Posted on 07/31/2016 12:39:29 PM PDT by GilGil
FULL Paul Manafort INTERVIEW ON NBC "THIS WEEK" WITH CHUCK TODD (7/31/2016)
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
As a matter of fact all the Trump surrogates this weekend are all like Trump. they are all swinging. Whether it be Sessions, Priebus, or Manafort they are learning from their boss and are clearly on offense and on message.
He should have asked Chuck if he was conducting the interview as a DNC or NBC employee ... seems he swings both ways.
Manafort should have asked him if he got his questions from the DNC, because as WikiLeaks showed, Chuck Todd is one of the DNC’s loyal lapdogs.
Now they are going to make a big deal about a plank from nowhere.
Papa Khan (in the clip shown to Manafort) has that middle eastern con man vibe down pat: “The way he (Trump) showed disrespect to the Gold Star Mother of this country...my wife”. The mute Earth Mother. Why she no speak?
Lawsy! Did your son die honorably or not, Papa Khan? If he did, why sully his memory attacking the only candidate whose vows to go after his killers (Muslims)?
The DNC hack includes several emails between Chuck Todd and the DNC. Manafort should have asked him about those.
Manafort should have asked him if he got his questions from the DNC, because as WikiLeaks showed, Chuck Todd is one of the DNCs loyal lapdogs.
—
He sure implied it. Chuck just knew better than to go there.
Actually, Paul Manafort did just that. He accused Todd and the media of focusing on only Clinton campaign talking points.
0n the Muslim parents, the media gave not even a hint that their son was slaughtered by radical Islam terrorists, ISIS.
Instead, the father in his convention rant was allowed to ignore the terrorists who killed his son, and stand up there and complain viciously against Trump for wanting to stop them from coming into America.
A ridiculous pawn of the Marxist Left, who knows nothing of American tradition.
Good. Win or lose at least we are fighting
That’s not swinging both ways....that is one way
Trump is Priebus’s boss?
Huh?
Kudos to Manafort for not taking any of that DNC-approved crap.
Can't stand to listen to this Chuck Todd guy anymore. He's such a phony and the WikiLeaks shows he's totally dishonest. Chuck Todd is paid to be a henchman against the GOP. He's not really a journalist at all. And is it me, or is Chuck Todd's face losing his fullness? Is his face getting as narrow as his thinking? And what about those pointed ears: there's beginning to be the look of Beelzebub in that face. Or maybe he has health issues. I guess when you are constantly lying and distorting the truth, it affects your immune system. |
Watch it again. Manafort did nothing but; claiming the media is “pushing clinton narratives”
TRiUMPh
The only thing YUGE about this Chuck Todd is his failure to take down Donald Trump.
In fact, battling the unfair media henchmen draws a big sympathy and fight-the-unfair-bastards vote for Trump.
The ultimate TRiUMPh is only a few months away now...
Because he is the candidate whose position, if they had been in place, would have prevented Kahn and his son from entering the U.S. And whose most influential advisor would deport Kahn and his family immediately. That's why he was there.
“Because he is the candidate whose position, if they had been in place, would have prevented Kahn and his son from entering the U.S. And whose most influential advisor would deport Kahn and his family immediately. That’s why he was there.”
So Khan was there to stop something in the past, like Terminator style? No, not at all. Bogus reasoning.
Khan was there to support his business and income. He runs an immigration law firm in NYC, specializing in Muslim immigration. He supports Sharia in America and is connected with the Muslim Brotherhood. Get a frickin clue.
If he cared about his son’s legacy AT ALL he wouldn’t support the Democrats. It was the Democrat Congress which cut Iraq OCO funding in 2007 ensuring the US withdrawal and the ascendency of ISIS.
Khan and the Democrats are equally corrupt. Money before morals. A marriage of convenience and greed.
NBC Meet the Press - July 31, 2016 Transcript
CHUCK TODD: Mr. Manafort, can you explain why Mr. Trump went so hard after Mr. Khan?PAUL MANAFORT: Look, this is, again, this is the Clinton narrative. Mr. Trump of course feels sorry for what the Khan family has gone through, just frankly as he felt sorry for the victims that spoke before the Republican Convention who lost loved ones from illegal immigrant criminals coming in and being able to travel the country freely. That's not the issue. The issue here is not the Khan family, not the Mendoza family, now the Shaw family. The issue that Mr. Trump is talking about and which, really, frankly, I expect the media should be talking about is protecting the American homeland from national security risks and terrorists.
That's the point here. And Mr. Trump has said very clearly for months now a policy that's been ignored, which is that he believes that we need to have a temporary suspension to stop refugees from coming in from countries where terrorist activities are rampant or in a war. That's the issue, not the Khan family loss which we all regret, not the loss of many other American families which we all regret. The issue is how to protect the homeland. And the second part of the issue which is being ignored is the cause of these losses, because it forced our American military to go back into Iraq, to go into Syria and that cause was the policies that were put together in January of 2009 by President Clinton and Secretary Obama that caused ISIS to rise.
ISIS didn't exist before 2009; they exist today. They are causing the problems that we're facing. Those are the two issues: Protecting the homeland and stopping the war and going after ISIS in a way that ends the terrorism. The losses of the Khan family and the other Americans who have lost--that's a tragedy.
And the only way we're going to stop it is to focus on the real issues and that's what Trump is doing. And frankly, what Secretary Clinton did in her speech on Thursday was totally ignoring it. She sees an America that, "Morning in America," as she said. It's not morning in America. And if it's midnight in America, like she accused Mr. Clinton of, it's the policies of Obama and Clinton that caused it to be midnight. Mr. Trump has neither position.
CHUCK TODD: All right, but I got to ask you, though, it does seem as if the temperament question is coming into play. In the last three days, he's gone after Gold Star parents personally and you've had to backtrack there and you, yourself, just did it. He called a former NATO general, John Allen, a failed general, referred to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg as a little man. I got to ask you, why all these insults? Does that not raise a temperament issue? I assume you would not be advising him to go about responding in this way.
PAUL MANAFORT: Well, Chuck, you're now repeating the talking points of the Clinton campaign. This is not a temperament issue. The Clinton campaign needs to try to make it into a temperament issue for one reason because they know that over 70 percent of the American people don't believe a thing she says. And so, therefore, her putting up policies that she's going to do have no credibility.
Her talking about the Obama Administration has done a great job and deserves an A on the economy. I mean, please, let's talk to American families and sit around the dinner table at night figuring how to pay their bills. The American economy is not in good shape; productivity is failing.
The day after her convention, the Department of Commerce printed out the latest second quarter growth, 1.2 percent. The country's not working. It's not about temperament. That's the only issue that Clinton can try and get you, the media, to cover in hopes of ignoring what the real issues of this election are.
CHUCK TODD: Well Mr. Manafort--
PAUL MANAFORT: The American people are smarter than that--
CHUCK TODD: We can only cover the campaign in front of us and what the candidate says and I guess my question is, you brought up the GDP, he's bringing up other stuff. And I guess the question is: What is Mr. Trump focused on? And if he gets distracted like this, why shouldn't this be an issue that concerns voters of him in the Oval Office if he can so easily get distracted by personal criticism?
PAUL MANAFORT: He's not distracted. You are covering the wrong things. I mean, look at the DNC hack. I mean, the issue there that you focused on was the election was rigged against Sanders and would Sanders delegates be upset? That wasn't the issue. The issue was lack of moral conviction on the part of the Clinton campaign that worked with the DNC to rig the system.
Did you talk about the moral clarity of that decision? When Mr. Trump talked about, "Isn't it ironic that foreign countries and foreign enemies of ours might have the 33,000 emails that the F.B.I. doesn't have?" Did you focus on that fact, the risk of national security? No. So the issues are in front of you, you're just talking the Clinton narrative and not focusing on the issues that affect the American people.
CHUCK TODD: Does it not also matter if a foreign government wants to take part in our election? Do you condemn that?
PAUL MANAFORT: Of course we condemn that. That's not the issue at all. Mr. Trump was making the point that isn't it ironic that 33,000 emails that our F.B.I. can't have that may go to national security issues are sitting probably in the vaults of foreign countries, friends and enemies alike? That's the issue.
So it's there in front of you. It's just the Clinton narrative is putting out their talking points because they know that anything she says won't have any credibility. And they're getting you to cover it from their standpoint instead of the standpoint of what affects the American people.
CHUCK TODD: Let me ask you this, there was another comment he made about debates. Clarify this: Do you plan on participating in any debates that conflict with the NFL?
PAUL MANAFORT: Look, we're going to sit down with the commission and talk with them. Again, the DNC hack showed you that the Clinton campaign was working to schedule debates against Sanders which has the least possible viewing audience. Mr. Trump saying, "Look, we want the maximum viewing audience. So I'm not sure, you know, what the dates are going to be ultimately. Mr. Trump has made it very clear as recently as Friday, he wants the debates. He wants them to have the largest audience. And we're going to work with the commission to try and identify what those dates are. But we're not going to fall to Hillary Clinton and the ploy that she did against Bernie Sanders of trying to have the lowest-viewing audience. We want the biggest.
CHUCK TODD: And before I let you go, there's been some controversy about something in the Republican Party platform that essentially changed the Republican Party's views when it comes to Ukraine. How much influence did you have in changing that language, sir?
PAUL MANAFORT: I had none. In fact, I didn't even hear of it until after our convention was over.
CHUCK TODD: Where did it comes from then? Because everybody on the platform committee had said it came from the Trump campaign. If not you, who?
PAUL MANAFORT: It absolutely did not come from the Trump campaign. And I don't know who everybody is, but I guarantee you it was nobody that was on the platform committee--
CHUCK TODD: So nobody from the Trump campaign wanted that change in the platform?
PAUL MANAFORT: No one, zero. CHUCK TODD:
Okay, Mr. Manafort, I will leave it there, appreciate you coming on this morning.
PAUL MANAFORT: Thank you, Chuck.
Not bogus at all. Kahn and his family are from Pakistan. Even if you take the mildest of all of Trump's proposals on Muslims entering the country then Khan and his family, including his son, would never have been allowed in. What the Democrats were trying to do, obviously, was not to necessarily honor Humayun Khan's service and sacrifice to his adopted country but to highlight Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering. So striking back at Khan's father and blaming his son's death on radical Islam is missing the Democrat's point entirely. They would still be hammering the ban home...if Trump hadn't taken off after the parents. Now they're playing up the 'insulting the gold star mother' angle.
If he cared about his sons legacy AT ALL he wouldnt support the Democrats. It was the Democrat Congress which cut Iraq OCO funding in 2007 ensuring the US withdrawal and the ascendency of ISIS.
But it's the Republican candidate who would have banned him. And it's Newt Gingrich who would deport him immediately. That's his concern. And certainly no reason for him to back Trump.
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.