dr. terrydid say kim jong-un has done terrible thingsut he kim is and h guy a peop done bad things. do you see this as, you know, as max was referencing a moral equivalence. >> absolutely. i mean, north korea is the greatest human rights violator on the planet. united nations inquiry came out with a four page report saying there is no parallel in history in terms of human rights violations. the fact that president trump did not bring up, no evidence that he brought u human rights issues, i think it is a tr travesty. >> he didn't say that in the bret baier interview, but he did that on wednesday -- sorry, on tuesday. it is early to beeclaring that, isn't it? >> it is crazy, anderson, the nuclear threat from north korea is unchanged from the day before the summit. north korea has not given up a single w head or missile. this is president trump's mo. he can claim credit for policy victories and a lot of his followers will believe him. he has been claiming that he is already building the border wal

. >> i want to bring in our cnn analyst, dr. terry, first of all, do you see a shift in how the u.s. is describing what this meeting is about from complete total denuclearization to getting to know you. >> president trump is walking away from the high expectations that he set himself up for this meeting. we have a different definition than washington does. when north korea talks about denuclearization, they talk about the korean peninsula and they have alliance and implications for u.s./south korea. it is very unclear from this meeting that kim yong-chol met with the president today. as we define it vaerifiable. >> there is no way and it is realistic for the president to say this is a basically getting to know you meeting, it was unrealistic to portray as this is anything else up to now. >> to denuclearize will take months and years and working out specific detamils. >> those of us on the outside are looking at and we had to wonder a month ago and president trump was tweeting they agreed to denuclearization, you have to wonder did he

from their perspective, the question is, are there very limited vague claims as dr. terry mentioned? i think it's plausible we get symbolic steps. will the president hold them to the strict standards of verification for these measures? and then what is the president willing to give up in exchange for a vague promise? i'm highly concerned that the president doesn't appropriately classify what counts as a concession in these circumstances. there are some indications that he would like to discuss remove or downsizing of u.s. forces, that he wants to declare an end to the korean war for optical reasons, for political reasons. we need to be clear those are concessions of american leverage, should come at the appropriate time. they are premature now, so the focus should be on verifiable and not on political optics. >> sumi, president to ask you about -- looking at the fallout, and i think nods no other way to characterize it as fallout. the president has refused, the united states, to add its signature to the joint communique from the summit. yet there were smiles, accolades whi

dr. terry, do you see a shift in how the u.s.s describing what this meeting is about, from total denuclearization to just getting to know you plus? >> absolutely. president trump is walking away from. they have always been talking about denuclearization of the korean peninsula. which of course has alliance implications. our true presence in south korea and extended nuclear umbrella. it is very unclear from this meeting that kim jong-un had with pompeo. it is different what they are going to put denuclearization on the table as we define it. >> and max, even if that is on the table for the summit, there is no way, i mean, it is realistic for the president to say it is getting to know you meeting, unrealistic to portray it was anything other than that until now. working out specific details. >> and we just saw the leak of the c oochlt achia assessment t korea is not interested in giving up their weapons. president trump was tweeting they have agreed to denuclearization, did he know something that we didn't know? and clearly he didn

pete: dr. terryuch as president trump has said that first minute, those first few moments could dictate a lot. as somebody who's studied the kim jong un regime there, what kind of reaction will he likely have? is he going to be stoic? is he going to be, you know, someone who loved on dennis rodman -- [laughter] will he be star struck? what do you see this those first moments? >> i actually think there's going to be a good chemistry between kim jong un and trump, president trump. if you've seen kim jong un's behavior when he met with the chinese president twice,e's very different from his father. he's not as introverted, he's more social, gregarious, touchy-feely, and i think the optics is going to look fine. pete: dr. pillsbury, you've got the optics, and then you got the tens of thousands of political prisoners and folks killed in order to maintain his regime. can he give up his nukes and stay in power? >> it's a huge risk for him. we know he kills people because they disagree with him. just to take

and dr. terry is now a senior fellow for korea at the center for strategic and international studies. before that she had a long career in the intelligence community or with the u.s. government she was the director for korea, japan, and oceanic affairs at the national security council. she was deputy national intelligence officer for east asia at the tional intelligence council and then she was an analyst on korean issues at c.i.a. so with that i am going to move chairs here. and i think yun, we will have you go first and then we'll draw straws to see who the next panelist is. so each of them will sort of talk about their views of the upcoming summit. sort of do we have hope or concern as well as some recommendations for what we hope to see come out of the mmit b reall i tnk ere's just a lot of confusion. and then we may do some cross-panel discussion or i may ask some questions and then we'll throw it open to the audience. yun, do you want to art? 10, ok? >> thank you very much, bruce, and thank y

dr. as you mi terry is here.t thing mike pompeo said this morning i want to refute the "new york times" we have to science experts and nuclear experts. he ran through everyone coming with him to this summit. how important is that? >> well, i do think that we do have scientists. i do think there is going to be an agreement pompeo was talkin about. he feels very optimistic there is going to be an agreement. i do believe there is going to be an agreement. the problem with north korea has been not coming to an agreement but implementing the agreement. previous agreements over implementation verification. this phase will see some sort of agreement. let's see what happens after. we needs to make sure north korea keeps their word this time. brian: are you against them opening up by signing and ending the war officially the ending the war is that what you are talking about. >> i'm for the declaration of peace. i'm for verbally saying let's end the war. i'm for opening the office. i'm against peace treaty that undermines

dr. oz: super carbs to super charge your weight loss, b with a new way of eating. and a surprise reunion with the him.ho saved would you like to meet him is it >> yeah. plus terryt #metoo and being harassed and how his secret porn addiction affected his marriage, coming up next. to save some lives today? >> yeah! >> i love you, dr. oz! [cheers and applause]

dr. pitts shooting and the two paralegals are connected. i suspect by ballistic tests and, so there is a murder miss terry as to whether there's a serial killer dots, figuring out where this person is and who that person is, you are not working directly on this case but you worked on some just like this. give us a sense of behind the scenes what the detectives, like out of a tv show we all love to watch these days, people's lives are on the line. people in arizona, are nervous, someone still on the loose what is going on behind the scenes right now? >> abby, they're trying, as you already represented, to connect the dots. they're looking at security video in the area of dr. pitts' office. they're also coming the record of the law firm there to try to determine if there is an association with the doctor and the law firm where these two paralegals worked so they're trying to connect those dots and for the fourth victim, they're trying to see if he's connected to the other three victims. steve: you know, ted, dr. pitts was a psychiatrist in addition to giving analysis on the jonbenet case. did a lot of testimony regarding mental health issues. m