it's 1:00 a.m. in singapore. let's go to katie tur at 1:00 eastern in new york. >> hi there, andrea, hope you're able to get some sleep before you head home, amazing coverage. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm katie tur, in for craig melvin. it's a sal bond. the president and a dictator are both on their way home after handshake, a meeting and a signed agreement. but what will that agreement actually do? and what did the president give

up for the pomp and circumstance of a summit with the north korean leader?plus, voe of peop. voters in five states are at the poles right now. we'll meet a brand-new candidate who's dubbed the little female donald trump in nevada. and talk about whether voters will push out an incumbent republican who has pushed back against the president down there in south carolina. also, best defense. president trump's legal team reportedly trying a new strategy in the russia investigation. how they're coordinator with other people caught up in robert mueller's web and why it is perfectly legal. now what. that's the question the world is asking in the aftermath of the meeting overnight in singapore. the president and north korea's kim jong-un met for the first time as they sat down to discuss denuclearizing the korean peninsula and bringing peace to theregion. the meeting and an agreement, the first step towards that goal. but what is step number two.

nbc's kelly o'donnell and bill legal neely are in singapore. is the white house happy with the way things turned out? are they happy with what donald trump and america walked away with in that meeting? >> so far, there seems to be a gloe after the summit. er there in a window where they are really focused on the historic nature of it and believing that the meeting itself was an accomplishment and that there is a road map going forward. the president says that kim jocken has a total plan, those were his words, to denuclearize. at this point, i think it will take time for the white house to sort of digest the reaction and then of course the following steps that will be required as the president is now in guam, touched down there for the opportunity to refuel air force one. and he might be reminded of some of the threatatmosphere, because the governor of guam is

possibly stopping by, we're told, for a brief hello with the president. you remember, he had been threatened and the island had been threatened by kim jong-un with his nuclear capability and s intercontinental ballistic missile reach. so thatn't so long ago. but here is how the president described his sense of the direction this meeting is taking in rather lofty terms for donald trump. >> today's the beginning of an arduous process. our eyes are wide open. but peace is always worth the effort. especially in this case. this should have been done years ago. this should have been resolved a long time ago. but we're resolving it now. chairman kim has the chance to seize an incredible future for his people. anyone can make war. but only the most courageous can make peace. >> and the president also

indicated that he expected that kim would follow through. he said that he found him to be very committed to this. he also said he was on time. there was no hurry up to get out ofsingapore. the president, though, did up his schedule. he said once meetings were done and he was confident in the way it had gone, he wanted to save time, as he described it to reporters and that's why air force one has already made part of the journey back to washington, katie. >> interesting. bill neely, the stopping of war games on the korean peninsula, that seemed like a pretty big concession on the american part. how is it plang on the ground there? >> well, it was all going so very well for president moon. here was the summit that he had dreamed of. here was the historic handshake he hoped for. as you say, then the bombshell. the president, it seems like, had not informed anyone in seoul

about what he w going to say because straight after he said it, both south korea's military and president moon's office said we need to find out what this means. so it seems like it was a bit of a bombshell. and the second thing that will have cau g anxiety is what he said next about u.s. troops based in south korea. let's take a listen. >> i want to bring our soldiers back hole. we have right now 32,000 soldiers in south korea, and i'd like to payabbe able toring the back home. but that's not part of the equation right now. we will be stopping the war games, which will save us a tell men does amount of money. >> so talking about bringing u.s. troops home will also cause alarm in japan. it will possibly cause delight in as for north korea, well, it's got to be party time in pyongyang.

because they've got the prize they dreamed of for so many decades. they've got the respect and the recognition of the united states as a nation and an equal partner. kim's sort of international isolation, you know, he's been praised not as a pariah now but too, from president trump, ise katie. >> bill neely, wow. kelly o'donnell, one last thing, in talking about the g-7, which the president left a few days ago, now almost seems like it was a year ago, his chief economic adviser peter navarro said something inflammatory on the air, saying there's a special place in help for justin trudeau, for i guess defying the president or misleading the president according to navarro. kelly, navarro is, let's put it kindly, he's backing off those comments, not fully apologizing. but listen to what he told "the wall street journal." >> in conveying that message, i used language that was

inappropriate and -- >> special place in hell for the -- >> -- basically lost the power of that message. i own that. that was my mistake. those were my words. >> not exactly an apology, kelly. but did somebody in the white house say listen, that's not okay? >> i don't know where the direction came from but this is unusual in the trump orbit for anyone at thatevel to acknowledge an error, a mistake, to recognize that damage was done. g-7 feels like a long time ago, but the ashes seem to have spilled everywhere, especially the juxtaposition that should exist between the united states and canada, trump and trudeau, up against the imagery from here, where we saw president trump and kim jong-un. the kinds of words peter navarro used would have been more suited for the tensions that until just months ago were so hot between the united states and north korea. that, if it was a blind quote and we said, who is he talking

about, it would have been far more likely kim jong-un, not justin trudeau. so this is a way for especially as a trade negotiator be dealing with canada in the midst of nafta negotins, the tariff talks and all of that, he really needed to clean that up and at least he went further than some might have expected, if not a full-on apology. >> it's almost as somebody was saying we were actually just watching "south park" and it was the movie and it was "blame canada" and that's where that came from, not the actual chief economic adviser. kelly o'donnell, i hope you're getting some rest, thank you very much. ll neely, thank you. let's bring in jim walsh, research associate specializing in international security at m.i.t. security studies program. peter baker, "new es" and msnbc political analyst. ambassador chris hill, now an msnbc diplomacy contributor. chris, you were shaking your head the entire time we played that presidential -- that

president sound bite about what he believes he's getting in return from north korea, and talking about the war games being stopped. >> first of all, these are exercises. these are densive exercises ta which we test the capacity of our troops to work with south korean troops to come together and deal with a threat coming from the north. so far, no one has ever called them war games before, before last night. secondly, the notion that we should go ahead and at the behest of kim jong-un and dance el them and to the regret of the south koreans is rather odd in and of itself. so yes, the summit is historic, but maybe not for the reasons that the president would like. he comes out, he signs something with chairman king. there's no explanation of what he's signing. e crowd doesn't know whether to applaud or do what as they're signing a piece of paper.

we had no idea what it was. fortunately, he held it up in front of the press and someone took a photo of it and from that we wernd blown up able to figure out what it was. what it was was a step back from the agreed framework in the 1990s. from the six-party talks -- >> how is it a step back? because there's no verification? >> there's no mention of ver fa i ka, there verification, there mention of any kind of time line. in the six-party statement it said north korea will abandon all its nuclear weapons, a its nuclearprograms, return to the nonproliferation treaty. that's very important because it means as a non-nuclear state. and it sets out at the earliest opportunity. there's nothing like that in this document. it alludes to a peace treaty. but of course it doesn't mean who might be involved in that. this is not just for the north koreans in the u.s. south korea has a vote in that, as does china.

it's so vague that i think is worth putting aside, pretend it never happened, turning to secretary pompeo, and ask him, look, put together an action pl for example is china going to be part of this? is this going to be the u.s. and north korea kind of dictating terms to everyone else? the oddest thing was this idea we're going to cancel these s and the president says he'd like to bring troops home. what kind of message does that bring to allies, not just asia but rest of the world. >> he's been saying that for years. he believes the troops that are overseas are protecting the countries overseas. he believes that we are a security force around the world and that's what our troops are doing there. not necessarily protecting our own interest. he also believes those countries

should be paying us for the privilege of having our troops there and not the other way around. it's something that he has said over and over again. despite when people like you have pushed back and said, well, hold on, there's a reason troops are there and it's in o self-interest. was that your chuckling a moment ago? >> it was. i feel s' pain on this. obviously we would have liked something more, something substantive. that's what you get when you have a summit and you have about a month to prepare for it. you get a sort of bad communique. but i am willing to give him time on this. as long as folks are talking, that means they're not planning an attack. so the risk of accidental war, war by mistake, by miscalculation, that goes down as we keep talking. and we got our detainees back. and this freeze on a nuclear missile test will continue. that's all to the good. clearly there's a lot of work to be done.

but still i'll give the benefit of doubt with the skepticism, with the hope that this can catch fire and keep going, but obviously there are reasons for skepticism. >> peter, i'm sure you heard this last night when the president -- or early this morning when the president talked about whether or not this is going to be successful. he'll say, in the future i'll realize i made a mistake but if i do, i'll never admit it. i'll just make up some reason or make up some excuse. have you ever heard a president go on television and admit he's willing to lie about a mistake in order to not admit he's make a mistake? >> it's a pretty candid way to admit the way he does business. he's in on the joke, if you will. he does not like to apologize.

does not like to admit he's wrong. there are times you could point too where heually has done that. it was obviously late in the day and he was tired, but it was a remarkable perrmance at this press conference. you saw a lot of donald trump classic-type moments. he's willing to flatter and praise somebody who is now his negotiating partner n matter what their history back in their own country is. very talented man, this kim jong-un, he said, of course very much a contrast to what he said about pierre trudeau, the prime minister of canada, who he called weak and dishonest, you know, this is the way he operates. what the others have been saying is correct. this isn't a particularly concrete document. it's more a statement of aspiration than it is anything else. i don't think we should have expected, i don't think anybody really did expect a concrete document to come out of this. the question is whether or not this can lead to something else.

we've seen this movie before. it hasn't ended well. will we have a different ending this time? >> peter, is there concern he may have agreed to something one on one, when there was just translators in that room, that he didn't realize he agreed to? asked whether or not there will be a readout of that meet, the president saidwell, i have one of the world's greatest memories so i'll remember wsaid. i'm not being glib here. he said the same thing to me on the phone about a campaign issue in 2015 when he was claiming that thousands of muslims were cheering on streets as the towers went down. there's no evidence back that up that did not happen. when i asked him for it, he said, i know what happened because i have the world's greatest memory. flash forward about a year when he's under a deposition and lawyers ask him for one of the lawsuit he's in, he's bragging

he has the world's greatest memory, and he says, i don't remember saying that. >> yes. it's the word's greatest selective memory. the truth, proba would have been better for everyone if there were notes in there. ving said that, it wouldn't surprise me if later on there was a claim an agreement was made in that room just between the two of them that they didn't report and if the president decided it wasn't convenient, he would say no, we didn't make that agreement. so he is -- he does tend to reinvent things. if he decided it wasn't convenient or it wasn't the right course to take six months from now, i think he would back off whatever it was that was said in that room. the question is whether that could blow up, you know, this trust they are trying to bui betwee leaders. you put two leaders in the room and the idea is to forge a bond. president trump said it would take just one minute to understand how well he would get along with kim jong-un.

a real relationship of trust takes time. you want to have a partner that you believe is going to live up to the things he said. both cases, we have leaders who have been all over the map on some issues. it's going to be interesting to see whether they can genuinely over time a relationship to lead some place. >> peter, i'll it because i believe it's fact, not opinion, he has a tendency to lie. peter baker, ambassador chris hill, jim walsh, gentlemen, thank you. disarming north korea. it will take years, possibly a decade to remove weapons of mass destruction from north korea. how will the trump administration handle the most challenging case of nuclear disarmament in history? plus, the president may be ready to shift his focus from north korea to his legal battles. in the last few minutes, "vanity fair" published a new report citing a source that matthew cohen has told friends he expects arrested any day now, a report that he denies. and checking out races in the nevada district

that's totally up for grabs. and met one candidate who's being prepared to president trump. >> you said you're the little female trump, is that right? >> i didn't come up with that. people have given nickname. >> i'm -- you know what, i have more emmys and much better hair. storms by an insurance company that knows the weather down to the square block. this is a diamond tracked on a blockchain - protected against fraud, theft and trafficking. this is a financial transaction secure from hacks and threats others can't see. this is a patient's medical history made secure - while still available to their doctor at their fingertips. this is an asteroid live-streamed to millions of viewers from 220 miles above earth. this is ai trained by experts in0 industries. your industry. hello. this is not the cloud you know. this is the ibm cloud.

the cloud that's built for all your apps. ai ready. secure to the core. the ibm cloud isud r smarter business. ♪ ♪

like nothing you, ncy or she, has ever seen. filets of 100% real natural chicken or seafood. handcrafted, and served any way she wants. purely fancy feast filets.

the challenge ahead for the trump administration is how to ensure north korea sticks to its

word and works to denuclearize. one step is to end joint military exercises with south korea. north korea has long objected, calling them practice for war by the u.s. leng in kevin baron, executive editor at defense one. kev kevin, you have some strong feelings about whether or not the president should end military exercises. tell us why. >> it's not that i have feelings about whether he should or not, there's a lot to break down here. he said military exercises, he calls them war games, but we don't have any details beyond that. ey do bilateral ones with the koreans. they do multilateral ones with other nations in the area. we don't know what it means he's going to stop doing. is it going to be large multiforce events that really are designed to practice for the big korean war should it ever happen? or is he talking about these flyovers from bombers?

a lot of it goes back to the, remember, the north koreans said they wanted this to be stipulation of them coming to the table. they wanted the u.s. to cease exercises. they wanted the united states to pull back the nuclear threat to north korea. itould mean everything donald trump was talking about. flying from guam six hours away. it could mean a missile threat. it could mean the submarine threat. the united states has many ways to deliver nuclear weapons t north korea. they have a bit of an out when they talk about saying, we want the u.s. to stop military exercises or else. >> talk to me about the dismantling and removing of nuclear weapons. it's not just a quick process. the president has acknowledged this as well. he said he's read a lot of books about it, that it would take a long time. just "the new york times" laid out the nine steps it will take to disarm north korea overall. dismantle and remove nuclear weapons. disable reactors.

close nuclear test sites. end h-bomb fuel production. inspect anywhere destroy biological weapons. destroy chemical weapons. curb missile program. is there anything whatsoever in the agreement that the president has so far signed that can guarantee any of those points? >> no, there's no guarantee of any of this. i think, you know, a lot of the north korea nuclear watchers did no expect those detail alils ats meeting. they were hopeful a start of a process to come. the last few days have been saying, let's see now what comes next, and it really falls to pompeo and others in the administration to get down to those dirty details. there are very few examples in world history of countries that are successfully denuclearized but they do exist. and the question is on what level of verification are we going to see? all thoseoints you said that the "times" reported on will

require independent verification, that's the united nations, that's what we know is happening in iran, in places like ukraine, south africa. there's lots of other countries. >> what's the difference between -- i mean, the president didn't like the iran deal and a lot of republicans and some democrats didn't like the iran deal because they felt that iran's leaders were liars. and that they couldn't trust even the verification process. kim jong-un is not known as a very honest person. his regime and leaders before him have not been so honest. without the big v, verification, in this, as pompeo was so adamant about a couple days ago, in this first letter, i'm just a little bit confused on what the difference between the horrible iran deal was and what more can be done with north korea. >> yes, the point is well taken and lots of folks are saying the same thing. iran was expirational for them,

but also -- >> so what's the lesson here, build your nuclear weapons, then we have to come to the negotiating table no matter what? >> the bigger thing is the way trump has approached any initial contact with north korea versus the way the united states approached iran. there was no diplomatic contact with iran for, what, 20, 30 years. the way that happened was, it was a different set of leaders. those leaders with john kerry decided to go step by step with these, you know, meeting after meeting in vienna to get through hundreds of points to get to the deal just on the nuclear issue. this is the other way around. trump just wants to get in the room with the guy, give him some praise, get a process started. we know trump. you know him more than anybody. he never sticks to a deal he agrees with. >> no, look at any of the cabinet meetings. or the meetings with lawmakers. where he would sit across the table from the democrat and say we're going to get that done,

move forward with daca or immigration or health care and then -- >> -- it turns into something else. >> and a minute later he said no, i never said that. >> that can work both ways. not to justify his m.o. that's donald trump. trump said in subsequent interviews after his press conference, unless, he said we'll stop the military exercises unless north korea doesn't live up to their end. in which case, they're bath on. pompeo has to talk to the allies. the u.s. forces said they have not received any guidance whatsoever. again, i'm constantly saying it any time i come on tv to talk about something with donald trump, wait and see what actually happen, not just what was said, not in a tweet and not even in a signed agreement with the leader of north korea. >> here's the thing, regardless of what happens next, the north koreans and kim jong-un did get legitimacy out of this. they did get that photo op. he did get to travel to another country where he was not only welcomed by the american president but it seemed like he was feted by folks on the ground

there in singapore cheering him. remember, this is a murderous dictator who had no legitimacy. so at the very least, the very least, what walks away with is some legitimacy. kevin baron, thank you. up for grabs, people in five states are voting right now in their primary elections. our jacob soberoff went to a nevada district that cou of the few that swings from democrat to republican in november. i can do more to lower my a1c. and i can do it with what's already within me. because my body can still make its own insulin. and once-weekly trulicity activates my body to release it. trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. it works 24/7.

trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the firstn to medicine to treat diabetesults or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i choose once-weekly trulicity to activate my within. if you need help lowering your a1c, ask ur doctoabout once-weekly trulicity. that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything.

only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insure unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any of these types of plans, they could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call unitedhealthcare insurance company today to reqst a free... ...[decision guide.] with these types of plans... you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patits. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan any time you want. so don't wait. call unitedhealthcare now to request your free [decision guide.] where we're changing withs? contemporary make-overs.

then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com.

today is primary day in five states across the country. daughters in maine, nevada, nort dakota, south carolina and virginia are heading to the polls today. in nevada's 3rd congressional district, republicans are trying to flip the seat and stop democrats from tg back the house in november. one republican candidate thinks she can do that by taking a page out of donald trump's playbook. msnbc's jacob zoberoff joins me now with a race that is up for grabs in nevada, hey, jacob. >> sure is, katie. this is a ping pong basically back and forth over the last 12 years. this candidate is a local

television news reporter who is focusing on style over substance, sound familiar? watch this. it is about 103 degrees outside in las vegas which turns out that means the mall is the place to be. they've got a farmer's market going on. they also have an early voting location. this district, nevada's 3rd, is one of the only in the country that might swing from blue to red. the 3rd is a flip-flopper. it was created in 2003 and represented by a republican until 2009. then a democrat from 2009 to 2011. a republican from 2011 to 2017 and a democrat from 2017 until today. she decided to run for senate. now the seat is up for grabs. >> nice to meet you. >> it's good to be in vegas. >> it's always good to see someone from msnbc. >> that's nice of you to say. >> i watch it 24 hours a day. >> when you're not voting. >> exactly. >> republican or democrat? >> democrat. >> so are you in this 3rd congressional district? >> yes. >> the republicans are targeting

it. >> well, lots of luck. >> lots of luck. >> they'll need it. >> you think they'll be able to do it? >> no. >> susie lee is considered the leading democrat. you really are in an important position to hold the line. >> yes. >> do you feel pressure? >> i certalyeel the pressure to get support from where i can. >> what is it about the district that makes it such a flippy district? why does it go back and forth? >> it's just really --y it comes down to there's a lot independent vote in this district and they really focus on the quality of the candidate. >> michelle mortenson is the underdog in the primary. the trump-backed businessman johnny sarcanian. you've likened yourself to donald trump, is that right? >> i didn't come with that. >> you like that? >> i'm -- you know what, i have more emmys and much better hair. i'll answer it that way. i'm not a politician just like he wasn't a politician. >> peo respond to that?

>> absolutely. >> the thing i've noticed about this district, it's sort of a flip-flop district. it was republican for a long time. why? >> well, it's because we're pretty split evenly between the democrats and independents. you have to win over the independent voter to win here. >> is that these people? >> the independents are pretty much everywhere but i do know this, they know me from tv. >> who did you vote for for congress? do you remember? >> no. >> are you a republican or a democrat? >> republican. >> this is a district right now that's held by a democrat and now she's running for senate. you think the republicans can win it back? >> huh-uh. >> you don't think so? the democrats will be happy to hear that. >> so katie, susie lee, the front-running democrat, told me she thinks mortensen, the television news reporter, could actually upset the opponent, president trump's choice, which is a sign i guess that the strategy, style over substance,

might work. >> what is mortensen running on besides her emmys and her hair? >> she talks a lot about her ability, this might sound familiar to you, to connect to people by talking tough. >> but what are the policies? >> this sounds exactly like the questions you would dond trump while you were on the campaign trail, whenou ask her these types of questions. we were with her with the folks out right at that very outdoor restaurant. she keeps going back to i'll go to conservative policies. we're going to get the government out of your life. and that's -- that's something that those voters response to. >> interesting. jacob soboroff, thank you. jacob could pay you a visit next if you live in a midterm swing district. tell him what matters most to you using #up for grabs at msnbc. one of trump's first defi defining supporters is seeking a full term for governor.

he won the president's endorsement over the weekend. meanwhile, congressman mark sanford has been one of trump's biggest critics in the house and he's at risk of losing his seat because of it. sanford's opponent, state legislator katie arrington, has made his dis for trump the central message of her campaign. ke a look at her most recent tv ad. >> it's time to turn the page on the mark sanford era. it's time for a new republican voice in congress. it's time for a conservaho will work with president trump, not against him. >> let's bring in jake kenzie, he's covered south carolina politics for two decades. thank you for being here. >> my pleasure, katie, thanks for having me. >> what do voters want? do they want a candidate who's running on issues or a candidate who is blindly loyal to donald trump? >> well, i could tell you that two of the candidates there, henry mcmaster, the governor now, who is appointed to the position by nikki haley when she

left to become the u.n. ambassador, has tied himself very much to the president. he has a challenger who has also made some attempts to try to link herself to donald trump, and she has experience in state government. she was two positions in state agencies by nikki haley and she's also made an attempt to try to tie herself to donald trump, and that is catherine templeton who is the former department of health and environmental control. and also labor licensing and regulation chief. she has tried to link herself to the trump presidency with probably somewhat less success. henry mcmaster owns that territory right now. i got a robo call yesterday from the president saying he fully endorses henry mcmaster. >> interesting. mark sanford has been a long time congressman down there.

weathered some storms in south carolina politics as well, storms that he's made himself. he been outspoken. he's been willing to call the president out when he believes the presides not correct. are voters unhappy with him for standing by his principles? >> the polling would seem to indication that katie arrington, his challenger, has made a lot of hay out of linking herself to donald trump and saying that rk sanford is a neverer who has been disloyal to the president. of course, we all thought that mark sanford's political career was over with the infamous hiking the appalachian trail incident a number of years ago, and he made a recovery that was quite remarkable. so it's really too close to call down there. it's a statistical dead heat in that race. and the margin of error on the polling down there is 4.5%. they say that two of them are within a single percentage point

of each other. >> even coring politics a long time down there, i what ant to your expertise, have you ever seen e you've seen the past few years? in terms of are voters looking more for personality now than they had in the past? >> it's hd to because i think this hasurned out to be a personality contest a least for the governor's race. templeton has tried to portray herself as an outsider. she has another challenger who is very close in the polling apparently. upstate businessman, a marine and a businessman who owns a mortgage lending company. they've tried to portray themselves as outsiders. that seems to be how you successfully, at least in their estimation, get to somebody who has the advantage to some extent of incumbencies as well as a strong connection to the

president. >> jack kensy, thank you. the new strategy the president's legal team is reportedly using to coordinate with other people who are caught up in robert mueller's investigation. and a 100 -- i'm sorry, an $82 million profit. the sources of jared kushner and ivanka trump's $82 million outside come while they served in the white house last year. st. it's willingham, edge of the box, willingham shoots... goooooooaaaaaaaallllllll! that...was...magic. willingham tucks it in and puts the championship to bed. sweet dreams, nighty night. as long as soccer players celebrate with a slide, you can count on geico saving folks money. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. pressure, what presse? the players on the...

so let's promote our summer travel deal on choicehotels.com like this. surfs up.

earn a $50 gift card when you stay just twice this summer. or, badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com at fidelity, our online u.s. equity trades are just $4.95. so no matter what you trade, or where you trade, you'll only pay $4.95. fidelity. open an account today.

with the right steps, hasn't left my side. 80% of recurrent ischemic strokes could be prevented. a bayer aspirin regimen is one step to help prevent another stroke. so, i'm doing all i can to stay in his life. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. president trump's l team

is reportedly armoring up with new legalategy against special counsel bob mueller. the daily beast reports the president's lawyers are now teaming up with the attorneys w whose clients are caught up in the russian probe. msnbc legal analyst joins me now. that they're signing a joint defense agreementh fol that mueller may be targeting or looking into. how does that work? why is that legal? >> it's a clever strategy. here's why. a joint defense agreement allow s with a common interest.

there's a common interest, a common mission. the reason it's exceptionally important and probably a very good strategy is it's also none vable. if one of those defendants decides to cooperate with the federal government, then that privilege still stays. they cannot reveal that information. >> manafort and gates had this they broke that joint defense agreement, right? >> well, that's the signal. if one of the co-defendants suddenly withdraws from the agreement, that can only mean that they're no longer part of the joint defense agreement because they're going to cooperate. >> this is tricky territory. when you look at someone like manafort accused of breaking the terms of his bond, trying to influence witnesses by getting them on the same page, according to mueller, this kind of sounds like the same sort of thing. why is it legal in this instance

and not legal in the other instance? >> it's the privilege can always be defeated if it's abused. and u.s. attorneys show increasing hostility to joint defense agreements. beuse they argue that its abused by defendants who use them to expand the scope of privilege. and, u.s. attorneys would argue, conspire further with their defendants and use privilege for reasons that is not what it was originally intended for. >> if this is advantageous for the president, why wasn't -- why didn't they do it sooner? we're over a year into this investigation. >> that's a -- i have to tell you, strategically, they might have done it maybe the president and his team didn't think they needed it at the outset. but that the point, it would be a clear signal that the only reason to get involved in a joint defense agreement now is to silence your co-defendants. maybe something's arisen that the team has decided, hey, we have to silence these people if they become defendants or

co-defendants. >> does that make paul manafort want to cooperate less? >> paul manafort's an interesting situation. his ship may already be sinking. as we move towards friday. which i am certain the day will end with him being incarcerated pending his trial -- >> you're certain of this? >> i'm pretty certain. >> money on it? >> save the tape and we'll come back to it. but at least in cases -- i've had this happen where my client -- all defense lawyers have had their client created a situation where you have to decide whether or not they violated the terms of their pretrial release. if what manafort did is true are the court determines there's probable cause it happened, then it's very likely he's going in and remaining there until trial. >> danny cevellao in his southern gentleman lawyer suit today. >> why yes. >> i think you look great, thanks so much. back in the white house, the rich keep getting richer if your name is ivanka trump or jared

kushner. new filings reveal the couple made $82 million in outside income last year. at least 70 million went to kushner from companies tied to estate empire. ivanka trump pulled in at least $12 million. the new disclosures show even as the two remain unpaid advisers inside the white house, they're still making a lot of money from their business ties. a. amy briton crunched those numbers. she joins us now. amy, so you've looked at all the numbers, obviously people are going to say what about the conflict of interest, how can they still be making money from their past business relationships? what did ethics experts tell you? >> well, i mean, this is a situation that is highly unusual when you're dealing with two senior advisers who have this amount of personal wealth that they retained while also working in the white house. now, i can tell you that jared and ivanka's team, they believe

that the vast majority of their holdings do not pose any conflicts for them. we did an analysis last year on the property that jared had kept, like those in real on to and found that he had kept more than 90% of his real estate assets. >> yamiche, does anyone in the white house care about this sort of stuff? the questions that it raises? >> i think they care in that they want to explain and they want to provide this explanation that there's nothing unethical going on here. but when you ask people in the white house about this and ask people in the white house about even the president's own business dealings, they say, well, the public voted for someone that was a businessman and voted for someone who has a business family, so what they're getting is that. they're getting people who have very complex financial backgrounds and very complex financial assets. and as a result, they're going to be in the white house with these things. so i think most trump supporters when i talk to them on the campaign trail, they were excited about the idea of getting someone that was

business oriented and not someone that was a politician. so this is, i think, part of the consequences of doing that. >> well, they thought that the business savvy that they believed the trump family had would trickle down. that they would run the government in a business-like way, or at least like people who knew what they were doing. in talking about what ivanka trump's money is coming from, the president often rails on things not being made here in the u.s., amy. a lot of ivanka's money still comes from her overseas-made clothing line, right? >> that's correct. that was the highest single source of income for her. she got over $5 million from her business. now, it's interesting because, you know, she publicly pledged to re. sign from her position at her business, which she did, but i think critics can look at that and say, well, she still has some type of at least an interest in her company doing well. like, it would be good for her -- for her company to do well, because she's going to receive money from it. she also received a $2 million

severance payment from leaving her official position within the trump organization. and interestingly, she received nearly $4 million in income from thrump hotel here in washington. >> and she's also still getting patents approved, copyright approved inna right now, which is helping certainly her clothing brand, which is made overseas. yamiche, when you look at this and you look at the way the president is still profiting, the family is still profiting, jared and ivanka in their unofficial official roles in the white house are not taking a paycheck, which is why i call it sort of unofficial, i guess, is -- is there any scenario where this sort of stuff would get so cloudy and so complicated that they would not continue in their roles in govent? >> well, i think it's clear that the president is not going to ask his daughter and his son-in-law to leave the white house. so in some ways, the person

that's going to have to really be fed up or be really concerned about this enough for them to leave would have to be the president. and i don't think anyone really sees that happening. i think if there becomes reporting where you can see direct conflicts of interest and direct lines from jared kushner's holdings to an actual foreign policy decision that he was advocating for that then made him money, then we might start seeing people saying at least, okay, jared, you need to do different in your businesses. so until we prove that this business holding is why this foreign policy decision was made, i think that both of these people, both ivanka and jared are going to be able to continue in the way that they did, or in the way they're doing, because the president is happy to have his family by his side. he wants people who are loyal to him and he's happy to have his kids there. >> amy, "the post" also took a closer look recently at who was spending money at trump d.c., that hotel. 59 political groupsen trump visits, seven officials from foreign governments, 25 lobbying

or industry events. the president campaigned on draining the swamp. that looks kind of swampy, no? >> i mean, you have to look at that hotel from our reporting and just see that it is a hub for political activity in d.c. andis the place to be seen if you want to be in trump's orbit in washington. so that's why the income that ivanka received from that hotel was very interesting to us when we were going through the filings last night. >> interesting, indeed. amy britton, yamiche alcindor, ladies, thank you very much. and before we go, we do want to leave you with a smile, because that's what craig does every day. genevieve spends her life as a new jersey schoolteacher helping students with learning disabilities. she devoted 45 years working in the bergen county school district, even continuing to check in on classes after she retired. she died in 2011 and this past april, the public school system received a big surprise from her estate. a check for $1 million. the former educator who had no immediate family was able to

raise the small fortune through saving habits and living a simple life. the donation will fund scholarships for special education students seeking higher education. we'll be right back. it'sime now for "your business" of the week. in june 2010, brothers, ryan and adam goldstone, launched apl, basketball shoes that they said could make you jump higher. just five months later, the nba banned them. to find out how the founders took this blow to their business and turned it around, watch "your business" sunday morning at 7:30 eastern on msnbc. it's pretty amazing out there. the world is full of more possibilities than ever before. and american express has your back every step of the way- whether it's the comfort of knowing help is just a call away with global assist. or getting financing to fund your business. no one has your back like american express. so where ever you go. we're right there with you.

the powerful backing of american express. don't do business without it. don't live life without it.

means they won't hike your rateseness over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. drivliberty stands with you. forgiveness, liberty mutual liberty mutual insurance.

here's the benefit of doing two hours. i get my show, the 2:00 p.m. hour, a little bit early today. it is about 2:00 p.m. here in new york, and about 2:00 p.m. -- excuse me, 2:00 a.m. in singapore, where just hours after donald trump and kopg conk made history, this question

remains. did one side benefit more than the other? president trump gave kim jong-un optics, a hand shake, a solid 13 seconds, a touch oe harm, a hand on the back. the flags of the u.s. and north korea side by side in the background. a thumbs up. a heaping dose of praise. >> it's my honor and we no doubt. it's a great honor to be with you. >> what surprised you the most about chairman kim? >> great personality and very smart. i learned he's a very talented man. >> why are you so comfortable calling him "very talented." >> well, he is very talented. anyone that takes over a situation that he did at 26 years of age and is able to run it, very good negotiator. wants to do the right thick. they have great beaches. you see that wherever they're exploding their cannons into the ocean, right?

i said, boy, look at that view. wouldn't that make a great condo? and i explained, i said, you know, instead of doing that, you could have the best hotels in the world. his country does love him. his people you see the fervor, they have a great fervor. >> and president trump gave kim jong-un promises. >> we will be stopping the war games, which will save us a tremendous amount of money. and i also will be inviting chairman kim at the appropriate time to the white house. >> so what did kim jong-un give president trump? a joint statement with four bullet points, an agreement that promised complete denuclearization of the korean ula. but did not promise any way to check that. it did not promise verification. >> is that a concession on the part of the united states? >> no, not at all. because if you look at it, it said, we are going to, let's see here, it will be gone -- i don't think you can be anymore plain. >> did you