Post 4

What Will Donald Trumps Asia Policy Look Like?
By Prashanth Parameswaran
November 10, 2016
WASHINGTON, D.C. Ill tell you what Ive told the diplomats: were serious about what we
said [and] flexible about how we do things too, a source close to President-elect Donald Trump
told The Diplomat early Wednesday morning in response to inquiries about his Asia policy
following his stunning victory over Hillary Clinton just a few hours earlier.
After shrugging off much of what Trump said during the election campaign and writing off his
chances of winning, many are now rushing to figure out to what extent his words will translate
into actions after the biggest U.S. election upset since Harry Truman beat Thomas E. Dewey
back in 1948. His approach to Asia has unsurprisingly attracted a lot of attention, given the fact
that the future of U.S. President Barack Obamas rebalance to the Asia-Pacific hangs in the
balance (See: US Asia Policy After Obama: Opportunities and Challenges).
Asia has certainly been an area of focus for the Trump campaign, though most are probably
familiar only with the headline-grabbing statements about U.S. alliances and nuclear weapons
rather than how the region factors into Trumps overall worldview and what that means for his
likely Asia policy. With Trump set to take office in January 2017, it is worth taking a closer look
at what Americas new president might do in the region.
Trumps Worldview
An America First Foreign Policy
The conventional wisdom is that Trumps foreign policy worldview, if implemented, would
diverge significantly from post-World War II U.S. foreign policy. But the extent to which this is
true is not as clear as it seems.
To be sure, his outlook, which he has said might be summarized as America First, is based on
a bleak assessment of Americas position in the world today, a narrow interpretation of U.S.
interests, and a transactional approach in dealing with the international community. It is a far cry
from what we are used to hearing from traditional U.S. presidential candidates, who rarely
question American exceptionalism and indispensability in the world or the alliances and free
trade agreements that form the bedrock of U.S. commitment to the liberal world order.
1
Trump fleshed out this view in an April 27 address at the Center for the National Interest, a
Washington, D.C. think tank that, at the time, received a fair bit of flak for even inviting him to
speak.
In that speech, Trump argued that U.S. foreign policy in the post-Cold War era had been
wasteful, rudderless, unreliable, and ineffective. By contrast, Trump said he would focus more
narrowly on rebuilding Americas military and economy, curbing the spread of radical Islam,
and fashioning what he called a new rational American foreign policy, which some have also
since somewhat loosely termed a version of realism.
It is this broader worldview that gives rise to those of Trumps foreign policy beliefs grabbing
headlines, including his skepticism for alliances and free trade and comfort with authoritarian
regimes in Russia and China.
Trump the Pragmatist?
Yet Trumps views, his advisers say, are often unfairly caricatured in spite of attempts made to
clarify them. Following scrutiny at home and abroad, Trump has subsequently said that he is not
opposed to alliances per se, but their cost, and that he would be open to trade deals he perceives
as being fair to the United States.
But those nuances, the Trump adviser who spoke to The Diplomat said, were only picked up by
those attentive to what he was actually saying, as opposed to what was being reported.
Besides, once one gets beyond these general principles and down to specific issue areas within
his America First foreign policy, Trumps foreign policy views seem relatively more
mainstream.
Walid Phares, a foreign policy adviser to the campaign, has said that Trumps two principal
concerns are terrorism, with the rise of the Islamic State, and nuclear non-proliferation, with the
challenges that both Iran and North Korea pose. Those concerns would top any prospective
American presidents list.
And with respect to Trumps willingness to work with authoritarian countries like Russia and
China, Trump has repeatedly said that this is due not to his ideological leanings, but simply
because he views the challenge of radical Islam as being far more important and urgent.
Supporting this line of argument, Phares wrote on Fox News back in April that Trumps softer
line toward Moscow and Beijing was simply a product of the fact that he saw jihadism as the
greater immediate threat, which required the assistance of U.S. rivals as well.
2
Mr. Trump clearly desires to reduce tensions with Russia and China so as to better focus on
containing our common enemy, jihadism, Phares wrote.
As proof of Trumps pragmatism, Phares also claimed in that piece that Trump would not
hesitate to use economic leverage which could conceivably mean sanctions to pressure
China into reining in North Koreas nuclear ambitions, which he also considered a top priority.
Implications for U.S. Asia Policy
Given what we know and dont know about Trumps worldview, what does that mean for U.S.
Asia policy under his watch?
At first glance, Trumps headline-grabbing rhetoric would seem to signal a radical departure
away from all four pillars of Obamas rebalance to Asia building alliances and partnerships;
strengthening regional institutions; deepening economic engagement; and promoting democracy
and human rights. Yet a closer look reveals that the extent of change may not be as dramatic as
some are making it out to be.
Alliances and Partnerships
First, with respect to Americas Asian alliances and partnerships, Trump has signaled a more
transactional, narrow approach to these relationships based largely on greater burden-sharing.
To be fair, Obama, too, emphasized the need for greater burden-sharing in his rebalance to Asia.
But he got to this from a more expansive, liberal internationalist vision, and his solution was to
not only strengthen alliances, but build out a set of newer, institutionalized strategic and
comprehensive partnerships to encourage greater involvement by established and emerging
powers in a wide range of global and regional challenges.
If Trump follows through on what he has said, he will want to reevaluate Americas key treaty
alliances and, where possible, ask them to do more. But what exactly would that mean in
practice?
In his April 28 speech at CNI, Trump got a little more specific when he boasted that he would
call for a summit with Americas NATO and Asian allies where they would discuss a
rebalancing of financial commitments as well as ways to adopt new strategies to tackle common
challenges.
Predictably, he was mum on the exact nature of that summit. But there are already signs that he
may actually be quite content with even minor adjustments in terms of burden-sharing among
Americas allies.
3
For instance, in his August 15 speech on radical Islamic terrorism, which came just a few months
after his criticism of NATO, he said the United States would now work closely with the
institution on that challenge since, following his criticism on its obsolescence, NATO had shown
a willingness to change by having a new division focused on terror threats.
It is also unclear which specific allies would be affected by this approach, if any, and how
exactly he will approach each case. Rhetorically, Trumps focus has been on Japan and South
Korea, which is no surprise since that is where most U.S. troops are based in Asia.
Even here, though, Trumps senior advisers, including Michael Flynn, who has visited Japan,
have repeatedly downplayed his suggestions about potentially withdrawing U.S. troops and
tolerance for Tokyo going nuclear, and insisted that he not only remains committed to the
alliance but would be open to strengthening it to address common threats like North Korea
following initial talks.
On Americas Southeast Asian allies, far less is known. One interesting relationship to watch
will be the U.S.-Philippine alliance, where President Rodrigo Duterte has himself said that the
Philippines does not really get that much from the United States and is looking to cut certain
parts of the defense relationship (See: Will Duterte End the US-Philippine Military Alliance?).
So far, Trump has predictably pounced on Dutertes frosty ties with the United States and
warming relations with China as evidence of Obamas failed foreign policy but has said little
else.
On the other hand, Australia presents a case on the opposite end of the spectrum, since Canberra
has been willing to support a greater U.S. military presence. Indeed, Obamas announcement of
the rotational deployment of U.S. marines in Darwin still not fully realized in remarks to the
Australian parliament back in November 2011 was one of the key features of the military aspect
of the rebalance. How Trump responds to an ally keen to take on a greater share of the burden
remains to be seen.
A final consideration is how Trump would deal with China, which awkwardly lies outside of
Americas expanding alliance and partnership network or, if you prefer, principled security
network in the Asia-Pacific. In spite of the suggestion that Trump would simply embrace
Beijing, the indications from his advisers are that he is likely to continue the approach of his
predecessors who treated China with a mix of engagement and balancing.
For example, in a piece published in Foreign Policy on November 7, two of Trumps advisers,
Alexander Gray and Peter Navarro, framed Trumps Asia approach which would involve a
more self-interested approach to economics and a stronger military almost entirely around
Chinas rising assertiveness and Beijings overplaying of its hand in the region. The piece,
which alsoblamed the Obama administration for failing to respond to Chinese gains in the South
4
China Sea as well as with Americas twin Southeast Asian allies, Thailand and the Philippines,
was far more hawkish than what we have seen in U.S.-China policy in recent years.
Regional Institutions
Second, on regional institutions and multilateralism more generally, there are very few
indications of what Trumps views are. The temptation would be to assume that if he has very
little patience even for free-riding allies, then he would devote almost none of Americas
attention to Asian multilateral engagements led by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN), a sharp contrast to the Obama administration, which had devoted more time,
attention, and resources to ASEAN-led institutions (See: Why the US-ASEAN Sunnylands
Summit Matters).
Like other dimensions of Trumps worldview, there are no shortage of speeches and statements
that would support an anti-multiateralist stance. For example, in a speech delivered a day after
Obamas swan song this September at the United Nations General Assembly where the
outgoing president specifically said he believed that giving up some freedom of action to bind
Washington to international rules was ultimately a good investment that would enhance its
security Trump repeated at a rally that unlike the corrupt political establishment, which
embraced globalism for self-serving reasons, he would focus on what was best for the United
States.
I am not running to be president of the world, Trump said to emphasize his point. I am
running to be president of the United States, and thats what were going to take care of.
This fiery rhetoric aside, though, the key question is the degree to which Trump and his
administration would actually approach multilateral engagements.
It is difficult to see him missing out on all multilateral engagements, especially if he realizes,
with or without the help of his advisers, that some of them actually help advance his goals, like
countering terrorism.
To his credit, Trump has already shown a willingness to selectively employ multilateralism to
realize narrow U.S. interests. In his speech on radical Islam delivered in August, he said he
would call for an international conference where the United States would work with its Middle
Eastern friends and allies, including Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, to tackle the threat.
Less clear is whether a Trump administrations selective employment of multilateralism would

extend to the economic sphere. The extent to which this is the case will determine if we see some
high-level attention devoted to initiatives like the fledgling U.S.-ASEAN Connect Initiative
unveiled under the Obama administration, or whether it simply dies a slow death.
5
Whether or not he sees engagements like the East Asia Summit (EAS) and the U.S.-ASEAN
Leaders Meeting as important enough to attend on a regular basis, however, is an open question.
On the one hand, Southeast Asian countries and ASEAN as a bloc are important actors in
addressing challenges that Trump and his advisers believe are important, including terrorism and
maritime security.
On the other hand, he may determine that he can still foster this collaboration by engaging
selective countries bilaterally or through other U.S.-led institutions like the Global Coalition to
Counter ISIL, rather than larger groupings that move slower. There are also intermediate options.
For example, he could also choose to not attend certain ASEAN meetings personally and instead
send a lower-ranking official, downgrading Americas presence but not eliminating it entirely.
Economic Engagement
Trump has certainly said a lot more about the third pillar of U.S. Asia policy: economic
engagement.
The item that he has spent the most time on by far is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Given
Trumps fierce opposition to the pact, it is difficult to see him reversing position on this. His
election win also arguably all but kills the odds of TPP passing during the lame duck session
of Congress after the election, since Republicans have little incentive to bring it to a vote and
pick an early fight with an incoming president who may well move to block it.
That does not necessarily mean that Trump is opposed to all trade deals, however. Trump and his
advisers have said that he would be open to trade agreements that are better deals for the United
States. If they are indeed serious about that, this could be a significant point. Beyond other
bilateral agreements, such as the investment treaty proposed between the United States and
China, TPP, which is essentially a collection of bilateral deals, could be salvaged in parts with
agreements reached with individual nations.
Flynn, the Trump adviser, made a point of mentioning in an interview with Nikkei Asian Review
during his most recent trip to Japan in October that though Trump did believe in free trade, he
thought bilateral deals were better than multilateral blocs because we have opportunity to cut [a]
better deal.
The United States and Japan both do not currently have a bilateral free trade agreement, unlike
some countries within TPP (like Singapore) that already have an FTA with Washington.
Less clear is how Trump would proceed with proposals like raising tariffs on imports from China
and Mexico or renegotiate other existing trading agreements like the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). Tough trade talk is common in U.S. presidential elections, with candidates
6
seldom following through. Trumps aides, for their part, have sought to downplay the advent of
doomsday scenarios like an all-out trade war.
The dire effects of some of Trumps proposed policies on the American economy also suggest
that they are unlikely to be actually enacted. For instance, one study by the Peterson institute for
International Economics (PIIE), a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, found that if large tariffs
are imposed on China and Mexico and retaliation ensues, the United States could go into a
recession and lose five million jobs.
Trump has said less about broader questions that demand attention within the economic
dimension of U.S. Asia policy, such as how Washington can better leverage its strengths to
engage regional actors as Chinas growing heft tilts the healthy competition for economic
influence in its favor.
Human Rights and Democracy
The fourth and final aspect of U.S. Asia policy worth considering is human rights and
democracy.
At first glance, Trumps views not only seem unclear but at times contradictory. His rhetoric
suggests that he has both a Manichean view of the world especially when talking about radical
Islam but also a realist understanding of international relations where selective cooperation can
be pursued where common interests exist even if ideological differences remain.
This could be nothing more than window dressing to reconcile his amateurish attempts to draw
Cold War-like battle lines between democracies and authoritarian regimes while also leaving
himself room to pursue better relations with authoritarian states like Russia, which he has a
personal affinity for independent of their contribution to the national interest.
Whether this is the case or not, Trumps narrow interpretation of U.S. interests suggests that he
would devote even less attention to the promotion of U.S. ideals than the Obama administration,
which, to its credit, pursued a relatively softer line relative to the Bush years but also found
nimbler ways of conducting business, whether it be through town hall meetings featuring the
president or the Young Southeast Asian Leaders Initiative (YSEALI).
Trump himself has suggested that he is less interested in spreading universal values that not
everybody shares or wants, but will instead work with U.S. allies to reinvigorate Western
values and institutions.
How exactly he will do that is a mystery. Indeed, the mere fact that he has been elected in the
United States in spite of his xenophobic, misogynistic, and bigoted rhetoric on the campaign
7
trail, as well as his all-too-cozy relationship with authoritarian regimes, would presumably
undercut any attempt by his administration to reinvigorate Western values or institutions.
Unknowns
As we consider Trumps potential policies, it is also important to keep in mind that there are a
handful of uncertainties that will also affect the shape of his eventual foreign policy, including in
Asia.
First, as has been pointed out repeatedly already, it is not clear to what extent Trump would
actually be wedded to acting on the views that he has expressed. Though some of his views may
be long-held, he has never been in government, and the personal opinions he had while being a
businessmen and television celebrity may evolve once he assumes the presidency and has to
think about the national interest. He has also demonstrated a tendency to flip-flop on certain
issues, and there is often a divergence between what he says and what his aides claim he means
to say.
Second, we dont know how Trumps actual views may translate into policymaking when it
comes to Asia. Unlike the case of Clinton, whose Asia policy team was comprised of known
quantities, Trumps foreign policy advisers in general are much less well-known, even in the
case of Phares and Flynn. The composition and hierarchy of the advisers could also change
depending on whether we see mainstream Republican foreign policy experts who initially
opposed Trump now return to serve under the president in 2017 and beyond.
Beyond personalities, we also do not know how exactly Trump will choose to receive and act on
the advice he gets. Based on what we know about Trump, he does not read much and often
ignores advice. Asked on MSNBCs Morning Joe back in March about whom he consulted on
foreign policy, Trump said he was his own primary consultant because he had what he called a
good instinct. His almost schizophrenic relationship with his advisers during the general
election also suggests that even if he does listen to advice, the process by which this plays out
will be far from coherent.
Third, Trump, like any president, and perhaps more than most, faces constraints in putting some
of his policies into practice, both in the form of other domestic actors as well as regional and
global challenges.
Domestically, if Trump, with a Republican Congress, chooses to move forward with too many of
his divisive policies too quickly from dismantling Affordable Care Act (ACA) to appointing a
Supreme Court justice that is far too conservative and would reignite Americas culture wars
he could exacerbate fierce political divides, prompt obstructionism in the legislature, and
8
eventually lose Congress in 2018 as Obama did early on in his first term, following what was
read as executive overreach.
If too much of his time, energy, and political capital is expended domestically, that might give
him less room to chart a radically different U.S. foreign policy that could have implications for
Asia. He could even outsource most of the implementation to his senior foreign policy advisers,
who could then moderate his more extreme tendencies, leading to far more continuity with U.S.
Asia policy than might otherwise be expected (alternatively, though, a President Trump that is
hamstrung domestically could also seek to exert more control on foreign policy, where the
president has far less checks and balances).
Trump could also run into regional and global challenges that may lead him to shift in the
direction of more continuity in U.S. Asia policy irrespective of his initial positions, or,
alternatively even more drastic change.
On the one hand, if Trump, in his war against radical Islam, does end up embroiled in another
Middle Eastern quagmire, we could see Washingtons attention once again being diverted away
from the region, or, alternatively, the rise of more threat-centric U.S. foreign policy approach
centered around counterterrorism and nuclear non-proliferation, something like what we saw
during the first part of George W. Bushs tenure.
On the other hand, if a nightmare scenario does indeed come to pass and Trump begins to take
dramatic steps that undermine Americas military presence and economic influence in Asia, then
we could see a familiar pattern in U.S. foreign policy where vacuums are filled by Washingtons
rivals and adversaries, prompting calls for a more activist stance among other domestic actors.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, it is worth remembering that the last U.S. president that tried to
implement such a radical departure in U.S. foreign policy was Jimmy Carter, who issued a
Trump-like call in the 1970s to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea and the Philippines
following the Vietnam War. Though it took some time, Carter was eventually forced to reverse
course due to stiff bureaucratic resistance as well as rising regional and global threats, including
Soviet aggression. We could see some form of this repeating itself in the coming years.
How all this plays out will take time, a point that Trumps advisers have been making in
response to the flood of inquiries. Though policymakers, experts, and other observers will be
feverishly seeking answers about what a Trump administration might do in Asia, we probably
will not find out the broad contours until well into 2017. Trump will only be taking office in
January next year, after which officials and advisers will have to go through their confirmation
hearings and policy will slowly begin to take shape as trips are arranged and meetings are held
with key allies and partners. All the while, events will continue to evolve.
9
Its still early days, the Trump adviser told The Diplomat. Itll be a while, as it often is, before
we get region-specific [and] down in the weeds.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/what-will-donald-trumps-asia-policy-look-like/
..
Donald Trump on Foreign Policy

2016 Republican nominee for President; 2000 Reform Primary Challenger for President
US cannot afford to be world's police; let NATO allies pay

The 28 countries of NATO, many of them aren't paying their fair share. We're defending them,
and they should at least be paying us what they're supposed to be paying by treaty and contract.
NATO could be obsolete, because they do not focus on terror. We pay approximately 73 percent
of the cost of NATO. It's a lot of money to protect other people. I'm all for NATO. They have to
focus on terror also.
Hillary will tell you to go to her website and read all about how to defeat ISIS, which she could
have defeated by never having it get going in the first place. It's getting tougher to defeat them,
because they're in more and more places, more and more states, more and more nations.
I want to help all of our allies, but we are losing billions and billions of dollars. We cannot be the
policemen of the world. We cannot protect countries all over the world where they're not paying
us what we need.
Source: First 2016 Presidential Debate at Hofstra University , Sep 26, 2016
Brexit vote means people want to see borders

Q: Your views on "Brexit," the British exit vote from the European Union?
DONALD TRUMP: People want to see borders. They don't necessarily want people pouring into
their country that they don't know who they are and where they come from. People want to take
their country back. They want to have independence, in a sense. And you see it all over Europe.
You're going to have, I think, many other cases where they want to take their borders back, they
want to take their monetary [system] back, they want to take a lot of things back. They want to
be able to have a country again. So I think you're going to have this happen more and more. And
I think it's happening in the United States.
Q: Do you think he's right that there's a parallel?
10
SEN. TIM KAINE: There's a couple things you've got to understand. Young voters, those under
50, especially millennials, overwhelmingly voted to stay. And it was older voters who voted to
leave [because pf] immigration issues and European regulation.
Source: Meet the Press 2016 interviews of presidential hopefuls , Jun 26, 2016
U.S. has become dumping ground for everybody else's problems

While the Trump and Sanders campaigns both represent insurgencies against party elites, they
represent insurgencies aimed at taking America in radically different directions. One way of
understanding those different directions is through American exceptionalism. Sanders voters
want to make America more like the rest of the world. Trump voters want to keep America a
nation apart.
American exceptionalism today generally denotes Americans' peculiar faith in God, flag, and
free market--the Sanders campaign represents an assault on all three [while Trump supports all
three].
Trump's entire campaign is built around the idea that foreign influences are infecting the United
States. "The U.S.," he declared upon announcing his presidential campaign, "has become a
dumping ground for everybody else's problems."
Trump's supporters like the fact that he's rich, blunt, and hasn't spent his life in politics. But his
pledges to keep the rest of the world at bay are core to his appeal.
Source: The Atlantic magazine, "War Over American Exceptionalism" , Feb 11, 2016
Ignore career diplomats who insist on nuance

The career diplomats who got us into many foreign policy messes say I have no experience in
foreign policy. They think that successful diplomacy requires years of experience and an
understanding of all the nuances that have been carefully considered before reaching a
conclusion. Only then do these pin-striped bureaucrats CONSIDER taking action.
Look at the state of the world right now. It's a terrible mess, and that's putting it kindly. There
has never been a more dangerous time. The so-called insiders within the Washington ruling class
are the people who got us into trouble. So why should we continue to pay attention to them?
Here's what I know--what we are doing now isn't working. And years ago, when I was just
starting out in business, I figured out a pretty simple approach that has always worked well for
me: "When you're digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, stop digging."
Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, p. 31-2 , Nov 3, 2015
Reimbursement for US military bases in rich countries abroad

As for nations that host US. military bases, Trump said he would charge those governments for
the American presence. "I'm going to renegotiate some of our military costs because we protect
11
South Korea. We protect Germany. We protect some of the wealthies countries in the world,
Saudi Arabia. We protect everybody and we don't get reimbursement. We lose on everything, so
we're going to negotiate and renegotiate trade deals, military deals, many other deals that's going
to get the cost down for running our country very significantly."
Trump then got into a specific example: Saudi Arabia, one of the more important US allies in the
Middle East. Saudis "make a billion dollars a day. We protect them. So we need help. We are
losing a tremendous amount of money on a yearly basis and we owe $19 trillion," he said.
Walking back trade deals and agreements that allow the US military to operate overseas is easier
said than done. But Trump has tapped into a powerful anti-Washington populist sentiment.
Source: Foreign Policy Magazine on 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 28, 2015
Offered himself as Cold War nuclear-arms-treaty negotiator

[In the 1980s], flying from place to place in his Trump helicopter and Trump jet, he offered
opinions on everything from politics to sex, and continually declared himself to be superior in
every way. He frequently referred to the many people who thought he should run for president
and sometimes acted as if he were a real candidate.
During one especially tense Cold War moment, he even offered himself to the world as a
nuclear-arms-treaty negotiator. His reasoning? A man who can make high-end real estate deals
should be able to bring the United States and the Soviet Union into agreement.
Source: Never Enough, by Michael D`Antonio, p. 10 , Sep 22, 2015
Support NATO, but it's not us against Russia

Q: You wrote, "Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually.
The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can
be put to better use." Would you want to end the NATO alliance completely?
TRUMP: I'm a little concerned about NATO from this standpoint. Take Ukraine. We're leading
Ukraine. Where's Germany? Where are the countries of Europe leading? I don't mind helping
them. Why isn't Germany leading this charge? Why is the United States? I mean, we're like the
policemen of the world. And why are we leading the charge in Ukraine?
Q: So you wouldn't allow Ukraine into NATO?
TRUMP: I would not care that much. Whether it goes in or doesn't go in, I wouldn't care. Look, I
would support NATO.
Q: It sounds like you're not a fan of NATO
TRUMP: I'm a fan of fairness. I'm a fan of common sense. I'm certainly not a fan of us being
against Russia. Why are we always at the forefront of everything?
12
Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview, Chuck Todd and Donald Trump , Aug 17, 2015
When you love America, you protect it with no apologies

I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately--fiercely, even. We
are the greatest country the world has ever known. I make no apologies for this country, my
pride in it, or my desire to see us become strong and rich again. After all, wealth funds our
freedom. But for too long we've been pushed around, used by other countries, and ill-served by
politicians in Washington who measure their success by how rapidly they can expand the federal
debt, and your tax burden, with their favorite government programs.
American can do better. I think we deserve the best. That's why I decided to write this book. The
decisions we face are too monumental, too consequential, to just let slide. I have answers for the
problems that confront us. I know how to make American rich again.
Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 7 , Dec 5, 2011
Things change; empires come and go

A lot of life is about survival of the fittest and adaption, as Darwin pointed out. It's not all there
is, but it's an indication of how the world has evolved in historical terms. We've seen many
empires come and go--the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire- there have always been surges
of power. Sometimes they last for centuries. Even so, some of us have never learned of them as
of today. In other words, things change. We have to keep up with the changes and move forward.
Source: Think Like a Champion, by Donald Trump, p. 23-4 , Apr 27, 2010
Use tough negotiators instead of naive academic people

I could give you the names of ten to twenty of the greatest dealmakers in the world who live in
this country. These great negotiators could go up against China or Iran and work out a fabulous
deal for the United States. Instead we have well- meaning but nave academic people
negotiating, who do not know what they are doing in tough real- life situations. They have never
faced tough, winner- take- all, fight- to- the- death negotiations against ruthless and vicious
adversaries. If the government used our best negotiators, it would solve a lot of our problems and
the United States would come out on top. For one thing, we have all the cards: we have the
strongest military and the strongest economy on Earth, or at least we had.
We would be negotiating from strength. We would win if we would just sit down and negotiate--
but using our best people!
Source: Think Big, by Donald Trump, p.152-3 , Sep 8, 2008
Persuasion, not power, is diplomacy at its best

I believe that the key to striking a deal is persuasion, not power. Persuasion is diplomacy at its
best-the ability to convince people to accept your ideas. You don't want to force people to accept
13
your ideas. That's a recipe for disaster. Instead, you want them to think that the decision was
theirs, which gives them a greater sense of power and control. Your objectives should be to make
your adversaries feel like they're your partners, not your victims. Present your ideas in a way that
will not intimidate your adversaries or make them feel that they are being forced to surrender. In
successful negotiations, all parties should feel satisfied with the outcome.
Source: Trump 101, by Donald Trump, p. 60 , Oct 20, 2006
Countries and corporations must both evolve, or fade away

Much of life and business is about survival, and Darwin taught us that to survive, we must adapt.
Evolution is constant in business and life. Even the most powerful empires have come and gone.
Just look at history, the Roman, Ottoman, and British Empires once dominated the world, and
then each faded away.
Since everything always changes, constantly reevaluate the big picture. Reexamine the
landscape; see what's changed and what those differences could mean to you. Then figure out
how you can keep up with and make the changes work for you.
Source: Trump 101, by Donald Trump, p. 99-100 , Oct 20, 2006
Criticized Buchanans view on Hitler as appeasement

In Buchanans book, he actually said the Western allies were wrong to stop Hitler. He argued
that we should have let Hitler take all of the territories to his east. What of the systematic
annihilation of Jews, Catholics, and Gypsies in those countries? You dont have to be a genius to
know that we were next, that once Hitler seized control of the countries to his east he would
focus on world domination.
Pat Buchanan was actually preaching the same policy of appeasement that had failed for Neville
Chamberlain at Munich. If we used Buchanans theory on Hitler as a foreign policy strategy, we
would have appeased every world dictator with a screw loose and wed have a brainwashed
population ready to go postal on command.
After I [wrote an article on this for] Face the Nation, Buchanan accused me of ignorance.
Buchanan, who believes himself an expert, has also called Hitler a political organizer of the first
rank. Buchanan is a fan.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.267-68 , Jul 2, 2000
Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker

In the modern world you cant very easily draw up a simple, general foreign policy. I was busy
making deals during the last decade of the cold war. Now the game has changed. The day of the
chess player is over. Foreign policy has to be put in the hands of a dealmaker.
14
Two dealmakers have served as president-one was Franklin Roosevelt, who got us through
WWII, and the other was Richard Nixon, who forced the Russians to the bargaining table to
achieve the first meaningful reductions in nuclear arms.
A dealmaker can keep many balls in the air, weigh the competing interests of other nations, and
above all, constantly put Americas best interests first. The dealmaker knows when to be tough
and when to back off. He knows when to bluff and he knows when to threaten, understanding
that you threaten only when prepared to carry out the threat. The dealmaker is cunning, secretive,
focused, and never settles for less than he wants. Its been a long time since America had a
president like that.
Donald Trump on Mideast
Don't take sides with Israel, so we can lead negotiations

Q: You said about the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- "Let me be
sort of a neutral guy. I don't want to say whose fault it is; I don't think it helps." How do you
remain neutral when the U.S. considers Israel to be America's closest ally in the Middle East?
TRUMP: President Obama has treated Israel horribly. I have very close ties to Israel. I've
received the Tree of Life Award and many of the greatest awards given by Israel. As president,
however, there's nothing that I would rather do to bring peace to Israel and its neighbors
generally. And I think it serves no purpose to say that you have a good guy and a bad guy. Now,
I may not be successful in doing it. It's probably the toughest negotiation anywhere in the world
of any kind. But it doesn't help if I start saying, "I am very pro-Israel." It doesn't do any good to
start demeaning the neighbors, because I would love to do something with regard to negotiating
peace, finally, for Israel and for their neighbors.
Source: 2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary , Feb 25, 2016
I could negotiate a deal with Israel and Palestinians

RUBIO: He thinks a Palestine [and Israeli settlement] is a real estate deal. The Palestinians are
not a real estate deal, Donald.
TRUMP: A deal is a deal. Let me tell you that. I learned a long time ago.
RUBIO: A deal is not a deal when you're dealing with terrorists. Have you ever negotiated with
terrorists?
TRUMP: I'm a negotiator. I've done very well over the years through negotiation. It's very
important that we do that. In all fairness, Marco is not a negotiator. I watched him melt down and
I'll tell you, it was one of the saddest things I've ever seen. You will never bring peace.
15
Source: 2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary , Feb 25, 2016
Figure out who our allies are

Q: What three questions do you ask your national security experts?
TRUMP: What we want to do, when we want to do it, and how hard do we want to hit? We are
going to have to hit hard to knock out ISIS. We're going to have to learn who our allies are. We
have allies, we have no idea who they are in Syria. Do we want to stay that route, or do we want
to go and make something with Russia?
Source: 2016 CBS Republican primary debate in South Carolina , Feb 13, 2016
Iran deal is one of the worst I've ever seen

Sen. Ted CRUZ: If you look at the threats facing this country, the single gravest threat, national
security threat, is the threat of a nuclear Iran. That's why I've pledged on day one to rip to shreds
this Iranian nuclear deal.
TRUMP: The Iran deal is one of the worst deals I have ever seen negotiated in my entire life. It's
a disgrace that this country negotiated that deal.
Source: 2016 CBS Republican primary debate in South Carolina , Feb 13, 2016
Let Russia bash ISIS; let Germany defend Ukraine

Q: Russia has invaded Ukraine, and has put troops in Syria. You have said you will have a good
relationship with Mr. Putin. So, what does President Trump do in response to Russia's
aggression?
TRUMP: As far as Syria, if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it,
100%, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it.
Q: They're not doing that.
TRUMP: They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He's going
in, and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a
group of people, and a group of countries, including Germany--why are we always doing the
work? I'm all for protecting Ukraine--but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine
that aren't doing anything. They say, "Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect
us." And we have to get smart. We can't continue to be the policeman of the world.
Source: Fox Business/WSJ First Tier debate , Nov 10, 2015
Opening gates to Syrian refugees invites in ISIS

We're going to open the gates to refugees from places like Syria, which is like extending a
personal invitation to ISIS members to come live here and try to destroy our country from
16
within. This is America today, the shining city on a hill, which other countries used to admire
and try to be like.
So what can be done about it? How do we start winning again? To start with, we need a
government that is committed to winning and has experience in winning.
Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, p. 2-3 , Nov 3, 2015
Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria

Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?
TRUMP: I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people
coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states,
who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of
land in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go
back to their country, go back to where they came from.
Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?
TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 interview on Syrian Refugee crisis , Oct 11, 2015
US should not train rebels it does not know or control

Q: The Russians are hitting Assad as well as people we've trained.
TRUMP: Where they're hitting people, we're talking about people that we don't even know. I
was talking to a general two days ago. He said, "We have no idea who these people are. We're
training people. We don't know who they are. We're giving them billions of dollars to fight
Assad." And you know what? I'm not saying Assad's a good guy, because he's probably a bad
guy. But I've watched him interviewed many times. And you can make the case, if you look at
Libya, look at what we did there-- it's a mess-- if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look
what we did there-- it's a mess-- it's going be same thing.
Source: Meet the Press 2015 interview moderated by Chuck Todd , Oct 4, 2015
Better to have Mideast strongmen than Mideast chaos

Q: You think the Middle East would be better today if Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad were
stronger? That the Middle East would be safer?
TRUMP: It's not even a contest. Iraq is a disaster. And ISIS came out of Iraq.
Q: Well, let me button this up. If Saddam and Gaddafi were still in power, you think things
would be more stable?
17
TRUMP: Of course it would be. You wouldn't have had your Benghazi situation, which is one
thing, which was just a terrible situation.
Q: Would you pull out of what we're doing in Syria now?
TRUMP: no, I'd sit back.
Good that Russia is involved in Syria

Q: You came across to me as if you welcomed Putin's involvement in Syria. You said you saw
very little downside. Why?
TRUMP: I want our military to be beyond anything, no contest, and technologically, most
importantly. But we are going to get bogged down in Syria. If you look at what happened with
the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that's when they went bankrupt.
Q: So, you think Putin's going to get suckered into--
TRUMP: They're going to get bogged down. Everybody that's touched the Middle East, they've
gotten bogged down. Now, Putin wants to go in and I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of
ISIS. Putin has to get rid of ISIS because Putin doesn't want ISIS coming into Russia.
Q: Why do you trust him and nobody else does?
TRUMP: I don't trust him. But the truth is, it's not a question of trust. I don't want to see the
United States get bogged down. We've spent now $2 trillion in Iraq, probably a trillion in
Afghanistan. We're destroying our country.
Stop sending aid to countries that hate us

Devex compiled a list of quotes from Trump that provide a window into his view on foreign aid:
"It is necessary that we invest in our infrastructure, and stop sending aid to countries that
hate us--and nobody can do that better than me."-- Presidential announcement
"Pakistan's a real problem because they have nuclear weapons. I would say we don't give
them any money unless they get rid of their nuclear weapons."-- Fox News, May 9, 2011
"The World Bank is tying poverty to climate change--and we wonder why international
organizations are ineffective." --@realDonaldTrump Twitter, Nov. 19, 2012
Source: Devex global development blog, "Trump on foreign aid" , Sep 1, 2015
More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel

What does Donald Trump believe? Iran and Israel: Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase
sanctions.
18
Trump has said that the U.S. is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should have walked
away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea of sending enriched uranium to
Russia. He would increase sanctions on Iran. Trump has been sharply critical of the Obama
administration's handling of relations with Israel and has called for a closer alliance with Israeli
Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015
Donald Trump on Political Hotspots
Condemn Russian & any country's involvement in our elections

Q: What about allegations of Russian involvement in this election?
TRUMP: I don't know Putin. He said nice things about me. If we got along well, that would be
good. He has no respect for our president. He has no respect for [Hillary Clinton].
CLINTON: Well, that's because he'd rather have a puppet as president of the United States.
TRUMP: No puppet. You're the puppet!
CLINTON: It's pretty clear you won't admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks
against the United States of America, [but] we have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and
military, who have all concluded that these cyberattacks come from the highest levels of the
Kremlin and they are designed to influence our election.
TRUMP: She has no idea whether it's Russia, China, or anybody else.
Q: Do you condemn any interference by Russia in the American election?
TRUMP: By Russia or anybody else. Let me tell you, Putin has outsmarted her and Obama at
every single step of the way.
Source: Third 2016 Presidential Debate, moderated by Chris Wallace , Oct 19, 2016
FactCheck: Japan should defend itself, including with nukes

V.P. nominee Tim Kaine said, "Donald Trump believes that the world will be safer if more
nations have nuclear weapons. He's said Saudi Arabia should get them, Japan should get them,
Korea should get them. And when he was confronted with this, and told that proliferation could
lead to nuclear war, here's what Donald Trump said:: 'Go ahead, folks, enjoy yourselves.' "
Is that true? Yes, the quotation is accurate, but it's out of context. From "The Guardian" of
4/2/16:
19
Trump told a crowd he was sanguine about potential hostilities between North Korea and its
neighbors. He said that if conflict between Japan and nuclear-armed North Korea were to break
out, "it would be a terrible thing but if they do, they do". "Good luck," he added. "Enjoy yourself,
folks." According to Trump: "The case could be made to let [Japan] protect themselves against
North Korea, they'd probably wipe them out pretty quick." Trump previously suggested that
South Korea and Japan should have their own nuclear weapons.
Source: 2016 Vice-Presidential Debate at Longwood University , Oct 4, 2016
FactCheck: No, Iran is not a trading partner of North Korea

On North Korea, Donald Trump said in the first debate, "Iran is one of their biggest trading
partners; Iran has power over North Korea." Is that true?
The MIT Atlas indicates that Trump is incorrect: "The top export destinations of North Korea are
China ($2.67B), India ($71M), Pakistan ($40M), Nigeria ($20M) and Brazil ($19M). The top
import origins are China ($3.49B), Thailand ($107M), Russia ($82M), India ($75M) and
Singapore ($48M)." Iran is not in the top five trading partners of North Korea, whether counting
exports or imports.
Maybe Trump meant that North Korea is on the top list of Iran's trading partners? The MIT Atlas
indicates that Trump is also incorrect if that's what he meant "The top export destinations of Iran
are China ($25B), India ($10B), Japan ($6B), South Korea ($4B) and Turkey ($1B). The top
import origins are China ($24B), India ($4B), South Korea ($4B), Turkey ($4B) & Germany
($3B)."
We note that South Korea is on Iran's list of top trading partners--not North Korea!
Source: OnTheIssues FactCheck on First 2016 Presidential Debate , Sep 28, 2016
Iran has power over North Korea, as their trading partner

[With regards to nuclear proliferation], I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over.
At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can't take anything off the table. Because you look at
some of these countries, you look at North Korea, we're doing nothing there. China should solve
that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to
North Korea.
And by the way, another one powerful is the worst deal I think I've ever seen negotiated that you
started is the Iran deal. Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North
Korea.
And when they made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do
something with respect to North Korea. And they should have done something with respect to
Yemen and all these other places.
Source: First 2016 Presidential Debate at Hofstra University , Sep 26, 2016
20
Russia wants to defeat ISIS as badly as we do; work together
Q: What prepares you to make the decisions that a commander-in-chief has to make?
A: I've built a great company. I've been all over the world. I've dealt with foreign countries. I've
done tremendously well dealing with China and with many of the countries that are just ripping
this country. I think the main thing is I have great judgment.
Q: What steps would you take to bring Putin back to negotiating table?
A: I would have a good relationship with Putin. Take a look at what happened with their fighter
jets circling one of our aircraft in a very dangerous manner. Somebody said less than 10 feet
away. This is hostility. Russia wants to defeat ISIS as badly as we do. If we had a relationship
with Russia, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could knock the hell out of ISIS?
Q: Putin called you a brilliant leader.
A: When he calls me brilliant, I'll take the compliment. The fact is, look, it's not going to get him
anywhere. I'm a negotiator. We're going to take back our country.
Source: 2016 NBC Commander-in-Chief forum with Matt Lauer , Sep 7, 2016
Develop nukes in South Korea & Japan to counter North Korea

At the Nuclear Security Summit, the president was asked for his reaction to Trump's suggestion
that US allies Japan and South Korea manufacture their own nuclear weapons as a defense
against North Korean aggression. Obama said the comments "tell us the person who made the
statements doesn't know much about nuclear policy, or the Korean Peninsula or the world
generally." White House aides pointed out that Trump's policy would reverse decades of
bipartisan US foreign policy and would increase nuclear proliferation.
Trump has argued that allowing Japan and South Korea to get the weapons would relieve the US
of defending their East Asia allies. Foreign leaders from both countries have dismissed the idea.
"You have so many countries already--China, Pakistan, you have so many countries, Russia--you
have so many countries right now that have them," Trump said during a CNN town hall. "Now,
wouldn't you rather, in a certain sense, have Japan have nuclear weapons when North Korea has
nuclear weapons?"
Source: NBC News, "Nuclear Weapons," by Andrew Rafferty , Apr 1, 2016
China should make Kim Jong Un disappear

Trump was asked how he would respond to North Korea's nuclear threat. "I would get China to
make that guy disappear in one form or another very quickly," Trump said. He didn't clarify
whether disappearing was equivalent to being assassinated but said, "Well, I've heard of worse
things, frankly."
21
"I mean, this guy's a bad dude, and don't underestimate him," Trump said, referring to North
Korean leader Kim Jong Un. "Any young guy who can take over from his father with all those
generals and everybody else that probably want the position, this is not somebody to be
underestimated."
Trump maintained that China has control over North Korea and the US has control over China--
thus "China should do that," he said. "China has control--absolute control--over North Korea.
They don't say it, but they do," Trump explained. "And they should make that problem
disappear. China is sucking us dry. They're taking our money. They're taking our jobs. We have
rebuilt China with what they've taken out."
Source: Nolan McCaskill on Politico.com , Feb 10, 2016
China totally controls North Korea; they're just taunting us

Without China, North Korea doesn't even eat. China is ripping us on trade. They're devaluing
their currency and they're killing our companies. We've lost between four and seven million jobs
because of China. What I said then was, "we have very unfair trade with China. We're going to
have a trade deficit of 505 billion dollars this year with China. I would start taxing goods that
come in from China.
Source: Fox Business Republican 2-tier debate , Jan 14, 2016
Diplomacy & respect crucial to our relationship with Russia

Q: This week we're going to see a lot of world leaders come to Manhattan. Might you have a
meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin?
TRUMP: Well, I had heard that he wanted to meet with me. And certainly I am open to it. I don't
know that it's going to take place, but I know that people have been talking. We'll see what
happens. But certainly, if he wanted to meet, I would love to do that. You know, I've been saying
relationship is so important in business, that it's so important in deals, and so important in the
country. And if President Obama got along with Putin, that would be a fabulous thing. But they
do not get along. Putin does not respect our president. And I'm sure that our president does not
like him very much.
Source: Meet the Press 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Sep 20, 2015
Putin has no respect for America; I will get along with him
Q: What would you do right now if you were president, to get the Russians out of Syria?
TRUMP: Number one, they have to respect you. He has absolutely no respect for President
Obama. Zero. I would talk to him. I would get along with him. I believe I would get along with a
lot of the world leaders that this country is not getting along with. I think I will get along with
Putin, and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable world.
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN , Sep 16, 2015
22
We must deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes
[With regards to the Iranian nuclear deal]: Nobody ever mentions North Korea where you have
this maniac sitting there and he actually has nuclear weapons and somebody better start thinking
about North Korea and perhaps a couple of other places. You have somebody right now in North
Korea who has got nuclear weapons and who is saying almost every other week, "I'm ready to
use them." And we don't even mention it.
Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN , Sep 16, 2015
Cuban embargo: 50 years is enough

Breaking ranks with nearly all of his fellow 2016 Republican contenders, Donald Trump says he
supports President Barack Obama's decision to reengage diplomatically with Cuba. "50 years is
enough," Trump said, referring to Obama's decision to re-establish U.S. ties with Cuba. "I think
it's fine, but we should have made a better deal," Trump added. "The concept of opening with
Cuba is fine."
Trump joins libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul as the only Republican running for president to
express his support for normalizing relations with Cuba. The rest of the GOP field has slammed
Obama's decision to reopen the U.S. embassy in Havana and engage diplomatically with the
government of Cuba.
Source: Jeremy Diamond on CNN , Sep 8, 2015
China is our enemy; they're bilking us for billions

China is bilking us for hundreds of billions of dollars by manipulating and devaluing its
currency. Despite all the happy talk in Washington, the Chinese leaders are not our friends. I've
been criticized for calling them our enemy. But what else do you call the people who are
destroying your children's and grandchildren's future? What name would you prefer me to use
for the people who are hell bent on bankrupting our nation, stealing our jobs, who spy on us to
steal our technology, who are undermining our currency, and who are ruining our way of life? To
my mind, that's an enemy. If we're going to make America number one again, we've got to have
a president who knows how to get tough with China, how to out-negotiate the Chinese, and how
to keep them from screwing us at every turn.
By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy

There is a lot that Obama and his globalist pals don't want you to know about China's strength.
But no one who knows the truth can sit back and ignore how dangerous this economic
powerhouse will be if our so-called leaders in Washington don't get their acts together and start
standing up for American jobs and stop outsourcing them to China. It's been predicted that by
2027, China will overtake the United States as the world's biggest economy--much sooner if the
Obama economy's disastrous trends continue. That means in a handful of years, America will be
23
engulfed by the economic tsunami that is the People's Republic of China--my guess is by 2016 if
we don't act fast.
For the past thirty years, China's economy has grown an average 9 to 10 percent each year. In the
first quarter of 2011 alone, China's economy grew a robust 9.7 percent. America's first quarter
growth rate? An embarrassing and humiliating 1.9 percent. It's a national disgrace.
Support Russia, but with strings attached

I dont understand why American policymakers are always so timid in dealing with Russia on
issues that directly involve our survival. Kosovo was a perfect case in point: Russia was holding
out its hand for billions of dollars in IMF loans (to go along with billions in aid the U.S. has
given) the same week it was issuing threats and warnings regarding our conduct in the Balkans.
We need to tell Russia and other recipients that if they want our dime they had better do our
dance, at least in matters regarding our national security. These people need us much more than
we need them. We have leverage, and we are crazy not to use it to better advantage.
Few respect weakness. Ultimately we have to deal with hostile nations in the only language they
know: unshrinking conviction and the military power to back it up if need be. There and in that
order are Americas two greatest assets in foreign affairs.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.134 , Jul 2, 2000
China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development

Why am I concerned with political rights? Im a good businessman and I can be amazingly
unsentimental when I need to be. I also recognize that when it comes down to it, we cant do
much to change a nations internal policies. But Im unwilling to shrug off the mistreatment of
Chinas citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make
it clear that Chinas current government has contempt for our way of life.
We want to trade with China because of the size of its consumer market. But if the regime
continues to repress individual freedoms, how many consumers will there really be? Isnt it
inconsistent to compromise our principles by negotiating trade with a country that may not want
and cannot afford our goods?
We have to make it absolutely clear that were willing to trade with China, but not to trade away
our principles, and that under no circumstances will we keep our markets open to countries that
steal from us.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.119 & 123 , Jul 2, 2000
24
Be tougher on China-were too eager to please
Our biggest long-term challenge will be China. The Chinese people still have few political rights
to speak of. Chinese government leaders, though they concede little, desperately want us to
invest in their country. Though we have the upper hand, were way to eager to please. We see
them as a potential market and we curry favor with them at the expense of our national interests.
Our China policy under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been aimed at changing the Chinese
regime by incentives both economic and political. The intention has been good, but its clear that
the Chinese have been getting far too easy a ride.
Despite the opportunity, I think we need to take a much harder look at China. There are major
problems that too many at the highest reaches of business want to overlook, [primarily] the
human-rights situation.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Foreign_Policy.htm
Trump to meet Putin in first foreign trip as president: report
By Brooke Seipel - 01/14/17 07:53 PM EST
Donald Trumps first foreign trip as president is expected to be a visit with Russian President
Vladimir Putin, The Sunday Times reported late Saturday.
The U.K. newspaper said Trump and his team told British officials that their first foreign trip
would be a summit in Iceland with Putin within weeks of his inauguration.
The plan is likely a nod to Ronald Reagans Cold War visit in Reykjavik with Mikhail
Gorbachev, the newspaper noted.
Incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer called the report "100 percent false" on
Twitter.
not true - report is 100% false #facts https://t.co/nDSqknFD3R
25
Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) January 15, 2017
The Times has reported that Trump wants to discuss nuclear disarmament with Putin, citing
sources who said Trump wants to meet Putin outside of Russia and that Reykjavik was a strong
contender.
The meeting had not been announced by Trump team officials or Russian officials, and reports
say Iceland has not been formally contacted about such an event.
Trumps relationship with Putin has been the subject of controversy following U.S. intelligence
reports that Russia interfered in the election to help the businessman.
Trump has asserted he won without the help of Russia, but has recently acknowledged he thinks
they were behind hacks that targeted the Democratic National Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/314374-trumps-first-foreign-trip-as-president-
will-be-to-meet-putin
Russia says US troops arriving in Poland pose threat to its security

By Ewen MacAskill, Defence correspondent
Thursday 12 January 2017 18.54 GMT
Early deployment of biggest American force in Europe since cold war may be attempt to lock
Trump into strategy
The Kremlin has hit out at the biggest deployment of US troops in Europe since the end of the
cold war, branding the arrival of troops and tanks in Poland as a threat to Russias national
security.
The deployment, intended to counter what Nato portrays as Russian aggression in eastern
Europe, will see US troops permanently stationed along Russias western border for the first
time.
About 1,000 of a promised 4,000 troops arrived in Poland at the start of the week, and a formal
ceremony to welcome them is to be held on Saturday. Some people waved and held up American
26
flags as the troops, tanks and heavy armoured vehicles crossed into south-western Poland from
Germany, according to Associated Press.
But their arrival was not universally applauded. In Moscow, Vladimir Putins spokesman Dmitry
Peskov said: We perceive it as a threat. These actions threaten our interests, our security.
Especially as it concerns a third party building up its military presence near our borders. Its [the
US], not even a European state.
The Kremlin may hold back on retaliatory action in the hope that a Donald Trump presidency
will herald a rapprochement with Washington. Trump, in remarks during the election campaign
and since, has sown seeds of doubt over the deployments by suggesting he would rather work
with than confront Putin.
But on Thursday Nato officials played down Trumps comments, saying they hoped and
expected that he would not attempt to reverse the move after he became president on 20 January.
That prediction was reinforced by Trumps proposed defence secretary, James Mattis, and his
proposed secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who backed Nato during Senate confirmation
hearings.
Mattis, in rhetoric at odds with the president-elect, said the west should recognise the reality that
Putin was trying to break Nato.
Tillerson, who has business dealings in Russia, described Russias annexation of Crimea as as
an act of force and said that when Russia flexed its muscles, the US must mount a proportional
show of force.
Nato was caught out by the Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and has
struggled to cope with Russias use of hybrid warfare, which combines propaganda,
cyberwarfare and the infiltration of regular troops disguised as local rebels.
In response, the US and its Nato allies have been steadily increasing air patrols and training
exercises in eastern Europe. The biggest escalation is the current deployment of US troops,
agreed at last summers Nato summit in Warsaw.
The move was billed as an attempt to reassure eastern European states who have been calling for
the permanent deployment of US troops in the belief that Russia would be less likely to encroach
on territory where US troops are present.
Peter Cook, the Pentagon press spokesman, said: The United States is demonstrating its
continued commitment to collective security through a series of actions designed to reassure
27
Nato allies and partners of Americas dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in
light of the Russian intervention in Ukraine.
Poland in particular has pressed for a permanent US troop deployment since soon after the fall of
communism in 1989.
Nato officials insist that the US and other alliance troops deployed to eastern Europe are not
permanent, which would be in breach of an agreement with Russia. The US plans to rotate the
troops every nine months, so it can argue they are not in breach of the Russian treaty, but
effectively there will be a permanent presence.
Deployment was originally scheduled for later in the month but a decision was made last month
to bring it forward, possibly a move by Barack Obama before he leaves office to try to lock the
president-elect into the strategy.
The troops from the Third Armor Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, based in Fort
Carson, Colorado, along with hundreds of armoured vehicles and tanks, were moved from the
US to Germany last week for transit by rail and road to Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe.
The US is sending 87 tanks, and 144 armoured vehicles.
Poland map
As well as being stationed in Poland, the US troops will fan out across other eastern European
states, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania.
The UK is also contributing to the buildup of Nato forces in eastern Europe. The UK formally
took command this week of Natos response force, made up of 3,000 UK troops plus others from
Nato who will be on permanent standby ready to deploy within days. The contributing countries
include the US, Denmark, Spain, Norway and Poland.
Few at Nato seriously believe that war with Russia is likely but there have been dangerous
developments, with escalation on both sides, including a buildup of Russian troops. Russia
alarmed Poland and other eastern European states by moving nuclear-capable Iskander-M
missiles to its naval base at Kaliningrad in the autumn. At the time Nato regarded the move as a
response to its own deployments.
The Polish foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, voicing concern in eastern Europe that
Trump might do a deal with Putin, said this week he hoped that any such reconciliation would
not be at Polands expense.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/doubts-over-biggest-us-deployment-in-
europe-since-cold-war-under-trump
28
Meet the Press - October 25, 2015
MEET THE PRESS -- SUNDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2015
CHUCK TODD:
This Sunday the new frontrunner in Iowa. Ben Carson surges ahead of the pack, shocking the
pundits and getting under Donald Trump's skin.
DONALD TRUMP:
I'm Presbyterian. I mean Seven Day Adventists I don't know about.
CHUCK TODD:
My sit down with Ben Carson who isn't holding back.
BEN CARSON:
That people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I'll
listen.
CHUCK TODD:
Plus, did Republicans fumble their moment at that Benghazi hearing.
TREY GOWDY:
I don't know what ya'll were doing Thursday, I had a rough Thursday.
CHUCK TODD:
We'll talk to the leading figures of the Benghazi committee, Republican Trey Gowdy and
Democrat Elijah Cummings.
And Clinton's big week. The Democratic debate, won. Joe Biden, out. The Benghazi hearing,
over. The 10 days that could've vaulted Hillary Clinton to the Democratic nomination.
HILLARY CLINTON:
It's been quite a week hasn't it?
CHUCK TODD:
29
And joining me for insight and analysis this Sunday morning are CNBC's John Harwood,
Pulitzer Prize winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin,
and Stephen Henderson of the Detroit Free Press.
Welcome to Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
ANNOUNCER:
From NBC News in Washington, this is Meet the Press, with Chuck Todd.
CHUCK TODD:
Good Sunday morning. We've just come through perhaps the most significant ten days in the
2016 campaign to date. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton reestablished herself as the clear
front runner. She won last week's Democratic debate. Two of her lesser opponent, Jim Webb and
Lincoln Chafee dropped out of the race. Joe Biden decided he had no path to victory.
And on top of all that, Clinton was almost universally seen as having survived, and some even
thought she might've thrived at that House Benghazi hearing. On the Republican side, the
candidates that are struggling are really feeling the pressure. Here's Jeb Bush unplugged
yesterday.
(BEGIN TAPE)
JEB BUSH:
I've got a lot of really cool things that I could do other than sit around being miserable listening
to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump
if you want that.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Wow, a lot to dig into there, which we will later in the show. And now, not one, but two polls
show Ben Carson leading Donald Trump and all the rest of the Republicans in Iowa. And guess
what? We are now just 99 days away from that snowy Monday in Iowa where we'll find out who
wins the caucuses. And Carson's under-the-radar rise has bewildered the smarty-pants crowd
here in Washington. And I caught up with Carson in Ames, Iowa yesterday, and began by asking
him to respond to these comments from Donald Trump.
(BEGIN TAPE)
DONALD TRUMP (ON TAPE):
30
We have a breaking story. Donald Trump has fallen to second place behind Ben Carson. We
informed Ben, but he was sleeping.
CHUCK TODD:
How do you respond to Mr. Trump?
DR. BEN CARSON:
You know, everybody has their own personality. And if he'd like to do that, that's fine. That's not
who I am. And I don't get into the mud pit. And I'm not going to be talking about people. I will
tell you in terms of energy I'm not sure that there's anybody else running who's spent 18 or 20
hours intently operating on somebody.
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think that people mistaken your soft-spokenness with a lack of energy?
DR. BEN CARSON:
I think so. I have plenty of energy. But, you know, I am soft-spoken. I do have a tendency to be
relaxed. I wasn't always like that. There was a time when I was, you know, very volatile. But,
you know, I changed.
CHUCK TODD:
When was that?
DR. BEN CARSON:
As a teenager. I would go after people with rocks, and bricks, and baseball bats, and hammers.
And, of course, many people know the story when I was 14 and I tried to stab someone. And,
you know, fortunately, you know, my life has been changed. And I'm a very different person
now.
CHUCK TODD:
Why do you so easily go to Nazi metaphors? You refer to, when you were talking about health
care, you referred to a Gestapo. A lot of times, the minute you talk about the Nazis, the minute
you talk about the Holocaust, people stop listening.
DR. BEN CARSON:
Although interestingly enough, you know, in the last several weeks, I've heard from many people
in the Jewish community, including rabbis, who said, "You're spot on. You are exactly right."
31
And I think, you know, some of the people in your business quite frankly who like to try to stir
things up and try to make this into a big, horrible thing.
If I say something about something that we don't want to become and we never even want to get
close to it, then I'm comparing it and I'm saying we're there. That's what they do. And, of course,
for people who aren't really thinking deeply, you know, that resonates. But, you know, the
fortunate thing is a lot of people really do think for themselves, as you can see, you know, from
the poll numbers here.
CHUCK TODD:
You talked about, you said a lot of Jewish people reached out to you about, saying you were spot
on. So you believe if the Jewish citizenry were armed during the Holocaust, during the '40s, that
they would have been able to stop the Nazis?
DR. BEN CARSON:
Well, look at the whole context in which I have said that and which I have written about it. I
wrote about societies, before tyranny was able to take root, that the tyrants tried to rid the people
of the mechanism to defend themselves. So it was said in that context. And I think it is generally
agreed that it's much more difficult to dominate people who are armed than people who are not
armed. You know, some people will try to take that and, you know, make it into an anti-Jewish
thing, which is foolishness.
CHUCK TODD:
On your position on guns, a little bit of a contradiction. In one article in Breitbart, you indicated
that there really shouldn't be a line about what types of weapons. That the second amendment,
you know, if the government can have, you know, an automatic weapon, then the citizenry
should have the right to buy an automatic weapon.
And then at the same time, you have said in places where there are a lot of crowds, referring, I
think, to cities, you don't want a crazy person ending up with the wrong type of weapon. So you
seem to be open to limiting that. What is your stand on this?
DR. BEN CARSON:
Well, my point being we should never compromise the Second Amendment. It's therefore a very,
very important reason. And Noah Webster said that America would never suffer under tyranny
because if people were armed. So we need to keep that in mind. Of course, we should be
thinking about what can we do to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable
people. The two things are not incompatible. But--
CHUCK TODD:
32
So you're not saying there should be a limitation on what type of weapon a sane person should be
able to buy?
DR. BEN CARSON:
Of course not. You know, when we put this amendment in place, you know, state-of-the-art
weapon was what? A musket? But the principle was that the citizenry should have, you know,
access to whatever they needed in order to protect themselves from an overly aggressive
government.
CHUCK TODD:
What's the line? I mean, should somebody be able to have one of these surface-to-air missiles?
DR. BEN CARSON:
I don't think you can get a surface-to-air missile legally in this country.
CHUCK TODD:
And that's okay? I mean, that's my point. Like, you're okay with having, you know, anything you
can hold, you know, there is some limitation on what somebody--
DR. BEN CARSON:
There is. And we have laws that, you know, take care of that.
CHUCK TODD:
Does life begin at conception?
DR. BEN CARSON:
I believe it does.
CHUCK TODD:
Does that mean, whose right, I guess, should be superseded? The mother or the unborn child?
Whose rights, who has greater rights?
DR. BEN CARSON:
In the ideal situation, the mother should not believe that the baby is her enemy and should not be
looking to terminate the baby. You know, things are set up in such a way that the person in the
world who has the greatest interest in protecting the baby is the mother. We've allowed the
33
purveyors of the division to make mothers think that that baby is their enemy and that they have
a right to kill it. Can you see how perverted that line of thinking is?
CHUCK TODD:
What if somebody has an unwanted pregnancy? Should they have the right to terminate?
DR. BEN CARSON:
No. Think about this. During slavery-- and I know that's one of those words you're not supposed
to say, but I'm saying it. During slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought that they had the right
to do whatever they wanted to that slave. Anything that they chose to do. And, you know, what if
the abolitionist had said, you know, "I don't believe in slavery. I think it's wrong. But you guys
do whatever you want to do"? Where would we be?
CHUCK TODD: Definitively, do you want to see Roe v. Wade overturned?
DR. BEN CARSON:
Ultimately, I would love to see it overturned.
CHUCK TODD:
And that means all abortions illegal? Or is there still an exception that you would have?
DR. BEN CARSON:
I'm a reasonable person. And if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they
would like to kill a baby, I'll listen.
CHUCK TODD:
Life and health of the mother?
DR. BEN CARSON:
Again, that's an extraordinarily rare situation. But if in that very rare situation it occurred, I
believe there's room to discuss that.
CHUCK TODD:
Rape and incest?
DR. BEN CARSON:
34
Rape and incest, I would not be in favor of killing a baby because the baby came about in that
way. And all you have to do is go and look up the many stories of people who have led very
useful lives who were the result of rape or incest.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to move to health care. You have, I think a lot of people don't realize this. You believe we
should get rid of Medicare and replace it with sort of a, I think, from birth to death plan where
you would, the government would give you $2,000 a year. Explain how--
DR. BEN CARSON:
No--
CHUCK TODD:
--you would-- okay, I may have--
DR. BEN CARSON:
Not--
CHUCK TODD:
--misinterpreted it. Explain how you would--
DR. BEN CARSON:
Not correct.
CHUCK TODD:
--replace Medicare.
DR. BEN CARSON:
First of all, what I have said is that the system that I would put in place would largely negate the
need for Medicare or for Medicaid. So I'm not talking about getting rid of those programs. And
the way that I generally see things, entitlement programs, et cetera, is we create a mechanism
that allows people to ascend the ladder of success to the extent that they don't need those
programs anymore. That's what I'm talking about. Now, people will always try to reinterpret that
to say, "Carson wants to get rid of this. He wants to get rid of that. And he wants to leave all
these people in a terrible situation." That's propaganda.
CHUCK TODD:
35
How do you, but you, how do you implement this?
DR. BEN CARSON:
Well, the way you do it is we make health savings accounts available to people from the day that
they are born to the day that they die, at which time they can pass it on to their family. We pay
for it with the same traditional dollars that we pay for our health care with. Recognize that in
America we spend twice as much per capita on health care as many other countries.
And yet we have these horrible access problems. So we have adequate resources. We just don't
use them in an efficient way. And then we give people the ability to shift money within their
health savings account within their family. If you're $500 short, your wife can give it to you out
of hers. Or your daughter, or your uncle, or your cousin. It makes, It gives you enormous
flexibility without a middleman.
CHUCK TODD:
So you're basically you would eliminate insurance companies? Health insurance companies?
DR. BEN CARSON:
I'm not finished.
CHUCK TODD:
Okay.
DR. BEN CARSON:
Okay, that'll take care of the largest number of incidents that you're likely to occur. Now, it
doesn't take care of catastrophic health care. But you can buy a catastrophic health care policy.
And it's going to cost you a lot less now because the vast majority of things are coming out of
your HSA.
So the only thing coming out of your catastrophic insurance is real catastrophic health care. It's
sort of like having a homeowner's policy with a big deductible versus a homeowner's policy
where you want every scratch covered. Two completely different animals.
CHUCK TODD:
But you are advocating for the government to sort of spend this money and just allocate it in a
different way.
DR. BEN CARSON:
36
Well, yeah. The money from Medicaid, it's going to take care of those health savings accounts,
yes.
CHUCK TODD:
Final question. You would not, I'm guessing you would not hire somebody to be a doctor if they
didn't have experience in the medical field. What do you say to folks that say, "Why should we
hire you as president when you have no experience in government or the political field?"
DR. BEN CARSON:
I would say that there are a lot of people who like to believe that whatever they do is the end-all
and that nobody could absolutely do things better than they could. It's sort of like the
Constitution. People say, "What are you doing talking about the Constitution? You're not a
constitutional lawyer."
Well, the Constitution was written at a eighth grade level for a reason. They wanted the people to
be able to understand how they were being governed. And our government was set up for citizen
statesmen, not for career politicians. And, you know, common sense is a lot more valuable than
many years in the political arena.
Witness the fact that in Congress we have 8,700 years of political experience. Where has that
gotten us? And I think the people are willing to open their eyes and say, "Let's talk about
common sense." Now, that doesn't mean that if someone like me were to get in, that we wouldn't
have plenty of people around us who were well-seasoned in what was going on in Washington
and in various parts of the world.
CHUCK TODD:
So you're going to surround yourself with experienced people is what you're saying?
DR. BEN CARSON:
I think you have to do that. Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived, said in Proverbs 11:14, "In
a multitude of counselors is safety." If the wisest man who ever lived thought that, I certainly
believe that. I think you're a fool if you think you know everything.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
You can see my complete interview with Ben Carson, unedited. We get into Syria, the debt
ceiling, a few other issues. That's on our website, MeetThePressNBC.com. Coming up, you
remember this scene from Thursday's Benghazi hearings?
(BEGIN TAPE)
37
TREY GOWDY:
The survivors? Even their names? You want that? You want that released?
ELIJAH CUMMINGS:
Let me tell you something. No. You know, but let me tell you something.
TREY GOWDY:
The only one you've asked for is Sidney Blumenthal. That's the only one you've asked for. That
and Miss Mills.
LINDA SANCHEZ:
Cheryl Mills.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
The top two members of that select House committee on Benghazi. That, when we return.
***COMMERCIAL BREAK***
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. It's not hard to find Democrats who think Republicans are out of the mainstream,
or Republicans who think it's Democrats that are out of the mainstream of American opinion. So
which party really is in the mainstream? Well, in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll,
we asked Americans which political party is in the mainstream on these six issues: gay marriage,
abortion, climate change, immigration, fiscal issues, and guns.
Well, not surprisingly, Democratic primary voters believe they're in the mainstream on all six of
those issues, from gay marriage down to guns. And Republican primary voters believed they're
in the mainstream on all six issues. Somebody's got to be wrong here, right?
So who do we go to figure this out? Well, yes, independents. And there's good news here if
you're the Democrats. Because among independents in our poll, they believe the Democratic
party is in the mainstream on three of the six issues: gay marriage, abortion, and climate change.
On the issue of guns, they believe it's the Republicans that are in the mainstream.
The only issue that they say the Republicans are in the mainstream. By the way, on the two big
fiscal issues here, immigration and economic issues overall, independents believe both parties
are more out of the mainstream. So what are we to conclude from this? Well, number one, look,
the independent voter came to reflect the total electorate better than either party.
38
But this is what it's going to mean a year from now. In October, three or four weeks before
election day, it means Republicans are going to use the gun issue as a wedge in some of these
swing states. Think Colorado, think Iowa, think Virginia. And Democrats are going to use the
issues of marriage, abortion, and climate change as wedge issues in other parts of those same
swing states.
Probably in the suburbs. You saw it in '12, you're going to see it again in '16. What you won't see
is either party arguing about the two issues that both are out of the mainstream on. Coming up,
where do we go from here on the Benghazi investigation? I'm going to ask the top Republican
and Democrat on the committee when we return.
CHUCK TODD:
Welcome back. For months, many Republicans look to Hillary Clinton's testimony before the
House Benghazi Committee as the moment where she would be exposed for failing to protect
American lives, and frankly, potentially, even lying about it. More recently, many Democrats
look to the hearings with similar anticipation, hoping this would be the day Clinton came off as
the adult in the room and exposed the committee as a partisan charade.
While judging by these headlines from The Washington Post, Time, and Politico, it looks like
perhaps the Democrats got their way at least on the PR front. Joining me now this morning are
the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Republican Trey Gowdy of South
Carolina, and the ranking Democrat on that committee, Elijah Cummings of Maryland.
Congressman Cummings, we will get to you in a moment. We're going to start with Chairman
Gowdy. Chairman, good morning sir.
TREY GOWDY:
Good morning to you and to Mr. Cummings.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start with playing a clip of something, you are asked on Thursday evening after the
hearing. Here it is.
TREY GOWDY (ON TAPE):
Well, when you say new today, we knew some of that already. We knew about the emails. In
terms of her testimony? I don't know that she testified that much differently today than she has
the previous time she's testified. So I'd have to go back and look at the transcript.
CHUCK TODD:
39
All right? Simple question, you looked at the transcript I imagine in the last 72 hours, what have
you come up with?
TREY GOWDY:
Well, I think there's some new information, Chuck, and some clarifying information in all three
charges of Benghazi. If you look at the tranches that I think Secretary Clinton has the most
information on, it's that first tranche that before, when she's asked, whether she takes
responsibility, she says, "Yes."
But when you ask responsibility for what, I can't tell you what she's taking responsibility for.
And my main fear there is how are we better prepared to avoid the next Benghazi if we don't
fully understand who made the errors and where the errors were made last time. So with respect
to responsibility, with the placing of the mission, with the request for more security, I have a
perspective which is rooted in the previous ARB that the Secretary of State, himself or herself,
should do that personal review.
CHUCK TODD:
Yes.
TREY GOWDY:
Her position is that there are people and processes in place and she relies on security experts.
We've got to get that reconciled. Because I think Mr. Cummings and I both agree that the
penultimate objective is to avoid the next Benghazi.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you, we did a little calculation here on the number of words that you used during the
hearing. You said the word "Benghazi" 17 times, "Blumenthal" 35 times, "emails" 76 times. You
have made a promise that you were keeping the focus on Benghazi. Do you feel as if you did as
much or, you know, even some Republicans were wondering why you were going down the
Sidney Blumenthal, what some call the rabbit hole.
TREY GOWDY:
Well, I don't think it's a rabbit hole, Chuck, and I'll tell you why. I mean, I respect the fact that
other people have different perspectives. But to me, those are not Sidney Blumenthal's emails.
They are Secretary Clinton's emails to or from Sidney Blumenthal. And every one of them
relates to Libya and Benghazi.
So I'm not reading Blumenthal emails about bridesmaids dresses or wedding plans or yoga.
These are all about Libya and Benghazi. And to the extent that he was one of the more prolific
emailers to her on the subject matter, how do you not ask? How does this person who has no
formal role in government and no expertise in Libya or Benghazi, how does he have unfettered
40
access to you, but the ambassador, there is not a single email to or from him? So I get that people
want to refer to these as Sidney Blumenthal emails. They're Hillary Clinton emails that she
received from him. And frankly, I think it'd be a dereliction of duty if you didn't ask about them.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, nobody is questioning whether to ask about them. I think it was the amount of time spent
on it. It seemed like a larger portion of time was spent on that. For instance, I didn't hear as many
questions that I expected to hear on the Libya policy in general. You know, the vacuum that was
left that ultimately created the security situation that we had in Benghazi that led to the death of
four Americans.
TREY GOWDY:
I think Peter Roskam and Mike Pompeo both ask, maybe all of their series of questions on the
tick tock memo and I remember Susan Brooks having a stack of emails in 2011 versus 2012.
And 2011, there was a heightened interest in Libya and Benghazi, in 2012, it appeared to
dissipate at least according to the emails.
So, I mean, Chuck, as you know, but when you go into hearings, each of the seven members has
his or her own lane. That's what they're going to ask on. And I do think it is relevant on two
different levels. Whether or not his emails were solicited or unsolicited, you could certainly
argue is irrelevant. But she said they were unsolicited. And I do think credibility is always
relevant. If they were truly unsolicited, then she wouldn't have changed her testimony on
Thursday.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you this, you said this the other night on FOX with Greta Van Susteren. You said,
"Part of what I saw yesterday, Greta, wasn't all that constructive. And for the American people to
just tune into a nine-hour food fight, I would err on the side of a private one before I would do
that."
It was in response to a question about future witnesses that you would bring on, whether it would
be on TV or not. It sounds like you may regret how you went about questioning Secretary
Clinton, that maybe you should've done some of it off camera and only some of it on camera.
What do over do you want?
TREY GOWDY:
Well, Chuck it was a voluntary interview. I didn't send the subpoena to Secretary Clinton. It was
a voluntary interview, and she wanted it to be in public. I wrote a letter several months ago
giving her an option. And she chose public. And that's well within her right.
41
I can just tell you that of the 50-some odd interviews we have done thus far, the vast majority of
them have been private. And you don't see the bickering among the members of Congress and
private interviews. You don't see any of that. So the venue that is most constructive--
CHUCK TODD:
Do you think TV camera adds to the grandstanding on both sides of the aisle?
TREY GOWDY:
What do you think, Chuck? I mean, you've been following Congress for a long time. I can just
tell you in the private interviews, there is never any of what you saw Thursday. It is one hour on
the Republican side, one hour on the Democrat side. Which is why you're going to see the next
two-dozen interviews done privately, because it is, I mean, look at the other investigations that
are being done right now. The Lois Lerner investigation that was just announced, was that public
or private? How about Comey's investigation? Is that public or private? The private ones always
produce better results.
CHUCK TODD:
Very quickly, Secretary Clinton, was she a cooperative witness?
TREY GOWDY:
She answered the questions. And I would note, I don't think I ever cut her off. She was given
ample opportunity. So she answered the questions, yeah. If that's your definition of cooperative,
yes.
CHUCK TODD:
Is that yours?
TREY GOWDY:
You know, I've always also injected an element of wholeness and completeness and also
truthfulness in the definition of cooperative. And I'll give you one example. I gave her an
opportunity to tell me where the 90% to 95% figure comes from. She's wrong about that. So did
she cooperate in answering the question? Yes. Was it an accurate answer? No.
CHUCK TODD:
All right, Congressman Gowdy, I will leave it there. Thank you very much. Let me bring in the
ranking Democrat on the Benghazi Committee from Maryland, Elijah Cummings. Congressman
Cummings, welcome back to Meet the Press.
ELIJAH CUMMINGS:
42
Good to be with you.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me start quickly with I guess the one issue that a lot of people had with how the Democrats
handled themselves. We tallied up 68 total questions to Secretary Clinton. Sixteen of them at
best could we call "challenging." Why did you guys choose a strategy of shield rather than a
strategy of really what Tammy Duckworth did, probably the one Democrat that did it the most,
of conducting the hearing, asking questions about the security situation?
ELIJAH CUMMINGS:
From the very beginning, Chuck, I said we were looking for the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. And in many instances, we found ourselves having to not defend Secretary
Clinton, but to make sure that the record was complete.
And I'm glad that the public had an opportunity to see all of that. And I mean, when you're
looking at what we were asking about, they were the things that went to Benghazi, the things that
we were supposed to be dealing with from the very beginning. And when the families came in,
many of them with tears in their eyes, they asked us to only do three things. One, they asked us
to make sure that we made sure that this did not happen again.
They wanted us to look for the facts, more facts than we already had. And they asked us for one
final thing. They asked us to make sure that we did not turn this into a political football. So all
we were trying to do is make sure that we defended the truth.
CHUCK TODD:
Well, there was one new fact I think that a lot of people came away with. And that was the
characterization of the attack itself. And there's always been this controversy that the White
House was conflating the video issues that took place versus what happened in Benghazi that
night.
One of the emails said, that was turned up was an email Secretary Clinton, I'm going to put it up
here, to her daughter Chelsea Clinton, who, by the way, used the pseudonym "Diane Reynolds"
in her email, and on September 11th, that night, Secretary Clinton classified it as a terrorist
attack by an Al Qaeda-like group. Three days later, Secretary Clinton said this:
HILLARY CLINTON (ON TAPE):
We've seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men.
We've seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that
we had nothing to do with.
CHUCK TODD:
43
Did that trouble you, that there were two stories here? And does that deserve an extra line of
inquiry?
ELIJAH CUMMINGS:
No, not at all. As a matter of fact, I thought the secretary explained it very well. Remember what
she said during the hearing, and she said this over and over again, that on the night of the
incident, Ansar Al-sharia said that they had committed this offense. So when she was writing a
note to her daughter, emailing her daughter, and making those statements, that was one thing.
The next day, and then by the way, they were getting intelligence from a lot of folks. And some
of it said it was with regard to the video. Others said that it was an attack. And so therefore, the
information was flawed. And the information that she got even from the intelligence community
was a little bit mixed.
So she was basically talking about what she knew at those moments. And I've got to tell you,
Chuck, one of the things that we have to give her credit for is when she was turning over her
emails, that email to her daughter, you could've easily considered that personal. But because she
mentioned the attacks, she included that in the stacks of emails that she turned over to the
committee. And that just goes to show you that she was trying to do the right thing.
CHUCK TODD:
There's been some talk that you and the rest of the Democrats might resign from the committee
and not see this through. Where are you on that this morning?
ELIJAH CUMMINGS:
We have decided to stay on the committee because somebody has to be in the room to defend the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And if you think about it, if you listen to the
questions that were being asked by Republicans and the way they tried to attack her, you really
did need to have Democrats in the room to give the other side of the story.
Not so much as to defend her, but to try to make sure that the complete picture was painted. One
of the things that I have asked Chairman Gowdy to do is release all the transcripts with
appropriate redactions for sensitivity. Because I want the public to actually see what's in these
transcripts.
Because I believe that once they see what's in the transcripts, they will have a pretty good idea of
what this is all about. And it will verify what Congressman McCarthy said, it will verify what
Congressman Hanna said and the self-described Republican conservative employee, what he
said.
CHUCK TODD:
Very quickly, are you running for the U.S. Senate in Maryland?
44
ELIJAH CUMMINGS:
I'm going to meet with my family and we're going to make that decision. When I'm not even in
the race, by the way, and I'm leading by 13 points, it does give me an idea of how I would do. So
we'll figure that out. But right now, I didn't want this to have anything to do with politics. So I
said that I would wait till Benghazi was over. Hopefully it will be over and I'm hoping that
Chairman Gowdy will give us a date certain to end this. After all, we've now spent close to $5
million on this.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Congressman Cummings, let the record show, you are paying attention to your polling
in a race that you're not yet in.
ELIJAH CUMMINGS:
Oh yeah, you've got to do that.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Congressman Cummings, thanks for coming on Meet the Press. When we come back,
who's laughing now? The ten days that some may believe just handed the Democratic
nomination to Hillary Clinton.
CHUCK TODD:
It would be hard to imagine a campaign stretch that could've gone better for Hillary Clinton, a
debate win, Joe Biden deciding not to run, and then Clinton coming out on the other side of the
Benghazi hearings looking politically a lot better than the Republican committee members.
Substance is another story perhaps for the general election debate. At the very least, Clinton won
by not losing, a capstone to a ten-day period during which she tightened her grip on the
Democratic nomination.
(BEGIN TAPE)
HILLARY CLINTON:
Did any of you see our debate in Las Vegas?
CHUCK TODD:
Last night, a victory lap.
CROWD:
45
I'm with her! I'm with her!
CHUCK TODD:
Capping ten pivotal days. If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination--
HILLARY CLINTON:
Will you all caucus for me on February the 1st?
CHUCK TODD:
--October will go down as the month she secured it.
HILLARY CLINTON:
It's been quite a week, hasn't it?
CHUCK TODD:
In September, Clinton was licking her wounds, leading Bernie Sanders in national polls by just
seven points. Forced onto TV to explain the growing storm over her emails.
HILLARY CLINTON:
You know how much I love being interviewed.
CHUCK TODD:
What a difference a month makes. From October 13th, when Clinton quieted Democratic nerves
at the first debate, with an assist from Senator Bernie Sanders.
BERNIE SANDERS:
The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.
CHUCK TODD:
To October 21st, when Vice President Joe Biden bowed out of the race.
JOE BIDEN:
I believe we're out of time.
CHUCK TODD:
46
Ending 82 days of speculation about his own presidential ambitions.
BILL CLINTON:
We're old friends, we had a good talk.
HILLARY CLINTON:
If I know Joe, he'll be right there with us on the front lines.
CHUCK TODD:
To October 22nd, when Clinton survived an 11-hour hearing largely unscathed.
HILLARY CLINTON:
I'm sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative, congressman. I can only tell you what the facts were.
CHUCK TODD:
A string of successes has persuaded Democrats that she's worth rallying behind. At that Benghazi
hearing, Clinton was good, not great. But her opponents made her look polished and presidential
by comparison.
REP. PETER ROSKAM:
I can pause while you're reading your notes from your staff.
REP. MIKE POMPEO:
And I'm happy to bring breakfast in. But when you're asking and answering a question, it'd sure
be helpful if we could get to the answer.
CHUCK TODD:
On Friday, the nation's largest public employee union endorsed Clinton. Progressive blogger
Markos Moulitsas tweeted, "Hillary was meh, with a significant portion of the activist left.
Thanks GOP, for helping change that."
TREY GOWDY:
I don't know what y'all were doing Thursday, I had a rough Thursday.
CHUCK TODD:
47
Clinton's challenges are hardly over. As she was testifying, F.B.I. Director James Comey was
answering questions in the building next door about the ongoing investigation into her use of a
private server.
JAMES COMEY:
I'm confident we have the people and the resources to do it in the way I believe we do all our
work, which is promptly, professionally, and independently.
CHUCK TODD:
But Clinton has comforted Democrats who needed persuading that their front runner is
determined to win.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Back in a moment with the growing uncertainty in the Republican race. Wait till you hear what
Jeb Bush said about all the cool things he'd rather be doing than running for president in this
cycle.
* * * COMMERCIAL BREAK * * *
CHUCK TODD:
And we are back. Let's bring in the panel. John Harwood, CNBC's Chief Washington
Correspondent, he'll be co-moderating the third Republican Presidential debate this Wednesday.
Pulitzer prize winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, she's starting her Trump biography
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn column for the Washington Post. And Stephen Henderson,
editorial page editor of the Detroit Free Press, you are here to represent the entire outside of the
beltway.
STEPHEN HENDERSON:
That's right.
CHUCK TODD:
I want to start with a truly remarkable moment from Jeb Bush, let's see this whole thing again.
(BEGIN TAPE)JEB BUSH:
If this election is about how we're gonna fight to get nothing done then I don't want anything-- I
don't want any part of it. I don't want to be elected president to just sit around and see gridlock
48
just become so dominant that people are literally in decline in their lives. That is not my
motivation.
I got a lot of other really cool things I could do other than sit around being miserable, listening to
people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if
you want that.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Doris?
DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN:
Woah.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah.
I mean, compare that with how McCain handled himself in a similar situation in '07. He was
cutting staff as Mr. Bush has, his poll numbers had gone down, he was in a bad place. And he
said, "It's how you face a challenge politically and physically that determines your character and
your courage." And he said I'm going to be going on a bus, I'm going to be lean and mean, and
he said I'm going to go out among the people. And eventually, Mac was back.
I mean you have to take these moments of adversity, and you have to show strength and courage
and forward optimism. You can't blame the process. You're it-- you're in it.
CHUCK TODD:
John, every presidential--every president has that political near-death political experience this is
Jeb's.
JOHN HARWOOD:
Right he hopes it's a near-death experience
CHUCK TODD:
Right, fair enough.
JOHN HARWOOD:
49
Look he set out on this race saying he was going to run only if he could do it with joy in his
heart. That was an upset candidate right there who doesn't understand what is happening in the
race. I think his whole family is a little taken aback by what is this Republican party, what's
happening here, why?
He's raised so much money, and I think he's gonna have to figure out a way. His staff says that
the cutbacks were a way of adjusting to reality, becoming a new Jeb Bush campaign, we'll see if
he can pull it off.
CHUCK TODD:
Jennifer, I want to play for you the first ad Ben Carson put up this week, and then I'm gonna
show you Jeb Bush's-- sort of the first ones-- one of the early ads the Super PAC put up. It's two
different takes on this year, take a look
(BEGIN TAPE)
BEN CARSON:
Washington is broken. The political class broke it. Together we can drain the swamp, and protect
our children's future.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Pretty obvious that message, here's a Right to Rise, the Jeb Bush Super PAC, intro ad for Jeb.
(BEGIN TAPE)
SAM ARD:
If he didn't like a project, it was going to be vetoed.
WILL WEATHERFORD:
It didn't matter if you were Republican. It didn't matter if you were his best friend.
TONI JENNINGS:
He said, "This is where we're going. This is how we're going to reform state government."
BOB BURLESON:
Every politician comes in talking about making change and clearly, there's not much change. But
Governor Bush made a lot of changes.
50
TONI JENNINGS:
He got the nickname "Vito Corleone."
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Ben Carson has read the poll numbers this year.
JENNIFER RUBIN:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
I don't know if Jeb Bush's team has.
JENNIFER RUBIN:
What strikes me is not only the outsider/insider, but how backward looking Jeb Bush's ad was.
He's talking about what he's done. His family has an esteemed record, one of the great political
families of our era. And it's not enough this time. I'm also struck in that opening segment that
you showed, how small he seems. How petty, how put upon.
You have to rise above this. The presidency is about being bigger than life, not smaller, about
being optimistic. I think he is so befuddled and so unhappy with this race, that the worst
elements in him, rather than the best elements, are coming forward.
CHUCK TODD:
Stephen, I think the last time you were on, Jeb Bush had been in Detroit.
STEPHEN HENDERSON:
Yeah.
CHUCK TODD:
Sort of introducing himself. You saw him in March. What do you see now?
STEPHEN HENDERSON:
Well, we actually were starting to look at fundraising numbers for both Bush and Carson. Carson
leads Republicans in Michigan, leads Bush dramatically. But what's more interesting is how he's
leading. He's leading with small contributions in large numbers throughout the state. People in
51
the upper peninsula of Michigan are giving to the Carson campaign. Bush's support is
concentrated in wealthy suburbs of Detroit, Grand Rapids--
CHUCK TODD:
They're obvious places.
STEPHEN HENDERSON:
He's got institutional support. The trick is, neither one of them can win with that strategy alone.
They've got to blend the two. Jeb Bush has got to connect with individual voters better. Carson
has got to get more institutional support. Who knows what we'll see by March.
CHUCK TODD:
You know, we got to bring in Donald Trump in here. Because Jeb Bush clearly a little bit rattled
by what's going on. But so is Donald Trump. My gosh, he's losing in two polls, and apparently
the sky is falling. First he attacked the pollsters, it was a Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll
that had it in it. Listen to what Trump said on Saturday attacking the pollsters:
(BEGIN TAPE)
DONALD TRUMP:
I'm number two in Iowa. I said, "I don't believe it." One's Bloomberg, they hate me. The other
one is a super liberal newspaper, the Des Moines Register which is third rate, totally third rate,
not respected in Iowa. It's a third-rate, crummy newspaper. So I've got these two polls.
Bloomberg hates me, don't forget, Michael did want to run for president. Remember that.
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Now the same poll, of course, used to have Trump ahead. But then, he decided to take aim at
Ben Carson.
(BEGIN TAPE)
DONALD TRUMP:
I'm Presbyterian. Can you believe it? Nobody believes I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm
Presbyterian. Boy, that's down the middle of the road, folks. In all fairness, I mean, Seventh Day
Adventist I don't know about.
(END TAPE)
52
CHUCK TODD:
He took that little shot, Doris, on the Sabbath for people that are Seventh Day Adventist. So
adding insult to injury here.
Well, I mean, I think the same thing we were saying about Jeb Bush is now important for Mr.
Trump. He's in a moment of adversity. How do you handle it? I mean, the wonderful thing that
Adlai Stevenson, my old friend said, my old friend, he said, "how do you, but the challenge is
not how to win an election, but how you win without proving yourself unworthy to win?"
These kind of comments are going to hurt not just the process, they're going to hurt him, they're
going to hurt the general election. And he's got to figure out right now, he's in trouble. And even
if it's not big trouble. And he can rise above it. That's what he's going to have to do. You can't
just give into it again.
CHUCK TODD:
But this stuff hasn't hurt him yet, John.
JOHN HARWOOD:
No, it hasn't. I do think though the question we've had about Trump is how long is he going to
stay in this race, and is he only in it as long as it feels really good? If he loses a caucus or a
primary, is that going to be the moment where he says, "I've had enough of this"? It is unusual
that at a time when he's still leading national polls, still leading in New Hampshire, still leading
in South Carolina, he would be so unnerved by simply falling behind in a poll in Iowa. And so
it's got to raise questions about how long he wants to do this.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah, I mean, you know, Jennifer, it's not surprising that he's losing in Iowa. Trump shouldn't
win it. But Trump could still be the nominee, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum won it, and they
weren't nominees. What's he complaining about?
JENNIFER RUBIN:
Well, his entire schtick is built around his invincibility. Everybody else is a loser. He's the only
winner. Everybody in government is stupid, he's the only smart person. So as soon as he's not
winning everywhere, then his aura of invincibility, that thing that drives him to be a winner, to be
the alpha dog, is destroyed. So there is a real question, I think, John. I think you're right, whether
he's going to stay in this if he isn't leading everywhere in every poll. That's an expectation game
that no one can possibly match.
JOHN HARWOOD:
53
And I want to defend the Des Moines Register.
CHUCK TODD:
One of the Midwest's great newspapers
JOHN HARWOOD:
I suspect that Donald Trump thought it was a better newspaper when he was leading.
CHUCK TODD:
And there's no doubt. You know, Stephen, for what it's worth, Donald Trump refused to
apologize for the knock on Dr. Carson and his religion because he's never apologized for those
things.
STEPHEN HENDERSON:
Right. Well I mean, I think this is the scary part of his campaign, this sort of strain of really
awful divisiveness. Much of it cloaked in religious terms that we've heard during this campaign.
And that's not American. It's not the thing that I think is going to get someone the nomination.
But it's playing for some reason among the electorate.
CHUCK TODD:
You know what's interesting here, John Harwood, is if you read today's op-ed page in The New
York Times, you were told that the frontrunner might really be Marco Rubio. It's a person we
didn't just talk about at all. Do you buy that, very fast?
JOHN HARWOOD:
I think you could make that argument. Look, it's probably going to come down to an outsider
candidate and an establishment candidate. And the establishment candidate is likely to win in the
end, once a one-on-one matchup occurs. Who's best positioned at this moment to claim that?
Maybe Marco Rubio.
CHUCK TODD:
We'll see. It's always been maybe with him. It's always been a lot of maybes. We'll see. When we
come back we're going to talk more about the Democratic side of the aisle. Quick reminder here,
a little plug for John. The Republican debate in Boulder, Colorado, will air on CNBC on
Wednesday. The undercard is at 6:00. The big main event is at 8:00 Eastern. MTP Daily, we'll be
out there in Boulder, live as well. Maybe we'll make John come on. Back in just 45 seconds with
our Endgame segment. Did Mitt Romney really mean to say ObamaCare was a good thing after
all?
54
CHUCK TODD:
Time now for Endgame. The panel is back. Last night was a big Democrat event, the J-J dinner.
Bernie Sanders is now going after Hillary Clinton more directly than he ever has before. Take a
look.
(BEGIN TAPE)
BERNIE SANDERS:
Some are trying to rewrite history by saying they voted for one anti-gay law to stop something
worse. That's not the case. The Trans-Pacific Partnership. That agreement is not now, nor has it
ever been, the gold standard of trade agreements. I listened carefully to what Bush and Cheney
and Rumsfeld had to say. And I said, "No, they're not telling the truth."
(END TAPE)
CHUCK TODD:
Stephen, he ticked it off there, Iraq war vote, the Defense of Marriage Act, TPP. Hello, Clintons-
-
STEPHEN HENDERSON:
Where was this guy during the debate? That was what we wanted to hear him say during the
Democratic debate. And he didn't. He didn't step to any of those challenges. I think that some of
this is about Bernie Sanders trying to change the internal dynamics in the party rather than hurt
Hillary Clinton's chances in the national election. Speaking to Jeff Jack, he is all over her.
Speaking on a national stage, he's way more conciliatory.
CHUCK TODD:
What do you make of Bernie, Doris? Is he Gene McCarthy? Or could he be a little Barack
Obama and actually take it to the next step?
Well, I think what he's arguing, and it was interesting when you saw him at the Jeff Jack last
night, coming with marchers behind a thing as if he was in an outside movement. I mean, his
greatest strength is to say that change comes to America when the outside and the inside come
together. And I'm bringing these people from the outside.
It's the way the abolitionists worked, it's the way the anti-slavery people worked, it's the way the
women's movement worked, the gay movement. And he's trying to say, "That's the only way
55
Washington is going to change is from the outside. And I'm that movement." And there's a
strength in that but then once you get inside, you have to be able to make something happen. I
think the interesting thing in watching him last night was that you have to decide after that
debate what happens to you internally. And he's decided to become more of a fighter. Hillary, on
the other hand, will have that confidence, more important than the polls, more important than the
money she's getting she can wake up in the morning now and feel, "I've done something." And
maybe that whole sense of entitlement that she had at the beginning, where people thought she's
just dynastic, by having a rough patch as she did for so long, she now looks like the new fighter.
So it's a good narrative for her campaign.
CHUCK TODD:
Very quickly, Jennifer, does the, do Republican Primary voters change their thinking the stronger
she looks?
JENNIFER RUBIN:
I absolutely think so. I think that's one of the reasons that Marco Rubio is looking better. They
are not going to be able to nominate just anyone. They're going to have to have someone who's
articulate, who knows something about the issues. Chris Christie likes to say, "I can prosecute
the case against her." I think that has new resonance after we saw them not prosecute very well at
the hearing.
So I think Republican voters, as they get closer to the first elections, are going to say, "Who can
we envision on that stage against Hillary?" It's going to be Hillary. It's not going to be Biden and
it's not going to be a weak Hillary--
CHUCK TODD:
--Well.
JENNIFER RUBIN:
So who can we get to stand toe-to-toe with her?
CHUCK TODD:
Some people think if it goes to Cleveland, it could be Mitt Romney. But let me tell you what
Mitt Romney said about health care. He was quoted, let me read you something here, he was
quoted in an obituary for a good friend of his, the founder of Staples, Tom Stemberg.
And he was quoted in the obituary as saying this. This is Governor Romney. "Without Tom
pushing it," referring to health care in general, getting more people health care, "I don't think we
would've had RomneyCare, and without RomneyCare, I don't think we would've had
ObamaCare. So without Tom, a lot of people wouldn't have health insurance." Sounded like
pretty much like an endorsement--
56
STEPHEN HENDERSON:
He's back to his original position on that.
CHUCK TODD:
And then social media caught fire and he writes--
JENNIFER RUBIN:
No, I didn't mean that.
CHUCK TODD:
Yeah well, this is what Romney wrote on Facebook a few hours later, "Getting people health
insurance is a good thing. And that's what Tom Stemberg fought for. I oppose ObamaCare and
believe it has failed, it drove up premiums, took insurance away from people who were promised
otherwise and usurped state programs as I said in the campaign. I'd repeal it, replace it with state-
crafted plans. What do you make of it, John?
JOHN HARWOOD:
Perfect encapsulation of his great flaw as a candidate. He was not comfortable being himself,
owning up to who he was, what he had done. That did not go over well at all.
CHUCK TODD:
And yet, it's almost he's still worried about his own politics.
STEPHEN HENDERSON:
Right, he's not running for anything--
Right.
STEPHEN HENDERSON:
What difference does it make?
CHUCK TODD:
Are you sure?
57
Well, well. Yet.
CHUCK TODD:
Well are you sure?
STEPHEN HENDERSON
I'm sure.
CHUCK TODD:
Okay. That's all we have for today. We'll be back next week with Mitt Romney's announcement-
- No, no, no, I'm kidding. We'll be back next week, because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
* * *END OF TRANSCRIPT* * *
58

Post 4

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Post 4

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

What Will Donald Trumps Asia Policy Look Like?

November 10, 2016

An America First Foreign Policy

Trump the Pragmatist?

Implications for U.S. Asia Policy

Alliances and Partnerships

Less clear is whether a Trump administrations selective employment of multilateralism would

Human Rights and Democracy

Donald Trump on Foreign Policy

US cannot afford to be world's police; let NATO allies pay

Brexit vote means people want to see borders

Q: Do you think he's right that there's a parallel?

U.S. has become dumping ground for everybody else's problems

Ignore career diplomats who insist on nuance

Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, p. 31-2 , Nov 3, 2015

Reimbursement for US military bases in rich countries abroad

Offered himself as Cold War nuclear-arms-treaty negotiator

Source: Never Enough, by Michael D`Antonio, p. 10 , Sep 22, 2015

Support NATO, but it's not us against Russia

Q: So you wouldn't allow Ukraine into NATO?

Q: It sounds like you're not a fan of NATO

When you love America, you protect it with no apologies

Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 7 , Dec 5, 2011

Things change; empires come and go

Use tough negotiators instead of naive academic people

Source: Think Big, by Donald Trump, p.152-3 , Sep 8, 2008

Persuasion, not power, is diplomacy at its best

Source: Trump 101, by Donald Trump, p. 60 , Oct 20, 2006

Countries and corporations must both evolve, or fade away

Source: Trump 101, by Donald Trump, p. 99-100 , Oct 20, 2006

Criticized Buchanans view on Hitler as appeasement

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.267-68 , Jul 2, 2000

Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.111-12 , Jul 2, 2000

Donald Trump on Mideast

Don't take sides with Israel, so we can lead negotiations

I could negotiate a deal with Israel and Palestinians

Figure out who our allies are

Iran deal is one of the worst I've ever seen

Let Russia bash ISIS; let Germany defend Ukraine

Q: They're not doing that.

Source: Fox Business/WSJ First Tier debate , Nov 10, 2015

Opening gates to Syrian refugees invites in ISIS

Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, p. 2-3 , Nov 3, 2015

Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria

Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?

US should not train rebels it does not know or control

Better to have Mideast strongmen than Mideast chaos

Q: Would you pull out of what we're doing in Syria now?

TRUMP: no, I'd sit back.

Good that Russia is involved in Syria

Q: So, you think Putin's going to get suckered into--

Q: Why do you trust him and nobody else does?

Stop sending aid to countries that hate us

More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel

Donald Trump on Political Hotspots

Condemn Russian & any country's involvement in our elections

TRUMP: No puppet. You're the puppet!

Q: Do you condemn any interference by Russia in the American election?

FactCheck: Japan should defend itself, including with nukes

Source: 2016 Vice-Presidential Debate at Longwood University , Oct 4, 2016

FactCheck: No, Iran is not a trading partner of North Korea

Iran has power over North Korea, as their trading partner

Q: Putin called you a brilliant leader.