Transcripts For MSNBCW MSNBC Live With Katy Tur 20180517

If there was collusion with the russians, they would have used it. It . Is he implying there isnt it . And what about all the times the president used wikileaks on the trail . Couldnt have be it . And if so, isnt that trump clearly using it . Headline two senate intels break with house republicans. The senators instead siding with the intel communitys assessment of the probe that russia intended to help trump win the presidency. Headline three more heat for the president s personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Tthe new yorker reported that an an northern muanonymous sour it. Four, the Washington Post detailing that he solicited a 1 million payment from the qatari government in 2016. They wanted advice on trump. Headline five the special counsel has hit roger stone with a subpoena. And crossfire hurricane isnt just a lyric from a Rolling Stone song. Headline six revealed it is also the code name the fbi gave the fledgling at the Time Investigation in july of 2016. Remember yesterday we saw the president s yearly Financial Disclosure in which he finally listed the money he paid back Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payment. And the Senate Judiciary committee made its own disclosure with the release of 2,500 pages of socalled trump tower transcripts. That is where we are today. One year into muellers probe. One year of a socalled witch hunt thats resulted in 19 people being indicted. 19 people being charged with crimes. Five pleaded guilty, including the president s former National Security advisor and former campaign manager. Our big question today. Senior fellow with the r street institute. Chuck rosenberg is a former u. S. Attorney and former senior fbi official. He is also an msnbc contributor. Chuck, i never get to see you in person. Welcome to new york. It is a pleasure to be here with you. I want you to try and answer that big question. After all of those headlines in the last 24 hours, everything weve learned in the past year included, is the president himself any closer to serious legal jeopardy today than he was a year ago . Probably. Because as investigations progress, as the mueller team learns more and more, katy, anybody who was in their sights to begin with are probably even more so now. Right . So hard for us to specifically know. But this thing isnt going away. The mueller team keeps advancing. And it seems like the president , if we believe the reporting, is absolutely a subject of the investigation. Paul, whats your take . Well, i agree with chuck that the president s conduct is definitely a subject of investigation. I think, though, that one thing that you left out was the reports from mr. Giulianis conversatio conversations, that the special counsel is probably going to following the doj policy and not indict a sitting president because thats doj policy. So i think the president s jeopardy, if you will, is much more likely in the long run to be political than it is to be in the criminal arena. Do you trust that thats actually what is happening, that mueller would say that we would not indict the president to his own attorney . Well, i have taken everything that mr. Giuliani says with a grain of salt. That seems an appropriate way to approach his statements. On the other hand, it is the case that the department of justices policy against indi indicting sitting president s goes back to the nixon era, almost 45 years old. So thats not new news and i do suspect strongly that mr. Mueller, an employee of the department, is going to, in the end, consider himself bound by that policy and that hell take the opportunity to file some form of report with the department that lays out what he knows, and that but then the ultimate resolution for the president. Not for anybody else. President is unique in this regard. But for the president will have to be in the political arena. There is still some argument about that. That is a question that could go to the Supreme Court if mueller decided he did want to indict the president. Thats right, katy. Pauls right. This has been the policy of the department of justice. However, its never been litigated. And so it is conseeceivable dont know that it is likely but it is conceivable that mueller would ask to challenge that. If rod rosenstein, the acting attorney general, for purposes of this investigation is amenable, they could challenge it. Is what Rudy Giuliani is ultimately trying to do is say there is no reason Robert Mueller can subpoena the president for an interview because he cant indict him so you cant subpoena somebody you cant indict . I think thats too narrow a way to look at it. You can also subpoena witnesses because they have information about other people and other crimes. We keep talking about the president being interviewed for the president s own criminal liability. But if he knows stuff about Paul Manafort, if he knows stuff about Michael Cohen, if he knows stuff with Jared Kushner, all of that is fair game for a grand jury. So there could be lots of other reasons why the mueller team would want to interview him. Paul, do you think he will end up sitting down for an interview . I think it is almost certainly the case that he will. Hell couch it as a voluntary interview at some point. Hell try very hard to narrow it in terms of scope of the questions and time, which is to his benefit. But in the end, in my own judgment, the prospect of the president refusing to speak to the special counsel will do him too much political damage and he understands that. What about what giuliani was just asserting a moment ago in that big, long introduction we did, that theres nothing illegal about digging for dirt from a russian source . Well, lets distinguish between something that might be a crime, and it may or may not be, and something thats a really, really, really bad idea. So sitting down with russians to gather information, dirt, on your political opponent is a really bad idea. And so from a counterintelligence perspective whether or not it is a crime, katy this is not something we would expect from the nominee or the staff of a major party in american politician. Paul, at the very least he wades around wikileaks, said he loved wikileaks, used it to his advantage at the end of the campaign. I think thats right. I actually would be a little more forward leaning than chuck is. I think that soliciting dirt from a foreign source is soliciting a thing of value from a foreign source and the receipt of things of value from foreign sources for american campaigns is illegal. Normally thats money. Normally a russian could not contribute to Donald Trumps campaign or Hillary Clintons, for are that matter. But research that you purposely seek to receive is an effort to circumvent the fec rules against foreign source influence. What do you think happens next, chuck . Whats the next move right here for muellers team . Are we going to see an interview sooner than later, do you think . Hard to say, katy. Theyre going to continue to do what theyve been doing for are at least a year, if not significantly longer. Theyre going to look through documents, theyre going to read emails, theyre going to subpoena records and theyre going to interview people who are willing to talk to them. Dont forget, you have two trials pending. They need to try Paul Manafort. What about these sars . Suspicion activity reports that disappeared from the government database. Your guess is theyre probably with Robert Mueller. Correct . Let me just unpack that a little bit. S. A. R. S. Suspicious activity reports that bank file hold on one second. We have donald trump. This is a conversation hes having with reporters next to the head of nato. Thank you very much. It is an honor to have secretary of state stoltonberg. Our relationship is very good. Together weve increased and raised a lot of money from countries that werent paying or werent paying a fair share. We have a little ways to go, but many billions of dollars of additional money has been raised. And i really appreciate the great job that youre doing. As most people know, youve been extended for a long period of time and that was very much i think with my leadership and really the fact is, we pushed it very hard because this gentleman does a tremendous job at nato. And i appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, mr. President , for hosting me and my delegation once again at the white house. Let me thank you for the leadership you show on the issue of the fed spending because it is very important that we all contribute more to our shared security and it is really having an impact, because as you said, allies are now spending more on defense. All allies are increasing their defense budgets. Do you give me credit for that . You have helped do that because your leadership has been important and it has had real impact. And we see that because all allies increase and add billions to the budget. So thats important because we live in a more unpredictable world. And then we need strong nato and we need to enlist more in our security. Thank you very much for being here. It is an honor. Well, nothing has changed on north korea that we know of. We have not been told anything. And if it does, thats fine. If it doesnt, i think well probably have a very successful meeting. But we have not been told anything. Were just reading were just reading stories like you are. Weve heard certain things from south korea. But well see what happens. If the meeting happens, it happens. And if it doesnt, we go on to the next step. Just typical thing that north korea does . I really dont know. No. I want to give everybody the benefit of a doubt. I think that i can only say, our people are literally dealing with them right now in terms of making arrangements for the meeting. So thats a lot different than what you reed but oftentimes what you read if it is not fake news is true. So well see what happens. We are dealing with them now. We may have the meeting. We may not have the meeting. If we dont have it, then we will that will be very interesting. Well see what happens. The border is still quite strong. I think things changed a little bit when they met with china. They met a second time. Kim jongun had a second meeting with china which was a little bit of a surprise meeting. We have many of the chinese here today. As you know, big delegations negotiating trade, because the United States has been ripped off for many, many years by its bad trade deals. I dont blame china. I blame our leadership of this country from the past. We have been ripped off by china. And evacuation of wealth like no country has ever seen before, given to another country thats rebuilt itself based on a lot of the money theyve taken out of the United States. And thats not going to happen anymore. But there has been a big difference since they had the second meeting with president xi. With that being said, my attitude is whatever happens, happens. Either way, were going to in great shape. Would you consider personal outreach to kim to get him moving toward keep him moving no, well see what happens. You have to want to do it. With deals thats what i do is deals. With deals you have to have two parties that want to do it. He absolutely wanted to do it. Perhaps he doesnt want to do it. Perhaps they spoke with china. That could be right. President xi, a friend of mine great guy. But hes for china and im for the United States and thats the way it is and i suspect it is never going to change. But i will say this. We are continuing to negotiate in terms of location. The location as to where to meet, how to meet, rooms, everything else. And theyve been negotiating like nothing happened. But if you read the newspapers, maybe it wont happen. I cant tell you yet. I will tell you very shortly. Were going to know very soon. Steve . What are you going to tell [ inaudible ] well, ive been telling china that we are you people have been covering trade and youve been covering china and youve been covering everything for a long time. Have you ever even seen a negotiating of trade . Nobodys ever seen anybody from our country even negotiate on trade. Trade with china and with other countries. Im not just blaming china. Chinas the biggest. But trade has been a total oneway street. Right outside of this nation, you take money out by the bucket loads into other. Whether it is the European Union, which you know so well, whether its japan or south korea or i could name almost every single country in the world. We had nobody representing us. And now you have somebody thats very good at this stuff me representing us. And china has taken out hundreds of billions of dollars a year from the United States and i explained to president xi, we cant do that anymore. We just cant do that anymore. It is a much different situation. But with all the years and all the years that youve covered trade and nations and wars and everything else, youve never seen people come over from china to work on a trade deal. Now will that be successful . I tend to doubt it. The reason i doubt it is because chinas become very spoiled. The European Union has become very spoiled. Other countries have become very spoiled. Because they always got 100 of whatever they wanted from the United States. But we cant allow that to happen anymore. Were an incredible country. We have incredible potential. The potential we have is incredible. But we lost 800 billion on trade last year. If you add it all up. Of which china was around the 500 billion mark. So we lost 800 billion. Can you believe that . Is that an amazing thing to even think about . We lost 800 billion on trade. Were not going to be doing that any longer. [ inaudible question ] zte was a company that i spoke to with president xi. He asked me if id take a look at that because it was very harmful to them in terms of their jobs and probably other things. I certainly said i would. He asked me to do that and i would do that. Out of Great Respect i like him, he likes me, we have a great relationship. He asked me if id look at zte. Dont forget, it was my administration with my full knowledge that put very, very strong clamps on zte. It wasnt anybody else. It wasnt president obama. It wasnt president bush. It was me. I put very strong clamps on zte. They did very bad things to our country. They did very bad things to our economy. The one thing i will say, they also buy a large portion of their parts for the phones that they make and they are the fourth Largest Company in terms of that industry. They buy those parts from the United States. Thats a lot of business. So we have a lot of companies that wont be selling those parts. But the president of china, president xi, asked me to look at it. I said i would look at it. But anything we do with zte is always its just a small component of the overall deal. I can only tell you this. Were going to come out fine with china. Hopefully chinas going to be happy. I think we will be happy. And as the expression goes, when youre losing 500 billion a year on trade, you cant lose the trade war. Youve already lost it. Weve had horrible representatives in this country that have allowed other countries to get away with murder. And those days are gone. Those days are over. So we just want fairness for the workers of this country and for the United States. Thats whats going to happen. Okay . Is ill let you know about, as time goes by, will let you know. As of this moment, everything we know i mean north korea is actually talking to us about times and everything else, as though nothing happened. Will it happen . Will we be going on that very special date . And can some great things happen . You know, were going to be looking at it very soon. Yeah, steve . [ inaudible question ] well, the libyan model isnt a model that we have at all when were thinking of north korea. In libya we decimated that country. That country was decimated. There was no deal to keep gadhafi. The libyan model that was mentioned was a much different deal. This would be with kim jongun, something where hed be there, hed be in his country, hed be running his country. His country would be very rich. His people are tremendously industrious. If you look at south korea, this would really be a south korean model in terms of their industry, in terms of what they do. Theyre hardworking, incredible people. But the libyan model was a much different model. We decimated that country. We never said to gadhafi, oh, were going to give you protection, were going to give you military strength, were going to give you all of these things. We went in and decimated him. And we did the same thing with iraq. Now whether or not wooshd hae s have, i could tell you, i was against it from the beginning. Because look what we have right now. We spent 7 trillion can you believe that . 7 trillion in the middle east right out the window. You might as well throw the money right out the window. And weve done a lot of infrastructure. We just had airports approved. You saw that. A lot of things are happening. But we spent 7 trillion in the middle east. And look where we are right now. It is pretty sad. But the model, if you look at that model with gadhafi, that was a total decimation. We went in there to beat him. Now, that model would take place if we dont make a deal, most likely. But if we make a deal, i think kim jong un is going to be very, very happy. I really believe he is going to be very happy. But this is just the opposite. I think when john bolton made that statement, he was talking about if were going to be having a problem. Because we cannot let that country have nukes. We just cant do it. So thats the way it meant. Just the opposite. Because if you look at again, you look at syria, that was a total decimation. What security guarantees are you willing to get to were willing to do a lot and hes willing to, i think, do a lot also. I think well actually have a Good Relationship eye sassuming have the meeting and eassuming something comes out of it. Hell get protections that are very strong. Syria never got protections. Or anywhere around the middle east. Iraq. You look at libya. With libya, certainly they didnt have protection. They had the exact opposite. That was absolute decimation. And thats what we planned to do and thats what we do. Would you raise u. S. Troop levels as a possibility . Were not going to say that. We will say hell have very adequate protection and see how it all turns out. I will tell you this the best thing he could do would be to make a deal. I have a feeling though, for various reasons including trade. Because theyve never had this problem before. Chinas never had this problem with us. It could very well be that hes influencing kim jongun. Well see what happens. Meaning, the president of china, president xi, could be influencing kim jongun. But well see. Thats just look. If you remember, a few weeks ago, all of a sudden out of nowhere kim jongun went to china to say hello again, a second time, to president xi. I think they were dedicating an aircraft carrier, paid for largely by the United States. Thank you very much, everybody. All right. Thank you. Please start making your way towards the door. Thank you. Donald trump talking at length with reporters alongside secretarygeneral jan stoltonberg. Well be watching out for more questions from the president. Back to Chuck Rosenberg to talk about the suspicious activity reports that we were discussing before we went to the white house. But first lets go to nbcs hans nichols who is standing by for us. Hans, there was a lot in that discussion right there with the president in regards to north korea. Break it down for us. Well, number one, President Trump seems to suggest that china has somehow influenced kim jongun and changed his thinking on what he wants to do in terms of negotiations with President Trump. The president seemed to be going both ways on whether or not in meeting would take place, that june the 12th meeting. At one point he said that the north koreans were even negotiating about the location of the meeting. Unclear if the president was talking about the location inside singapore, on what sort of backandforth there. I think the most significant thing in there was this idea of making distinguishing comments about the libyan model. Remember, the libyan model is what john bolton, National Security advisor, talks about. And that is complete and total denuclearization with verifiable claims. It happens instantly. There isnt any sort of phased back and forth. The president was trying to make a difference between that denuclearization model and then what happened in the 2011 air campaign against libya. In all of that, ive got to say, as the president was trying to make this distinction, he actually ended up threatening kim jongun again, suggesting that a fate similar to gadhafi would await him. Let me read it for you. He said, that model, referring to libya model, that model would take place if we dont make a deal. Throughout that, President Trump was trying to give assurances that kim jongun would not be ousted from power. But in one moment we did hear from President Trump saying if negotiations fail, he can expect to have a fate like moammar gadhafi. Wow. Hans nichols at the white house, hans, thank you very much. Im sorry to the viewer at home that were jumping around so much. But lets go back to chuck rosenbe rosenberg. We were talking about all the headlines that have piled up in the last 24 hours in regards to the special counsels investigation. One of them that could have links to the special counsels investigation is this new report about Michael Cohen and these suspicious activity reports that suddenly disappeared from financial databases. An official leaked those reports asking the questions, why did they suddenly disappear . You think you know why. Well, i have a good guess. Okay. First, let me explain. If a bank sees something in your account thats suspicious right . The amount of money, the frequency of money, the source of the money, they can file a report with the treasury. These are usually leads for investigators. Theres something odd going on in katy turs bank account. Well take a look. From time to time, there is a perfectly legitimate Law Enforcement reason not to have some of these reports in the database. Maybe a very sensitive case. Theres other reasons that i cant really go into here. But there are legitimate nonnefarious reasons to take these reports from time to time its rare out of the master database. Number two, if we already have an investigation of you, katy, i dont need a suspicious activity report. I have all the underlying bank records. By the way, including the suspicious activity reports that the bank would have filed, because they would have kept a copy. So mueller probably has them. Mueller has them. Chuck rosenberg, thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. And thank you to the viewer at home for being so smart and so wicked that you follow us even when we jump around from topic to topic. Now were going to jump one more time. It is a tale of two russia investigations on capitol hill. On the senate side, that Intel Committee now says they agree with the Intelligence Community that russia interfeared in the 2016 election to help candidate donald trump. That announcement contradicts the conclusion of house intel republicans last month. Their report found there was not enough information to definitively claim that Vladimir Putin had a clear preference for donald trump. Congressman Chris Stewart is a republican on the house Intel Committee. He joins me now. Congressman, what do you think of the two pretty different conclusions that are coming out of this . One from the senate and one from the house . Yeah. Well, i respect the senates work, and i would just respectfully disagree, at least with one part. If i could make maybe a larger observation i said this earlier, by the way, many times. When it comes to was russia trying to hurt Hillary Clinton or trying to help donald trump, thats nearly impossible to know. You actually have to crawl inside Vladimir Putins head to really answer that question. I think our committees focus wasnt necessarily on that question. Our concern was mostly, did the cia and other intelligence agencies go through the proper procedures, did they vet their own conclusions, did they share those and ask for other inputs. Thats where we found that there were deficiencies and that was the conclusion of our committee and the thing that we found a little bit troubling. Congressman, with all due respect, the senate Intel Committee interviewed a lot more people, we believe, than you did. And their conclusion along with the Intelligence Communitys conclusion was that, yes, they may have been trying to denigrate Hillary Clinton, hurt Hillary Clinton. But that was to help donald trump. Remember, this was 1 of 2 options election. If youre hurting Hillary Clinton, you are helping donald trump. Why do you why did you in the house Intel Committee not interview Paul Manafort or Michael Flynn or George Papadopoulos or Anthony Scaramucci or Reince Priebus or k. T. Mcfarlane or sam nunberg or Natalia Veselnitskaya or Stephen Miller on Keith Kellogg or george nader or dan scevinop. We only have limited time. You can keep listing people there. Im done. I dont agree automatic all with your contention that they interviewed more people than we did. They may have interviewed other people, but i dont know that either one of us know that they interviewed more people. None of those people had direct bearing on this one question that was, did the cia follow procedures. I dont think there is a Single Person that you mentioned who could cast any light at all on that question, and many of the people that you mentioned im sure you know this, katy we could not interview them because they were under indictment by the special counsel, and that puts them out of bounds for us. We can no longer talk to them. The thing that we were interested in, and the thing that our report states, is that the cia, the other intelligence agencies, maybe rushed to judgment on this. And thats a meaningful thing to consider. Look, this was an important conclusion by the Intelligence Community. This was this is about a president ial candidate that was already very controversial, as we both would agree. And for them to come to a conclusion about what our expectation would be is that they went through every hoop that they dotted every i and crossed every t, if you will. Again, we had concerns that they maybe didnt do that. Let me ask you a question about the intention of the investigation. Are you saying this investigation intended to find out how the cia was operating and not whether or not donald trump coordinated or his campaign coordinated with russia, or whether or not russia tried to interfere in our election . Because no, no. Thats what i thought the intention was of this investigation. You are talking about the cia and their practices. If your intention was that, why would you not interview maybe the ones that are not under indictment in this list that i mentioned but people who would certainly have a little insight on how the campaign was being run and what donald trump did day in and day out, and potentially katy, you know the answer to the first part of your question. Of course we looked at whether russia had meddled. Ive said from the very beginning russia meddled. I said as early as august, before the election. I was in moscow and i came home and said to you and many others, russias going to meddle in our elections. We clearly knew they would, and they clearly did. Our investigation looked at that. I honestly dont know why you asked me that question. Well, because you turned it around and asked me about the cia. Let me ask you one final question. Because that well, look, because that was an important part of this. We had Something Like 47 recommendations. Only one of them only one of the recommendations but it didnt point you in the same direction that the senate got to which was Vladimir Putin was trying to help donald trump and hurt Hillary Clinton. They could have helped point new that direction or helped you figure out whether or not there was any coordination. I know you didnt rule it out but i certainly didnt find any evidence of it. So far obviously the senate intel report is not concluded but their update doesnt find it one way or the other either. But final question to you, congressman. And we appreciate having you on. Do you want to see Robert Muellers investigation come to a conclusion when hes ready or do you want to see it stopped now . Ive always supported mr. Muellers investigation. Weve always said that he should have the time and the resources to complete lis investigation. I do hope that he does it as quickly as possible. I think, like we felt on our committee, we owed it to the american people. We owed it to the people who are under investigation to say what we know as quickly as possible. I would hope mr. Mueller would have the same expectations. Well let him work on his own timeline and see what he comes up with. Republican utah congressman Chris Stewart of the house Intel Committee, thank you very much. Joining me now, betdy woodruff, politics reporter with the daily beast and msnbc contributor. And thnatasha bertrand, an msnb contributor with the atlantic. Guys, thanks for being here. Lets talk about this Mueller Investigation one year in. Betsy, we asked a big question at the beginning of the show, whether or not donald trump was in more legal jeopardy. We had our legal eagles get to the point of that. But in following of this for the past year, what do you think have been some of the biggest revelations so far . I think the reality whats going on with Paul Manafort is incredibly important. In some ways were sort of inknoi innocuated that the guy who was running President Trumps entire campaign, in charge of making sure everything worked properly, was in charge of scores and scores of people going into the pro vention is now going through a protected, messy legal battle that could potentially result in his being incarcerated. Under any other president the manafort story would be front and center, dominating the news. I think over the course of the last year the sort of fall of Paul Manafort has been something that hasnt i dont think we fully grasped the seriousness of. One of the other things we learned about yesterday and yesterday was just a flood of headlines having to do with this investigation was roger stones social Media Advisor getting subpoenaed. Natasha, youve written a lot about roger. What do you know about this social Media Advisor . Yae. Yeah. This is someone who had access to roger stones twitter account throughout the 2016 election. He also did social media for roger stones Political Action committee and really the purpose of his work there was to weaponize social media. Now we dont actually know what mueller wants from the social media director. Does he want things related to roger stones twitter account on its own . Or does he want things related to the Political Action committee . Its worth wondering whether there is a question that Robert Muellers trying to answer about whether the social media director knew through roger stone in advance when wikileaks would be publishing the material so that he could then target, which was exactly the tool he came up, and use that tool to weaponize the disclosures that wikileaks made. So this guy is in the center of a lot. Of course, roger stones twitter feed itself during the election we know that he was communicating with wikileaks during the campaign. He exchanged direct messages with them. He says that he turned over everything to the relevant intelligence committees in congress, but this guy i think his name is jason sullivan, the social media director for roger stone, he did have access to stones twitter account. And if he did, maybe hell be able to disclose more information about who roger stone was talking to via twitter, apparently one of his favorite methods with im. And what roger stone knew when he tweeted. It will soon be John Podestas time in the barrel right before about a month before those wikileaks emails from podestas emails started coming out. Roger stone, as far as we know, has not been interviewed yet by special counsel. There are few others that have not been interviewed by the special counsel. The president being one, don jr. Being another. I dont believe Jared Kushner has been interviewed by the special counsel. Betsy, who else would you be looking at to be called in before this investigation is over . Thats a good question. One person i can tell you who has not been interviewed is the Vice President. Even though he seemed to be adjacent to many of the Big Decisions that muellers interested in, especially the question of james comeys firing which is related to these broader obstruction of justice issues. My understanding is that the Vice President has not yet been brought in by muellers team. One person who has been brought in though whos very close to those decisions is don mcghan. The Washington Post reports that hes been interviewed at least twice by the special counsels team. I can confirm thats definitely correct. Mcgann is someone who is of Significant Interest to the special counsel. His proximity to this very important question of why the president decided to fire james comey when he did, and whether that was designed as a way of trying to undercut a counterintelligence investigation. It is a really important one. So mcgann is in a position to know a lot about why that decision was made, how that decision was made, and that clearly is a question thats front and center for mueller. Don mcghan, white house counsel, also campaign for the campaign. Betsy woodruff and natasha bertrand, ladies, thank you very much. Today there was a show of force to get stalled Sexual Harassment legislation on the senate floor. A bold move, but will it work . Ill ask the woman who did it right after the break. During the fall, everyone who has medicare may be eligible to choose a new Medicare Health plan. But you may be able to choose a new plan right now. If you answer yes to any of these questions are you turning 65 . Do you have both medicare and medicaid . Do you have medicare . And are you losing Employer Health coverage . If you answered yes just once, you may be able to choose a new Medicare Health plan right now. Call humana at the number on your screen to see if you qualify. And well send you this helpful medicare decision guide. The call is free. And theres no obligation. Humana has nearly 30 years of medicare experience and offers a wide range of allinone Medicare Advantage health plans that include medical and Prescription Drug coverage and valuable extras like a 24hour nurse advice line. The silver sneakers fitness program. And mail order prescription coverage. All for an affordable monthly plan premium. And, in some areas, no plan premium. With humana, youll get more than original medicare alone and have the peace of mind of knowing youre covered for doctor visits and hospital stays. Plus, routine physicals and preventive screenings. And when it comes to prescriptions, in 2016, humanas Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan members saved an estimated 6500 on average on their prescription costs. So call a licensed humana sales agent at the number on your screen, and say yes to getting the right Health Care Coverage without having to wait for it. The blade quality youd expect from gillette. Affordability you might not. The new gillette3 gillette5. Available now. Gillette. The best a man can get. Not have to wait any longer. So i urge my colleagues to do the right thing now to swore thupport this bill. Fix our system here in congress thats failing our members on this issue of Sexual Harassment. This morning the new York Lawmaker used a rare procedural tactic to try to take her Sexual Harassment reform legislation to the form of the senate. Senate the bill which has bipartisan support from 3 2 senators was introduced last year. A letter was sent signed by the women asking it to be taken before the full senate. Mcconnells effort says there is a bipartisan effort under way. Reporters on the hill say theyre told theyre close to releasing a bill but there are sticking points. The big one settlements. Some senators dont like the idea of paying that money out of their own pockets instead of with a taxpayer slush fund. Joining us now, senator kirsten gillibrand. Thank you very much for being here. How are you . Im good. Remind us what exactly is in this legislation. Basically, the process today is so broken, if are harassed in one of these senate or House Offices you might have to wait up to three months to even report the harassment because theres mandatory mediation, theres counseling, theres cooling off. It is just broken. So we need to fix the system and also, today theres a lot of settlements that are being paid by the taxpayer. So we want to make sure that if the member of congress is the one whos harassing someone in his or her office, that they will pay any settlement, it will not be paid by the taxpayer. Im glad you brought that up. According to our reporters on the hill there, theyre saying thats one of the sticking points right now, that there are some senators out there who dont want to be paying that money out of their own pockets or dont want that language, at the very least, to be in the bill. Who are the people that are saying no to that . Well, im not sure. I just know its been 100 days since the house of representatives passed this bill unanimously. So there is no excuse that we cant have a vote on it. All thats waiting is the political will to call up the vote. And i think we can find a bipartisan agreement here. Already on my bill we have 30 cosponsors, widely bipartisan. Our rule 14 amended bill today, ted cruz is supporting it. This is very widely bipartisan. Its got people like patty murray and Elizabeth Warren and jeff merkley. Whats the block here . Is it going to work . Are you going to be able to take it to the floor and go around Mitch Mcconnell and Chuck Schumer . Im hopeful that we have a group of people that are working hard right now to find bipartisan resolution. Im very optimistic that well be able to get that done in the next week or so. But we just have to keep raising our voices. This is something thats important to me and my constituents, it is important to over 30 members of the senate. Weve had every female letter of the senate rigwrite a letter tor leader saying we want a vote. I think when there is the political will, we will have the vote and there is enough Common Ground that we can bring this across the finish line. Can somebody accuse you of getting 2020 politics involved here . That maybe youre using this as a way to get a little louder in an effort to raise your profile for a 2020 run . Is that an accusation that you think is fair . Very unfair. And ridiculous because ive been working on this issue of making workplaces safe for men and women who work in them nor a very long time, whether its in the u. S. Military, whether its on a college campus, whether its in the u. S. Senate or in the house of representatives. This is an area where i feel very passionately because when you discriminate against people in the workplace, in whatever form it takes, you are making it harder for people to earn a living, harder for people to earn their fullest in this economy. When you dont value women it undermines all of us. It undermines the middle class. These are big issues. With the me too movement being as powerful as it is transforming workplaces all across society, why should congress not take this opportunity to make their workplace safer, too . It is certainly interesting that it has been 100 days since the house passed it and the senate is still talking about it. Lets talk about the Mueller Investigation, if you dont mind, just for one minute. Sure. Robert muellers a year in now. What are your thoughts on how this has gone one year in . Well, obviously this is a very important investigation for the american people. We need to get to the bottom of it. People deserve transparency and accountability. They need to know exactly how did russia try to undermine our elections. Whether any americans were involved. Whether there was collusion. Whether there was obstruction of justice. Whether there was money laundering. These are serious, serious allegations that need to be fully investigated, and i believe that Robert Mueller is doing that credible investigation right now and he will provide transparency once he a he completed. It is a complex investigation. Thats why it takes time. How relevant is Robert Muellers investigation going to be for 2018 voters . I think people want transparency and accountability. They want to know our electoral system is safe so they want that level information about if it is safe, how to we prevent what happened in the past from happening again. I also feel that people feel washingtons broken and this culture has only gotten worse. The president promised to drain the swamp. Well, he lined it with the most elite of the elite. So we do not have administration an administration that has cabinet members that are speaking for the people and fighting for the people in the way that was promised. So i think that issue of washington being broken is as relevant today as it ever has been. One last question. Have you talked to Chuck Schumer or Mitch Mcconnell getting that legislation to the four in two weeks . Three weeks . Yes, ive been working with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis. A number of our committees have been working on this. Senator klobuchar has been working night and day to get this moving forward, as has senator schumer. New York Democratic senator kerstin gillibrand. Good luck out there. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming on. Donald trump is now having a bilateral News Conference with jan stoltenberg, the head of nato. Summit in july that will be both interesting and exciting. Ive had the great pleasure of getting to know secretarygeneral stoltenberg over the last year. Weve work very closely together and improved very much with respect to everybody the burden sharing and we have really strengthened that i toe and the Nato Alliance. The strong working pardoner . Ship we forged to produce significant increases in member state contributions. Weve worked very hard on that. And i will tell you the secretarygeneral has been working on that for a long time before i got there. But i think i can say with surety, more progress has been made in the last year and half than in many, many years. We are delighted to report that last year as a result of our joint efforts we witnessed the single largest increase in defense spending among European Union states and canada in a quarter century. Thats quite a spectacular achievement so i congratulate you. I congratulate you very much. We really have worked in many respects, but that was i think a big one. We had countries that were not paying what they were supposed to be paying. Now, most countries are. Not all. And i think you will be able to handle the ones that arent, right . I have confidence. This afternoon, i want to thank the seven nato nations in addition to the United States who will meet there 2 nato defense spending. Unfortunately, we pay much more than the . Which is probably unfair, and unfair to the taxpayers of the United States. But the 2 number thats met, poland, estonia, latvia, lithuania, greece, and the united nations. And they are right up to snuff. They paid. They were on time. They paid the number that they are supposed to be paying. We have some that dont. And well, they will be dealt with. As a result of these contributions, nato is much stronger. Taking in billions and billions of dollars more money than they ever have before. But as the secretary of state general and i have discussed, more work needs to be done. We are still waiting on 20 Member States to meet their nato commitments and spend at least 2 on defense. And 2 is a very low number. The number really should be 4 . 2 is a very low number n. Particular, germany, must demonstrate leadership in the alliance by addressing its long standing shortfall in defense contributions. Germany has not contributed what it should be contributing, and it is a very big beneficiary. Far bigger than the United States, frankly. In addition to, that a you know, they are buying massive amounts of gas from russia and paying billions and billions of dollars. So i think thats something we will be discussing later and we will be discussing that in our meeting and probably long before the meeting. We are going to successfully confront the full range of threats, and we are going to need every member state to honor its obligation. So as weve just said, some do and some dont. Today, the United States reaffirmed our commitment to article five and the mutual defense pack. We renew our call on nations to demonstrate their commitment to the alliance through their actions including by increasing their defense contributions under article three requirement for preparedness and military capacity. You have to be prepared. Never know whats going to happen. I have also called on nato to improve its counterterrorism capabilities since the founding of the alliance, terrorism has claimed more lives in nato countries than any other security threat. Think of that. This was something that years ago wasnt even a subject. And i would talk about it all the time on the campaign, and in all fairness to secretary general stoltenberg, he listened to me, and they have a great counterterrorism operation. We appreciate that. I was there for it to see last may nato adopted an action plan recommending the alliance to the fight and to fight against terrorism, which is now becoming a fight all over the world, no matter where you go. Places that ten and 20 years ago you wouldnt have even thought about it. I also discussed with secretary general stoltenberg our commitment to stopping nuclear proliferation, including the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We want a future of safety, security, peace for all koreans and for the entire world. My administration is also committed to working with our allies to halt Irans Nuclear ambitions and their destabilizing activities all across the middle east. No matter where you go, no matter where there is problem, there is iran right behind it. And we are not going to have that any longer. I have said before, our nations must be strong from within to defend ourselves against threats outside. The strength of Nato Alliance does not depend on military alliance alone but the history that long united our civilization. Now we must renew these ties and rededicate ourselves to our shared heritage. Our heritage. We want a heritage of peace. Strength, but peace. Strength, but peace. I want to thank you, secretary general for joining us at the white house of it is a great honor and for working with us to fortify the Nato Alliance which has proudly stood for seven decades as the bullwork of freedom prosperity and security, together we will make nato and the Nato Alliance stronger. We need fairness. We need to be reciprocal. Countries have to be reciprocal in what we are doing. Unfair that some countries fay and some countries work and some countries are loyal and terrific and other countries arent. We just cant have that. So we are working on that together. A great honor to be with you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you so much, president , for hosting me and my delegation here at the white house. Its great to see you again. And in Uncertain Times we need a strong nato. I would also like to thank you to your strong commitment to our alliance. Last time we met your main message was that nato had to do more in the fight against terrorism, and more on defense spending. All nato leaders agreed, and now we are delivering. We are stepping up our efforts in the fight against terrorism in afghanistan, where we are increasing the number of trainers and the support for the afghan government, and also in iraq, where we also plan to launch a new Training Mission at the summit at the nato summit in july. On defense spending i would say that i agree with you. We have to do more. And i would like to thank you for your leadership. And it has really impact it is impacting allies because all allies are now increasing defense spending. They are adding billions to their budgets. So your leadership on defense spending has really helped to make a difference and thats something i thank you for. After years of decline, all allies have started to increase defense spending. No allies are cutting budgets anymore, and more and more allies are at 2 of gdp for defense. But i also agree that we have to do more, so allies will continue to work on defense spending because we need to invest more in our security when the world is more unpredictable, as it is today. We also support your efforts to try to find a peaceful negotiated solution to the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. The aim should be to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula to make sure there are no Nuclear Weapons there and also to stop not only the development of Nuclear Weapons but also the missile program. Therefore, we support the initiative and the work for having the summit. We think its important also to make sure that we still have pressure on north korea and north korea has to seize this opportunity, this this historic opportunity to solve the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. So once again, thank you so much for your strong commitment to our alliance. And i look forward to continuing our discussion and to address these issues and many others. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. President . Sir, could you clarify the context of your use of the word animal yesterday in yes. Well it has nothing to do with this meeting im referring and you know im referring to the ms13 gangs that are coming in. I was talking about the ms13. Also, if you look further onto the tape you will see that im actually surprised you are asking this question. Most people got it right. But im saying the ms13. You dont have that where you come from. Ms13. These are animals. They are coming into our country. We are getting them out. They come in again. We are getting them out. We need strong immigration laws. We have the weakest laws in the entire recalled would. We have laws that are laughed at on immigration. So when the ms13 comes in, when the other gang members come into our country i refer to them as animals. And guess what. I always will. But we are getting them out by the thousands. But it is a big, dangerous job. And they are able in some cases to come back in, or new groups come in, also from the gangs. Thank you. Mr. President . Yes. Do you want nato the play a bigger role in syria . [ inaudible ] i think we helped syria actually by withdrawing from the iran deal which was a terrible deal for the United States, i think for the world. I think syria hopefully syria will start to stabilize. You see what has been happening. Its been a horror show. I have Great Respect for the people of syria. These are great people. I know people from syria. These are great people. It was a great culture before it was so horribly blown apart, a place where people would go, where they had tremendous professional people, as you know, doctors and lawyers and its friends of mine from the middle east that say we used to go to syria. That was a place to go. And you look at whats happened. Its so sad. But id like to see syria come back. I think we have gone a long way to helping it with what we did with respect to the iran deal. You will see what i mean by that over time. A lot of things will happen. [ inaudible ] Nobel Peace Prize [ inaudible ] for north korea. What do you want you have to achieve in the upcoming summit to have the Nobel Peace Prize. Want to have peace in the world more than anything else. More so than the Nobel Peace Prize, or anything else. I would like the see peace ideally in middle east but in the entire world. I think we have a chance of doing it. North korea is going to be very important. It i