Auto news on Youtube Jun 16 2018

President Donald Trump says North Korea has started returning the remains of U.S. soldiers

from the Korean War.

In an interview with Fox News on Friday morning, Trump said: "They are already starting to

produce the remains of these great young soldiers who were left in North Korea.

We're getting the remains, and nobody thought that was possible."

The decision to repatriate the remains of U.S. soldiers was announced at the summit

in Singapore.

According to Defense Department officials, about 7,700 U.S. military personnel are still

unaccounted for from the Korean War.

For more infomation >> Trump: US soldiers' remains already coming home - Duration: 0:33.

-------------------------------------------

U.S., China agree to maintain sanctions on North Korea until regime completely denuclearizes - Duration: 1:45.

Sanctions on North Korea will stay in place... until the regime's nuclear program is completely

dismantled.

That's according to America's top diplomat, who highlighted there are "still risks" that

could derail relevant efforts.

Park Hee-jun has the highlights from Mike Pompeo's meeting with his Chinese counterpart.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi have reaffirmed that

economic sanctions on North Korea will remain in place until the regime's complete denuclearization.

At a joint press conference following their bilateral meeting on Thursday,... Pompeo and

Wang sounded optimistic about the recent developments on the Korean Peninsula,... but they agreed

the scaling down of sanctions can only be on the table when North Korea has completely,

verifiably and irreversibly abandoned its nuclear weapons program.

"China has reaffirmed its commitment to honoring the UN Security Council resolutions....

But we have made very clear, that the sanctions and the economic relief that North Korea will

receive will only happen after the full denuclearization, the complete denuclearization of North Korea."

Pompeo also thanked China for its role in making the Kim-Trump summit happen,... but

said more needs to be done by both countries to achieve the "ultimate outcome."

Wang, who said the summit held in Singapore held "great historic significance," also said

it was a path to a "new start."

Before heading back to Washington, Pompeo held a separate meeting with Chinese President

Xi Jinping.

The Chinese leader told Pompeo that he hopes the two countries can continue their efforts

for a political resolution to the North Korea issue,... and added that Beijing will keep

playing an active and constructive role to promote the process.

Park Hee-jun, Arirang News.

For more infomation >> U.S., China agree to maintain sanctions on North Korea until regime completely denuclearizes - Duration: 1:45.

-------------------------------------------

US collects more than $110M in tariffs - Duration: 1:19.

For more infomation >> US collects more than $110M in tariffs - Duration: 1:19.

-------------------------------------------

US stocks fall amid trade worries with China - Duration: 2:33.

For more infomation >> US stocks fall amid trade worries with China - Duration: 2:33.

-------------------------------------------

What U.S. Food Assistance Means to Global Refugees - Duration: 2:16.

The world has more refugees today than any time since World War II.

More than 22 million have fled violence or persecution in Syria, Burma, South Sudan and other countries.

More than half are women and children.

Global stability is at risk.

Most refugees cannot work, or grow food, or open a bank account.

Lives are in limbo.

Refugees need emergency food assistance to survive.

USAID is the world's largest provider of emergency food assistance.

Food brings comfort and health. It unites families and communities.

Refugees also need a chance to provide for their families.

Work-for-food programs, cash-for-food and food vouchers build the foundations for recovery and self-reliance.

USAID is proud to support global refugees and the communities that host them.

For more infomation >> What U.S. Food Assistance Means to Global Refugees - Duration: 2:16.

-------------------------------------------

The US Federal Court System: Why do the courts even matter? - Duration: 7:07.

We've got courts full of judges, and judges full of judicial philosophies.

But we're talking about a bunch of old lawyers wearing funny costumes that I didn't even get to vote for – are we sure that they're all that relevant to my life?

Well that's a hard yes.

The courts might be the most underrated branch of government when it comes to how much influence they have on your everyday life.

While Congress is coming up with laws with a lot of fancy language you and I might never read,

the courts help us figure out how federal law actually works IRL, using – well, still fancy language.

Now this is where we get to dive in to the most exciting part – the federal court system in action.

It's time to talk about what kinds of stuff the courts get to decide, and why it all matters to you.

Think about it this way: because lawmaking power is divided up between states and the federal government,

it's not often that a single law changes everyone's lives at once.

When you vote, you can be voting about issues like what kind of taxes you pay, or how much money we invest in schools.

But often, we vote to express our values, about what kind of country or city or state we want to live in.

We vote to say, collectively, "what kinds of priorities do we want our society to focus on?"

While our elected officials build our world through laws, that often happens state by state, and city by city.

But when you vote, you might be thinking a lot bigger than that.

Those big deal questions are answered not just in how the laws get written, but also how the laws are interpreted.

And that's what the courts exist to do.

Take Brown v. Board of Education.

That's the Supreme Court case about school segregation that you might have heard of before.

It decided that racial segregation of schools, based on the idea that black schools and white schools were "separate but equal," wasn't actually equal at all.

The court ruled that, to make sure that all students got access to the same education, they needed to have access to the same schools.

The Brown case looked at existing law – in this case the part of the 14th Amendment that says that all US citizens have the right to equal protection of the law –

and found that the government has to apply it's laws to everyone equally, no matter who they are.

The court's job in Brown was to compare the different ways the 14th amendment was being interpreted by the Board of Education of Topeka,

13 elementary school parents in Kansas, and all sorts of other groups like the NAACP and the Department of Justice who wrote to the court.

And using all that information, the court had to figure out what "equal" actually looked like.

They took that value of equality that we all have in our heads and figured out how it walks and talks and where it can go to school.

And not just for one school district – for the entire country at once.

That's probably the coolest thing about the federal court system;

at its highest level, the court can make a landmark decision that puts our country's values in action,

and changes what everyday life looks like for all of us at the same time.

The court did the same thing pretty recently – in a case called Obergefell v Hodges.

They interpreted the 14th Amendment to say that "equal" meant that the legal rights of marriage needed to include same-sex couples too.

But the court's interpretation doesn't always move in the same direction.

Sure, in Brown and Obergefell, their interpretation of the 14th amendment got broader and broader.

But in Shelby County v. Holder, it got narrower.

In 2013, Shelby County, Alabama sued then Attorney General Eric Holder over part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 –

the part that said that any new change in voting laws in certain states had to be approved by the Department of Justice,

because those states, including Alabama, had a history of voter discrimination,

and the Department of Justice wanted to make sure they weren't trying to make voting harder for people based on their race.

Shelby County argued that between 1965 and 2013, the world had changed enough

that we didn't need to worry about whether some states would try to make voting unequal anymore.

And that it wasn't fair to review the laws of some states and not others and get in the way of how states chose to run their elections.

The majority of the Supreme Court justices agreed with Shelby County, and struck down that part of the Voting Rights Act.

The 14th Amendment got narrower, in that case.

As it turns out, a whole bunch of voting rights restrictions in Alabama and other states followed not long after.

So the courts are important because big things in your life that might matter to you –

where you can go to school, who you can marry, whether or not you get to vote –

are all things that courts have the power to change.

But I think it's also important to point out that the changes the court makes aren't always worthy of a push notification.

They also work in smaller ways that can affect your everyday life.

Like, we've all taken sides in the great tomato debate by now, right?

All those times I mentioned that the Supreme Court has the power to decide whether tomatoes are a fruit or vegetable?

That was a real case in 1893.

In Nix v. Hedden the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether tomatoes counted as fruits,

because fruit and vegetable imports were taxed at different rates.

The court decided tomatoes were vegetables and they had to be taxed as such, a decision which may still be affecting your grocery bill today.

And it's not just the Supreme Court that can have an impact on you either.

Plenty of cases end in the district courts or the Court of Appeals, so the lower courts get the last word on interpreting the law.

Like Glik v Cunniffe.

You might not have heard of this case, but you have probably have heard about what it decided.

In 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided that it's your right to record public officials when they're out in public.

It's the reason you're allowed to take video of police on your phone.

And while the case never went to the Supreme Court, it's been cited across the country by other appellate courts who agreed with the first circuit.

Because court decisions help our government figure out what to actually do with the law,

they can be the first to open the floodgates of justice or the last line of defense in laws that we think are unjust.

Like when President Trump issued an executive order restricting citizens of 6 majority-Muslim countries in 2017 from traveling to the US,

several states sued to stop the order from going into effect.

It was the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who issued a temporary restraining order on the ban so that people from those 6 countries could keep entering the US.

They said that the ban violated the part of the first amendment that says that the government can't prevent people from practicing a specific religion.

The Supreme Court eventually decided to take up the case so we don't know how the executive order will shake out quite yet.

But if you were one of those people with a sign at an airport, the Court of Appeals came through for you.

If you've ever thought to yourself,

"Hey, I think this law is wrong or unfair and I don't know how to what to do about it,"

the federal court system is one way to change it.

And it turns out, you can change what the court system looks like, too.

We'll talk about how the heck you can make a difference in who and what goes into the courts next time.

For more infomation >> The US Federal Court System: Why do the courts even matter? - Duration: 7:07.

-------------------------------------------

Under Obama US Competitiveness Dropped to #7, Under Trump We're Back at #1 - Duration: 3:17.

For more infomation >> Under Obama US Competitiveness Dropped to #7, Under Trump We're Back at #1 - Duration: 3:17.

-------------------------------------------

2 Americans Walk Across US to Raise Opioid Crisis Awareness - Duration: 0:52.

For more infomation >> 2 Americans Walk Across US to Raise Opioid Crisis Awareness - Duration: 0:52.

-------------------------------------------

Americans in the UN: Standing Up for Human Rights, from the U.S. to Ukraine - Duration: 5:33.

My favorite part of my job is two different parts. One, is just that we make

a difference in people's lives, an incredible difference in people's lives.

We have not only provided humanitarian assistance, but more importantly, we've

returned people their lives afterwards. In terms of their ability to get jobs

and live a better life. The second part that I really like is that it's such

an inspirational organization, and mentoring young people, and supporting

young people through the organization, and bringing them up 29 years in the

organization, and supporting these people, over so many years. It's really

incredible how many of them I'm still in touch with. It's really inspirational.

Yeah, well you think about in Guatemala, back in the early 1980s,

there was a scorched earth... a scorched earth campaign. And during that

time the military carried out a genocide against the indigenous populations.

Probably between 300 and 500 thousand indigenous people in a country of ten

million were killed. United Nations in the early 2000s, when I was leading the United

Nations Development Program, we had a project called exhumations. And in that

we went to the towns where the massacres had occurred and we basically found

out the mass graves. We determined the cause of death, which in this case was

death by heavy caliber machine gun fire and burning, mostly women and children.

In the process of doing this, we actually did DNA surveys. Guatemalan forensic

scientists led the way. We were able to return the remains to people. Families

that were never told what had happened to their loved ones, who had never had

any closure. They had their remains returned to them. And then we were able

to initiate criminal proceedings on the basis of forensic evidence of wrongful

death. And those programs, the initiation of those programs, a decade

later, led to the conviction of General Rios Montt, who had led the work

of this genocide the scorched earth campaign. So, you see that this is a piece

of work that carries out over literally one decade, or more, but it begins with

righting an injustice. It begins with closing the books for

families and people that have suffered through this genocide. It carries on

through actual investigation, justice, hearings, trials, and convictions. So, this

is just a really powerful example, in my mind, of work that we have led in close

collaboration with brave Guatemalans. Many of whom faced death threats during

the period of these investigations. But this in my mind makes a powerful impact on you

After six years with the Organization of American States, I felt

like I could still do more and I entered through the United Nations Development

Program's competitive entry management program. And since then I've worked in

all five geographic regions of the world, and in the past three missions, I've led

United Nations in conflict countries, and crisis countries; Kyrgyzstan, Bangladesh,

and now Ukraine. And frankly speaking, it's just, it's the last bastion of

idealism in the world. And you know, you work for this organization and you have

to have you have to have pride for what it stands for and what it can do for people.

The United States invented the United Nations. I mean they were the

proud sponsor of the United Nations. It was, you know, Eleanor Roosevelt that

wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which at the time was considered

almost a joke. It was just a giveaway. 'Fine, let her have it.' It's now

international law. And we were able to track down a general and convict him for

violations of human rights. It stands for what is America, you know. It stands for

accountable governance. It stands for peace. It stands for equality, for ending

poverty, for human rights. There is no better statement of what America is

about than the United Nations. And the difference is that when you go through

the United Nations, you strengthen the buy-in of the world

for what it is you're trying to do. America, alone, can talk about these

things, but then everybody's 'yeah well it's America, It's different here'. In the

United Nations, all member states belong, all Member States subscribe to these

fundamental principles. Many governments don't like it, but they're in there.

So, for the United States, it's a way of multiplying the force of what America

stands for. And in terms of results, it's great, and in terms of costs, even if the

United States complains, the fact of the matter is we only pay a small portion of

the budget. So, at the end of the day, America can achieve so much more working

through the United Nations, in a sustainable way, in a powerful way, than

American can never achieve by itself.

For more infomation >> Americans in the UN: Standing Up for Human Rights, from the U.S. to Ukraine - Duration: 5:33.

-------------------------------------------

PRICELESS! US Competitiveness Dropped to #7 Under Obama, Look Where We're At Now With Trump! - Duration: 5:57.

For more infomation >> PRICELESS! US Competitiveness Dropped to #7 Under Obama, Look Where We're At Now With Trump! - Duration: 5:57.

-------------------------------------------

US v. Miller - Duration: 5:26.

Mr. Beat presents

Supreme Court Briefs

Siloam Springs, Arkansas April 18, 1938

Both Oklahoma and Arkansas state troopers pull over Frank Layton and Jack Miller,

two known gang members (The O'Malley Gang) known for going around and robbing places.

They find an unregistered, sawed-off shotgun in the car and arrest them for breaking the National Firearms Act, or NFA

a federal law passed in 1934 that put an excise tax on making, selling, and transporting certain firearms and required people had to register those firearms if they had them.

Also, the NFA said such gun owners had to report transporting the guns across state lines to the federal government when moving.

The gun Layton and Miller had was untaxed and unregistered.

Layton and Miller argued that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional because it not only went against the 2nd Amendment, but also the 10th Amendment.

The District Court judge, a dude named Heartsill Ragon (what a heartbreaker he was), acted like he agreed and dismissed the case, saying the NFA violated the Second Amendment.

Here's the thing, though. Apparently judge Ragon was cool with the NFA

and just ruled that way because he knew Miller had just ratted out a bunch of his gangster friends and would have to go into hiding after he was released.

Also, Miller wouldn't pay a lawyer to appeal to the Supreme Court anyway.

So yeah, the United States of America appealed the case by skipping the appellate courts and going directly to the Supreme Court

who heard arguments on March 30, 1939, and just as Ragon had predicted, the defense didn't even show up.

Yep, absolutely no arguments were made and no evidence was presented on behalf of either Jack Miller or the Second Amendment.

The Court heard lots from the attorneys for the United States, though. Their main arguments were:

#1 - The NFA was mainly a way to collect revenue, so the Treasury Department gave the feds the authority to enforce it

#2 - Eh, look, the defendants transported the sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, so this was totally interstate commerce

And #3 - Sooo, the Second Amendment only protects having military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia, and the weapon found in Layton and Miller's car, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches, ain't ever been used in any militia.

On May 15, 1939, the Court reached its decision.

It sided with the United States, reversing the lower court, and saying the National Firearms Act indeed was constitutional.

It was 8-0. Justice William Douglas did not participate in this case.

So the Court held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to have a sawed-off double barrel shotgun because that specific weapon was not a reasonable weapon for either a well-regulated militia or self defense.

US v. Miller was the only Supreme Court case that directly dealt with the Second Amendment in the 20th century.

In fact, it wouldn't be until 2008 when the Supreme Court tackled the Second Amendment again

in a case called DC v Heller. I have a video for that one. Check it out after this one and stuff.

Interestingly, both gun control advocates and gun rights advocates interpret US v. Miller as a decision that helps their side.

Gun control folks say the decision is proof that the federal government is justified regulating certain types of firearms.

Gun rights folks say the decision was good because it explicitly and specifically stated people have the right to own a firearm for self-defense and to form militias.

However, today US v. Miller doesn't seem to solve the gun control debate- it just seems to complicate it.

So whatever happened to Frank Layton and Jack Miller?

Well, Layton ending up pleading guilty and Ragon placed him on probation for four years. And Miller?

Miller died before the Supreme Court even made their decision.

His body was found in April 1939, with multiple .38 caliber bullet wounds.

His own gun, a .45 caliber pistol, lay by his side. Hey, that gun was legal!

I'll see you for the next Supreme Court case, jury!

Alright, I'm here in Chicago at the site of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre,

Here's my friend Sami, from US101

He lives here. You should go check out his channel.

The reason why we're here for this video is because this is where it all got started for US v. Miller

If it weren't for the St. Valentine's Day massacre,

We would not have this case, because the National Firearms Act was passed in response to the St. Valentine's Day Massacre partially, so

Check out Sami's channel, and check out my DC v Heller video that's related to the Second Amendment

Guns! Guns.

Anything else you want to add?

Sami: Men died here.

Horrific deaths. All in their heads. Chests.

Legs, groins, buttocks.

Can we wrap this up? It's cold.

Mr. Beat - Yeah, check out his video also with Keith Hughes about the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.

For more infomation >> US v. Miller - Duration: 5:26.

-------------------------------------------

New Coast Guard leader talks securing US borders - Duration: 5:28.

For more infomation >> New Coast Guard leader talks securing US borders - Duration: 5:28.

-------------------------------------------

US and China inch closer to a trade war - Duration: 1:53.

I think we've seen the opening shots

in a trade war between the world's two largest economies

today.

We've had Donald Trump announce tariffs on $50 billion

in imports from China, and very quickly

within a matter of hours, we've had

the Chinese announce the same.

We've got everything from bulldozers

from China and jet engines and semiconductors

to soybeans from the United States in the firing line.

You know, we've been gearing up for a trade

war in the last few months, and there's

been some debate as to when that war was going to start.

Well, today's the day.

We are in a trade war.

The big fear right now is that we're

going to move into a period of tit for tat tariffs,

that things are going to escalate.

Already, the Trump administration--

Donald Trump in his statement today

said, if the Chinese retaliate, we'll come back with more.

And we know that over at the US Trade Representative's office,

they've been working on $100 billion list of tariffs.

The Chinese have said they would come back

with their own same scale retaliation.

And that's the risk in a war, is that once you go down

that path, it's a path that leads to escalation.

We see a kind of rhetorical trap that people fall into of it's

not my fault, it's his.

There's so many different analogies

that you can throw at this, but the war really is the best one.

Once something starts, it's a lot harder

to stop than it is beforehand.

We see no signs that the Chinese and the Americans

are going to sit down and talk this out at any point soon.

At one point today, Donald Trump said

hopefully his very good relationship with Xi Jinping

would help rescue this.

But I'm not sure that that's the case.

I'm not sure that that relationship

is going to look so good by early next week.

For more infomation >> US and China inch closer to a trade war - Duration: 1:53.

-------------------------------------------

The great exodus from high-tax states a myth? - Duration: 3:20.

For more infomation >> The great exodus from high-tax states a myth? - Duration: 3:20.

-------------------------------------------

Pakistan Taliban Leader Killed In U.S. Drone Strike - Duration: 0:55.

For more infomation >> Pakistan Taliban Leader Killed In U.S. Drone Strike - Duration: 0:55.

-------------------------------------------

Wilbur Ross on trade: US is closing the gap with China - Duration: 7:22.

For more infomation >> Wilbur Ross on trade: US is closing the gap with China - Duration: 7:22.

-------------------------------------------

Outnews: Trump: US prepared to start a new history with North Korea - Duration: 12:23.

that's Korea best not make any more threats to the United States they will

be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen the United States has

great strength and patience but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies we

will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea

Rocketman is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime that is just

a taste of some of the tough talk that president Rove had for North Korea's

dictator in the past year but despite the heat the president took from his

detractors he tells Sean Hannity that such language

got Kim jong-un to the negotiating table well I think without the rhetoric we

wouldn't have been here I really believe that you know we did sanctions and all

of the things that you would do but I think without the rhetoric you know

other administration's I don't want to get specific on that but they had a

policy of silence if they said something very bad and very threatening and

horrible just don't answer that's not the answer that's not what you have to

do so I think the rhetoric I hated to do it sometimes I felt foolish doing it but

we had no choice you can see more of the president's interview tonight on Hannity

but I would take it out to the couch so I was really surprised when I heard that

interview I feel like that was the first time I heard the president say he

sometimes felt foolish saying that and to me that was the first time he kind of

admitted that maybe it is a tactic and then I act which a lot of us have

suspected but others have said no he's crazy he's all bluster but it's truly a

tactic it's deliberate it's deliberately effective so we operate on a principle

called dominus country diplomacy information military economics you could

look back at one week in the week of August of 2017 the UN Security Council

passes a resolution unanimously china-russia vote for it effectively cut

off over one-third of North Korean exports that same week you have

fire and fury rhetoric it's on Twitter you saw it in person kim jeong-hoon is

known to be homicidal not suicidal he sees that the military option is real

they were seeing it with ambassador Haley's work of the United Nations and

in her dialogue with the Russian ambassador with the Chinese ambassador

we were ramping up economic pressure we were ramping up multilateral diplomacy

the principle of dive just that's one week time and over the course of 2017

you get to the point where you enter in the 2018 Kim Jong un is looking at a

different path for his country and one that not just benefits his country and

the Korean Peninsula in that region the benefits United States the entire world

if we could bring it home Morgan you know for for foreign policy nerds like

me this is like kind of our Super Bowl I've been excited the past 24 hours for

this this is it for me and when you when you look back at what

the president did at the United Nations and that speech he gave but she got a

lot of criticism for it but it took a lot of courage to stand up in front of

the entire world and give the speech that he gave it was a very hard line but

I don't think that it's just rhetoric I think that you really started to see the

machines of the military and and other things that you would start to see

spinning up if we were going to take action that was starting to take place I

think China saw it I think North Korea saw it the South Korean saw it and I

think one of the reasons that all of this took place this took place because

moon the president of South Korea flew to the United States to meet with the

president I think that more than the North Koreans I think he was definitely

afraid of what would happen in a potential conflict because of the number

of South Korean relighting we lost well thank you Melissa yeah it's a great

point Jessica what do you think great point

majority of what you said which I don't think has ever happened to us before

nope I think the rhetoric played a part that is part of who Donald Trump is and

how expresses how whether is talking about foreign policy or domestic

knowledge and how he negotiates but I think the most credit is due to his

support system to ambassador nikki Haley to the international community also to

get together for these sanctions and to apply the proper pressure on China to

make sure that they are cutting off as much as possible in terms of what's

going to North Korea and they have always been the lynchpin

I've seen a lot of really smart articles this morning about the focus shifting

now to China and what they're gonna do with this what role they're gonna play

in drafting this agreement to make sure that they can live with it and that they

will keep North Korea in check because if anything is gonna happen in quote

secret China is gonna play a role in that so I have a question for you

congressman what do you make of the president saying that he would call off

the war games with South Korea what what what does that inform you what well

first off that's something that's easy to turn off and turn back on we still

have our troops in South Korea we're still going to work but military push

for North Korea is important for it's important for North Korea they haven't

liked the fact that this has been going on just south of their country now while

we would call it not provocative the North Koreans perceived it as

provocative sure to people off there yeah but isn't part of the problem that

he even used the rhetoric of the North Koreans calling it war green war games

those are military exercises with long-standing allies there it's not a

game and that's something that we do all over the world called it war games in

art and our militant I don't think the president United ever said that it was a

war game I would I would say one thing I would add in I mean I'm I'm a military

whatever Kim Jong un part of the process when we have a mission and we're working

together we I mean we are wargaming out scenarios of if the North Koreans you

know were to attack South Korea this is how we would morrow to react then what I

would I mean over the course of the year we do many different types of exercises

with the South Koreans if let's say we decide to pause on August and we're

still gonna work together we'll still be prepared for anything that doesn't mean

that you'll fast forward to the next exercise if things aren't going well in

North Korea we can ramp back up when a side benefit we happen to save a lot of

money those do cost a lot of money to you and and if you're going to get Kim

jong-un to sign a document as a great first step that says complete

denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula peace on the Korean Peninsula that's

good for us to get towards the second step if we don't do the next

easiest give of all the things that we could put out there that might have been

it in the meantime the president's historic moment getting a lot of jeers

and sneers in the mainstream media The Washington Post writing kim jong on

may be considered the world's greatest human rights abuser and a totalitarian

collector of nuclear weapons but as they met for the first time here Tuesday

Trump declared himself honored and CNBC reporter tweeting by allowing only their

interpreters Trump and Kim left no one who could verify that a what they agreed

to in the meeting policy experts agree this is probably bad for the world but

for Trump and Kim who both built empires on fictional narratives it is just fine

in fact it's ideal and there's much more watch a summit is not an accomplishment

for the American president the spectacle of seeing the American flags along with

the DPRK flags in fact I would say it's somewhat disgusting something else that

our own Keir Simmons reported today and share with us at 4:00 p.m. is it both

men are liars he said Kim jong-un lies they said

Donald Trump lies these are awful people and he wants to become best friends with

them this is not a date this is not gonna work this is not just

lunch you know it's not gonna work you know here's something what do you think

would I watch some of those things I mean I'm kind of embarrassed for those

people as you know great things are going on and I see Chris Matthews there

I am also reminded that it's entertainment

okay right I mean you you have your thought on it being entertainment I mean

it's it's so negative yeah yeah and if Kim jong-eun had shown up with all of

his nuclear warheads as part of his caravan showing up there would still be

opposition to the president who would be complaining well how do you know that

that's actually all of his nuclear warheads and then you can have Intel

agencies in foreign countries and and third-party organizations say no that's

all of it people still be complaining the president needs to go forward in

what what was a great first step of signing off on a complete it wasn't all

gonna happen in one down so it's a little disingenuous for

the critics to look at this and say oh we expected everything you don't even

expect that when you an elected a person to office you know they have several

years to get stuff done yeah he has opposition who had they pledged to

oppose him on everything and anything they they just want the prison to look

Morgan let me ask you it yeah and somebody was involved in in national

security security affairs it's it's sort of like you can't get to step two

without step one right you can't get to dealing with the human rights abuses or

to denuclearization without this first step if that involves getting together

and appearing together and saying these things

isn't that a necessary step to get there how can you criticize him for that

you're absolutely right Melissa and you've covered business for a long time

and I think really the way that we saw the president approach this meeting was

not the way it's certainly not typical right it's not the way typically a

president would do it or the way the foreign policy community would do it it

was the way a CEO would do it so I think typically what you would see is you

would see two CEOs come into a room agree on the big picture things and then

get into the details and so I think he's approaching this from the perspective of

where he's most comfortable and where he thinks he has the advantage I'd like to

say just one final thing to Melissa there was someone that in the clip that

you played that said that both Kim jong-un and President Trump were liars

and I think something really dangerous that's happening in the media is when

you start having a moral equivalency between President Trump no matter how

much you dislike him in kim jeong-hoon who systematically merchant murders

tortures and rapes his people and it's you know it's disgusting and it's gone

too far when they do that right totally agree with you there is no equivalency

there and I think that that is a mistake to do it and it creates a

sensationalization of this which damages everybody on both sides I would say

going back to the human rights issue and there's been a lot of hypocrisy going

around at people who criticize President Obama for even setting foot in Cuba and

not only that he stood up next to Raul Castro and he talked about human rights

abuses there was an opportunity for this president who has shown a propensity to

be chummy and quite adoring actually towards dictators all over the world to

not mention human rights abuses and I think that's a missed opportunity and

from that line of clips the one thing that really stuck out to me is a

legitimate criticism say you could have said something Wow I think that was

really jump in the shark I mean yeah you can write to say that this

president is going to do that look Japan just sat down with him and said can you

get back the 17 hostages although they don't watch the pressor words there were

Japanese it was hostages inside North Korea

people didn't think that the president was not concentrating on human rights

they wouldn't be asking for his help I watched the press conference at 4

o'clock this morning and he said that they talked about human rights may

happen when you watch yeah and he pointed out very well that they talked

about at the meeting after the document was drafted and they would have been

there all night and not signed the agreement if they had then added it to

their it was more than anyone expected or others got all right one person who

may deserve some credit for bringing nuclear North Korea to the negotiating

table his US ambassador to the United Nations nikki Haley ahead how big a part

she played in the latest diplomatic developments and how the Trump

administration's approach contrast to the Obama administration's if war comes

make no mistake the North Korean regime will be utterly destroyed