here is republican congressman darrell issa.ouse committee on foreign affairs. sir, thank you for joining us. has your committee been briefed on this? >> we did get a partial briefing as you know likelihood there is isis connection but no confirmmation yet. the obvious thing is this is tactic for the quick and dirty murder, and it is going to continue. that vehicles are clearly going to be used regularly. sadly we saw it in america with domestic terrorism and isis now has settled on this as an effective tool of one or two-man team. melissa: what does that mean to you? >> it means it will be much harder to defend. we're going to have to be much more aggressive and proactive in getting to these cells, individuals, ahead of time. that means for europe, of course, that the fighters that have come home, they have to monitor the them more closely. and, interdict them before they make an attack like this. melissa: yeah. what does it mean to you in terms of sharing information, of trying to keep track of people? of trying to see who has

republican congressman darrell issa is on the house foreign affairs committee.ongressman, i'm glad you are here for the breaking news. we were going to talk about other things. we have moved those off the table now to yield to this. i want to share with you what secretary of state rex tillerson said just days ago to north korea, you know, via the airwaves. we do not seek a regime change. he made that very clear. why is that so important in terms of getting the information out for our allies to jump on board with this? >> well, you need -- rex is doing exactly the right thing. the secretary understands that this is very much like 55 years ago when john f. kennedy and his administration faced the cuban missile crisis. you may not want him as a leader. we didn't want castro as a leader. but you have to say to the world and particularly to their benefactors which is in this case china, instead of russia, that you must understand this is something we will not tolerate and diplomatically or, if necessary, through force, we are going to stop it. this was the greatest c

. >> reporter: in another historical echo, california republican darrel issa compared the standoff todangerous cold war nuclear confrontation. >> it represents the greatest crisis probably since-- let me rephrase that-- undoubtedly since the cuban missile crisis. this is something that can hit us and our allies, and it's with a rogue nation that we suspect would use it. >> reporter: the president's words contrasted sharply with secretary of state rex tillerson's declaration just last week that the u.s. was open to negotiations. >> we're trying to convey to the north koreans, we are not your enemy. we're not your threat. >> reporter: mr. trump also ignored basic administration policy on sensitive north korea information. early in the day, he retweeted a report on u.s. satellite imagery of north korean conventional missiles, prompting this response from u.n. ambassador nikki haley: >> i can't talk about anything that's classified. and if that's in the newspaper, that's a shame. >> reporter: senator john mccain said the president's words risk bringing the country "closer to some kind of

darrell issa is worth $254 million. he should have done it as a challenge.h money in congress and they are pointing fingers at the empathy of donald trump. in the meantime you have got the issue of congress as you mentioned coming in after taking a month off. now suddenly he wants to give everything, an emergency coming up to decisions about the budget, continuing resolutions, children's healthcare, et cetera. there is a reason why the congress' approval rating are under 15%. cheryl: they will hit that budget deadline, whether they will raise the debt ceiling. what do you say? charlie: the reason there is a lot of pressure on them to meet that budget deadline, i think they will get into enormous amounts of trouble back home if they don't do something. the idea of spending 30, 0, $90 billion which is what people are talking about with the harvey relief bill, that tend to bring democrat and republicans together. i wouldn't be surprised if they didn't come together on something before the deadline. >> why is it the president has to put pressure on them in parti

. >> a good example is darrell issa, he had a very narrow re-election win in 2016. he called for hearings on white supremacy yesterday. that is not an accident. he's facing a tough re-election battle. the democrats have to win the seats in california, the path starts here in california. which isn't usually the case. but i will point out, these republicans, this is exactly what they were afraid of during the campaign trail privately before the primary or during the long primary. they didn't want to be constantly put on the defensive and asked to respond to the latest thing donald trump tweeted or said. but they weren't publicly saying anything until those access hollywood tapes came out in the late fall and then they didn't actually do that much in and many of them were on a broad spectrum. well i will vote for him because he's the republican nominee and i'm not going to vote for hillary clinton or i'm going to vote for a libertarian or not going to vote for that particular office. and so here they are many months later and they're back in the same position that many

then you have darrel issa making this equivalent to saying we haven't seen anything undoubtedly like this since the cuban missile crisis. do you think those are correct assessments at this hour? >> i think we are not on the brink of war with north korea, although tensions are very high. north korea has been working on the technology to develop a nuclea nuclear-tipped icbm for many years. i think they are very rapidly developing this technology and we see that through the continual testing they've conducted over the last few years. i think this new assessment that came out just yesterday is definitely somewhat troublesome but i don't think it is news to those who are watching the situation very carefully. >> lisa, i want to ask you, is it important to note that u.s. intelligence before has overestimated north korea's capability and speed? if you2000, if you look under president bush, there is information that the regime was very close to developing an icbm and they weren't. is there a lesson to be learned from that? >> i don't think things are markedly different now. there's always be

yesterday on this program representative darrell issa said everybody would be on the same page.ould be bipartisanship. i want to start off with your response to that and then go from something from john mccain, senator mccain. so i will start now with you guys. you know, it's interesting. where we stand right now, everybody is watching to see who will jump first. so am i. gentlemen, take it away. >> yeah, i'll just say when you have a foreign policy action where there's an imminent threat, when you have -- when you're dealing with the north korean regime that looks like it's on the verge of launching something, you'll expect your lawmakers, your senators will stand somewhat in unity behind the president of the united states whether or not they disagree with the strategy we got here. a clear mandate, voters elected donald trump president of the united states and commander-in-chief, specifically to make these types of tough decisions. you disagree over strategy as you mount up to this moment but we're here. the time for hug it out is over. donald trump decided to make a strong sta

darrell issa has been a prominent person who immediately came out and said that this is the most serious nuclear threat to face the american homeland and cuban missile crisis. but what sebastian is referring to is this effect known as rally around the flag effect where, you know, presidents sometimes do see bumps in approval when we face international conflicts. president trump faced a spike in his approval rating after the missile strike in syria. i don't know that maybe that is the appropriate take away to approach this conflict with, but it is a phenomenon that pollsters often see. >> bruce, before i let you go, i want to get your take on who this message was aimed at. was it aimed at china? we talk about who the audience is. clearly it was kim jong-un and was it also china? >> i think messages have multiple recipients. clearly the president and the rest of the administration is signaling north korea to back away from their programs and show u.s. resolve. also to china that if the u.s. is willing to do a military attack, then china should step up its game to increase pressure on north

. >> you heard darrell issa, john mccain very critical. thanks to our panel. let's bring in another man who knows this region so well, bill richardson, former u.n. ambassador, former governor of new mexico and a man who has dealt with the north korean threat for most of his career. ambassador, good to see you. tell me how you reacted when you heard those words about fire and fury unlike the world has seen. >> well, my first thought was that the president should calm down, that that was overheated rhetoric, but it was matching the north korean rhetoric which they do all the time. the north koreans, every chance i've dealt with them, they have this kind of blustery rhetoric. i think what secretary tillerson was saying was we need to have a rational policy. he was calming people down after the president's remark. but what i see the gravest threat now is the intelligence assessment that a miniature warhead is capable of hitting the united states with a missile. we don't know for certain. that report was very disturbing. i think we have to get our intelligence peop

christina: and we referred the darrell issa who represents, he is from vista, and mimi walters who is in the irvine area. and steve knight who is in palmdale. once,e: they already onwon so the idea some people might have been november 2018 will be brutal for them because donald trump is in the white house is not a, probably not the best way to analyze next year. mike: let me be a little bit of a down a nerd. -- data nerd. we have a term what we call the under vote. that is when people go in and they vote for their republican or democrat at the top of the ticket, then they stoppe voting down ticket because they do not know the senator or supervisor. that is called the under vote. what we saw for the first time, people were not voting for the republicans but they were going down ticket. where i think people misunderstand the data point is that is a very strong indicator that the republican base is secure. it is not a weakness. what you see is the national democratic party saying that they are vulnerable. it is the exact opposite, in my opinion. point,, here is another that was the first