we talked on monday about the whole issue of sdi and reykjavik. how that initially makes reykjavik a disaster. but, remember, this is 1986. reykjavik, about a year later, because gorbachev gave up his demands that the u.s. abandoned sdi. and now, of course, just a reminder, we do not know exactly why, was he convinced that the u.s. was going to outspend him? and that he said, i'm going to give up? or, did it fit in already with his ideas of perestroika. and there is an argument to be made for both. we will see whether or not the reagan documents show a conscious strategy for this. it is one thing to say we want to defeat the soviets. it is another to say, we are going to do this by outspending them into bankruptcy. that could have been just another thing that we thought of or that reagan thought of or his advisors thought of as a means to defeat them. the reaganites definitely believe this is all a big strategy. most of them do. whether it is or not, we will see. so, this is the first breakthrough. keep in mind, if reykjavik occurs right around th

now intra africa trade is being encouraged more with the continent of free trade area signings and reykjavik asians as well that are going on around the continent of. africa to africa investment where does that money come from and where does it go to. well what we're seeing now these these are these are transit around the african continent where these trade between neighboring countries or maybe countries i'll give an example of kenya that has uganda as its biggest trade partner if you look at the western side of africa nigeria and ghana close straight partners if you look at the south and part of africa who is actually not is that south africa and zimbabwe and great trade partners and so we having more and more intrigued you know treating our own the african continent that he's hosting this growth and i guess also the realisation that maybe they might be investing pool out sometimes from outside the continent more and more countries are knocking at your africa trade as a way to move them around so out into economies like south africa like nigeria we she's the most popular as a nation on the

thirsty of below where the specialists at the icelandic crisis response headquarters in the capital reykjavik are alarmed they have been monitoring the volcanoes every slightest move twenty four hours a day. iceland is preparing for a cataclysmic eruption deep underneath the volcano a magma chamber is trembling and shifting continuously. and they will show you here i left. just. it's kind of on piers who look at just this is from two thousand and five and here in two thousand and seventeen years just to see this in place and it doesn't really matter what you look if you look at three months here earthquake rate if you look at the market to there if you look at the and there's to release from the earthquakes like everything is going up it will happen at some point definitely wouldn't be an option. the question is just one. iceland as a total of one hundred thirty volcanoes. there's been some forty year options in the past hundred years including or have a ridge good in twenty ten feet to was covered by an ice cap several hundred meters thick many millions of tons of melt water formed under the

then they came together in reykjavik.ed reagan to give up his "star wars" initiative. and reagan said, no way, i want to sacrifice the safety of the american people and i will share that technology with you if you would like it. the talks break apart. you mentioned a year later, they meet up again in moscow, washington, d.c., then they go to moscow, then back to washington. so five meetings. point being, this is a long process. as you and i have been talking for the past week, you dig into details of this nuclear program and north korea, you can find all kinds of traps and problems. the younger young facility is comprised of 387 facilities. think about how long we tried to find weapons of mass destruction in iraq. think about what his saddam hussein was trying to create, how difficult that job was. >> ed: the reagan example may be instructive, not just reykjavik specifically but a long arc, bill. >> no doubt. i will emphasize this, gorbachev, i believe, was looking for a deal in the beginning. he wasn't seeing the arc of

if you will, and it reminded me, it's not a perfect analogy, nick, of what we went through with reykjavikn 1985, everyone was talking about how reagan and gorbachev could work with each other and all of a sudden you get into reykjavik and a demand is made, and reagan appropriately walked away from it, and it turned out to be exactly the right thing to do. this had that kind of feel. you were kind of glad that mike pompeo was there, the guardians were there to say, you can't rely on this guy and keep talking about him as, quote, your friend. nick, am i -- >> andrea, i very much agree with michael. i think that president trump's been right to try diplomacy with kim jong-un. i also believe he's made the correct calculation, we need to engage this regime. clearly want buddy philosophy, i can become kim jong-un's best friend, he describes the love letters they write to each other, that hasn't worked. kim has not been moved by that at all. so i think a return to more traditional diplomacy. the president has a very effective negotiator in steve biegun. and secretary pompeo is a very effective pe

it was that reykjavik. he put on the table as the prize, "i want you to take down the strategic defense initiative or we are going forward." he went home to have dinner with nancy. he wanted to get home in time for dinner. one of the humorous stories that happened in big power diplomacy. it took five meetings, and finally the most significant reduction in nuclear weapons took place because of the relationship that they established and the self interest that each country had. it also led to the major transformation of the soviet union. where are we? we are in the beginning of this process. i think there will be multiple meetings between the two, and we will see where this goes. his kim jong un, 20 years to develop these missiles pretties got 40 or 50 50 of them. really trail that for economic prosperity? i suspect not. will he treated for security and safeguard that there would not be taking down of the regime and maybe economic prosperity? there's a possibility of that. if to maintain a healthy skepticism a

capital city of reykjavik so we're right on the edge of a volcanic area aren't we how important it is for the fight we wouldn't. be here if it weren't for the world where the world that's where we have. here is a chemical engineer and the. energy. she took us to the top of the ball to get a close up view station. this is the geothermal version of an oil rig. fluid. more than two hundred degrees. so. three hundred degrees. and so. across from the ground. yeah basically with their limbs the crux of the ground rhetoric. war third or you know just regular work that's circulating through that's how we. bring a thing that we can really imagine what's going to be like yeah yeah i mean it's much more than that this is just you know for. us is incredible but what's happening here is actually as a result of what's going on thousands of inmates have been a fly think the look is so hot and porous when engine is religious so it is a really safe place he said that he felt a very family gases including the i would say the scientists hear all sorts of things especially. the set of beliefs into the at

eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons and wasn't as good as what we hoped to get out of reykjavik but he still a major step forward and now we're threatened with going back to that very very dangerous confrontational situation that we dealt with back in one nine hundred eighty seven. when you put only any blame on just poor relations between the u.s. and russia at the moment does it need healthy relations and a strong bond of trust between them in order to have a deal like this. while even when we have here is when we didn't trust each other this deal persevered we need to improve relations between the united states and russia and. their relationship to turn rated to the worst point they've been probably since one thousand nine hundred sixty two or certainly since the early one nine hundred eighty s. and so even the space beyond this deal beyond this this sex treaty which is so crucial there are so many areas in which we need to improve relations. and in the united states the discourse is very disconcerting it's russia bashing putin bashing demonization of russia everything is ant

eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons and wasn't as good as what we hoped to get out of reykjavik but it was still a major step forward and now we're threatened with going back to that very very dangerous confrontational situation that we dealt with back in one nine hundred eighty seven given all the tensions now internationally the bonita how much scientists executives just kept their hands a doomsday clock at two minutes before midnight we've got hotspots around the world crises conflicts that are very very dangerous right now and every country all nine nuclear powers are modernizing their nuclear arsenals so we are in a very dangerous situation and the united states to be doing this now is quite reckless. the standoff between the venezuelan government time its opposition leader is escalating off to the u.s. officially recognized one door as interim president washington is now warned nicolas window to resign. this is no time for dialogue this is time for options are on the. with of the with nicolas maduro would do well not to test the resolve of the united states. meanwhile vene

we have some history president reagan walked away in reykjavik a lot of condemnation at the time and it ended up working out very well in the end for the united states was this mostly your decision or and what would message you want to send chairman kim as he's listening to this press conference about the future and your relationship or you don't i don't want to say it was my decision because what purpose is that. i want to keep the relationship and we will keep the relationship we'll see what happens over the next period of time but as you know we got our hostages back there's no more testing and one of the things importantly the chairman came promise to me last night is regardless he's not going to do testing of rockets and. nuclear not going to do testing so in there i trust him and i take him at his word i hope that's true but in the meantime we'll be talking mike will be speaking with his people he's also developed a very good relationship with the people really the people representing north korea . i haven't spoken to prime minister rabin yet i haven't spoken to president moon

president reagan walked away in reykjavik. a lot of condemnation at the time, and it ended up working out very well in the end for the united states. was this mostly your decision or and what message would you want the send chairman kim as he's listening to this press conference about the future and your relationship? >> well, sean, i don't want to say it was my decision, because what purpose is that? i want to keep the relationship. we will keep the relationship. we'll see what happens over the next period of time. but as you know, we got our hostages back. there is no more testing. and one of the things importantly that chairman kim promised me last night is regardless, he's not going to do testing of rockets and nuclear. not going to do testing. so i trust him and i take him at his word. i hope that's true. but in the meantime, we'll be talking. mike will be speaking with his people. he's also developed a very good relationship with the people, really the people representing north korea. i haven't spoken to the prime minist

president reagan walked away in reykjavik. a lot of condemnation at the time and ended up working out very well in the end for the united states. was this mostly your decision, what message would you want to send chairman kim as he is is meant this press conference about the future and your relationship? president trump shaun, i don't want to say was my decision because what purposes that? i want to keep the relationship, we will keep the relationship, we will see what happens in the next period of time. as you know, we got our hostages back, there is no more testing. one of the things in fernley that chairman kim promised me was that he will not do testing of a rockets and nuclear. he will not do testing. so i trust him. i take him at his word, i hope that is true. but in the meantime, we will be talking. mike will be speaking to his people. he has also developed a good relationship with the people, really the people representing north korea. i haven't spoken to prime minister abe, or president moon of south korea, but we wil

gorbachev was at reykjavik with reagan.eagan walked out and said no deal and he got crushed by the media. they had several other meetings and things ended up working out but i understand your point because traditionally in diplomacy when you have the stomach, your underlings line up these things that are going to happen that it's basically like a big signing ceremony. the problem with that is kim. he's a dictator and he doesn't have any underlings that he can farm out any responsibility. >> dana: he refused to let them talk to the secretary of state which i think should have been a tell. he >> jesse: all trump, all p.m., they are the only individuals that can make the deal. >> juan: i don't understand why you take the word of the saudi prince , mohammad bin salman, i don't understand why you take vladimir putin's word. now you take kim jong un over our intelligence. he >> jesse: it didn't sit well with me either. i think he's trying to find peace and he thinks that strategy -- >> juan: it's not a risk. it's an insult to us

it wasn't the right deal for the united states and this harkens back to ronald reagan during the reykjavÍksummit, reagan thought deal wasn't good enough, walked away from it a year later they came back and signed a better deal. that is the model for what happened here and here is the deal on the table, that kim jong un said he was going to close down the nuclear facility, a sprawling complex where they enrich uranium and produce plutonium. he was ready to give that up but in exchange he went the removal of all sanctions the united states hasn't other countries have against north korea and the president wasn't willing to make that deal because there were so many other components to north korea's nuclear program, icbms and medium-range missiles and all those warheads north korea has developed so to have sanctions taken off you have to do a lot more. he decided to walk away from the deal and come back to it another time. the other question is what does heather nauert denuclearization looks like. a lot of reports he not only once -- he wants to hang onto his nuclear weapons. >> we just left ch

for me, i recall in president reagan walked away from the reykjavik summit with secretary gorbachev,idn't make a deal because it was the wrong deal. i think that is the right tone for the president to set to require kim jong un to step forth with the real, tangible results for the summit. >> ed: on the other hand, and singapore, it seemed the president's approach was you need full denuclearization before he will lift u.s. sanctions. there have been reports suggesting maybe that is negotiable now, that we might take partial moves toward denuclearization and start lifting some sanctions. there are critics saying that is a real bad idea. where you come down on that? >> the negotiations were only just beginning in singapore. we know a lot more today than we did back in june 2018, and i think the president at his team are informed by what has transpired in the past few months and they realize, based on statements from secretary pompeo, that this is going to be somewhat of a step-by-step process where we may give a little bit in return for moves, for example, admitting inspectors or joinin

president reagan walked away in reykjavik. a lot of condemnation at the time, and it ended up working out very well in the end for the united states. was this mostly your decision, or -- what message would you want to send chairman kim, as he's listening to this press conference about the future and your relationship? >> sean, i don't want to say it was my decision. because what purpose is that? i want to keep the relationship, we will keep the relationship. we'll see what happens over the next period of time. but as you know, we got our hostages back. there's no more testing. and one of the things importantly that chairman kim promised me last night is, regardless, he's not going to do testing of rockets and nuclear, not going to do testing. so, you know, i trust him. and i take him at his word. i hope that's true. but in the meantime, we'll be talking. mike will be speaking with his people. he's also developed a very good relationship with the people, really, the people representing north korea. i haven't spoken to prime min

president reagan walked away in reykjavik. a lot of condemnation at the time.king very well for the united states. was it mostly your decision? what message would you want to send chairman kim as he is listening to this press conference about the future and your relationship. pres. trump: i don't want to say it was my decision, because what purpose is that? i want to keep the relationship and we will keep the relationship. we will see what happens. as you know, we got hostages back. there's no more testing. one of the things chairman kim promised me last night is, regardless, he's not going to do testing of rockets and nuclear. i trust him and i take him at his word. in the meantime, we will be talking. mike will be speaking with his people. he has developed a good relationship with the people representing north korea. i have not spoken to prime minister yet, i haven't spoken to president moon, south korean, but we will. we will tell them it's a process and it's moving along, but we felt it was not appropriate to sign an agreement today. he could have. i just f

we have some history president reagan walked away in reykjavik lot of condemnation at the time and it ended up working out very well in the end for the united states was this mostly your decision or and what what message do you want to send chairman kim as he's listening to this press conference about the future and your relationship or you don't i don't want to say it was my decision because what purpose is that. i want to keep the relationship and we will keep the relationship we'll see what happens over the next period of time but as you know we got our hostages back there's no more testing and one of the things importantly that chairman kim promised me last night is regardless he's not going to do testing of rockets and. nuclear not going to do testing so i trust him and i take him at his word i hope that's true but in the meantime we'll be talking mike will be speaking with his people he's also developed a very good relationship with the people really the people representing north korea i haven't spoken to prime minister rabin yet i haven't spoken to president moon south korea bu

he demonstrated what ronald reagan did at reykjavik 30 years ago when it looked like they had a deal.he worry before was the president was going to capitulate, allow north korea to keep the nuclear weapons to get a deal. he didn't do it. that's good. >> something we talked a lot about is china and how this affects them. one thing gordon and i texted about yesterday on fox nation is remember, we have always had these negotiations with north korea vis a vis china. china has always tried to have us give concessions to them, saying okay, we will control north korea if you do x, y, z for us. what's interesting about this new relationship is that the bilateral relationship between trump and kim jong-un and the chinese can't come in and demand concessions for things that they are never going to give us on north korea. maria: i think it will be certainly a topic when president trump meets with xi jinping. not only our trade relationship, the trade deal, but again, china because china has been helping north korea cheat on the sanctions with ship to ship transfers of oil continuing to fund the

would give away too much, look, this kind of reminds me of reagan and gorbachev, the first time in reykjavikk in '86, gorbachev wanted to do away with all ballistic missiles but didn't want us to move forward with a strategic defense initiative. thank god ronald reagan did what he did because that gave us the capability we have right now to deal with threats like north korea. stuart: have to move on to venezuela. 300 members of the elite there, the military there, have reportedly defected. if maduro, if he loses the military, he's finished. so is this the first significant crack in his military support? >> absolutely. there is a crack and we need to do everything we can to exacerbate the situation. of those defectors, about 100 in just the last week, almost to a man they have said over half of the military in venezuela supports juan guaido. here's a big point. we are now learning through open source intelligence that china, china is now trying to hedge its bets and negotiate the venezuelan debt with juan guaido. we need to make sure that kind of information gets back to the venezuelan milita

reagan walked away at reykjavik. got a better deal later on. this is good move by trump.t on camera, while you denuclearization. he said yes. >> michael kohan back on the hill today. >> i'm ashamed because i know what mr. trump is. he is a racist. >> the president does not see color, race, creed, religion. what he sees is success and failure. >> the american public and congress bottom to see with mueller saw. you saw a self-described fool. >> he lied so much and yet he said, when it came to collusion i said no collusion. ainsley: straight to a fox news alert. no deal in vietnam. president trump cutting the north korea summit short. brian: wow. that happened as we woke up today. he is heading back to the united states well enroute, saying kim jong-un refuse god denuclearization another cree and demanded all sanctions be lifted. steve: that was a bridge too far. ed henry joins us from hanoi with more what it means. ed, in the sound bite montage right there, dan bongino says it is not a failure that the president walked away. what are other people saying? >> what people here