Trump meets top NK official at WH. TRANSCRIPT: 06/01/2018. The 11th Hour with Brian Williams

Jeremy Bash, Catherine Lucey, Brian Bennett, Barbara McQuade, Josh Gerstein, Ron Insana

Date: June 1, 2018
Guest: Jeremy Bash, Catherine Lucey, Brian Bennett, Barbara McQuade, Josh Gerstein, Ron Insana

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, a picture and a very large letter
worth a thousand words. The North Korea summit is back on after an Oval
Office meeting with Kim Jong-un`s deputy while some experts openly fear
Donald Trump is being taken for a ride all the way to Singapore.

And late word tonight, the next summit might be with Vladimir Putin
according to “The Wall Street Journal.”

Plus, a warning from a former attorney general. Buckle your seat belts as
Trump wages war on justice and his attorney general.

And the secret the President apparently couldn`t keep. The problem is it`s
the kind that moves markets. “The 11th Hour” on a Friday night begins now.

And good evening once again from our NBC News Headquarters on a Friday
night here in New York. Day 498 of the Trump Administration, and the
President said today the June 12th North Korea nuclear summit is back on.
He had canceled it just a few days back, and there`s more. “The Wall
Street Journal” reports tonight the White House is planning for yet another
potential summit, this one between Trump and Russian President Vladimir
Putin. But more on that in just a moment.

First, today`s announcement on the nuclear summit came after the President
met with a top North Korean official for over an hour in the Oval Office,
something historic in and of itself. Kim Yong-chol is the North Korean
leader`s right-hand man, former Intel chief and top nuclear weapons
negotiator. And as “The New York Times” points out, he`s the first North
Korean official to set foot in the White House since the year 2000, only
the second ever to meet with a sitting American President.

After the meeting, President Trump spoke to reporters about
denuclearization, but listen carefully as he also here sets expectations.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. President, what`s your sense of what the North
Koreans are willing to do on the issue of denuclearization? Are they
looking at it all at once?

do that. I know they want to do that. They want other things along the
line. They want to develop as a country. That`s going to happen. I have
no doubt.

But we`re going to be – June 12th, we`ll be in Singapore. It will be a
beginning. I don`t say and I`ve never said it happens in one meeting.
You`re talking about years of hostility, years of problems, years of,
really, hatred between so many different nations. But I think you`re going
to have a very positive result in the end.


WILLIAMS: President Trump also said sanctions where a topic in today`s
meeting, adding that for now no new penalties will be impose on the North.


TRUMP: One thing I did do, and it was very important, we had hundreds of
new sanctions ready to go on. And he did not – the director did not ask,
but I said I`m not going to put them on until such time as the talks break

We have very significant sanctions on now. But we had hundreds – we have
hundreds that are ready to go. But I said, “I`m not going to.” But why
would I do that when we`re talking so nicely?


WILLIAMS: Today`s news of course follows a roller coaster ride of mixed
signals. Peter Baker of “The New York Times” wrote today, “The on-again,
off-again summit meeting scheduling had all the earmarks of a T.V. cliff-
hanger from a President who made a name for himself hosting a reality show
on NBC for 14 years, only this time there were deadly serious consequences.
Essentially, Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim are right back to where they were
shortly before the President abruptly canceled the meeting eight days ago,
back to conciliatory language with no clearer understanding of what an
actual agreement would look like, but with more scar tissue from a week of
suspense.” That`s important right there. We`ll get back to it.

Also, during today`s meeting, President Trump was given a personal letter
from Kim Jong-un, and the topic of this letter gave us one of the all-time
great verbal U-turns of this still young presidency. As the President
describes the letter then says he hasn`t opened the letter in two
statements that were minutes apart.


TRUMP: A letter was given to me by Kim Jong-un, and that letter was a very
nice letter. Oh, would you like to see what was in that letter? Would you
like it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you tell us?

TRUMP: How much? How much? How much?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you just give us a flavor of what the letter said?

TRUMP: It was a very interesting letter. And at some point I may be – it
may be appropriate, and maybe I`ll be able to give it to you. Maybe –
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What was your response to the letter? Did you send
anything back?

TRUMP: No, I didn`t. I haven`t seen the letter yet. I purposely didn`t
open the letter. I haven`t opened it. I didn`t open it in front of the

I said, “Would you want me to open it?” He said, “You can read it later.”
I may be in for a big surprise, folks.


WILLIAMS: Here at long last is a picture of the letter. It is a giant
letter in a giant novelty birthday card-sized envelope. Prior to the
President handling it, it was tested for contaminants, a subtle reminder of
the kind of people we`re dealing with here.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary James Mattis arrived in Singapore today for a
security summit with U.S. allies in the region. NBC News Pentagon
Correspondent Hans Nichols is there tonight, part of our advance team on
the ground. He has an update on preparations for the North Korea summit
and the Defense Secretary`s trip.

this morning to very reality that there`s going to be a summit here in just
ten days. And that means there`s some urgent tasks, namely figuring out
the logistics, just where this summit is going to take place.

Now, there had been reports in local presses about the North Korean team
and the U.S. team shuttling around town. There are speculations about
where it might be. The Marina Bay Sands hotel and casino is just over
here, that`s owned by Sheldon Adelson. Some of the speculation is centered
on that hotel.

But beyond the logistics, there are the deliverables. I think what`s
important about that meeting between President Trump and his North Korea
interlogger is just how long it took and in the speed with which Mr. Trump
made the decision to put that summit back on, the velocity. There was
barely any time for consultations. If this is a hurry-up city, this is a
no-huddle offense by the President. He`s clearly calling audibles the
entire way.

Now, one concession he potentially made was saying that you could have a
formal peace treaty between North and South Korea and all the parties who
are involved. Remember there was a U.N. mandate back in the 1950s during
the Korean War. The issue there is that`s something the South Koreans have
desperately wanted as well as the North Koreans. Trump didn`t talk about
complete and verifiable denuclearization, and he went out of his way that
you could take and the North Koreans could take their time.

My suspicion on this, Brian, is that this backdrop is going to be a
familiar scene. We could have multiple summits, and the urgent task now
for everyone else is to figure out how to put both sides in a position to
get to a deal whether that`s on the 12th or going on.

One other note, Secretary Mattis speaking this morning, he likely had to
scrub any reference to maximum pressure. That`s the idea that you had
sanctions, you had military assets that forced Kim Jong-un to the table.
President Trump today saying that he no longer wanted to use that term,
although he did say sanctions are still in place, and if talks go south,
they can always ratchet those up. Brian?

WILLIAMS: Need a scorecard to keep it all straight, Hans. Hans Nichols,
our NBC News Pentagon Correspondent reporting for us from Singapore

With all that, let`s bring in our lead-off panel on a Friday night. Jeremy
Bash, back with us, Former Chief of Staff at the CIA and Pentagon, also
Former Counsel to House Intel. Catherine Lucey is back with us, White
House Reporter for “The Associated Press.” And also Brian Bennett returns
to the broadcast, Senior White House Correspondent for “Time Magazine.”
Good evening and welcome to you all.

And, Jeremy, I`m going to begin with you. Is it still your – first of
all, what`s going on here? Subset question one, is it still your
contention that getting talks at all with the American President is
baseline victory for the North? And when the President talks about these
talks maybe not being over in one session, maybe several, maybe weeks, is
that the kind of talks that should precede presidents sitting down at the

JEREMY BASH, FMR. CIA CHIEF OF STAFF: Yes, it`s become clear today, Brian,
if it wasn`t clear before, that our President is an enormously ineffective
negotiator. He has made massive concessions even on the road to Singapore,
putting aside what he`s actually going to give up at the table – across
the table from Kim Jong-un.

So first, Brian, he`s caved twice on the idea of the summit, first
accepting the invitation outright initially without any consultations and
without winning any concession. Then once he canceled the summit, he caved
a second time and re-accepted the invitation that was brought to him today
to the oval office.

Second, he said the era of maximum pressure is over. And as Hans noticed
in the center piece, that caused the Pentagon to scrub all plans of a
pressure on North Korean to reassure are allies.

And third is, he`s heaped praise on the North Koreans. He`s called them
honorable people. He says he doesn`t want to speak ill of them at all.
This is a murderous, thuggish regime. And they have won a massive
concession just by being in the Oval Office, which hasn`t happened in 20
years, by standing next to the President. We`re going to see more of that
in spades next week in Singapore.

WILLIAMS: A regime where we always point out citizens have been forced to
eat dirt while so much of the GNP goes into the development of a nuclear
arms program.

Hey, Catherine, you`re very good at getting people to talk to you in this
West Wing. Has anyone, though, admitted to you, anyone of any rank and
stature, that the fear is we, the President, has already given too much,
and this is a slippery slope into Singapore?

thing that we heard some going into the last sort of roller coaster
negotiations is there was concern with a lot of the people around the
President that expectations have been set very high for this meeting.
That, you know, the chatter about Nobel Prizes and the historic nature of
the meeting. And so I think some of what you were seeing today with the
meeting back on is really an effort by the President to manage

You know, he`s saying it`s not going to get fixed in one meeting. There
may have to be more sanctions, you know, that this is a get to know you
plus, I think he said today. So I think they are trying to set a tone, you
know, to try and sort of ratchet down what can be done.

WILLIAMS: Brian, in the moments it took me to walk into the studio, one of
our producers caught you on the phone and transcribed a line you told them,
which I`m sure you won`t mind me reading aloud. “It was amazing for me to
see a guy who recently was the head of the North Korean spy service walk
out of the Oval Office and pose for pictures with the American President.”
You said that as having been there today and witnessed it. Talk a little
bit about that for members of our audience who may not be as struck as we
are by the history of this and who this guy is.

just wanted to, yes, step back for a moment to think about what happened
today. You had the number two ranking official in North Korea walk into
the Oval Office, spend more than an hour there with President Trump, and
this is a guy who was linked to a murderous attack on a South Korean Naval
ship in 2010 that killed more than 40 South Korean sailors. He was running
the intelligence apparatus for one of the most, if no the most repressive
regime in the entire world right now.

And President Trump was even asked afterwards, after the meeting, after he
shook hands with him, if he had brought up human rights in their meeting.
President Trump said no. President Trump in the walk-up to this summit has
repeatedly said he doesn`t want to challenge Kim Jong-un`s ability to stay
in power. He`s solely focused on Kim Jong-un giving up his nuclear
weapons, and that is just a very fascinating position for the American
President to be in. And we`re going to have to see how that plays out and
how President Trump can use his leverage inside the negotiating room.

I know that aides are concerned that whatever preparations are made before
Trump goes into that meeting, that President Trump in order to get to a
deal might be willing to give up more than aides around him have prepared
him for.

WILLIAMS: Yes, well put.

Catherine, Victor Cha, who is thankfully one of the experts we turn to here
at MSNBC, said tonight to NBC News that now is the time for both sides to
go silent. Speaking for the American team you cover on a daily basis,
what`s the chance of that?

LUCEY: That President Trump will go silent seems unlikely. We hear from
him constantly on Twitter, speaking to reporters, and there`s some time to
go before the summit. So I think the idea that he`s going to stop talking
publicly certainly is not what this presidency has looked like so far.

WILLIAMS: Jeremy Bash, to this “Wall Street Journal” report tonight that
has all the earmarks of Michael settling the family business, this report
of another summit with Putin of Russia, number one, do you believe it?
Number two, what could go wrong?

BASH: Well, I do believe it. I think the President has talked with Putin
before about having a major summit in which they would discuss many issues,
including Russia`s takeover of Syria, including Russian aggression in
Europe, and also the situation on the Korean peninsula. So I`m not
surprised by this.

I think, though, the President again has to be careful because he has shown
himself to be an enormously ineffective negotiator. And if he`s going to
give away the store even more to Putin, heap more praise on him, give him
standing, give him concessions, yield to him on things that Putin really
cares about, I think it`s going to redound to the detriment of American
national security. And so I rather see the President hold off any
discussions with the Russian leader until we can figure out exactly what we
want to negation and if there`s nothing to be gained, we shouldn`t hold it.

WILLIAMS: Jeremy, that advice right there that you just gave us, for a
young man, you qualify these days as an old policy hand. Who is there in
the West Wing or anywhere in the national security structure to at least
mention that, your view just expressed in a meeting to the President?

BASH: Well, I do think National Security Adviser Bolton is hawkish on
issues like Russia and on issues like North Korea, and I think he`s
probably very concerned tonight. Because as you remember, for example last
week he was talking about the Libya model, putting aside the fact that
Gadhafi was killed in the end. But even the Libya model was basically
taking out of nuclear weapons out of – and the nuclear weapons program out
of Libya, that`s off the table. The President said today very clearly that
he`s not going to insist in that meeting, in that discussion with Kim Jong-
un that they`re going to completely denuclearize. So I think John Bolton
has got to have a talking to with his boss.

WILLIAMS: So, Brian, having heard that from Jeremy and knowing what the
optics are when the President sits down with Putin or talks up Putin as he
inevitably will before and after such a meeting, this White House is boldly
willing to show as much moxie, is that requires to go ahead with a summit
like this?

BENNETT: Well, certainly, the President is willing to go through with
that. I mean, I was in Hamburg at the G20 last year when President Trump
sat down with Putin, and the two seemed happy to see each other. I mean,
there really did seem to be a rapport there.

Obviously, a lot of other things have gotten in the way, including Russia`s
involvement in Syria in the intervening months. But I think President
Trump does want to try to have a good relationship with Putin if he can. I
think obviously there are people around him in the White House who are
concerned about that and concerned about how it looks in the midst of this
investigation into Russian meddling in the election and ties to the
President`s campaign. But I don`t think that`s going to necessarily get in
the way of President Trump wanting to go along and see if he can establish
a rapport with Putin.

WILLIAMS: Hey, Catherine, you get the last word. We have seen what
happens to even the best White House efforts at a theme week. Are we
expecting anything next week where the machinery of government is

LUCEY: You know, I think all the attention next week is going to be
building up for the Singapore trip. Certainly, as the – and presumably
it`s on, but the will they/won`t they aspect of it, what the schedule is
going to look like, what the meeting is going to be like, the negotiations
around that, I think it`s going to be hard for any other story to break
through really at the moment.

WILLIAMS: And I should mention the obvious. It has unseated the ongoing
Russia investigation as at least our lead story tonight on a Friday night,
when we thank Jeremy Bash, Catherine Lucey, Brian Bennett. Really
appreciate you, guys, helping us to start off tonight.

And coming up for us, President Obama`s former A.G. predicts a clash
between the White House and the Justice Department worse than what`s
already happened. Eric Holder`s warning for all the rest of us, buckle up
your seat belts.

And later, the First Lady has vanished from sight in effect. It`s been 22
days since Melania Trump was last seen. She says she`s doing fine, doing
her job, albeit not visibly. We`ll talk about it, though, as “The 11th
Hour” continues.



ERIC HOLDER, FMR. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: I worry about what the political
leadership that the Justice Department is going to do in the face of this
unprecedented onslaught by the President. Are they going to have the steel
to say to this President at some point no? I suspect that we are on a path
where there`s going to be an inevitable clash. We`re going to get to a
point where the Justice Department simply will not go any further, and
something`s going to happen. I don`t know who gets fired or what happens,
but we`re going to be – you know, buckle up your seat belts.


WILLIAMS: Gets your attention. Former Attorney General Eric Holder today
with a pretty stark prediction about the toxic relationship between the
President and the Justice Department across town.

This week, we saw the President continue to humiliate our current Attorney
General, Jeff Sessions, publicly calling his recusal from the Russia
investigation a betrayal. We learned this week the President repeatedly
pressured Sessions to change his mind, unrecuse himself as it were. And we
saw the unexpected announcement that the President would pardon or is
considering pardoning three people with prosecutorial ties, at least, to
former FBI Director James Comey and his allies.

As our friend Mike Allen of Axios put it today, “Maybe these three events
are mere coincidence. But almost no one around Trump, even his closest
allies, thinks this is the case.”

Let`s talk about it with Josh Gerstein, Senior White House Reporter for
Politico, and Barbara McQuade, Former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Michigan.

And, Counselor, I`d like to begin with you because you`ve proven so good at
the game Dave Letterman originated, is this a thing? So is the following a
thing if you`re Robert Mueller? If you learn through the good folks at
Axios that at least four occasions that we know of that the President went
back after probing Jeff Sessions, “Can you go back into the Russia matter,”
is that of interest to the Mueller investigation, or are they several
incidents ahead of us?

BARBARA MCQUADE, FMR. U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, I think it`s a thing. I think
that, you know, whenever you are looking at obstruction of justice, there
is the act. So did this actually happen? Did President Trump try to
convince Jeff Sessions to reverse his recusal decision?

And then the second part of that that`s so important is, what was his
purpose? What was his motive? Did he have a corrupt intent in doing so?
And on its face, it appears there`s certainly enough there to look further
into it to see whether it is a thing because when you think about why would
he want him to reverse his recusal decision?

Justice Department ethics lawyers have said this is the appropriate
decision, and the matter should be handled by your deputy so that there is
at least the perception of fairness, if not actual fairness can be achieved
in this way. And what President Trump is saying is, “No, no, no. I don`t
want it to be handled fairly. I want it to be handled by my ally because
what I really want is someone to protect me from whatever it is that he is
concerned about the ultimate resolution of the case. So I think that is
enough to raise concern that there is perhaps this corrupt purpose behind
such a decision if it happened.

WILLIAMS: Yes, Josh, let`s continue this point. Why would Trump, given
what we know of his relationship with Jeff Sessions – there are all
alternatives. Why would the alternative to him be an unrecused and back
with his fingers in the cake mix Jeff Sessions?

President has suggested before that he`d like to have an attorney general
like Eric Holder, since you mentioned him earlier, and the President –
President Trump has said that he thinks Eric Holder covered for President
Obama and covered for Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. So you can
tie those things together and assume that what the President was up to here
was trying to have more political control over these sort of investigations
like the investigation into the 2016 campaign. I do think, though, that
it`s unlikely that these events alone, this pressure on Sessions alone,
would be the kind of obstruction case that Mueller would try to outline.
It would have to be part of a broader pattern, and there are some facts
already in that pattern.

It`s also work keeping in mind that I think ultimately what we`re talking
about here are facts that Mueller would likely put in a report to Congress
that could potentially become the basis for impeachment. It may not be
quite as critical whether this outlines a case that could be proven, say,
in front of a jury in court.

WILLIAMS: Barbara, let me steer the ship into the subject of pardons.
Admittedly, I watch too much cable news. But in the last 24 hours,
everyone on cable news has contended that pardons and the choice of who to
pardon has been a signal.

This is being done as a signal to folks who are out there. They may flip.
They may hold out. Will Mueller, again, because you`re the former fed here
– will Mueller see it that same way?

MCQUADE: I don`t know. You know, the President does have pardon power,
and so I don`t think that, you know, there`s a basis to charge a case
there. But it does seem at least plausible that President Trump is
exercising his pardon power to send a message to people like Michael Cohen
or Michael Flynn or Paul Manafort that, “You know, I take care of people,
and so you don`t have this Hobson`s choice of going to trial or
cooperating. There`s a third way out. I could pardon you.” And so
perhaps that is a message.

I also think there`s a message being sent to the American public more
generally because if you look at what is the common theme behind all of
those cases where President Trump has granted pardons, and in every one of
them, he has made a pitch that these people were treated very unfairly by
the government. And I think he is trying to, again, undermine the Justice
Department, the FBI, and sort of groom the public into this idea that the
government frequently treats people unfairly so that if and when, you know,
he faces charges or others close to him face charges, there is that
narrative and the public is conditioned to believe that to be true.

WILLIAMS: Of course, you can criminalize a pardon by dangling them or
putting them out for bidding, which would be wrong as they say.

Hey, Josh, when I say everyone is talking about the pardons in terms of a
signal, I really mean everyone. Here`s a man we heard from earlier on this
same subject. We`ll talk about it on the other side.


HOLDER: I think the President is trying to send a message to some people
who potentially might be involved in the Russia investigation. If you
pardon somebody, all right, well, that means that they are – they don`t
have much to worry about with regard to whatever the pardon covers. But if
Bob Mueller, for instance, wants to take a pardoned person, put that person
before a grand jury, that person no longer has the ability to say, “I`m
going to invoke my Fifth Amendment right.” That`s been stripped away. You
have a pardon. And that person then becomes a perfect witness for the
special counsel.


WILLIAMS: So there you have it. Always the lawyer, Josh. As a civilian,
what do you find notable in the persons and pattern of pardons thus far in
this presidency?

GERSTEIN: Well, I`m not sure the scenario that Holder outlined is the most
likely one here. It seems like the sequence in which this would play out
would be to let someone like Paul Manafort go to trial and perhaps maybe
after the midterm elections move in with some sort of pardon or some sort
of pardon, say, if Roger Stone were charged, maybe put one out there at
some point for him. I don`t think they would come so early in the process
because Trump could have done that already.

But, you know, I don`t think we have to really speculate about what Trump
is up to here. He`s given us several statements. He said, for example, in
the case of Dinesh D`Souza, the commentator that he just pardoned, that the
White House said that he viewed that as a case of selective prosecution.
In some of the other cases, he suggested Rod Blagojevich, the former
Illinois governor that he`s talking about pardoning or commuting his
sentence, has said that, you know, he thinks that case was exaggerated.

So he`s minimizing anti-corruption laws. He`s minimizing campaign finance
violations, suggesting that they`re overenforced and overprosecuted, and
it`s interesting that those are some of the laws or at least are in some of
the same areas where we`ve seen Mueller already bring charges and where he
may bring charges in the future. So I don`t think it`s totally uninformed
speculation to say that there is a message here.

WILLIAMS: And, Barbara, I want to give you the last word because this
question came up yesterday. How do the feds feel, all the federal
prosecutors that work so hard to get convictions, to get people to plea
out, how do they feel when a pardon swoops in like this?

MCQUADE: Well, ordinarily there`s a process that the Justice Department
undergoes before a pardon is granted, and the prosecutor`s office, the U.S.
attorney`s office that handled the case gets an opportunity to provide
input. The judge who sentenced the person gets an opportunity to provide
input. And, you know, then the President decides what he wants to. But at
least that office had a chance to explain some of the things that motivated
the prosecution.

WILLIAMS: That`s in normal time.

MCQUADE: In this case, President Trump didn`t do that. And so I think
when that happens, there`s a special bitterness because the President
didn`t even want to hear their side of the story. So I think it`s
frustrating for prosecutors who handled – in this case, you know, he
pleaded guilty, he admitted under oath that he committed this crime. And
so I`m sure there is great frustration by prosecutors who worked hard, did
the right thing, got a righteous prosecution and conviction, and see the
President undo it in this way without ever even seeking their input.

WILLIAMS: Josh Gerstein, Barbara McQuade, thank you both very much for
joining us on a Friday night. Terrific conversation.

And coming up for us, some good news tonight. Unemployment is at its
lowest rate since 2000. The bad news was that the good news was once again
overshadowed by the president`s Twitter account this morning. More on that
when we continue.


WILLIAMS: Another presidential norm was broken today when about an hour
before the monthly jobs report was set to be released, the president said
this. “Looking forward to seeing the employment numbers at 8:30 this
morning.” Well, when the report came out, it showed an increase of 223,000
jobs in May, topping expectations. A great number no matter which way you
look at it, while the unemployment rate fell to an 18-year low.

Trump`s tweet raised eyebrows because a 1985 policy directive on the
release of economic data states, “Employees of the executive branch shall
not comment publicly on the data until at least one hour after the official
release time.” Politico explains, “The one-hour lag is meant to allow the
jobs data to stand on its own without any immediate spin from elected
officials.” Imagine that.

Former Obama chief economics adviser Austan Goolsbee wrote on Twitter, “If
the president just tipped that the numbers are good, he broke the law.”
University of Michigan economics and public policy Professor Justin Wolfers
added this. “If any other federal employee had tweeted in a way that gave
the appearance of hinting at confidential information, they would be fired
on the spot. Plus there would be an investigation checking their e-mails
and phone logs to make sure they hadn`t leaked to others too.”

The president`s chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow confirmed he had
briefed the president on the jobs numbers Thursday night, but said Trump`s
tweet wasn`t a problem to him.


KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Doesn`t this go against the 1985
OMB directive which essentially says no one should reveal what the findings
are the night before or before they`re released officially?


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why is there such secrecy around this number?

KUDLOW: Wait. Can I just – this is very important. No one revealed the
numbers to the public.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why would the president tell anybody to look at the
jobs report if it was going to be negative?

KUDLOW: You`ll have to – you`ll have to ask – that`s a therapy thing. I
don`t know –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s a therapy thing?

KUDLOW: Look, it`s up to him. He likes to tweet. I do think a lot of
people were waiting for the jobs numbers.


WILLIAMS: With us to explain it all is one of the great all-time veterans
of the world of the financial journalism, CNBC contributor Ron Insana.

Well, my friend, let`s –


WILLIAMS: Great to see you. So if it was a norm –


WILLIAMS: – or rule or a low that the president –


WILLIAMS: Yes, exactly. We say it has the power to move markets. What
kind of people could get rich if they moved quickly this morning upon
seeing that tweet?

INSANA: Well, first of all, anyone who saw the tweet has an advance notice
that the number is probably good given the way the president framed it.
Second, there are people who operate large computer-run programs that do
sentiment scraping and contextual analysis –

WILLIAMS: My doctor does that.

INSANA: Yes, at least once a year. But they pick up on key words. And
then these algorhythmic traders can move very quickly and can move billions
of dollars in a nanosecond based on what the computers find in a Twitter
feed, in a news headline, and people can make a lot of money.

And an hour before the number is released, that`s a lot of time. Now,
granted the reaction was in nanoseconds, the dollar went up, interest rates
went up, the stock market extended its morning gains. So people could have
conceivably made a fair chunk of change off that tweet.

WILLIAMS: Can we go back and look and see who might have made a ton of
money this morning?

INSANA: Hard to do. I mean you would have to go through everybody`s
blotter, you know, everybody`s trade blotter to see what they`re doing.
Now, you could go through the president`s e-mails. Of course that is
fraught on its own to find out whether or not he had suggested to anyone
else, hey, check out my tweet at 8:30, and if any of his friends were in
the financial markets, that would also be a questionable move.

WILLIAMS: The president will dine out on these numbers, more than he
already has, and he deserves to because by any measure, the economic
numbers are fantastic though I note you said to one of our producers, you
see something coming.

INSANA: Well, I think, look, we are at peak economic growth in the U.S. I
think we might get some acceleration going in the next couple of months.
The world is slowing down. We`re starting to see job growth level out a
little bit. We`re running at roughly the same rate of job increases per
month as we did last year. We`re very late in the cycle. These numbers
are good, and wages may start to move up more quickly because there is a
shortage of labor as part of that has to do with current composition of the
economy, part of it has to do with immigration policy.

But we`re seeing now companies pay up for workers. And when that happens,
the Federal Reserve gets nervous about wage inflation, starts to raise
rates more aggressively to cool things off. And that`s something over the
next six to nine months may be a factor that slows down this economy from
its current reasonably torrid pace.

WILLIAMS: New topic. I`m going to show you what the prime minister of
Canada said to Chuck Todd today, and we`ll talk about why and the
circumstances after we see this.


JUSTIN TRUDEAU, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: The fact that – I mean next week
we`re hosting the G7 summit of world leaders and the airfield, the military
base that Air Force One is going to land on was put there in World War II
to protect an aluminum smelter that was providing to the military effort.
The idea that we are somehow a national security threat to the United
States is quite frankly insulting and unacceptable.


WILLIAMS: We`re coming up on the Normandy anniversary where Canadians and
Americans died in the same pools of blood on the same beaches. How did we
manage to tick off our neighbors to the north?

INSANA: Well, I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of
international trade on the part of the Trump administration, including the
president, including people like his top adviser, Peter Navarro, who think
that trade is a zero-sum game.

If you go back to NAFTA when it was first passed in 1993, trilateral trade
among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico was $300 billion. Today it`s $1


INSANA: We have what they call an integrated supply chain. We get parts
from Canada. We get goods from Canada, we get goods from Mexico. Cars are
put together at various points across the border. It keeps costs down for
American consumers. And then generally, this trade has been a good thing.
When people argue that trade has cost jobs, innovation has cost more jobs
than globalization.

In fact, 85% of the jobs that have been lost over the last 30 years have
largely been to disruptive activities from technology, not from trade.
Trade actually benefits this economy. There have been some bad trade
policies and bad decisions made over the years, but certainly with Canada,
one of our most important trading partners, with Mexico, where Mr. Obrador
is now the lead candidate, he himself a socialist who could actually turn
south on the NAFTA agreement here. We`re angering a lot of people that we
shouldn`t be angering, our closest allies, not only Mexico and Canada but
the European Union as well at a time when we probably need them more than
we have in the past.

WILLIAMS: As I like to say, what could go wrong? Great to see you. My
pleasure to you as well. Thanks for coming by our modest operation around

Coming up for us, a preview of a special event on this network this
weekend. It`s about Bobby Kennedy. Almost half a century after his
assassination, and its host, Chris Matthews, will join us after this.


WILLIAMS: On a week with so much news, we are thrilled to welcome our
friend and colleague Chris Matthews to the broadcast. He is of course the
host of “Hardball,” and he is more importantly the author of “Bobby
Kennedy: A Raging Spirit.” Germane to tonight`s conversation because Chris
is also hosting an MSNBC headliners documentary special this Sunday night
on Bobby Kennedy airing at 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Chris, thank you for joining us tonight. And before we get to that, I`d
like to start off on current events –


WILLIAMS: – beginning with North Korea. What do you think is going on?

MATTHEWS: Well, I think the president is about to really take the biggest
chance of his life since he ran for president. I really think that if you
look at North Korean tactics going back to the Korean War itself, which is
officially of course the president points out has never really ended, two
years beginning in the summer of – I think it was July of `51, they talked
in Panmunjom on the 38th parallel for two years.

So his idea of a lickety-split, you know, apprentice-type reality hour, it
doesn`t square with the time thinking they have over the time reference
they make over in North Korea. They could be tricking him into that chair
and letting him sit there for months and years even. So I`m – that`s what
I`m afraid of, that we will be humiliated as a country and nothing will get

WILLIAMS: Because you mentioned “The Apprentice,” I`m duty-bound to next
ask you about pardons. How the notions of pardons has changed from
presidents and presidencies past. We`ve noted many times over the past 24
hours there`s a whole department over at justice at the president`s
disposal for this kind of thing. What do you make of the Dinesh D`Souza
pardon and the names we`re hearing maybe next in the pipeline like
Blagojevich and Martha Stewart.

MATTHEWS: I think they have a double value for the president. Almost
every case he`s addressing a constituency that he allies with. Arpaio down
in the southwest with him on opposition to illegal immigration with a
vengeance. He`s got Scooter Libby, the Neocon, of course, former top aide
to Dick Cheney. I mean he has all these elements. He`s going after Dinesh
D`Souza, really a right wing columnist. He`s just basically giving a token
to all the constituency groups that like him.

Going after Martha Stewart or getting her off, she already served her time.
I think she paid her debt to society, I thought really quickly. And I
always thought there was a way over punishing of Mr. Blagojevich. Fourteen
years in prison for basically bad language and bs-ing in the back room and
conniving. Politicians connive.

But I think it`s also – the second purpose is to tell people like Michael
Flynn, like Paul Manafort, like all the people, especially perhaps Michael
Cohen, I know how to do this thing. I know how to pardon people. You
could be on my list.

WILLIAMS: And before we get to Bobby Kennedy, I want to do this a little
bit backwards. I want to share with our audience a snippet from Sunday
night`s broadcast. We`ll watch it together, and after that we can discuss
it on the other side.


MATTHEWS: Robert Kennedy`s life was shaped by tragedy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Kennedy was murdered.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was overcome by the ghost of his brother.

MATTHEWS: Which compelled him to help others.

do within our local communities.

MATTHEWS: His passion for the underdog, from every background, made him
one to unite people.

KENNEDY: I run to seek new policies, policies to end the bloodshed in

MATTHEWS: But he never got the chance.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Kennedy has been shot.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there a doctor in the house?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was a crushing blow.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My grandfather was stolen not just from his family
but from his country.

KENNEDY: If you give me your help, if you give me your hand, that I will
work with you and we will have a new America. Thank you very much.


WILLIAMS: Chris Matthews, of course, we`ll be watching this on Sunday
night. My own theory as to why your latest book is doing so well is kind
of exactly what you told the viewers the night it came out. And that is
that it`s a salve, yes, but it also is a touchstone, a reminder of this
man, what he represented, and his times.

MATTHEWS: I think the statement you can make about Robert Kennedy is
objective. You can look at the people along the train tracks from New York
where he was carried from St. Patrick`s Cathedral from his funeral down to
Washington to join his brother at Arlington Cemetery. The people along
those tracks are his greatest testament, a company and people. African-
American in cities like Philadelphia.

In fact, in Philly, at 30th Street Station, which you know so well, sitting
20,000 people singing together spontaneously the battle hymn of the
republic. And all those poor whites along the tracks between the big
cities. This kind of affectionate patriotism, a couple cops you`ll see in
this picture saluting him, these working class guys having their kids join
them, a whole family doing that. That affectionate patriotism across
ethnic lines, if you will.

I don`t like the word race. We`re all the same race. The ethnic line is
gone right now. And I think that Bobby offered to bring it together, bring
people together. And I think that`s why this is so sad. At least in
remembering him, there`s some tonic value, that we know it`s possible
because it once happened.

WILLIAMS: Indeed. John Lewis who was on the train is quoted in the
documentary saying he didn`t want it to stop. There`s ample evidence had
it been a transcontinental train ride, those same crowds, that same kind of
diverse cross section of Americans would have shown up to pay homage as it
goes by. We`ll all be watching Sunday night. Chris Matthews, our thanks
and to our audience, be sure to watch headliners, Robert F. Kennedy, hosted
by our friend Chris this Sunday night, 9:00 p.m. Eastern Time on this very

We`re back with more right after this.


WILLIAMS: The president and some members of his family departed the White
House this afternoon for Camp David. It`s his seventh trip there as
president. Noticeably missing once again today was the first lady. We say
this respectfully but we have seen more public photos of Kim Jong-un over
these past 22 days than we have Melania Trump. That`s another way of
saying the first lady was last seen in public May 10th, 22 days ago. The
night we saw her greeting the three American detainees released by North

Now, four days after that night time event, the first lade was admitted to
Walter Reed for what the White House called a benign kidney procedure. She
remained hospitalized for five days, though the procedure that the White
House said she underwent is often conducted on an outpatient basis.

Last week when our own Peter Alexander asked how Melania`s doing, the
president said this.



there. She`s doing there. Just looking at us right there.


WILLIAMS: As to right there, “The Washington Post” described that moment
this way. “Reporters turned to look at the spot Trump indicated but there
was no sign of the first lady.”

In an unusual break from tradition, the first lady did not join the
president at the Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day to honor
fallen soldiers. Instead she expressed her gratitude for service members
in a post on Twitter.

Now, when asked about this extended absence from public life, her office
provided this statement. “She has had several meetings internally with
staff and will continue to do so this week. We are focusing on her
initiatives and also some longer term planning for events such as the
congressional picnic and the Fourth of July.

Coming up for us, what could be a problem for the president each time he
complains about the cost of the investigation into his administration, that
is next when we continue.


WILLIAMS: Last thing before we go here tonight. If you`re looking for the
president this weekend, you might try the Catoctin Mountains of the state
of Maryland. Home of one of the most beautiful facilities that we maintain
for our presidents and their families, Camp David, it`s the president`s, as
we said, seventh trip there since taking office.

There are built-in cost advantages to going there because it`s an easy
chopper ride from Washington and the compound is already secured and built
for just that purpose. As opposed to the president`s preferred weekend
getaway, his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, and where the government is
concerned, that`s an entirely different price range. This is all germane
because the president complains about prices constantly from the cost of
the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem to the cost of say the Mueller investigation.

Philip Bump over at “The Washington Post” did some price comparisons
recently, all based on publicly available numbers. He reports that through
end of March, the cost of the Mueller effort has been $16.7 million. By
comparison, the president`s 17 trips to Mar-a-Lago have run up a tab of $17
million thus far.

Remember, at $1 million a throw, Mar-a-Lago is a big ticket travel item.
It means Air Force One down and back, motorcades to and from, it means
offshore security provided by the coast guard. Everything else, thanks to
the Secret Service, state police, local cops.

It could be argued the Mueller investigation has been a bargain when
compared to the 157 days of his presidency that Donald Trump has spent at a
Trump branded property. He seems to have chosen the economic alternative,
at least for this weekend`s plans.

That`s our broadcast on a Friday night and for this week. Thank you so
very much for being here with us. Good night from our headquarters here in
New York.


Copy: Content and programming copyright 2018 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are
protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the
prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the