Trump meets with New York Times ( interview coverage)

[anatta]

Donald Trump is meeting with the New York Times, and Times media reporter Mike Grynbaum is live tweeting the on-the-record portion of the meeting.
In the meeting Donald Trump was asked whether he had ruled out prosecuting Hillary Clinton. “It’s just not something I feel strongly about,” Mr. Trump told the room, according to Grynbaum.

Prosecution, he said “would be very, very divisive for the country,” Mr. Trump told the room, according to Times reporter Maggie Haberman.
“My inclination for whatever power I have on the matter is to say let’s go forward. This has been looked at for so long, ad nauseum.”

In addition to the FBI’s investigation, the House Select Committee on Benghazi went over Clinton’s emails, as did several media organizations and watchdog groups like Judicial Watch.
Mr. Trump also said that Clinton had “suffered greatly” and he does not “want to hurt the Clintons.”

Trump was also asked by the Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet whether he felt he had done things to energize the alt right.

“I don’t think so, Dean,” the president-elect replied, according to Grynbaum. “I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group,” Mr. Trump said.

The president-elect did not appear to address the concerns of minority groups about the right-wing news site Breitbart under Steve Bannon, who will be his chief White House strategist, and he defended the site by saying it covered stories like the Times does.

“

Breitbart is just a publication. They cover stories like you cover stories,” Mr. Trump told the Times, according to Grynbaum. “They are certainly a much more conservative paper, to put it mildly, than the New York Times. But Breitbart really is a news organization that has become quite successful. It’s got readers, and it does cover subjects on the right, but it covers subjects on the left also. It’s a pretty big thing.

”

According to Haberman, Mr. Trump said of Bannon,

“If I thought he was a racist or alt-right or any of the things, the terms we could use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him.” And apparently in reference to the allegations about sympathies toward the alt right, he added that “I think it’s very hard on him. I think he’s having a hard time with it. Because it’s not him.”

The Times also pressed Mr. Trump on the potential for conflicts of interest -- “The law’s totally on my side. The president can’t have a conflict of interest, Mr. Trump said, according to Haberman. It was not immediately clear what he meant by that. (?)

“In theory, I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There’s never been a case like this,” the president-elect also said. And he said that while he could continue signing checks at his company, he’s “phasing that out now” and giving control to his children, according to Haberman.

“If it were up to some people, I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again.”

Ivanka Trump participated in the president-elect’s meeting with the Japanese prime minister last week, and reportedly spoke on the phone with the president of Argentina while he was speaking with Mr. Trump.
The president-elect has said that his children will run his businesses while he’s president, and he told “60 Minutes” earlier this month that his children will not be consulting him on their business decisions. Also, a recent meeting between Mr. Trump and three of his Indian business partners has also raised questions about the separation of his business from the government’s interests.

Times reporter Maggie Haberman said she asked Mr. Trump what role he imagined in his administration for his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. He indicated that a formal role was unlikely, but he thought that Kushner could be involved in Mideast peace.

Times columnist Tom Friedman asked him what he thought America’s role in the world was. He laughed, according to Grynbaum and answered, “That’s such a big question.”

Friedman also asked whether the president-elect planned to withdraw from climate change accords, and Mr. Trump indicated it was a matter under consideration. “I’m looking at it very closely,” he said. “I have an open mind to it.” While in the past, Mr. Trump has dismissed climate change as a “hoax,” in the meeting with the Times, when he was asked whether he thought it was related to human activity, he said, “I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much.”

And in considering what he’ll do on climate change, he told the room, he’s taking into account the impact on U.S. businesses.

(continued next post)

 

[anatta]

On cabinet appointments, Haberman said that Mr. Trump said he was “seriously considering” Gen. James Mattis (ret) for defense secretary, though he was surprised when Mattis told him he didn’t favor waterboarding. As for former New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who recently met with the president-elect, Trump said she’d “love a job in the administration,” but “no, thank you.”

Mr. Trump also talked about his domestic agenda, which includes a very expensive infrastructure plan. Asked what House Speaker Paul Ryan and Republicans thought of the plan, Trump said, “Right now, they’re in love with me.”

The president-elect reportedly began the meeting with the Times in “measured, quiet tones,” and while he told the room he had “tremendous respect” for the paper, he said,

“I think I’ve been treated very rough,” and of the paper’s coverage of his campaign, he said, “I will say the Times is about the roughest of all.” In comparison with the Washington Post, Mr. Trump said, “You could make the case the Washington Post was bad, but once in awhile I actually got a good article.”

Though Mr. Trump has at some points during the campaign threatened to sue the Times over its stories on him, when asked about his attitude toward the First Amendment, he said, “I think you’ll be happy, I think you’ll be happy.” The president-elect also made threats about changing the libel laws during his campaign.

“One of the things I’m going to do, is I’m going to open up the libel laws,” he told a rally in Radford, Va., in February. “We’re not going to do anything with freedom of the press. Freedom of the press is vital -- it’s important, it’s a cleansing system, it’s totally something we can’t touch. But when people write incorrectly about you and you can prove that they wrote incorrectly, we’re going to get them through the court system to change and we’re going to get them to pay damages.”

A reporter in the room asked him about whether he still intends to “open up the libel laws.” It may be a threat he’s rethought in the intervening months. He told the Times that someone pointed out to him,

“’You know, you might be sued a lot more.’ I said, ‘You know, I hadn’t thought of that.’”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-m...s-is-asked-about-prosecuting-hillary-clinton/

 

[anatta]

certainly a more thoughtful Trump then we're used to.
I have no idea about "libel laws" -but the coverage from WaPo and the NYTimes was disgraceful - so called "advocacy journalism" is nothing more then hack hit pieces.

Tom Friedmans an idiot neocon nationbuilder. -I thought brushing him back was a good move..

as to conflicts of interest: It seems to me the president souldbe able to talk to close advisors. I recall FDR speaking to captains of industry.
And while Trump's situation is unique; if he takes his daughters or son-in-law's words as wise counsel, then let him.
It's a unique position where 1 person is a branch of governing unto themselves ,and it's an executive branch at that

 

[archives]

you don't think it might be questionable that some of the first individuals he met with were business associates from India? or that his daughter, who has no political function, sat in when he met the Prime Minister of Japan?

He is going to confront endless questions about mixing his personal business with Government, the same quid pro quo implications he employed against Clinton will be used against him

And I'd disagree with your evaluation of the NYT, keep in mind, it was there investigations that raised the curtain on Clinton's Emails and private server

 

[tsuke]

certainly a more thoughtful Trump then we're used to.
I have no idea about "libel laws" -but the coverage from WaPo and the NYTimes was disgraceful - so called "advocacy journalism" is nothing more then hack hit pieces.

Tom Friedmans an idiot neocon nationbuilder. -I thought brushing him back was a good move..

as to conflicts of interest: It seems to me the president souldbe able to talk to close advisors. I recall FDR speaking to captains of industry.
And while Trump's situation is unique; if he takes his daughters or son-in-law's words as wise counsel, then let him.
It's a unique position where 1 person is a branch of governing unto themselves ,and it's an executive branch at that

i liked that he commited to stopping on hillary. She is already a footnote consigned to the dustbin of history.

 

[tsuke]

you don't think it might be questionable that some of the first individuals he met with were business associates from India? or that his daughter, who has no political function, sat in when he met the Prime Minister of Japan?

He is going to confront endless questions about mixing his personal business with Government, the same quid pro quo implications he employed against Clinton will be used against him

And I'd disagree with your evaluation of the NYT, keep in mind, it was there investigations that raised the curtain on Clinton's Emails and private server

whether we like it or not Ivanka is going to be one of trump's top advisers. Unnoficially of course.

 

[archives]

In other words you can live with the fact that he out and out lied to you when he said that she was so criminal on day one he was going to appoint a special prosecutor, and you were probably one of the lemming that echoed "lock her up"

 

[archives]

She is a major component in his business dealings, and it raises questions when she is invited to meet with foreign heads of nations that he has business in, not every entrepreneur who has the ear of the most powerful man in the world, and it surely don't come freely

He's not going to like it, but it ain't going away, and if the GOP ever lost the House, the Democrats will continue the "investigation" craziness the Republicans are defined with now

 

[cawacko]

In other words you can live with the fact that he out and out lied to you when he said that she was so criminal on day one he was going to appoint a special prosecutor, and you were probably one of the lemming that echoed "lock her up"

Do you know that he still won't? If he was going to do it why would he announce it now and have Obama pardon her?

 

[anatta]

you don't think it might be questionable that some of the first individuals he met with were business associates from India? or that his daughter, who has no political function, sat in when he met the Prime Minister of Japan?

He is going to confront endless questions about mixing his personal business with Government, the same quid pro quo implications he employed against Clinton will be used against him

And I'd disagree with your evaluation of the NYT, keep in mind, it was there investigations that raised the curtain on Clinton's Emails and private server

It was the Bengazi committee that first became aware of the private server. I'm not sure how the NYTimes found out -if they investigated from a lead -good for them.

But I specifically watched the coverage online from NYT and WaPo during he election.
It was not uncommon to see wall to wall to wall negative coverage at both sites. NYTime even brought in #nevertrumpers as guests.

New York Times: We blew it on Trump
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/

WaPo hired 20 new reportrs to go after Trump.
NYTimes actually apologized for thei "advocacy journalism" - a non sequitur if you think about it.
+++
I get the conflicts of interests -but if Trump finds his kid advice helpful,and they run the day to day business -
is it a good idea to deny a POTUS valued counsel? He really can't liquidtate- and it'snot an "investment" subject to a blind trust.
It's an ongoing global business

 

[tsuke]

She is a major component in his business dealings, and it raises questions when she is invited to meet with foreign heads of nations that he has business in, not every entrepreneur who has the ear of the most powerful man in the world, and it surely don't come freely

He's not going to like it, but it ain't going away, and if the GOP ever lost the House, the Democrats will continue the "investigation" craziness the Republicans are defined with now

its going to happen. Ivanka has been advising him on business and everything every step of the way. There is nothing stopping them from talking on the phone.

 

[Rune]

It was the Bengazi committee that first became aware of the private server. I'm not sure how the NYTimes found out -if they investigated from a lead -good for them.

But I specifically watched the coverage online from NYT and WaPo during he election.
It was not uncommon to see wall to wall to wall negative coverage at both sites. NYTime even brought in #nevertrumpers as guests.

New York Times: We blew it on Trump
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/

WaPo hired 20 new reportrs to go after Trump.
NYTimes actually apologized for thei "advocacy journalism" - a non sequitur if you think about it.
+++
I get the conflicts of interests -but if Trump finds his kid advice helpful,and they run the day to day business -
is it a good idea to deny a POTUS valued counsel? He really can't liquidtate- and it'snot an "investment" subject to a blind trust.
It's an ongoing global business

And you are an ongoing useful idiot.

 

[archives]

Obama can't "pardon her" since she has not been proven guilty of anything, right wing media innuendos don't make a person guilty

He's not going, never intended to, the last thing he wants is for her to be found not guilty of any wrong doing proving it all a lie, and, any investigations into quid pro quo would only raise serious questions regarding his business dealings while President

 

[archives]

Benghazi Committee had knowledge of the server but did nothing with it because they didn't know the potential ramifications till the Times ran their investigations

And what you read on the Internet was probably the op ed pieces that both papers ran, ran on their Opinion pages, one section of the paper, the Internet doesn't put them in their perspective order

 

[Rune]

certainly a more thoughtful Trump then we're used to.
I have no idea about "libel laws" -but the coverage from WaPo and the NYTimes was disgraceful - so called "advocacy journalism" is nothing more then hack hit pieces.

Tom Friedmans an idiot neocon nationbuilder. -I thought brushing him back was a good move..

as to conflicts of interest: It seems to me the president souldbe able to talk to close advisors. I recall FDR speaking to captains of industry.
And while Trump's situation is unique; if he takes his daughters or son-in-law's words as wise counsel, then let him.
It's a unique position where 1 person is a branch of governing unto themselves ,and it's an executive branch at that

The New York Times is a liberal paper
you ignorant retard.
No laws against that. Fucking idiot.

 

[NOVA]

Maybe its advice from his family that will prevent him from getting involved in making decisions that would leave the appearance of wrongdoing.....

Hillary's pay for play and selling her influence was in your face obvious as was her mishandling of government secrets and nobody seemed to give a shit.....

 

[anatta]

Benghazi Committee had knowledge of the server but did nothing with it because they didn't know the potential ramifications till the Times ran their investigations

And what you read on the Internet was probably the op ed pieces that both papers ran, ran on their Opinion pages, one section of the paper, the Internet doesn't put them in their perspective order

OK. makes sense on the emails.
Yes I understand the online paper is not in the same order as print.

But it's not just the columists -it's how the newz was slanted ("that famed liberal bias" as the Nation mag advertises tongue in cheek)..
HUffPo put Trump coverage in the entertainment section

Like I said it was a pet peeve of mine that so called "papers of record" couldn't be used as a trusted source.
It can be something as small as fact picking,but omission coverage can be just as damning as slanting