Fox News Alert President Trump is meeting today with Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo at the White House the administration is revealing for the
first time that it has a plan to denuclearize North Korea within one year
here's White House national security adviser John Bolton on the matter there
are possibilities for doing a larger negotiation on helping to get Iranian
forces out of Syria and back into Iran which would be a significant step
forward also yesterday President Trump responded to critics and defended his
historic summit with Kim jong-un has a tremendous future I got along really
well with chairman Kim we had a great chemistry no okay
is it possible have I been in deals have you been in things where people didn't
work out it's possible also Axios is reporting some White House officials are
so optimistic about the progress of those talks that there could be a second
meeting with kim jeong-hoon in new york this September during the UN General
Assembly and that the regime would first have to show progress for that meeting
to happen so we're looking for measurable things these are some of the
things that I guess we didn't get with Iran Lisa well yeah and secretary mattis
said I think it was about two weeks ago that he hasn't seen any steps that North
Korea has taken to dismantle their weapons so that is concerning so I think
a lot of Americans including Congress would like to see some sort of plan that
North Korea actually wants to denuclearize and that they're going to
be honest in that way so I think within that plan has to be a means for anywhere
anytime inspections and transparency because that was one of biggest pieces
of criticism regarding their ran deal is that we didn't have any time anywhere
inspections and people work lack of transparency was a massive issue well
and you know you talk about what the president offered kim jeong-hoon and
that was security basically you can stay alive because when things start to
change and you do business with us it could get dicey we're offering you
security I mean he made some great and valid points about where they are
located in the world that what those beaches could be if they weren't firing
Canon's you know the great real estate developer says wow look at that
beachfront property I could see a condo there the fact of the matter is that
there are a lot of images you know coming back and forth satellite images
trying to see what is going on are they expanding are we getting clear Sonya no
no we're not getting any sort of clear sign and and there are articles about
you know are they expanding their ballistic missile capabilities as
they're saying these things satellite image just trying to see what they
contain you see what they're doing and you know I think the US needs a clear
roadmap of what there is and they need a way to verify that it's slowing down at
the same time this is gonna be a slower process than anyone would like and we've
made no way over the past couple decades so having to wait a little bit longer is
reasonable but we need real evidence yeah it's interesting the way you put it
because 25 years of failed diplomacy versus one year of seeing what's going
on with denuclearization but it has to be measurable well I think the big news
over the weekend was that there are are indications from photographs that Kim
jong-un has continued to try to develop his nuclear weapons and we thought that
in the aftermath of what the president described as a good meeting we would see
some good-faith actions by the Kim regime but that hasn't happened so it's
kind of confusing cuz you just hope that we're getting a straight story but the
evidence doesn't back up that this is that we're on a good path you know
what's interesting to Abby I mean we can we can do a lot of guesswork about what
might be going on we can look at those satellite images but at the end of the
day Kim jong-un has somebody to answer to just like everyone else even though
he's a dictator they have a habit of killing each other over there at the top
I wouldn't the pressure is like on him on the ground and there's a reason why
he ultimately came to that negotiating table and they grant may come from that
pressure the president made it clear very early on he set the expectations he
said everyone's gonna want this solved after the first meeting this is going to
take some time I mean we got to learn from history I mean I was reading this
morning back in the 80s the ending of the Cold War and the meetings that
Reagan had would Gorbachev they met a number of times and the media I was
reading something like the New York Times pieces and they were very critical
at that point about the way that Reagan was handling those meetings with with
Gorbachev and I was trying to think about the bigger
picture and what we can learn about today and maybe just having some
patience obviously we need to be very careful and make sure that they are
following through on their promises but they're likely gonna have another visit
when the UN meets in September and and maybe more progress after that but I
think we should all be hopeful that ultimately something good does come from
this real quickly anybody on the couch does a year seem long or not long
it seems short in terms of what it feels like has happened so far I mean you know
for Kim jong-un to totally change the way he outwardly operates and to have
what so many experts have called this PR flurry where he's trying to go out and
make all kinds of signals that he's coming to the table and and that's been
better than before well in the end we obviously have to see evidence at the
same time and you can call President Trump a lot of things he's not a sucker
so I don't think he's somebody that's gonna get you know hosed for lack of a
better word in this whole situation what you expect to happen in that year of
time how much are you promising will get done will they be fully denuclearized
within a year I don't know what they've absolutely agreed I don't know I don't
know what they don't know I think that takes a lot more time than a year and
I'm sure we'll get more information on this and we also have new information on
the planned summit between President Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin
national security adviser John Bolden is saying that the two leaders will have
the opportunity to discuss Syria and fighting Iran's influence in the region
among other issues when they meet on one-on-one on July 16th take a listen
we'll see what happens when the two of them get together there are
possibilities for doing a larger negotiation on helping to get Iranian
forces out of Syria and back into Iran which would be a significant step
forward okay obviously I'm gonna start with you here my friend so I know your
dad as the ambassador Russia has really been spearheading at this meeting and
sort of setting things up what are the objectives of the Trump administration
yeah so john bolton was over in moscow last week and they've been working my
dad's are working for months behind the scenes on this look you're gonna have
critics that say oh you've got president trump meeting with Vladimir Putin the it
continues right the collusion only continues but this could potentially be
a very very important I've heard from my sources and I
my room last night there there two big objectives that they hope come out of
this one is is de-escalating you have thousands of nukes pointed at each other
we don't need to be living in that world anymore so de-escalating that but most
importantly is Iran and getting Iran out of Syria because that continues to be
the greatest threat on the world stage Iran the number one sponsor actual
directly because they're shooting at our guys on a place where that you know
we've been trying to rat out Isis and we've done a beautiful job of doing that
but now we've got a ram via proxy on the ground against us in Syria and that's
not something that I had really heard talked about until I went to Jerusalem
recently right on and that was like part of the triangle that they wanted to
surround all sides of Israel and that was one side weaken that side of it and
then you can have something against Israel and then you've got Hezbollah the
other and then the Gaza Strip Melissa what do you make of do you think there
will be a willingness on behalf of Russia to cooperate and work with the
Trump administration on this I think there might be in exchange for something
else that they want obviously I mean it's all about getting something that
you want I just don't know that I mean I've heard a lot of people outline the
idea that that meeting with Russia could be about getting Iran out of Syria I
know what motivation Iran would have to go along with that I don't know that
Russia has the power to convince them to do that well I think the big news this
week and in fact was that John Bolton the national security adviser state said
it's not a priority for us to get Bashar al Assad out as the leader of Syria
right that's a signal I think to the Russians who are invested in aside have
been his principle defenders along with Iran okay we're all time but boy what a
horrible thing to say you're okay with this dictator who was
slaughtered and poisoning dictators and then basically owning I think I think
what you're what he's saying is the situation is is a disaster and how can
we make the best out of what we are dealing with here right when I don't
think is helpful is when you have the president tweeting though that Vladimir
Putin continues to say there was no collusion in our elections he tweeted
that right after the summit was announced because that counters and that
undermines what our intelligence there was no illusion when she was that
there was no meddling and we know that's a bipartisan agreement that there was
meddling so keep your message consistent in the administration with the State
Department the CIA the president makes sure you're on the same page because you
want to go into the summit with the Russians as strong as your posture but I
want to ask one about your comment regarding de-escalation because a lot of
Democrats want us to believe that President Trump is weak on Putin but
when you look at energy independence you look like beefing up missile defense
when you look at these aggressive sanctions of the Trump administration is
placed on Russia but that doesn't that those don't align so what's your take on
that how Democrats continue to say that he's weak on Russia is somehow Russia's
Putin when the actions simply don't demonstrate that oh well I think if you
go back to the g7 meeting I think he proposed that you include Russia
suddenly make them a player what do you think shines and the beefing up missile
defense and energy independence I think there's been some steps this is a strike
by Russia I thought when you threw out some of the Russian agents who are I
guess right so they've been some but over overall
the question that that lingers in the mind is why does he make excuses for
Putin who is so you know I would say because this goes back to that same
thing and I'm not saying who's right is that the left is focused on words and
the right is focused on outcome and so the left I think gets hung up in his
language and what he says and signal that sends and why it's important to see
this and stand up and say that and that on the right everybody wants to see
what's the end result and and the rhetoric changes too because we saw that
with Kim jong-un where he's rocket men and then they were friendly when it
served his purpose but anyway so we've got to move on
so the rallying cry to abolish ice tiers to be splitting Democrats I'm sure we'll
have more on that just ahead of the midterms ahead why president Trump hopes
the Democrats never stopped calling to do away with the agency and where all
this is going to go stay tuned we should protect families that need our help and
that is not what ice is doing today and that's why I believe you should get
rid of it
there appears to be a growing divide among Democrats over the rallying cry to
abolish ice several prominent Democrat lawmakers find themselves at odds with
their liberal colleagues over whether to get rid of the Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Agency here's Democrat Senator Richard
Blumenthal abolishing ice will accomplish nothing unless we change the
Trump policies and the Trump administration is embarked on a
trainwreck of moral trainwreck a legal trainwreck and a humanitarian trainwreck
because the plan now is to put the families together in tent cities behind
fences and other barbed wire Democratic senators Kirsten Gillibrand Elizabeth
Warren and Kamala Harris have all publicly jumped on abolish ice bandwagon
President Trump is defending the agency and saying the anti ice movement will
cost the Democrats in the midterms you get rid of ice you're gonna have a
country that you're gonna be afraid to walk out of your house I love that issue
of they're gonna actually do that they're seriously talking about that cuz
they you are gonna have a country that's crime ridden why do you think that's a
winning issue abolish ice is it a good idea for the Democrats yes well that's
the question are you creating an opening for people who would say that you are
working against law enforcement trying to rein in drugs out of law immigration
drugs gangs and the like the contrary thing and I think you saw it from the
range of politicians Democrats up there and there are more Democrats who believe
in reform is the fear that ice is no establish 15 years ago Melissa right
after 9/11 instead of becoming something that keeps terrorists and bad guys and
drug dealers out has become like an enforcement force if you will that goes
in and raids homes raids jobs makes people uncomfortable in their own land
and so there's a large backlash against ice but if the politics of it is with
the president we're hearing though from a number of Democrats we're hearing
abolished ice using to dick durbin who called all of ice in
but it yeah I mean I I'm thinking about the morale of these men and women some
of the very best that this country has to offer that puts they put themselves
on the front line to protect us they deal with immigration they deal with
human trafficking they deal with counterterrorism is that a winning
message because you look at polls on this I've looked at a recent one you got
almost 70% of the country who say we should not apologize right but you don't
hear you were wrong and saying that it's the majority of Democrat Harris came out
with a poll the majority of Democrats don't want to abolish is erect and the
reality is Democrats just don't want to
there are a number of Democrats that are calling for a bus yeah that we showed
them on the screen but I say most are talking and I think they're reluctant to
Abby because they see this as creating a political opening weird it could be the
fans could be flamed by President Trump and make it into ice was doing much of
the same job under former President Obama more people than we see as you
heard from Durbin a question then becomes president Trump's policy how is
he using ice as a user to raise oh he's trying to prosecute people that come
over here illegally and Democrats don't want that to happen because if you were
against President Trump separating parents in the effort to prosecute them
for crossing the border but then you were also against President Trump trying
to keep families together in prosecuting people that come over illegally the
crossing the border then the only other option is catch and release and even DHS
secretary under Obama jeh Johnson you can't separate the parents in trying to
propagate them for breaking the border this is about them together that's how
in the abolished ice and I think the point that one was making is that
there's a small group of Democrats who want to abolish ice and by them going
out and talk about it it makes it seem like all Democrats want to abolish ice
right I think it's true though that most people want to reform ice so because but
here's my key point the president has made
integration and I think he wants this for the midterms for political use into
an issue of crimes and criminals that so many crimes are committed by people who
are so what you have now is ice acting as if all this immigration issue is
about controlling very minimal people who come over here what's your that's
not the issue the issue is about people who are seeking asylum because of
terrible do you watch your again under your you're literally underscoring my
point or don't want to prosecute people it's not come over here and break the
wall that's not so much even Democrats don't want to abolish I see when you hug
okay future already like Gillibrand out there touting it that's not good for the
party no no I think there's so much more issue and I think by the way Americans
don't like separating children from parents which is no don't blame vice
blame the lawmakers well okay but I think we solved that so we'll just move
on new troubles for Democrats ahead of the midterms the New York Times
editorial board blasting the party's house leadership specifically Nancy
Pelosi after a top Democrat congressman stunning defeat in his primary last week
so what's the impact we'll debate
No comments:
Post a Comment