-un to meet with him when he travels to the dmz. now you heard the president go a little bit further during his remarks today, jo, essentially saying that they are waiting to see if that's actually going to happen, but he leaned into it a little bit. he said he thinks that chairman kim does want to meet him, not entirely clear why he has that sense. i thought it was remarkable one of my colleagues asked if he would cross over into north korea. president trump saying he wouldn't have a problem with that. that would make him the first american president to do that r so if that dmoes fact happen. you heard him get press on whether it would be politically damaging for him if kim doesn't show up.

president trump said, look, he thought through that possibility as well. he thought it was worth it to make that declaration. they failed to reach an agreement on denuclearization and the second meeting they had with kim jong-un. their talks ended abruptly without one deal. the other headline relates to china, the fact that you do have talks resuming between 9 u.s. and china now for a trade deal. they have not reached a deal yet. we didn't expect them to, but this is a significant development. markets worldwide were jittery going into this g20 summit concerned that talks would fall apart. president trump said a concession on the part of the u.s. is to allow some companies to do business with huawei. that is a significant shift because, of course, the u.s. had

issued a ban on that telecon company. the talks resuming between the u.s. and china. there were a range of other headlines. the democratic debate. president trump seemed to sort of take aim at kamala harris after what was widely considered to be a strong performance by senator harris last night saying he thought she got too much credit. of course, not missing the chance to take aim at vice president joe biden, he's the front-runner. he was asked about the back and forth with harris and biden. the bussing is why she could get a good education. i tried to nail him down on policy, what exactly is he -- is it going to do with education and schools. so those are just among the headlines here, jo. this was a sweeping news conference that lasted for over

an hour at the conclusion of this g20 summit. one more point he was pressed on, that headline making exchange that he had with russian president vladimir putin in which he seemed to try to downplay russian meddling. while president trump on the defense today saying he did raise the issue with president putin but then again he went back to what we heard from, this president before, he said putin caught my eye as well. >> kristin, i wanted to ask you a little bit more about his interaction with the crown prince of saudi arabia. several reporters asked whether he brought up the murdered of jamal khashoggi. he never seemed to directly answer that question, instead saying he's been relatively friendly with the crown prince. what did you take away from that information? >> reporter: well, he said that he had raised the issue with the saudi crown prince and that he

asked him for an update effectively on the investigation into that killing. you heard him say there are 13 people held spons sebl. then he was pressed on intelligence by his only intelligence community. president trump said he didn't want to address the intelligence. that's where you saw him side step, despite the fact that the intelligence community believes the saudi prince bears responsibility for the death of jamal khashoggi. president trump making it very clear that he was infuriated by that, that that type of behavior cannot stand. again, jo, not taking it all the way up to the level of pointing the finger at him.

thement rapport that the two had was quite warm. >> how much do you think the president paid attention to the democratic debates? what does it mean going forward for his political campaign? >> reporter: i think that he paid very close attention. you saw him speak in a fair amount of detail about the interaction between former vice president joe biden and the issue of bussing. that was notable. why? he had about six bilateral meetings when this was going on. clearly he had one eye on the debates and he was holding the high steaks foreign policy talks. i think he sees senator kamala harris as a threat. >> thank you for the recap. thep -we bought a house in a neighborhood

with a lot of other young couples. then we noticed something...strange. oh, could you, uh, make me a burger? -poof -- you're a burger. [ laughter ] -everyone acts like their parents. -you have a tattoo. -yes. -fun. do you not work? -so, what kind of mower you got, seth? -i don't know. some kid comes over. we pay him to do it. -but it's not all bad. someone even showed us how we can save money by bundling home and auto with progressive. progressive can't protect you from becoming your parents. but we can protect your home and auto.

for nine months, the mysteryu of who killed russel douglas and why weighed on his family. then, as it often does in this story, a ringing phone brought momentous news. mother: i got the call from the prosecutor who said i'm telling you first that they thought they knew who it was. josh mankiewicz: jim huden's name meant nothing to russell's family, but the name of huden's girlfriend, peggy thomas, did. brother: peggy thomas is the owner of the home that russel and brenna rented, that they had

a verbal agreement that they were going to buy if they could just come up with the capital. josh mankiewicz: given that brenna was the named beneficiary on russel's life insurance policies, russel's family wondered if his death was, in some way, part of a real estate deal. mother: i guess some of our family members kept thinking, did peggy maybe do this, or set this all up because she thought that if brenda got insurance money, she would buy the house and peggy would then have that instant cash? josh mankiewicz: peggy thomas appeared to be the only link between jim huden and russel douglas, and it wasn't just a circumstantial connection, either. on page 14 of the murder weapon's owners manual, investigators had found a fingerprint belonging to peggy thomas. troubling, but what concerned russel douglas' brother and sister most was the fact that brenna didn't appear to be the least bit upset about the prospect of her friend

peggy being involved in her husband's murder. sister: you've worked with her and you're not saying a peep. you know, if it was your friend-- something, either disbelief, or i can't believe my friend did this. i want to make sure that they, you know, get punished, or you know, like-- let's go after her. let's get her, yeah. and i said, you know when you were really mad at russ, did you ever say to peggy, while you guys were working together, that russ had some insurance money and that he'd be better to you dead than alive? and she said, well, i might have. and at that point, i just kind of looked at her and i thought, man, did this not give somebody a motive somewhere along the line? josh mankiewicz: was this a case of angry words having unintended consequences, or as some suspected, had brenna actively recruited russel's killers? the family couldn't know for sure,

but that question now complicated their relationship with brenna and the grandchildren. and we've tried to be as supportive as we could, especially for the kids. but i know she listens in on all their conversations, so it's a very controlled conversation. josh mankiewicz: but when it comes to awkward telephone conversations, none could have been more strange than the ones that took place between jim huden's lover and jim huden's wife after he fled to mexico. you call her first or did she call you? no, she called me. and what did she want to talk about? well, she wanted to know what-- you know, how much the cops had been bugging me and what they knew, and if i had heard from jim, or anything like that. and you, what, told her? i told her what the cops had said. i remember that i didn't tell her anything about jim. why just not hang up the phone? i don't know. i don't know. i mean, this isn't even jim. this is jim's mistress. jean: yeah, i know. i'm an idiot. josh mankiewicz: but that's not all.

jean says that she was able to stay in contact with jim while he was in mexico, and that jim asked her to fly out to vegas to meet with peggy face-to-face and keep her in the loop. jean: we did have jim in common. i never told her where he was. i did tell her that i knew he was ok. it was just very weird. i mean, we went out and had drinks and saw a band, and i really found it hard to hate her as much as i wanted to. josh mankiewicz: as months passed and jim huden's trail grew colder, the lives of the women who had loved him took drastically divergent paths. while jean grew steadily poorer supporting jim, the ever-resourceful peggy, now a limo driver in vegas, hit the jackpot. in 2007, one of her fares turned out to be this man, mark allen, a new mexico horse breeder and heir to an oil fortune.

mark allen: the limo people asked me, do you want some guy, or do you want the ex-mrs. washington? i went, i'll take the ex-mrs. washington. josh mankiewicz: five months after meeting peggy thomas, allen says he asked her to marry him. the biggest mistake i ever made my life. josh mankiewicz: within months of moving to his new mexico ranch, allen says peggy was nosing her way into his horse business, pressing him to fire longtime employees and hire friends of hers. you know, she wanted her people to do the accounting and stuff. josh mankiewicz: when he refused, allen says, the man-magnet turned into a man-eater. she'd get on me, and this is like, a dang-- you know, this is like a man getting on you. she's a pretty good-sized woman. i looked in her eyes and i-- and i mean, she's evil. she is evil. josh mankiewicz: but if peggy thomas married well,

she divorced even better. allen says he gave her money and an 80-foot houseboat just to go away. the divorce took way longer than the marriage did. josh mankiewicz: looking back, mark allen says he should have known better. he says a few days before their wedding, peggy let him in on a little secret. mark allen: she said that she was accused of being involved in a murder, and that her ex-boyfriend had killed a guy. she said, but i didn't have nothing to do with it. and i said, well, did you take a lie detector? she said, no, my lawyer told me not to. and i went, if you're innocent, why wouldn't you take a lie detector? and she never gave me a good answer. josh mankiewicz: it should be noted that although mark allen says his brief marriage to peggy thomas cost him dearly, she did give him at least one chuckle. in 2009, after one of his horses won the kentucky derby,

allen says he saw peggy quoted in the press. mark allen: well, she said she was done here training horses and breeding horses. [chuckles] peggy can't even step up on a horse. josh mankiewicz: coming up-- whatever happened to jim, the fugitive from justice, and his wife, jean? jean huden: i was getting ready to leave and not be able to come back to this country for the rest of my life. maybe you could have died in a shoot-out with him? yeah, exactly, you know, it probably would-- that's what would have happened because who knows, he probably would've taken me out next. josh mankiewicz: torn between joining jim on the lam or turning him in, which will she choose? jean huden: you know, the man cost me everything i had. i've spent every dime i had. i lost my house. i lost my livelihood. (voice breaking) i'm sorry. josh mankiewicz: when "dateline" continues. be right back. with moderate to severe crohn's disease,

i was there, just not always where i needed to be. is she alright? i hope so. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira is for people who still have symptoms of crohn's disease after trying other medications. and the majority of people on humira saw significant symptom relief and many achieved remission in as little as 4 weeks. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. downthere - cause you're about to nail this presentation so you get fresh here, but why not get fresh there with the cleansing power

of water in cottonelle flushable wipes™ so you can feel as confident as a boss, even though you aren't one...yet - care. downtherecare with cottonelle. downtherecare with cottonelle. [ahhhhhhhh] it can cause damage to the enamel.. with the new pronamel repair toothpaste we can help actively repair enamel in its weakened state. it's innovative. with pronamel repair, more minerals are able to enter deep into the enamel surface. the fact that you have an opportunity to repair what's already been damaged, it's amazing. i think my go-to toothpaste is going to be pronamel repair.

by the spring of 2011, russel douglas had been dead for more than seven years. his suspected killer was still on the loose because the only person on earth who knew his true whereabouts wasn't talking to detectives. jean huden: i mean, they've been watching me for years. they've tapped my phones. and police we're pretty sure that you were still in contact with jim? well, sure, they had a good idea. and they were right. of course they were. [music playing] josh mankiewicz: the man no longer known as buck naked had been able to build a new life for himself in mexico, and even played the occasional gig. jean huden: well, he was in vera cruz, mexico. i actually went down there a few times to see him, and of course, to bring him more money. he was teaching music to kids in a music school down there. i'd fly up to dulles airport and then out to kansas and then

to mexico city and change planes, you know, so they couldn't track how i was going and how i was getting to him. or we'd meet in other cities. you know, i never flew directly to him so they couldn't trace me to get to him. josh mankiewicz: but that kind of devotion doesn't come cheap. jim's life on the lam has taken a toll on jean's health and it's devoured the inheritance she received when her mother died. jean huden: you know, the man cost me everything i had. i spent every dime i had. i lost my house. i lost my livelihood. (voice breaking) i'm sorry. josh mankiewicz: and yet, after her father died in 2007, jean says she seriously considered joining her husband in mexico, where he was known as maestro jim, and sharing his life as a fugitive. jean huden: i knew what border crossing i was taking. i had a new id.

i was getting ready to leave and not be able to come back to this country for the rest of my life. maybe you could have died in a shootout with him? yeah, exactly, you know, that's probably what would have happened because, who knows, he probably would have taken me out next. josh mankiewicz: that did not happen for one reason. just days before she planned to join jim, jean met this man, bill bruner, and fell in love. jean huden: and he finally made me see what a foolish thing that would be to do. and for some reason, i listened to bill. and no, he saved my life, basically. so love kind of wrecked your life and then love also saved your life. yeah, i guess it did. it sure did. yep. josh mankiewicz: because of bill, jean gave up her dream of rejoining jim huden. but it wasn't until the spring of 2011 that bill bruner convinced her to give up the addiction that was jim. jean huden: i had just, finally, had enough. you know, it's--

i know jim doesn't love me. he didn't care about me when he did what he did. and he still doesn't care about me, and probably even less so now that i'm out of money. josh mankiewicz: more than that, jean had, herself, gotten into some legal trouble after jim fled to mexico. in exchange for immunity from prosecution on some drug and check forgery charges, jean told authorities all she knew about the murder of russel douglas, and just where jim huden could be found. jean huden: they're not interested in me. they wanted jim. no, they said they would not prosecute me, and i certainly hope they stick to their word. josh mankiewicz: in june 2011, mexican authorities picked up the man variously known as buck naked, or maestro jim, in veracruz and quickly turned him over to waiting us marshals. when the plane carrying jim back to washington state landed in seattle, he was greeted by a familiar face. and you said what, jim, nice to see you again?

i said jim, i'm not sure if you remember me, but i'm here to escort you back to island county. i said you're under no obligation to talk to me. and he immediately said, i don't want to. something he should've said years earlier. probably would have been a good idea. josh mankiewicz: for the foreseeable future, jim huden would be wearing exactly the ensemble he had for so long sought to avoid. immediately after huden's arrest, detectives began trying to track down his former lover, peggy thomas. a routine computer data search led police to this lake in new mexico, where they discovered peggy thomas kept an 80-foot houseboat that she'd gotten in her divorce from mark allen. they said she was a really nice person, that she was single, and that she had put the name off the hook on her boat due to the fact that she was single.

josh mankiewicz: captain bryce current of the san juan county sheriff's office says peggy thomas was lured back to the marina with the bogus promise that there was a package waiting for her. current says she didn't seem all that surprised when he placed her under arrest. she had an attorney, and that she'd been waiting for this day and was kind of ready to get it over with. josh mankiewicz: peggy thomas was all business, current says, and wasted none of her legendary charm on him. no, just enough time for her to make fun of me and make fun of my braces and how young i looked. she thought it'd be somebody older, she said. josh mankiewicz: after waiting seven long years, russel douglas' family was elated that his suspected killers were in jail. but russel's wife, not so much. and i called brenna, and it was kind of a stunned silence for a little bit. and then it was like, oh, well, good. but it was not the ecstatic thank god something that i

was really wanting to hear. josh mankiewicz: in july 2011, when russel douglas' family gathered in solidarity for jim huden's first court appearance, russel's widow was conspicuously absent. i asked her, i was like, are you going to go? she was like, why would i go? it doesn't concern me. it just didn't quite seem right. josh mankiewicz: it would take another year before jim huden and the wife of the man he was accused of killing sat in the same court room. and when they did, all eyes would be on her. coming up-- brenna douglas-- could she have anything to do with the plot to kill her husband? brenna douglas: he had a lot of issues-- throwing furniture around and different things. and how he treated the kids and i, it just wasn't ok. lawyer: when you and russ went through a separation, is that the sort of thing that you might have talked to peggy about? brenna douglas: yeah. i said, who all knows about this?

lawyer: did he tell you? bill hill: yes, he did. josh mankiewicz: when "dateline" continues. josh mankiewicz: when "dateline" continues. ♪ protect your pet with the #1 name in flea and tick protection. frontline plus. trusted by vets for nearly 20 years. check your free credit scores at creditkarma. here's to progress.

[chatter] jim huden and peggy thomas were charged with the murder of russel douglas in the summer of 2011. from that moment, whidbey island prosecutor greg banks had been hoping they would turn on each other and spill the details of what had happened on the day russel was killed. that was the plan. but that didn't happen. did not happen. josh mankiewicz: because why? they're still in love? they wouldn't rat on each other? greg banks: you know, if you get a chance to interview them, you could ask them. josh mankiewicz: because jean huden was still married to jim, the prosecutor decided to split the case, and tried jim and peggy separately. greg banks: we needed jean to testify against peggy, but washington has a rule that says you can't call the spouse against a defendant. so if you tried jim and peggy separately,

jean can testify against peggy. right, and we didn't need her against jim. josh mankiewicz: and so in july 2012, more than a year after his wife had given him up, jim huden went on trial for the murder of russel douglas. the opening statement of the island county prosecutor set the tone. ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this case is about the assassination of russel douglas on the day after christmas, 2003. josh mankiewicz: banks promised the jury that the evidence would show that jim huden and an accomplice had lured russel douglas to his death with the promise of a christmas gift for his wife brenna. greg banks: james huden did not even know russ douglas, but his accomplice did. josh mankiewicz: jim huden, he declared, was the trigger man. greg banks: mr. huden walked up to that car. he opened the door. he looked him right in the face, and at a distance of less than four inches, used a 380 semiautomatic handgun to put a bullet between his eyes.

josh mankiewicz: the prosecutor began by calling the one person that police still believed knew more about this case than she was saying-- the state calls brenna douglas. josh mankiewicz: --brenna douglas, the dead man's widow. on the stand, brenna identified a picture of peggy thomas and said they used to cut hair together. in 2003, she said, she rented a house from peggy. greg banks: did you two become close? brenna douglas: yeah, we'd talk. it was just girl talk stuff. greg banks: did you talk about personal things with her? yeah. josh mankiewicz: according to brenna, her rocky marriage to russel douglas was among the things she talked to peggy thomas about. brenna douglas: he had a lot of issues-- throwing furniture around and different things. and how he treated the kids and i, it just wasn't ok. greg banks: when you and russ went through a separation, was that the sort of thing you might have talked to peggy about? yeah, that i talked to most people about, probably too much. greg banks: and why do you say that, that you

talk to most people too much? are you a person who likes to share? brenna douglas: i just chat. greg banks: brenna, do you know james huden? brenna douglas: i've met him, yes. greg banks: and how is it that you met mr. huden? through peggy. josh mankiewicz: it was on that connection to huden and those woman-to-woman conversations between brenna and peggy that the prosecutor based his theory of the murder. brenna told peggy her husband was violent. peggy told jim and jim pulled the trigger. the prosecutor explained why. greg banks: mr. huden pulled the trigger on russel douglas as a way of exercising his own personal demons. josh mankiewicz: that point was underscored when huden's old bass player, bill hill, took the stand and told the court about the day jim huden shared his darkest secret. bill hill: he says, i need to tell you about something that's on my mind. josh mankiewicz: as jim huden clenched his teeth and stared daggers at his former close friend, bill hill continued.

bill hill: and he proceeded to tell me that my stepfather that used to beat me and beat my mother-- and i have always hated that man-- wanted to find somebody else that fit mo. and then he said that they did find a person that fit and said that they murdered him. josh mankiewicz: in halting language, hill told the same story he told police eight years earlier, that peggy thomas aided in the execution of russel douglas, and that russel's widow, brenna, had known about it. i said, who all knows about this? greg banks: did he tell you? bill hill: yes, he did. he said the only people that knew was him, peggy, his wife jean, and the woman at the hair shop. that she didn't play much of a part, but she knew it was going to happen. josh mankiewicz: no evidence was offered to buttress that charge-- no incriminating e-mails, no cell phone records, no suspicious money transfers.

the question of brenna douglas' possible involvement in her husband's murder was simply left hanging in the air for everyone to ponder. state's next witness is keith ogden. josh mankiewicz: next the prosecutor presented the story of a gun. keith ogden, a retired las vegas lawman, told the court that jim huden came to his home in late october 2003, just two months before russel douglas was killed, to talk about a gun jim had just purchased. he told me that he purchased it from somebody in the newspaper in las vegas. did you ever see it? keith ogden: yes, sir. when jim huden brought it over to my house to show me-- show him how to use it. please raise your right hand. josh mankiewicz: a ballistics expert testified that the bullet taken from russel douglas' head came from jim huden's gun. ballistics expert: this bullet was fired from this bersa 380 auto. josh mankiewicz: given those facts,

it seemed odd that the murder weapon wasn't simply dropped into puget sound. but keith ogden told the court that in early january, just days after the murder, jim huden had asked him to keep the gun in a safe place. please take the stand. josh mankiewicz: the last witness for the prosecution was detective mark plumberg. he told the court that while he was questioning huden at his home back in 2004, huden asked a rather odd question of him. he said, is peggy angry enough at me that she would implicate me in this? greg banks: had you told mr. huden that peggy thomas had implicated him? i did not. i had not implicated peggy thomas and i had not suggested that she had any knowledge or part in the crime. josh mankiewicz: in closing, the prosecution played the videotaped statements huden later made to island county detectives down at the punta gorda police station. i'm a son-of-a-bitch, but i'm no killer.

but i'm a son-of-a-bitch. josh mankiewicz: that would be the only time this jury heard the sound of jim huden's voice during this trial. jury: would please give your attention to the opening statement of-- josh mankiewicz: attorney matt montoya began his defense of jim huden-- thank you, your honor. josh mankiewicz: --with a quote from the musical, "man of la mancha." ladies and gentlemen, facts are the enemy of truth. josh mankiewicz: you heard right. he told the jury in a first-degree murder case that facts are the enemy of truth. perhaps it's fitting that montoya, who had just recently appeared in a local production of "man of la mancha," quoted don quixote, who famously imagined windmills to be giants. from this witness stand-- josh mankiewicz: his defense of jim huden would also require a fair amount of imagination. i'm not telling you that his side is wrong or my side is right. i want you to address the facts critically.

because the facts will show you more than one outcome. josh mankiewicz: among the possible conclusions that montoya suggested might be drawn from the known facts in the case was that russel douglas had shot himself. matt montoya: did anyone request that you test or preserve his hands for possible gunshot residue? no. we do preserve things for trace evidence, but that's why the sheet was used inside of the body bag. ok, so no one tested his hands for gunshot residue. forensic analyst: not to my knowledge. [music playing] josh mankiewicz: a 'gotcha' perhaps, but no gun was found in the car, and the fatal bullet had been traced to a gun known to have belonged to jim huden. ok, was mr. douglas' body still in the vehicle at that time? forensic analyst: it was. josh mankiewicz: next, montoya suggested, russel douglas was killed somewhere else, perhaps by someone other than jim huden, and then placed in the car at the crime scene.

dr. john nordby: ok, i'm not finding any blood of any sort, whether it's-- josh mankiewicz: a blood spatter expert, named dr. john nordby, was called to testify in support of that theory. according to doctor nordby, the car's interior should have been covered in blood if that was where russel douglas had been shot. dr. john nordby: the shooting seemed, to me, like it did not occur in this vehicle because there are empty spots where you would expect blood to be. permission to approach the witness, your honor? judge: yes. josh mankiewicz: on cross-examination, prosecutor banks challenged the defense's only expert witness, pointing out that in his written report on the case, dr. nordby had cited the movie "pulp fiction" as a good example of the kind of blood spatter he'd expected to see in russel douglas' car. dr. john nordby: the two characters in the film were facing in front, and they actually got back spatter. the bullet went toward the back seat, but the spatter went toward the front. so that's the illustration i was meaning to convey.

greg banks: ok, so you chose to rely on an illustration from a fictional movie, produced in hollywood, to help describe this scenario, correct? i guess, sure. judge: mr. young, please come forward. josh mankiewicz: the final defense theory was that jim huden had an alibi-- ron young, a childhood friend of huden's, took the stand and told the court that huden was at his home near seattle at the time it's believed russel douglas was murdered. ron young: i did see him december 26, when he was stopping by on his way out of town. do you recall what time that was? ah, sometime probably between noon and 1:00. was he by himself? no. who was with him? peggy thomas. josh mankiewicz: with that, the defense rested and the prosecutor offered no cross-examination. a month shy of his 59th birthday, jim huden was facing a minimum 25-year sentence if found guilty. but just before the jury began deliberations,

jim huden's attorney reminded them one more time of those immortal words from "the man of la mancha." ladies and gentlemen, when we started this trial, i told you facts are the enemy of truth. and i hope you wondered what that meant. you heard facts, upon facts, upon facts. i'm telling you there are other conclusions that can be made from that evidence. all right, thank y'all-- josh mankiewicz: soon enough, jim huden and his attorney would find out if anyone on that jury had reached one of those alternate conclusions and thus, save him from having to spend the rest of his life in prison orange. coming up-- judge: we, the jury-- the josh mankiewicz: --the verdict, and then, the other moment everyone's been waiting for. peggy was clearly on the fence as to whether or not to accept a deal or go to trial. what, she thought, if i just keep my mouth shut, it's worked all this way, i'm going to skate? that would be my assessment. josh mankiewicz: will jim testify against peggy?

when "dateline" continues. stop dancing around the pain that keeps you up again, and again. advil pm silences pain, and you sleep the whole night. advil pm

after deliberating for approximately 3 and 1/2 hours, the jury in jim huden's murder trial reached a verdict. bailiff: please rise. josh mankiewicz: from the moment the jurors began filing in, jim huden seemed to know the news would not be good. in a whisper, he murmured-- god, i'm done. josh mankiewicz: --i'm done.

the rest of the proceeding, for jim huden at least, seemed to be a formality. judge: we, the jury, find the defendant, james edward huden, guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree, as charged. josh mankiewicz: huden would later be sentenced to 80 years in prison. but he had scarcely been led from the courtroom before prosecutor greg banks turned his attention to a far more difficult case-- the one against jim huden's alleged accomplice, peggy thomas. charged with murder, there was only one piece of physical evidence tying peggy to the killing of russel douglas. it was that single fingerprint of hers on a page in the gun owner's manual. the case against jim was pretty strong. oh, yeah. but the case against peggy was pretty weak. it was much more circumstantial. josh mankiewicz: it was jean huden, the wronged wife, who stood to be the strongest witness against peggy thomas. according to jean, peggy had told her everything that time

jean visited her out in vegas. the plan was peggy had talked to russel about-- she had presents for brenna and the kids, and she had talked russel into going out to the island to meet with them, to take pass these presents on. josh mankiewicz: not only that, but jean says peggy told her that after dropping off jim at the ambush location, peggy drove off to create an alibi. they made a point of her driving jim's sebring, the red car, to buy a pack of cigarettes and make sure and get a receipt with the date and time on it so it would prove that she wasn't there at the time. then she came back, picked him up. they got rid of his clothes in a dumpster somewhere, and they tried to cover their tracks as best they could. josh mankiewicz: a powerful story, but the prosecutor knew that putting jean huden on the stand was risky. in the years after jim fled to mexico, jean huden got into trouble with the law

over drugs and check forgery. greg banks: i've talked to jean a lot, and i do believe her. but i also know what happens in a courtroom. and unfortunately, she is not as pure as the driven snow when it comes to what the defense attorney is going to be able to do with her. peggy was clearly on the fence as to whether or not to accept the deal or go to trial. what, she thought, if i just keep my mouth shut, it's worked all this way, i'm going to skate? that would be my assessment. bailiff: please rise. josh mankiewicz: on january 11, 2013, peggy thomas, who'd been under house arrest, entered an island county court room for another round of pretrial motions, and encountered a familiar face. this time, her former lover, jim huden took the stand to answer the one burning question that was no doubt keeping both the prosecutor and the defense counsel from sleeping at night. greg banks: mr. huden, and if you were subpoenaed to-- josh mankiewicz: would jim huden agree

to testify at peggy's trial? no, i assert my fifth amendment rights. josh mankiewicz: though the two former lovers never seemed to make direct eye contact that day, jim huden made it clear that, he at least, was willing to carry their shared secrets to the grave. ok, i'll do the fifth amendment thing, here. josh mankiewicz: perhaps jim huden's gaunt appearance frightened peggy. maybe the prospect of having her wardrobe, as well, reduced to basic orange, had a sobering effect. but two weeks later, just days before her trial was to begin, peggy thomas was back in court. judge: cause number 11-1-109-- josh mankiewicz: this time, it was to plead guilty to a reduced charge. lawyer: we're here for a change of plea to an amended charge, rendering criminal assistance in the first degree with a special allegation that the defendant was armed with a firearm. josh mankiewicz: in pleading guilty to criminal assistance, peggy thomas was basically admitting to being

an accessory after the fact. judge: miss thomas, do you make this plea freely and voluntarily? i do. if you'd gone to trial against peggy thomas, do you think you would have won? uh-- 'cause if you say yes, my next question is, then why didn't you? my take on it was we had, maybe, a 50/50 chance of guilty versus not guilty. and so it was a roll of the dice. judge: nothing less than the maximum penalty should be imposed in this case. josh mankiewicz: a few weeks later, with the family of russel douglas present, peggy thomas was sentenced to four years in prison. conspicuously absent, however, was russell's widow, brenna. i would still love to see her come forward and say, look, i really did make a mistake. i've got to own up to this, that i really did set it in motion, but i didn't mean to. i don't know that's going to happen. josh mankiewicz: though neither brenna douglas nor her attorney responded to "dateline"'s requests for a statement, in a lawsuit filed against an insurance company

to collect on one of her late husband's life insurance policies, brenna said-- peggy thomas served her time and was released from jail in august of 2016. jim huden has chosen to keep his secrets to himself while he remains incarcerated. and as for jean, the woman whose love took her down that dangerous path, she pondered what might have compelled jim's decision to remain silent. jean huden: well, for someone who had managed to get himself 80 years because he refused to testify against peggy or brenna or anyone-- i mean, he was just-- i can't believe that he may have seen the light of day. does he think he was doing her a favor one last time? i just don't get it. i really don't get it. he must've really loved her more than-- than i even imagined, or he's still trying to prove what a man he was, or thinks he is.

that's all for now. i'm lester holt. thanks for joining us. [theme music] i'm craig melvin. >> i'm natalie morales. >> this is "dateline." >> he married the woman of his dreams, beautiful and sweet. >> she was just angelic. >> and was folded into her tight-knit family headed by an elderry religious matriarch. >> you were part of their family or you weren't. together they had a little girl, sydney. >> their view, sydney was their property. >> one day he went to pick up his little girl for a visit and was never seen alive again. >> he died right there. >> but who would kill a devoted dad? the unbelievable choice, his