Who would want to watch the edited version... other than to launch an investigation of the editing process? Presumably, it was a condition of Trump's participation that the unedited version would need to be posted. Also, "60 Minutes" is now under the watchful eye of Bari Weiss. That should make Trump more trustful and perhaps he wants to help Weiss succeed... if she plays the game his way and helps him succeed... which may consist merely of playing it fair.
I've listened to part of this interview, and I did notice that O'Donnell was interrupting Trump with repeated little jabs early on in his answers. I do not think O'Donnell would do that to, say, Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, even though Biden and Harris are far more likely to babble nonresponsively and run out the clock. But Trump is great at taking whatever energy is thrown his way and turning it into something that works for him.
O'Donnell would say things like "Have some of these [ICE] raids gone too far?" and he'd launch straight into "No, I think they haven't gone far enough...." She'd break in with "You're okay with those tactics?" — which adds nothing — and he'd calmly press on: "Yeah, because you have to get the people...." And on and on.
ADDED: CBS has posted the full transcript. Excerpt:
NORAH O'DONNELL: Some people have compared [Zohran Mamdani] to a left-wing version of you, charismatic, breaking the old rules. What do you think about that?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I think I'm a much better looking person than him, right?
NORAH O'DONNELL: Okay. Well, former governor Andrew Cuomo, who you know is campaigning for mayor, he recently said that "If Mamdani becomes Mayor of New York City that you will take over New York." Cuomo said this. He said, "He will be President Trump and Mayor Trump. He's gonna take over New York and send tanks down Fifth Avenue."
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Oh, that's so crazy....
NORAH O'DONNELL: What if Mamdani becomes mayor?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: ... [I]t's gonna be hard for me as the president to give a lot of money to New York. Because if you have a Communist running New York, all you're doing is wasting the money you're sending there. So I don't know that he's won, and I'm not a fan of Cuomo one way or the other, but if it's gonna be between a bad Democrat and a Communist, I'm gonna pick the bad Democrat all the time, to be honest with you....
Posts
120 comments:
Why didnt they air the entire interview (they embarassed themselves plenty)
The consequence of facing consequences.
60 Minutes has a half-century history of misleading editing. They had to publish the whole thing, because if they hadn't, Trump would have.
America watched it live last night...
Were you busy blowing your man?
Pinheaded Journolism.
And most of O'Donnell's early interruptions began with the contradictory "but..."
A lousy interview. If the viewers know what his answer will be before he answers it is a bad interview He will criticize what ICE is doing? Of course not. I can think of many better questions.
I don't mind her asking probing or even hostile questions. I object to the fact that they only asked about Biden's favorite ice cream.
The way the MSM game has been played my whole adult life. Interrupting is signaling dominance (by the media) and subordinate status (of the Republican). The absence of interruption of Democrat candidates or President signals respect. Amazing how many Republican nominees (Bush I, Dole, Romney, McCain) just went along with it. Hopefully, JD Vance, Desantis and the next generation of Republicans have learned.
Being skeptical of Trump's China deal I looked into the trade deficit numbers. Last year the total trade deficit was nearly 300 billion dollars. Excluding January, the February through July trade deficit with China is on Pace for $100 billion dollars per year. I don't understand why he doesn't lead with this rather than the stupid idea that he secured the rare earths which was only banned because of the extremely high threats of punitive tariffs that he imposed. So far every American household has paid about $2,200 for the increase tariff tax imposed by Trump which is disproportionately paid by lower and middle income people. Therefore the American people have made up the difference in the Chinese trade deficit well the billionaires get their big beautiful ballroom so they can take a dump on gold-plated toilets
The undressing of fake news.
The handmade tale unmade.
What these media idiots don't realize is that DJT is
1) Smarter
2) More glib
3) More charismatic
than they are.
They try to play their silly little gotcha games with him, and it just sets DJT up for a verbal volleyball spike. And these folks are so impressed with their own "brilliance" that they fail to even see the train coming at 'em. Fun to watch.
Reagan was good, but more gentle. Trump whacks 'em good because … duh, they deserve it (and more).
We find alternative sources
I thought about commenting on this last night, but really my thoughts were what Althouse posted. Overall, I thought the interview was fair, if that was how Norah O’Donnell (CBS 60 minutes) interviewed every President. But we know it is not.
It was also still deceptive. Take for example the discussion of the prosecution of Trump’s critics. In the presentation last night, no mention was made that Bolton’s criminal investigation began under President Biden. Likewise, it wasn’t mentioned why the DOJ under Biden didn’t pursue Bolton. They couldn’t do so without weakening the argument O’Donnell was suggesting that Trump was just prosecuting for retribution. They could have covered the same topic but never brought up Bolton. Except they did, but left off all the aspects of Bolton’s case which go against the narrative they were creating, which makes it clear they were setting a narrative rather than having a fair interview.
Bari Weiss should be ashamed of what was presented.
I did say that, but a dog returns to his vomit
"So far every American household has paid about $2,200 for the increase tariff tax..."
On what?
I can't get past that these interviews seem like they are not really interested in learning anything, but are just the interviewer asking what people in their circle want them to ask as some kind of gotcha, which they never accomplish.
One fetus... baby step at a time.
The frame is always negative. The questions always come from an pro-open borders, pro-Globalist, leftwing perspective.
The transcript shows a lot of annoyng interuptions. That's the other thing about I hate about MSM Interviews. I don't watch to see a debate between the interviewee and some nobody journalist. The journalists always want to act like they and the interviewee on the same level. Even worse are the "talk show Round tables" where we have a bunch of nobodies giving us their boring opinions.
I thought Nora did ok. It wasn’t a great interview, simply because I find Trump a facile thinker. I wish he would have asked her a bunch of questions, such as, why hasn’t 60 minutes done an expose on the Russian collusion scandal, or operation arctic frost? Among the many other shenanigans the Dems tried to keep DJT out of office. The Dems have blatantly interfered with an election, and tried to twice. Right up 60 mins’ alley, no?
Reagan was good, but more gentle. Trump whacks 'em good because … duh, they deserve it (and more).
Reagan faced a different environment — in those days the corporate newsmedia really was the gatekeeper while today platforms like X give Trump and ability to reach around the leftyvextremist deadwood.
And Reagan was better at using humor. He may have seemed more gentle because he chuckled while using a joke to dlip the knife in.
President Trump on ICE raids:
CBS: More recently, Americans have been watching videos of ICE tackling a young mother, tear gas being used in a Chicago residential neighborhood, and the smashing of car windows. Have some of these raids gone too far?
TRUMP: No, I think they haven't gone far enough, because we've been held back by the judges, by the liberal judges that were put in by Biden and by Obama.
CBS: You're okay with those tactics?
TRUMP: Yeah, because you have to get the people out. You know, you have to look at the people. Many of them are murderers. Many of them are people that were thrown out of their countries because they were, you know, criminals.
CBS: Well you promised in your campaign that you were going to deport the worst of the worst: violent criminals, rapists—
TRUMP: That's what we're doing, though.
CBS: But a lot of the people that your administration has arrested and deported aren't violent criminals. Landscapers, nannies, construction workers, farm workers—
TRUMP: Landscapers are criminals? Now look, look—
CBS: The family of U.S. service members—
TRUMP: I need landscapers and I need farmers more than anybody, okay?
CBS: Is it your intent to deport people who do not have a criminal record?
TRUMP: We have to start off with a policy. And the policy has to be you came into the country illegally, you're going to go out. However, you've also seen, you're going to go out, we're going to work with you, and you're going to come back into our country legally.
What’s missing here is that many immigrants deported or targeted under Trump were not “illegal” entrants in the first place. A large number were people who had lawful presence in the U.S. — meaning they were here legally prior to Trump’s executive orders and had their status revoked or reclassified.
You lie without consequence yes
They didnt have the scroll underneath what leslie stahl complained about
Household Goods and Furniture
Furniture (upholstered furniture, household furniture)
Cabinets and vanities
Lumber and wood products (used in home building and renovations)
Appliances (washing machines, household appliances)
Household necessities (laundry supplies, organizers, desk lamps)
Food and Groceries
Coffee
Meat products (steak)
Fruits and fruit juices (bananas, fresh produce)
Fish and shellfish
Baked goods, dairy products, eggs, nuts, sugar, cocoa beans, tea, and spices
Wine, beer, and other alcoholic beverages
Baby formula
Apparel and Accessories
Clothing (sweaters, jeans, toddler clothing, dresses, general apparel)
Footwear (shoes, sneakers)
Leather goods (gloves, handbags, suitcases)
Hats
Jewelry and watches
Electronics and Recreation
Consumer electronics (laptops, tablets, smartphones, TVs, video game consoles, audio equipment)
Toys (Barbie dolls, soccer balls)
Musical instruments
Other Categories
Medication and medical supplies (branded drugs)
Auto parts and motor vehicles (new cars, SUVs, repair parts)
Beauty products (makeup, perfumes, hair dye)
Gasoline/Petroleum products
The cost burden results from tariffs on imported materials (like steel and aluminum) and finished products from countries including China, Mexico, Canada, the EU, Brazil, Vietnam, and Switzerland.
I don't understand why he doesn't lead with this rather than the stupid idea that he secured the rare earths which was only banned because of the extremely high threats of punitive tariffs that he imposed.
There is so much ignored in the rare earth mineral discussion. I haven’t checked the transcript, but what I saw suggested Trump was using this as a gauge of CBS. As a trade issue with China, it was made moot with a trade agreement with Australia. However, let’s talk rare earth minerals. They aren’t rare, beyond simply being small percentage compared to other minerals (and equally needed by even less percentages). China doesn’t have a special stockpile of them. What China has is an industry that will excavate and refine rare earth minerals without regard to the environment that other countries would. This lowers the financial cost of China’s rare earth minerals, while the rest of the world regulates their environment to make production of rare earth minerals much more expensive. If one cared about the environment, they would want Trump’s tariffs on China’s production of rare earth minerals.
Trump could try to argue this, but it is too complex for what CBS would allow. Compare to the prosecution discussion, where CBS added complexity to the discussion by bringing up Bolton. If CBS wanted and allowed for a simple trade discussion, then it would have mentioned Trump bypassing China on rare earth and going to Australia, then focused on soybeans.
Just want to note that perfidy is generally accepted as inappropriate behavior and when used to bypass legal consequences, then it is illegal.
What’s missing here is that many immigrants deported or targeted under Trump were not “illegal” entrants in the first place.
Good one! But let's see - what else is missing?
Oh yes: the fact that the Biden administration entirely revamped - abused, that is - the asylum system in order to provide a fig-leaf of "legal presence" to the millions of not-actual-asylum-seekers whom he exhorted to surge the border upon his taking office.
That's one thing that's missing, in any event.
Bari Weiss' "The Free Press" still hasn't reported on Operation Arctic Frost. Of course media that reports on minor things like that are considered far right, not center left like Bari.
Tariffs compensate for regulatory exploitation through labor and environmental arbitrage that promote outsourcing and insourcing of production and labor. Ending Green subsidies reduced the footprint of environmental corruption and climate change.
Emigration reform to mitigate progress and collateral damage at both ends of the bridge and throughout, and transhumane policies that entertain abortive ideation with replacement... immigration reform.
We really don’t deserve this guy.
I watched as much as I can stand. I mostly approve of Trump’s policies but I find Norah annoying, especially with the interruptions and jabs but I appreciate Trump just taking them and rerouting or just talking over her.
I also get a bit tired of Trump, not because of anything personally, but like all politicians gettin their points across, repetition is key and I’ve heard what he says so many times now from other Q&A’s, press gaggles, and statements, it’s all sort of background noise. Probably not so for a lot of the 60 minutes viewing audience so I get it, but I doubt I’m going to hear anything new
Jamie, the point wasn’t about Biden — it’s about Trump’s actions. The fact that many people targeted for deportation were legally present or had their status revoked by policy changes under his administration is a verifiable fact. Shifting the conversation to border surges under Biden doesn’t change the reality that these individuals were lawfully in the U.S., and many had no criminal record.
We can debate border policy and asylum reform separately, but that doesn’t erase the moral and legal questions raised by targeting people who were here legally.
It’s telling that Trump discouraged legislative language that could have slowed or structured the flow at the border. That wasn’t just policy — it was politics. By keeping the situation “messy,” he created the appearance of a crisis, which then justified broad, aggressive enforcement actions. The “emergency” was partly manufactured to make harsh tactics seem necessary.
In 1982, Illinois Power was the target of a 60 Minutes segment. Knowing 60 Minutes track record for editing, Illinois Power followed the CBS video crew around their own team. After the 60 Minutes aired, Illinois Power aired their own rebuttal video. Needless to say it was quite revealing and embarrassing for CBS.
The worst thing is that she called him Mr. Trump, not President Trump. Partisan pettiness and rudeness.
Perhaps this is a condition of their settlement out of court. I saw that Trump's team sent the unedited one out via X this morning.
’By keeping the situation “messy,” he created the appearance of a crisis, which then justified broad, aggressive enforcement actions.’
Thank goodness it was just the appearance of a crisis!! lol
A lousy interview. If the viewers know what his answer will be before he answers it is a bad interview He will criticize what ICE is doing? Of course not. I can think of many better questions.
Agree 100%. Interviewing is a nearly lost art because actually listening and caring enough to want to understand an answer is in short supply too.
"A large number were people who had lawful presence in the U.S."
Are you talking out temporary protected status? Or the students Rubio revoked green cards. Pretty disingenuous if so. You're bright enough to figure that out on your own.
Jamie, the point wasn’t about Biden — it’s about Trump’s actions.
Ronald, the point is that they aren't here legally by any definition understood under international law - always a touchstone of the left. The Biden administration, for reasons of its own, changed a legal definition and a legal process, without the approval of Congress, in order to facilitate the entry of people who would have been considered illegal entrants in almost every other country in the world if they'd entered under the same circumstances.
But you on the left - now, because you didn't use to believe this - think that that magic wand transformed illegal entry into legal entry, because Trump.
The cbp4 app legitimized illegal entries
Or, more briefly, I think you mean that your point "wasn’t about Biden — it’s about Trump’s actions."
These klingon to english translations are exasperatinv
Howard: “So far every American household has paid about $2,200 for the increase tariff tax imposed by Trump which is disproportionately paid by lower and middle income people.”
Please document this DNC talking point.
Saw someone make an apt analogy of the NYC mayoral race. There are three choices on the table: a bowl of poison, a bowl of dogshit, and a bowl of Brussels sprouts. The vast majority of New York city residents are going to eat the poison or the dogshit because they don't like Brussels sprouts.
Howard said…
So far every American household has paid about $2,200 for the increase tariff tax imposed by Trump which is disproportionately paid by lower and middle income people. Therefore the American people have made up the difference in the Chinese trade deficit well the billionaires get their big beautiful ballroom so they can take a dump on gold-plated toilets
You haven’t been this retarded for a while.
The tariffs are a direct tax on multinational corporations that import into the United States. Any cost increases on Americans are far more indirect than income taxes or sales taxes or property taxes.
Why are you repeating dumbfuck democrat talking points and carrying water for multinational importers?
Cuomos such a terrible candidate
"the point wasn’t about Biden.."
But it is. The problem was Biden, Myorajackass, and border-but never even went there or did anything-bordee "czar" Harris.
Trump is quite right to point out why we are where we are today. In fact by the same token, we can go back even further and see that we are economically still paying the price for the depravations of Obama. And even further we can see border problems and the rise of the leftist-loved islamist death cult under Wag-the-dog-Wayco Clinton, and even FURTHER back to squishy, Cowardly Carter.
Maybe you're incherently moronic Ronald, or maybe you're mad the that Laken Riley didn't date you?
I think that was our very own laslo
“Also, "60 Minutes" is now under the watchful eye of Bari Weiss.”
Bari Weiss a Trump supporter who now runs CBS news cut the portion of the interview where Trump said he loved her. Here's why American media has a liberal bias problem….
Trump's incoherent answers to Norah O'Donnell raise new questions about Joe Biden's mental fitness.
I'm going to sue CBS for editing Trump's interview and trying to make him look better. He didn't look better, but that's beside the point. 🤣
Either way you get food poisoning (not a fun feeling)
When has 60 minutes not lied by omission (thats a field of unicorms)
Anyways you end up with illogic like the 'air is drinkable' put down the brown acid
The cost burden results from tariffs on imported materials (like steel and aluminum) and finished products from countries including China, Mexico, Canada, the EU, Brazil, Vietnam, and Switzerland.
So your solution is to get rid of tariffs and put the entire tax burden on people who work and build things in the United States?
Just checking I didn’t think you were suffering from the stupid disease anymore.
No thats irreversable for him
Kakistocracy said...
“Also, "60 Minutes" is now under the watchful eye of Bari Weiss.”
Bari Weiss a Trump supporter who now runs CBS news cut the portion of the interview where Trump said he loved her. Here's why American media has a liberal bias problem…
Wow. You think Weiss is a Trump supporter.
You are a fucking retard.
She doesnt have terminal tds but she is still too far inside the cave for confort
CBS edited the Trump interview the right way. ~ Ezra Klein
Giving Trump the Heisman on IEEPA tariffs is a good way for a few of the justices who regret having voted for presidential immunity to start cleaning up on aisle 1600.
This is not about economics, it’s about overreach from any one particular branch of government and the ability of the other, be it the legislative, executive or judicial, to provide the necessary checks and balances to prevent such overreach. If a single individual can drive tariff policy, then it is a dictatorship and not a democracy.
Whatever they are smoking at the financial times they need to cut back
Howard responded to Ann’s post by changing the subject. It’s kind of his trademark.
If you cut something down by 2/3rds its significant
in picture > is lady tall or height enhanced for dominance?
Achilles: Tariffs are a tax on the American people. They are considered regressive because low and middle income people pay the Lion's share. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong or that it's a mistake to do it maybe this is the right course of action. If the result is that it drives up real wages for low and middle income people that's all great.
I always felt that in order for this to work it had to be directly coupled with a dismantling of the administrative bureaucratic regulatory state that makes it so difficult to build housing and infrastructure and to start small businesses.
That aspect of the Trump agenda seems to have disappeared with Elon Musk returning to his businesses.
If a single individual can drive tariff policy, then it is a dictatorship and not a democracy.
If that "single individual" is the President implementing his foreign policy pursuant to his constitutional authority and the emergency powers granted by congress itself, that's significantly different argument to decide.
"There are three choices on the table: a bowl of poison, a bowl of dogshit, and a bowl of Brussels sprouts."
Reminds me of a post on a long-defunct blog about an upcoming election in Canada...
"The thing about elections is that the country’s basically voting on what to have for lunch for the next five years, and every option is a shit sandwich. Mostly you only get offered cat shit and pig shit and bowel-infection shit and oh god is that a tapeworm and basic pride won’t let you dignify the farce by choosing, but once in a while you’re offered a horse shit sandwich and, horrified, you find yourself thinking well at least it’s high in fibre….
On 60 minutes, Trump admitted not knowing he pardoned a crypto billionaire guilty of money laundering. Is that also concerning?
Expect the Supreme Court to make a supremely political decision. For a President to simply declare a state of emergency when there is no emergency, is where and when the deliberations should begin.
Separately, if the Supreme Court rules against him, it may very well save his Presidency by helping the economy.
Howard is full of it today. My monthly expenses went up significantly under Biden, and no I have not seen a tariff increase or any other increases under Trump. Beef prices are crazy but after Biden let leftists torch most of our packing plants temporary high prices are expected. Interest rates are finally in normal territory, so there is that.
"Those who can, do;
those who can't, talk about tarriffs".
That aspect of the Trump agenda seems to have disappeared with Elon Musk returning to his businesses.
Spending will go down a whole lot from the DOGE cuts, dude. Look at their tracker.
So the Dems saved us 2,500 a year in healthcare costs and the Pubs are costing us 2,200 a year in tariffs? Please please please run with that.
“I always felt that in order for this to work it had to be directly coupled with a dismantling of the administrative bureaucratic regulatory state that makes it so difficult to build housing and infrastructure and to start small businesses.”
Most of those regulations are at the state and local level. Anything at the federal level is apparently at the discretion of Hawaiian judges.
jim5301 said...
A lousy interview. If the viewers know what his answer will be before he answers it is a bad interview He will criticize what ICE is doing? Of course not. I can think of many better questions.
Surprised you didn't recognize that she was there to push your side's talking points, not ask questions that might elicit informative answers.
Doubtful the Supreme Court will allow the executive branch to enact the largest tax increase in American history without Congressional approval.
If Trump has any sense of economics and politics, he would use this as an opportunity to walk away from his incoherent tariff policies. He could then take credit for the ensuing economic growth.
Howard
You say that tariffs are paid by the end consumer.
Isn't the same true of corporate income and other taxes?
Yet in the past you have being favor of higher business s taxes.
Are you inconsistent?
John Henry
⬆️ Trump’s Tariffs are a back door consumption tax on American consumers.
Wow. You think Weiss is a Trump supporter.
You are a fucking retard.
Achilles,
You cannot use the word "retard" to describe Kaki.
He is a little cunt.
Jamie @ 11:03, that’s factually incorrect. U.S. law — not “international law” — governs who’s here legally, and 8 U.S.C. §1158 clearly allows anyone on U.S. soil to apply for asylum, even if they entered between ports. While their case is pending, they’re here lawfully.
Biden didn’t “redefine” that; those rules have been in place since the 1980 Refugee Act signed by Reagan. The difference isn’t a “magic wand” — it’s a change in enforcement priorities, not the law itself.
Mr. T @ 11:22, name-calling doesn’t change the facts. The discussion was about Trump’s enforcement record — policies that pre-date Biden or Harris. Each administration has inherited problems at the border, but blaming everyone going back to Carter doesn’t explain why due process and lawful status were ignored under Trump.
I’m fine with debating policies, but personal insults don’t make a case — they just prove there isn’t one.
I thought teh tariff
Wuz gonna wreck the whole economy
Oh noes, NO!!!
If you enter the country illegally, make an excuse for why you did it, are allowed to stay while your excuse is mulled over, and it is decided your excuse isn't sufficient; then you were deemed to be here illegally and will be deported. That has been the law in the United States for a long time, even prior to 2017.
The copy-pasta on this thread is particularly egregious, though it does very clearly demonstrate what the talking points are. It's interesting that they are such BAD talking points. 10 months into the Demon Emperor's second reign and this weak sauce is all they've got?
Tariffs aren't taxes, but nice to know that our friends on the left are now all about keeping taxes as low as possible.
The interview was completely performative. 60 Minutes didn't interview Trump because America has been deprived of insight into the president's thinking on various issues. For heaven's sake, Trump is on TV practically every single day answering questions from reporters. 60 Minutes did it just for the prestige that goes along with broadcasting an exclusive interview of the president, and to show how "tough" Norah Donnell is in standing up to him.
Leland, that’s partly right, but it leaves out an important distinction. U.S. law allows anyone on our soil to apply for asylum, even if they entered without authorization. While their claim is pending, they’re lawfully present under 8 U.S.C. §1158 — they’re not “illegal.”
If their claim is denied and all appeals are exhausted, then they become removable. But until that process is complete, they’re here legally under U.S. law — that’s been true since the 1980 Refugee Act signed by Ronald Reagan.
It appears that Trump is whining because we’re not breaking the law fast enough?
Chuck, if you are going to call me out; then don't lie about what I wrote. What I wrote is correct. What you haven't done is provide one example where a person's claim was still being reviewed.
So, I will provide one. Even in the case of "Maryland Man"; he had a deportation order, but pending appeals, he wasn't supposed to be deported to 2 specific countries. He was returned from one of those 2 countries and now deported to a third country. That's one case which was rectified.
Leland, your own example actually shows due process in action — the man had a deportation order, but appeals and country restrictions delayed removal. That’s the system working as intended.
That said, it’s also true that under Trump, some people were detained or deported without proper hearings through expedited removals or mass raids. So his complaint isn’t purely about the law being “too slow” — it’s a mix of wanting fewer limits and pushing the law past its bounds.
A friend told me he’d read approximately 1 out of 3 LA (city) households are on SNAP. I haven’t checked, but if true, it’s a national disgrace so many residents would be so dependent on tax-funded government handouts.
Ward the Cleaver.
He had a deportation order that Biden chose not to enforce. The deportation order was because he entered the country illegally. You claimed “lawfully present”. He was not lawfully present, because he was in the country illegally. You lied. This one example shows you are willing to lie.
Pretty easy to scroll through a thread when half of it is full of shit.
Don’t think so Leland. Your inductive reasoning of using a single example to arrive at a sweeping conclusion doesn’t fly. It treats that example as if it disproves the legal principle I mentioned. That’s a classic case of overgeneralization: just because a person had a deportation order doesn’t mean they weren’t lawfully present while their appeal or asylum claim was pending. Pointing out one case doesn’t make my statement a lie — it just shows you’re ignoring the broader legal context.
Now you are trolling by falsely claiming what I was doing. You gave no examples to make a claim people here lawfully were being deported. I pointed out you were lying and gave one example to prove the lie. Now that you are caught lying, you are saying I was generalizing when I specifically stated otherwise. As you intend to respond with more lies to continue the troll, I will only point out that you continue to post in bad faith. Others don’t care what you wrote, and I only needed to provide the occasional evidence that you are a bad faith commenter.
Leland, my point isn’t about one case — it’s about a broader pattern. Even if some people went through the legal process properly, that doesn’t justify brutality, unlawful detention, or bypassing due process.
Trump appears to be treating these legal safeguards as obstacles, not protections, which was my original point and the real issue.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
Argumentum ad falsum non tollit veritatem.
Ronald J., the Biden Administration's immigration policy was essentially a criminal conspiracy to violate America's immigration laws by deliberately admitting millions of unvetted foreign nations who were NOT being persecuted in their home countries but rather were seeking the economic advantages of living in the U.S. Your argument seems to be that the new administration, elected largely to stop this flow of illegal immigration, must treat each individual person whom the Biden Administration let in as someone who is "lawfully present" in the U.S. (forgetting that the overwhelming majority of them disqualified themselves as asylum applicants by not applying for asylum in the first country they set foot in upon leaving their home country). Sorry, but if that's the law, then the law is an ass, and Trump is justified in ignoring it under his inherent powers as commander in chief to repel an invasion. If the affected aliens can prove that they were legitimate asylum-seekers, let them each sue for damages.
Dogma and Pony Show, for starters, I want to apologize if I’m out of the Basket of Gulibles loop but that’s a lot of rhetoric that doesn’t match the law, or reality. Biden’s administration did not run a criminal conspiracy — asylum law explicitly allows people to apply for protection even if they entered via another country. Being “economic migrants” or making a technical procedural error does not make them criminals, and the president cannot legally bypass due process. Treating all asylum-seekers as illegitimate and ignoring their rights isn’t “commanding” — it’s illegal.
Of course he did, or whoever was holding the autopen
Narciso, it’s a shame I don’t have the coding skill to create a little red ball that moves with each syllable of my writing for your reading pleasure. I’m not debating who signed documents or excusing criminals — the point is that due process and lawful status matter, even for those accused of wrongdoing.
Skipping that step isn’t enforcement.
It’s. Just. Illegal.
Murderers and rapists and drug dealers that were enabled by this lesuo figurehead
"but if true, it’s a national disgrace so many residents would be so dependent on tax-funded government handouts."
You mean- in addition to those who are not really dependent on the handouts but are collecting them anyway?
Ronald thinks the illegals get to follow the vampire rules: Once they get in, they can do what they wilt forevermore.
Narciso, I’ll leave your colorful characterizations of “murderers and rapists” to your imagination. The point remains: due process and lawful status exist for everyone, including those accused of crimes, and bypassing them isn’t enforcement — it’s illegal.
Ask jocelyn nungeray about due process
Rocco, the “vampire rules” line is a fun story, but it’s not reality — it’s part of the narrative that anyone who questions harsh enforcement is “soft on crime.” The law is clear: asylum-seekers and immigrants are bound by rules and due process, regardless of political allegiance. Skipping that process isn’t enforcement, it’s illegal — facts don’t change because of tribal loyalty.
Spoiler hes the vampire
Ronald J. Ward said...
“Rocco, the “vampire rules” line is a fun story, but it’s not reality — it’s part of the narrative that anyone who questions harsh enforcement is “soft on crime.” The law is clear: asylum-seekers and immigrants are bound by rules and due process, regardless of political allegiance. Skipping that process isn’t enforcement, it’s illegal — facts don’t change because of tribal loyalty.”
Funny, I just held a mirror up to your post, and this is what I saw:
Anybody got some holy water?
The elephant in the room is that Trump lies all the time.
ODonnell is terrible. She should be out of a job.
Anyone else notice that if you mention "illegal aliens", leftards shift the discussion to asylum seekers and immigrants as if they're the same thing?
Ron Ward - you're a fraud - go away.
Mason G. All part of the left's plan.
"Surge the border." Abuse our Asylum laws.
It's the left's grand plan.
Peachy said...
Ron Ward - you're a fraud - go away.
11/3/25, 8:25 PM
Get back with me with some moderation credentials.
Ann somehow didn't mention the edited version of Trump's interview shown on national TV. This is TechDirt"s observation:
60 Minutes edited out a segment where Donald Trump tells them to edit out a segment in which he brags about getting CBS to pay him because of them editing out part of an answer by Kamala Harris, and he notes that CBS clearly did the wrong thing in editing Harris in the same fucking sentence he tells them to edit out what he’s saying.
It is so fucking stupid.
gadfly said...
Ann somehow didn't mention the edited version of Trump's interview shown on national TV.
The entire post was about the edited version of Trump's interview. Even when presented with the subject material, you remain ignorant, but as usual, it doesn't stop you from commenting.
Chuck is an idiot. So is Rich. Arguing with them is a waste of time, except if you get pleasure in mocking and ridiculing, which is OK in my book.
Thanks for posting entire interview. One can see why 60 Mins needed to hack away at it - common sense being the threat that it is.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.