Greetings and Salutations;<\/p>\n
ARTHUR SULZBERGER Jr.<\/b>, publisher of The New York Times: Thank you very much forjoining us. And I want to reaffirm this is on the record.<\/p>\n
DONALD J. TRUMP<\/b>, President-elect of the United States: O.K.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER:<\/b>All right, so we\u2019re clear. We had a very nice meeting in the
\nChurchill Room. You\u2019re a Churchill fan, I hear?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I am, I am.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER:<\/b>
\nThere\u2019s a photo of the great man behind you.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>There was a big thing about the bust that was removed out of the Oval
\nOffice.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER:<\/b> I heard you\u2019re thinking of putting it back.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I am, indeed. I am.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>Wonderful. So we\u2019ve got a good collection here from our newsroom and editorial and our columnists. I just want to say we had a good, quiet, but useful and well-meaning conversation in there. So I appreciate that very much.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I appreciate it, too.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER:<\/b> I thought maybe I\u2019d start this off by asking if you have anything you would like to start this off with before we move to the easiest questions you\u2019re going to get this administration.<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>O.K. Well, I just appreciate the meeting and I have great respect for The New York Times. Tremendous respect. It\u2019s very special. Always has been very special. I think I\u2019ve been treated very rough. It\u2019s well out there that I\u2019ve been treated extremely unfairly in a sense, in a true sense. I wouldn\u2019t only complain about The Times. I would say The Times was about the roughest of all. You could make the case The Washington Post was bad, but every once in a while I\u2019d actually get a good article. Not often, Dean, but every once in awhile.<\/p>\n
Look, I have great respect for The Times, and I\u2019d like to turn it around. I think it would make the job I am doing much easier. We\u2019re working very hard. We have great people coming in. I think you\u2019ll be very impressed with the names. We\u2019ll be announcing some very shortly.<\/p>\n
Everybody wanted to do this. People are giving up tremendous careers in order to be subject to you folks and subject to a lot of other folks. But they\u2019re giving up a lot. I mean some are giving up tremendous businesses in order to sit for four or maybe eight or whatever the period of time is. But I think we\u2019re going to see some tremendous talent, tremendous talent coming in. We have many people for every job. I mean no matter what the job is, we have many incredible people. I think, Reince, you can sort of just confirm\u00a0 that. The quality of the people is very good.<\/p>\n
REINCE PRIEBUS, <\/b>Mr. Trump\u2019s choice for chief of staff: [inaudible]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>We\u2019re trying very hard to get the best people. Not necessarily people that will be the most politically correct people, because that hasn\u2019t been working. So we have really experts in the field. Some are known and some are not known, but they\u2019re known within their field as being the best. That\u2019s very important to me.<\/p>\n
You know, I\u2019ve been given a great honor. It\u2019s been very tough. It\u2019s been 18 months of brutality in a true sense, but we won it. We won it pretty big. The final numbers are\u00a0 coming out. Or I guess they\u2019re coming out. Michigan\u2019s just being confirmed. But the numbers are coming out far beyond what anybody\u2019s wildest expectation was. I don\u2019t know if it was us, I mean, we were seeing the kind of crowds and kind of, everything, the kind of\u00a0 enthusiasm we were getting from the people.<\/p>\n
As you probably know, I did many, many speeches that last four-week period. I was just telling Arthur that I went around and did speeches in the pretty much 11 different places, that were, the massive crowds we were getting. If we had a stadium that held \u2014 and most of you, many of you were there \u2014 that held 20,000 people, we\u2019d have 15,000 people outside that couldn\u2019t get in.<\/p>\n
So we came up with a good system \u2014 we put up the big screens outside with a very good loudspeaker system and very few people left. I would do, during the last month, two or three a day. That\u2019s a lot. Because that\u2019s not easy when you have big crowds. Those speeches, that\u2019s not an easy way of life, doing three a day. Then I said the last two days, I want to do six and seven. And I\u2019m not sure anybody has ever done that. But we did six and we did seven and the last one ended at 1 o\u2019clock in the morning in Michigan.<\/p>\n
And we had 31,000 people, 17,000 or 18,000 inside and the rest outside. This massive place in Grand Rapids, I guess. And it was an incredible thing. And I left saying: \u2018How do we lose Michigan? I don\u2019t think we can lose Michigan.\u2019<\/p>\n
And the reason I did that, it was set up only a little while before \u2014 because we heard that day that Hillary was hearing that they\u2019re going to lose Michigan, which hasn\u2019t been lost in\u00a0 38 years. Or something. But 38 years. And they didn\u2019t want to lose Michigan. So they went out along with President Obama and Michelle, Bill and Hillary, they went to Michigan late that, sort of late afternoon and I said, \u2018Let\u2019s go to Michigan.\u2019<\/p>\n
It wasn\u2019t on the schedule. So I finished up in New Hampshire and at 10 o\u2019clock I went to Michigan. We got there at 12 o\u2019clock. We started speaking around 12:45, actually, and we had 31,000 people and I said, really, I mean, there are things happening. But we saw it everywhere.<\/p>\n
So we felt very good. we had great numbers. And we thought we\u2019re going to win. We thought we were going to win Florida. We thought we were going to win North Carolina. We did easily, pretty easily. We thought strongly we were going to win Pennsylvania. The\u00a0 problem is nobody had won it and it was known, as you know, the great state that always got away. Every Republican thought they were going to win Pennsylvania for 38
\nyears and they just couldn\u2019t win it.<\/p>\n
And I thought we were going to win it. And we won it, we won it, you know, relatively easily, we won it by a number of points. Florida we won by 180,000 \u2014 was that the number, 180?<\/p>\n
PRIEBUS: <\/b>[inaudible]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>More than 180,000 voted, and votes are still coming in from the military, which we are getting about 85 percent of.\u00a0 So we won that by a lot of votes and, you know, we had a great victory. We had a great victory. I think it would have been easier because I see every once in awhile somebody says, \u2018Well, the popular vote.\u2019 Well, the popular vote would have been a lot easier, but it\u2019s a whole different campaign. I would have been in California, I would have been in Texas, Florida and New York, and we wouldn\u2019t have gone anywhere else. Which is, I mean I\u2019d rather do the popular vote from the standpoint \u2014 I\u2019d think we\u2019d\u00a0 do actually as well or better \u2014 it\u2019s a whole different campaign. It\u2019s like, if you\u2019re a golfer, it\u2019s like match play versus stroke play. It\u2019s a whole different game.<\/p>\n
But I think the popular vote would have been easier in a true sense because you\u2019d go to a few places. I think that\u2019s the genius of the Electoral College. I was never a fan of the Electoral College until now.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>Until now.<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Until now. I guess now I like it for two reasons. What it does do is it gets you out to see states that you\u2019ll never see otherwise. It\u2019s very interesting. Like Maine. I went to Maine four times. I went to Maine 2 for one, because everybody was saying you can get to 269 but there is no path to 270. We learned that was false because we ended up with what, three-something.<\/p>\n
PRIEBUS: <\/b>I\u2019ve got to get, we\u2019ve got to get Michigan in.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>But there is no path to 270, you have to get the one in Maine, so we kept going back to Maine and we did get the one in Maine. We kept going to Maine 2, and we went to a\u00a0 lot of states that you wouldn\u2019t spend a lot of time in and it does get you \u2014 we actually went to about 22 states, whereas if you\u2019re going for popular vote, you\u2019d probably go to four, or three, it could be three. You wouldn\u2019t leave New York. You\u2019d stay in New York and you\u2019d stay in California. So there\u2019s a certain genius about it. And I like it either way. But it\u2019s sort of interesting.<\/p>\n
But we had an amazing period of time. I got to know the country, we have a great country,\u00a0 we\u2019re a great, great people, and the enthusiasm was really incredible. The Los Angeles Times had a poll which was interesting because I was always up in that poll. They had something that is, I guess, a modern-day technique in polling, it was called enthusiasm. They added an enthusiasm factor and my people had great enthusiasm, and Hillary\u2019s people didn\u2019t have enthusiasm. And in the end she didn\u2019t get the African-American vote and we ended up close to 15 points, as you know. We started off at one, we ended up with almost 15. And more importantly, a lot of people didn\u2019t show up, because the African-American community liked me. They liked what I was saying.<\/p>\n
So they didn\u2019t necessarily vote for me, but they didn\u2019t show up, which was a big problem that she had. I ended up doing very well with women, which was \u2014 which I never understood why I was doing poorly, because we\u2019d go to the rallies and we\u2019d have so many women holding up signs, \u201cWomen for Trump.\u201d But I kept reading polls saying that I\u2019m not doing well with women. I think whoever is doing it here would say that we did very well with women, especially certain women.<\/p>\n
DEAN BAQUET,<\/b>executive editor of The New York Times:\u00a0 As you describe it, you did do something really remarkable. You energized a lot of people in the country who really wanted change in Washington. But along with that \u2014 and this is going to create a tricky thing for you \u2014 you also energized presumably a smaller number of people who were evidenced at the alt-right convention in Washington this weekend. Who have a very\u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I just saw that today.<\/p>\n
BAQUET:<\/b> So, I\u2019d love to hear you talk about how you\u2019re going to manage that
\ngroup of people who actually may not be the larger group but who have an expectation for you and are angry about the country and its \u2014 along racial lines. My first question is, do you feel like you said things that energized them in particular, and how are you going to
\nmanage that?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I don\u2019t think so, Dean. First of all, I don\u2019t want to energize the group. I\u2019m not looking to energize them. I don\u2019t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group. They, again, I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s reporting or whatever. I don\u2019t know where they were four years ago, and where they were for Romney and McCain and all of the other people that ran, so I just don\u2019t know, I had nothing to compare it to.<\/p>\n
But it\u2019s not a group I want to energize, and if they are energized I want to look into it and find out why.<\/p>\n
What we do want to do is we want to bring the country together, because the country is
\nvery, very divided, and that\u2019s one thing I did see, big league. It\u2019s very, very divided, and I\u2019m going to work very hard to bring the country together.<\/p>\n
I mean, I\u2019m somebody that really has gotten along with people over the years. It
\nwas interesting, my wife, I went to a big event about two years ago. Just after I started thinking about politics. And we\u2019re walking in and some people were cheering and some people were booing, and she said, you know, \u2018People have never booed for you.\u2019<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve never had a person boo me, and all of a sudden people are booing me. She said,
\nthat\u2019s never happened before. And, it\u2019s politics. You know, all of a sudden they think I\u2019m going to be running for office, and I\u2019m a Republican, let\u2019s say. So it\u2019s something that I had never experienced before and I said, \u2018Those people are booing,\u2019 and she said, \u2018Yup.\u2019 They\u2019d never booed before. But now they boo. You know, it was a group and another group was going the opposite.<\/p>\n
No, I want to bring the country together. It\u2019s very important to me. We\u2019re in a very
\ndivided country. In many ways divided.<\/p>\n
BAQUET:<\/b> So I\u2019m going to do that thing that executive editors get to do which
\nis to invite reporters to jump in and ask questions.<\/p>\n
MAGGIE HABERMAN,<\/b>political reporter:\u00a0\u00a0 I\u2019ll start, thank you, Dean. Mr. President, I\u2019d like to thank you for being here. This morning, Kellyanne Conway talked about not prosecuting Hillary Clinton. We were hoping you could talk about exactly what that means \u2014 does that mean just the emails, or the emails and the foundation, and how you came to that decision.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Well, there was a report that somebody said that I\u2019m not enthused about it. Look, I want to move forward, I don\u2019t want to move back. And I don\u2019t want to hurt the Clintons. I really don\u2019t.\u00a0\u00a0 She went through a lot. And suffered greatly in many different ways. And I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious. They say it
\nwas the most vicious primary and the most vicious campaign. I guess, added together, it was definitely the most vicious; probably, I assume you sold a lot of newspapers.<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
I would imagine. I would imagine. I\u2019m just telling you, Maggie, I\u2019m not looking to
\nhurt them. I think they\u2019ve been through a lot. They\u2019ve gone through a lot.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m really looking \u2026 I think we have to get the focus of the country into looking
\nforward.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>If I could interject, we had a good conversation there, you and I, and it was off the record, but there was nothing secret, just wanted to make sure. The idea of looking forward was one of the themes that you were saying. That we need to now get past the election, right?<\/p>\n
MATTHEW PURDY, <\/b>deputy managing editor: So you\u2019re definitively taking that off the
\ntable? The investigation?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>No,but the question was asked.<\/p>\n
PURDY: <\/b>About the emails and the foundation?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>No, no, but it\u2019s just not something that I feel very strongly about. I
\nfeel very strongly about health care. I feel very strongly about an immigration bill that I think even the people in this room can be happy. You know, you\u2019ve been talking about immigration bills for 50 years and nothing\u2019s ever happened.<\/p>\n
I feel very strongly about an immigration bill that\u2019s fair and just and a lot of other
\nthings. There are a lot of things I feel strongly about. I\u2019m not looking to look back and go through this. This was a very painful period. This was a very painful election with all of the email things and all of the foundation things and all of the everything that they went through and the whole country went through. This was a very painful period of time. I read recently where it was, it was, they\u2019re saying, they used to say it was Lincoln against whoever and none of us were there to see it. And there aren\u2019t a lot of recordings of that, right?<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
But the fact is that there were some pretty vicious elections; they say this was, this was the most.\u00a0 They say it was definitely the most vicious primary. And I think it\u2019s very important to look forward.<\/p>\n
CAROLYN RYAN, <\/b>senior editor for politics:\u00a0\u00a0 Do you think it would disappoint your
\nsupporters who seemed very animated by the idea of accountability in the Clintons? What would you say to them?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I don\u2019t think they will be disappointed. I think I will explain it, that we have to, in many ways save our country. Because our country\u2019s really in bad, big trouble. We have a lot of trouble. A lot of problems. And one of the big problems, I talk about, divisiveness. I think that a lot of people will appreciate \u2026 I\u2019m not doing it for that reason. I\u2019m doing it because it\u2019s time to go in a different direction. There was a lot of pain, and I think that the people that supported me with such enthusiasm, where they will show up at 1 in the\u00a0 morning to hear a speech.<\/p>\n
It was actually Election Day, they showed up at, so that was essentially Election Day. Yeah, I think they\u2019d understand very completely.<\/p>\n
THOMAS L.FRIEDMAN,<\/b> opinion columnist:\u00a0\u00a0 Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven\u2019t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you\u2019ll approach it. You own some
\nof the most beautiful links golf courses in the world \u2026<\/p>\n
[laughter, cross talk]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>[laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off \u2026 so it\u2019ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn\u2019t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape.<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>But it\u2019s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you\u2019re going to go with this. I don\u2019t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world\u2019s lead of confronting climate change?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I\u2019m looking at it very closely, Tom. I\u2019ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We\u2019re going to look very carefully. It\u2019s one issue that\u2019s interesting because there are few things where there\u2019s more division than climate change. You don\u2019t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think,\u00a0 don\u2019t even \u2026<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>We do hear it.<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>I was on \u2018Squawk Box\u2019 with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I\u2019m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we\u2019re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>Well, since we\u2019re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We\u2019ve seen it personally.\u00a0 Straight up.<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>But you have an open mind on this?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I do have an open mind. And we\u2019ve had storms always, Arthur.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>Not like this.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you
\ncan make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.<\/p>\n
My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He
\nwas a great guy. And he was \u2026 a long time ago, he had feelings \u2014 this was a long time ago \u2014 he had feelings on this subject. It\u2019s a very complex subject. I\u2019m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what\u2019s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.<\/p>\n
And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I\u2019ve received so many environmental awards for the way I\u2019ve done, you know. I\u2019ve done a tremendous amount of work where I\u2019ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I\u2019ll say I\u2019m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that\u2019s true. Open mind.<\/p>\n
JAMES BENNET,<\/b>editorial page editor:\u00a0\u00a0 When you say an open mind, you mean you\u2019re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn\u2019t connected?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I think right now \u2026 well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it\u2019s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.\u00a0 They\u2019re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we\u2019ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: \u2018That must be a typo. It can\u2019t be 70, you can\u2019t
\nhave 70,000, you wouldn\u2019t think you have 70,000 factories here.\u2019 And it wasn\u2019t a typo, it\u2019s right. We\u2019ve lost 70,000 factories.<\/p>\n
We\u2019re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We\u2019re not competitive for a lot of reasons.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we
\ndo business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don\u2019t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it\u2019s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I\u2019m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big
\nvoice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don\u2019t believe in it. And we\u2019ll let you know.<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>I\u2019d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>The North Sea, that could be, that\u2019s a good one, right?<\/p>\n
ELISABETH BUMILLER,<\/b> Washington bureau chief:\u00a0\u00a0 I just wanted to follow up on
\nthe question you were asked about not pursuing any investigations into Hillary Clinton. Did you mean both the email investigation and the foundation investigation \u2014 you will not pursue either one of those?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Yeah, look, you know we\u2019ll have people that do things but my inclination
\nwould be, for whatever power I have on the matter, is to say let\u2019s go forward. This has been looked at for so long. Ad nauseam. Let\u2019s go forward. And you know, you could also make the case that some good work was done in the foundation and they could have made mistakes, etc. etc. I think it\u2019s time, I think it\u2019s time for people to say let\u2019s go and solve some of the problems that we have, which are massive problems and, you know, I do think that they\u2019ve gone through a lot. I think losing is going through a lot. It was a tough, it was a very tough evening for her. I think losing is going through a lot. So, for whatever it\u2019s worth, my, my attitude is strongly we have to go forward, we have so many different problems to solve, I don\u2019t think we have to delve back in the past. I also think that would be a very divisive, well I think it would be very divisive, you know I\u2019m talking about bringing together, and then they go into all sorts of stuff, I think it would be very, very divisive for\u00a0 the country.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER:<\/b> I agree, I think speaking not as a journalist now, it\u2019s very healthy. There, and then we\u2019re going to go<\/p>\n
MICHAEL D. SHEAR, <\/b>White House correspondent: Mr. Trump, Mike Shear. I cover the White House, covering your administration \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>See ya there.<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
SHEAR: <\/b>Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as
\nyou said, pull out of the Paris Climate \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I\u2019m going to take a look at it.<\/p>\n
SHEAR <\/b>[interrupts]:\u00a0\u00a0 And if the reaction from foreign leaders is to slap tariffs on American goods to offset the carbon that the United States had pledged to reduce, is that O.K. with you? And then the second question is on your sort of mixing of your global business interests and the presidency. There\u2019s already, even just in the 10, two weeks you\u2019ve been president-elect, instances where you\u2019ve met with your Indian business partners \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Sure.<\/p>\n
SHEAR: <\/b>You\u2019ve talked about the impact of the wind farms on your golf course. People, experts who are lawyers and ethics experts, say that all of that is totally inappropriate, so I guess the question for you is, what do you see as the appropriate structure for keeping those two things separate, and are there any lines that you think you won\u2019t want to cross once you\u2019re in the White House?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>O.K. First of all, on countries. I think that countries will not do that to us. I don\u2019t think if they\u2019re run by a person that understands leadership and negotiation they\u2019re in no position to do that to us, no matter what I do. They\u2019re in no position to do that to us, and
\nthat won\u2019t happen, but I\u2019m going to take a look at it. A very serious look. I want to also see how much this is costing, you know, what\u2019s the cost to it, and I\u2019ll be talking to you folks in the not-too-distant future about it, having to do with what just took place.<\/p>\n
As far as the, you know, potential conflict of interests, though, I mean I know that
\nfrom the standpoint, the law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can\u2019t have a conflict of interest. That\u2019s been reported very widely. Despite that, I don\u2019t want there to be a conflict of interest anyway. And the laws, the president can\u2019t. And I understand why the president can\u2019t have a conflict of interest now because everything a president does in some ways is like a conflict of interest, but I have, I\u2019ve built a very great company and it\u2019s a big company and it\u2019s all over the world. People are starting to see, when they look at all these different jobs, like in India and other things, number one, a job like that builds great relationships with the people of India, so it\u2019s all good. But I have to say, the partners come in, they\u2019re very, very successful people. They come in, they\u2019d say, they said, \u2018Would it be possible to have a picture?\u2019 Actually, my children are working on that job. So I can say to them, Arthur, \u2018I don\u2019t want to have a picture,\u2019 or, I can take a picture. I mean, I think it\u2019s wonderful to take a picture. I\u2019m fine with a picture. But if it were up to some people, I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again. That would be like you never seeing your son again. That wouldn\u2019t be good. That wouldn\u2019t be good. But I\u2019d never, ever see my daughter Ivanka.<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN:<\/b> That means you\u2019d have to make Ivanka deputy President, you know.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I know, I know, yeah. [room laughs] Well, I couldn\u2019t do that either. I can\u2019t, that can\u2019t work. I can\u2019t do anything, I would never see my, I guess the only son I\u2019d be allowed to see, at least for a little while, would be Barron, because he\u2019s 10. But, but, so there has to be [unintelligible]. It\u2019s a very interesting case.<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN:<\/b> You could sell your company though, right? With all due respect, you
\ncould sell your company and then \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Well \u2026<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN:<\/b> And then you could see them all the time.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>That\u2019s a very hard thing to do, you know what, because I have real estate. I have real estate all over the world, which now people are understanding. When I filed my forms with the federal election, people said, \u2018Wow that\u2019s really a big company, that\u2019s a big company.\u2019 It really is big, it\u2019s diverse, it\u2019s all over the world. It\u2019s a great company with great assets. I think that, you know, selling real estate isn\u2019t like selling stock. Selling real estate is much different, it\u2019s in a much different world. I\u2019d say this, and I mean this and I said it on \u201c60 Minutes\u201d the other night: My company is so unimportant to me relative to what I\u2019m doing, \u2019cause I don\u2019t need money, I don\u2019t need anything, and by the way, I\u2019m very under-leveraged, I have a very small percentage of my money in debt, very very small percentage of my money in debt, in fact, banks have said \u2018We\u2019d like to loan you money, we\u2019d like to give you any amount of money.\u2019 I\u2019ve been there before, I\u2019ve had it both ways, I\u2019ve been over-levered, I\u2019ve been under-levered and, especially as you get older, under-levered is much better.<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN:<\/b> Mr. President-elect \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Just a minute, because it\u2019s an important question. I don\u2019t care about my company. I mean, if a partner comes in from India or if a partner comes in from Canada, where we did a beautiful big building that just opened, and they want to take a picture and come into my office, and my kids come in and, I originally made the deal with these people, I mean what am I going to say? I\u2019m not going to talk to you, I\u2019m not going to take pictures? You have to, you know, on a human basis, you take pictures. But I just want to say that I am given the right to do something so important in terms of so many of the issues we discussed, in terms of health care, in terms of so many different things. I don\u2019t care about my company. It doesn\u2019t matter. My kids run it. They\u2019ll say I have a conflict because we just opened a beautiful hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, so every time somebody stays at that hotel, if they stay because I\u2019m president, I guess you could say it\u2019s a conflict of interest. It\u2019s a conflict of interest, but again, I\u2019m not going to have anything to do with the hotel, and they may very well. I mean it could be that occupancy at that hotel will be because, psychologically, occupancy at that hotel will be probably a more valuable asset now than it was before, O.K.? The brand is certainly a hotter brand than it was before. I can\u2019t help that, but I don\u2019t care. I said on \u201c60 Minutes\u201d: I don\u2019t care. Because it doesn\u2019t matter. The only thing that matters to me is running our country.<\/p>\n
MICHAEL BARBARO, <\/b>political reporter:\u00a0\u00a0 Mr. President-elect, can I press you a little further on what structures you would put in place to keep the presidency and the company separate and to avoid things that, for example, were reported in The Times in the past 24 hours about meeting with leaders of Brexit about wind farms \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>About meeting with who?<\/p>\n
BARBARO: <\/b>Leaders of Brexit about wind farms that might interfere with the views of your golf course and how to keep, what structures, can you talk about that meeting, by the way?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Was I involved with the wind farms recently? Or, not that I know of. I mean, I have a problem with wind \u2026<\/p>\n
BARBARO:<\/b> But you brought it up in the meeting, didn\u2019t you?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Which meeting? I don\u2019t know. I might have.<\/p>\n
BARBARO:<\/b> With leaders of Brexit.<\/p>\n
MANY VOICES: <\/b>With Farage.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Oh, I see. I might have brought it up. But not having to do with me, just I
\nmean, the wind is a very deceiving thing. First of all, we don\u2019t make the windmills in the United States. They\u2019re made in Germany and Japan. They\u2019re made out of massive amounts of steel, which goes into the atmosphere, whether it\u2019s in our country or not, it goes into the atmosphere. The windmills kill birds and the windmills need massive subsidies. In other words, we\u2019re subsidizing wind mills all over this country. I mean, for the most part they don\u2019t work. I don\u2019t think they work at all without subsidy, and that bothers me, and they kill all the birds. You go to a windmill, you know in California they have the, what is it? The golden eagle? And they\u2019re like, if you shoot a golden eagle, they go to jail for five years and yet they kill them by, they actually have to get permits that they\u2019re only allowed to kill 30 or something in one year. The windmills are devastating to the bird population, O.K. With that being said, there\u2019s a place for them. But they do need subsidy. So, if I talk negatively. I\u2019ve been saying the same thing for years about you know, the wind industry. I wouldn\u2019t want to subsidize it. Some environmentalists agree with me very much because of all of the things I just said, including the birds, and some don\u2019t. But it\u2019s hard to explain. I don\u2019t care about anything having to do with anything having to do with anything other than the country.<\/p>\n
BARBARO:<\/b> But the structures, just to be clear, that\u2019s the question. How do you
\nformalize the separation of these things so that there is not a question of whether or not you as president \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>O.K.<\/p>\n
BARBARO:<\/b> \u2026
\nare trying to influence something, like wind farms?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>O.K., I don\u2019t want to influence anything, because it\u2019s not that, it\u2019s
\nnot that important to me. It\u2019s hard to explain.<\/p>\n
BARBARO:<\/b> Yes, but the structures?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Now, according to the law, see I figured there\u2019s something where you put
\nsomething in this massive trust and there\u2019s also \u2014 nothing is written. In other words, in theory, I can be president of the United States and run my business 100 percent, sign checks on my business, which I am phasing out of very rapidly, you know, I sign checks, I\u2019m the old-fashioned type. I like to sign checks so I know what is going on as opposed to pressing a computer button, boom, and thousands of checks are automatically sent. It keeps, it tells me what\u2019s going on a little bit and it tells contractors that I\u2019m watching. But I
\nam phasing that out now, and handing that to Eric Trump and Don Trump and Ivanka Trump for the most part, and some of my executives, so that\u2019s happening right now.<\/p>\n
But in theory I could run my business perfectly, and then run the country perfectly. And there\u2019s never been a case like this where somebody\u2019s had, like, if you look at other people of wealth, they didn\u2019t have this kind of asset and this kind of wealth, frankly. It\u2019s just a
\ndifferent thing.<\/p>\n
But there is no \u2014 I assumed that you\u2019d have to set up some type of trust or whatever
\nand you know. And I was actually a little bit surprised to see it. So in theory I don\u2019t have to do anything. But I would like to do something. I would like to try and formalize something, because I don\u2019t care about my business.<\/p>\n
Doral is going to run very nice. We own this incredible place in Miami. We own many
\nincredible places, including Turnberry, I guess you heard. There\u2019s one guy that does \u2014 when I say Turnberry, you know what that is, right. Do a little [inaudible]. But they\u2019re going to run well, we have good managers, they\u2019re going to run really well.<\/p>\n
So I don\u2019t have to do anything, but I want to do something if I can. If there is
\nsomething.<\/p>\n
BARBARO:<\/b> Can you promise us when you decide exactly what that is, you\u2019ll come
\ntell The New York Times about it?<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I will. I\u2019ve started it already.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>One of our great salesmen, by the way.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I can see that. I\u2019ve started it already by, I mean, I\u2019ve greatly reduced the check-signing and the business. I\u2019ve greatly reduced meetings with contractors, meetings with different people that, you know, I\u2019ve also started by \u2014 \u2019cause I\u2019ve said over the last
\ntwo years, once I decided I wanted to run, I don\u2019t want to build anything. \u2019Cause building, like for instance, we built the post office, you\u2019ll be happy to hear, ahead of schedule and under budget. Substantially ahead of schedule. Almost two years ago of schedule. But ahead of schedule, under budget, and it\u2019s a terrific place. That\u2019s the hotel on Pennsylvania.<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>Just so you know, General Electric has a big wind turbine factory in South
\nCarolina. Just so you know.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Well that\u2019s good. But most of \u2018em are made in Germany, most of \u2018em are made, you know, Siemens and the Chinese are making most of them.<\/p>\n
[cross talk]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>They may assemble \u2014 if you check, I think you\u2019ll find that the, it\u2019s delivered there and they do most of the assembly.<\/p>\n
JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, <\/b>White House correspondent: Mr. President-elect \u2014 I\u2019m sorry I entered late, but I did want to ask you about \u2026<\/p>\n
BAQUET:<\/b> You should introduce yourself.<\/p>\n
DAVIS:<\/b> I\u2019m Julie Davis, one of the White House correspondents.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Hi, Julie.<\/p>\n
DAVIS:<\/b> I apologize for my delayed flight. I wanted to ask you about personnel. They say personnel is policy.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I can\u2019t quite hear.<\/p>\n
DAVIS: <\/b>Personnel.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Personnel.<\/p>\n
DAVIS:<\/b> You hired Steve Bannon to be the chief strategist for you in the White House. He is a hero of the alt-right. He\u2019s been described by some as racist and anti-Semitic. I wonder what message you think you have sent by elevating him to that position and what you would say to those who feel like that indicates something about the kind of country you prefer and the government you\u2019ll run.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Um, I\u2019ve known Steve Bannon a long time. If I thought he was a racist, or alt-right, or any of the things that we can, you know, the terms we can use, I wouldn\u2019t even think about hiring him. First of all, I\u2019m the one that makes the decision, not Steve Bannon or anybody else. And Kellyanne will tell you that.<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
KELLYANE CONWAY: <\/b>100 percent.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>And if he said something to me that, in terms of his views, or that I thought were inappropriate or bad, number one I wouldn\u2019t do anything, and number two, he would have to be gone. But I know many people that know him, and in fact, he\u2019s actually getting some very good press from a lot of the people that know him, and people that are on the left. But Steve went to Harvard, he was a, you know, he was very successful, he was a Naval officer, he\u2019s, I think he\u2019s very, very, you know, sadly, really, I think it\u2019s very hard on him. I think he\u2019s having a hard time with it. Because it\u2019s not him. It\u2019s not him.\u00a0 I\u2019ve known him for
\na long time. He\u2019s a very, very smart guy. I think he was with Goldman Sachs on top of everything else.<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN:<\/b> What do you make of the website he ran, Breitbart?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>The which?<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN: <\/b>Breitbart.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Well, Breitbart\u2019s different. Breitbart cover things, I mean like The New York Times covers things. I mean, I could say that Arthur is alt-right because they covered an alt-right story.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>[laughing] I am, I am. I\u2019ll take whatever you say. I am always right, but I\u2019m not alt-right.<\/p>\n
[laughter, cross talk]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>The New York Times covers a lot of stories that are, you know, rough stories. And you know, they have covered some of these things, but The New York Times covers a lot of these things also. It\u2019s just a newspaper, essentially. It\u2019s a newspaper. I know the guy, he\u2019s a decent guy, he\u2019s a very smart guy. He\u2019s done a good job. He hasn\u2019t been with me that long. You know he really came in after the primaries. I had already won the primaries. And if I thought that his views were in that category, I would immediately let him go. And I\u2019ll tell you why. In many respects I think his views are actually on the\u00a0 oher side of what a lot of people might think.<\/p>\n
DAVIS:<\/b> But you are aware, sir, with all due respect, that African-Americans and Jews and many folks who disagree with the coverage of Breitbart and the slant that Breitbart brings to the news view him that way, aren\u2019t you?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Yeah, well Breitbart, first of all, is just a publication. And, you know, they cover stories like you cover stories. Now, 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\u2019s become quite successful, and it\u2019s got readers and it does cover subjects that are on the right, but it covers subjects on the left also. I mean it\u2019s a pretty big, it\u2019s a pretty big thing. And he helped build it into a pretty successful news organization. Now, I\u2019ll tell you\u00a0 what, I know him very well. I will say this, and I will say this, if I thought that strongly, if I thought that he was doing anything, or had any ideas that were different than the ideas that you would think, I would ask him very politely to leave. But in the meantime, I think he\u2019s been treated very unfairly.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s very interesting \u2019cause a lot of people are coming to his defense right now.<\/p>\n
PRIEBUS: <\/b>We have never experienced a single episode of any of those accusations. It\u2019s been the total opposite. It\u2019s been a great team, and it\u2019s just not there. And what the president-elect is saying is 100 percent true.<\/p>\n
[cross talk]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>And by the way, if you see something or get something where you feel that I\u2019m wrong, and you have some info \u2014 I would love to hear it. You can call me, Arthur can call me, I would love to hear. The only one who can\u2019t call me is Maureen [Dowd, opinion columnist]. She treats me too rough.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know what happened to Maureen! She was so good, Gail [Collins, opinion columnist]. For years she was so good.<\/p>\n
[cross talk]<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>As we all say about Maureen, it\u2019s not your fault, it\u2019s just your turn.<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
ROSS DOUTHAT, <\/b>opinion columnist: I have a slightly different, but somewhat Steve
\nBannon-related question, I guess. It\u2019s about the future of the Republican Party. You started out here talking about winning in so many states where no Republican has won in decades, especially Midwestern Rust Belt states. And I think many people think that one of the reasons you won was that you deliberately campaigned as a different kind of Republican. You had different things to say on trade, entitlements, foreign policy, even your daughter Ivanka\u2019s child care plan was sort of distinctive. And now you\u2019re in a situation where you\u2019re governing and staffing up an administration with a Republican Party whose leaders, and Reince, may differ with me a little on this, but don\u2019t always see eye-to-eye on those views.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Although right now they\u2019re loving me.<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN: <\/b>Well, right now they are.<\/p>\n
[cross talk]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Paul Ryan right now loves me, Mitch McConnell loves me, it\u2019s amazing how winning can change things. I\u2019ve liked Chuck Schumer for a long time. I\u2019ve actually, I\u2019ve raised a lot of money for Chuck and given him a lot of money over the years. I think I was the first person that ever contributed to Chuck Schumer. I had a Brooklyn office, a little office, in a little apartment building in Brooklyn in Sheepshead Bay where I worked with my father.\u00a0 And Chuck Schumer came in and I gave him, I believe, I don\u2019t know if he\u2019s willing to admit this, but I believe it was his first campaign contribution, $500. But Chuck Schumer\u2019s a good guy. I think we\u2019ll get along very well.<\/p>\n
DOUTHAT:<\/b> I guess that\u2019s my question is, how much do you expect to be able to both run an administration and negotiate with a Republican-led Congress as a different kind of Republican. And do you worry that you\u2019ll wake up three years from now and go back to campaigning in the Rust Belt and people will say, well, he governed more like Paul Ryan than like Donald Trump.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>No, I don\u2019t worry about that. \u2019Cause I didn\u2019t need to do this. I was telling Arthur before: \u2018Arthur I didn\u2019t need to do this. I\u2019m doing this to do a good job.\u2019 That\u2019s what I want to do, and I think that what happened in the Rust Belt, they call it the Rust Belt for a reason. If you go through it, you look back 20 years, they\u00a0 didn\u2019t used to call it the Rust Belt. You pass factory after factory after factory that\u2019s empty and rusting. Rust is the good
\npart, \u2019cause they\u2019re worse than rusting, they\u2019re falling down. No, I wouldn\u2019t sacrifice that. To me more important is taking care of the people that really have proven to be, to love Donald Trump, as opposed to the political people. And frankly if the political people don\u2019t take care of these people, they\u2019re not going to win and you\u2019re going to end up with maybe a total different kind of government than what you\u2019re looking at right now. These people are
\nreally angry. They\u2019re smart, they\u2019re workers, and they\u2019re angry. I call them the forgotten men and women. And I use that in speeches, I say they\u2019re the forgotten people \u2014 they were totally forgotten. And we\u2019re going to bring jobs back. We\u2019re going to bring jobs back, big league. I\u2019ve spoken to so many companies already, I say, don\u2019t plan on moving your company, \u2019cause you\u2019re not going to be able to move your company and sell us your product. You think you\u2019re going to just sell it across what will be a strong border, you know at least we\u2019re going to have a border. But just don\u2019t plan on it.<\/p>\n
And I\u2019ll tell you, I believe, and you\u2019ll hear announcements over the next couple of months, but I believe I\u2019ve talked numerous comp \u2014 in four-minute conversations with top people \u2014 numerous companies that have, leaving, or potentially leaving our country with\u00a0 thousands of jobs.<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>Are you worried, though, that those companies will keep their factories here, but the jobs will be replaced by robots?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>They will, and we\u2019ll make the robots too.<\/p>\n
[laughter]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>It\u2019s a big thing, we\u2019ll make the robots too. Right now we don\u2019t make the robots. We don\u2019t make anything. But we\u2019re going to, I mean, look, robotics is becoming very big and we\u2019re going to do that. We\u2019re going to have more factories. We can\u2019t lose 70,000 factories. Just can\u2019t do it. We\u2019re going to start making things.\u00a0\u00a0 I was honored yesterday, I got a call from Bill Gates, great call, we had a great conversation, I got a call from Tim Cook at Apple, and I said, \u2018Tim, you know one of the things that will be a real achievement for me is when I get Apple to build a big plant in the United States, or many big plants in the United States, where instead of going to China, and going to Vietnam, and going to the places that you go to, you\u2019re making your product right here.\u2019 He said, \u2018I understand that.\u2019
\nI said: \u2018I think we\u2019ll create the incentives for you, and I think you\u2019re going to do it. We\u2019re going for a very large tax cut for corporations, which you\u2019ll be happy about.\u2019 But we\u2019re going for big tax cuts, we have to get rid of regulations, regulations are making it impossible. Whether you\u2019re liberal or conservative, I mean I could sit down and show you regulations that anybody would agree are ridiculous. It\u2019s gotten to be a free-for-all. And companies can\u2019t, they can\u2019t even start up, they can\u2019t expand, they\u2019re choking.<\/p>\n
I tell you, one thing I would say, so, I\u2019m giving a big tax cut and I\u2019m giving big regulation cuts, and I\u2019ve seen all of the small business owners over the United States, and all of the big business owners, I\u2019ve met so many people. They are more excited about the regulation cut than about the tax cut. And I would\u2019ve never said that\u2019s possible, because the tax cut\u2019s going to be substantial. You know we have companies leaving our country because the taxes are too high. But they\u2019re leaving also because of the regulations. And I would say, of the two, and I would not have thought this, regulation cuts, substantial regulation cuts, are more important than, and more enthusiastically supported, than even the big tax cuts.<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN:<\/b> Mr. President-elect, I wanted to ask you, there was a conference this past weekend in Washington of people who pledged their allegiance to Nazism.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Boy, you are really into this stuff, huh?<\/p>\n
PRIEBUS: <\/b>I think we answered that one right off the bat.<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN:<\/b> Are you going to condemn them?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Of course I did, of course I did.<\/p>\n
PRIEBUS: <\/b>He already did.<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN:<\/b> Are you going to do it right now?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Oh, I see, maybe you weren\u2019t here. Sure. Would you like me to do it here? I\u2019ll do it here. Of course I condemn. I disavow and condemn.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER:\u00a0 <\/b>We\u2019ll go with that. I\u2019d like to move to infrastructure, apologies, and then we\u2019ll go back. Because a lot of the investment you are talking about, a lot of the jobs you are talking about \u2014 is infrastructure going to be the core of your first few years?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>No, it\u2019s not the core, but it\u2019s an important factor. We\u2019re going for a lot of things, between taxes, between regulations, between health care replacement, we\u2019re going to talk repeal and replace. \u2019Cause health care is \u2014 you know people are paying a 100 percent increase and they\u2019re not even getting anything, the deductibles are so high, you have\u00a0 deductibles $16,000. So they\u2019re paying all of this money and they don\u2019t even get health care. So it\u2019s very important. So there are a lot of things. But infrastructure, Arthur, is going to be a part of it.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>It\u2019s part of jobs, isn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I don\u2019t even think it\u2019s a big part of it. It\u2019s going to be a big number but I think I am doing things that are more important than infrastructure, but infrastructure is still a part of it, and we\u2019re talking about a very large-scale infrastructure bill. And that\u2019s not a very Republican thing \u2014 I didn\u2019t even know that, frankly.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>It worked for Franklin Roosevelt.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>It didn\u2019t work for Obama because unfortunately they didn\u2019t spend the money last time on infrastructure. They spent it on a lot of other things. You know, nobody can find out where that last \u2014 you know, from a few years ago \u2014 where that money went. And we\u2019re going to make sure it is spent on infrastructure and roads and highways. I have a friend, he\u2019s a big trucker, one of the biggest. And he orders these incredible trucks, the best, I won\u2019t mention the name but it\u2019s a certain truck company that makes \u2014 they call them the Rolls-Royce of trucks. You know, the most expensive trucks. And he calls me up about two months ago and he goes, \u2018Man, I\u2019m going to buy the cheapest trucks I can buy.\u2019 And I said, \u2018Why?\u2019 and \u2014 you know, and this is the biggest guy \u2014 he goes, \u2018My trucks are
\ncoming back, they\u2019re going from New York to California and they\u2019re all busted up. The highways are in such bad shape, they\u2019re hitting potholes, they\u2019re hitting everything.\u2019 He said, \u2018I\u2019m not buying these trucks anymore, I\u2019m going to buy the cheapest stuff and the strongest tires I can get.\u2019 That\u2019s the exact expression he used, \u2018the cheapest trucks and the strongest tires.\u2019<\/p>\n
We\u2019re hitting so many bad points, we, you know, I said, \u2018So tell me, you\u2019ve been doing this how long?\u2019 45 years. He built it over 45 years. I said, \u2018Have you ever seen it like this?\u2019 He said, \u2018The roads have never been like this.\u2019 It\u2019s an interesting \u2026<\/p>\n
BAQUET:<\/b> What did, what did, I\u2019m curious what Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan said when you said, \u2018I\u2019m going to launch a multibillion-dollar infrastructure program.\u2019 Are they reluctant to spend that?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Honestly right now \u2026<\/p>\n
DOUTHAT: <\/b>Trillion. Trillion, I think, was the figure.<\/p>\n
BAQUET: <\/b>Because they would be in the wing of the Republican Party that would say, \u2018That\u2019s great, but you\u2019re not going to be able to do that and balance the budget.\u2019<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Let\u2019s see if I get it done. Right now they\u2019re in love with me. O.K.? Four weeks ago they weren\u2019t in love with me. Don\u2019t forget \u2014 if I read The New York Times, and you don\u2019t have to put this on the record \u2014 it can be if you want, you might not want \u2026<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>You say if, but you do \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Well, I do read it. Unfortunately. I would have lived about 20 years longer if I didn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>There\u2019s Nixon\u2019s quote right there if you\u2019d love to reread it \u2014<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I know. But when you look at the different, all the newspapers, I was going to lose the presidency, I was going to take the House with me, and the Senate had no chance. It was going to be the biggest humiliation in the history of politics in this country. And instead I won the presidency, easily, and I mean easily \u2014 you look at those states, I had states where I won by 30 and 40 points. I won the presidency easily, I helped numerous senators \u2014 in fact the only senators that didn\u2019t get elected were two \u2014 one up in New Hampshire who refused to say that she was going to vote for me, who by the way would love a job in the administration and I said, \u2018No, thank you.\u2019 That\u2019s on the record. This is where I\u2019m different than a politician \u2014 I know what to say, I just believe it\u2019s sort of interesting.<\/p>\n
She\u2019d love to have a job in the administration, I said, \u2018No, thank you.\u2019 She refused to vote for me. And a senator in Nevada who frankly said, he endorsed me then he unendorsed me, and he went down like a lead balloon. And then they called me before the race and said they wanted me to endorse him and do a big thing and I said, \u2018No thank you, good luck.\u2019 You know, let\u2019s see what happens. I said, off the record, I hope you lose. Off the record. He was! He was up by 10 points \u2014 you know who I\u2019m talking about.<\/p>\n
So, others \u2014 if you look at Missouri, [Senator Roy] Blunt, he was down five points a few days before the election, he called for help, I gave him help, and I think I was up like over 30 points in Missouri. I was leading by a massive amount, 28 points. I gave him help and he ended up winning by four points or something. I brought a number of them\u00a0 Pennsylvania, brought over the finish line. Let\u2019s see, we brought Johnson, in, you know,\u00a0 that was a good one. We brought him over the line in Wisconsin. Winning Wisconsin was big stuff, that\u2019s something that \u2026<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>Mr. President-elect, I came \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>So right now I\u2019m in very good shape, but<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>I came here thinking you\u2019d be awed and overwhelmed by this job, but I feel like you are getting very comfortable with it.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I feel comfortable. I feel comfortable. I am awed by the job, as anybody would be, but I honestly, Tom, I feel so comfortable and you know it would be, to me, a great achievement if I could come back here in a year or two years and say \u2014 and have a lot of the folks here say, \u2018You\u2019ve done a great job.\u2019 And I don\u2019t mean just a conservative job, \u2019cause I\u2019m not talking conservative. I mean just, we\u2019ve done a good job.<\/p>\n
SHEAR: <\/b>To follow up on Matt, after you met with President Obama, he described you to folks as \u2014 that you seemed overwhelmed by what he told you. So I wonder if you are overwhelmed by the magnitude of the job that you\u2019re about to inherit and if you can tell us anything more about that conversation with the president and the apparently subsequent
\nconversations that you\u2019ve had on the phone since then. And then maybe talk a little bit about foreign policy, that\u2019s something we haven\u2019t touched on here, and whether or not you believe in the kind of world order \u2014 a world order led by America in terms of having this country underwrite the security and the free markets of the world, which have been in place for decades.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Sure. I had a great meeting with President Obama. I never met him before. I really liked him a lot. The meeting was supposed to be 10 minutes, 15 minutes max, because there were a lot of people waiting outside, for both of us. And it ended up being \u2014 you were there \u2014 I guess an hour-and-a-half meeting, close. And it was a great chemistry. I think if he said overwhelmed, I don\u2019t think he meant that in a bad way. I
\nthink he meant that it is a very overwhelming job. But I\u2019m not overwhelmed by it. You can do things and fix it, I think he meant it that way. He said very nice things after the meeting and I said very nice things about him. I really enjoyed my meeting with him. We have \u2014 you know, we come from different sides of the equation, but it\u2019s nevertheless something that \u2014 I didn\u2019t know if I\u2019d like him. I probably thought that maybe I wouldn\u2019t, but I did, I did like him. I really enjoyed him a lot. I\u2019ve spoken to him since the meeting.<\/p>\n
SHEAR: <\/b>What did you say to him?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Just a basic conversation.\u00a0 I think he\u2019s looking to do absolutely the right thing for the country in terms of transition and I really, I\u2019m telling you, we had a meeting, Arthur, that went for an hour and a half that could have gone for three or four hours. It was a great \u2014 it was just a very good meeting.<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN:<\/b> Sort of like this meeting.<\/p>\n
[cross talk, laughter]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>He told me what he thought his, what the biggest problems of the country
\nwere, which I don\u2019t think I should reveal, I don\u2019t mind if he reveals them. But I was actually surprised a little bit. But he told me the problems, he told me things that he considered assets, but he did tell me what he thought were the biggest problems, in particular one problem that he thought was a big problem for the country, which I\u2019d rather have you ask him. But I really found the meeting to be very good. And I hope we can have a good \u2014 I mean, it doesn\u2019t mean we\u2019re going to agree on everything, but I hope that we will have a great long-term relationship. I really liked him a lot and I\u2019m a little bit surprised I\u2019m telling you that I really liked him a lot.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Let\u2019s go foreign policy, sure. Sure.<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>What do you see as America\u2019s role in the world? Do you believe that the role \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>That\u2019s such a big question.<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>The role that we played for 50 years as kind of the global balancer, paying more for things because they were in our ultimate interest, one hears from you, I sense, is really shrinking that role.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I don\u2019t think we should be a nation builder. I think we\u2019ve tried that. I happen to think that going into Iraq was perhaps \u2026 I mean you could say maybe we could have settled the civil war, O.K.? I think going into Iraq was one of the great mistakes in the history of our country. I think getting out of it \u2014 I think we got out of it wrong, then lots of bad things happened, including the formation of ISIS. We could have gotten out of it differently.<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>NATO, Russia?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I think going in was a terrible, terrible mistake. Syria, we have to solve that problem because we are going to just keep fighting, fighting forever. I have a different view on Syria than everybody else. Well, not everybody else, but then a lot of people. I had to
\nlisten to [Senator] Lindsey Graham, who, give me a break. I had to listen to Lindsey Graham talk about, you know, attacking Syria and attacking, you know, and it\u2019s like you\u2019re now attacking Russia, you\u2019re attacking Iran, you\u2019re attacking. And what are we getting?
\nWe\u2019re getting \u2014 and what are we getting? And I have some very definitive, I have some very strong ideas on Syria. I think what\u2019s happened is a horrible, horrible thing. To look at the deaths, and I\u2019m not just talking deaths on our side, which are horrible, but the deaths \u2014 I mean you look at these cities, Arthur, where they\u2019re totally, they\u2019re rubble, massive areas, and they say two people were injured. No, thousands of people have died. O.K. And I think it\u2019s a shame. And ideally we can get \u2014 do something with Syria. I spoke to Putin, as you know, he called me, essentially \u2026<\/p>\n
UNKNOWN:<\/b> How do you see that relationship?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Essentially everybody called me, all of the major leaders, and most of them I\u2019ve spoken to.<\/p>\n
FRIEDMAN: <\/b>Will you have a reset with Russia?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I wouldn\u2019t use that term after what happened, you know, previously. I think \u2014 I would love to be able to get along with Russia and I think they\u2019d like to be able to get along with us. It\u2019s in our mutual interest. And I don\u2019t go in with any preconceived notion, but I will tell you, I would say \u2014 when they used to say, during the campaign, Donald Trump loves Putin, Putin loves Donald Trump, I said, huh, wouldn\u2019t it be nice, I\u2019d say this in front of thousands of people, wouldn\u2019t it be nice to actually report what they said, wouldn\u2019t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia, wouldn\u2019t it be nice if we went after ISIS together, which is, by the way, aside from being dangerous, it\u2019s very expensive, and ISIS shouldn\u2019t have been even allowed to form, and the people will stand up and give me a massive hand. You know they thought it was bad that I was getting along with Putin or that I believe
\nstrongly if we can get along with Russia that\u2019s a positive thing. It is a great thing that we can get along with not only Russia but that we get along with other countries.<\/p>\n
JOSEPH KAHN,<\/b>managing editor:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 On Syria, would you mind, you said you have a very
\nstrong idea about what to do with the Syria conflict, can you describe that for us?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I can only say this: We have to end that craziness that\u2019s going on in Syria. One of the things that was told to me \u2014 can I say this off the record, or is everything on the record?<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>No, if you want to \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>I don\u2019t want to violate, I don\u2019t want to violate a \u2026<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>If you want to go off the record, we have agreed you can go off the record. Ladies and gentlemen, we are off the record for this moment.<\/p>\n
[Trump speaks off the record.]<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Now we can go back on.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>I\u2019m going to play the cop here. We\u2019ve got only two and a half minutes left, because they have a hard stop at 2. And by the way, I want to thank you again, on behalf of all of us \u2026<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Thank you.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER:<\/b>\u00a0 for this meeting, and really I mean that. We are back on the record.
\nMaggie, you get the last question.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Is he a tough boss, folks? Is he tough?<\/p>\n
HABERMAN: <\/b>I have two questions, very, very quickly. One is your vice president-elect left open the idea of returning to waterboarding. You talked about that on the campaign trail. I\u2019m hoping you can talk about how you view torture at this point, and also what are you hoping that Jared Kushner will do in your administration and will you bring him in formally?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>O.K., O.K. So, I didn\u2019t hear the second question.<\/p>\n
HABERMAN: <\/b>Jared Kushner. What will Jared Kushner\u2019s role be in your administration?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Oh. Maybe nothing. Because I don\u2019t want to have people saying \u2018conflict.\u2019 Even though the president of the United States \u2014 I hope whoever is writing this story, it\u2019s written fairly \u2014 the president of the United States is allowed to have whatever conflicts
\nhe wants \u2014 he or she wants. But I don\u2019t want to go by that. Jared\u2019s a very smart guy. He\u2019s a very good guy. The people that know him, he\u2019s a quality person and I think he can be very helpful. I would love to be able to be the one that made peace with Israel and the Palestinians. I would love that, that would be such a great achievement. Because nobody\u2019s been able to do it.<\/p>\n
HABERMAN:<\/b> Do you think he can be part of that?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Well, I think he\u2019d be very good at it. I mean he knows it so well. He knows the region, knows the people, knows the players. I would love to be \u2014 and you can put that down in a list of many things that I\u2019d like to be able to do. Now a lot of people tell me, really great people tell me, that it\u2019s impossible, you can\u2019t do it. I\u2019ve had a lot of, actually, great Israeli businesspeople tell me, you can\u2019t do that, it\u2019s impossible. I disagree, I think you can make peace. I think people are tired now of being shot, killed. At some point, when do they come? I think we can do that. I have reason to believe I can do that.<\/p>\n
HABERMAN:<\/b> And on torture? Where are you \u2014 and waterboarding?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>So, I met with General Mattis, who is a very respected guy. In fact, I met with a number of other generals, they say he\u2019s the finest there is. He is being seriously, seriously considered for secretary of defense, which is \u2014 I think it\u2019s time maybe, it\u2019s time for a general. Look at what\u2019s going on. We don\u2019t win, we can\u2019t beat anybody, we don\u2019t win anymore. At anything. We don\u2019t win on the border, we don\u2019t win with trade, we certainly don\u2019t win with the military. General Mattis is a strong, highly dignified man. I met with him at length and I asked him that question. I said, what do you think of waterboarding? He said \u2014 I was surprised \u2014 he said, \u2018I\u2019ve never found it to be useful.\u2019 He said, \u2018I\u2019ve always found, give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I do better with that than I do with torture.\u2019 And I was very impressed by that answer. I was surprised, because he\u2019s known as being like the toughest guy. And when he said that, I\u2019m not saying it changed my mind. [An earlier version made a mistake in transcription. Mr. Trump said \u201cchanged my mind,\u201d not \u201cchanged my man.\u201d] Look, we have people that are chopping off heads and drowning people in steel cages and we\u2019re not allowed to waterboard. But I\u2019ll tell you what, I
\nwas impressed by that answer. It certainly does not \u2014 it\u2019s not going to make the kind of a difference that maybe a lot of people think. If it\u2019s so important to the American people, I would go for it. I would be guided by that. But General Mattis found it to be very less important, much less important than I thought he would say. I thought he would say \u2014 you know he\u2019s known as Mad Dog Mattis, right? Mad Dog for a reason. I thought he\u2019d say \u2018It\u2019s phenomenal, don\u2019t lose it.\u2019 He actually said, \u2018No, give me some cigarettes and some drinks, and we\u2019ll do better.\u2019<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>So, I, with apologies, I\u2019m going to go to our C.E.O., Mark Thompson, for the last, last question.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Very powerful man \u2026<\/p>\n
MARK THOMPSON: <\/b>Thank you, and it\u2019s a really short one, but after all the talk about libel and libel laws, are you committed to the First Amendment to the Constitution?<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Oh, I was hoping he wasn\u2019t going to say that. I think you\u2019ll be happy
\nI think you\u2019ll be happy. Actually, somebody said to me on that, they said, \u2018You know, it\u2019s a great idea, softening up those laws, but you may get sued a lot more.\u2019 I said, \u2018You know, you\u2019re right, I never thought about that.\u2019 I said, \u2018You know, I have to start thinking about that.\u2019 So, I, I think you\u2019ll be O.K. I think you\u2019re going to be fine.<\/p>\n
SULZBERGER: <\/b>Well, thank you very much for this. Really appreciate this.<\/p>\n
TRUMP: <\/b>Thank you all, very much, it\u2019s a great honor. I will say, The Times is, it\u2019s a great, great American jewel. A world jewel. And I hope we can all get along. We\u2019re looking for the same thing, and I hope we can all get along well.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
I will be adding\u00a0 commentary later on….<\/p>\n
=-=-=-=-=
\nPowered by Blogilo<\/a><\/b><\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"