works more efficiently for everyone. he spoke to thousands at a rally in pennsylvania. this weekend the president also engaged with our long time allies in southeast asia. we're on the front lines against the fight againstist skpis other forms of terror through calls with the president of the philippines and restroom of thailand. today is is a a start of another big week. after signing a proclamation, he stopped by the kennedy garden where members of the independent bankers of america kicked off their capital summit. smaller banks are one of the driving forces behind economic investment and development in our communities, but they have been disproportionately harmed by the dramatic increase in regulation since 2008 declining in number by 30%. the president's pro growth agenda includes instituting a 21st century glast eto entities

and more tinetime infusing their communities and local businesses with capital. it's also the start of small business week. ivanka trump will be participating in the united states institute of peace. and the vice president will deliver remarks at the national small business week awards program later this afternoon. back to the president's schedule, after speaking with the community bankers members, the president had lunch with vice president pence, rex tillerson and the secretary of defense as well as national security adviser mcmaster before meeting separately with secretary tillerson. to discuss impacts on the remaining threat for severe weather across portions of the southwest to the mississippi valley, which has already killed five people in texas.

we encourage everyone to follow the directions of their state and local officials to stay safe. tz finally let me run down the president's schedule this week. he will present to the united states air force academy. wednesday president will host the president of the palestinian authority for an official visit. thursday he will host a national day of prayer event and he will then commemorate the 75th anniversary of the battle of coral sea aboard the u.s.s. intrepid. pi will update you on the schedule throughout the week. with that, your questions.

>> it creates conditions, can you talk us through what you meant there was he referring to something he wants to push to exclude in the bill? talking about the language that's already in there. >> i think both. in the sense that the mccar they are amendment ensures that preexisting conditions continue to be covered. it then goes through the senate and the house and this is an issue that's important to him. >> that those people are treated affordably. there was from aarp the high risk pool the premiums could be over $25,000 for somebody. what's he doing to ensure that that doesn't happen? >> there's two things. i think he mentioned this in the interview. right now under obamacare as it collapses on its own weight, people with preexisting conditions are the most vulnerable. if you have an insurance system that no longer is able to provide care to those who need

it, then i think we have talked about this before. you have a card without coverage. so what the president is doing is ensuring going forward as we attempt to repeal and replace it that preexisting coverage is at the core of that. that's something he's ensured is in the current bill and will continue to push for to make sure that coming out of the senate and going to conferences there as well. >> what do you say to conservatives who feel like they didn't get a whole lot out of this spending bill. there's no money tr the wall, no cuts to sanctuary cities, funding for planned parenthood was maintained. what do you say to those concerns? >> i'll take them in order. the president got a lot out of this bill. most specifically $21 billion to rebuild the military. that's something that he was very proud to campaign on. and is delivering on. that's probably the biggest thing. he got $1.2 billion in the current language.

that's a significant. people have to keep in context. so this is something that most presidents would walk into office and that would have been done. because the last congress didn't do this, we have an opportunity to get some of the president's priorities infused for the last five months of 2017. that's a big step forward. and something that he will continue to fight for in 2018 when the fiscal year starts, the end of september, we will have an opportunity to really infuse the president's priorities. but i think there's a lot there. there's also d.c. school choice was something that we felt very strongly about making sure it was back in. there's no obamacare bail out. there's the coal miners is something that the president felt strong on. making sure they got taken care of. that happened. there's a lot in had this bill that i think of the priorities that e he put forward. >> the planned parenthood thing

in particular, this is something he wouldn't normally have had shot at because it should have been done. so infusing his priorities in 2017 budget cycle is something he's been able to have a say in for the remaining five months. the 2018 budget will address those things. but this is a down payment on border security. it's a down appointment on his ability to rebuild the military. and it will address a lot of the other health care issues. >> on the pending visit from the philippines, the president is giving his stamp of approval to human rights abuses. this is part of the unpleasant things. >> it's an opportunity for us to work with countries in that e region to help play a role in diplomatically isolating north korea.

the national interests of the united states safety of our people and the safety of people in the region are the number one priorities of the president. . >> the tax deductions, the white house talked about that as a way to occur of big tax breaks for the rich. are you looking at any other policy changes when it comes to limiting breaks for the top 1%. >> at the beginning of this process, what i think you saw from the briefing that was given the other day, the focus is on lower ask middle income americans. the doubling of the standard deduction means that a family of four that is making right now they are getting a $24,000 deduction. a family will pay zero taxes at the lower end of that scale. this is a big deal for them to put more money back in their pocket and help them take care of family. >> on health care, there seems to be a new optimism from the white house. how confident is the president that he will get a health care

bill passed the house this week? >> i think the president has made it clear he's not instituting a time line. i have said this before and i will continue to say we will feel the direction this is going. we see more and more members come on board. a lot of the changes were made make the bill not only better but garner greater support. >> if the conditions were right, how does the president define the right condition to have this meeting? >> there's a lot of things that go along with that. under the right circumstances was the phrase e he used. that's something in keeps with our policy by secretary tillerson as well. we have to see the provocative behavior ratcheted down immediately. there's a lot of conditions that would have to happen with respect to its behavior. and to show signs of good faith. clearly conditions are not there

right now. but i think the president has made it clear, as secretary tillerson said the other day, if the circumstances present themselves, we would be prepared to. but they are clearly not at this time. >> picking up on health care, it is believes you may be a handful of votes away. here we are at 2:00 on monday afternoon. is the closest that you think you have gotten b. i know you don't want to talk about time lines, but is this as close to the magic number that you have talked about? >> sure, once we get 216 we'll stop counting. i think the speaker gets that. as i mentioned, we're getting closer and closer every day. i would assume today we were a closer than a week ago. but we're not there yet. and that decision is going to be within the speaker and majority leader to let us know when they are going to open that vote up. >> dodd-frank, the president just gave an interview in which

he said i am looking at that right now. he goes on to say there's some people that want to go back to the old system, so we're going to look at that meaning potentially breaking up the banks. so breaking up the banks going back s that something he's just looking at or something that's a preference of his at this point. >> so you're say iing that you' not confident that the votes are lined up behind the health care bill. so this morning when they said the bill was ready to be brought to the flor, did gary cone misspeak? >> i would never want to get in front of the speaker. that's up to them. we have a good whip count. we feel good about where we are and where it's headed. but ultimately the speak er and house leadership determine when to call a vote.

>> the president on the campaign trail raised alarm about federal deficits. this spending bill doesn't include any of the offsets the president requested. is the president -- will the president sign this agreement that does increase the federal deficit? >> when we are at the final point the president will make a decision. but right now he's pleased to see the plus up for the military. he's pleased to see a down payment on border security. he's pleased about the d.c. opportunity scholarships. there's a a lot he's pleased in. as i mentioned to john, we're getting a shot at the 2017 funding, which swhouf bye-bye done last year. >> i understand that. obviously, this is something that required 60 votes in the senate. we couldn't have our entire way

on this, but we're five months away from having a 2018 budget and the president's prior tos will be reflected much more in that. >> there were comments said that journalists are not exempt. did the president know about his comments and his record when he extended the invitation? >> the president gets fully briefed on the leaders, but the number one concern of this president is to make sure we do everything we can to protect our people ask specifically to economically and diplomatically isolate north korea. i think when you look at what he's doing in terms of building that coalition of countries in that region to do it, i think this is hopefully going to ha have -- i'm not going to tell you every single thing in his brief, but he's well aware of when he speaks with a leader. he gets briefed on a lot about what they are doing, what they

have done and that's all part of the brief. >> can you tell us why he's leaving the white house? >> no personnel announcement at the time. i have no belief he's current l leaving the white house. there's nothing to update you on. >> current law says you have to sell to people with preexisting conditions and can't charge them more than someone else in the area. is that the guarantee that the president wants. >> so the bill does not remove obamacare as a guaranteed issue requirement. and on the community ratings, the bill would allow states to wave obamacare's community rating requirement. if certain conditions designated to preserve access to coverage with preexisting conditions are met and there are reduce d

premiums, stabilized the market, stabilize premiums. the bottom line is to give the states flexibility to get that premium down. >> if people would continue to get access, but not at the same price. >> the idea is they would create a high risk pool. the idea is to create a system where it gets the premium down for them as well. >> it could still charge them much more. >> you're right when i say the whole goal of this is to give the states the flexibility to get lower premiums. that's the goal all around. to make sure that the system we employ gets down. >> the president turns to benjamin netanyahu saying settlements are not helpful. israel is going to build 15,000 new homes in east jerusalem. does he think that he's snubbing him? >> i'm sure we will continue to have conversations with the prime minister and. that will be something the president will continue to

discuss. >> it's quite a negotiation. we may need you. >> i wanted to ask you about news made this morning this ab interview with bloomberg. in that interrue he talked about the possibility of raising gas taxes. to pay for infrastructure spending. the president put forward of a trillion dollar spending plan. can you talk about this possibility of raising gas taxes. >> yes, but what the president said is that folks from the industry had had come to him and expressed to him how the deteriorating roads were atecting their ability to deliver goods and services tloult this country. and that they had expressed a willingness to see something like that as a way to repair

roads and bridges and he said out of respect would definitely listen to them and consider it. >> what makes the president believe that now is the time that republicans who have been oppose ed d to this idea would open to this idea? >> i think you're missing -- he did not express support for it. he expressed that a group that had met with him expressed support with it. and that he out of respect would consider their request. that's it. there was no endorsement of it or support for it. he was just relaying what another industry group had shared with him about how to pay for the roads and bridges that need to be repaired and their ability to operate and deliver goods and services and the cost that it is having on their trucks, on their infrastructure. >> people ask the president all

the time please consider the following policy. there are people on both sides of the aisle, different backgrounds, that come in to see the president and ask could you consider this and keep an open mind. that's what the president was doing. >> i have two questions. one foreign policy and one domestic politics. first, last wednesday the kremlin outlawed the open russia movement. the premier opposition group to the ruling regime in russia and the following day security forces were forcibly closing down open russia's office in moscow and other places. does the administration have a statement on this. >> i do not. i would refer you to the state department. >> my second question is on sunday congresswoman ross, a veteran of the house, past chirm

of the house, announced her retirement. her statement comes on the heels of a similar announcement by congressman chaffetz and before that only a few weeks ago jenkins of kansas. that's three respected republican house members all calling it quits. is the president concerned about the numb of republican house members who do not want to be on the ballot next time and are leaving congress? >> no, and respectfully i would say that there are two groups of folks. in the case of congresswoman ross, she's been here 35 years and she's just decided it's time to retire. congressman chaffetz, i don't think there's any belief that you have to stay here for 20, 30 years. there's always going to be churns between election cycle

who is decide for a number of reasons to go back home. i think that's a healthy part of the democracy and that's frankly something that our framers saw. so to some degree, that's a healthy part of it. we feel very confident about where we stand. >> the president opted no not to continue obama's tradition of holding an easter prayer breakfast. was that a scheduling issue or did he think -- what was the thought process this? >> i really don't know. i know we wanted to do this national prayer breakfast this sunday. i think you're going to see a lot of folks represented. i don't know enough about obama and how far back it went. each president is going to have their own traditions. this is one that the president that mork there's a lot going on.

>> the president's comments are getting a lot of attention ob wall street. does the president favor breaking up the big banks? >> he talked about it on the campaign trail. he mentioned it before the idea of the glast steeg l. we're not ready to roll out details. >> he's been briefed by his advisers. we have nothing to announce at this time. >> thank you. the lack of border wall funding raises a question of just how serious the president is about getting the border wall constructed. is it not urgent, is it not an emergency anymore to build this barrier. what is the timetable and dead line that he has in mind? >> the wall is going to be

built. the president has made it clear. we have five months left in the fiscal year. we're getting $1.52 billion for border security. there's a lot that can be done with that. we have a lot of things that happen before the wall is built in terms of planning, technology, gates, there's a lot of things they can do to prepare for that wall being constructed. that will start in the beginning of october, this will be a major priority. >> it will be built. it there a dead line by the end of 2018. >> that is will be completed? >> there have been bids that have been put out. part of what the homeland security department is reviewing, as we move through the planning phase, that's going to be part of the consideration. the president wants this done as soon as possible.

>> back to north korea. the president just say he would be open to meeting with kim jong-un under the right circumstances. he said he would be honored to meet with him. this is somebody who has starved his own people. he put out a video showing the capital getting destroyed by north korean fighters. how could e he be honored to meet with kim jong-un? >> the president understands the threat that north korea poses. and he will do whatever necessary under the right circumstances to protect the country from the threat they pose. so he's still the head of state. so there's a a diplomatic piece to this. the bottom line is the president is going to do what he has to do. he's building a coalition in the region to isolate north korea to get the threat to take that threat down. that's his number one priority is protecting this country and our people.

>> what do you mean when they call him one smart cookie? >> he went over this in the interview. he assumed power at a young age when his father pass ed away. there was a lot of potential threats that could have come his way. he's managed to lead a country forward, despite the concerns that we and so many people have, he is a young person to be leading a country with nuclear weapons. so that set aside the president recognizes the threat he posed and is doing everything he can to isolate that threat and make sure we bring stability to the region. >> on north korea, both of the presidents' comments, you seem to be making the offer that we could have direct talks with north korea. who is going to be -- >> no, again, i think that the key part of the president's statement was under the right

circumstances. those circumstances do not exist now. this is consistent with what secretary tillerson said the other day. if north korea continues down a degree of provocative behavior, those circumstances will never be there. we want to hold out the possibility if they were ever serious about completely dismantling its nuclear capability and taking away the threat that they pose both to the region and to us there's always going to be a possibility of that occurring. that possibility is not there at this time. >> we're so far away from that possibility existing to start identifying an individual would be highly premature. >> you continue to say the effort is to isolate from north korea. part of this coalition. >> it's also to build a coalition. >> are you suggesting that the philippines has some sort of inappropriate contact with north korea? are you suggesting that we are requesting greater access

perhaps to their military basis? >> i think there's an economic piece to this as well. and i'm not going to go into that's part of the reason the president wants to meet with him. and i'm not going to get ahead of their discussions. i would suggest to you there are multifaceted ways not just the philippines but other countries in the region can play a role with economically, and otherwise to help deter the threat they pose. >> i just want to clarify. >> the president will have an opportunity to speak with him about those objectives. at this time, i'm not going to get ahead of that discussion. >> the president has invited the philippines president. the president put out a statement after the referendum

krcongratulates him. he said kind things about putin during the campaign. does the president have a thing with these totalitarian leaders? does he admire something about the way they conduct themselves? >> the president clearly, as i have said, understands the threat that north korea poses. i think someone with the potential nuclear capability to strike another country at some point in the future is something the president takes very seriously. so the idea that he is doing everything diplomatically, economically to consider every way to prevent that threat from taking on the united states, those are the neighbor ps. those things are helpful as we move forward to show the threat they pose. >> on sunday the chief of staff priebus talking to this

gentleman right here with respect to the liable laws, the first amendment, quote, talking about news outlets, i think it's something that we looked at, how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story. is that a project that is currently being worked on by the council's office. can you tell me a the status of that? who is pursuing that? >> the chief of staff made it clear that's something that's being looked into. but that's nothing new. that's something the president talked about on the campaign trail. i will not go into it. >> two questions. one on just to clarify on knot korea. were those conditions that you laid out to the earlier question are those conditions that would have to be met before there was in meeting that north korea would've to agree to disarm its nuclear program, top threatening their neighbors. are those the conditions. >> those are some of the

conditions. there's going to be a whole host of ones that we determine that the state. department determines that have to be met. we are so early this this process that i don't see this happening any time soon. those circumstances aren't present today. there would have to be significant change for that to be a possibility. >> the chief executive will be on the heels tomorrow. is the president at all -- does the president think that congress should pass any laws after the incident last month where they draggedoff. should there be more done to protect passengers on airplanes from those types of incidents. >> i think there's two things. the industry probably said they take a look at how they are handling a number of issues within that.

there's an industrial component and congress will decide if it's appropriate. >> ask you to clarify something else. i don't standby anything. how was the american public suppose toddy jessica that, supposed to trust what the president says when he himself says of his own comments i don't standby anything. >> what are you referring to? >> the cbs interview in the oval office? >> i need more context. >> it was about wiretapping. if he still believes president obama is an evil guy. do you still standby those comments? the president said i don't standby anything. >> that was a long back and forth exchange and that's why i'm asking for the context. he clearly stands by that. that's something he made clear if you look at the entire back and forth.

>>. >> obviously, there's a human rights component that goes into all of this. it's a balance. we want to make sure our people are protected. this isn't a simple yes or no situation. you have a country in north korea that possesses a nuclear weapon and is looking for the appropriate delivery system to potentially do harm. the president recognized that the number one priority is the protection of our people, the safety of our people and the safety of the people in the region. so it's not just a question of either or. it's a question of priorities and balance. there's a lot that the president talks to these leaders in private about. you saw that in egypt. sometimes that kind of diplomacy, privately talking about them and building a relationship, can achieve results. not just for our people, but for their people. and discussing how human rights issues. but i think it would be a mistake to assume that the

president because we don't put out statements publically chastising leaders at every call means that the president is -- hold on. let me answer the question. the president. understands the value and the balance. the reason that the president is building an effective coalition and getting results around the globe and reasserting america's place is e he understands the type of diplomacy and the type of negotiate iing and the type deal making that gets real results for our country. so i think it's a balancing act. >> there are three open patents with the philippines government. one from trump to ivanka for her clothing line. how do you respond to concerns about potential conflicts of interest? >> i just want to clarify something you said to sikh. is there a possibility that the president would not sign this spending agreement?

>> he's obviously very pleased d with how his priorities were addressed in the cr. i have every expectation that he would sign it. but let's just wait until it's on his desk. >> are e we still on track for the 2018 budget? mid-may or do you have a date for that? >> my understanding was it was still mid-may, but i want to consult with the director first. >> what's your expectation and what's your hope for the meeting with the president and are they still considering moving the embassy? >> that's still being discussed by staff. your expectations going forward.

that's going to be a ep relationship that he continue os work on and build that there's peace in that region between israel and the palestinian authority. >> the president has been talking about a major infrastructure package in more than a year on the campaign. it doesn't seem clear right now what the mechanism is for the structure of whatever it is he wants to push trd. he talked about attaching it to the reconciliation packet for health care. he talked about doing that with the tax package. can you update us on is that still very preliminary in its invention? does he have clear ideas? what's the mechanism to get that done? >> he does. he's been working on that with his economic and policy team.

but this weem we're busy with health care. he's clear that's something he wants to get done and get moving. this year absolutely. it's just a question of when he wants to announce it. but i think for this week, we're pretty focused on getting the government funded for the last five months of 2017 and getting health care done as soon as we can. with that, i'll see you tomorrow. have a great day. thank you. big headlines out of the press briefing there at the white house with sean spicer. let's start with north korea and president trump saying he would be honored to meet kim jong-un. i want to bring in our cnn politics reporter and editor at large. your reaction to what he had to say about what president trump

said today. saying he's not only open, but would be honored to meet with kim jong-un under the right conditions. >> this is sean spicer doing what he in some ways signed up for and done a lot of. trying to finesse into something that is manageable politically speaking. so he's taking the part of under the right circumstances. we heard that a lot in that press briefing to essentially mean if north korea stopped acting like north korea and if kim jong-un stopped trying to acquire ballistic and nuclear missiles, then we would meet with them. >> which is not breaking news. that's not going to happen. i'll cut a great deal for america. t the blind spot is by appearing

side by side with let's say the president of the philippines or kim jong-un or some of these other folks, you are validating them at some level. they are standing next to the leader of the most powerful country in the world. no matter what happens in there, unless north korea says let's forget that our nuclear ambitions chrks isn't going to happen. you're giving them a win by the very active meeting with them. it's odd to me he doesn't get that because he's such a perception image conscious person that seems like a blind spot. >> you hear him praising these dictators essentially. and kim jong-un, the president of the philippines who has killed thousands of people. the words he said about vladimir put putin, what do you make about this and what we heard from sean spicer specifically saying he's inviting duterte to the white

house because he wants to have a coalition. >> you can't prove it wrong. you can always say it's important to have allies around the world who can bring pressure to bare on north korea. at the same time, back to my earlier point, we're talking about at least 7,000 people killed in this broad anti-drug clean up program. put aside what e he said about former president obama. so again, i just think this idea we're prioritizing this. congratulations to president erd won for his victorievictories. you can't say i'm going to pick these things that are beneficial to us and they are positioning them in the region. the human rights stuff, they come together. it's part and parcel.

>> i want to bring in your reaction to the notion that president trump is saying he would be honored to meet with kim jong-un. it seemed like sean spicer dodged the question when asked about that. >> yeah, the challenge is that bear in mind the united states does not have diplomatic relations with north korea. never has. also the war is still ongoing. we don't have a peace treaty that ended that conflict. the united states has routinely dealt with the north through a very large presence in the south and through arrangements with the remaining allies and friends that we have in the region, which is south korea, japan and we have to deal with china and russia. with that collection of powers, we've been able to try to hold what you see in north korea. the challenge that we have right now is that it really doesn't matter what our president says relative to activities and behavior in the north.

inarguably, no nation has had an ability to modify and alter the behavior in pyongyang. it just doesn't work. what has to happen is that that regime is marching forward that they will have a nuclear weapon to be delivered. they have nukes right now, but you have to drive them on a consider or on a boat. we have to be able to be very strong with that regime. we're not honored to -- our president should not be honored to meet with the leader of that regime. it doesn't exist. in fact, at the lowest levels, it doesn't exist right now. >> just for historical context, the last time you had a leader in the united states -- not a leader, but someone in the high ranking official meeting with a leader of north korea was in 2000 and that was madelyn albright and with kim jong-un's father. there's a a reason why that hasn't happened since then. i want to bring in jeff zeleny

to talk about these conditions. because sean spicer kept saying what was really important about what president trump said is it would have to be under the right conditions. what would those conditions be. break it down. >> sean spicer was trying to getten beyond the word honored. that was a word that the president used in the bloomberg interview that you heard the white house being asked about. sean spicer tried to steer the conversation toward the circumstances. he said we have to see the provocative behavior. there's a lot of conditions that would have to happen and those conditions are not there right now. so clearly trying to say this is something that is hypothetical at this point. this is not even in the immediate foreseeable future. but you get the sense here that the president just in the continuation of all this comments from over the weekend calling him smart and then saying he would be honored, you get sense that he's trying to

flatter kim jong-un in a respect here and it's unclear if that is by strategy or just something the president is doing here. but again, the word honored, as we have been talking about, certainly is going to resinate for quite some time. it's the wrong word, pamela. >> it does make you wonder. is he trying to appeal to kim jong-un to butter him up so that the tensions will deescalate. you heard sean spicer even say during the briefing that, look, kim jong-un is someone who rose to power at a young age in had his country. he's moved his country forward almost as if he was doubling down. >> i think missing in some of this is the context. it's not like he won a free and fair election. it's not like he's moving the regime forward at all. there are people starving. this is hardly a praise worthy leader or situation here.

so it's an interesting choice of words, choice of discussion. i'm not sure it if it's by design or not. it's certainly raising eyebrows. >> like you said, people starving there. north korea has been open about wanting to destroy the united states. let's talk about duterte and this invitation that president trump has extend ed to him to come to the white house. here's what sean spicer had had to say about that. >> did the president know about the comments and his record in human rights. >> the president gets brief ed. the number one concern is to make sure we do everything we can to protecting our people. and to diplomatically isolate north korea. i'm not going to tell you

everything in his broef. that's all part of the brief. >> i want to bring in our politics reporter for the guardian. our sources have told cnn that this was totally unplanned. total ly unexpected. that president trump opened up this invitation to duterte. >> i think this president has had a pattern of shooting from the hip. not really thinking about the ramifications for inviting varietiers of human rights or in some cases showering them with praise. killings in his krak. you saw the president sympathize ing with the problem that he has in the region with respect to narcotics, but certainly human rights groups will tell you that it there's no compelling

interest in having this person come and sit at the white house, which would certainly be an honor with and of itself. this is part of a broader pattern. you have seen him extend an invitation so a willingness to sit down with kim jong-un. he has praised vladimir putin. most republicans believe vladimir putin is a war criminal. and prior to the most recent chemical attack in syria, he was shifting the u.s. posture toward whether or not bashar al assad should go. to sit down and negotiate with them and that would be a dramatic shift in u.s. posture toward regions like north korea and the philippines. >> if there is a strategy, to the extent there is one, it's this good cop, bad cop.

he meets with them for two days. suddenly rather than being a currency manipulator, his words not mine, they are raping the united states. suddenly he's a very good guy, a smart guy and he's speaking for them. so there's the good cop. i do think there's a tendency toward flattery here. he does turn. we know that so if there's a strategy. i'm hesitate to say is or isn't. the problem is when you play good cop with someone that's a dictator or someone who is in a repressive regime, it's hard to sell that. >> the signal that it sends to u.s. allies who you're looking at north korea, the message that south korea might receive if the

president so cavalierly extends an invitation. there's been mixed messages to the actual strategy. this is national security threat. are they going to pursue military aggression or diplomatic aggression and increase sanctions. i think there's a lot more people who are affected by the white house taking a meet iing. it's not just about the united states. it's about allies. they are counting on the u.s. to enforce this. >> let's talk about health care. there's a lot said about that today on the heels of president trump claiming that the gop health care bill will guarantee coverage for those with preexisting conditions. here's what sean spicer had to say about that. >> they can't charge them more.

>> so the bill does not remove obamacare's guaranteed issue requirement. and on the community ratings, to people with preexisting cbs are met. there are reduced premiums, stabilized the market, stabilized premiums. the bottom line is to give the states flexibility to give the premium down. it's to create a system to get the premium down for them as well. >> you're right when i say the whole goal of this is to give the states the flexibility to get lower premiums. that's the goal all around. to make sure that the system that we employ gets it down. >> this bill does not remove

obamacare's provision when it comes to those with preexisting conditions. is that true. >> if you're talking about recreating high risk pools at the state level, what is missing from that e equation, from it that discussion is massive amounts of suns dsubsidy that comes from the federal government to make those pools even vaguely affordable to end up in that. to take the example that was being discussed at the press conference, somebody could have a bill as high as 25,000 in insurance premiums you put them in a high risk pool who are is going to buy that cost down so a family could actually pay for it. there's an argument that's been made that if you were to put a massive federal subsidy into states that created high risk pools, you could get the rate down to some sort of affordable,

manageable level. that's not been the experience in the days when we did have states creating high risk pools. so it remains unclear and there's a huge cost associated with that. that's what we're dpoing to hear from health care advocates after today. >> high in your view is that not realistic to have states be the ones to have the flexibility to lower the premiums for those with preexisting conditions. why don't you think that's realistic? >> people with preexisting conditions will be covered. i think everybody knows the arithmetic doesn't lead to that conclusion. the hissing piece is gigantic subsidy from the federal government. now there is an argument to be made.

there's an argument that you could put in money that is less than obamacare subsidies and that would get the job done. and the patients themselves, the question is whether or not trump care is going to shift them around in a way that everybody can live with. congress will let us know in pretty short order. >> we'll have to wait and see. it's interesting because president trump and one of his advisers this morning said, look, we have the votes. this is going to happen this week. sean spicer sort of said we're not really going to announce a time line. so we'll have to see how this all develops. i want to thank my panel for coming on and giving your analysis on these important you shalls of the day. thank you to all of you. more on this in just a moment. tirs, something spicer wasn't asked about. the president's comments about the civil war.

>> had andrew jackson been later, you wouldn't have had the civil war. he was a very tough person but he had a big part. he was really angry that he so was happening with regard to the civil war. he said there's no reason for this. >> you think about it, why. people don't ask that question. but why was there the civil war? why could that one not have been worked out. >> it's worth noting andrew jackson died 16 years before the war. so let's talk about this with political commentators ben ferguson and howard kattell. he was also president trump's personal tour guide when he visited the home and laid a wreath at jackson's tomb on march 15th. which would have been president

jackson's 250th birthday. so ben, first question, why would the president question this. >> i think there was a couple things here in context. he knew that he was dead before the civil war. that's when he said if he was around, the second thing is that he was an individual who obviously knew just how brutal war was. whether it was the scars he carried with him his entire life told to shine the boots of the foreign enemy and beat hem because he would not do that. his point he was making is if he was around, he saw how brutal war was. he lost family members to war. there's a decent chance he could have had a different outcome if he was the leader. because he'd seen what happened.

he liked giving power back to the people. e he sees a lot of similarities between his presidential campaign and also the other campaign as well. so i think this has been taken out of context in a major way. >> do you agree with that? >> i don't think it's being taken out of context at all. i think this has what become typical of the president. he says something outlandish or ignorant and friends of mine have to clean it up and spin it the best possible way. >> why do you say ignorance? >> because it's historically ignorant. if it you thought that andrew jackson was going to fix the civil war, andrew jackson brutalized and killed genocidal a number of native americans. andrew jackson owned 150 slaves. the civil war wasn't about economics. the currency they were trading in was my forefathers.

so this isn't some individual who was going to grow a heart and end the civil war. we know why the war was fought. for donald trump to ask himself why was the civil war thought is historically ignorant you're entitled to your own opinion. you're not entitled to your own facts. that's my problem with this revisionist whitewash of history. >> it's not whitewashing to imply there's racial connotation to i or to donald trump. people are getting sick and tired of the race card being thrown around. when you have a president looking back at an individual that understood exactly how brutal war was. when you look at the history of the context of what donald trump was talking about, you have a president that experienced war. you have family members that were killed in war. you have as a child he was brutalized because of war. to imply that somehow what he's saying is whitewashing is absurd. and it's also i think a little out of line. you have a president that when e

he said if he was around, there's a decent chance. >> go ahead bakari. >> a fundamental question. why was the civil war fought? >> i think you know this and i know this. a large part of it was slavery. >> so do not -- >> you can't act it was only an issue of slavery. >> it was. there are no sglsh it was bigger than just slavery. you said facts matter. >> i'm beginning to finish my thought, ben. >> bakari, finish your thought. >> you cannot say this is an economic matter because the economics of that time were slair. no one is playing the race card talking about the civil war. the fact is if donald trump wants to postulate why was the war fought, the answer is slavery. move forward. >> bakari, you're being ignorant to history it you think the

civil war go back and look at any history book was solely about slavery. it was not solely about slavery. and if you actually look at history instead of just throwing race out there on every syringe l thing when it comes to civil war, you'd have a better understanding. >> i was a history major, ben. >> let me finish. you weren't paying good attention. >> this is absurd. >> it's not absurd. it's absurd to imply that the civil war exclusively about slavery. >> the entire thing was not slavery. >> i think we'll bring in the historian. howard, your thoughts on this debate and also tell us about the president's admiration for andrew jackson and what he's told you. >> certainly. jackson's connection with the civil war is at best ten jen l. he was vehemently supportive of the union of the spatates.

the constitutional sankty of that union. during his presidency, south carolina was threatening to us is seed from the union, and had that happen, other states would have gone with it. there was called the nullification crisis of 1832 when south carolina was alleging that it didn't have to follow federal law. that states were sovereign and didn't have to follow federal law. if the federal government required it to it would secede. it was jackson who famously said, this union is treason. and also said our federal union must be preserved. so jackson's connection here and i believe what the president was referring to was jackson's firm belief that the federal government was what protected the independents and individual

citizen ises. e he saw that independents as paramount. >> let me just bring you back in. we're talking about the history of the civil war when there's all this stuff going on. you have the health care debate. you have the crisis with north korea not to mention everything else. why is the president talking about this right now? >> he was asked a question. i think this goes back to the first point i made. this is a a big overreaction to do about nothing for the president that was talking. he was asked a question about his time. he was talking about being in tennessee. talking about the remarks he gave literally at this event. and was talking about how brutal the civil war was. maybe if andrew jackson was around, maybe things could have been a little bit different if he was around. i don't think there's anything wrong with having these comments. but this is the real issue i have. when something like this comes out, people immediately want to try to turn it into some massive racial thing instead of looking at the context of what the

president said. and to understand he was talking about why he actually likes this former president. why his portrait is hanging in the oval office. by the way, at the event in nashville when this happened, he also condemned the fact he was a slave owner. so he has an ubsing of the historical context of this. to imply this is a one situation or one issue with only race is just not fair to history. >> what do you think about that, bakari? this is being blown out of proportion and this isn't fair. >> that's about the only explanation you can have. i think this is a larger issue that the white house has. his staff simply doesn't serve him well. donald trump is not suited to do these wide ranging interviews on a wide array of interruviews because he begins to go down these paths, which for many people in the country, maybe not ben, but many people in the

country are ignorant of history. the fact is the reason that this is not an issue of race or a race card or anything else being played is because we're simply talking about one thing. it's really hard to talk about the civil war. it's hard to talk about slavery without talking about race. it's hard to talk about andrew jackson without mentioning he was a slave owner. it's hard to talk about jackson as if. he didn't brutalize native americans. we can go round ask round and round. but the what the trump administration cannot do is continue to proinvestigator facts, which is what this was again. >> the facts here and if it you listen to a historian, he explained how it wasn't only solely about one issue, which you seem to be obsessed with trying to connect to the president, which is the issue of race or racism. at some point if we want the as a country to move forward, we have to lock at the entire context of some of these comments and look at the historical comments of