good prosecutors in the navy, and that is surely they ve taken a proffer, they ve got a statement that they made and they didn t put him on the stand without and didn t not he question him about it, but didn t dig into the facts of the case without knowing something about what he s going to say. somewhere there s a statement about gallagher being responsible for the killing. we ll see. that s why you have different versions, different witnesses, on a journey to seek the truth. they ve got witnesses saying they saw gallagher stabbing him in the death. it s up to the jury, whether or not they can deal with the conflict in the testimony, the conflict between the two witnesses and they ll decide which one is credible. arthel: if this medic ends up convicted for war crimes, what s the potential punishment? whoever did it, someone s convicted, if it s gallagher he faces up to the rest of his life in prison. but again, as you said, arthel, in the introduction to this segment, this is a dr
looked like they re back at the table. we ll have to see if that s the case. but that s what president trump is telling us right now, they re coming back to the table to continue with the larger set of trade talks. arthel: let me get, dr. grant, your overview of the current status of the trade war with china and the trump administration s ability to effectively put a cap on china s co-opting of america s technology, innovations, not to mention their manipulation of currency. you re right, arthel. it really was the co-opting innovations, all this started for national security reasons because of china s cyber theft of u.s. intellectual property. and i think overall this trade war has made washington realize that the role of china has to change. china has to agree to play by some of the rules in order to be part of this global system. as to the specifics of it, i think it s having a good effect. i think we re seeing china willing to try to negotiate more. there s a lot they have to
murder and now that you have another guy standing up, sitting on the witness chair, saying that he did it, i don t know how that does not create doubt in the jurors mints. arthel: michael, how possible is it to end up with this legal shocker in the first place? well, it s not unusual to have witnesses change their story. that s what good lawyers deal with in courtrooms across the country every day. if you think about it, this is nothing really much different than having a drug case where or gang case, maybe an organized crime case where somebody takes the charge for the boss or takes the hit for the gang leader. these things happen all the time. and you ve got essentially sort of a secret society in the military group there, where they don t talk against each other. so i think probably you could expect a that there may have been some wishy washiness with the testimony. my belief is, i have to believe this because i think you ve got
the perjury charge, i think he s like throw have his day in court. arthel: chris, what is the next move for the navy seal s legal team to make sure the charges stick for the medic and to exonerate the navy seal? well, i think the next step for the navy seal is clearly what they re going to toys talk about how this creates doubt in the mind of the jurors that it wasn t gallagher that committed any murder, it was scott. or in any case, it certainly wasn t gallagher. that s going to be his argument. i think it s going to be hard even on the perjury count. according to mr. scott, he said that he s never told anybody in the government that he didn t that he didn t kill the prisoner. so if that s the case, they re going to have a very hard time proving perjury and as far as the overall case, this has been a very difficult case for the navy from the beginning to try to demonstrate that there was
in hanoi. no real progress. you can say that reflect differences in the countries interests, bargaining positions, that meeting won t change any of that but i will say, eric, some folks who thought those kim empty handed on the long train ride back to hanoi lost faith, if that s the case, perhaps the president reaching out to him, inviting him to meet and actually this is the thing to watch for going forward, if this thing happens to see if president trump does what president moon did in dramatic moment when he stepped across dmz into north korean territory, will mr. trump do that, well, you know, maybe that doesn t change the fundamentals but that may give kim or excuse to start up again so might help jump-start negotiations, i assume that s what this is about. it s a bit of theater intended to get things moving again.