Posted on 02/29/2016 12:47:40 PM PST by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at buzzfeed.com ...
If you think Rubio and Cruz were going after Trump hard, they aint got nothing on the the Liberals in the media. They are just salivating at Trump winning the nomination. His unlikable ratings are about to go from 70% nationwide to 80%.
That is absolutely not what the book says.
Ben Smith is a Trump hating tool.
Nice try...
That’s like telling you something by not saying they can tell you what they just said. If Trump is dumb enough to run his mouth to scum figuring they would keep their word, then he will ultimately pay for it.
LOL!!!
MORE DESPERATION FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA!
...just take that 13th floor elevator, LOL.
You may already know that “the 13th floor elevators” was the name of Billy Gibbon’s band before ZZ Top.
Tells me the meeting never happened, since the odds of there being a 13th floor are slim to none.
...and all this on leap day.
It does not matter, his supporters do not care. What he probably said is his hardline position is a starting point for negotiation. What actually happens will be somewhere in the middle (or, more likely, nothing will ever get done).
Trump chumps are really being duped by this fraud.
“So all they have are rumors?”
There apparently is a transcript, but yes, just talk at this point.
Immigration goes to the core of Trump’s appeal, so if he is misleading on this point, we have the right to know.
I would assume that if the tape is consistent with Trump’s positions, he would be eager to release it — a head fake as noted on the thread.
Start the rumor before Super Tuesday.
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.
“It does not matter, his supporters do not care.”
They should care if a candidate is saying different things in public than private.
I just want to hear the tape and put an end to it.
Trump shoots from the hip. Once he realized that deporting 12 mil illegals wasn’t workable he altered his thinking.
Good for him
If the NY Times had a bombshell story since Jan 5th...why did have they sat on it for nearly 2 months
A revelation that Trump is a squishy moderate on immigration only hurts him in the primary, not in the general. Releasing it after Trump is the nominee might actually hurt Hillary's attempt to paint him as hard-core anti-immigrant.
And we all know he isn't pure as driven snow.
Didn’t know there was such a thing as a thirteenth floor.
Very shortly after Governor Branstad declared that Cruz needed to be defeated, whatever it takes because Cruz had said he would get rid of the ethanol mandate (the Governor;s son is an Ethanol Industry lobbyist), Trump came out saying he supported the mandate and would use the EPA to enforce it to the fullest extent of the law.
Heat off Trump, on Cruz, and no one saw the deal that pledged 10% of our fuel mileage and damage to countless fuel systems for a truce.
That little deal was for Iowa.
I wonder what he'll trade (of ours) for a bigger state?
“This is sleazy, yellow journalism of the worst kind. Pathetic.”
Only if what Trump said off the record is inconsistent with what he proclaims publicly.
If it’s consistent, it’s a good thing for Trump.
If Trump is really weak on immigration, then, yes, this would be a bad thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.