on jacob's reporting on our special "all in with chris hayes," "climate in crisis," right here at 8:00 on msnbc. that will wrap up this hour of "msnbc live." i'll see you monday morning on "today." "andrea mitchell reports" starts right now. >> thank you, craig melvin, and good day, everyone. president trump is about to take questions in a joint press conference with australia's prime minister. we'll bring that to you live. but first, president trump is forcefully rejected reports that the intelligence community's whistleblower complaint involved a phone conversation with ukraine or about ukraine which could have been a july 25th conversation with ukraine's new president. >> it's a partisan whistleblower who shouldn't even have information. i've had conversations with many

leaders, always appropriate, scott can tell you, always appropriate, at the highest level, always appropriate. it's just another political hack job. that's all it is. >> reporter: on that point, did you discuss joe biden, his son, or his family? >> it doesn't matter what i discussed. which conversation? >> reporter: july 25th with the president of ukraine. >> i don't know. i really don't know. >> connecticut democratic senator chris murphy joins us from capitol hill, he's on the foreign relations committee. a few weeks ago he was meeting in ukraine with the newly-elected president. you may have some insights from the ukrainian perspective. we're showing that picture of you meeting the new ukrainian president. >> thanks for having me on, andrea. i went to ukraine in part because i had heard these concerns being raised by ukrainian officials about the outreach they were getting from rudy giuliani and others in the trump administration, that they were vexed as to whether or not they should treat those as official requests from the

united states government or they should ignore them. and by the time i got on the ground there, of course the announcement had been made that the security aid had been cut off. i raised guiliani's contacts with the ukrainian government with zelenskiy. >> i want to point out to our viewers for clarity that rudy giuliani is the president's private attorney. he's not an official envoy. he has no status. he's not coming from the state department. >> right. >> so he was there representing the president personally and perhaps raising political issues on his own or with the authority of the president. >> well, i mean, not perhaps. rudy giuliani has admitted that he has been asking the ukrainian government to open an investigation into vice president biden and affiliated individuals. so giuliani on behalf of the president has been very clear he's been trying to get the ukrainians to meddle in the 2020

election. zelenskiy told me he had to intent to do that but he was concerned why the security aid was being cut off. and even if there wasn't this explicit promise made that if you investigate biden, we'll give you your aid, that certainly was the impression amongst many in ukraine who couldn't help but connect these demands they were getting from the president's political representatives to investigate his opponents and the sudden surprising cutoff of security aid. >> now, the president's representatives were coming from the envoy, from the state department, as well as the president's personal lawyer, so there was official and unofficial inquiries regarding cutting off the investigation. and at the same time, did you get any readout from him about his july 25th conversation with the president of the united states? >> so we did not get that readout from president zelenskiy. we did know there were other members of his very close circle who were continuing to have

conversations with rudy giuliani and other political representatives. i will say while i was there, i did not hear that the embassy was raising these political concerns with zelenskiy. we simply heard it was coming from rudy giuliani. but it was very clear that there was immense confusion about how seriously to take the outreach from giuliani and what the consequences would be if the ukrainians said no to those requests that they were getting. >> now, shortly afterwards, the money was released. do you have any insights into how and why that happened? was there pressure from your committee, for instance? >> so there was pressure from congress, the appropriations committee was likely going to pass an amendment this week that would require the president to spend the upcoming year's aid, not the previous year's aid. and there was a suggestion made that the president release the aid to ukraine in order to

afford an embarrassing defeat on this amendment. but, you know, there's no way to know what the reason was that the aid was released just like there's no way to know why it was suspended. there was no controversy between republicans and democrats, for all the things that are controversial between the two parties, regarding this aid. it seemed to come out of the blue which is why we all wondered from the start why the aid was being withheld. >> there were a series of phone calls that may or may not be related. there was the july 25th phone call between the new president, zelenskiy, and the president of the united states, we believe it was their first communication by phone. then on july 31st there is a communication with vladimir putin. and clearly we don't know what happened in that communication. there's differing readouts, first from the kremlin, and then very belatedly, hours later, after a number of phone calls, was there a different kind of

readout from the white house. do we have any understanding as to whether the kremlin was notified about the aid being withheld and then the aid being released? >> we don't, i don't. it would be normal for the president of the united states to be doing outreach to the new president of ukraine. my understanding is they had a series of communication after his election and after he won significant victories in parliamentary elections. so those communications are not in and of themselves abnormal. the question is what the substance of those communications were. and listen, these are really important questions that congress has to answer. back in may, when these initial reports came out about giuliani making these requests of the new ukrainian president, i asked the foreign relations committee to do a full investigation. today i am resending that request to the chairman of the foreign relations committee, senator risch, with additional questions that have been raised in the last few days. i think the foreign relations

committee in the senate has to assure that our diplomatic aims and objectives overseas are being communicate only by the state department and that they are not confused with political outreach from the president's team. i hope the foreign relations committee takes this up. >> i wanted to play for you, rudy giuliani last night with chris cuomo on cnn, rudy giuliani, a controversial role, you're raising questions why he would have been involved at all in communicating with a foreign leader and representing u.s. interests or political interests for the president. and he certainly did not clarify it last night. let's play this. >> did you ask the ukraine to investigate joe biden? >> no. actually i didn't. i asked the ukraine to investigate the allegations that there was interference in the election of 2016 by the ukrainians for the benefit of hillary clinton for which there -- >> you never asked anything about hunter biden, you never asked anything about joe biden? >> the only thing i asked about joe biden is to get to the

bottom of how the case was dismissed -- >> so you did ask ukraine to look into joe biden? >> of course i did. >> you just said you couldn't. >> senator murphy, i don't know if you and the foreign relations committee can get to the bottom of it but it's awfully hard for any viewer. >> rudy giuliani has made statements in the past also making it clear that he was in fact asking the ukrainians to conduct investigations related to members of the biden family so this is no surprise, frankly. he's been radically open about the fact that he's been trying to get the ukrainians to interfere in the 2020 election. he thinks that's perfectly appropriate as a political representative of the president. of course it is not. of course it raises grave concerns about the president's fitness to conduct foreign affairs and it's why we have to start asking these questions. and the questions can go to the administration but they can also go to the ukrainians. obviously there's a lot of knowledge in and around zelenskiy's circle as to what communications have come from the president of the united

states. and there's nothing stopping congress from inquiring as to senior officials in ukraine, what they have heard from the president and the president's team. >> the new ukrainian president zelenskiy is supposed to meet with president trump at the u.n. as part of the meetings next week. from your knowledge of the statutes, would this kind of conversation, if it had taken place, violate certain -- could it have prompted a whistleblower complaint, let's just put it that way, in terms of national security issues being involved, the arming of another country, appropriations from congress, and politics being brought into the mix by the president's private lawyer? >> so i am not an expert on the whistleblower statute. but let me just say this. if there was a communication between the president of the united states and a foreign leader in which the president essentially dangled u.s. taxpayer dollars in exchange for political support for his candidacy, if that conversation

took place, thank god somebody thought to report it. i have no idea what the substance of that complaint is. but if that intodeed was a communication that was made, i think congress has a right and a need to know about it. >> senator chris murphy, thank you very much, thanks for bringing a lot of clarity to this, as much as we can bring to a situation which is so murky. let's bring in our panel. nbc news white house correspondent kristen welker in the east room awaiting the news conference. nbc analyst phil rucker from "the washington post." nicholas burns, a former senior director for russia, ukraine, and eurasian affairs. "new york times" white house correspondent michael crowley. msnbc analyst rick tyler and "washington post" editorial page editor ruth marcus. there are a lot of questions, i know you and your colleagues will want to ask them.

>> and a lot of followups to the questions we were able to ask in the oval office. i asked president trump just moel moments ago, really, whether he spoke to the president of ukraine about joe biden, as you just played at the top of the show. he didn't deny that, instead saying he didn't want to get into the details of the call. he said he didn't know who the whistleblower is and said he hasn't read the complaint. the following questions become, why is the administration blocking the complaint from being turned over to congress. i asked the president whether congress should see it, he said it's not a big deal, brushed the question aside. i anticipate that will get a lot of focus. and the broader impact, what it could mean, why the ukrainian aid was held up. all of those will be among the top questions here when the president and prime minister of australia enter the east room. andrea, this mounting controversy comes at a critical time for president trump. this is a very significant state

visit for the president. they are discussing critical issues. everything from trade to security. and of course iran at the top of the list as well. i was able to ask president trump if he was moving toward a military response toward iran for striking the saudi oil fields. he said anything is possible. and of course one of the questions becomes, would australia support such a move. is the president moving to build a coalition, and what role would australia play in that. particularly as both leaders are prepared to head to the u.n. general assembly next week. so we do have a number of questions, a number of pressing issues as we await the president and the prime minister, andrea. >> kristen welker, thank you so much. nicholas burns, you were in the state department, in the national security council, and ambassador to nato. if you as an ambassador to nato had heard that a united states president was discussing a political issue and military aid and linking the two, and we don't know that that is the case, but certainly there's a lot of circumstantial evidence, and senator murphy and the

foreign relations committee are raising this issue right now. >> that's right, andrea. if that's what happened, if the president actually withheld american military assistance from a friendly country, ukraine, which badly needs it, in return for that government in ukraine investigating one of the president's political opponents, that's clearly wrong. it's wrong ethically, it's wrong local legally, it would be the president putting his own [ inaudible ]. >> and ambassador burns, we've had a problem with your microphone, we're going to fix that, but let me go to michael crowley because "the new york times" and "the washington post" have been trying to uncover the details of what this whistleblower complaint was. there is some confusion whether it was one phone call, a series of calls. what's your latest reporting? >> the reporting is that the ukraine piece of this is only part of the larger complaint.

so this doesn't all revolve around ukraine. there is still a fair amount of confusion. we are at this point drawing inferences about what exactly the ukraine part of the complaint entails, although i thought it was interesting that the president, you know, wasn't exactly definitively closing the door on the leading theory that's out there right now. he was acting a little bit like he's not sure what we're talking about and doesn't know the date of this phone call. this has been topic "a" plus in washington for more than 12 hours now and i'm a little skeptical that it's as opaque to him as he let on in that availability, which i think has to raise our suspicions a little bit further. but the reality is there is still just a lot that we don't know. and by the way, the fact that congress also is largely in the dark about this is interesting in and of itself. whatever the underlying information is, this seems to be yet another extraordinary assertion of executive authority by the trump administration. so there's a parallel story

happening here. there's the underlying whistleblower allegations and then the fact that congress is not being allowed to see it in detail. and that is an extraordinary assertion of presidential authority. so there is a lot going on here but still a lot we don't know. >> and phil rucker, "the washington post" was the first to break this story about the whistleblower complaint. y you've heard from adam schiff after the house intelligence committee debriefed for three hours or more, the inspector general who passed the complaint on, or tried to, but the underlying complaint has not gone to congress yet. his hands were tied and schiff was expressing concern that he as well as the whistleblower may be under some judicial action from doj because of them having pursued a complaint that they thought was justified, both of them thought was justified, and that the inspector general was passing along, as is outlined under the law. >> yeah, andrea, you see both frustration on capitol hill where congressional leaders are

not able to see this complaint. meanwhile over at the white house within the last hour, president trump suggested that most of the people on his white house staff had already read the complaint and were laughing about it. he tried to mock the idea of this complaint. he said he didn't know the identity of the whistleblower but seemed certain that it was some sort of a partisan actor. clearly over on congress, the democratic leaders including chairman schiff are going to be trying to get their hands on that complaint. they're also going to be trying to protect the safety of this whistleblower. this of course is a president and an administration that has taken extraordinary measures to retaliate against so-called leakers inside the administration, to talk about the so-called deep state, the term the president uses, and to go after the people inside the government who they suspect of being disloyal in any way to this most. >> and we understand from all

the information that the whistleblower is a member of the intelligence committee, perhaps detailed over to the national security council. nick burns, you worked in the nec and know these relationships. that whistleblower, his or her identity is supposed to be protected. the white house, which is the suspected perpetrator here, if there is any wrongdoing, they're not supposed to know the identity. so what phil just pointed out from the president's freewheeling comments in the f oval office already indicates that person could be in legal jeopardy, completely inappropriately. >> that's right, under the whittwhi whistleblower statute, these people should have their identity protected and should not be subject to retaliation. we have a long and proud tradition in the federal government of employees being nonpartisan. and here we have this explosive charge that the president, if this story was true, was acting

solely to protect his personal and partisan interests and not those of the united states on an issue that deals with trying to contain russian power in central europe and to help the ukrainians fend off the russians. there's not really much more that's more important to our national security than doing that. if they withheld military assistance, that's clearly wrong and against the american national interest. >> as you know, nick, from all the years that i knew you back in the early reagan years and throughout your tenure in public service, you as a foreign policy professional worked, regardless of the political stripe of whoever was the president of the united states, as do these intelligence community professionals, it doesn't matter whatever their personal registration might be. >> that's exactly right. we take an oath to the constitution. if you're in the cia or the state department or the military, we're not to engage in partisan warfare. one of the extraordinary things is we have a government service

that does not do that. and so it's very important that the identity of this person and this person's reputation be protected. and very important that this story be followed up, because we cannot have a president of the united states, if the story is true, acting purely to protect himself and not the country. and we shouldn't. rudy giuliani should not be asking the state department and particularly our career officers to help him set up these meetings. the state department should be kept out of this, in my judgment. >> ruth marcus, you and i have covered a number of administrations. i've never known what the politics was of any of the national security professionals or cia professionals who we've dealt with. >> absolutely. and one question that he would like to see the president asked is, what is it that makes you say that this is a partisan attack, what is your basis for saying that? because the presumption should be, based on what we've all

known of the people who work for our government, that these are not partisan positions. >> i've never heard a president before say this person at the cia or this person at the fbi is a democrat or a republican, until we got into the mueller investigation. >> until now. but i really want to underscore, we do not know where the facts are going to develop. but this feels to me, and we've had a lot of scary moments during the trump presidency, but as grave a moment, as grave a constitutional moment as we have experienced during this presidency, both in terms of the potential for conduct by the president that would be extraordinarily damaging to his own presidency and the interests of the united states, and in terms of the potential showdown between the -- or not showdown, between the congress and the president. and for the president to prevent the information from this whistleblower from going forward

and for congress, and i include the republican majority senate, to accede to that, i think under these really dangerous and, you know, questionable circumstances, would be a terrible dereliction of duty. >> rick tyler, as we're watching the east room, the president and australian prime minister are about to come in. this is a state visit, that's why the first lady is there for this news conference. these questions of politics and allegations, suspicions of politics infecting our foreign policy, at a moment of grave importance, as we see both leaders walking in. >> it's a high ranking intelligence official, the president would know who he is so i don't know why the president would call him partisan. i want to touch on oversight, the republicans, we know, aren't going to conduct oversight. but the democrats have gotten themselves in a muddle on congressional oversight and they

need to get sorerious about it. >> we'll listen to the president introducing the prime minister and return for the q&a. let's watch. >> a brilliant ally, we just spent a lot of time together with our representatives. they get along very well. we're doing a lot of deals. we talked military, we talked trade, we talked about everything you can talk about. and we came to the same conclusion, i think, in every case. i just want to say it's an honor having both of you here, thank you very much. you have a truly great country. i don't think we've ever had a better relationship than we have right now. and tonight we're going to have something very special in the rose garden, and, uh, based on all that money we spend on all that weather predicting equipment, they're saying no chance of rain, let's see if that's right, if it is, we'll run right back into this room, but we're going to have a fantastic evening. first lady, thank you very much, you worked very hard on this.

so it's not going to rain, it's going to be a beautiful evening, and great job, really great job, honey, thank you. please. [ applause ] >> thank you, mr. president, mrs. trump. we thank you also very much for the incredibly warm and generous welcome that jenny and i and our delegation have had here in washington and this great home of the american presidency and indeed your home. one of the many things that the president and i share in common is a passion for jobs. and the job performance here in the united states, the jobs that are being created in australia, the jobs that change people's lives, when people get a job, they got choices. and australia and the united states, we're committed to creating jobs. whether it's in trade or looking in the future and where those jobs are going to come from, we want our people to have those economic opportunities. i commend the president on the great work he's done in creating jobs here in the united states. we're doing the same thing in

australia. we want to keep creating jobs. this partnership is a big part of that. that's why we come together here, we share objectives in so many areas, we share common values, we share beliefs, we've shared a wonderful century together. now we're going to have another great century together. so thank you, mr. president, and thank you for the opportunity for the discussions we've had today. we are very much looking forward to the state dinner this evening. mrs. trump, you're doing something special there tonight, we don't know if it's the first ever, but as the president said, perhaps the first ever, a great innovation as parts of the wonderful visit. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, a great honor. go ahead, please. >> reporter: mr. president, you've been negotiating with the chinese. there seems to be a possibility in terms of a china trade deal that they might actually offer some agricultural purposes. will that be enough for you, sir -- >> no. >> reporter: -- in order to get a deal done?

what do you see to get a deal past the finish line? >> china has been starting to before i our agricultural products, if you noticed, over the past week, actually some very big purchases. but that's not what we're looking for. we're looking for the big deal. we've taken it to this level, we've taken in billions and billions of dollars of tariffs. china is putting a lot of money into their economy. and, uh, they have a very bad economy right now and i don't want them to have a bad economy. but it's the worst in, they say, 57 years. two weeks ago it was the worst in 22 years. now it's 57 years and it's only going to get worse. their supply chain is being broken up very badly and companies are leaving because they can't pay the 25, soon to go to 30% tariff. we have 30% very shortly on $250 billion. we have another tariff at a slightly smaller number, as you know, on other -- on about $300 billion worth of goods and

products. so they would like to do something, as you know, we're talking a little bit this week, talking a lot next week. and then top people are going to be speaking the week following. but i'm not looking for partial deal. i'm looking for complete deal. >> reporter: before the election, sir? >> no, i don't think i need it before the election. people know that we're doing a great job. i've rebuilt the military. we've -- scott and i were talking about that, we spent $1.5 trillion. when i came in, our military was depleted. frankly, we didn't have a.m. umissiou missi ammunition. mike pence actually got -- who is right here, our great vice president, he was talking yesterday and he called me and said, these consumer numbers are incredible, the retail numbers that came out that really weren't reported were really incredible numbers. you know that very well, that's your world.

and some other numbers. we're doing very well. our economy is very strong. china is being affected very badly. we're not. we're not being affected. in fact we're taking in many billions of dollars and china is eating that, you know, china is eating the tariffs, because of the devaluation. now, that doesn't happen with all countries. china is china. and, uh, they know what they're doing as well as anybody. my relationship with president xi is a very amazing one, very good one. but we have right now a little spat. but i think we're doing very well. our country is doing well, uh, you look at so many different things. look at all of the regulation cutting that allows us to do what we did. look at what happens three days ago where you have an attack like that and it takes out a big chunk of oil and the price goes up $4, $5, and now it's heading down rapidly. that tells you that would have happened years ago, it would have gone up $50, it would have doubled. and this was a blip. so it's been really amazing, what we've been able to do. i think the voters understand

that. i don't think it has any impact on the election. now, if something happened, that would probably be positive for the election. but that's okay. i do think signing usmca on a bipartisan basis with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer and everybody else, very bipartisan, that's very important for our country. and i would certainly be willing to say that's a bipartisan deal. i think that's very important for our manufacturers, for our farmers, even for unions, they want that deal done. and so hopefully that's going to be put up to a vote very soon. there will be very little cajoling of the democrats because most democrats want it too. the usmc is ready to be voted on. it's finished. mexico has taken their final votes. canada is willing to do that any time we want them to. they're all set to go. and we need that for all of the -- we need that for our country. it's a great deal. it's a great deal. thank you. >> reporter: for the prime minister, sir, your economy is to some degree caught in the cross currents between the

united states and china. what did you say to the president about what your ideal outcome is for trade agreement between the united states and china? >> thank you. obviously we're going to see the united states and china be able to come to an agreement. but what is always necessary is, deals have got to be fair, deals have to the to be good deals, deals have got to be sustainable deals. i think one of the things we've seen, australia has benefitted greatly from the economic growth of china. we've a comprehensive strategic partnership with china and a free trade agreement with china. they have grown and become the most substantial economy in the world. once you get to that level, you need to be able to play to the same rules as those other developed nations. and i think this is, you know, the new -- new generation of deals i think we'll see china do which the president has been working on and he's been working on it for some time and we wish him well in that process. there are some real issues that need to be addressed in that

deal, things like international property, it's a big issue and needs to be addressed. we look forward to them achieving it and providing the broader stability and certainty to the broader economy which all nations will benefit from. >> a deal with china could go very quickly but it wouldn't be the appropriate deal. we have to do it right. it's a complicated deal, with internation intellectual property protection and other things. we want to do it right. please. >> sure. andrew. >> i assume andrew is a nice person. >> reporter: mr. president, the best. thank you very much for hosting this. also on china and tariffs, what do you say to australian businesses and to australian people who say that your trade war with president xi threatens

their prosperity, and to the prime minister, a linked question, do you think that austrialians are going to be collateral damage in president trump's tariff war with china? >> well, first of all, you know, i look at numbers, i love numbers, and the numbers of australia are doing incredibly well, you're doing unbelievably well. when we have a deal with china or not, but when we have a deal with china, because they want to make it perhaps more than i want to make it, because i actually love all the billions of dollars that's pouring into our treasury, billions and billions of dollars, we've never seen that before from china, it's always been the other way, but -- and i'm taking care of our farmers out of that, we're helping our farmers, our farmers were targeted, and they were targeted for $16 billion, and i made that up to them. we paid them the $16 billion, and had tens of billions of dollars left over. so i will say, though, that

australia is doing very well. if we do end up doing a deal, australia will do even better. we were discussing that, but australia will be one of the big beneficiaries of a deal. and in the meantime, as you know, i did tariff relief with respect to a certain product in particular coming out of australia, and that's something that we wouldn't do for nubanyb else. this has been a truly great ally and we work very well together. but your numbers are absolutely fantastic. your economy is strong, like ours. and i think we're two real examples of countries doing extremely well. some countries are not doing well. europe is not doing well. large parts of asia are not doing well. china is not doing well. please. >> thanks. mr. president, australia is in its 29th year of executive economic growth which is an extraordinary national achievement. and we will continue to grow as our most recent -- as our most

recent national accounts demonstrated. australia is also very used to dealing with a complex and changing world and that's why we're diversifying and have been doing that for many years. six years ago, when our government came to office, 27% of our trade was covered by agreements around the world. that figure is now 70%. we're going to take that to 90%. and that's important. and that's opening up opportunities. so there are ebbs and flows that go in the global economy, and australia has built up a resilience through the broad based nature through which we're taking our economy to the world. australia has never got rich selling things to itself. and we've always had an outward-looking perspective when it comes to engaging our economic opportunities. and a big part of what we've been discussing here is some new opportunities, the rare minerals, critical minerals, frontier technologies, space. this is where jobs are going to be in the future as well.

so we will deal with those ebbs and flows as they come. the president is right, the arrangement they will come to, and i'm confident they will, with china will be one that will set a new bar in terms of how china's economy then deals with a lot of these complicated issues in the future with developed economies like australia. so we look on with interest. and ultimately when we arrive at that point it's going to put global trade on a stronger footing. >> and australia has been really so focused on the economy. they do minerals, they have incredible wealth in minerals and coal and other things. and they are really at the leading edge of coal technology. clean coal, we call it, clean call, but it's also great for the workers. and things that would happen, because it was very dangerous years ago and very bad for a lot of people, and, uh, you've rectified that 100%. it's incredible, i looked at your statistics the other day, and coal miners are very, very

safe in australia. it's incredible what you've done. in fact we're looking at what you've done. >> we can do a deal on that. >> we'll do a deal. we'll make a deal. yeah, go ahead, please. >> reporter: thank you. in the midst of these escalating tensions with iran, you've now named a new national security adviser, robert o'brien. >> yes. >> reporter: what is he recommending to you in terms of dealing with the latest strikes on saudi arabia and the response? and secondly, you announced new sanctions on iran. secretary mnuchin says this affects the last available funds for that regime. have we now exhausted sanctions in regards to iran? >> well, these are the strongest sanctions ever put on a country. we are, uh, at a level of sanction that is far greater than ever before with respect to iran. today we did central bank, as you know. and we'll see. we'll see. they're having a lot of problems, not only with us.

they're having problems within their own country. i think they have a lot of self-made problems. we are by far the strongest military in the world, going into iran would be a very easy decision, as i said before, it would be very easy, easiest thing. most people thought i would go in within two seconds. but plenty of time, plenty of time. in the meantime they have a lot of problems within iran. iran could be a great country, could be a rich country. but they are choosing to go a different way. there will be a point at which they'll be very sorry for that choice. but i think i'm showing great restraint. a lot of people respect it. some people don't, some people say oh, you should go in immediately. and other people are so thrilled at what i'm doing. and i don't do it for anybody. i do it for what's good for the united states, what's good for our allies. and, uh, it's working out really very well. as far as robert is concerned, he's -- robert, maybe you could stand up. robert o'brien has done a

fantastic job for us with hostage negotiations. i think we can say that there has never been anyone that's done better than you and i as a combination. we've brought many people home and we've brought them home quickly. speed is a very important thing i find with hostages. it's really something. i had dinner the other night with the warmbier family, an incredible family, the whole family and some of otto's friends in addition to the family, we had 25 people over on saturday night. and we did that dinner, otto -- really in otto's honor and it was a beautiful thing, it was a beautiful thing. first lady and i, it was very, uh, it was very touching. and really very beautiful. we talked about otto. and i will tell you that people should have moved faster. robert and i were talking about

that, should have moved faster. he was there for long time. you have to move fast. with hostages, you have to move fast. all of a sudden it gets very hard for the other side to do anything. and sometimes it's just too late. in the case of otto, it was very late. we got him home but he was in horrible, horrible condition, what happened to him was actually incredible, just horrible. but you have to move fast. robert and i have been really successful. and the reason i know them so well, i worked hard on hostages, i think you would say most presidents would do that, but i do. it's a great, almost in all cases, american lives, we help other people also, we've also helped other countries with their hostage situation when we have some strength that they don't. but these are great people, and we get them home. we got them home from north korea, as you know. and we got them home from a lot of different location. egypt, we got them home from many different locations, uh,

turkey. president erdogan was very good and we got a hostage home. our great pastor who everyone in this room knows and loves. but we've had tremendous success. and what surprised me, i didn't know too many people knew robert. and when it came time to pick somebody for the position, it's a very critical time, i had so many people, i shouldn't say this in front of robert, it will be embarrassing, but i had so many people who called me and they recommended robert o'brien. so i think he's going to do a great job. and, uh, he was here, i can tell you this, he started about 12 minutes after he was chosen. he sat in with us, and he's very much involved now in what we're doing. >> reporter: one quick followup on that in regards to iran. if sanctions don't work and they continue their malign activity, are there any other measures outside of a military option that can be taken -- >> well, i don't want to talk about that. i will say i think the sanctions

work. and the military would work. but that's a very severe form of -- of winning. but we win. nobody can beat us militarily. nobody can even come close. what we've done for our military in the last three years is incredible. all made in the usa, by the way. and it's really incredible. our nuclear was getting very tired. they hadn't spent the money on it. and now we have it in, as we would say, tippy top shape, tippy top. we have new and we have renovated. and it's incredible. and we all should pray that we never have to use it. we should never have to use it. our military itself is in phenomenal shape. and we have a great gentleman, as you know, going to be taking over, joint chief of staff joe dunford has been fantastic, he's a great, great man, and a friend of mine.

but general milius will be taking over. we're going to have a little bit of a celebration, both for joe and for -- for everybody. as you know, uh, our secretary of defense has just come in, mark esper, and he's been here for a short period of time, but he's got tremendous energy. he's got it. he knows -- he knows, that's what he's been doing for long period of time, from the day he graduated or maybe i should say from the day he started at west point where he was a top, top scholar, et cetera. so we have incredible people. and steve mnuchin is here. we did the sanctions today. and i think they're probably, steve, the strongest that ever have been put on a country. we will certainly never do that to australia, i promise you. >> reporter: one for the prime minister, if i may. mr. prime minister, you have been very tough on huawei even under pressure, you said you

have a good working relationship with china and they're important for your economy. do you plan to continue to support the united states in the tough stance on china? can you give any specifics on what you've told the president you would do in his measures to reach a fair trade deal? >> first of all, we have the most perfect of relationships with the united states, and it goes back a century and more as the president was reminding us on the lawn this morning. we have a comprehensive strategic partnership with china. this is part of the world in which we live. and managing that relationship is important to australia's national interest. one thing i can always aassuens you, and the president will say the same, we will always put our countries' interests first. that means engaging countries in our own region, not just economically but at a people to people level as well. we have a lot of operations we do together across the world militarily and we'll continue to

do those. but the focus, i think, at the end of the day has to be what's best for our people. and that means a stable, secure region and the presence of the united states in the indo-pacific where they have been for very long time is a stabilizing force in the region. what does that mean? it means that countries can trade with each other, economies can develop. people come out of poverty. the united states has had a positive presence in our region. and that's why we always work together, because we share objectives. it isn't a matter of the united states saying to us, we need you to do this, or australia saying to the united states, we need you to do this. it's about us having shared objectives and looking through the world through a similar lens. that just naturally brings us together to focus on the things that promote prosperity. as i started out in my remarks today, we'll have jobs, the president and i. we love jobs. and we like jobs here and we like jobs everywhere. when people have jobs, they tend to focus a bit more on the

things fog in their lives everyday and making sure they can live peacefully with each other. >> one of the things that's important, i think, is during our meeting, we discussed, i said, what percentage of our -- of your military do you buy from us? and the answer was, we work it together, or, it's about 100%, it's close to 100%. and we make the best equipment, he understands that. but it's a real relationship. they buy 100% of their military, and it's a massive purchase. and it's gotten bigger, i guess you said, the biggest purchase since world war ii. >> yeah, we'll be at 2% of gdp next year and that comes up from what was the lowest level of defense spending since probably the second world war, a $200 billion investment. a lot of that has been built in australia but it's also built in partnership with the united states. and other allies. so it's an important part of what we're doing. i think david crowe from australia is next.

>> reporter: thank you very much, david crowe from "the sydney morning herald." and "the age." mr. president, you've praised the australian commitment today to deal with iran in the persian gulf. in your talks today with mr. morrison, did you discuss further military action in order to keep the pressure on iran? what might those military actions be and what could australia contribute to that? mr. morrison, on that -- >> hold it one second, you'll get a second try, you'll get a shot at your prime minister. i'm sure you're looking forward to it. we didn't discuss too much on iran. we discussed more trade, more china, we discussed afghanistan, where australia is helping us. and we're slowly reducing in afghanistan, as people know. we've been very effective in afghanistan. and if we wanted to do a certain method of war, we would win that

very quickly. but many, many, really tens of millions of people would be killed. and we think it's unnecessary. but australia has been a great help to us in afghanistan. but we're reducing in afghanistan. we're reducing in syria where we had -- you know, we've taken over 100% of the caliphate, we have 100%. when i came in, it was smaller, but it was a mess, it was all over, and now it's -- it's in a position, and i don't want to repeat what i said before with the prisoners but we have thousands of isis fighters from our work in, uh, capturing 100% of the caliphate. and we're asking the countries from where they came, whether it's germany or france or other countries, to take those people back, put them on trial, do what they have to do with them. but the united states will not keep thousands and thousands of people for the next possibly 50 years or whatever it may be.

it's going to be up to those countries. we did them a big favor, we went in, we took them down. the isis fighters in the end weren't very good fighters against the united states. but we have thousands of them. and we want them to be taken over by germany, france, and all of those countries from where they came, okay? >> reporter: thank you. and mr. morrison, on the same issue of iran, are you open to further military action against iran, or is the australian commitment contained? >> as the president said, there are no further activities planned from australia. the question is moot. i want to commend the president who is demonstrating, as he said in the earlier press conference in the oval office, the restraint, there are other

measures he and the secretary have announced today, pursuing those channels. so the calibrated, i think re measured response that the united states is taking has been a matter for them. and obviously they need time, when issues arise with us as an ally, we consider them on their merits at the time, in australia's national interest. that's where that's heading. >> thank you very much. and jennifer, thank you very much, first lady, thank you. and i hope you'll be able to see tonight, the media, because really, it's going to be a beautiful evening in honor of australia and the morrisons. thank you very much. thank you. >> and the president and prime minister morrison of australia wrap up their news conference. some focus on iran, not much clarity on the whistleblower reactions as well. let's talk to phil rucker, michael crowley, rick tyler, ruth marcus, still with us.

phil, what did you hear at the news conference, we didn't hear a whole lot about the iranian sanctions but earlier they did announce they were sanctioning the federal reserve of iran, crippling iran's economy. >> it is, andrea, and what we continue to hear from the president is he's considering military options but seems reluctant to make any decisions there. for the time being he's pursuing these economic sanctions, trying to pull some diplomatic levers to retaliate against iran without taking that next step, although that is still under consideration. he also, by the way, had some interesting comments about the trade negotiations with china, leaving open the possibility that there may not be that vaunted trade deal before the 2020 election. >> saying that he doesn't want a partial deal, one that might be available and ready as these negotiations continue this week and next. >> exactly. >> that he wants the big deal

but doesn't feel he needs it before 2020. countrikristen welker in the ea, give me your headlines from this press conference. >> i certainly think phil is right, the china trade line was significant, the president saying he the election. he has tied his election chances to the economy. if the escalating trade war continues to impact the economy, will that change his calculation. it was really the first time that we heard him make that statement that he does not feel as though he needs a deal. the election, we know trade talks are scheduled in a few weeks from now. all sides and all indications of it and both sides will be there, how much progress will be made though. that's the question and of course on iran and the word of the day has been restraints. the prime minister used that a number of time today describing how he sees it.

the president says they're the toughest sanctions and going right up to the top. i asked him specifically, do they impact the supreme leader, the president of iran? he says yes. we know he'll be meeting with his national security team including his new national security advisor, they'll be weighing in potential next steps. both leaders left the option of a military action on the table. both leaders stressed a potential diplomatic response or ongoing diplomatic response i should say. that was my key headline coming out of this news conference which did not address of course the growing whistle blower controversy. >> kristen welker was in the photo opportunity in the oval office. you had that sort of non-denial

denial after kristin's question. >> michael crowley. the secretary of state came back from the united emirates earlier this morning. these meetings later this afternoon after they get through the ceremonial function for lunch and the ceremony at the pentagon. it is clear they're going to be presented military options as the pentagon told us yesterday. those are not on the shelve but available. >> right. >> that's not where he's going now. the central bank freezed right now. the sanctions against the central banks are very, very tough. >> you are right. i would be surprise if we saw any military action in the next couple of days. the president is going to the united nation general assembly. the idea will be practice diplomacy there and try to rally world opinion against iran, present some kind of unified front. maybe if you are going to do

military action, gather support for it. this president and diplomacy, you never know and what's going to happen and it can go potential in any direction. military strike after sanctions seemed unlikely to me. i will be interested to be watching the president and how he talks about the issue the next several days with pompeo. he's been ahead of the president on couple of occasions, he was quick to blame iran for these attacks and a couple of days ago, he referred to it as an act of war. language that everyone keyed up the idea. we got to hit back. president trump has been cautious in both categories assigning attributions and the potential of military force. is that just sloppy use of language or is there potential daylight between the president and his secretary of state on how tough to be in response? mike pompeo is tough against iran but does a good job staying alongside president trump. >> i will be watching it

closely. >> lindsey graham also said sanctions alone was not enough. he was getting through a twitter dispute with his close ally, the president on this subject. we know from the pentagon they're not going to say it was iran until the saudis do until they sbget the intelligence assessment. >> that bromance with the president and graham sometimes is up and down. it was not just lindsey graham questioning the president but the president questioning senator graham and pointing out last time we got involved in the middle east and senator graham says he was pushing for it and did not work out well. there are clearly some tension there is in a bunch of different places and not just the secretary of state but one of his leading congressional allies. >> president rouhani is going to come to new york on monday or tuesday. there is going to be a lot of interactions with iranians in new york and their visas were approved.

>> so the president has a strange combination. it is the rhetoric of bob. he's sending them all these mixed messages. >> this is throw back friday. >> it is a little inside. >> so, look, i believe the iranians would never shot down our drone unless they felt they could get away with it. they did. they would never attack the saudis oil field. we are supposed to be there and protect the oil field, they're able to take out half of the production in a single day, and they're going to get away with it. i don't know s-- i don't know where this ends up. the president demonstrated weakness, he gets read by a book and not just by the iranians but by others. >> they have a lot of rethinking

and there must haves been a lot of interactions there. pompeo reportedly telling them this is on you. we'll help you military but we are not going it ourselves because my president does not want to. >> thanks kristen welker in the white house and phil rucker and rick tyler and ruth marcus, we'll be right back. more ahead. this is "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. what if other kinds of plants captured it too? if these industrial plants had technology that captured carbon like trees we could help lower emissions. carbon capture is important technology - and experts agree. that's why we're working on ways to improve it. so plants... can be a little more... like plants. ♪

panera's new warm grain full of flavor, color,. full of- woo! full of good. so you can be too. try our new warm grain bowls today. panera. food as it should be. (classical music playing throughout)

but we're also a cancer fighting, hiv controlling, joint replacing, and depression relieving company. from the day you're born we never stop taking care of you. from the day you're born quietly running the world. creating jobs and fueling the economy. you're small business owners, and there's nothing small about your business. that's why with dell small business technology advisors. you'll get tailored product solutions, expert tech advice and one-on-one partnership. to help your small business do big things. call an advisor today at 877-buy-dell. get up to 45% off on select computers. ♪

thanks for being with us. follow the show online on twitter and online. here is our chris jansing on "velshi & ruhle." >> thank you so much, it is friday september 20th. my colleague ali velshi is at the climate 2020 forum. we'll hear about him later. we'll be live with protesters around the country and president trump claiming that the whistle blower who filed an intelligence claim is part of a partisan political hack job but refusing to say he talked about biden and his family. this is now under intense scrutiny. the devastating floods inas