Trump: Democrats col­lude with Face­book, Google

‘Mil­lions of peo­ple out there that are count­ing on me’

The Washington Times Weekly - - Politics -

Ed­i­tor’s note: The fol­low­ing are ex­cerpts from “Still Win­ning: Why Amer­ica Went All In on Don­ald Trump — And Why We Must Do It Again,” by Charles Hurt, opin­ion ed­i­tor of The Wash­ing­ton Times. It is based on an ex­clu­sive in­ter­view with Mr. Trump in a chap­ter that fo­cuses on his re­elec­tion prospects.

Don­ald Trump cer­tainly likes to test peo­ple. He says some­thing and watches your face for a re­ac­tion. He is al­ways push­ing, look­ing for those soft spots in peo­ple. And the hard spines that do not budge. He can be be­lit­tling, but also highly com­pli­men­tary.

When not test­ing peo­ple, Trump likes to re­view his record — whether it is his ac­com­plish­ments, his epic pub­lic fights or the slights peo­ple have com­mit­ted against him. In this case, he wanted to linger a lit­tle longer on his an­nounce­ment speech back in June 2015.

“You know, it’s funny,” he said. “They gave me great marks for a great speech.”

“And then, about three days later, re­mem­ber?” he asks. “It was like a de­lay. They said, did he use the word ‘rape’?”

He was talk­ing, ob­vi­ously, about his line about the Mex­i­can rapists that caused such a firestorm.

“Okay, so I did,” he con­fessed. “You know, the ‘rape’ word you don’t use. But I used it.”

It re­ally doesn’t mat­ter how many mil­lions of times the me­dia has chewed this over, Trump talks about it with great in­ter­est and vigor — as if it just hap­pened yes­ter­day and he is talk­ing about it for the first time.

Now, he said, we have had a cou­ple of years to eval­u­ate his com­ment about rapists il­le­gally cross­ing the bor­der into the United States.

“OK, now we have a few years be­hind us, right? But the only thing I was wrong about: that it was mild com­pared to what is go­ing on,” he said, draw­ing out the word “mild.” “That speech was tame by com­par­i­son to what is hap­pen­ing.”

He said he was as­ton­ished when he learned from Bor­der Pa­trol agents that moth­ers were giv­ing their young daugh­ters birth con­trol pills be­fore their treks north across the bor­der so that they would not be­come preg­nant if they were raped along the way.

Whether you love Trump or hate him, you have to ad­mit that the guy has stuck with the is­sues that got him elected like a dog with a bone.

That is not to say he has suc­cess­fully solved all the prob­lems he vowed to fix. Il­le­gal im­mi­gra­tion is a good ex­am­ple. Even as the prob­lem has got­ten worse, Trump has dou­bled and re­dou­bled his ef­forts to solve the cri­sis at the bor­der once and for all — in the face of con­stant op­po­si­tion from Democrats and even some Repub­li­cans in Congress.

Democrats’ Rus­sia hoax

Dur­ing the first two years of his pres­i­dency, as Trump has re­mained unswerv­ingly fo­cused on the is­sues that got him elected, Democrats in Congress have been fo­cused on some­thing en­tirely dif­fer­ent. In­stead of de­bat­ing Trump about the is­sues, Democrats have painstak­ingly wo­ven this lu­di­crous web of lies about some sup­posed “collusion” be­tween Don­ald Trump’s 2016 pres­i­den­tial cam­paign and Rus­sia. Any­one who was fol­low­ing Trump’s cam­paign knew that the cam­paign had a hard enough time col­lud­ing with it­self on most day-to-day mat­ters. The idea that they were col­lud­ing with a for­eign govern­ment that speaks a dif­fer­ent lan­guage was laugh­able on the spot. But, of course, the me­dia took ev­ery bit of it to­tally se­ri­ously — hook, line and sinker. And they ran with it, cluck­ing cease­lessly like so many Chicken Lit­tles. Imag­ine what must have been go­ing through Pres­i­dent Trump’s mind the first time he heard all the lurid, dis­gust­ing and en­tirely fab­ri­cated claims con­tained in the so-called Steele Dossier that we now know was noth­ing but a crude po­lit­i­cal hit job. Th­ese claims were shared di­rectly with him by his top U.S. in­tel­li­gence of­fi­cials. I asked Trump what had been the low­est, hard­est mo­ments of his pres­i­dency. When he dis­missed the ques­tion sev­eral times, I could not tell if he sim­ply did not think it mat­tered or maybe he did not care to dwell on any­thing that hinted of weak­ness on his part. Fi­nally, he an­swered, sort of. “The big­gest mo­ments are when I found out how to­tally dis­hon­est the press is,” Trump said. “Where a story should have been good on the Rus­sia delu­sion — you know, the whole thing with Rus­sia — and it would end up be­ing hor­ri­ble.” … Given the madness of the en­tire Rus­sia “collusion” in­ves­ti­ga­tion, I asked how close he came to fir­ing Bob Mueller. “I never came close to fir­ing him,” Trump said. Why? “I am a stu­dent of his­tory in a true sense,” he said. “Cer­tainly, I watched what hap­pened to Richard Nixon when he fired every­body. That didn’t work out too well. So, I didn’t.”

Obama’s abuse of in­tel­li­gence

For any­one who ac­tu­ally cares about the Con­sti­tu­tion and re­lies on our free press to hold govern­ment of­fi­cials ac­count­able, th­ese are in­cred­i­bly frus­trat­ing times. While most of the me­dia have been on a two-year drunken ben­der over the phantom Rus­sia “collusion” cru­sade, they have en­tirely missed the very real and far more im­por­tant story.

Un­der Barack Obama’s pre­vi­ous ad­min­is­tra­tion, Amer­ica’s in­tel­li­gence ser­vices were turned over to po­lit­i­cal par­ti­sans who spied on do­mes­tic po­lit­i­cal en­e­mies and used the prod­uct of that il­le­gal do­mes­tic es­pi­onage to pun­ish them.

This ac­tu­ally hap­pened. In Amer­ica. In 2016. And yet, if you were a de­voted con­sumer of most of the me­dia in Amer­ica the past two years, you very well may have never heard a word about it.

The no­tion that an ad­min­is­tra­tion would spy on its po­lit­i­cal en­e­mies at the height of a pres­i­den­tial cam­paign is ab­so­lutely ter­ri­fy­ing. It is the sort of thing that hap­pens in North Korea or Rus­sia. Not in a con­sti­tu­tional repub­lic.

Even more ter­ri­fy­ing is that you have a sup­pos­edly free press that has al­most en­tirely ig­nored the scan­dal. And we are talk­ing about a scan­dal that is way worse than Water­gate and ev­ery bit as bad as the Pen­tagon Pa­pers. And hardly a peep out of the press.

At least Pres­i­dent Trump is clear-eyed about the se­ri­ous­ness of the true con­sti­tu­tional cri­sis, how­ever ig­nored it may be by the press. “This is some­thing that should never be al­lowed to hap­pen to another pres­i­dent,” he told me.

And it was not just the spy­ing on his cam­paign dur­ing the elec­tion that raises se­ri­ously alarm­ing ques­tions. All the hy­per-par­ti­san ac­tions inside the Depart­ment of Jus­tice that we now know about should hor­rify any red-blooded Amer­i­can, no mat­ter their par­ti­san stripe.

Rogue agents inside the FBI were lustily pur­su­ing a po­lit­i­cal can­di­date that they clearly loathed. All the while, you had the same agents work­ing over­time to squelch a le­git­i­mate in­ves­ti­ga­tion into another po­lit­i­cal can­di­date, Hil­lary Clin­ton, whom they clearly fa­vored and fully ex­pected to be­come the next pres­i­dent — and their next ul­ti­mate boss.

This level of clan­des­tine cor­rup­tion at the high­est lev­els of the fed­eral govern­ment is sup­posed to be why good re­porters be­come re­porters in the first place. It is the kind of story we dream about un­cov­er­ing. Yet, for the vast ma­jor­ity of Wash­ing­ton po­lit­i­cal re­porters, it was vir­tu­ally ig­nored.

“I don’t think it was ever like this,” Pres­i­dent Trump said. “I don’t think that there has ever been a time — whether it’s pol­i­tics or not — like the cor­rup­tion [that’s been] un­cov­ered.”

“Hope­fully that’s go­ing to be pur­sued,” he adds, al­most wist­fully. “By re­porters, too.”

‘A poor man’s J. Edgar Hoover’

Few peo­ple come in for a greater beat­ing in this whole scan­dal than for­mer FBI Di­rec­tor Jim Comey, who was one of the top ring­leaders of the Rus­sia cha­rade.

“I think Comey was a poor man’s J. Edgar Hoover,” said Trump, re­fer­ring to the cor­rupt for­mer FBI di­rec­tor who col­lected dirt on po­lit­i­cal fig­ures so that he could con­trol them. “What he did with that [Steele Dossier] re­port, I think, was [an ef­fort] to sort of gain in­flu­ence over the pres­i­dent of the United States.” Then he of­fered an in­cred­u­lous smile. “It didn’t work out too good for him,” he said, cit­ing his re­fusal to be in­tim­i­dated by the lurid and out­landish ac­cu­sa­tions. “It worked out be­cause I had the op­po­site re­ac­tion.”

“But Hoover made a liv­ing off do­ing that for many years,” Trump added. “He was there for many, many years.”

Trump then came about as close as he ever does to chid­ing or cor­rect­ing him­self.

“I didn’t see it at the time,” he half-shrugged. “But, in ret­ro­spect, that had some­thing to do with what was hap­pen­ing.” Even in this, how­ever, Pres­i­dent Trump takes pride. “You know, it’s very in­ter­est­ing. A lot of things have been ex­posed in my ad­min­is­tra­tion that never would have been ex­posed in a more typ­i­cal ad­min­is­tra­tion,” he said of the FBI’s clear vendetta against him, ex­posed in the af­ter­math of Comey’s fir­ing.

“I am very proud of it. Now you can keep your guard up, at least. You can do what you have to do.

“It is amaz­ing that I won in light of what we found out,” he added.

“When you talk about collusion, the collusion is with Google and Face­book and all of th­ese dif­fer­ent plat­forms — all of th­ese dif­fer­ent com­pa­nies — with the Democrats. And be­yond those, it’s the New York Times, the Wash­ing­ton Post.” …

Gifted with ter­ri­ble op­po­nents

Through­out Don­ald J. Trump’s short, tri­umphant po­lit­i­cal ca­reer, he has been truly blessed with the great­est gift ev­ery politi­cian prays for: ter­ri­ble op­po­nents. Whether it is Jeb Bush or Hil­lary Clin­ton, Trump’s op­po­nents have

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.