Trump, South Korean leader meet to discuss trade, defense

(NewsNation) — President Donald Trump criticized South Korea on Monday, hours before he was set to welcome South Korean President Lee Jae Myung to the White House for talks on trade and defense.

In the Oval Office, Trump congratulated Lee on his victory, while Lee praised Trump for his efforts to bring an end to wars.

Lee said he hopes Trump will help bring peace to the Korean penninsula and looks forward to Trump’s meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jung Un, suggesting a future where there was a Trump tower and golf course in the country.

The president also floated the idea of the U.S. owning the land in South Korea where a U.S. base is located, rather than continuing to lease it.

Trump described his relationship with North Korea’s supreme leader as friendly, a departure from American leaders’ criticisms of the closed, authoritarian nation.

“We had a very good relationship. We still do,” Trump said. “We think we can do something in regard to North and South Korea.”

The president talked up his friendship with Kim and Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling both “a good thing,” though both countries have long been adversaries of the U.S.

He also said that if he had not been elected in 2016, there would have been nuclear war between North and South Korea.

The meeting marked the first in-person meeting for Trump and Lee, and a major agenda item is likely to be working through the details of a trade deal agreed upon earlier this summer.

Trump threatened a 25% tariff on South Korea, a country that has a trade surplus with the United States. When it comes to tariffs, Trump has proposed especially heavy duties on such countries.

The deal reached in July set tariffs on South Korean imports at 15% in exchange for investment in the U.S. economy, particularly in the areas of semiconductors, batteries and shipbuilding.

Defense will likely also be discussed, as Trump has pressed for more flexibility with security agreements and repeatedly suggested allies should pay more for U.S. troops.

Lee is expected to push back on the idea of a more flexible arrangement since U.S. troops in South Korea serve as a deterrent to North Korean aggression.

But the arrangement also serves U.S. interests, placing troops in the Indo-Pacific region and in close proximity to China, increasing readiness should a conflict break out in the region.

On social media Monday morning, Trump criticized the country now under Lee’s leadership.

“WHAT IS GOING ON IN SOUTH KOREA? Seems like a Purge or Revolution. We can’t have that and do business there. I am seeing the new President today at the White House. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!” the president posted.

It’s not entirely clear to what exactly Trump was referring, but it appeared to be a reference to the investigation into former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, who attempted to institute martial law in the country in December.

The statement came after Trump deployed National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., in an effort to crack down on crime in the nation’s capital. He has said he plans to deploy troops to other Democratic cities as well, starting with Chicago, over the objections of local leaders.

The president again touted what he has called his success in D.C., claiming the city had been seeing rising crime for years. Statistics show crime in the capital has been decreasing for decades, but Trump has continued to repeat his statements about rising crime rates.

Later, Trump clarified that he had heard of raids on churches but didn’t know if they were true. The controversial Unification Church has been under investigation for a political influence scandal which includes alleged ties to Yoon.

It’s not clear what the remarks could mean for the previously agreed-upon trade deal or the president’s relationship with Lee, who succeeded the conservative Yoon.

Related articles

FURIOUS Canada PREPARES FOR WAR if Trump INVADES

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas with Meidas Canada...

Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history



New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.

"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.

A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.

"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.

The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”

Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.

"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."

"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."

"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.

Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.

“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”