and there is a truthful narrative out there. unfortunately, i think that s born by misbegotten policies in years past. we had the opportunity in 2009 to stand with the iranian people as thousands came into the streets after the - - rigged election. the obama administration elected not to stand on the side of the iranianpeople . again, i think with the iran nuclear deal, providing$150 $15 billion was a legitimization of the regime and it was a message that we were not with the people. we are seeing a shift in policy and i think we are trying to message to them directly. whether through media or mike pompeo s speech. if you look at the people in attendance at the reagan library, many of them were iranian americans in california and beyond. i think it was important that
being made for socialism in america. i read a piece today, all of these people writing about the legitimization of socialism. she is saying that capitalism is just sort of a passing phase, it s not really what america is granted and, as soon as we get over this silly obsession with capitalism, everybody will have free education, free college, free medical care, $15 an hour. we are also talking about guaranteed income, charlie, in chicago. that s a very different america. the thing i like about her, she s willing to talk about anything, including things she has no idea what she is talking about. the idea that somehow this country was not founded on the idea of free market is lunacy. of course this country was founded on free markets. the most cursory review of history would show that. she whether it s talking
that s going to give legitimization to kim jong-un and that in it itself would are edeuce his incentive. as a condition of that meeting that we receive written commitments in north korea. dismantle infrastructure. if we had all of that and then had the meeting, i think we d be in a much better place right now and we krd done that. and the squaundered a huge advantage. are there other examples of presidents that took on meetings like this without had it preparation by their staffs ahead of time to take essentially a bold move, to strike a peace deal before everything was put in place? of course in times of war things he happen.
about him that he is able to disarm people. i think he would refer to as it seems to work when he is there in person with these people. then they leave and things fall apart. is president trump almost giving them too much clout by sitting down and meeting with them? after all, he is the president of the united states. right. one of the things that kimberly wanted from the singapore summit last month was legitimization. that is what president trump didjust by shaking hands with him. now he is got that , he does not really have that same incentive to come to terms with the united states and give up his weapons. i think there probably should be more work before hand to get cam to make confirmed statements. what about the trade beef between the u.s. and china? is this going to influence china s role in corralling kim
because there s not a problem with our allies specifically, but people who have to face this threat most directly, japan, south korea, australia, our key allies are supported. you do have a left-wing government south korea which in the past has been very prone to appeasement and believing north korea when they shouldn t be believed but so far, the president has managed to keep them on side. harris: real quickly, if kim jong un and he says he s accepted the invitation, comes to the white house, what is that due to the negotiation process in terms of legitimization? i think it moves it along. that s the key part that differentiates it from the failed adventures of previous administrations, this engagement at that senior level so that keeps it going and make sure there still remains a meeting of the minds between the leaders which is crucial. harris: always great to have you on the program, thank you very much. the doj inspector general taking james comey to task for his handling of