neither in russia nor the united states. and yet the money was transferred to the united states. they sent a huge ament of money, $400 million out of the contribution to the campaign of hillary clinton. but that's their personal case. it might have been legal. the contribution itself. but the way the money was earned was illegal. so we have reason to believe that some intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. so we have an interest of question now. that could be a first step. we can also extend it. they all can be found in an appropriate legal flamework. >> did you want president trump to win the election? and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that? president putin: bringing the u.s.-russia relationship back to normal. i think there are three questions from the russian pool. ou have the floor. >> thank you so much. rt tv is ilya petrenko, channel. mr. president, would you please go into the details of possibly any specific arrangements for the u.s. to work together with russia and syria if any of these kinds of of -- of arrangements ere ma

on foreign soil, president trump said the united states was equally to blame with russia for the state of the relationship between the countries. trashed american intelligence, took the word of the kgb over the word of the men and women at the cia. has left everyone in the united states scratching their heads. his behavior was so bizarre, so so weak that millions are left wondering if president putin's has something over the president. that is the most logical explanation for the president's behavior. the question looms, what will the senate do in response? to be shrugging their shoulders, claiming they've done all they can. statements are not enough. we need action. and less our republicans join us in bipartisan action. let me beclear -- >> clear. by our nato allies and all those countries who are facing russian aggression. i stood times have appear and told you what i think about vladimir putin? not shareutin does our interests, our values. we conducted an investigation ence inssia's interfer our elections. it did not have an effect. sanctionst, we passed on russia so we could hold t

you aren't denying the united states' democracy? do you believe the united states is a democracy? and if so, if it is a democratic state, then the final conclusion in this kind of dispute can only be delivered by trial. by the court. not by the executive, by the law enforcement. for instance, the concord company that was brought up is being accused of interference. but this company does not represent the russian state. and i brought several examples before. well, you have a lot of individuals in the united states, take george soros, for instance, with multibillion capitals, but it doesn't make him -- his posture the posture of the united states. no, it does not. it's the same case. there is the issue of trying a case in the court and the final -- the final say is for the court to deliver. we are now talking about the private -- the individuals and not about particular states. and as far as the most recent allegation is concerned, about the russian intelligence officers, we do have an intergovernmental treaty. please do send us the request. we will analyze it properly and send a fo

they were transferred to the united states. they sent huge amount of money, they sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of hillary clinton. well, that's the personal case. it might have been legal, the contribution itself, but the way the money was earned was illegal. so we have a solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. so we have a -- an interest of questioning them. we can all -- that -- that could be a first step, and we can also extend it. options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework. options abound, and they all can reporter: and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that? president putin's translator: yes, i did. yes, i did. because he talked about bringing the u.s.-russia relationship back to normal. >> i think there can be three questions from the russian pool. russia today, you have the floor. reporter: thank you so much. good evening to everyone. my name is ilya petrenko, rt tv cha

but we also have to be fair to the people of the united states and the taxpayers of the united states. mr. prime minister, thank you again for joining me for these important discussions. we are both outsiders to politics. can you believe it? we are outsiders to politics. i look at all these wonderful politicians, and we are determined to protect the interests and dreams of our citizens. we will do that. i look forward to partnering with you to build on the incredible friendship between our countries, and to create a brighter future for both the people of italy and the people of the united states. with that, i want to thank you for coming to the white house. it is my great honor. thank you. prime minister conte: good afternoon. i wish to thank you, president trump, for this kind invitation, for this warm hospitality, only two months after the formation of my government. i take it as a sign of the special attention to italy and to me, as well. forgive me, but i do not want to renounce the privilege of speaking in my wonderful language now. [laughter] [speaking italian] translator: befor

states, to the united and by the way, italy has a $31 billion surplus with the united states. meaning we have a $31 billion trade deficit. and we discussed that and we are going to work something out. prime minister conte's translator: as far as i'm concerned, i'm very envious of the records and the growth of the american economy. we discussed that before with donald. somehow these are systems which cannot be compared because of the magnitude of orders of magnitude -- i'm in this but ambitious at the same time. i'm ambitious for my economy to do a lot, much more than what was done in the past. we are preparing structural reforms that we will be submitting to our european partners, too. i do not want the tax reform to be set aside. it was a leverage in this country. it represents a leverage for economic growth. it represents a leverage for economic growth. we are also working on streamlining and simplifying red tape and registration and regulation to eliminate corruption pockets. we are trying to speed up the civil trials, the procedures and the proceedings for all sectors toge

they were transferred to the united states. they sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of hillary clinton. that's their personal case. it might have been legal, the contribution itself. the way the money was earned was illegal. we have solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers, guided these transactions. we have an interest of questioning them. that could be a first step. we can extend it. options abound. they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework. >> did you direct any of your officials to help him do that? >> translator: yes, i did. yes, i did. because he talked about bringing the u.s./russia relationship back to normal. >> translator: i think there can be three questions from the russian pool. you have the floor. >> translator: thank you so much. good evening in everyone. >> mr. president, would you please go into the details of possibly any specific arrangements for the u.s. to work together with russia in syria, if any of these arrangements were made today or d

even if they aren't buying our goods, they invest in the united states. the flip side of the deficit is a capital surplus we run year after year. money coming in by treasury bonds that keeps interest rates low, invests in factories across the united states. trade is a win-win. meltzer, when the federal government puts a tariff on something, what does that mean? guest: it means as goods cross the border, an actual tax or tariff is levied on the good. if you think about it as a tax it is probably the most straightforward way. 10% tariff becomes a $15 good. host: where are we with tariffs levied against other countries. how much has been done? guest: since the administration has come in with tariffs on $36 billion so far on imports from china and $14 billion coming into effect for a total of $50 billion, and additional tariffs aluminum across all importers into the united states, except for a couple of countries like australia who have received exemptions. host: what has been the response from those countries? guest: every country has retaliated. u.s. export

i do not see that as something that draws the united states into foreign entanglements.that is an arrangement among several countries that enables all of those countries to have improved understanding of the ofuation in a variety countries. that is simply an information sharing agreement that the united states benefits from in improving its capabilities to understand the situation in a variety of countries. you know, the issue of the great game in afghanistan, that at regularreplayed intervals, and i think it can be rather overstated, the parallels situatione current and past situation. however, it is the case that afghanistan has, for a very long time historically, been subject to interference by foreign powers, whether it is russia, the soviet union, britain, in an earlier stage, the united states , some influence by iran. and it is the case that afghanistan has struggled to maintain its own stability against him foreign interference. but just because there is some termsical continuity in of the stresses and strains on afghanistan, it does not necessarily mean the grea

it's an unpair burden on the united states. -- unfair burden on the united states. i'm sure it will be resolved. i have great confidence in the secretary-general. he's worked very, very hard on this. he knows it's a fact. i have great confidence in him and his representatives. >> first of all, mr. president, and good to be here for the summit. we're willing to discuss many important issues at the summit. we all agree that we have to do more. i agree with you that we have to make sure there is more. the good news is there is more in defense. we're adding illions. president trump: why was that last year? >> because of your leadership. because of your message. i have done it before. your message is having an impact . we build on that to make sure we ave further increases. all allies are going to develop national plan to spend more on defense. based on these national plans, we now estimate that the european allies and canada will so, this is really some momentum. it helps. i'm moving in that direction. asking to do more. strong nato is good for europe. it is also good f

they were transferred to the united states. they sent a huge amount of money, $400 million, as a contribution to the campaign of hillary clinton. that's their personal case. it might have been legal. the contribution itself. but the way the money was arned was illegal. so we have an interest in questioning them. that can be a first step and we can also extend it. options abound. and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework. reporter: did you direct any of your officials to help him do that? bringing putin: u.s.-russia relationship back to normal. >> and on capitol hill, the house about to gavel in to debate 24 bills including one to require federal agencies preserve electronic records. later this week, more work on 2019 spending, including a

what about the united states. $12 billion for the united states and $5 billion worth of services.direct result of this policy including the sanctions. the united states have driven up their companies from the russian market. so they left, and this vacuum was filled by their rivals, their competitors. some of them lost their investments. what was that for? we are interested in developing our relationship in the area of stability. strategic challenges, and any other challenges that we have. i think today president trump made the first step in this direction. chris: mr. president, thank you. thank you for talking with us. >> thank you. kennedy: there you have it, "fox news sunday" chris wallace versus pution president vladimir putin. you can tell vladimir putin is used to having his way in interviews, but fortunately chris wallace pushed back. the former president of georgia, russia invaded georgia in 2008. how did you feel watching that interview? >> well be it's have much as it was for me. i met vladimir putin more than 30 times. he not only invaded my country but heavily intrude i

the united states is pursuing a policy and a strategy in afghanistan that makes the united states dependentakistan. there's no solution to the problems in afghanistan, no enduring stability in afghanistan without some degree of cooperation with pakistan. >> husain, what does this mean for pakistan? so many of the countries are moving, in some way, look at malaysia, moving away from authoritarianism. in some cases the military is even more dominant. where does this go? >> it has a very fixed notion of what pakistan's interest is. pakistan must see india as the eternal enemy. pakistan must have a dominant role in afghanistan and pakistan must be the center of the universe as far as that region is concerned. that is an untenable situation when your literacy is low and quality of education does not create the human capital. i think if, as laurel says, that the dependence on pakistan if the united states decides to pack up and leave pakistan, it leaves pakistan with no anchor and also its own domestic growth and pakistani military is betting heavily on china, expecting them to bail pakistan out.

and the united states as highly destabilizing and therefore subjected to very tight sanctions particularly tight sangs coming less from the united states which matters relatively little 0 russian economy but to europe where the sanctions are very, very tight and where there are already sibs particularly coming from italy and some of the former soviet bloc countries now part after the european union they would like to ease off on sanctions. there have been a lot of criticism by donald trump of the european union as a block on its own right. he's a supporter of brexit. in that he's in lock step with putin. they may well find that ultimately, the russian agenda here senior playing a much longer game but trying to warm this relationship at a personal level, jaking. > all right. thank you so much. back in the united states, the summit could have major political implications for president trump. >> indeed it could. to discuss that now, how it's going to be viewed in the united states we're joined by john prudhoe, u.s. editor for the economist. we spoke to you when president trump wa

the united states president throwing our own the united states president throwing our own intelligence agency under the bus and says he believes putin first. >> it's so interesting when you think of past statements that bolton has made about russia, about russia's meddling as an attack, as an act of war against the united states. what must he be thinking? how does he move forward on this -- in this white house administration? >> well, anderson, what we worried about john bolton is at the end of the day he would be a yes man to president trump. he got rid of his earlier national security adviser who was willing to provide him with independent advice. president trump doesn't like independent advice. he wants people to do what he says. and that's what we've seen out of john bolton. i will say, anderson, this lends urgency to a piece of legislation that senator rubio and i have introduced called the deter act, which would establish automatic, very severe sanctions on russia if they get caught interfering in our 2018 elections or any future elections. it has bipartisan support, and since th

i don't think it's fair to the united states.ow if you look at it, germany is a captive of russia because they supply -- they got rid of their coal plants and nuclear. they are getting so much of the oil and gas from russia. i think it's something that nato has to look at. >> let's go to our senior white house correspondent jeff zeleny from brussels. the president has been hammering allies for not meeting that so-called 2% threshold for defense spending. 2% of gdp, gross domestic product. but the president is now even asking them to spend more? what's the latest? >> wolf, he is indeed. president trump asking leaders of nato countries to spend 4%, doubling the goal of 2% of their spending on defense. of course, that's an unrealistic goal of 4% because as the president has been pointing out indeed, only a handful of countries even meet the projected spending of 2%. this is largely a semantics exercise the president has been engaging in. essentially blasting all nato countries here. and just a few moments ago he sent out a tweet as

many people the united states have for the first time -- in the united states have for the first timehave had to go out of the way to talk about the importance of this relationship and from a critical point of view, mexico, we've slept in our -- on our laurels somewhat. with got a image problem that should be addressed. we need to be present to work with governments at different levels with congress, within the business sector, simply to have a systematic presence on what the relationship is about and what it is not. but we are in better shape. i do think that, we've got a chance you know, to construct a better relationship. the differences that we have, they are known and public, they haven't impeded us to have fluid communication with the administration. i'm very clear about that. >>> interviewed by the new york daily news columnist.>> and then, it creates sense. with got investigators going to hawaii, there's a report coming soon. he suggested that there was a videotape coming. and so, it generated more media interest so let's see what he has to say or let's see if something comes

our enforcement are perfectly able too the questioning and send the appropriate material to the united states. moreover, we can meet you halfway. we can make another step. we can actually permit official representativesstf the united es, including the members of this very commission headed by mr.mueller, we can let them into the community and theyse c be p for this questioning, but in this case there's another condition of this. these kinds of efforts should be mutual w ones. th would expect that the americans would reciprocate and they would question officials including the officers enforcement and intelligence service of the united states whom we believe are -- who have something to do with illegal o action the territory of russia, and we have t the presence of our law enforcement. for instance, we can bring up mr. browder in this particular case, business associates of mr. browder have earned over $1on mil in russia. they never paid any taxes, neitr in russiaor the united states, and yet the money escaped the country. they were transferred to the united states. they sent huge amount of mon

we also have to be fair to the people of the united states and the taxpayers of the united states. mr. prime minister, thank you for joining me for these important discussions. we're both outsiders to politics. can you believe it? we're outsiders to politics. look at all of these wonderful politicians. we're both determined to protect the rights and needs and interests and dreams of our citizens. we will do that. i look forward to partnering with you to build on the incredible friendship between our countries and to creating a brighter future for both the people of italy and the people of the united states and with that, i just want to again thank you very much for coming to the white house. it's my great honor. thank you. >> i wish to thank you, president trump, for this kind invitation for the warm hospitality. only two months after the formation of my government. i take it as a sign of the special attention to italy and to me as well. forgive me but i don't want to renounce the privilege for speaking in my wonderful language now. [speaking italian]. >> before all, i'd like to re

let's be in this and not play ping pong on issues when the costs are so potentially high in the united states. thank you, mr. chairman. senator van hollen, thank you. senator caputo. thank you, ambassador, for being here. i come from state of west virginia. senator manchin said it correctly, trade agreements have not been traditionallily very helpful to our small state. that's why i join you in advocating for fair trade and protecting american jobs. i want to talk a little about the auto tariff and frame it. we have a toyota company, a toyota plant in our state, 1600 employees. we have peripheral businesses associated with that. but if you track what happens in that supply chain, the raw aluminum comes from canada. it goes to a toyota plant in tennessee that makes the engine block. the blocks come to west virginia, where we make the six-cylinder. very well. we make the six cylinder engines as well as the transmissions. half of those engines go from west virginia back to canada where they're dropped into the lexus rx and brought into this country for sale. we have a lot of cross-border -- cris

be introduced in the house and senate his title was rather vague to promote the defense of the united states and for other purposes. but it had the patriotic number house resolution 1776. and those supporters and opponents to testify in the secretary of state eight and with a grim picture in with the insistence that it was essential and without self-preservation. the secretary of the treasury gave a detailed report confirming that the british simply did not have the dollars. secretary of war tennyson pointed out -- stimson pointed out it was destroyed united states would be under danger of invasion so that would enable the british to fight with industrial production to prepare for its own defense. but he did not tell the committee members what he also thought that american soldiers would have to fight and die to job done that we cannot permanently be in that position for other nations that fight so the star witness for the opposition from the house of representatives was the man i love to hate apd -- aviator charles lindbergh who was a hero flying solo across the atlantic 1927 and a single e

so -- contradicts the president of the united states. reagan is no longer worshipped within this gop. this is the party of trump. i will say this, too. you may have seen in new york magazine, there was a story that hypothesized what if donald trump was a soviet sleeper since the 1980s? no sleeper would be this blatant. a sleeper's russian handlers would say, don't be this obvious. this president say tacking the european union, attacking nato, attacking france, and germany, britain, and australia, our closest allies, and hugging russia close is really a dream come true for the kremlin. and you know, as to the next election, anderson, this is essentially an open call for further russian intervention. vladimir putin has to know at this point that as long as he enter convenience in the u.s. election on the side of donald trump, this president will either lack the integrity or the guts to call him out on it. and so unfortunately, this makes us more vulnerable in 2018 -- 2020 and 2018 than it did in 2016. >> yeah, it's truly -- it is a stunnin

very, very critical of the president of the united states. i want to read a statement we just received from the house speaker paul ryan, another tough statement. quote, there is no question that russia interfered in our election and continues attempts to undermine democracy here and around the world. this is not just the finding of the american intelligence community but also the house committee on intelligence. the president must appreciate that russia is not our ally. there's no moral equivalence between the united states and russia, which remains hostile to our most basic values and ideals. the united states must be focused on holding russia accountable and putting an end to its vile attacks on democracy. that statement from paul ryan, the speaker of the house. more statements are pouring in right now. so many of them condemning president trump for this moral equivalence, in effect siding on so many sensitive issues with the russian president as opposed to his own u.s. intelligence community and law enforcement community. let's take a brea

not including the united states. the united states commitment to nato is strong. primarily because of the spirit they have, the amount of money they are willing to spend, the additional money they will be putting up has been amazing to see the level of spirit in that room. it's incredible. i hope we will get along with russia. i think we will probably be able to, the people in the room think so nevertheless, they stepped up their commitments and stepped it up like never before. we took an additional 33, that number could be higher than 40 when they give you that number. the secretary-general will be giving those numbers sometime today concluding a press statement. we are doing numbers like never before or ever seen before. you will be seen that and hearing that a little bit later. we have our secretary of state's john is here, if you have any questions for the three of us, mike pompeo just got back from the third trip to north korea. he has become a true expert on the trips to north korea. the best way to get there. he gets along very well. he has done a very good

putin doesn't want the united states to lift sanks. p putin doesn't want a better relationship. the situation is actually perfect for him. he mobilizes around this. he sanctions keep everyone in a state of tension. they don't affect him personally. they only -- the only bee in his bonnet is bill browder. what he wants is exactly what he gets. he gets a constant state of hostility and yet he gets to divide and concur. this is the incredible part. he has succeeded in dividing donald trump from his own cabinet, from his own administration, from his own party with this summit. he has succeeded in dividing the united states from its traditional allies in western europe. it's absolutely extraordinary the kind of discord that he has been able to sow. nothing happened except words. but words are the weapons in which presidents generally deal. >> now, let us move on to this other issue of what happened in israel today and then the broader issue of what presidents trump and putin may have discussed about israel's security, syria and the rest. we just talked about the nation state bill. aar

is no longer -- the united states is no longer a reliable ally. but to top all of this off, if there is a new low, and it may be debased even further tomorrow, the president's performance of standing next to vladimir putin, whose aggression against other nations, including the united states, has put troops like my son on the russian border to work with allies halfway around the world far from their, far from their homes, that he would stand next to vladimir putin and take his side over patriotic americans who are working at our national security establishment, who have unanimously concluded that russia attacked our 2016 election, and for him to say, well, my people said they did, his people said they didn't, i can't see why russia would. what an abomination that all of the hardworking americans with agencies like the f.b.i., the c.i.a. and national agencies who reached an opinion that russia cyberattacked the integrity of our elections to watch this president stand on the stage publicly and say that he believes vladimir putin over patriotic americ

between mexico and the united states. it is a personal story for me because i lived there for almost six years in the 1990s. i went back and forth frequently. it was hard to believe that these were similar in sized cities close to each other. because they were so distant and some new ways. it was a rough-and-tumble city. piecework low value added manufacturing. san diego was a beautiful but isolated beach town. i was hard to imagine that they would ever get together. something started to happen in the early 2000 began to evolve. its own research and department operations. you saw the growth of some state capacity. and the cultural scene coming out of there. has anyone gone to tijuana not to tijuana for lunch or dinner. they have some of the best food scenes anywhere in mexico. anywhere on the west coast as well. great success this to goes from electronic to classical music and opera. i say this in my peril. i know it was a little bit of competition here. san diego was once the quiet little town. a nice place to go visit.

that is what we do with the united states. can do more and we can work with our central american friends. there is sufficient common ground in that respect. theer: a question from audience of that leads into our concern about the drug cartels and wondering how change vis-a-vis the narco trafficking with the new administration, what the state of clay is, how effective have we been in limiting the rise of these cartels? amb. gutierrez fernandez: if you look at what most people think, we have not been successful enough. insecurity, has gravitated in mexico's election. think that the last haveistrations in mexico confronted as best as possible, organized crime. methods, where not doing a good enough job. it would not be appropriate not to recognize that. i think, we need to take into account that this is an issue that takes a long time to address. experience in other areas of the world would point to the fact that there are no silver bullets to address this. number two, we need to do a better job in the conversations we've had wit

you have the president of the united states, who is pursuing a reckless and dangerous series of foreign policy moves, in particular with regards to russia, and then there's everybody else, his national security advisor and his secretary of state and everybody else who works for him who's trying to basically clean up after him. i think that's likely what you're going to see today with secretary pompeo before the senate foreign relations committee. i think what's happening now, and we see this with this hearing today is that senate republicans as well as democrats are just getting fed up with it. corker's opening blast to pompeo here at this hearing just a few minutes ago was quite biting. they have announced that along with the senate banking committee they're going to hold a series of hearings focused on this administration's russia policy. so again, i would imagine i would see mike pompeo being a little bit of a senate punching bag here today. >> for those of you who are worried about it, we are monitoring this hearing. you can see the camera on it. we will go to it when mike pompeo st

the united states is trying to be in a region. when there are. the only job thier doing and they have shown that they do is creation of interest groups who are risking turn during the time his tenure in the foreign ministry he. has so. many to. she. has dissipated in the creation of the terrorist group in syria and iraq if you recall in the. states. doesn't trump. choose into the you or the people who are these series who you're ultimately agree with mr trump in the in these coalition he wanted to in a gesture in to then he change you follow the same policy that we don't create do you think you may have other things in common with mr trump and at least in the way how he conceptualizes there is no newcomer in purple common policy between us and the sitra and that there could be no more overlap of views on how the region develops we're not. because we know that. he. has your only policy you know or the war you're against any kind o. expansionism and any kind of. or any other country now as the americans keep on insisting on the. removal of the iran

work that the united states wants to have. is that consideration is extremely important so i personally still think that the united states we need to find a way around delay the solution. on the margins of me getting back to it but it cannot be implemented in a way that is seriously actually makes the ability of india to be a part of this defense bill what the united states wants to have now i personally see it as a bit of a paradox of the american power structure when the defense policy of the world's second most populous country reaches india is being held hostage to some senators you know in new jersey or a club i wonder how is it perceived in india the fact that any given country would . attempt at least to tell you who to do business with and who not to do business with you know is as countries grow bigger. they see that. the orly's a quid pro quo kind of place and certainly prime minister more they has built many many bridges in his forty years. you know he has gone to some fifty five different countries to build his bri

the united states produces him if i percent of the steel we consume. our defense needs consume 3% of the total steel consumption. how could one possibly make the case that we do not have plentiful abundance of domestically produced steel to satisfy defense needs? that it is not only that, for the other 25%, where are the biggest sources for that steel? that would be mexico and canada. those are the two countries that provide the most steel. with both of those countries we have a surplus of trade in steel. the canadians by more steel from us than we buy from them. so to the mexicans. where's the security threat to america when my constituents .hoose to take the steel >> that was pat toomey talking about steel in the u.s.. there is been a dispute concerning subsidies that the canadian government gives to the this has been, litigated multiple times under the north american free trade agreement. we have the construction industry in the u.s. but the london producing side has been .ssued >> our guess this morning josh -- -- and daniel griswold. , forlcome yo

in order to recalibrate our partnership with the united states, we need a united, confident and sovereign europe. i mean, it's really scary. it is really scary. >> david, colonel peters was saying something which i in all the activity today hadn't given a lot of focus to, but i think it's an incredibly important point to point out. if this is what president trump said publicly in front of the eyes and the cameras of the world in a little over 45-minute press conference, who knows what he said face-to-face to vladimir putin when only translators are president and there are no permanent notes being taken? >> a very pertinent argument, because there is now going to be for a long time to come a conspiracy view that they had a secret conversation, they cut secret deals, and they're shaping the secret of the world without consulting anybody other than themselves, and we'll never know for sure. and that is the price they're going to pay for not having a third party in there or one additional party on each side with note take. >> and for not having credibility. >> right. >> vladimir putin certain

german companies have invested $373 billion into the united states. they are willing to invest more. arman companies have created hundred thousand jobs in that 800,000 jobs in the u.s. states. these are good jobs, amy in industry and manufacturing. most of these jobs are unionized. which iouth carolina, visited on monday, is the biggest exporter of cars made in the u.s. u.s. companies such as ford, general electric, mcdonald's and others are very present in the german market and employee around 700,000 people. the united states and the european union are responsible gdp,lmost half the global and almost two thirds of all foreign direct investment. is is a solid foundation for practical cooperation in the benefit of our people independent from our national governments. dear friends, my father was a soldier in world war ii. oldas only 17 or 18 years when he was shot and drowned by a soldier of the u.s. army. the u.s. army saved his life, took care of him and gave him the experience of forgiveness, values of respect and human dignity. we have to discuss ho

. >> well good afternoon i'm pleased to welcome president of the united states to checkers today on his first official visit to the united kingdom. no two countries do more together than ours to keep their people safe and prosperous. and we want to deepen that cooperation even further. to meet the shared challenges we face now and in years ahead. this morning, president trump and i visited sandhurst, where we saw a demonstration of joint working between british and american special forces. just one example of what is today the broadest, deepest and most advanced security cooperation of any two countries in the world. whether it is our pilots deterring the use of chemical weapons in syria or defeating daesh, our soldiers at the owe forefront of nato's preparation in eastern europe. our navys in the pacific, or our unparalleled intelligence sharing partnership thwarting attacks, our security cooperation is saving lives here in britain, in america and right across the world. that partnership is set to grow. with our armies integrating to a level unmatched anywhere. and the uk set to spend

i mean there's nothing like the united states american city for american cities are not safe. a strange and generally safe very safe. but still there are. there are guns but particularly following there was one very infamous massacre at port arthur in tasmania. that really had a shocking effect on the country and it was a conservative government howard government actually reinforced the gun laws following that massacre. we've just had the the killing of seven people in western australia apparently suicide. a really cold blooded killing that to me seemed almost out of place here but it's not because there are gardens in the country those guns that the alleged murderer used were licensed so the licensing laws here of it there's nothing like the kind of open market and. the. the culture of the gun is sacred in the united states it's certainly built into the fabric of the myth ology and then i'd just say that there's no parallel here this is this is generally a gun control society given the similar histories between the united states and australia why do you think that like guns a

constitution of the united states. we have all learned more about the nominee in just a few hours since his nomination. of course we know he is a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. some have called the second highest court in the land. by that, it sits in the district of columbia and many cases grow up through that court as opposed to courts in texas, indiana or other places around the country. for more than ten years he has served in that capacity. we know he has had a distinguished academic and legal career. . . rking for justice kennedy himself, the man who he would succeed when confirmed. most importantly, and as evidence of judge kavanaugh's good judgment, he made the wise decision to marry a texan. his wife grew up in abilene and graduated from the university of texas. but now that the nomination has been made, the senate will follow what we refer to here as regular order. that means the judiciary committee, led by chairman grassley, will thoroughly vet the nominee, and then the committee wi

to see the president of the united states, mr. trump, shrink -- shrink -- next to vladimir putin, to drop his oath of office, to drop his duty on a world stage to protect and defend the constitution of the united states, and then to have so many here in this country on -- on tv programs like this one say, what a surprise. no. this was not a surprise. this was mr. trump in full view of the world. this is who he is. ignorant, narcissistic, all involved with himself. his priority is himself. not the country. not the presidency. he is unaware of histories. he was unaware certainly yesterday of anything that this republic has stood for through the ages. the only thing he was aware of clearly was that he was in putin's pocket. >> i don't know if ignorant is so much the word as scared. you look at the visuals. you listen to every interview donald trump has ever given, and he is clearly scared of vladimir putin. he is clearly afraid to ever cross the russian leader. he is clearly -- clearly -- in his pocket. who else -- and we talked abou

the european union buys exports from the united states that create almost 3 million jobs in the uniteds where we need them. we need them militarily as well but we spent over $600 billion a year on defense. nato countries spent $300 billion. that increases our spending by 50%. should they spend more? sure they should, and the president was right to bring that up. but my main point is vladimir putin is not our friend. if the message from this meeting between presidents vladimir putin and president is that we are now friends, this is the man that suppresses his own people, he does not believe in democracy, he invaded crimea, he and hepeople in england is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in syria. this is a menace and we have to treat them that way even as we talked to him. shery: the implications for american values when it comes to dealing with these allies and rivals. senator lieberman: we are always better when we stick to our values and today's press conference to not look like american values. shery: thank you so much for your time. joe lieberman, former senator from c

the president of the united states, how did he answer? he answered, quote, that he didn't see any reasons, quote, quo why putin would have interfered in the u.s. election. make no mistake, putin has a reason. the reason is clear to all those who have been watching growing russian authoraranism in recent years. putin wants to weaken the u.s. government. putin wants to destroy nato which isn't just an alliance. it's arguably the most important military alliance in two millenia. undermine confidence in self-government not only in this country but around the world. that's why putin, a soviet-styled dictator who thinks more about american elections than his sham elections attacked us in 2016. it's why he's planning to attack america this fall in 2018. it's why there are ongoing information operations against the u.s. and against our public at present as everyone who goes into the skiff and reads their intelligence briefing knows. it's why putin is planning to attack the u.s. 2020 election already. and that's why the men and women of the u.s. i

to the united states. they sent a huge amount of million00 mai dollars, to the campaign of hillary credit. the way the money was earned was illegal. we have reason to believe that some intelligence officers guided these transactions. so we have an interest in questioning them. that can be a first step and we can also extend it. they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework. >> did you direct any of your officials to do that? president putin's translator: bringing the u.s.-russia relationship back to normal -- i think there are three questions from the russian pool. you have the floor. >> thank you so much. good evening to everyone. ilya patrenko. >> mr. president, would you please go into the details of possibly any specific arrangements for the u.s. to work together with russia in any of these kinds of arrangements were made today or discussed? russian]g ing in pompeo mentioned that when we talk about the syrian cooperation, the ball is in the syrian court. and hown, is it true would you use thi

>> well, i feel that the question you're asking me is more for a debate in the united states. i am definitely not the person -- >> no, it was russian-state television. >> president trump's statements -- russian-state television can say a lot of things. you're asking me. if you're asking me, then i'm telling you that whatever mr. trump did in brussels, what kind of relationship he's building with his nato partners, is something we observe, of course, very closely. but i will definitely not criticize him for this or support him in this. i think that this is between the united states and its allies. between trump and european leaders. and the kind of relationship they are building between themselves, it's the western alliance affair. i'm quite ready to talk about the russian position on numerous issues. but, you know, if you ask me whether the western alliance looked today weaker than it used to be, well, i think that the western alliance has lived through difficult times a lot in history. and so i don't think that nato will fall apart. i don't think the united states will go out

demented the united states. if it. created this system its oil huge benefit not just for the rest of the world but also for itself i mean in the end remember that you know from a post second world war the united states gave the. kind of created this very video when one trading system which we. saw it's going to be you know lose lose proposition now when president trump talks about trade he doesn't only talk about it being free and fair he talks about it being reciprocal in searching this bilateral symmetrical calculus to what has been a multilayered and highly asymmetrical system of global trade do you think a free and reciprocal can really core exist when it comes to you know trading around the planet you know. super also be has been a part of our system trading system. since the beginning of the get in nineteen forty seven and afterwards but reciprocity was always used in the sense of that look in ivan liberalism a trade if you liberal lazio's and sorious a process he was used to liberal a strain and this is a proces

the united states goes to war, they send their armies to the united states. we pay with blood and sweat and tears. you need to explain this to people. is moreher country likely to go to war? nobody. guest: it is worth explaining the funding of nato. there is obviously the goal of inting 2%, which was around 2006 and it has formalized since 2015. everyone is supposed to pay 2% of gdp. as pointed out, the u.s. is the global power. if youough it does -- add up and look at different countries budgets, you see the overall cost of nato, the u.s. pays 600 something of that. however, the money that the u.s. pays isn't just for the defense of europe, it is for u.s. interests around the world. so on that basis there is a disagreement over how much the u.s. has graduated to nato. yes, if you compare each country budget but as was pointed out, that is a global military operation. criticized directly a business deal between germany and russia during the nato summit. here is a little bit. when germany makes a massive deal and germany pays billions of dollars a year to russ

of the united states.t concerned me. julie: wide to you think president trump is doing this? if you look at the reaction, it has been nearly uniformly negative from both sides of the aisle. what would motivate him to repudiate our allies and draw vladimir putin closer? is the issuethat that i think bothers a lot of people. takeresident would in fact the russian viewpoint over the viewpoint of our own country. even putin himself said he supported trump over hillary clinton, which feeds into the issue. the fact that the russians engage in a major attack on our election system largely that benefited president trump. i think the president rejects that issue because it undermines the validity of his own election. he was elected president of the united states. as president of the united states's first responsibility is to defend the united states of america. i think what he is doing is in his own emotional reaction to what is happened here, i think it has clouded his judgment as president to recognize the facts