NY Times Exposé of Trump’s Secret Interview Might Be Codswallop

0
Share

trump11 trump5This week, Buzzfeed reported that the New York Times had a secret interview with Donald Trump in which he said off the record that his stand on immigration is only a strategic starting point and he only says what he says to win support.

Not so fast!

It looks like the New York Times exposé on Donald Trump and his real feelings about immigration could be more of their dupery.

Byron York gave The Washington Examiner his interview with Trump and it’s not anything Trumpsters will be concerned about.

We won’t be able to trust anything that comes out of that paper.

The key section of the transcript is here:

QUESTION: You’ve talked about compromise. There was a time you said there’s nothing wrong with compromise — you just ask for about three times what you want, and then you get what you want. So I look at deporting all illegal immigrants. I look at a temporary ban of Muslims coming to the United States. They get a lot of attention. Are they opening positions in a negotiation?

TRUMP: I’m not saying there can’t be some give and take, but at some point we have to look at these things. You look at the radical Islamic terrorism and you look at what’s going on, we have to take a serious look. There’s tremendous hatred. You look at illegal immigration and all that’s taking place with respect to illegal immigration, whether it’s the crime or the economy, I mean, it affects many different elements. It doesn’t mean I’m hard and fast 100 percent, but we have to get a lot of what I’m asking for, or we’re not going to have a country any more.

QUESTION: So they are opening positions?

TRUMP: They are very strong positions. It doesn’t mean you’re not going to negotiate a little bit, but I guess there will always be some negotiation. But they are very strong positions, and I would adhere to those positions very strongly. That doesn’t mean that at some point we won’t talk a little bit about some negotiation. Who wouldn’t do that?

Did Trump say something more scandalous to the New York Times? Who knows. It doesn’t prove anything but unless they produce the audio, everything is conjecture.

Share