it's united states' law operating on the united states' official who is acting inside the united states. this case as far as the conduct is concerned, united states written all over it. nothing about mexico. the border patrol doesn't take these orders from mexico. >> i think it would be up to the united states to prosecute mr. mesa criminal neal if they -- criminally if they chose to do so. >> why? they wouldn't get any damages for the death of their 15-year-old son, for their emotional suffering. but i think i have to follow up on what justice ginsburg is saying, a more fundamental question. i don't think you or the u.s. government are suggesting that anyone is condoning people standing at the border and taking pop shots at passing mexicans. >> absolutely not. >> and yes, there is a criminal remedy for the government to vindicate its position. but why should there not be a civil remedy to ensure that border police are complying with the constitution? either under the fourth or fifth amendment, wouldn't shooting pop shots at mexican citizens be shocking to the conscious? >> it is shocki

transported and distributed back into the united states. all of that generates an incredible amount of profit, so that the network now runs up through primarily the central american, mexican corridor into the united states, is connected worldwide but it moves anything. it moves people, it moves items, it moves drugs. so it is very, very sophisticated and it is now something that if we don't get our arms around the transactional criminal organizations that control all of this, that we are -- well, i mean just the other day the leading cause of death for americans under 50 is now drug overdoses. the fact that we're the most -- the most medicated society on the planet, i read recently where we -- the united states, 5% of the world's population consumes about 90% of the opioids that are legally prescribed. we have the most medicated -- and i could go on and on. 60,000 people roughly died last year of this. so we need to get our arms, first of all, around drug demand. never go to zero, you can't do that, but significantly reduce it. our southwes

mccaul: can you keep the threat outside the united states, can't connect a terrorist attack in the united states. we have a right to know host coming in. i think heighter screening and vetting is absolutely appropriate. the case of san bernardino, i think, cries out for that. we have the pack zahny black widow who came in. social media. was not examined. we have a visa security bill out of our committee to help on the front end investigate before they come into the united states rather than investigate a terrorist attack after it happens in the united states. secretary kelly: an awful lot of time, it gets into the press and usually typical just bits and pieces of facts, but the number f individuals that c.b.p., customs and border protection, from the points of entry, the 325,000 roughly people that come into the united states every day by air. 325,000. the vast majority of them are coming here for legal purposes. but some around. and these folks are actually pretty good at ferretting out individuals, first of all if an individual is a foreigner and in the database, more than not they don'

and exiting the agreement protects the united states from future intrusions on the united states sovereignty. and massive future legal liability. believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in. as president, i have one obligation, and that obligation is to the american people. the paris accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world. it is time to exit the paris accord. [applause] pres. trump: and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens, and our country. it is time to put youngstown, ohio, detroit, michigan, and pittsburgh, pennsylvania along with many, many other locations within our great country before paris, france. it is time to make america great again. [applause] president trump: thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much. very important. i'd like to ask scott pruitt whom most of you know and respect as i do just to say a few words. scott, please? [applause] >> thank yo

i respect the decision made by korea and the united states. however, the korean government's endeavors to observe the due process of law will prove to be beneficial also to the advancement of our alliance. on that note, i ask for your eep understanding and support. ladies and gentlemen, let me now share my thoughts on great alliance, the title of my speech today. the alliance between our two countries is already a great one. still, it can be made even greater. i found that spirit in the battle of the reservoir. the divisional commander smith, who led that heroic battle, called the evacuation operation an attack in a new direction, not a retreat. this is what defines the spirit of our alliance. ahead of us awaits a special undertaking. an undertaking that has remained unsolved for the last 20 years as a historic conundrum. it is none other than nuclear and missile programs of north korea. a threat that is already spreading beyond the boundaries of the korean peninsula toward the united states. even as we face the most imminent and dangerous men

trump, i am leading the vietnamese delegation on this official visit to the united states. we have been having a series of meetings and activities in new york as well as here in washington, d.c. today. p.m. xuan phuc: [speaking vietnamese] >> i have had a series of meetings with american secretaries, members of the cabinet, and a number of major u.s. corporations. i also, just before coming here, had a very successful and fruitful meeting with president trump himself. p.m. xuan phuc: [speaking vietnamese] >> i fully concur with what you that theier relationship between vietnam and the united states is entering a new stage of development, and opening up new opportunities for advanced corporations. -- advanced cooperation. p.m. xuan phuc: [speaking vietnamese] i also took the opportunity of my visit to celebrate the 40th anniversary of our membership to the united nations in new york and i have with me and ambassador, the representative of vietnam to the united nations. p.m. xuan phuc: [speaking vietnamese] >> let me start by thanking you for giving me the opportunity to spea

and exiting the agreement protects the united states from future intrusions on the united states' sovereignty. and massive future legal liability. believe me. we have massive legal liability if we stay in. as president, i have one obligation. and that obligation is to the american people. the paris according would undermine our economy, ham string our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk, and put us as a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world. it is time to exit the paris accord. [ applause ] >> and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens and our country. it is time to put young town, ohio, detroit, michigan and pittsburgh, pennsylvania along with many other great locations in our country before paris, france. it is time to make america great again. thank you [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. thank you very much. very important. i'd like to ask scott pruitt who most of you know and respect as i do, just to say a few words, scott, please. [ applause ] >

over which the united states is already handed over $1 billion. nobody else is even close in most of not even paid anything. including funds rated out of america's budget for the war against terrorism. that is where they came. believe me, they did not come from me. they came just before i came into office, not good. not good the way they took the money. in 2015 the united nations departing top climate officials reportedly described the $100 billion per year as peanuts. they stated that the $100 million is the tail that wags the dog. in 2015 the green climate fund executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020, and nobody even knows where the money is going to. nobody has been able to say where it is going to. of course the world's top polluters have no affirmative obligations under the green fund . which we terminated. america is $20 trillion in debt. cash-strapped cities cannot hire enough police officers or fix the infrastructure. many of our citizens are out of work and yet

may i please know what the united states -- how the united states intends to approach this question? acts eighte specific intensity to prevent this unilateral change in status what are the specific to use to prevent this unilateral change in the status quo? thank you. [no audio] can always count on straightforward questions here, can yo't you? obviously, we have a new president in washington, d.c. we are all aware of that. there is going to be fresh approaches taken, but just the fact -- just take a look at the president's first trip to the outside of the united states. it was straight into the heart of one of the most bewildering and difficult challenges that the world faces in terms of how do we restore stability and peace, right? into the middle east, where the discussion was about how do we together? with the arab league and other international organizations in order to reduce the threat of terrorism? so i think that we have been engaged in the world for a long time. i think, historically, the americans have been reluctant to see themselves in that role. between oure happy two oc

the united states did everything possible to undermine chinese diplomacy. it pressured neutral countries not to establish relations with the people's republic of china. and when china participated in conferences such as geneva and bandon, the united dates generally tried to do everything it could to minimize the importance of these conferences and to limit china's role. in fact, there's this famous story about the 1954 geneva conference where he approaches secretary of state john foster dulles, and tries to shake his hand. disses himently and walks briskly past him. there is some debate about whether this actually occurred. isn if it did not occur, it easy why it took on such powerful emotional and symbolic resonance. another form of competition i write about in this book is cultural competition. cultural competition i powerful emotional and symbolic resonance. argue by its very nature involves itself with presenting a positive image of your state and a negative image of your rival's state to the greatest degree possible. i focus on a lot of different things

and exiting the agreement protects the united states from future intrusions on the united states sovereignty and massive future legal liability. believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in. as president, i have one obligation. that obligation is to the american people. the paris accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world. it's time to exit the paris accord. [applause] and time to pursue a new deal that protects the environment, our companies, our citizens and our country. it's time to put youngstown, ohio, detroit, michigan and pittsburgh, pennsylvania along with many, many other locations within our great country before paris, france. it's time to make america great again. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you very much. [applause] thank you. thank you very much. [applause] very important. i'd like to ask scott pruitt, who most of you know and respect as i do just to say a few words. scott, please. [applause] >> thank you, mr. p

a week pledge from the united states, full of loopholes. that was to accommodate the united states.he paris agreement was nonbinding. it was voluntary. the pledges would lead to a warming of at least three degrees. it is to be strengthened. that was under president obama's watch. to accommodate the united states, i think one of the powerful lessons of this is that long is a tradition in a history of american exceptionalism within climate action. and the rest of the world has to move faster and more ambitious, and leave the u.s. behind. the reaction you're seeing now has been strong and positive,e, both from governments, but also social organizations and civil society where people are committed and recognizing the real change will come not necessarily from donald trump, but from the grassroots within the united states. this is that for the people of the united states. the temperature increase of one degree warming around the world 's leading to killer floods and droughts all of the world. the arctic melting, coral being bleached. , nothas huge implications just on the poorest parts o

-- per essentials of the united states -- perceptions of the united states. ely: the reason why that matters, there's a growing perception in asia that the future of the economic order will be china-led. it will be china's rules, china's institutions. multilateral or informal that will be convening the region and determining its course and the trans-pacific partnership was the best mechanism to provide an alternative to that. the reason it matters primarily in my view is not just because of the economics of the effects of the trade deal. in fact, i think there are questions about how pronounced that would be. but because the lack of u.s. leadership on this issue, the lack of the united states being the country that's convening and bringing together an alternative set of countries, starts cascading into other sets of issues. so if a country like -- let's say a country in southeast asia perceives that the united states is withdrawing economically, that their economic fortunes -- future will lie with china, and if they defy china over a variety of issues, they'l

and the government of the united states of america ought to be up to the people of the united states of america. in terms of your allies and friends are, when we share interest with other nations and other governments, we should work with them. for example, vladimir putin might not be a great man and the government he runs might not be a good government, but when it comes with going on in syria and the islamic state, we have shared interest in stopping the islamic state and preventing the destabilization of syria so the radical islamic regime can come to power there. sharedd war ii, we had a interest with the communists in defeating hillary. ultimately, the foreign policy of the united states is not doing anything immoral or unconstitutional, should seek the most prudent path to advancing interests of the american people. there are american leaders that try to do something else in advance thend then issues of the american people, they're doing the wrong thing. host: the mission statement of cnn's -- cns news is what? guest: we try to get stories out there with factual information tha

they are used to that kind of united states. but that's not donald trump's united states. he ran on. and this, to me, is the first major indicator, even more so than the travel ban because the travel ban was about the united states and what it means bn within these borders, but the first major indicator of donald trump and his campaign promises coming to fruition and seeing the implications for that for the united states as a global leader. >> you know, jackie what does it say about the role of steve bannon in this white house? >> he's coupling come roaring back. i feel just a few weeks ago we were faulking ability how the more globalist members of the administration were rising and were getting a foot hold and this is something that steve bannon pushed. he reminded the president over and over again that this is what he promised, that this is what is standing up for the little guy looks like. and certainly now he's laying low because steve bannon's also been burned by looking like he was taking credit for things. can only lie with the president and this white house, the cr

what does the united states army do? the united states army has 60,000 soldiers in china. advisors, we try to keep as many of them as we could in because every american wants eighth and bacon for breakfast every morning. the chinese might get one a month for the family. live to tryg china to defeat of the americans so -- it wasem in india eating china alive to try to feed the americans. feeding -- at the same time we have to feed 60,000, we have 4 million japanese to be taken home. that areame ships going to take johnny back to san francisco are going to take kido back to tokyo. moms and dads want their son home now and they don't care what happens to the 4 million japanese. will write a nice article on this repatriation and the marines to a awful lot of the work. millionmove 400 japanese that. million are civilians who had been working in the interior. -- working in manchuria. and ting to be fed care of and we have to move 600,000 soldiers back to the east. the navy will be some of that by ship. but we flew a lot of them as well. then, something that not many people know

trump, i am leading the vietnamese delegation on this official visit to the united states. we have been having a series of meetings and activities in new york as well as here in washington, d.c. today. [ speaking vietnamese ] >> translator: i have had a series of meeting with american secretaries, members of the cabinet, and a number of major u.s. corporations. i also just before coming here had a very fruitful and successful meeting with president trump himself. [ speaking vietnamese ] >> translator: and i fully concur with what you said earlier, mr. carafano, that the relationship between vietnam and the united states is entering a new stage of development opening up new opportunities for advanced cooperation. [ speaking vietnamese ] >> translator: and i also took the opportunity of my visit to celebrate the 40th anniversary of our membership to the united nations in new york and i have with me today ambassador nguyen vinh to the united nations. [ speaking vietnamese ] >> translator: let me start by thanking you by giving me the opportunity to speak here at the world reno

between accepting north korea as a nuclear armed state that can hold at risk the states of the united states of america or having to fight another korean war. >> okay, fair enough. well, with that, it is question/answer time. please keep in mind to state your affiliate when you ask your question. we'll open up. you go first, ma'am, please. if we can get a microphone, that would be great. right behind you. >> thank you very much. -- from "financial times," thanks for having me. i wanted to ask the basis for your aim to have 100 interceptors. and what you make of the risk of so many of the counterinterceptors deployed, that being first and second generation. >> all right. i think we need more intercepters. obviously if north korea develops an intercontinental missile or if there's another missile threat to our homeland, you don't want to have one interceptor for one missile. the success rate is growing but the suck scess rate is unlikely be perfect or 100%. therefore we need to increase the number of intercepters we have. inner its of the technology, obviously, as i said, i was pleased to see

there are people who work in places in the middle of the united states that do mining. he spoke specifically about opening mines. he really meant this a sovereignty issue. this wasn't an issue conservative republicans had brought up, they had resisted the negotiation of putting the united states in a position where it had accountability to other countries. that is how it was sold on that side of the aisle, that this agreement does not have a lot of enforcement, it was a nationally determined contribution, each individual country came up with them and was agreeing to abide by them and they can be changed. i want to note for you, you are talking about renegotiation, and there is a mechanism in the climate agreement to renegotiate. what he is leading himself in terms of options to change, to start all over or start a new agreement completely. basically the same thing, there is no renegotiating. >> the president basically said that right after he mentioned that the u.s. would leave, let's let's listen to what the president said a few moments ago. president trump: to begin r

i lived in the united states long enough to have the skepticism. he had a domestic abuse allegation and legally purchased a semiautomatic weapon, not a revolver. you know, he's not necessarily a really good case where omar mateen in the orlando attack, the fbi interviewed him in 2014 and 2015 before the attack. they you believunderstood he wa radicalizing. why was it that he was able to go and legally purr chase pour semiautomatic weapons, which obviously enabled him to kill a lot of people quickly. to me, that makes no sense. i mean, on the other hand, we know that as you pointed out, the nra is a powerful force and congress seems very hand strung by this. >> so you don't see this changing, the conversation and reality of home grown terrorism, you don't see it changing the conversation about the gun culture in america? >> you know, if an attack on the house majority in which he's critically injured does not change the conversation is hard. i talk, you know, sandy hook, all these kinds of -- we had so many -- you also have president obama that his

it seems to me that the united states has never wanted to promote sensibility in the middle east as her guest has stated. one only has to look at 1953 when most of that, the democratic leader of iran, was overthrown by the united states so they could install the shah and control the oil interests. if you look at the arms deal, trump is selling arms, which is a violation of human rights -- cluster bombs are being sold, which is a violation of international norms. i don't buy the assertion by a gust of the united states really cares about the stability of the middle east. italy cares about its unjust. -- its own interests. invading iraq, there was a horrible disaster. one can only look at israel, which the united states pays $10 million a day to prop up, basically an apartheid regime. i just disagree with your guests. i don't see how you can say the united states is concerned about the stability and well-being of the people of the middle east. it seems to me that the opposite is true. they don't want democratically elected governments that can think and do what they want. it is we want go

an honest look at saudi arabia today and the relationship with the united states. and may i add one other element on a personal basis? it is so rare on the floor of the united states senate to see what we have just seen this morning, a proposal for an amendment to be debated. an amendment to be voted on on the floor of the senate. i could count on one hand how many times that's happened this year in the united states senate. what used to be the most deliberative body in america, the great debating society and so forth has turned into a place of rubber stamps and unanimous consents. and i'm glad, win or lose, in our effort here on this amendment, that the senator is bringing this important issue to the floor. i thank him for making it a them call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: thank you. i take the floor today to strenuously argue against the proposition being pushed by senator paul and murphy and others to deny arms sales of about $500 million to the kingdom of saudi arabia. the package that they're trying to exclude from the $110 billion ar

these dreamers came to the united states as children. they are american in every way, except for their legal immigration status. we have already invested a lot of money in these kids. we educated them, we have made them part of this country, and it makes no sense to squander their talents by deporting them at this moment in their lives. in april, 2010, i sent a letter to president obama. dick lugar, the republican senator from indiana, joined me. on a bipartisan basis, we said to president obama stop deporting these young kids. they did nothing wrong. their parents made the decision to come here, give them a chance. the president responded. it's now clear that the daca program he created by executive order has been a dramatic success. more than 780,000 dreamers have come forward and received daca protection and status. that has allowed them to contribute more fully to this country. as students, as teachers, as nurses, as engineers, as entrepreneurs. a recent study by the center for american progress finds that ending daca, saying to the

the united states also talking about the fact that the u.s. is prepared to do what's necessary to stop north korea from advancing its nuclear ambitions. that is very serious content that they're talking about today. and then on trade, that's an area that's certainly boosted president trump when he was a confidence. and the trade relationship with south korea, as you have both discussed and really informative detail is so critical. can they resolve that today? that is a big part of this meeting. president moon has been staying across the street at the blare house. he has had an opportunity to meet with congressional leaders. this is a full visit for president moon. he was the first leader to receive a white house dinner as a sign of respect. the president had entertained chinese president at mar a lar go but the first state dinner honoring a foreign leader went to president moon. those gestures say a great deal and that's something to consider in this. we will have the translation, of course, because president moon will be speaking in his own l

we heard -- the united states? we heard the president say this deal is costing 2.7 million jobs in the future. he said they are redistributed wealth to poorer countries. how is that likely to be received? >> we've seen a reaction from paul ryan, calling the paris agreement a raw deal for the united dates. we should say, the united dates being -- the united states, being the second largest leader in the world, was the second on the list of countries in the paris agreement who had the most number of emissions that they had to reduce. now, the u.s. is freed from that and, as donald trump put it, this will create more jobs. on the other side, we already saw an agreement from former president barack obama saying that the united states has chosen to lead the future behind. some good reactions on both sides. anchor: this was a highly anticipated reaction. we pretty much knew that he would withdraw from this accord. barbara, i'll turn to you in brussels. another thing that he was reiterating over and over was that he wante

first, illinois is dead last in funding public education in the united states of america. we beat out mississippi, alabama and louisiana for dead last. we're the fifth most populous state. the city of chicago by a.t. carney is the second most competitive economy in the united states, seventh in the world, yet last in funding education. if you're poor we really whack you. it is not only dead last, it is one of the most inequitable funding systems in the united states of america. we're going to open up on time. we have gone 700 plus days without a budget. the governor has gone 700 days without introducing a budget. you will never have a budget until the chief executive of a city or a state -- in this case the state -- introduces a budget. i can't make a prediction. i can tell you i hope it does. it needs to. it has -- the governor has an obligation to introduce a balanced budget that shows all of his priorities. our students are going to school. that's where they belong. we will do whatever it takes to eninsu insurance o insure our kids go to school. the doors will be open, t

led by the united states and china.ver half of the new power generation around the world is in the renewable space. in europe that number is 90%. and you look at job creation, job creation in the renewable energy sector, last year, outstripped job creation in the oil and gas sector. so we're talking about jobs. and over the next -- in the coming decades, it's estimated this $37 trillion infrastructure investment opportunity in energy. so retreating from a climate agreement is retreating from prosperity. scarlet: how does the u.s. pulling out of the paris agreement set the scene for what kind of license it gives developing countries, that china, indias of the world to fulfill their growth objectives? because it gives them more room to do what they need to do, for instance. they don't need to look at the moral leadership of the united states. peter: well, i think the critical thing here is that the united states is ceding leadership on a very important front. and the developing countries of the world have seen it as being

trump almost giddy as he made it clear the united states will go its own way. >> the united states will withdraw, so we're getting out, we're out of the agreement. our withdrawal from the agreement. exiting the agreement protects the united states. it is time to fit paris accord. >> he couldn't say it enough. trump insists that the deal would cost america quote billions and billions of dollars, that's what he said today, billions and blgs of dollars, along with massive job losses and factory closings, trump said. but the man and the president has found himself with virtually zero allies on this. right that announcement, they slammed him. the chairman of general electric obviously, massive manufacturer tweeted he was disappointed in the president adding that "industry must now lead and not depend on government." general motors said "we will not aterritory from our commitment to the environment." the ceo of goldman sachs tweeting today is a setback for the u.s. in the world. and elon musk, a leading voice for clean energy who had sort of stuck by the president amidst a lot of criticism to

in it to slow down the united states. do you believe that? >> i think the paris agreement very much so put us in an economic disadvantage. >> i understand. do you believe that was intentional, that was the intention? the re the. >> the rest of the world applauded what we did in paris. we have to go back -- >> why would they applaud it? >> because they put us at economic disadvantage. >> you think the globe, these countries got together to slow down the united states economically? >> why did china and india not have to take any steps until 2030? why did india condition the co-2 upon receiving aid in the agreement? we were going to take steps front loading our cost when the rest of the world waited to reduce their co-2 footprint. that's the reason they put us at an economic disadvantage internationally. here's the deal. we have led, as i've indicated, this effort since 2000 with reductions in our co2 today.int and e-1994 lels not because of paris, not because of kyoto, but beuse of american ingenuity and innovation. >> i'm

united states government handpicks each refugee that comes into the united states and individually interviews all of them. so i i believe it's important for people to understand how detailed and rigorous and long this process is. >> the fbi, the department of homeland security, and national counterterrorism center are involved in the process. vetting usually takes 18 to 24 months to complete and only half of the refugees make it through. although many things have changed in the past century, many police haven't. in a poll in 1939, only 30% of americans wanted to accept 10,000 jewish refugee children to live in the united states. in 2016, only a similar percentage supported letting syrian refugees into the u.s. >> we have to remember we are always on our weakest when we have shut our door on refugees, when we have been afraid of them, and at our greatest when we let them in. never has this country really suffered any kind of security consequences due to letting in refugees, yet we use that as an excuse many times to keep them out. we did it in the john adams administration, and we've been doin

in certain a more of a menace to the united states -- and certainly more of a menace to the united states-- they want to prevent it. the other possibility is north korea could mistake the military place ins that take that part of the world between the united states and japan as a threat to them. given the predictability of that regime, the mere fact that they have these weapons, even though we would regard their use as suree, we cannot see for that they feel the same way host:. -- the same way. host: recently the president talked about china's role. what is your reaction to the president's speech? guest: i think it is all about the continuing education of donald trump. makingery susceptible to broad statements and threats and making huge promises, only to confront difficult reality. i think this is an instance of that. he can say all he likes that the united states will not allow north korea to build these weapons, but when he gets down to it, there are not any good options. host: jim is calling from eastpointe, michigan. caller: good morning. the real question is, are the chinese willing

and to give their country economic edge over the united states. that will not happen while i am president, i'm sorry. [applause] my job as president is to do everything within my power to give america a level playing field and to create the economic, regulatory, and tax structures that make america the most prosperous and productive country on earth. and with the highest standard of living and the highest standard of environmental protection. our tax bill is moving along in congress, and i believe it's doing very well. i think a lot of people will be very pleasantly surprised. the republicans are working very, very hard. we'd love to have support from the democrats, but we may have to go it alone. but it's going very well. the paris agreement handicaps the united states economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our country's expense. they don't put america first. i do. and i always will. the same nations asking us to stay in the agreement are the countries that have c

this does, if in fact we pull out, all this will do is make it harder and more expensive for the united statesand will diminish oui’ states to play, and will diminish our competitiveness in that future market. thank you for coming in. president trump has a lot of supporters here in america if he pulls out of paris. among them is phil kerpen, president of american commitment, a group dedicated to free markets and economic growth. you were hearing the deck with terry, ernest moniz, saying that america loses nothing by being in the paris accord, and gains the advantage that emerging countries are ina advantage that emerging countries are in a global accord as well. what do you make of that? yeah, that's highly inaccurate. in fact, the cost to the united states is considerable. this agreement will be used as a pretext for litigation, to force the clean power plan to come into effect. it has meant higher electricity prices. there is a direct cash transfer in the agreement, $100 billion per year from the advanced countries do the developing world. the lion's share of that will come from the united s

i just say to you that the the president of the united states mr. trump has violated any suggestion that he should be trusted with the oval office. we are members of the united states congress, men and women, who represent the people. the people seek not to have seek or queens but they of the n office presidency that can be trusted. today mr. trump you have ceased to have the trust of the american people. when you begin to of the presidency that can be trusted. the diminishing of those who have mental health needs, psycho joe. a low i.q. mica. then you begin to talk about the private issues of women who have before in life been segregated and discriminated against because they are women. blood from wherever. or your face is bleeding. do you realize how many women workplaces of which we fight for equality, in schools, in their homes with the issue of domestic violence because they're not protected? and then our commander in chief seeks to take advantage of the position that he holds. so why do we do it? not for self but for the words that were said a

. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the president of the republic of korea. president trump: thank you very much. melania and i are honored to welcome president moon of south korea and his lovely wife, madam kim, to the white house. mr. president, let me be the first to congratulate you on your election. tremendous election victory. and also the people of south korea for providing such an incredible example of democracy for the world to see. it was very exciting. i must say. and congratulations. this morning president moon and vice president pence laid a wreath at the korean war veterans memorial to commemorate the 67th anniversary of the korean war. a beautiful ceremony. we will never forget that americans and koreans bravely fought and died together for a free korea. to the korean and american veterans of that war, great people, we are eternally grateful for your service and for your sacrifice. more than six decades after our partnership was forged in the fires of war, the alliance between the united states and south korea is a cornerstone of peace and sec

united states leaders have got big mouths.and they talk a big talk and aren't wear what when they talk that's how people expect them to act and that whatted and you know, the most notable time this happened first of all was in iraq in 1991. when george h.w. bush said to seven iraqis we'll come and help you so like you know, you just gets crushed and that's what happened and that exactly how the syrians have been treat ared which is so -- when barack obama called on bashar al-assad to stands down he and his advisors think this was sort of policy sort of the right thing to do. and you know, i mean, it was really interest that the day after he made that statement, he went on vacation to martha's vineyard for two weeks not someone who was going into a war front but if he spoke inside syria and regional powers they say regime change is now u.s. policy. so they calculated their views on that and you saw a massive uptake in people taking up articles in syria after that. it was already happening. but there was a point of like united s

united states to article 5. and certainly we are there to protect, and that's one of the reasons i want to make sure people know we have a strong force by paying the kind of money to have that force. yes, i would be absolutely committed to article 5. reporter: thank you, mr. president. was there any discussion about the visa waiver program for romania? will there be a time frame for including this country in this program? president trump: we didn't discuss it, but it would be something we will discuss, mr. president. president iohannis: i mentioned this issue and i also mentioned it during other meetings because this is important for us. it's important for romanians that want to come to the united states. you see, more and more people come, president trump, from romania to the united states. some come as tourists. some come for business. those who come for business should be encouraged. the matter of visa waiver would be probably important to discuss and we all hope that we will advance on this. president trump: