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 ...
Cruise ships definitely don’t have a deck 13, at least the ones I’ve been on.
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.
This BuzzFeed character takes that second sentence from a paragraph in a Gail Collins column and launches into world class speculation and rumor-mongering. Then he gets some sleazy NY Times officials to play along, saying they can't release anything without Trump's permission.
Trump should ignore them all.
From the story:
"I wasn’t able to obtain the recording, or the transcript, and don’t know exactly what Trump said. Neither Baquet, Collins, nor various editorial board members I reached would comment on an off-the-record conversation, which the Times essentially said they cannot release without approval from Trump, given the nature of the off-the-record agreement."
So what part of "cannot release without approval from Trump" is unclear to you?
“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.”
Just like the Ron Paul followers. Maybe a lot of former Paul followers have latched on to Trump.
>> Are Cruz and Rubio going to release the same NY ‘off the record’ conversations? <<
Has absolutely no bearing on the issue. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
“This tape, however, is the most critical.”
Doubtful. The article speculates it’s some portion of the overall plan, and Trump has alluded to compromise often.
“So what part of “cannot release without approval from Trump” is unclear to you? “
None at all. That’s why I want Trump to release the tape.
And Cruz and Rubio, if they have similar “off the record” conversations.
>> Odds are Trump has no idea what he said <<
A brilliant point! Maybe the key to the whole kerfluffle.
Why are they sitting on it? Is Glenn Beck running the NYTs now?
What opposing candidate wouldn’t jump on this?
How do you know he filed an extension solely for the purpose of hiding it?
Because Cruz is doing the same thing with his other taxes. Releasing summaries and hiding the schedules. Cruz is not being forthcoming. Period.
“They don’t.”
Apparently that is official policy here. I found a more detailed (and brand new) Washington Post article, and it got moved to “cheese, moose, sister”
I expect more from FreeRepublic.
This is a core issue on Trump, and we have a right to know and be concerned.
I was telling my daughter last night that I think a lot of Trump’s views are put out 1)To attract the mass of really upset Americans, and 2) to start off high on negotiations.
“I’m going to build a wall, it will be great. And I’m going to kick out all the illegals, and ban muslims.”
The logistics alone negate building a “wall”.
“Okay - it will be a double fence for 200 miles here, 300 miles there, and another 200 miles there. And I can live with increased monitoring and security in the other places.”
“Okay - I’m going to round up the illegals with violent and drug crimes, and enforce the existing laws, and double ICE investigations on companies. Most of the illegals will get so scared they’ll leave on their own.”
“Okay - muslims from known areas of terrorist support will not be allowed in.”
Nothing wrong with that, except then he just becomes another politician with broken promises. Plus - then he just sounds like another guy that is running.
I guess you missed the part about CRuzervative Review and Mark Levin ~ the ones pushing this *story* ~ being arms of the CRuz and Rubio campaigns.
It could be a coordinated attack...
Or it could be the story is just too ripe to ignore and not acting on it fast would be stupid beyond belief when you are fighting for votes.
I chose Occam’s Razor over conspiracy.
If they had some Bomb Shell they would have released it. No love lost between the NYT and Trump.
You said...
“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.”
Right now Trump gets the benefit of the doubt as, well, it is the media.
“What building has a 13th floor?”
The NYT Building, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York
10018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Building
http://newyorktimesbuilding.com/leibovitz/about_building_of_times.htm
Two reasons.
One it was off the record.
Two they will still release it after Trump gets the nomination. They want Hillary to win and best chance for her is for Trump to win the GOP nomination. Regardless if you agree with that or not that IS what the liberals think. They want Trump to win. Of course we thought Obama would be easy to beat as well.
If I were the NYT editor, I’d wait til after the primaries to release the tape. Maximum damage...
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.