Donald Trump Secretly Told The New York Times What He Really Thinks About Immigration

Buzzfeed ^ | 2/29/2016 | Ben Smith

[TheThirdRuffian]

The New York Times is sitting on an audio recording that some of its staff believes could deal a serious blow to Donald Trump who, in an off-the-record meeting with the newspaper, called into question whether he would stand by his own immigration views.

Trump visited the paper’s Manhattan headquarters on Tuesday, Jan. 5, part of a round of editorial board meetings that — as is traditional — the Democratic candidates for president and some of the Republicans attended. The meetings, conducted partly on the record and partly off the record in a 13th floor conference room, give candidates a chance to make their pitch for the paper’s endorsement.

After a dispute over Trump’s suggestion of tariffs on Chinese goods, the Times released a portion of the recording. But that was from the on-the-record part of the session.

n Saturday, columnist Gail Collins, one of the attendees at the meeting (which also included editor-in-chief Dean Baquet), floated a bit of speculation in her column:

The most optimistic analysis of Trump as a presidential candidate is that he just doesn’t believe in positions, except the ones you adopt for strategic purposes when you’re making a deal. So you obviously can’t explain how you’re going to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, because it’s going to be the first bid in some future monster negotiation session.

Sources familiar with the recording and transcript — which have reached near-mythical status at the Times — tell me that the second sentence is a bit more than speculation. It reflects, instead, something Trump said about the flexibility of his hard-line anti-immigration stance.

So what exactly did Trump say about immigration, about deportations, about the wall? Did he abandon a core promise of his campaign in a private conversation with liberal power brokers in New York?

[manc]

Why on earth would any republican go to the NY Times for an endorsement?

[Jeff Chandler]

Damn that GOPe Rush Limbaugh. He’s through!
.
Oh wait, wrong thread.

[Brian Griffin]

I know lazy leftists want to keep their illegal help.

We want to keep our money.

A tax cap/legalization deal is possible.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yes, we definitely deserve to know if what he says off the record isn’t what he is saying on the record.

[lodi90]

I agree. Full openness, from all of them.

---

You first. No reason to do business with dishonest career politician confidence men like Cruzbio.

Let’s all those tax schedules, Rubio’s credit card statements, Cruz’s Super PAC secret campaign donor list, etc.

Release that and we’ll talk. Understand?

[Let's Roll]

No, they’re gonna hold until oh September or so and then release it when it would damage Trump the most. Trump’s voters will fall off the bandwagon in a torrent and it’ll be too late to find and run another candidate strong enough to beat shillary/bernie/bloomie.

[manc]

LOL I seriously doubt the NY Times would try and help anyone who they hate. if they had them they would release them in a frenzy.

[TheThirdRuffian]

“If the NY Times had a bombshell story since Jan 5th...why did have they sat on it for nearly 2 months”

I would assume they would want the most liberal Republican they can get, given Hillary is a terrible candidate.

[TheStickman]

Yeah, the Slimes is sitting on all the great “secret” knowledge about Trump. /s

[Red Steel]

If the NY Times had a bombshell story since Jan 5th...why did have they sat on it for nearly 2 months

Like one of those delusional Bill Kristol tweets that gets it wrong all the time.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

The article says that the statement at issue occurred during a portion of the discussion that the paper agreed was off the record. So now they go around leaking and likely muscharacterizing what Trump said in order to damage him or, in the alternative, create pressure on him to authorize releasing the transcript. This is sleazy, yellow journalism of the worst kind. Pathetic.

The NYT Editorial Board is not running for President, so whether it is sleazy, yellow journalism is irrelevant. And if they have "likely mischaracterized" what he said, the best way to counter that is for Trump to authorize them to release the tape/transcript so his own words can speak for themselves.

And at the same time, the other GOP candidates should do the same if they participated in the same process.

[corlorde]

We will find out soon enough. I suspect Trump will soften his immigration stance right after he gets nominated...then, if he wins the election, there will be less talk about walls, banning Muslims and deporting millions, and will chalk it up to “deal making” of which is his signature. Maybe a few actions here and there tightening rules by executive order, but not much else. The Trumps will be too busy trying to be the Kennedy's.

[lodi90]

This is sleazy, yellow journalism of the worst kind. Pathetic.

---

And smearing Trump with this is the “principled conservatism” of Ted Cruz.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Much speculation here.

Doesn't hold a candle to the amount of explicit ignorance the US population has in regard to immigration law and what they perceive as "amnesty."

[Smokin' Joe]

Didn’t know there was such a thing as a thirteenth floor.

It is the one after 12 and before 14. Some buildings skip the number 13, some don't.

[central_va]

Permanent wall, not fence.

[manc]

My thoughts too, . Does any building have a 13th floor, because I have never seen any.

[lodi90]

Trump has staked his presidency on the wall. If he doesn’t build it he will be a one term POTUS. Career politicans like Crubzio, OTOH, can BS along like they have the last 30 years.

[TheThirdRuffian]

I have no problem with complete openness.

I want to know if a candidate is a liar.

[Political Junkie Too]

It will be stale news by then. Trump will have changed the narrative again, making those statements obsolete.

-PJ