>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> WHICH PROCESS ARE YOU TALKING
ABOUT?
>> THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS.
>> BECAUSE I FELT THAT
CONGRESSMAN RATCLIFFE WAS BEING
TREATED VERY UNFAIRLY.
I READ THE PRESS.
I THINK I AM A STUDENT OF THE
PRESS.
I COULD SEE THAT THE PRESS WAS
TREATING HIM VERY UNFAIRLY.
HE'S AN OUTSTANDING MAN.
I ASKED HIM, I SAID, DO YOU WANT
TO GO THROUGH THIS FOR TWO OR
THREE MONTHS OR WANT ME TO MAYBE
DO SOMETHING ELSE?
HE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
I SAID IT'S GOING TO BE ROUGH.
I CAN SEE EXACTLY WHERE THE
PRESS IS GOING.
FAKE NEWS.
HE'S A FINE MAN.
SO WE HADN'T STARTED THE
PROCESS.
I THOUGHT IT'S EASIER BEFORE WE
START.
I READ THINGS THAT WERE JUST
UNFAIR.
HE'S JUST TOO GOOD.
HE DOESN'T DESERVE IT.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> WHAT?
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT MIGHT BE.
I LIKE SUE GORDON.
SUE GORDON IS THERE NOW.
I LIKE HER VERY MUCH.
I'VE ALWAYS LIKED SUE GORDON.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> COULD BE.
WE'LL MAKE ANOTHER CHOICE.
SUE WILL BE -- SHE'S THERE NOW
AND CERTAINLY SHE WILL BE
CONSIDERED FOR THE ACTING.
THAT COULD HAPPEN.
WE'LL PROBABLY BE TALKING ABOUT
IT EITHER LATER TODAY OR NEXT
WEEK.
YOU LIKE SUE GORDON?
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> NO, I THINK HE WAS JUST
TREATED VERY BADLY, VERY HARSHLY
BY THE PRESS.
HE REALLY HAD A DECISION TO
MAKE.
YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS
FOR -- IT COULD BE MONTHS.
I SAID I THINK I SEE EXACTLY
WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
NOBODY UNDERSTANDS THE PRESS.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND THEM AS
WELL AS ANYBODY.
I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS FAIR.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> NO, THEY DIDN'T.
I THINK HE WOULD HAVE HAD
SUPPORT, BUT AGAIN WE WERE VERY
EARLY IN THE PROCESS.
WE HADN'T EVEN STARTED.
SO WE WERE VERY EARLY IN THE
PROCESS.
I THINK HE WOULD HAVE HAD GOOD
SUPPORT CERTAINLY FROM THE
REPUBLICANS.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT.
THE DEMOCRATS WERE CHILLY.
THAT'S FOR SURE.
BUT THE REPUBLICANS I THINK
WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD.
A LOT OF THE REPUBLICANS DIDN'T
EVEN KNOW JOHN.
SO I THINK HE WOULD HAVE GOOD
RECEPTIVITY.
HE WAS GETTING THAT.
I BELIEVE HE MADE THE RIGHT
DECISION.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> YOU UNDERSTAND?
I --
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> NO, YOU VET FOR ME.
I LIKE WHEN YOU VET.
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS A GREAT
VETTING PROCESS.
WHEN YOU VET FOR ME, I GIVE A
NAME, GIVE IT TO THE PRESS AND
YOU VET FOR ME.
A LOT OF TIMES YOU DO A VERY
GOOD JOB.
NOT ALWAYS.
I THINK THE -- IF YOU LOOKED AT
IT, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT,
THE VETTING PROCESS FOR THE
WHITE HOUSE IS VERY GOOD.
YOU'RE PART OF THE VETTING
PROCESS, YOU KNOW?
I GIVE OUT A NAME TO THE PRESS
AND THEY VET FOR ME.
WE SAVE A LOT OF MONEY THAT WAY.
IN THE CASE OF JOHN, I BELIEVE
THAT HE WAS BEING TREATED VERY
HARSHLY AND VERY UNFAIRLY.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> NO, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, I
THOUGHT HE WOULD HAVE HAD VERY
GOOD SUPPORT.
THE REPUBLICANS LOVE JOHN
RATCLIFFE.
HE WOULD HAVE HAD VERY GOOD
SUPPORT.
HE WASN'T IN THAT WORLD THAT
MUCH.
I THINK HE WOULD HAVE PICKED IT
UP VERY QUICKLY.
I THINK HE WOULD HAVE HAD GREAT
REPUBLICAN SUPPORT.
PROBABLY NO DEMOCRAT SUPPORT,
WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO
GET SOME.
BUT I THINK HE WOULD HAVE DONE
FINE.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LONG, HARD
BATTLE.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT'S OKAY.
I DON'T MIND THAT.
THE TWEET ITSELF WAS JUST REALLY
A REPEAT OF WHAT I HEARD OVER
THE NEWS.
I KNOW HIS HOUSE WAS ROBBED.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS TOO BAD.
THAT WAS REALLY JUST -- THAT WAS
NOT MEANT AS A WISE GUY TWEET.
HIS HOUSE WAS ROBBED.
IT CAME OVER THE NEWS AT A
CERTAIN MOMENT LAST NIGHT.
I HAD JUST MENTIONED IT.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, I THINK JOHN, NUMBER
1 -- YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND,
WE'RE SO FAR BEHIND.
WE HAVE BEEN TREATED SO BADLY.
I DON'T BLAME CHINA.
I BLAME OUR PAST LEADERS, OUR
PAST PRESIDENT, OUR PAST TRADE
REPRESENTATIVES.
THEY'VE DONE A TERRIBLE JOB.
CHINA -- WE CAN'T JUST GO AND
MAKE AN EVEN DEAL WITH CHINA.
WE HAVE TO MAKE A BETTER DEAL
WITH CHINA.
RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE A VERY
UNFAIR PLAYING FIELD.
I'M TURNING IT AROUND.
SO WE'RE GETTING 25% OF $250
BILLION AND NOW 10% OF PROBABLY
CLOSE TO $350 BILLION.
A LOT OF MONEY.
CHINA HAS TO DO A LOT OF THINGS
TO TURN IT AROUND.
YOU'LL BE SEEING.
THEY HAVE TO DO A LOT OF THINGS.
IT GOES ON SEPTEMBER 1.
FRANKLY, IF THEY DON'T DO THEM,
I CAN ALWAYS INCREASE IT VERY
SUBSTANTIALLY.
IN OTHER WORDS, I CAN INCREASE
IT IF I WANTED TO A VERY MUCH
HIGHER NUMBER.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, IT'S IN A PROCESS RIGHT
NOW.
I KNOW THE CASE VERY WELL.
IT'S A VERY SAD SITUATION.
IT IS HEARTBREAKING.
THAT'S IN A PROCESS RIGHT NOW.
I'M NOT GOING TO GET INVOLVED IN
THE PROCESS.
AS YOU KNOW, THEY'LL BE MAKING A
FINAL DECISION OVER THE NEXT TEN
DAYS.
SO I WON'T INTERFERE WITH THE
PROCESS.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> WELL, WE'VE BEEN MOVING IT
DOWN.
WE'VE BEEN MOVING IT DOWN FROM
SYRIA.
WE DEFEATED THE ISIS CALIPHATE.
WE HAVE NOW 100% OF THAT.
WE HAVE 2,500 PRISONERS.
EUROPE IS GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE
THEM OR SOMEBODY WILL HAVE TO
TAKE THEM.
BUT WE HAVE 2,500 ISIS
PRISONERS.
WE'VE TOLD EUROPE, HEY, SOME
COME FROM FRANCE, SOME COME FROM
GERMANY.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE
THEM.
WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
WE'VE PRETTY MUCH REDUCED --
WE'VE TAKEN IT WAY DOWN IN
SYRIA.
ULTIMATELY IT'S DOWN TO A VERY
FEW PEOPLE, IF ANY.
WITH RESPECT TO AFGHANISTAN, WE
MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS.
WE'RE TALKING.
BUT WE'VE ALSO MADE A LOT OF
PROGRESS.
WE'RE REDUCING IT.
WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 19 YEARS.
WE'RE SERVING AS POLICEMEN.
WE COULD WIN AFGHANISTAN IN TWO
DAYS OR THREE DAYS OR FOUR DAYS
IF WE WANTED.
I'M NOT LOOKING TO KILL 10
MILLION PEOPLE.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
WHAT ABOUT IT?
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
WE CAN WIN THAT WAR VERY EASILY.
I COULD WIN THAT WAR IN A WEEK
IF I WANTED TO.
I'M NOT LOOKING TO KILL 10
MILLION PEOPLE.
OKAY?
MANY OF THEM WOULD BE INNOCENT
PEOPLE.
I'M NOT LOOKING TO DO THAT.
I'M NOT TALKING NUCLEAR, BY THE
WAY.
I'M TALKING TOTALLY
CONVENTIONAL.
I'M NOT LOOKING TO KILL MILLIONS
OF PEOPLE IN AFGHANISTAN.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT I CAN'T TELL YOU.
WE'LL FIND OUT.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> I HEAR HE'S DONE A GOOD JOB.
I DON'T KNOW CONGRESSMAN HURD.
WE DIFFER ON CERTAIN SUBJECTS.
I HEARD HE'S DONE A GOOD JOB.
IT'S TOO BAD HE'S LEAVING.
REALLY DON'T KNOW HIM.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> I DO HAVE A SHORT LIST.
I HAVE A LIST OF A FEW PEOPLE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT VERY WELL-KNOWN
PEOPLE.
PEOPLE WHERE THE VETTING WOULD
GO EASILY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT
THEY'VE BEEN DOING.
THEY'RE IN THE INTELLIGENCE
WORLD.
SO WE DO.
I HAVE A LIST OF THREE PEOPLE
THAT I'M GOING TO BE WORKING ON
OVER THE WEEKEND.
WE'RE GOING TO BEDMINSTER.
I'LL BE WORKING ON THAT OVER THE
WEEKEND AND MONDAY I'LL GIVE YOU
AN ANSWER.
I DO LIKE SUE GORDON VERY MUCH
AS ACTING AS PER YOUR QUESTION.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> SAY AGAIN.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> I THINK WE REAL -- WE HAVE A
LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE.
WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE
SPECIFICALLY.
I CAN TELL YOU.
THEY'RE RIGHT HERE.
>> WHO ARE THEY?
>> IT'S TOO EARLY.
YOU WANT A PIECE OF THE LIST?
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> I DON'T WANT TO SAY IF THEY
CAN BE TRUSTED OR NOT.
HISTORY I'D SAY IS NOT SO GOOD.
THEY DON'T LIKE US MUCH EITHER.
WE'VE BROUGHT THEM DOWN.
WE BROUGHT THE NUMBERS OF
SOLDIERS DOWN SUBSTANTIALLY.
THEY'RE COMING DOWN.
WE'RE TALKING TO THEM.
WE HAVE A LOT OF ADVANTAGES
MAKING A DEAL WITH US.
WE'RE DOING VERY WELL WITH
PAKISTAN.
I MET A GENTLEMAN THAT I LIKED A
LOT AS YOU KNOW LAST WEEK FROM
PAKISTAN.
I HAVE A LOT OF RESPECT FOR.
A GOOD FRIENDSHIP, A GOOD
FEELING, A GOOD CHEMISTRY.
I THINK PAKISTAN WILL HELP US
AND I THINK OTHERS WILL GET
INVOLVED.
BUT WE'VE BEEN THERE 19 YEARS.
WE'RE NOT REALLY -- LET'S PUT IT
THIS WAY.
WE'RE MORE POLICEMEN THAN
ANYTHING ELSE.
THAT'S NOT FOR OUR SOLDIERS.
I SAID IT A LOT.
WE CAN WIN THE WAR, IF YOU LOOK
AT IT AND LOOK AT IT ANYWAY YOU
WANT, WE COULD WIN THE WAR IN
AFGHANISTAN IN LESS THAN A WEEK.
I'M NOT LOOKING TO KILL 10
MILLION PEOPLE.
I'M NOT TALKING NUCLEAR.
WE WOULD WIN THAT WAR IN LESS
THAN A WEEK.
I HAVE THAT AS AN OPTION ALWAYS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO
DO.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> WITH RUSSIA, WE HAVE BEEN
SPEAKING TO RUSSIA ABOUT THAT,
ABOUT A PACT FOR NUCLEAR.
SO THAT THEY GET RID OF SOME, WE
GET RID OF SOME.
PROBABLY HAVE TO PUT CHINA IN
THERE.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE NUMBER 1, RUSSIA
IS NUMBER 2 AND CHINA IS NUMBER
3.
CHINA IS QUITE A BIT DOWN IN
TERMS OF NUCLEAR.
THEY'RE MUCH LOWER.
WE WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO
INCLUDE CHINA AT SOME POINT.
I WOULD THINK THAT THE
RELATIONSHIP IS GOOD.
WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE A GOOD
RELATIONSHIP.
IT'S VERY HARD IN LIGHT OF THE
PHONY WITCH HUNT, WHICH IS NOW
DEAD.
I'LL SAY THIS WITH RUSSIA.
IF WE COULD GET A PACT WHERE
THEY REDUCE AND WE REDUCE
NUCLEAR, THAT WOULD BE A GREAT
THING FOR THE WORLD.
I DO BELIEVE THAT WILL HAPPEN.
WE HAVE DISCUSSED IT.
I ALSO DISCUSSED IT WITH CHINA.
I DISCUSSED IT WITH PRESIDENT
PUTIN AND WITH CHINA.
I WILL TELL YOU, CHINA WAS VERY,
VERY EXCITED ABOUT TALKING ABOUT
IT.
SO IS RUSSIA.
SO I THINK WE'LL HAVE A DEAL AT
SOME POINT.
THE PARTICULAR PACT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT THAT EXPIRED AS OF
TODAY, THEY WEREN'T LIVING UP TO
THEIR COMMITMENT.
I SAID IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
LIVE UP TO THEIR COMMITMENT,
THEN WE HAVE TO -- WE ALWAYS
HAVE TO BE IN THE LEAD.
YOU KNOW, I'VE REDONE OUR
NUCLEAR.
WE HAVE NEW NUCLEAR COMING.
I HATE TO TELL THAT TO PEOPLE
BECAUSE IT'S DEVASTATING, BUT WE
ALWAYS HAVE TO BE IN THE LEAD.
HOPE TO GOD YOU NEVER HAVE TO
USE IT.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> WE HAVE NEW EVERYTHING.
WE HAVE THE FINEST MILITARY IN
THE WORLD.
WE MAKE THE FINEST EQUIPMENT IN
THE WORLD BY FAR, WHETHER IT'S
FIGHTERS, WHETHER IT'S MISSILES,
WHETHER IT'S SHIPS.
WHETHER IT'S SUBMARINES.
THERE'S NOBODY TO COMPETE WITH
US.
IF WE COULD HOLD OFF SPENDING BY
GETTING A PACT WITH RUSSIA AND
WITH CHINA, THAT WOULD BE VERY
GOOD FOR ALL THREE COUNTRIES.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
TRADE ON BEEF?
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> THE E.U. IS VERY TOUGH TO
DEAL WITH.
THEY'RE VERY DIFFICULT.
THEY HAVE BARRIERS ON BEEF.
WE BROKE THAT BARRIER TODAY.
I APPRECIATE IT.
IT'S A GROUP OF COUNTRIES AS YOU
KNOW, WE LOVE THOSE COUNTRIES,
BUT WITH DEALING THEM, THEY'RE
VERY DIFFICULT.
WE DID A VERY BIG DEAL TODAY,
BEEF.
WE'LL BE SELLING THEM A BIG
PERCENTAGE OF THEIR BEEF.
THAT'S GREAT FOR OUR RANCHERS
AND FARMERS.
WE WERE HAPPY TO DO IT.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> AUTO TARIFFS ARE NEVER OFF
THE TABLE.
IF THEY WOULD NOT TREAT US
FAIRLY, WHICH THEY'RE NOT.
RIGHT NOW -- LOOK, THE E.U. HAS
TREMENDOUS BARRIERS TO US.
BUT WE JUST BROKE THE FIRST
BARRIER.
MAYBE WE BROKE IT BECAUSE OF THE
FACT THAT IF I DON'T GET WHAT WE
WANT, I'LL PUT AUTO TARIFFS.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE AUTOMOBILE
AND ALL ABOUT THE TARIFFS.
IF I DON'T GET WHAT I WANT, I'LL
HAVE NO CHOICE BUT MAYBE TO DO
THAT.
BUT SO FAR THEY'VE BEEN VERY
GOOD.
I WANT TO THANK MEXICO, THE
NUMBERS ARE WAY, WAY DOWN
APPREHENSIONS.
THE NUMBERS ARE WAY DOWN.
MEXICO, THEY HAVE ABOUT 21,000.
THEY NOW HAVE MAYBE MORE THAN
THAT ON OUR BORDER.
THEY HAVE ANOTHER 6,000 ON THEIR
NORTHERN BORDER.
OKAY?
THE NORTHERN BORDER.
NEAR GUATEMALA.
MEXICO IS DOING A GREAT JOB.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE BEFORE WE
TALK ABOUT SECRETARY, I WILL
TELL YOU, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE
THE DEMOCRATS SIT DOWN AND WORK
OUT THE LOOP HOLES IN 20
MINUTES.
THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD TAKE AND
WORK OUT ASYLUM.
WE'RE MOVING ALONG WITH AN
ASYLUM FIX, AN ASYLUM BILL.
LINDSEY GRAHAM IS HEADING IT UP.
WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> I'LL ALWAYS HELP OUR FARMERS.
OUR FARMERS WERE TARGETED BY
CHINA.
OUR FARMERS, THEY'RE GREAT
PATRIOTS.
I'LL ALWAYS HELP OUR FARMERS.
THERE WILL BE A BIG TIME WHEN
THE BIGGEST BENEFICIARY OF WHAT
WE'RE DOING WITH CHINA, YOU'RE
SEEING IT WITH THE E.U.
THEY COULDN'T DO THE CATTLE
THINGS AT ALL.
BEEF.
THEY COULDN'T DO IT AT ALL.
NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS CAME
OUT OF NOWHERE.
OUR FARMERS WILL BE THE BIGGEST
BENEFICIARIES.
THEY KNOW THAT.
THEY'RE GREAT PATRIOTS.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
NO, WHAT HAPPENS IS CHINA
DEVALUES THEIR CURRENCY AND
CHINA IS POURING MONEY OUT.
THAT WILL PAY FOR THE TARIFFS.
IT'S A TOTAL MISNOMER.
I DON'T SAY THAT WITH ALL
COUNTRIES.
BUT WITH CHINA, THEY'RE VERY
HIGHLY SOPHISTICATED.
SO ARE WE.
MORE THAN ANYBODY WOULD
UNDERSTAND.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS ASK CHINA.
ASK CHINA.
BUT LET ME JUST EXPLAIN.
SO CHINA IS DEVALUING THEIR
CURRENCY.
THEY'RE ALSO POURING MONEY IN.
THEIR CURRENCY IS GOING TO HELL.
BUT THEY'RE POURING MONEY IN.
THAT WILL TOTALLY PAY FOR THE
TARIFFS.
THEY'RE NOT BEING PAID FOR BY
OUR PEOPLE.
IT'S BEING PAID FOR BY CHINA.
BECAUSE OF DEVALUATION AND
BECAUSE THEY'RE PUMPING MONEY
IN.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
>> [QUESTION INAUDIBLE]
>> YOU INTERVIEWED THE WRONG
FARMER.
NUMBER 2, ANY AMOUNT THAT CHINA
SUCKS UP, WE'RE MAKING UP OUT OF
THE BILLIONS THAT WE TAKE IN.
REMEMBER THIS, OUR COUNTRY IS
TAKING IN BILLIONS AND BILLIONS
OF DOLLARS FROM CHINA.
WE NEVER TOOK IN TEN CENTS FROM
CHINA.
OUT OF THAT MANY BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS, WE'RE TALKING A PART OF
IT AND GIVING IT TO THE FARMERS
BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN TARGETED BY