have gotten them. ari, on the part of the president vietnam, the white house weighed in on that location to the secretary s point. it is a model for a former fierce enemy that becomes an economic friend and customer and client of the united states. making it one of the most vibrant economies in asia and this, too, could be north korea, what do you think of that? well, it is fascinating. here is the problem with it. we speak different languages than the koreans. i don t mean english and korean. we believe in economic development. we believe in the advancement of people. i m not sure north korea does. they have no history of it. so long as kim jong-un and the power brokers around him, his military especially, so long as they are in power, i don t think they really care about their people. at least that s been the decades-long history of north korea. their people will be in prison camp. does the government care?
using valid past history of north korea to reach a conclusion. that they won t change their ways. the president of the united states has sat across the table from kim, and has actually negotiated eyeball to eyeball with him. had discussions about where this needs to go. at the end of the day, this is all going to be up to kim to make a decision as to whether or not he s going to take more precise steps to denuclearize the korean peninsula. i think the president and the intelligence community have a different view of that. harris: clearly they do. before we talk about that i want to hear from someone in your own political ilk. not in the senate but in the house. representative adam kinzinger, and then get a reaction. let s watch, sir. if you disagree with intelligence, that s fine print he s the president, he has a right to do that. but i don t think you should put that out on twitter. he s corrected principal about iran. there is still a threat. he has made some very devastating
this historic deal, and you put that in quotes, he would not only have to give up the weapons that would ensure his own survival, he would also have to give up the ideological raison d etre for his regime. this is substantially more complicated than donald trump flying over, the two having a meeting and it resulting in the denuclearization of north korea. absolutely. north korea needs nuclear weapons for deterrence, but it s beyond deterrence. in the history of north korea s existence, their whole being, the whole state is being against the united states, which is the number one hostile enemy of north korea. that is the reason for north korea s reason for everything. the reason for north korea people suffering. so for north korea to give up nuclear weapons beyond deterrence beyond the united
this is not a dog that likes to learn new tricks. he relies on the same statement over and over again. would he have told you president will depend on instinct feel and touch. what i m worried about with president trump is this whole tng i m god s gift. i will go n a moment and i will know within 30 seconds whether there will be a deal or not or whether i know the history of north korea doesn t matter it doesn t matter. he says i have been preparing all my life when was that, when you appear new playboy soft come poe or bothered slapped. when you were leaking information, disguising yourself as your own pr guide talking in the tabloids what a great lover you were. now so obvious and transparent from everybody she said not something you
whether there will be a deal or not, and whether i know the history of north korea doesn t matter. it does matter. what traps could he fall into with the north koreans if the president and kim jong-un are just meeting one-on-one with just interpreters? first, i m glad this is now 45 minutes versus two hours. but that he could give away too much right away. he s already talk about concluding a peace treaty which would be historic and sounds great in theory and end the korean war. but it does undermine rationale for u.s. troop presence in south korea and on. that should come at the end of the process, not at the beginning. i m very concerned president trump would put all of this on the table too fast when again as ambassador hill said, north korea has no shown they are truly willing to denuclearize as we define them. how do they define denuclearization? they define it as denuclearization of the korean peninsula if the region and security is guaranteed, if the u.s. hostile policy