And Marx's star is fading not just in this hemisphere but look at Eastern Europe, look around the whole world and human rights are rising up, and pluralism is coming on. So, let the Nicaraguan people speak to this question. They do not need George Bush telling them how to do it. Let them speak to it and be sure that the opposition has every opportunity to take their case to the people of Nicaragua. But it is not going to help to have me go through this once again with Mr. Ortega. I had a chance to do that in Brazil. He knows how I feel about it, and everybody knows we have a tense relationship. So, I do not want to act like we are waltzing around there in great harmony, because we are not. And there are so many ways that they can prove that they want to join the family of nations in this hemisphere stay with it, and stop subverting El Salvador in the process would be a good way to begin. We stopped a major shipment of arms interdicted the other day going into El Salvador. So, I have no agenda with Mr. Ortega. And as he takes a step that might lead to democracy, great, I am for that; but we are not going to solve any problems there in Costa Rica. I am there as the guest of the country, guest of President Arias. I wish Mr. Ortega had been there when Arias was sworn in, and I will tell you why. I realize that the United States has varying degrees of problems in our own hemisphere for a lot of historic reasons. Maybe you were there this day I am talking about. I represented the United States as Vice President. You had 30,000 people in a stadium in the capital. And what you did was to go in there, everybody lined up behind their flag. And I am saying to myself, I do not know what kind of reception I am going to get the U.S. Stars and Stripes and the Vice President I know we have got good relations with Costa Rica, but a lot of other countries represented. I swear to God, to the day I die I will never forget the reception for my country. It was not me they did not know who the hell I was but marching in behind the Stars and Stripes with our little delegation, and people were cheering, and it was democracy. It overlooked any kind of regional differences, and it was so moving and touching.


And when the Nicaraguan representative walked in there, they were whistling and giving it the old cheer that you give when some guy gives you a bad call in a soccer game. And it said something. I am standing, listening very carefully to this what are the people trying to say? and it is not we love you, North Americanos or anything like this. And it made a profound impression on me. And I do not think there is going to be an occasion for that kind of thing. But if Mr. Ortega had been there instead of his representative, Vice President Ramirez, he would have heard this, and he would have sensed it. He would have understood what the Costa Ricans were talking about when they had this peaceful transition yet again the will of the people being exercised. Sorry to end with a lecture, but it is a good ending point because we are not going down there to have some battle with Mr. Ortega. But I am there to celebrate the Costa Rican democracy, 100 years of it, and to join other democratically elected Presidents in saluting the democracy of this country and recognizing that it has not been easy for Argentina or Brazil or some countries to come out of a different kind of a past, even though the people probably never lost their confidence in democracy. And so, that is what we are going there for. And I just hope that it does not get cluttered up by the photographers that work for you guys wanting to see a picture of me and Ortega together. That has nothing to do with democracy in Costa Rica nothing. ENTITY, on Mr. Noriega we each asked our question. Will you answer one question on Noriega? You have been criticized in this country politically and some of the media for the way you reacted in the coup in Panama. You said that you acted according to what you felt. I was not criticized by any of the Presidents of the countries around this table, I noticed not one. We have got a lot of hawks out here; we have got a lot of macho guys out there that want me to send somebody else's kid into battle. And what I will do is prudently assess the situation at the time, and I have seen nothing in terms of intelligence or fact coming in later that would make me have done something differently. And that does not mean that under some provocation or some denial of our rights as the United States of America, that I'd be afraid to use force.

Interview With Latin American Journalists


But for these instant hawks up there to those doves that now become instant hawks on Capitol Hill, they do not bother me one bit because the American people supported me by over 2 to 1, and I think I sent a strong signal to the countries represented around this table that we are not going to imprudently use the force of the United States. If somebody lays a glove on an American citizen there in the Canal Zone or where we have certain treaty rights, then we have got a different story. Will you participate in the next uprising? And this man must be brought to justice. You know, one of the hits they gave me is I said that we have no argument with the Panamanian Defense Forces. And some of our more sophisticated columnists, perhaps who you are referring to, say the minute the President says this, this implies that he is going to use U.S. force. I am not going to do that. But it does not imply I am not going to use force. So, I am not going to say what I am going to do force or no force but there is no implicit guarantee that when some guy jumps up and causes a coup, that the United States is going to send in the SOUTHCOM forces. So, we took a few hits on it, but not too much. But when I had the Prime Minister of Spain here the other day, he understood it. And it is very important to me, I think, as it relates to this hemisphere that we all love so much, too. The minute Noriega gets out of there, the minute he is gone unless replaced by a tyrant, so I reserve that but the minute he is gone, we have instantly improved relations with Panama. We have good relations with the people of Panama. And I will be darned if we should sit here, as countries that respect democracy, and let this man beat up the Vice President, Guillermo Ford, beat the hell out of him and bleed him out there, to avert democracy. We are talking about the trend for democracy, and Panama is entitled to it. And it cannot be superimposed by the United States, but they spoke in a free and fair election, and they are entitled to it. And I am going to do everything I can from up here. I am working with our colleagues in the hemisphere, Venezuelan President and others, to try to see that the will of the people is respected. And Noriega is the fly in the ointment.


We share a strong commitment to curtailing the threat of weapons of mass destruction in general and to continuing the work in Iraq. And again let me say how pleased I am at the agreement that he worked out with Iraq to continue the inspections, as well as the access which has been provided to the UNSCOM inspectors which was previously denied. The last 6 days is not the same as the next 6 months, but it is all very hopeful. And ENTITY deserves a lot of appreciation from the United States and from all Americans for the work that has been done. ENTITY, are you both on the same wavelength in terms of what would happen if there is a breach in the agreement in the aftermath of that implementation? Well, over the weekend ENTITY said he thought that under the resolution there would have to be some consultations before any military force could be taken or used. We believe that the resolution gives us the authority to take whatever actions are necessary. But of course, we would consult. It would be unthinkable that we would not do that. We do that all the time anyway. I spent an awful lot of time on the telephone with large numbers of world leaders in the last several weeks as this difficulty has unfolded, and so I am not sure there is a conflict between our positions. What do you think, ENTITY? I think what ENTITY has said is exactly what I said on television on Sunday. And not only was ENTITY himself informed, as you will recall, Mrs.- the Secretary of State Albright consulted Council members, Ambassador Richardson, Secretary of Defense Cohen-and so there was consultation even this time around. So the consultation is an ongoing process and part of the way we do business in the international community. And I agree with what ENTITY has said. ENTITY, what do you think about Senator Lott's criticism that this agreement is a sellout? The agreement on its own terms is clearly not a sellout. The agreement on its own terms preserves the integrity of the UNSCOM inspections. It does add some diplomats to the inspection process in the Presidential sites, but if the agreement is complied with-and again, I think ENTITY did a good job working through these issues over the weekend-then we will be able to do what the United States has always wanted, which is to complete the inspection process. Again, let me say-I know I do not need to beat this dead horse, but I think it is worth repeating one more time.

Remarks Prior to Discussions With United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and an Exchange With Reporters


I see this issue with Iraq in the larger context of the threat I believe will be presented to the world for the next few decades from biological and chemical and perhaps even, God forbid, small-scale nuclear weapons-a different sort of weapons of mass destruction threat than we have faced in the past. And world leaders simply have to come to grips with the potential that is out there for organized groups-not just nations but terrorist groups, narcotraffickers, international criminals-to make and deploy such weapons for their own purposes, so that this is very important on its own merits. But it is also very important as the first of what I believe will have to be a many, many year effort by all peace-loving people to deal with this issue. ENTITY, how would you feel about testifying or talking to the grand jury and in some way giving your side of the story in the ongoing controversy? Well, you know I am not going to talk about that today. I have got to do the work that the people of this country hired me to do, so I cannot -I am not going to discuss that. Sir, with your pledge to cooperate fully, as you mentioned when this story first broke-- I wish you would concentrate on my issues. I just do not have anything else to say about it. ENTITY Sir, are you going to embrace the Conrad bill for tobacco, sir? Let me say-I'd like to answer that question and then, if I could, I'd like to make one comment about Kosovo before you leave. I have said that the Conrad bill embraces the principles that I feel strongly about. I have not reviewed all of its provisions, and I am not sure exactly what it does, for example, on the tobacco farmer issue, but in general I think Senator Conrad has put out a very good bill. And what I hope will happen is that either his bill will attract bipartisan support or that it will lead to a bipartisan bill reflecting the principles that I have outlined in the tobacco settlement- for the tobacco settlement. I personally believe, even though there are now less than 70 scheduled work days left in this year, that Congress ought to have no higher priority than to get this done. We need to do this and get this behind us. We do not need to wait until next year. Let me just make one comment if I might about Kosovo, because the Secretary of State has just returned from an arduous trip.


The United States and I condemn in the strongest possible terms excessive violence that has led to the death of innocent civilians there. We believe the cause of it is the inadequate response by the Serbian Government to the legitimate concerns of the Albanian minority in Serbia, but majority in Kosovo. I believe that the decision that the Secretary and other world leaders reached in the last few days, the reimposition of the sanctions, and the strong statements that were made coming out of the Contact Group, and the unity of the countries gives us some hope that we can resolve this. But this is a matter of great concern to me; I know it is of great concern to ENTITY. We do not want the Balkans to have more pictures like we have seen in the last few days, so reminiscent of what Bosnia endured. And I just want to make it absolutely clear that to me it is a very serious issue. consider military action, sir, as your Secretary of State has said in the past, and others? But the Secretary of State, along with all of her colleagues-and there is been remarkable unanimity on this- they have taken a position that gives us a chance to avoid further bloodshed by all parties under all conditions. That is what I want. Have you been in touch with Milosevic? Will you have some travel tips on Africa for ENTITY? I think I will be discussing a few interesting things, and I have one or two ideas that I would want to put to ENTITY. I think it is great that he is going to Africa, and I think it is good for U.S.-African relationship, and the entire continent is excited that for the first time a sitting U.S. ENTITY is doing this. And it is a sign that U.S.-African relationship is on the upswing. And I am very pleased about that. ENTITY, will the American people hear your version in the Lewinsky matter? Well, we are going to discuss that. We are working very hard on that. We are doing everything we can to get it back on track. And I hope we can have a chance to talk about it. Will this visit have helped in some way?


We are in the Cabinet Room at the White House in this Christmas season. It is a great pleasure to have as our special guest, as part of our millennium month, the ENTITY. Do you spend a lot of time-do you have a lot of Cabinet meetings? And I have a lot of other meetings in here, like with individual Cabinet members. I met this week with three or four different Cabinet members and extended staff here. So we have large meetings in here. This room is, like, right off the Oval Office? That is right, right off the Oval Office. Did they plan it that way so the ENTITY could run right in and meet with- how often do you have Cabinet meetings? I do not have too many full Cabinet meetings, because we have 23 members of the Cabinet plus Chief of Staff. So I have a few of those a year, when we have to do a review and get all geared into one issue or another. But I have a lot of meetings with various Cabinet officials in this room and with maybe more than one who are all working on a common project. We have a lot to talk about, and I want to get an overview as we look ahead to this millennium but cover some current things. That is the basis of the State Department yesterday-should we travel; should we stay home? We are told the Cabinet members have been asked to stay home or stay in Washington. The Cabinet members are staying here, but it is really just as a precaution, because we feel a high level of confidence about where we are with the Y2K problems. We have been working on this for years. We have spent a lot of money on it; we have tried to get all the private sector involved. All the big systems in this country, I think-airline travel, banking systems, electrical systems, Social Security checks-all those things I think are in good shape. We are here partly as a precaution and partly so, if any of our friends in other parts of the world have any trouble, we can all be there to give whatever help we can. And how about the terrorism threat, where people are asked to be careful, especially overseas, and we have these arrests occurring in Washington and Vermont? Well, what I would say to the American people about that is that we know that at the millennium, a lot of people who may even be a little crazy by our standards or may have a political point to make, may try to take advantage of it.

Interview With Larry King of CNN's Larry King Live


So we are on a heightened state of alert. We are working very hard on it. And my advice to the American people would be to go on about their business and do what they would intend to do at the holiday season but to be a little more aware of people and places where they find themselves. And if you see something suspicious, well, call us and let us know. We are working very, very hard on this. And if it were me, I would not just refrain from activities. I am going to go out and do my Christmas shopping. I am going to do what I normally do. Are you saying if you have a hunch about something, go to the hunch? If you have a hunch about something, if you see something that is suspicious, you should report it, just to make sure that we do everything we possibly can to maximize our protection. Colin Powell says that maybe by doing all this, you have scared them off. You know, if you make people fear the alert so much, that might cause terrorists to have a second thought. Well, they should have a second thought, because we are working it hard. Let us discuss some things political-one of your main-you know that. Do you agree with Al Gore's request to have debates? I do not want to get into handicapping the campaign. I think that the more debates they have, the better. I am very proud to be a member of my party when I see those two debate. They have their ideas. You know I favor the Vice President and not just because I feel personally loyal to him. I think he is been by light-years the best Vice President this country has ever had, by a long, long way. But I think the fact that he and Bill Bradley are out there talking about education; they are talking about health care; they are talking about biomedical research; and they know what they are talking about; and they have thought about these things-I think it is a very substantive, good thing. And that is what I think elections ought to be about, so I am proud of that. Were you surprised at the idea, though, to say, let us forget-you know, Goldwater and Kennedy were going to do that. I was intrigued by it. If someone had offered me that in 1992, I probably would have done it.


Yes, probably, because I think we need to find out whether we can have elections without the kind of money that they cost today, and we cannot have them without that kind of money unless people can have access, the candidates can have access to the voters. That is, what costs all the money is access to the voters. Barry Goldwater had told me that he and John Kennedy had arranged that if Goldwater would be the nominee in '64, had Kennedy lived, they were going to travel around together. And I'd like to see it happen in a general election. I do not think it is necessary for the voters to be for one person but think that the other person is a bad person. And I think it is very bad development in our politics. So if there could be a way to be more and more debates, not only now but in the general election, I think it would be a good thing for American democracy. I did three last time and three the time before, but I would have done six or seven or however many. I believe in this. You say, of course, you are supporting your Vice President. What do you think of Bill Bradley, though? Oh, I have known him for many years. I like him. He is had a very interesting life, and he is got an interesting take on things. Kennedy could run with Johnson. You picked a man from a neighboring State to run with you. Do you understand the difficulty of a Vice President running? But it gets easier as time goes on and people focus on it. But I think that, as I said, when Harry Truman became President, he did not even know about the atomic bomb. And we had already lost five or six Presidents in office by the time he became President. Both of them had responsibility in office. Then President Carter upped the ante more; Vice President Mondale had far more responsibility than anybody had before. President Reagan, to his credit, gave President Bush a lot of responsibility. But no Vice President has ever had the range of responsibility and the level of achievement, accordingly, that Al Gore has had, whether it was in our technology policy, our environmental policy, our foreign policy, the economic empowerment of poor areas. If something happened to you, there is not surprise we have to tell him?


There would be nothing- if something were to happen to me tonight, he could become President, and there would be nothing he would not know, no person he had not met, no issue he had not dealt with. We will be right back with the ENTITY, at this Christmas season. Speaking of debates, it was Vice President Gore's idea, we just reminded each other, to debate Perot. And I understand you were the only one here that agreed with that. They all thought there was a lot of downside to it. But I wish we had more debates in recent years on trade policy, because it is such a controversial thing. Everybody is for selling more of our exports. Everybody has the feeling, because we have a big trade deficit, that people take advantage of us. People are worried about losing their jobs, even though the unemployment rate is at a 30-year low. And I think we need to continue to debate this. I wish we had more of them. I hope there will be some trade debates in this election. Did Seattle throw you, ENTITY? I ask that because Governor Bush was with us last week, and he agrees completely with you on the trade issue, but he said he thought-I am paraphrasing-that you kind of copped out, that you did not forcefully attack those people who were demonstrating; you sort of rode the middle. Well, first of all, I attacked those who were violent in no uncertain terms. And I said to those who were demonstrating for a cleaner environment or for decent labor standards that I thought their concerns were legitimate but their opposition to the trade agreement was wrong. And that is what I believe. And I think that we are a little different on that. I mean, I strongly agree, and most Republicans that apparently agree with me that we ought to have expanded trade. We benefit, not just from the exports; we also benefit from the influence. You have got an- time, so do I. We benefit in that an open market enables us to grow and still have to compete, and that keeps inflation down.


One of the reasons-in February we are going to have the longest economic expansion in the history of the country, and we did it with three things We did it with getting rid of the debt-deficit; we did it with investing in technology and people; and we did it with opening our borders in trading and continuing to compete, because usually, when you have this kind of economic growth, inflation takes over and kills the recovery. But the difference between me and most Republicans is that I believe that globalization is inevitable. But people are scared of all this change, and what we have to do is to convince them that change can be their friend. And the way to do it is to say, Okay, we are going to compete, and we are going to win over the long run, and we are going to win in the short run. no forced labor, no child labor, no abusive working conditions. Did Seattle surprise you? I think-I knew there would be a lot of people there. I was surprised the first night at the level of violence. Who instigated it, you mean? Yes, throw rocks-there was just a very small percentage of those thousands of people who were doing this. There were probably a couple of hundred people who were prepared to throw rocks at stores and take other violent action. Most of them were there to express their opposition to some aspect or another of this process of globalization, but they cannot turn the clock back. The world is better off than it would have been if we had not had 50 years of increasing economic integration, and America has won big these last 7 years by being involved. And we are making a huge mistake, in my judgment, if we do not continue to both expand trade and work for better core labor standards in a better environment. Do the unions then not understand this? They are the biggest supporters your party has-the trade unions in America have been. If you look at Seattle, for example, there are 170,000 union members in and around Seattle. And most of them have jobs in part because their companies are so tied to trade. I went to York, Pennsylvania, the other day to the Harley Davidson motorcycle factory, something most-at least most guys and an increasing number of women can identify with. They have got a year's backlog, and 25 percent of the Harleys are sold overseas, and the biggest foreign market is now Japan, which makes the only competitors to Harley and motorcycles.


Some unions feel that their jobs might be undercut by the importation of textile or clothing goods or shoes or whatever, but on balance, we have won big as a country by opening our markets, showing we are not afraid to compete, and asking others to open their markets, too, to be fair, whether it is farmers or manufacturers or people in entertainment or people in the information technology business. Is it tough going into a last year? I ask that because we sat together here quite a few times. I remember once we were looking out, and you said to me, You know, my bad days are good days. I love this job. You love this job. And I will miss it. People ask me all the time, What will you miss most? Will it be living in the White House, going to Camp David, getting on Air Force One? The job is what I will miss most, the work. There is no place in the world where you can come in contact with so many different kinds of people and so many different kinds of issues and have so much opportunity to do good or stop bad things from happening. But the hard thing about it now is you want to do everything, and you have to be disciplined. You have to figure out what can I do? What can I put out there that the country ought to do that maybe cannot be done while I am here? I just want to do everything I can. We will be back with the working ENTITY right after this. A lot of them are saying it should be changed. What do you think? I tried to have a different policy. I tried to say gays should be able to serve in the military-- But if the military code of justice says that homosexual acts are illegal, if they keep it, then they'd have to observe that. But when we went to do not ask, do not tell, it was all we could get through the Congress. The Congress had a vetoproof majority to reverse the policy I recommended. Now a new administration and new Members of Congress, they are free to do something different. What we are doing now-in August, we issued some new guidelines to try to correct some of the abuses, because the policy, as it was articulated in '93, has been often abused, and that is what is led to some of these expulsions, some of this harassment. The Secretary of Defense is absolutely committed to faithfully implementing the policy.


It is really do not ask, do not tell, do not pursue, under those circumstances. No, I did not say that. I recommended a different policy, but the policy is better than the results. That is, if the policy were faithfully applied, we would not have many of the problems that we have had these last few years. And I think the Secretary of Defense and the leadership of the Pentagon is now- with these new guidelines and with the work they are doing to try to make sure people are trained and they understand they are not supposed to go in and harass people and what can and cannot trigger an inquiry, I think we can make it better now. How much-we know about your interest and the gains we have made in the racial area and still a long way to go. How are we doing in that area, in the homosexual area in this country, with regards to acceptance, do you think? We are a long way from where we were just in '92 and '93. I think vast majorities of the American people support hate crimes legislation that protects gays as well as people with different racial and religious backgrounds. I think most Americans strongly support nondiscrimination in the workplace and would vote for the employment nondiscrimination act if they were in Congress. I hope that the Congress will vote for it this year, this next year. I think that-the real problem, I still believe, is the absence of open, personal contact. We do not know it-- I think there are too many people who do not know gay men and lesbian women in the ordinary course of their lives, and they do not see that there are people who- their friends, their sisters, their brothers, their sons, their daughters, their co-workers, and that it is-my judgment is it is not a lifestyle people choose. I think that-and I think that my view is that every American that works hard, obeys the law, plays by the rules ought to be treated with dignity and respect and have a part in our American family. That is what I believe. Do you agree with the Vermont judiciary that while marriage may be wrong, they are entitled, couples who live together who are gay, to equal benefits? That is always been my position, that- you have got gay couples that, for example, have been together for years now.


One of them- and I am beginning to think about this, because I am moving into this age bracket now; one of them has a heart attack; one of them gets sick; one of them is in the intensive care unit in the hospital; and only family members can come in; and sometimes they are not allowed in-that kind of thing. You know, I think that, in terms of health care coverage at work or in terms of property and willing of property to your closest family member, that sort of thing, I think they ought to be able to do that. Well, marriage in our culture and to me has a certain connotation, meaning for me, that has not gotten me to where I could accept that, because I think it is basically a union for the purpose of, among other things, having children, and so that is why I have never supported the term of marriage, although there are a lot of increasing numbers of people, even in the clergy, who believe that they should be able to do that. We will be back with more of ENTITY. We have got an overview here on the millennium and some other things after this. We are in the Cabinet Room at the White House with ENTITY. The Washington Post said that you are applying to the Government to reimburse for legal fees. I have never-I have never considered doing that. So where did that story come from? I think it was leaked from the Independent Counsel's Office. That is the way the story read to me. I think that they have cost the taxpayers enough money already. I may be entitled to it, but my instinct is not to do it. But I have really never had a discussion about it. My instinct is not to do it. I have had this legal defense fund; people have helped me pay for my legal fees. The travesty in this thing is the way the law is written. You can only get your legal fees if you are a target of an investigation but you are not charged. So if you are charged and acquitted, you cannot get them, and if you never were a target, you cannot get them. So the thing that I think is just tragic is you have no idea how many completely innocent people that were harassed repeatedly and called into hearings and called into this, that, and the other thing.


Everybody knew they never did anything wrong, but I mean, not just one interview which you could understand but over and over and over again, so that they have these massive legal bills, and they are not eligible for any reimbursement at all. So I have been trying to figure out how to help them pay their legal bills. That is what I wish I could apply for. I wish there was some fund where I could get some money for them to pay their bills, because a lot of these people, they are not President; they are not like me; they cannot have a legal defense fund that would pay their bills off. How did you emotionally hold up through all that? Is that part of your structure? Where does that come from? One is what you said. If somebody hits you and knocks you down, you were supposed to get up, not give up. And I also deeply believed- one thing I knew, the Whitewater thing was a total fraud, and I thought the people who were pursuing it knew it was a fraud at some point . They had to, especially 4-something years ago, when the Government report came out, the RTC report saying that neither my wife or I had done anything wrong and had detailed millions of dollars in explanations showing that. The other thing was that I am -in the last couple of years, I had to come to terms with a lot of things. I prayed a lot; I thought a lot; I sought a lot of advice. I had a lot of help from really good people, here and around the world. A lot of the people I served with, world leaders, called and talked to me. Are you surprised at that? I was touched by it beyond belief. Some of the conversations I had with people like Nelson Mandela, I have carried with me all my life. They were there for you? And that was part of the-- But here-but also, letters I got from, you know, kids around America. You would not believe the letters I got from-- And letters I got from religious leaders and people that taught philosophy and thought about these things. It was just-and I also had a lot of counseling, a lot of help from these ministers who came in and met with me, and my wife and daughter had a lot to do with it Hillary and Chelsea had a lot to do with it.


Are you hurt by the Dick Morrises, the Stephanopouloses who write books, who write columns, become part of the media sometimes, in Morris's case, often a very critical- a guy you were pretty close to? Does that hurt you? Well, first of all, I am very grateful for the overwhelming loyalty that I have enjoyed from people who could have made a lot of money by dumping on me because that is what sells and the kind of media culture they were in. And I have enjoyed an extraordinary degree of it. I have also had a lot of stability. A lot of people have stayed with me the whole time. So let me start with my gratitude. When Dick first started going on television and saying those things, he used to call somebody here in the office and apologize in advance and just say, You know, I have got to do this. It is the only way I can get on television. I know that. And so it is hard for me to take it seriously. I think that a lot of the things that he has said, he knows downright are not true, and I feel bad for him because I think you pay a terrible price when you do that over and over and over again. You feel bad for him? I feel really bad for him. And he is said a lot of things that he just knows are not so. And so I feel badly for him. But I do not -I cannot be mad at him. With George, it is a different story. But when George entered politics, he entered as a boy wonder. He came right in with Dick Gephardt, you know, and he assumed great responsibilities because he is a person of-he works like crazy, and he is smart, and he is basically good-hearted in a lot of ways. I remember when I was attacked in the New Hampshire primary, and everybody said, He is dead, and he ought to get out, and all that, George was asking, Well, should we withdraw? And James Carville and I, who grew up in the country, you know, out there with the folks, we looked at him and said, George, if the people want me to withdraw, they will withdraw me at election time. That is what you have got elections for. And I think that-I think he is probably more comfortable now being a part of the professional critics of the Washington establishment, the media establishment.


That is where he started in politics, and I think that is just where he is. Do those pundits in general bother-do they get at you? Some guy-Truman wrote that famous note when he got mad. I have got that note, you know. You have the actual note? One of the great little stories of my Presidency is Steve Forbes gave me that letter that Truman wrote. I have always been grateful to him. SOB he called that writer. Yes, he said, You will need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a --- Do you ever watch ENTITY Live or Meet The Press or somebody-do you get mad? No, the truth is I never watch them. I never watch the Sunday talk shows. And the only time I ever see any of these other programs is if I am channel surfing late at night and I happen to run into them. I watch your program sometimes when you are interviewing somebody I want to hear from. But basically, you do not turn on Meet The Press or And if I did, what good would that do me? If someone-if I read a column, like an op-ed column, of someone who says, I think the ENTITY administration policy is all wet on this for these reasons, I read that, because Benjamin Franklin said, Our critics are our friends. They show us our faults. But I cannot-you cannot afford to be angry as ENTITY. If you are angry all the time over things people say about you-you can be angry about what happens to the American people. But if you are angry about what happens to you, then you are wasting a lot of time and emotional energy that belongs to the American people. And you are not going to make good decisions. So nothing really good can come with that. You really feel like an employee of the people? We will be back with some more moments with ENTITY from the Cabinet Room in the White House. We are back with ENTITY. I want to read something that was given to me today. The last time-not the last time, we have been together many times, but the night Vince Foster died, you were on television together, in this building. We were the last two to know about it. We were going to go another half hour, and McLarty came on and said, You cannot do it.


But anyway, that aside, the last question to you that night was called in by someone asking you, even though you had only been a year, less than a year in office, what do you think your legacy will be? I will be happy to tell you. Number two, I'd like to provide health security for all Americans. Number three, I want my national service plan to pass to open doors of college education to millions of Americans. Number four, I strongly want to pass a welfare reform bill that will move people from welfare to work. And five, I want to reform the political system. Reading this, how have you done? And we have made-we have done some really good things in health care; we just have not been able to have universal access. And I finally got-I am very proud of this- we had 100 percent of my party vote for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. So we now have unified the Democratic Party for our campaign finance reform, and it is just a question of whether the other party will come along now. We have done a lot of other things as well, and we have been able to advance the cause of peace in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, the Balkans. I am sorry we were not able to have more progress in health care, but we may have some this year. The main thing is I feel this enormous gratitude because I think our country is ending this century on such a high note, and I really do think we built our bridge to the 21st century. And are you going to campaign for Hillary? But I think that there is a time for that. I think in the beginning people want to know who she is, what she believes, what she will do as a Senator, and they will want to see her. And I need to be as supportive of her as I can. There will come a time when I can perhaps help her in the campaign. The people of New York have been wonderful to me, and I am very grateful for that. But they want to make an independent judgment about her, so I have to be careful about when I do it and how I do it. But if and when I can help, I will do whatever I can to help, because first of all, for her, I want her to win. It would be such a gift for the people of New York and America.


As you know, there is a lot of mistrust in the country about what the government does, why it does it. On Friday, the SEC, headed by a chair you appointed, accused Goldman Sachs of securities fraud just as the financial regulation reform debate was heating up in the Senate. What do you say to people out there who say there was something fishy and political about that? Well, what I'd say is that I gave a speech about financial regulatory reform in 2007 before our current crisis, in 2008, before we fully knew what this crisis was going to be. We released financial reform as a package over a year ago. And so we are not Johnny-come-latelies to this thing. We have been pushing this hard throughout. And the SEC is an entirely independent agency that we have no day-to-day control over. And they have never discussed with us anything with respect to the charge that will be brought. So this notion that somehow there would be any attempt to interfere in an independent agency is completely false. So you can say categorically, no winks, no heads up in advance, no signal from anyone? We found out about it on CNBC. In the 2008 campaign, you got a lot of money, about $1 million from employees of Goldman Sachs. Your former White House counsel Greg Craig is apparently going to represent Goldman Sachs. In light of this case, do either of those things embarrass you? First of all, I got a lot of money from a lot of people. And the vast majority of the money I got was from small donors all across the country. And moreover, anybody who gave me money during the course of my campaign knew that I was on record, again, in 2007, 2008, pushing very strongly that we needed to reform how Wall Street did business. And so nobody should be surprised in the position that I am taking now, because it is one that I was very clear about during the course of the campaign. As far as my former White House counsel Greg Craig, he is one of the top lawyers in the country. He has a range of clients. But we have the toughest ethics rules that any president has ever had. And the one thing that he knows is is that he cannot talk to the White House, he cannot lobby the White House. Once he left the White House, he cannot in any way use his former position to have any influence on us.

Interview With John Harwood of CNBC


And so neither of those things, I think, are going to have any bearing on how we move forward on this issue of Wall Street reform. But the circumstance of him representing Goldman Sachs in this case, in light of the federal action, is not a problem in itself. He is a top lawyer who is being hired to deal with an investigation that is ongoing. Let me ask you a broader question about Wall Street. Should average Americans think about big Wall Street institutions the way that some come to think about tobacco companies? That is, companies whose core activities are harmful to the country? I think that, and I have said this repeatedly, we have to have a thriving financial sector, because, essentially, part of what is made America so successful is our ability, if we have got a dream and we want to go get some financing for the next Apple computer, the next iPod, the next, you know, invention out there, that we are able to go and get investors to finance our dream and make it happen. So we have got to have a thriving and effective financial sector. But we also have to have basic rules of the road in place to make sure that investors, consumers, shareholders, the economy as a whole are protected against excess, are protected against wild gambles that are taken purely because it is good for somebody's year-end bonus as opposed to because there is some economic function that actually contributes to society as a whole. And I think that throughout our history, there have been times where the financial sector swung way out of balance. That is part of what happened back in the 1930s and 1929 after the crash, and FDR came in place and said, we are going to set up some rules so that we do not have bank runs, so that there is not wild speculation. We have gotten into one of those places where we need to update those rules of the road. And if we do so, not only is that good for the economy, not only does it protect consumers and investors, it is also good for the financial sector, because it will rebuild trust, and people will have confidence that when they are dealing with banks, when they are dealing with these institutions, that they in fact are playing it straight, above board, and they are competing on the basis of who is providing the best services and the best products as opposed to who is got the most creative accounting rules or who is able to concoct the wildest derivatives that may serve no economic function whatsoever

Interview With John Harwood of CNBC


Some of the institutions and their lobbyists do not seem to think it would be so good for them. They have made out very well under a regime in which, when things were going well, they were making huge profits. And when things did not go well and everything crashed, taxpayers were left footing the bill. I, and I think a vast majority of Americans, think it is unacceptable to have a situation in which tails you win and heads I lose. And taxpayers have been put in the position where they had to make a choice a couple of years ago, either we let the entire economy crash because of irresponsibility on Wall Street, or alternatively we end up having to pony up money. The core of the Wall Street reforms that we are proposing is to make sure, number one, that we do not have to bail out firms if they acted recklessly, that we can unwind them in an orderly fashion that protects the economy as a whole and taxpayers are not on the hook. Number two, that instruments like derivatives, very complicated instruments that are hugely leveraged and can put everybody at risk -- what Warren Buffett called financial weapons of mass destruction -- that those are all put in an exchange, in a clearinghouse so that everybody knows exactly what is going on. And again, taxpayers are not on the hook. And that we have got very strong consumer protections so that we do not have people being fooled or tricked into instruments that end up putting in a very difficult financial situation and erode the health of the economy as a whole. When you spoke in New York a few months ago to a lot of those Wall Street executives, you urged them, even in the absence of a law, to take to heart the need to change the way they do business. Have they done that? I mean, look, I think that you do not want to paint with too broad a brush. I do think that there is a sense of, now that the crisis is over, let us go back to business as usual. And what I have been saying consistently is, we have to change business as usual so that financial institutions are still making a profit, they are still providing excellent service to companies, there is still innovation, there is still dynamism. We want to make sure that the core functions in the free market are working, but that we do not find ourselves in the kind of crisis situation that we found ourselves in a year and a half ago.

Interview With John Harwood of CNBC


Sometimes with all the rhetoric, which is pretty strong on both sides, it is hard to sort out the actual disagreements on policy. Your side, you have said that the other side is trying to weaken the legislation at the behest of special-interest lobbyists. Senator Lincoln proposed derivatives rules that went further than what your administration proposed. Does that mean that your administration in the first instance knuckled under to a special-interest lobbyist? This has to do with derivatives, the issue that I just raised. And the core principle that I have put forward is that when you have got these complex financial instruments, they should be in a clearinghouse, an exchange, like the stock market, where taxpayers are not on the hook if one party in that situation goes belly up, that the other financial players are the ones who are covering any losses, that everybody knows exactly what is going on. And if we had that kind of transparency, then those things can potentially serve a function. United Airlines can hedge against buying fuel, because they do not know what oil prices are going to be like six months from now. So as long as we have got that kind of transparency and accountability, then we are meeting that core principle. What about that financial institutions can own those derivatives? I think Senator Lincoln has a range of good proposals in terms of derivatives. I think what we put forward met that core principle. And I am confident that what we are going to see in the next several weeks is a bill that, at the end, enshrines that principle, that if you are going to operate with derivatives, you have got to make sure that you are an open book, everybody knows what is going on, and we are not going to see a replication of the kinds of crises that we have seen before. Let us talk about taxes. You have got to have a tax bill this year; otherwise, when those Bush tax cuts expire, taxes will go up for everybody. Is there any way that you would accept, either on a temporary basis or a partial temporary basis, the preservation of some of those Bush tax cuts for the top end? I do not think we can afford it. Look, I just paid my taxes, and I had a pretty healthy bill. I am sympathetic to the fact that people would prefer paying fewer taxes.

Interview With John Harwood of CNBC


That is part of the reason why, as part of the Recovery Act, we cut taxes for 98 percent of working families, because we thought it was important in a recession to make sure people got a little bit of help. But as we go forward, if we are going to be fiscally disciplined, we have got to do two things. We have got to cut programs that are not working and show the strength. And that is why, for example, I put a three-year freeze on discretionary spending, something that previous presidents had not done, because we have got to hold the line on spending. And I have proposed a range of cuts on all kinds of things. So if Congress sent you a bill extending tax cuts to any extent for those above 250,000, you'd veto it? Well, I am not going to get into vetoes right now. What I will tell you is that it is sensible for us to say that if you make more than $250,000 a year, going back to the tax rates that existed under Bill Clinton are perfectly fair. For us to extend them would mean hundreds of billions of dollars of lost revenue at a time when everybody says we have got to make sure that we are dealing with our deficit. Well, speaking of the deficit, in early 2011, some of your advisers think it is time with the economy getting better for a serious assault on the deficit. Should Americans think of your promise not to raise taxes for anyone under $200,000 as lasting for the entirety of your presidency, you would never accept tax increases for that group? Or is it something for the initial phase of your presidency, now you take account again of where the deficit is and make a different decision? Over the last decade, the wages and incomes of ordinary families have flat-lined at best. So middle-class families have been seeing a bigger and bigger burden as health-care costs go up, college costs go up. And the fact of the matter is is that their wages and incomes fail to match up. So they needed some help, they needed some relief. That is why I wanted to cut taxes for them. Where you have seen huge growth of incomes and wages is at the top end. That is why I think letting the Bush tax cuts phase out made some sense.

Interview With John Harwood of CNBC


Now, the thing I did not anticipate up until a few months before my election was the fact that we were going to be in such a deep crisis that I'd be inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, $8 trillion worth of accumulated national debt that we are going to have to deal with. And that is why I have appointed this bipartisan fiscal commission to give me recommendations in terms of, how do we deal with this in a serious way moving forward. So in effect, that changes the terms of your promise in the campaign, because of that worsening deficit situation? I believe that we should be able to solve this problem without putting a burden on middle-class families. I believe that we should be able to make sure that we do not burden middle-class families further. Having said that, I am also going to wait for the fiscal commission to provide me what their best recommendations are. Because the one thing that I think all of us agree on is that we are currently on an unsustainable path, and that means that we are going to have to have a tax system that works better for everybody and is simplified. That means that we have got to get control of entitlement reform. And by the way, health-care reform went a long way towards doing that. But we are also going to have to look at Social Security and the other aspects of entitlements. It means that we are going to have to cut out waste in the system. But at a certain point, what we have got to do is match up money going out and money coming in. And right now, we have got a huge structural debt that I inherited and that the recession made worse. We are going to have to solve that. And that means that I do not want to pre-judge what this commission is going to come up with. I want to take a look and see what they propose. If reducing consumption is a good idea, could you see the potential for a value-added tax in this country? You know, I know that there is been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries, it is something that would be novel for the United States. And before, you know, I start saying this makes sense or that makes sense, I want to get a better picture of what our options are.

Interview With John Harwood of CNBC


And my first priority is to figure out, how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide, and then we decide, how do we pay for that, as opposed to figuring out how much money can we raise, and then not have to make some tough choices on the spending side. You say you are going to pick a Supreme Court choice by the end of May. You have got a lot of qualified candidates out there, but some would provoke bigger fights than others because of legal decisions, things they have written, their personal background, whatever. Are you taking account of the size of the fight that a nominee would propose in making your selection, given all the other things you are trying to do? I think the main thing I am thinking about was true when I selected Justice Sotomayor, is, who can do a great job on the court? Who can look at a range of really complicated issues and adhere to the law and fidelity to the Constitution? But who is also somebody who has the kind of life experience so that they understand how their decisions are impacting ordinary people? And you are right, we have got some terrific candidates. I am confident in the next couple of weeks we are going to be able to make a decision, and it is going to be somebody who will be confirmable, that I think both conservative and liberals, you know, who are familiar with these individual's legal background will say are imminently qualified for the court. And I expect a smooth confirmation process. Some people think you are a little cocky sometimes, so I am going to invite you to be self-critical. You have seen all aspects of the presidency -- the demands, private persuasion, public communication, decision-making. What do you think are the aspects of the job you are best suited for? What do you need to get better at? And how might that change your approach to the job? Well, you know, this last year and a half has been, I think, by any historical standard, a pretty exceptional year and a half, where we have had to make some very tough decisions very quickly in less-than-optimal conditions. You had an economy that was crashing, we had to make some very fast decisions. Some of those decisions were very unpopular. When I look at what we have done well, I think the core decisions we have made have been the right ones.

Interview With John Harwood of CNBC


Tonight we are going to illuminate the bridge in blue because blue is my father's favorite color. And I think it'll put a smile on his face. In terms of having concerns about people coming here from other states, are there anything, sort of protocols, you can put in place? I know it is much harder to do by people traveling by car, but is there anything the state can do to really make sure there is not- What other states did, if you remember in the beginning, when they were afraid of New Yorkers going there, they did a mandatory quarantine. That if New Yorkers traveled to their state, they had to quarantine for two weeks. We are not there yet, but it is just a great point of irony that when we start this situation, the other states said, No, we do not want New Yorkers coming here. Federal government was talking about blockading New York and not allowing New Yorkers to leave. That is what they were talking about. Now, it would have been illegal, unconstitutional, and it would have started a civil war, but I do not know that any of those things is ever stopped the federal government before. They wanted to blockade New York. The other states wanted to make sure no New Yorkers went to their state. We have the lowest infection rate. And my health officials are saying, We hope people from Florida do not come here. How many businesses did you call and what kind of reception did you get? What kind of reception did you get from business owners that you called about shutting down and staying shut down? People send me texts and videos and pictures. And they were sending me texts and videos of particular restaurants and bars at particular times. We got over 25,000 complaints from people, which is a very interesting phenomenon, by the way. We have never gotten 25,000 complaints. Sometimes when I say something really absurd, but not even 25,000. So now they see a business doing the wrong thing, they snap a picture, right? Everybody has a phone and a camera. They snap a picture. They are doing complaints, 25,000 complaints. Some of them actually text them to me. So I made a few phone calls and said to restaurant owners, bar owners, What are you doing? We have the guidelines. I am looking at a picture of your establishment taken 25 minutes ago. I am looking at a picture of your establishment, taken 25 minutes ago, and people are violating everything.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo June 15 Press Conference Transcript


You are violating the rules. What are you doing? And look, the state is going to enforce the rules, the state licenses bars and restaurants for a liquor license, state liquor authority. You can lose your liquor license. You lose your liquor license, that is serious. So I just wanted to make sure they knew the laws and the rules. I wanted to make sure they knew that the state was going to be sending out inspectors. And even their patrons do not respect it. The people of the state know what they did. They know the sacrifice they made over 106 days to get that virus down. And they do not want anyone's irresponsibility to jeopardize that. I have been with people, somebody walks by does not have a mask, they are outraged. There are a lot of conscientious people who paid a very high price, did the right thing and they do not want other people ruining it for them. What kind of response did you get from business owners? They would say, We told people. Was their best response, but what does that mean? We told people? They are your patrons, in your establishment, you are responsible. ENTITY, how would social distancing be enforced on the bike path? Like any other path, like any other park, stay six feet apart when you cannot wear a mask. Do you want to answer, ENTITY? As an example today, when we opened the path, we are going to have staff all across the shared use path to make sure reinforcing that people need to stay socially distancing. We also have signage out there as well. ENTITY, Kiryas Joel confirmed to us that several private schools have reopened under the phase two religious gathering allowance. We have also have videos of dozens of kids going in, buses with backpacks and masks. There is also another video we got a huge wedding at KJ last weekend with hundreds in attendance. Orange County says Kiryas Joel is in state's police's jurisdiction, why is not state police enforcing your executive order? Well, first, local governments have the primary responsibility for enforcement. And I have said a number of times, local governments have to do their job. I have taken responsibility for every bad decision and every unpopular decision, right? I am the one who sets all these rules. Everybody's angry at me. The one thing I need the local government to do is actually enforce them.


Now, they do not want to enforce them because they are not popular. Nobody wants to go to the bar and say, you guys have to wear a mask. You guys, guys being gender neutral, are violating the social distancing. I get it. But they have to do their job. Any religious group, any community, they have to do their job. If they need backup help by the state police because they cannot handle it, then we will provide state police backup help, but they have to do their job. I cannot use the state police everywhere in this state. We do not have enough state police. I need the local governments to do their job. One more then we are going to cut a ribbon. Hey, ENTITY, in chatting with any of the restaurant owners or bar owners about lack of social distancing and not wearing masks, did any of them counter to you by saying, Well, where is your call on your request to the protestors who had been gathering and not really social distancing and in some cases wearing masks? Should not the rules be the same for the protestors as they are for the bar owners and restaurant owners? They did not say that because they listened to my briefings. And because I have said to the protestors on a number of occasions, you should be wearing masks. And by the way, I said to the police, you should be wearing masks, even on a symbolic level. You want other people to comply with the law, you are going to enforce the law, adhere to the law. ENTITY, can you give us your impression of the bridge path. And do you think it will have an impact on the black Rockland economy? I think, and I will ask ENTITY to chime in because he sees it more closely. I think the bridge has had a tremendous positive impact on the entire regional economy. It is better for the environment. It is saving money. People are coming to restaurants, et cetera, just to see the bridge, especially before this ENTITY situation. There are other pedestrian passes on the Hudson that attract people just to walk over the Hudson. They are just a pedestrian path and people, by the thousands, go just to walk over the Hudson. Here, you can walk over the Hudson on a beautiful bridge, you can see New York City to the South, the Hudson Valley to the North.


We appreciate you taking the time, and we appreciate your commitment to answer our questions. We really appreciate that. Over the years, I have heard you talk about your adherence to a philosophy called positive thinking. Is this the mantra that if you believe something, if you visualize it, then it will happen? I also think in terms of the downside. I have been given a lot of credit for positive thinking, but I also think about downside because only a fool does not . To what extent do you think that that positive thinking mindset is suitable to handling the worst pandemic that we have seen in a century? I think you have to have a positive outlook. Otherwise, you would have nothing without a positive outlook. I think we have done an incredible job, between the ventilators and stopping very infected people from China coming in, meaning putting the ban on China, which frankly nobody wanted me to do, practically nobody because it was very early in January. When you put a ban on Europe, that is a big thing. We would have probably lost hundreds of thousands of lives more had I not done that. And all of the experts, every one of them, not one of them wanted to do it. Three months later, they are all saying, I am glad you did it. The criticism of you that is most prominent, is about the communication. It is the public health experts saying that it needs to be based in reality. And they are saying that the wishful thinking and the salesmanship is just not suitable in a time when the pandemic has killed 145,000 Americans. And I understand what you are saying, that people need to hear positive thinking, but for the past five months it is been, the virus is totally under control, and the cases have been going up and the deaths have been going up. But you have been saying it is under control. Nobody knew what this thing was all about. 1917, but it was a totally different, it was a flu in that case. And by the way, if you watch the fake news on television, they do not even talk about it. But you know, there are 188 of the countries right now that are suffering, some proportionately far greater than we are. Right now, right now, Spain is having a big spike. You look at Moscow, look at what is going on with Moscow. Look at Brazil, look at these countries what is going on.

Donald Trump Interview Transcript With Jonathan Swan of Axios on HBO


This was sent to us by China, one way or the other, and we are never going to forget it. Believe me, we are never going to forget it. And we were beating China at every single point. We were beating them on trade, we were making progress like nobody's ever made progress. Before the pandemic, they had the worst year, Jonathan, that they have had in 67 years. You know that. With the tariffs and everything else I did, we would taking in billions of dollars. I was giving some of it to the farmers. The farmers were doing well because they were targeting the farmers, I was targeting China. Then all of a sudden, the game changed, and I had to close it down. I closed down the greatest economy ever in history. And then, I closed it down. And now we are opening it. And we saved, by the way, by closing it down, we saved millions of lives. If we would have gone to herd and we knew very little about the disease, if we would've gone herd, we would have lost millions of people, millions of people. We are at 140,000 people. We are at 140. We would have lost millions of people. And those people that really understand it, they really understand it. They said, it is incredible the job that we have done. And again, I bring it up, the ban- Who says that? By the time you banned China, it came in through Europe. Nobody knew the extent. But the question is, Mr. President, by June we knew things were bad. And the last time I was with you was the day before your Tulsa rally in the Oval, and you were saying big, huge crowd, it was endorsed. These people, they listen to you. By the way, Excuse me, Jonathan, we had a 19,000 seat stadium and first of all, we had 12,000 people, not 6,000, which you reported and other people reported. It was like an armed camp. Because they had 120 Black Lives Matter people there and Tulsa- I understand but why would you have wanted a huge crowd? And Tulsa, well, because that area was a very good area at the time. That is a month later, but Tulsa was a very good, Oklahoma was doing very well as a state. We had a tremendous crowd, we had tremendous response. It was like an armed camp. You could not get anybody in.


But we had 12,000 people. The other thing we had that nobody wants to talk about, so Fox broadcast it. It was the highest rating in the history of Fox television Saturday night. You are saying something. That speech was the highest rated speech in the history of Fox television on Saturday night. And nobody says that. I think you misunderstand me. I am not criticizing your ability to draw a crowd. Are you kidding me? I have covered you for five years. You draw massive crowds. You get huge ratings. I am asking about the public health I am just saying this. I am just saying this. At the time And I canceled another one. I had to cancel it and we were going to have a great crowd in New Hampshire, and I canceled it for the same reason. I have covered you for a long time. I have gone to your rallies. I have talked to your people. They love you. They listen to you. They listen to every word you say, they hang on your every word. They do not listen to me or the media or Fauci. They want to get their advice from you. And so, when they hear you say, everything's under control, do not worry about wearing masks. I mean, these are people, many of them are older people, Mr. President. Well, what is your definition of control? It is giving them a false sense of security. Under the circumstances right now, I think it is under control. I will tell you what- But that does not mean we are not doing everything we can. It is under control as much as you can control it. This is a horrible plague that beset us. You really think this is as much as we can control it? Well, I will tell you, I'd like to know if somebody First of all, we have done a great job. We have gotten the governors everything they needed, they did not do their job. Many of them did not and some of them did. We will talk about the successful ones, the good ones. We had good and bad. And we had a lot in the middle, but we had some incredible governors. I could tell you right now who the great ones are and who the not so great ones are, but the governors do it. We gave them massive amounts of material. President, you changed your message this week, in terms of you canceled the Jacksonville convention, you said, Wear a mask.


You are saying that, It is going to get worse before it gets better. And you said that. You understand that. If I could just finish my question. The question is, even some of your own aides wonder whether you would stick to that message until Election Day, whether in a week or two, you will not say, Right, we have got to reopen again. We cannot do this stuff anymore. That you will get bored of talking about the virus and go back to that sort of cheerleading. I never get bored of talking about this, it is too big a thing. So will you stick to that message? And again, it should have been stopped by China, and it was not . We have it here. We have 140,000 people at this moment. And what you have to do, is handle it the best it can be handled. And again, I am working with the governors. I got them tremendous amounts of equipment that they would have never gotten. Jonathan, they would not have equipment now, if I did not get. When can you commit, by what date, that every American will have access to the same day testing that you get here in the White House? Well, we have great testing. Let me explain the testing. We have tested more people than any other country, than all of Europe put together times two. We have tested more people than anybody ever thought of. India has 1.4 billion people. They have done 11 million tests. We have done 55, it'll be close to 60 million tests. And there are those that say, you can test too much. You do know that. Who says that? What testing does- What testing does, it shows cases. Nobody has done it like we have done it. We have gotten absolutely no credit for it. But we have come up with so many different tests. The only thing that we have now is some people have to wait longer than we'd like them to. We want it- We want point to point. We want to have a five minute to a 15 minute test. Every American-   And, from what I understand, we are close to 50% where it is point to point tests. We are making thousands of instruments, thousands of tests right now, tens of thousands that can be distributed to various parts of the country. And we have even sent some of them to other countries where they had a big problem.


Jonathan, almost 50%, in fact, I think the number might be over, is immediate testing. You take a test. You have to send it to a laboratory. Let us say that takes a day. There is nothing you can do about that. But when do you think you will have it for everyone? I think that you will have that relatively soon. What does that mean? You already have half. I would much rather get back to you. Because I do not want to have you write in one month, I did not make it. I missed it by a day. I get it. President, I want to talk about the federal intervention. One thing I would say about testing. Because we test so much, we show cases. So, we show many, many cases. We show tremendous number of cases. I know you are smiling when I say that, but I am telling you. Well, I mean, I have heard you say this. So, they do not show case. I was not going to continue on the testing, but you said it. So, we are testing so much because it is spread so far in America. We are testing so much because we had the ability to test. Because we came up with test- Jonathan, we did not even have a test. When I took over, we did not even have a test. Why would you have a test? We did not have a test because there was no test. And, in a very short order, we got one test. We got another test. We got another. Many of those tests are now obsolete because it is called science. But, because we tested so many people, 55, 60 million people, very soon, we get cases. Some kid has even just a little runny nose. And then, you report many cases. So, we look like we have more cases than massive countries like China, which by the way, does not report, as you know. Well, I do not put any stock in China's figures. The point is, because we are so much better at testing than any other country in the world, we show more cases. If you look at death- And, if you look at death per- Well, right here, United States is lowest in numerous categories. We are lower than the world. We are lower than Europe. What does that mean? Oh, you are doing death as a proportion of cases. I am talking about death as a proportion of population.


That is where the U.S. is really bad, much worse than South Korea, Germany, et cetera. You cannot do that. Why cannot I do that? You have to go by the cases. What it says is, when you have somebody where there is a case- The people that live from those cases. It is surely a relevant statistic to say, if the U.S. has X population and X percentage of death of that population versus South Korea- Because you have to go by the cases. You do not know that. You do not know that. You think they are faking their statistics, South Korea? I will not get into that because I have a very good relationship with the country. But you do not know that. And they have spikes. You take the number of cases. I do not know what we are first in. We have the best. And we have cases because of the testing. I understand on the cases, it is different. No, but you are not reporting it correctly, Jonathan. If you take a look at this other chart look, this is our testing. We do more tests. Well, do not we get credit for that? And, because we do more tests, we have more cases. In other words, we test more. We have now, take a look. You deserve to be praised for testing. Plus, 60,000 Americans are in hospital, 1,000 dying a day. If you watch the news or read the papers, they usually talk about new cases, new cases, new cases. I am talking about death. Well, you look at death. It went down to 500. It is gone down in Arizona. It is going down in Florida. It is going down in Texas. It is going down in Florida? That is my report, as of yesterday. Anyway, Mr. President, if I could change subjects. It is going down in Arizona. It is gong down in Texas. Texas has big problems. It spiked and is now going down in Florida. It is evened out and going down in Florida. I will have to see those figures. But you have to look at this. This is the number of tests compared to the rest of the world. I do not deny your figures. You have done more tests by far than the rest of the world. I do not deny that. And, because we have done more tests, we have more cases. You have more infections.


Now, you can take them back. President, different subject, it is been widely reported that the U.S. has intelligence indicating that Russia paid bounties or offered to pay bounties to Taliban fighters to kill American soldiers. You had a phone call with Vladimir Putin on July 23rd. Did you bring up this issue? That was a phone call to discuss other things. I think a lot of people. If you look at some of the wonderful folks from the Bush Administration, some of them, not any friends of mine, were saying that it is a fake issue. But a lot of people said, it is a fake issue. But we had a call. We had a call talking about nuclear proliferation. Which is a very big subject where they would like to do something. We discussed numbers things. We did not discuss that. And you have never discussed it with him. I have never discussed it with him. I'd have no problem with it. But you do not believe the intelligence. It is because you do not believe the intelligence. Nobody ever brings up China. They always bring Russia, Russia, Russia. If we can do something with Russia in terms of nuclear proliferation, which is a very big problem. A much bigger problem than global warming in terms of the real world, that would be a great thing. It never reached my desk. It was in your written brief though about it. If it reached my desk, I would have done something about it. It never reached my desk because- Do you read your written brief? I read it a lot. I read a lot. I read a lot. You read your daily intelligence brief? I comprehend extraordinarily well, probably better than anybody that you have interviewed in a long time. I read a lot. I spend a lot of time at meetings. Because this was apparently in your- The world is a very angry place, if you look all over the world. I see a 22 soldiers were killed in India with China fighting over the border. It is been raging for many, many decades. I have so many briefings on so many different countries, but this one did not reach my desk. The reason I say this is, even if you do not believe this particular piece of intelligence, and there is dispute, no doubt, there is dispute in the intelligence committee about it, John Nicholson, former head of forces in Afghanistan said, and this is when he was working for you, that Russia is supplying weapons to the Taliban.


Is not that enough to challenge Putin over the killings of U.S. soldiers? Well, we sold them weapons when they were fighting Russia too. When they were fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan- I am just saying we did that too. I did not ask Nicholson about that. He was there for a long time. Did not have great success because he was there before me. And then, ultimately, I made a change. But you surely heard that. I mean, it is well known in the intelligence community, that they are arming the Taliban, Russia. Russia is supplying weapons and money to the Taliban. I have heard that but, again, it is never reached my desk. I mean, he said it on the record when he was in- Hey, Russia does not want anything to do with Afghanistan. Let me just say about Russia. Because of Afghanistan, they went bankrupt. The last thing that Russia wants to do is get too much involved with Afghanistan. They tried that once. And by the way, we are largely out of Afghanistan, as you probably know. Well, I wanted to ask you about that. The US troop level in Afghanistan right now is roughly the same as it was when you- We will be down in a very short It is already planned. We will be down in a very short period of time to 8,000, then we are going to be down to 4,000. We have been there for 19 years. But if you just let me finish my question. You boosted to 14,000, and now you are back down to 8,500. We will be at 4,000. I will get you the exact- I do not want to tell you that. I do not want to tell you. It is going down to 4,000. On election day, how many American troops will be in Afghanistan? That is almost as many as when you came into office. We had much more. We had a lot of people over there too. And we did a good job. We wiped out ISIS. Let me just tell you what you do not see. Have you thought about going down to zero? We took out, in Syria, we took out ISIS. We a hundred percent of the caliphate. When I took over Obama, it was totally rampant. ISIS was all over the place. We took them out. We captured them. We killed them a hundred percent, not 99%.


I wanted to get out at 99. 99% was good, but a hundred percent of the caliphate. We took out Soleimani. We took out al-Baghdadi. We took out people that nobody thought possible. Al-Baghdadi was the biggest terrorist of them all. They could not find him. I took him out. I took him out. I have done things that no other president's done. They should have never been in the Middle East. The decision to go to the Middle East and get into the Middle East was the single biggest mistake made in the history of our country. You told Fox News recently that you could not say whether you'd accept the results of the 2020 election. What does that actually look like as the sitting president? What would that actually look like? Well, Hillary Clinton never accepted them. Well, she conceded on them. I mean, she does not accept them and she got beaten very easily. She conceded on election night. Now, she grumbled about it and said all sorts of- She wrote books about it. Okay, fine, she wrote books. She wrote books about it. I get it. I get it. I am not disputing you beat Hillary Clinton. Listen, what of asking is you will be the sitting president in the White House. What does that look like not accepting- I will tell you what it looks like. Let me tell you what it looks. So we have a new phenomena. It is called mail-in voting, where you send, where a governor- It is been here since the Civil War. They have never done anything like that. It will be bigger this year because of the pandemic. So they are going to send tens of millions of ballots to California, all over the place, to who is going to get them. I have a friend who lives in Westchester County- They send applications, not allots. He had a beautiful, wonderful son. He called me, he said, I just got a ballot for my son, Robert. Somebody got at ballot for a dog. Somebody got a ballot for something else. You got millions of ballots going, nobody even knows where they are going. You look at some of the corruption having to do with You have to apply, you have to go through a process. You have to apply for mail-in. Look, you are sending it out- Let us do concrete. Let us do concrete. You download them off You can get them off the internet.


There is no way you can go through a mail-in vote without massive cheating. I honestly do not understand this topic with- The Republican party has an extremely well-funded vote by mail program. Your campaign puts out emails telling people to vote by mail. Your daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, she did robocalls in California saying it is safe and secure, mail-in voting. Let me tell you. We have no choice. Let me tell you. We have no choice because right now, we have, but we have many court cases that we are waiting. We have one filed in Western Pennsylvania. We have many court cases where we are trying to end it. We went through World War I, you went to the polls, you voted, we went through World War II, you went to the polls, you voted. You have had mail-in voting since the Civil War. And now because of the China virus, we are supposed to stay home, send millions of ballots all over the country, millions and millions. You know, you could have a case where this election will not be decided on the evening of November 3rd. What is wrong with that? It will not be two months, but what is wrong with the proper mail-in count? Have you discussed the- Because lots of things will happen during that period of time. Especially when you have tight margins, lots of things can happen. There is never been anything like this when you try Now, of course, right now, we have to live with it, but we are challenging it in many courts, as you know, all over the country. President, the other day, a reporter asked you about Ghislaine Maxwell. You said, I just wish her well, frankly. I have met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, but I wish her well, whatever it is. President, Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested on allegations of child sex trafficking. Why would you wish such a person well? Well, first of all, I do not know that, but I do know this- She is been arrested for that. You know that. She is now in jail. Yeah, I wish you well, I'd wish you well, I'd wish a lot of people well. So you are saying you hope she does not die in jail? Is that what you mean by wish her well?


Well, her boyfriend died in jail and people are still trying to figure out how did it happened? And I do wish her well. I am not looking for anything bad for her. I am not looking bad for anybody. And they took that and made it such a big deal- He died in jail. I do, I wish her well. Let us move to Portland. I am sure you have seen the disturbing footage of people in fatigues beating the Navy veteran. It is not fake news, it is on video. Pepper spraying him. For 59 days, these people were anarchists and agitators, and some protesters, but these were anarchists. These people were beating the hell out of the city. They were beating up our federal buildings and our federal courthouse. We told the police to stop it. And the police would not do it. But your Inspector Generals are investigating unconstitutional- You are trying now to blame law enforcement instead of anarchists- It is Antifa and anarchists that are causing the problems, not law enforcement. Our law enforcement, if we did not have people at our courthouse, and they are strong, tough people, and they do not want They try and be very good, believe me. But if we did not have people there, you would have your federal courthouse, a $600 million building, you would have that thing burned to the ground right now. I am asking you about tactics and about the unmarked vans where they are rounding people up. Okay, let me tell you about unmarked. Can I just finish my question. Well let me tell you about unmarked. Could I just finish my question? Because it relates to this. This is from Rand Paul. We cannot give up liberty for security. Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities, but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will. What is your response to Senator Paul? First of all, these are Homeland Security people. They are securing a courthouse. Border, hopefully they have ICE in there. Hopefully they have ICE. Because these terrorists, these Antifa people, these people that are at anarchists and agitators, when they see the name on a uniform of a person, a policeman or a law enforcement person, they find out where that person lives. And then they go and they scare the hell out of the person's family. And so they do it for that reason. It is just common There is nothing secret about this.


And you know it. We have Chad Wolf. They have people. He is doing a fantastic job. He is doing a fantastic job. Chad Wolf has pickets and very dangerous looking people outside of his house. He is tough and he is got people, but if you have the names on all of these uniforms, you will have these maniacs in front of their houses, scaring their family and their wives or husbands, whatever it may be. I think it is a very good reason not to have your name. Why should you have identification? Do you support that investigation? Well, I have not seen the result yet. Let me see the result. But you support the initiative of it? Have you been watching television- Have you been watching television? Have you been seeing the violence? Now, if you watch NBC News like I watch NBC fake news. I am watching it. I am watching this NBC News sham, and you have a mayor named Wheeler and he is standing out there and he is being accosted by the people. You know that. I mean, it is horrible what they are doing to him in Portland, the mayor of Portland and he thought he'd go out. What they were doing and saying, and everything else to him, I happened to watch it on a different station. He had five security guards. I saw it. He got out with his life. If you watch NBC News, they make them like he is standing there bravely fighting with the people, in a positive sense, that everything is wonderful. He is lucky he got away with his life because they would've killed him. He had five guards, but NBC News showed it like he is standing with the people for justice. Look, those people, take a look at what they have done to the courthouse. Take a look at what they have done to the streets. We had a very good We have arrested a lot of people and we now have a 10 year rule. You try not to knock down our courthouse- You touch our courthouse, you go to jail for 10 years. Turning to the rest of the country, we have not seen protests like this since the '60s. If I could finish my question. If I could finish my question. And they are doing it for political reasons. You said you have done so much for African Americans. President, have you ever met with a Black Lives Matter activist to hear them out, hear their arguments?


Well, Black Lives Matter started off to me very badly because it was- Did you ever meet with one? That was the first time I ever of Black Pigs is what they are referring to, in a blanket, fry them like bacon. So I got off to a bad start. I got off to a very bad start. Would you meet with a- Would you with a Black Lives Matter activist? Nobody's asked for a meeting, right? I have never been, nobody's ever asked me for a meeting. Let me tell you with African Americans, I am doing very well. They had the best employment numbers they have ever had. They had the best job numbers they have ever had. They were making more money than they ever made. We were all set until we got hit by China with the virus. Do you believe that- Do you believe though, Mr. President, that many police treat black people differently from white people? You have seen the statistics. The knee on the neck was a disgrace. I am talking about what does systemic racism mean to you? I hope the answer to that question is no. Does anybody really answer that question accurately? What is your cold-hearted view of it? Police have killed white people- I know, but why do you think Black men- in larger number, police have killed white people. In quantity, but why do you think Black men are two and a half times more likely to be killed by police than white men? but I do not like it. But you must've thought about it. I do not know why, but I do not like it. I do know this- Does it speak to something systemic? that police have killed many white people also. But proportionally, what does it speak to? It speaks to something, if that is the number? If that is the number, it speaks to something that to me is unacceptable. And what do you do about it then? Well, I think we have already done a lot of things- Let me just tell you. No, no, I understand your achievements. I know what you are going to say. I am not suggesting you have not done a lot economically- I have done a thing called criminal justice reform. I get it, I am just saying what changes- I am asking about a statistic. I got criminal justice - I get it. I get it. I got opportunities on, I took care of the historically Black


If you look at what I have done for colleges, for Black colleges and universities, I got them funding. Obama never did it. I did more for the Black community than anybody with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, whether you like it or not. You really believe you did more than Lyndon Johnson who passed the Civil Rights Act? I have done things. He passed the Civil Rights Act. If you take a look at what Lyndon Johnson did? Because frankly, it took a long time, but for African Americans- under my administration, Jonathan, under my administration, African Americans were doing better than they have ever done in the history of this country. So I did a lot, job numbers, all of it, money. They had money, they were getting great. and now you know what we are doing? I am building it up again. We are going to have it. Next year will be a great year, unless it is screwed up by somebody that does not know what he is doing, which could happen, but I do not think it will. John Lewis is lying in state in the U.S. Capitol. How do you think history will remember John Lewis? I do not know John Lewis. He chose not to come to my inauguration. He chose I never met John Lewis, actually, I do not believe. I cannot say one or the other. I find a lot of people impressive. He did not come to my inauguration. He did not come to my State of the Union speeches, and that is okay. And again, nobody has done more- for Black Americans than I have. I think he made a big mistake by not showing up. But taking your relationship with him out of it, do you find his story impressive? What he is done for this country? He was a person that devoted a lot of energy and a lot of heart to civil rights, but there were many others also. Would you support that idea? I would have no objection to it if they have like to do it. President, you have been so generous with your time and we really appreciate.


I only have 20 minutes or thereabouts, so I have tried to write some concise questions. So, let me put it to you this way. The conservative revolt that Jack Kemp is leading appears to be a challenge to your leadership of the party. And I wonder if you think this is a decisive battle with the far right between the main body of the party? But, very frankly, I am surprised, because I think the issue is so clear cut that when the facts are explained, how they can continue resistance to this when we have protected entirely the tax cuts passed last year and when, in fact, this is less a tax increase than it is a tax reform. Only about 17 percent of this represents new taxes on the people, and 31 percent represents collecting money that we are duty bound to collect, because it is owed and presently not being paid. together, and I am wondering how you plan to restore this GOP unity and your own leadership amongst the so-called dissidents. They are so far on the wrong side right now that I think maybe it is up to them to restore it with me Is Jack Kemp now out of your coalition. I do not bear grudges or anything, no. He is been here to the leadership meetings, and he is heard my side. I realize how strongly he well, is almost, you might say, a purist to the extent that he just cannot see the difference between reform and increase. And if it were a case of this present tax reform which, incidentally, was not of our choosing. This was made necessary in order to get the spending cuts we are still trying to get. If it had resulted in altering the incentive tax cuts that we put in place, I could understand. I am just hard put to understand how he can continue to believe that this in some way represents a turn in my direction or philosophy, because it does not . Does what he is doing do you hold the theory of the allegation of what he is doing is his effort to buttress his own ambitions for the Presidency in 1984? No, I am not going to make any suppositions of that at all. You do not believe that? I will just accept it as a legitimate disagreement. Where are the Boll Weevils on this particular issue? They helped you very much last year.

Interview with Jeremiah O'Leary of the Washington Times on Federal Tax and Budget Reconciliation Legislation


Now, this is awfully I have been meeting with individuals and with groups from the Congress steadily for the last several days, and I have to tell you that this seems to me a more mixed situation, that there is division within these various groups, and I could not pin down exactly, rather than that one group that you just mentioned, Jack and that coterie that is a united group. I think there is a division in all the ranks Gypsy Moths, Boll Weevils, Republicans, Democrats on support of this. And what I have been doing in the meetings is simply trying to correct the misperception they have of it, and, in many cases, that is been successful, that they have come in with a misunderstanding of what we are trying to do. Well, I have never seen you work so hard as you have in the past 2 weeks. Do you think you have attained the 100 votes or near it that the Democrats say have to get before they will support it? All I can say is that everything indicates we are making progress. You do not want to predict victory yet? Are you going to keep this pace up all the way through Tuesday? You have not decided whether to go to the Nation on television yet? Well, we were talking about this early in the week, because, again, much of the press coverage, I think, has contributed to a misconception about this. And I, in these couple of trips that I have made out in the last few weeks into the country, I discovered that this constant drumbeat of biggest tax increase in history when it is nothing of the kind has well, the people are uninformed. And when I have had an opportunity, as I did in Billings, Montana, the other day, to explain what it is we are doing, I found then the people were in support. Well, why do you think the Conservative Republicans are resisting this bill so much? Is it because it taxes people who have not been paying and should have been, or because it reduces tax benefits on things like construction or things like cigarettes, dividend interest, or is this just an election-year reaction? I think it is, pretty much, an election-year reaction, and the idea that they may be portrayed as, now, supporting tax increases when we have been the party going the other way. Of course, I must say that some of those conservative voices I have to be frank and say they cannot be described as people who were followers and have abandoned me.