Sunday 25 March 2018

Interview: How Anthony Scaramucci Nearly Lost Everything By Joining Trump

00:12
[Music]
00:19
entrepreneurship is living a few years
00:21
of your life like most people won't so
00:23
that you could spend the rest of your
00:24
life like most people can't my name is
00:26
Ashe John Carver solution founder and
00:28
CEO of WatchMojo and in this interview
00:30
series we sit down and talk to the men
00:32
and woman who stand in the arena and
00:34
discussed the struggles setbacks and
00:36
eventual successes the experiences
00:38
entrepreneurs in my many years running
00:40
WatchMojo I've spent more time in New
00:42
York than in any other city making
00:44
friends with some of the most talented
00:46
hustlers and builders in town while New
00:48
York City grown to the capital finance
00:50
and media by the late 20th century home
00:52
to some of the world's largest
00:53
corporations the city has also served
00:55
home to some of the greatest
00:56
entrepreneurs the world's ever known
00:57
indeed in the 21st century in the wake
01:00
of back-to-back shocks of the financial
01:02
world Manhattan has seen a slow but
01:04
steady shift back to its entrepreneurial
01:05
roots showcasing the vision drive
01:07
execution and persistence required to
01:10
succeed unlike some of the other
01:12
entrepreneurs I will be featuring I'd
01:13
actually never met Anthony scare Moochie
01:15
before sitting down with him
01:16
scaramouche II burst onto the scene like
01:18
a comet in a tumultuous 11 day stint as
01:20
White House director in the summer of
01:22
2017 after graduating from Tufts and
01:25
Harvard and a stint at Goldman Sachs the
01:27
moot went on to launch not one but two
01:29
hedge funds first Oscar management and n
01:31
skybridge so I guess the first question
01:34
I want to ask you is if America was a
01:36
stock is it it at an all-time high is it
01:39
at a 52-week high so is it in the toilet
01:42
where is it screaming buy me crazy this
01:45
is the most unbelievable country in so
01:48
many different ways you know what the
01:49
greatest thing about the country is who
01:51
cares of the politicians are these guys
01:53
set the thing up so brilliantly that
01:54
doesn't really matter this is gonna
01:56
march forward with great technological
01:58
advancement medical advancement
02:01
infrastructure advancement we're gonna
02:03
live in a world of abundance in 50 to
02:05
100 years I may not see it you'll
02:08
probably see it but it's it's
02:10
unbelievable what's going on here now
02:11
one of the issues that we have know is
02:14
that we've got to start to make sure
02:16
that we restructure a little so that we
02:19
keep an equal opportunity agenda you're
02:22
never gonna get any equal outcomes
02:23
okay you can't systematize that you
02:25
can't politicize that there's no system
02:28
in five thousand five hundred years of
02:30
history where you get an equal outcome
02:32
so if you got liberal Millennials or
02:33
generation C people wake up there's no
02:36
equal outcomes okay but there is an
02:38
opportunity to create equal opportunity
02:40
we have to do more of that but this is
02:41
an unbelievable by okay so I definitely
02:44
country's a homerun we're gonna talk a
02:46
lot about America your family came here
02:48
my family keep left Iran in 78 went to
02:51
Canada and through Spain we had it easy
02:53
my dad worked for the Spanish Embassy so
02:55
a lot other people have to come in harsh
02:57
realities are you a citizen I'm a Canaan
02:59
citizen Canadians you know I'm here you
03:01
like living here in New York right I
03:02
Love New York I find USA is still the
03:05
best country in the world the best it's
03:06
the best but cab is probably the best
03:08
country to live in because you don't
03:09
have the extremes though the one problem
03:12
between the United States and Canada not
03:14
a problem between the countries but the
03:15
way you analyze these countries is this
03:17
country the United States became a super
03:21
super power after the end of the Second
03:23
World War and so we made a decision and
03:26
it was a benevolent decision to engage
03:29
in the global community and to build the
03:31
infrastructure for peace in our
03:33
civilization and so we built up a lot of
03:35
acronyms or there's WTO the UN UNESCO
03:39
all of these great world organizations
03:43
the World Court and we built this
03:45
infrastructure piece of our prosper
03:47
society and we were a great beneficiary
03:49
of being a most super powers in the
03:53
modern world or Island super powers we
03:56
are a island continent just look at the
03:58
map okay so we had this unbelievable
04:00
resources as great footprint and we're
04:02
the last standing industrialized country
04:05
so we set it up in a way that was very
04:08
non-traditional we we spent
04:09
infrastructure money outside the US with
04:11
the Marshall Plan and then we uneven the
04:14
trade deals around the you world we said
04:17
okay we'll accept goods and services
04:19
flowing freely into the US but our goods
04:21
and services are going to be in bar goed
04:23
because we need to benefit mankind by
04:26
creating a global middle class
04:29
and economic interdependence II in the
04:31
system 71 72 years later it's been a
04:35
phenomenal success the Canadians by the
04:37
way have contributed they've contributed
04:39
militarily they've always put their
04:41
forces and troops on the ground when we
04:43
asked them for help but they didn't bear
04:45
that burden okay of building that system
04:49
for the world and so now that system is
04:52
changing it has to be RER connected
04:54
again
04:54
so you basically touched on the theme of
04:56
exporting peace which I definitely want
04:57
to get into but let's just go back you
04:59
mentioned being at Goldman before that
05:01
you were at Harvard and you've been at
05:02
the White House those are three of the
05:03
top institutions what's the one trait
05:05
you think that you need to get into
05:08
those organizations the top institution
05:10
that I came from was a mental
05:12
institution it was 72 Webster Avenue
05:14
okay that was the house that I grew up
05:16
in and my parents to live in okay that
05:18
was the top institution okay
05:19
I beat every one of those houses and
05:20
every one of those schools okay but
05:23
what's the question what's the one trade
05:25
skill said the one thing you need to get
05:27
into those like is it intelligence is
05:30
the persistence is it luck is it you got
05:32
to know the right people
05:33
hey let me tell you something you know I
05:34
can give you all the cliches in the
05:35
world you got to go forward man you got
05:38
to go forward my life is so improbable
05:41
and so many weird twists and turns have
05:44
happened to me well let me tell you some
05:46
when I hit the ground you got to make a
05:47
decision you made out of China you made
05:50
it a glass or you rubber rubber ball me
05:53
I'm a rubber Superboy you know I'm gonna
05:54
hit the ground
05:55
no expect you stand the ground too long
05:56
okay so that's the number one thing it's
05:59
not what happens to you in life ash it's
06:03
what you do with what happens to you in
06:05
life okay so I'm getting bounced from
06:06
the white house I'm fired I'm
06:08
humiliating 45 major newspapers non-stop
06:12
repetition on all the news media you
06:15
know is brutal
06:16
but I said a few coarse words I was
06:17
caught on a recorded phone line by a
06:20
nefarious reporter and so Kelly use that
06:23
to fire me that's cool it's his right I
06:25
never complained about it talked very
06:27
well about him but I'm walking out now
06:29
it's a week later I'm on the fourth
06:32
Street or 3rd Street Promenade in Santa
06:33
Monica my 25 year old son who work for
06:36
Google is now with Peter Diamandis is
06:38
going to Stanford business
06:40
in September he's got his arm around me
06:42
me this hey pops are you okay pops are
06:46
you okay
06:47
I said AJ now am i okay watch what I do
06:50
with this it's gonna be a learning
06:52
lesson for you that no matter what
06:55
happens okay they want to roll me in
06:57
broken glass they want to say mean and
07:00
nasty things about me who cares I don't
07:02
have cancer you had an unbelievable life
07:05
read Victor Frankel's book man and the
07:08
search for meaning of life this guy had
07:10
to walk out a concentration camp they
07:11
took the fillings out of his teeth and
07:13
he came to the United States and built
07:15
themselves off from nothing so so
07:17
refresh your attitude refresh your
07:20
optimism refresh your passion in your
07:23
life and don't take it too seriously you
07:25
know Mel Brooks is an amazing line you
07:26
want to hear it relax ash none of us are
07:29
getting out of here alive
07:30
okay we hear that line before chorus if
07:31
okay that's it run it that way I wanted
07:35
to know a little bit more about that
07:36
famous interview he referred to I
07:38
wondered if there was something
07:39
subconscious going on
07:41
you mentioned the nefarious journalists
07:43
and that was that a cry for help did you
07:45
want out because once you got in you
07:46
realize just how cancerous yes I was
07:48
it's actually a lot of people said that
07:50
to me that that was a cry for help that
07:52
was actually the very opposite of a cry
07:54
for help that was me
07:56
somebody said to me the other day that
07:57
I'm politically naive I was like that's
08:00
completely wrong I'm politically naive
08:02
to the 10th power
08:03
I'm exponentially politically naive I
08:06
picked up the phone this was Frank Liz's
08:09
son he knew my father for 50 years he
08:12
grew up in the same neighborhood as me
08:13
he was an Italian kid I picked the phone
08:15
to call him to ask him how did the
08:17
private dinner get leaked
08:19
okay and I didn't need his sources I
08:21
just wanted to feel him out and we were
08:23
joking on the phone with each other you
08:24
can listen to the tape he wrote it up
08:26
like I was like some kind of uh names
08:27
lunatic and blah blah blah I mean all
08:30
this nonsense listen to the tape he
08:31
recorded it we flushed out the tape
08:33
Chris Cuomo looked at him I said dude
08:35
this isn't it somebody wrote wrote it
08:37
like it was salaciously unhinge the guy
08:39
was talking to you regular neighborhood
08:41
II definitely a little bit of profanity
08:45
in there I mean I told him bit of fake
08:46
news about Steve man I mean
08:47
you do what I said but I mean other than
08:49
that they'll be impressive the but but
08:51
it was very evaluative of what these
08:53
people are like I know how to evaluate
08:54
talent I've started from scratch two
08:56
businesses so that was very far from a
08:59
cry for help that was help in the
09:02
opposite way I had built a nine-page
09:04
comms plan
09:05
I understood the president's personality
09:07
I knew we had to clean out the cultural
09:10
misfits inside the room they were only
09:11
caring about themselves the number one
09:14
thing you got to do when you're starting
09:15
up you got to create the right culture
09:17
and we're previous did is he created the
09:19
absolutely wrong culture he was a very
09:21
paranoid guy very very insecure and the
09:24
way you get power in life ash you got to
09:28
give it away it's only way to get power
09:30
okay I ran skybridge I hosted Wall
09:32
Street week I ran the salt conference I
09:34
had a podcast I was on the president's
09:37
executive transition team and I was
09:38
fundraising for the president and I was
09:40
one of his top media surrogates during
09:42
the transition no way you can do all
09:44
those things you got a delegate give
09:46
power away and you got to hold people
09:49
accountable for it then you got to have
09:50
enough self-confidence that the people
09:52
around you we're not gonna bag you ID if
09:55
you've got insecurities in your
09:56
personality and your under-confident it
09:59
always equals paranoia and backstab so
10:04
that's a human equation of psychology to
10:07
take to the bank
10:08
so if you're running a company and
10:09
you're listening to this program
10:10
identify the people that are
10:12
backstabbing each other in your room get
10:15
them in a closet get them in a
10:16
conference room and say okay listen
10:17
you're a backstabber and you're a little
10:19
paranoid can you calm yourself down if
10:22
you cannot calm yourself down I got to
10:24
get rid of you but you know why you're
10:26
very talented
10:27
okay and Priebus is actually a very
10:28
organized guy disciplined guy I thought
10:31
he did a good job at the RNC
10:32
I liked him I thought he was a friend of
10:34
mine until he started his sinister
10:38
slithering nonsense that they do in the
10:40
swamp once he brought up Priebus I had
10:43
to ask about the staredown that famous
10:45
photo now there's that picture of you
10:47
and him standing in the Wall Street
10:49
Journal - yeah he's a cowboy
10:51
whatwhat the cowboy shot what's going
10:52
through your mind and what's going
10:53
through his mind in that moment well you
10:56
know I've looked at the picture that was
10:57
an accidental picture
10:59
I was really trying to figure out at
11:02
that moment if there was some move on
11:06
the Rubik's Cube or I could get the
11:07
patterns to line up properly and him and
11:10
I could figure out a way to get a wall
11:11
but he was leaking on me six so funny I
11:14
mean like these guys they didn't want me
11:16
in a job so they were blasting me
11:18
tonight before the president puts me in
11:20
the job they start the process of
11:21
blasting me that weekend that picture
11:23
was taken after the weekend and you know
11:26
they're leaking on me left and right I
11:27
was like okay these guys are like
11:29
ridiculous okay they're supposed to be
11:30
my friends he fronts up like you're old
11:33
enough to remember richie cunningham you
11:34
know the the genial guy from happy days
11:37
with the Fonz the guy fronts up like
11:39
richie cunningham but he's really like a
11:40
Sith Lord you know he's a backstabbing
11:42
Sith Lord with like a red lightsaber
11:44
right so that's what they do to you I
11:46
think I'm hahaha and then when you're
11:48
not looking they try to hit you from
11:49
behind okay what are you guys doing this
11:52
for why do we need to do that this is
11:53
what the American people don't like
11:54
let's stop doing this right so that look
11:57
was okay do I have to knock this guy
12:00
into Pennsylvania Avenue because I'm
12:02
prepared to knock I'm into Pennsylvania
12:03
Avenue or is he gonna knock it off what
12:06
is he gonna do okay because he's he's
12:08
the number one leaker in the White House
12:09
I showed the president how he was
12:11
leaking how was it leaking take us my
12:13
dinner I did a whole Carrie Mathison you
12:16
watch homeland no no okay well your
12:18
friends do so what happens is she's
12:20
looking at the terrorists and she's
12:21
analyzing you at the big dude Schumer
12:23
watch that because I'm from Iran no I'm
12:25
kidding going on Wow probably should
12:27
watch it because you from Miranda that's
12:29
probably gonna be a bad moment for me
12:30
that was probably pulled to the correct
12:32
it's all good right but but but I showed
12:34
so we use the president's name he would
12:36
leak through the Washington Examiner he
12:38
would say Trump hates ash and then you'd
12:41
get like a Google Alert on your phone oh
12:43
my god Trump hates me I thought I had a
12:45
great relationship that was previous
12:46
doing that to you with Spicer and a
12:48
couple other guys some of his cutouts
12:50
because he wanted to keep you from the
12:51
White House or he wanted to destabilize
12:53
what he thought was a strong
12:54
relationship between you and trauma
12:56
right so he's the Washington Examiner
12:57
why I hope never cut that out for the
13:00
president the president didn't read that
13:01
president was more focused on things
13:03
like the New York Post and
13:05
right you never either Washington's an
13:07
ER so he's used the president's name in
13:08
the Washington Examiner when he was
13:10
leaking on Gary he would go to The Wall
13:13
Street Journal you know that would be
13:14
the maximum damage to Gary he had two or
13:16
three cut outs there and he used them
13:18
Bannon loved the walls right how did you
13:20
figure out it was him what was your you
13:22
don't have to be like a rock okay it was
13:24
more by just figured okay look he hates
13:26
these guys these are the journalists
13:28
he's tight with here the cutouts that
13:30
he's using I mean it had a massive a
13:32
leak I mean we're trying to go to
13:33
political with me my original job was
13:35
video PL director now I know I look like
13:39
I was born at night but it wasn't last
13:43
night right so I said okay you're gonna
13:45
make me to go PL direct I was already
13:46
smelling some bad nonsense so I asked
13:49
Rick durable in the head of the
13:50
transition team to give me a letter an
13:54
offer an acceptance letter and I got the
13:55
offer an acceptance letter right so now
13:57
that are doing their opposition research
13:58
and all their nonsense on me to block me
14:00
from getting in a 10 a leaking that they
14:03
never offered me the job in the first
14:05
place there was never a press release on
14:06
me that was one of the previous tricks
14:09
so I took the letter and I sent it to
14:12
lier spice from the Spice Girls right
14:14
every Spice Girls got a nickname so I
14:16
sent the letter to liar spice and I said
14:18
liar spice you can't lie about this I
14:21
have documented evidence on this so
14:23
you're gonna have to switch the story
14:24
with Politico ok but even after that I
14:28
still protected lyre spice when he was
14:29
out there making the Hitler comments and
14:31
all the stupid stuff I went on erin
14:34
burnett show and said he shouldn't lose
14:35
his job over that he was trying he was
14:37
just over his head and you know so you
14:39
were brought in to kind of kill the
14:40
leaks but isn't it leaks apart like a
14:43
necessary evil and dad leaks let's let's
14:46
define leaks there's a lot of different
14:48
types of leaks so if you go throughout
14:50
human history political leaking is a
14:53
normal practice you're leaking to test
14:55
an idea you're leaking to test a
14:57
personnel decision you're leaking to
15:00
build a bridge and a relationship with
15:02
the journalist you may need them in a
15:03
crisis there's a lot of positives and a
15:08
lot of positive externality for leaking
15:10
badly King is ashes a trunk ash has a
15:14
girlfriend ash is a globalist
15:17
dimwit is a nationalist okay that is
15:20
like bad leaking no scaramouche's got a
15:23
nefarious deal with the Chinese bad
15:26
leaking stop it guys it's not off the
15:28
lying let's knock off the disingenuous
15:31
dishonesty let's stop it now all the
15:34
stuff that I'm saying to you it's very
15:36
dangerous because people don't like the
15:38
truth they don't like to hear the truth
15:40
and I'd like to take out people that
15:42
speak the truth you know you remember a
15:43
few good men let me taste them we're at
15:45
a point talk about an inflection point
15:46
in our society we have this unbelievable
15:49
amazing society but we got to fix the
15:51
government you can track up 30 40
15:54
trillion dollars of debt you'll dig too
15:55
big of a hole
15:56
you'll stay rich I'll be fine my kids
15:59
will be fine
16:00
but you're gonna hurt the middle class
16:02
and the lower middle class families that
16:03
I came from okay there you're gonna
16:05
reduce their standard of living if you
16:07
continue to operate the government off
16:09
of this ridiculous policy so that's why
16:11
the president got elected so while we
16:13
knock it off let's have a little bit
16:15
more transparency and honesty between
16:16
each other you don't have to like me I
16:19
don't have to like you but when we're in
16:21
the same Jersey - 77 Yankees you're not
16:24
old enough to remember them but they
16:25
were killing each other hey Sparky Lyle
16:27
wrote a book called the Bronx Zoo they
16:29
were killing each other when I got on
16:31
the field they're wearing the same
16:32
Jersey they won the World Series so you
16:34
don't have to like me I'm halfway decent
16:36
of what I'm capable of and so are you
16:38
let's get in the boat together row in
16:40
the same direction let's knock off the
16:42
Internet's and warfare if the election
16:44
were held today this Trump won by a
16:47
landslide so you think he's gonna play
16:49
2020 election is held today huh he wins
16:53
by a landslide if he might actually
16:55
agree with you when I call answer I call
16:57
2016 a year before it happened I said he
17:00
was gonna but why do you think he's
17:01
gonna win well because there are three
17:03
or four reason number one there's I mean
17:04
no offense to these guys and I said this
17:05
to Donna Brazile on Bill Maher show who
17:08
do you got
17:08
show me the guy show me to a woman or to
17:11
Ottawa man a woman that's gonna beat him
17:13
this guy is a beast okay he is a
17:16
superstar you may not like him you mean
17:19
I like his mannerisms his style his
17:21
tweeting but this guy is a beast okay he
17:24
gets it and he knows how to get the job
17:26
done and let me tell you something he
17:27
hits it harder than anybody this guy
17:29
plays like a
17:30
dog all day you want to learn from Trump
17:32
it's 21-7 you're in late in the third
17:35
quarter and he's gonna win are you gonna
17:38
take the boys gonna drive it down
17:39
feeling people don't like me for saying
17:40
that stuff about him but he's not a
17:42
choke artist okay so he wins by a
17:44
landslide today in 2020 he wins by a
17:47
landslide the mechanical reasons for
17:49
that or you are in a rising economy
17:51
since 1882 today you don't lose the
17:54
presidency in a rising economies never
17:56
happened so so the only time it did
17:59
happen was unusual there was an
18:01
assassination of a president and it was
18:03
a very bad war going on and a tremendous
18:05
amount of civil protests and so the
18:07
sitting president and the rising economy
18:09
left the race he's really worried about
18:11
Bobby Kennedy LBJ it's the only time
18:13
that did happen very different different
18:15
exogenous circles actually he wins
18:19
curious what you think you got him for
18:21
another seven years so get used to it
18:23
that's right but let's get the right
18:25
team around them so that we can really
18:26
do a good job for the Americans speaking
18:28
of the team so this year this week
18:30
Ivanka Trump says you know you can't ask
18:32
me as the daughter about whether or not
18:34
like the sex stuff is accurate it's not
18:36
but fair question or whatever two days
18:39
before that she's in Korea and she's
18:41
like I'm basically an advisor and she's
18:42
an advisor is that gonna last or at some
18:45
point are Jared and Ivanka and her
18:47
family is the nepotism continue so look
18:49
I I know I don't I don't know the I
18:51
don't know the answer to that but I find
18:53
this thing like a little laughable about
18:54
the corner quota nepotism okay Bobby
18:56
Kennedy was Attorney General he's in the
18:58
cabinet okay so the fact that the
19:00
president wants a few of his family
19:02
members around him as official advisors
19:05
is less hypocritical than having George
19:07
Walker Bush advising George Herbert
19:09
Walker Bush throughout the presidency
19:11
working on the election campaign and so
19:13
forth this is just hypocritical there
19:14
are many instances Abigail Adams you
19:17
could go back through our history so
19:19
there's the eateth Wilson there's Ben
19:21
levels of nepotism in our government
19:23
forever okay so so people cry nepotism
19:27
they should take a step back say they've
19:28
relax for a second the first lady's not
19:31
an elected official she is a very
19:32
integral part in the government secondly
19:34
he's not a government official and so
19:37
there was always a family component to
19:38
these things there has to be look at the
19:39
stress of these people
19:40
so give the guy a break on that as it
19:43
relates to the two of them as
19:44
governmental officials I don't know the
19:46
answer to that but my guess is probably
19:47
not
19:48
because if you look at duration cycle of
19:51
governmental officials underneath the
19:53
president
19:53
they typically grind out in two to three
19:56
years do you feel like Trump winning
19:59
ultimately was just confirmation that in
20:00
America celebrity and wealth is what
20:03
Americans look up to like they didn't
20:05
elect them because of his business
20:06
acumen they elected him because of like
20:08
The Apprentice like that kind of rule
20:10
that's good question I I don't know the
20:12
answer to that I think that they elected
20:13
him because remember the rise of Trump
20:17
ISM is common death or the decline of
20:19
collectivism okay I mean you could have
20:21
flipped coins and made better decisions
20:22
of those guys I mean I will never
20:23
understand why they didn't go to
20:25
Wisconsin she only lost the state by I
20:27
don't know I know yeah you have to
20:28
Google this I don't know the exact
20:30
number but is it 40 50 thousand votes
20:32
she lost the state of Wisconsin her
20:34
aides told her you got that in the bag
20:36
but let me submit to you if you get the
20:38
speaker the houses Republican from
20:39
Wisconsin and you got Governor Scott
20:41
Walker that's won three elections in
20:43
four years in Wisconsin don't you show
20:45
up her decline or her terrible candidacy
20:49
and by the way I like her as a person
20:50
you'll never hear me say anything bad
20:52
about I'm just analyzing the strategy of
20:54
the campaign they outspent this and they
20:56
out man us man does or woman does and
20:59
they still beat up we still beat them so
21:01
so to me I think trunk 1/4 number
21:04
detractors her weakness as a candidate
21:07
and her bad strategy his persistence his
21:10
persona and I do think you know you may
21:14
not agree with this but I think the
21:15
American people looked at him and said
21:16
okay I don't know what he's worth
21:18
he says he's worth 10 billion we can
21:20
take him at his word but he's definitely
21:21
worth a lot more than me okay so he's a
21:24
rich guy by the standards of America
21:26
some people view them as a success and
21:28
they also smell that their government is
21:30
family they smell there's something
21:32
wrong with the system and they were
21:34
hoping to get somebody from outside the
21:35
system one of his best campaign lines
21:37
was listen I get the system I played the
21:39
system he gave money to Schumer I gave
21:42
money to Clinton I gave money to D'Amato
21:44
I played the system let me get in there
21:46
let me see if I can fix the system so I
21:48
think that was the compelling narrative
21:50
the bomb to the presidency is there a
21:51
degree of hypocrisy of
21:53
the Americans and especially let's say
21:55
the Democrats when they're kind of
21:56
crying foul over Russia when America has
21:59
a history of meddling in other countries
22:01
election so it is not just a degree of
22:04
hypocrisy among politicians there's a
22:06
degree of a Bacchus among everybody
22:07
everybody's a hypocrite in some way
22:09
shape or form you have said something I
22:11
don't know we're gonna analyze you
22:13
you've said something ten years ago five
22:15
years ago three years ago you're doing
22:17
the exact opposite of that I've done it
22:19
you know I'm a hypocrite but there's a
22:21
difference if you change your point of
22:22
view because conditions change I mean
22:23
don't you find Trump is just lying all
22:25
the time like that there's a hypocrisy
22:27
of those whining about Russia but I mean
22:29
with Trump the degree of lying like how
22:32
could anybody work for him Reid win big
22:34
Lee by Scott Adams he's the creator of
22:37
Dilbert and so he's a very interesting
22:40
take on Trump's persuasion skills he has
22:43
a very interesting take on Trump's
22:45
vernacular okay he's a showman and so
22:49
he's a storyteller and so he mixes in
22:53
the story some levels of fabrication the
22:57
average student of politics the average
23:00
person that's analyzing presidential
23:03
nature and presidential personality
23:06
doesn't like it the average American
23:08
that's watched television and anissina
23:10
mom TV and has seen the screenplay
23:13
unfold finds it amusing so we're in a
23:16
new territory okay you're you're in a
23:19
situation now we have the first Smash
23:22
Mouth shock-jock president if Barack
23:26
Obama was the Jackie Robinson of the
23:28
American presidency he broke the color
23:30
barrier Donald Trump is the Howard Stern
23:33
okay so somebody's finished so a guy
23:36
like me I get that joke my buttons
23:39
bigger than your button I'm laughing I
23:40
mean it says some stuff that's really
23:42
funny any he will stretch a story you
23:45
know there's a there's a great cliche
23:47
why let the truth get in the way of a
23:50
great story okay Trump is a great
23:52
storyteller and so if you were
23:54
legitimizing so while he's the president
23:56
adage every word that comes out of his
23:58
mouth I learned that George Washington
23:59
never told a lie you've been told his
24:01
daddy chopped down the cherry tree let
24:03
me take him at his word he's a prolific
24:05
liar
24:06
the guys like me we don't see him like
24:08
that we see him as a colorful guy who
24:10
says colorful things but when you get
24:12
down to brass tacks you're sitting at a
24:14
table like this is a very good decision
24:15
maker very good that's decision you've
24:18
seen maybe whether in the 11 days razor
24:21
fence I think that was a great pick for
24:23
him my big pensive complimentary
24:24
and he complements him with an e mean
24:27
he's a complimentary personality and he
24:29
complements him with an i3 gets the
24:31
president he's a loyal guy pence got a
24:34
great staff no drama on the staff I
24:36
think is great decision by the president
24:38
you touch on loyalty how jarring and
24:41
frustrating is it to work for someone
24:43
who command so much loyalty but seems to
24:45
give it back so little you don't count
24:48
him as a loyal person um um I count him
24:52
as someone that likes loyalty there's
24:54
been some asymmetric behavior as it
24:56
relates to his loyalty but but there's
25:00
also another weird thing that goes on
25:01
with him right
25:02
no one's ever had of his orbit right you
25:04
ready I mean your viewers can't see it
25:06
but I'll draw for you the orbit is not a
25:08
circle it's an ellipse okay and so what
25:11
happens is I was in this orbit you know
25:14
closer here and now I'm out here you see
25:17
what I mean but you never leave the
25:18
orbit right you see under mean so if you
25:19
get the joke with him he gets the joke
25:21
with you you see to me I'm loyal to the
25:25
guy because he's a good guy he's trying
25:26
to do the right thing he fired me for a
25:29
reason I get fired because I was the
25:31
White House communications director and
25:33
I got bagged by a journalist I should
25:35
have been smarter than that I should
25:36
have not had that happen to me now you
25:38
could have given me a pass on that okay
25:41
you gonna said all right guys a good guy
25:42
he backed me they're an Access Hollywood
25:44
tape he sponsored a breakfast right
25:46
after that he's really trying to help me
25:48
I'm gonna give him a pass he's got a
25:50
nine-page comms plan that's really gonna
25:52
help the country let's move forward it's
25:54
just a new cycle but they didn't do that
25:56
they created a spectacle about it they
25:58
made me as famous as Melania and Ivanka
26:00
I didn't have to be his wife or his
26:02
daughter so we are less painful in many
26:04
ways sometimes but my point is I'm not
26:06
going to lose my friendship with them
26:07
over politics see the difference do you
26:13
think that the whole investigation is
26:15
either serve what is the odds of
26:17
impeachment you know
26:18
ishes a joke the problem with the
26:20
investigation is that these things go
26:22
haywire right it's like shooting a
26:24
pinball and they're bouncing off the
26:25
bumpers and the lights are blinking and
26:27
it's like a total joke okay
26:29
Conde said today Secretary Rice let's
26:31
stop and let's knock off the Russian
26:33
investigation you have 15 months until
26:34
you haven't found anything the country's
26:36
ready to move on that's what she said
26:38
this morning so let's knock it off
26:39
there's nothing there I said there was
26:40
nothing there 15 months ago but here's
26:42
what happens you start on whitewater
26:45
your name is Ken Starr and you're
26:47
working on Hillary and Bill Clinton and
26:50
you end up with the Monica Lewinsky
26:53
scandal
26:53
okay and so you wait long enough you
26:56
look pretty good you know God makes the
26:58
bald heads perfect you know that right
26:59
aunt you look pretty good you probably
27:01
are a perfect person okay but you're
27:02
talking to an imperfect person okay but
27:05
you maybe you're perfect I'm not perfect
27:07
you you did hard enough you dig long
27:10
enough you're gonna find something about
27:12
me you don't like you're gonna find a
27:13
misstep you're gonna find it I just
27:15
indiscretion I I'm a flawed guy I had in
27:20
business I've made 10 phone books of
27:22
flaws in the White House I made five
27:24
phone books of him in 11 days okay I'm a
27:26
flawed guy making mistakes all the time
27:28
so the pin balls bouncing around now in
27:31
Washington the the pinball machine is
27:34
called scandals incorporated they played
27:36
a machine on Hillary Clinton they would
27:38
say oh my god uranium one 33,000 emails
27:41
let's hits president Hillary Clinton the
27:45
pinball will bounce around in there
27:46
she didn't win and a dialing offer he's
27:49
upset
27:50
I said stop hitting me I'm gonna start
27:52
hitting her right and that's what
27:54
happens he you become the swamp because
27:57
the swamp is the swamp swamp swamp
27:59
laughs at you they laugh at you they
28:01
said oh here he comes
28:03
mr. naivete to the 10th power let's slow
28:06
down his do and Sophia's let's disrupt
28:09
his family let's put a negative research
28:12
opposition research out on them let's
28:15
give him a run for his money we're gonna
28:16
be here for 30 years this guy's coming
28:18
into ten minutes gonna be in this
28:19
president's term one day 11 days for me
28:23
maybe a year let's drive him crazy let's
28:26
teach him what the swamp is all about
28:27
and then you become the swamp if you let
28:29
yourself become the swamp
28:31
American people don't like it bro you
28:33
got millennial care how old you I'm 39
28:36
my kids are nine and says you got young
28:37
kids - I got millennial kids and I got
28:40
generations ears and I don't like it
28:42
they don't like it they see through it
28:44
they don't like it and also the
28:46
proliferation I said that word right of
28:48
social media it's got a spotlight on
28:51
these people like whoa he's really like
28:55
this what's wrong with you people why
28:56
don't you knock it off
28:57
well like it with the shooting that
29:00
happened in Florida do you think that
29:03
the reaction against the students well
29:06
as those kids get older and get the
29:08
right to vote is that gonna come back
29:10
and haunt the Republicans I don't know
29:12
good question though so will you where
29:15
you say to yourself is its we should be
29:20
able to solve for this issue okay I
29:23
really wish at times like this that we
29:27
stop with the left and right nonsense
29:29
and we go to right and wrong okay and so
29:32
right or wrong as a post partisan
29:34
analytics left or right is the
29:37
nonsensical trauma that we have right
29:39
now and so to me
29:40
I'm absolutely confident they're smart
29:43
enough nonpartisan enough people in the
29:45
country where we could hit the
29:47
intersection point of non crazy people
29:51
can have use for guns for recreational
29:53
or protective purposes self-defense and
29:56
crazy people can't get anywhere near a
29:58
gun and I'm gonna tell you something if
30:00
you're a liberal watching this and you
30:01
want to poke out one of my eyes I'm
30:03
sorry to tell you this is always gonna
30:05
be a Second Amendment but the thing got
30:07
started with a Second Amendment had to
30:09
do with what the the British forces did
30:11
in New Hampshire and Massachusetts by
30:14
taking the garrisons munitions away and
30:18
it paralyzed those people there was no
30:20
tax
30:21
there was no representation on taxation
30:23
and they took their guns and missions
30:25
away and so then they could be oppressed
30:27
and so they understood I intuitively
30:29
that you needed had the ability to arm
30:31
yourself to protect yourself not only
30:33
against enemies the potential
30:35
governmental oppression it's been
30:37
steeped in the culture of the United
30:39
States that t-bag is in the culture the
30:41
United States for 242 years
30:44
forty-three years it's not going away so
30:47
you may not like it but you're not going
30:49
to regulate or litigate or legislate the
30:53
guns out of existence United States what
30:55
you have to do is you've got to tighten
30:57
the background checks you got to reduce
30:59
the magazines you've got to reduce the
31:01
impact of the bullets so police the bomb
31:03
and the bullets out there that are super
31:04
harmful or less harmful yeah set up
31:07
devices you know you're a technologist
31:09
there's great devices we put in these
31:11
schools
31:11
you should not own these teachers that's
31:14
crazy that's a that's a really bad idea
31:15
I would tell the president if I'm
31:17
sitting next to him I say well let's
31:19
relax on arming the teachers I know you
31:20
oh you're on missile lock with the arm
31:22
and the teachers but don't on the
31:24
teachers because the gun is gonna go off
31:26
when you least expect it and you don't
31:28
want it and if you've got 45 50 thousand
31:30
schools or whatever the number is I
31:32
don't know the number but you've had
31:34
1,400 people die since Columbine let's
31:36
say you got a hundred thousand schools I
31:38
don't want a hundred thousand schools
31:40
many of which are very safe -
31:42
statistically have an increase in the
31:44
potential acts of violence as a result
31:46
of exposure to arms so we can figure
31:49
that out we're smart we can figure that
31:51
out we got to figure it out in a right
31:54
or wrong way as opposed to left or right
31:56
and and everybody at the tables got to
31:58
be unhappy
31:58
the left's got to be unhappy because
32:00
there's some freedom around the guns and
32:02
the rights got to be unhappy because we
32:04
can't put an orange ball sighs blow out
32:07
into an innocent kids body I'm sorry
32:09
okay that's that's not what we should be
32:11
doing our people okay but not gets a gun
32:13
and they shoot an orange bowl size hole
32:16
in your son's body I don't want that
32:18
okay I got five kids let's knock that
32:19
off we should be able to solve what why
32:22
is it both why is it that after this
32:25
most recent shooting there seems to be a
32:27
little bit of traction but why is it
32:29
also that there's never any action in
32:31
the end and we just forget and move on
32:32
because that's what they do to you they
32:34
grind you down they slow roll you the
32:37
move in the swamp is the slow roll move
32:39
want to hear the slow roll move okay you
32:42
know this heat right now but in two days
32:46
the news cycle will be over and there's
32:48
a great website called last week's news
32:50
or last week news from two weeks ago and
32:54
like you you go on our website and you
32:56
you
32:57
Wow yeah that was like attached every
32:58
two weeks ago but now we're here two
33:01
weeks later we don't even thinking about
33:02
that there's another catastrophe
33:04
so they grind you they slow roll you and
33:07
so that's the question you asked me but
33:08
the kids I don't know the answer those
33:09
kids are really that fired up and they
33:12
are that persistent and they can create
33:15
a movement on March 24th that galvanizes
33:18
the youth the product will change the
33:21
product is a politician that product
33:23
will change you want to change the
33:24
system force everybody to vote like they
33:26
do in Australia all of a sudden the
33:28
product has to become less extreme if I
33:30
only like bitter coffee and you only
33:33
like super sweet coffee okay but now I
33:35
can only serve one coffee to both sides
33:38
the coffee's gonna be a little bitter
33:40
and a little sweet it's not gonna be one
33:43
side and the other side make everybody
33:45
vote you'll liquidate and dilute the
33:46
product you see what I mean and then you
33:48
have less polemical less it is nonsense
33:50
that we're dealing with compare for me
33:52
DC with Wall Street because the unique
33:55
take on the worst guy of 54 the worst
34:01
guy I'm and I got him right in my brain
34:03
right here right inside my melon a worst
34:05
guy ever met in my life you want to name
34:06
them I gotta name names they know who
34:08
they are okay and one of them apologized
34:11
me so I'm over him but the other guy
34:12
means it's a terrible human being
34:14
he's the Eagle Scout okay he is the
34:18
pillar of rectitude and ethics in
34:21
Washington Wall Street is such a cooler
34:24
place okay we got tough guys we got
34:26
ruthless guys you're gonna poke my eye
34:28
out for a dollar but at the end of day
34:30
we're transacting right so here's what I
34:32
say about Wall Street Wall Street
34:34
there's a game going on and we're both
34:36
on the green team here's the green it's
34:38
money I'm gonna sell you the building
34:40
you're looking at the building you're
34:42
going to improve the quality the rent
34:43
roll you're gonna make money off of me
34:45
I'm gonna make money off of you because
34:46
I'm getting a net present value off my
34:48
current cash flow we're gonna transact
34:50
you may take my eyeball out while I'm
34:52
doing it and I may hate you of what I'm
34:53
done but at least we've got some harmony
34:56
in the transaction in in washer there's
35:00
no Green Team it's guys nuts I got to
35:03
get closer to the president this guy may
35:04
be close to the president oh my god I
35:06
feel so powerful I don't want this guy
35:09
to get any of my power
35:10
they take like this little pill okay it
35:12
looks it's the lord acton pill okay they
35:15
put it in power corrupts absolute power
35:20
corrupts absolutely people are nuts
35:23
that's why the founders put into fourth
35:25
the state that's why the first move I
35:26
made or they turn the lights on in the
35:28
press room you gotta have people that
35:32
are in power held accountable to their
35:34
power by the Fourth Estate you want to
35:37
protect the country's democracy you want
35:38
to protect the country from tyranny we
35:40
got to have a relationship with the
35:42
press they men like me I mean I like
35:44
them but we can't be declaring war on
35:46
them okay that's part of the original
35:49
documents that's part of the foundation
35:51
of the country in our long sit down
35:53
session Anthony and I went on to talk
35:55
about a number of other things including
35:56
general Kelly how he found out he was
35:59
being fired Michael wolf fire and fury
36:02
as well as Trump's plan assuming he has
36:05
one and if you want to hear all of that
36:07
make sure to check out the extended
36:08
version of this interview but we're
36:09
gonna jump ahead to Trump's
36:11
understanding of the paradox of greed
36:13
the great economic gift the President
36:17
Trump has is that he understands the
36:20
paradox of greed if I take the entire
36:22
pizza for myself I'm gonna end up way
36:25
poor why is that I'm gonna be in a bob
36:28
wired McMansion with security and my
36:31
neighbor's gonna be storm if I slice my
36:34
neighbor into the pie I'm probably gonna
36:36
be just fine and they're gonna be fine
36:38
too Henry Ford was like a terrible dude
36:40
apparently a racist all these bad things
36:42
about him but he understood the
36:44
economics of the paradox of greed he
36:47
said I'm gonna pay my workers enough
36:49
money so that they can afford the car
36:51
that they're sitting driving or the car
36:54
that they're making I'm gonna pay them
36:56
enough money to live in a nice house and
36:57
we have a good school system this way
36:59
they won't come at me in my mansion with
37:01
a pitchfork and a fire stick and try to
37:02
put my head on a spike right and so
37:05
that's part of the social contract and
37:06
Trump understands that better than
37:07
anybody so he's a person in the room
37:11
like how did he is obviously the
37:13
greediest person I mean if you look at
37:15
this equation what this thing's cost
37:17
them a couple billion dollars to be the
37:18
president so how's he been the greediest
37:20
person I mean would you read about the
37:22
self-dealing Mike
37:23
basically foreign government staying at
37:25
the Trump Hotel in DC like there are
37:27
things that you would think he would
37:28
have the I mean look I don't know the
37:30
financials at Trump because it's private
37:32
and surprise but I think they get into
37:33
mouch I mean they're losing a lot of
37:35
liberal bar mitzvah money at these uh at
37:38
these hotels on put to you that way
37:39
and a lot of people don't go to these
37:41
hotels anymore he just lost Trump Soho I
37:43
think he lost Trump Toronto you can't
37:45
tell me these making money off the
37:46
president I just thought I'd believe it
37:48
okay now we can paint it that way and we
37:50
can position him that way he's getting
37:52
across because he picked ran for
37:53
president this is the Trump family like
37:56
the Kennedys are you going to see Ivanka
37:59
and jr. running for office no no you
38:02
don't know no if you had to bet on one
38:05
of them running or becoming present in
38:09
the future which of the three you think
38:10
is most no I wouldn't bet against any of
38:12
them they're very articulate on
38:14
television they're good-looking people
38:15
they've got sound reasoning boy they've
38:18
got some life experience now I mean it's
38:20
one thing to be on television with your
38:22
dad running The Apprentice is another
38:23
thing to be getting flaming arrows shot
38:26
at ya every single day of your life you
38:27
know and you've got 40 to 75 thousand
38:30
Twitter trolls that are lighting up your
38:31
Twitter feed and you got what do they
38:34
call this thing shadow banning I mean
38:36
they're all shadow banned on Twitter you
38:37
know you got all this like stalinistic
38:39
nonsense going on in these social media
38:42
companies slow down conservative thought
38:44
so they got the education of a lifetime
38:46
so they're well-equipped for the job but
38:49
you know look I think that has to be a
38:51
calling I think that it's you have to
38:56
you know Oprah said it better than
38:58
anybody she's like okay God you want me
39:00
to run for president man you better you
39:01
better send me a really loud message and
39:03
a loud message that I can really hear
39:05
and so I think it's gonna be calling I
39:07
don't know if they have the calling or
39:08
not
39:09
what's the near future well I'll have to
39:11
see what happens with my deal my deal is
39:13
before City is for 15 months these sort
39:16
of ridiculous is fine if they approve
39:18
the deal I'll sell the deal I'll go work
39:20
with the the acquired company to help
39:23
grow that business I'll probably do more
39:25
TV and I'll probably
39:28
do some teaching and I'm having a lot of
39:32
fun any politics in your future I don't
39:34
have the calling so so I don't see
39:37
myself running for politics I think it's
39:39
sort of funny I think the reason why I'm
39:41
getting hit so hard is people see me as
39:43
a potential political adversary so
39:45
they're cream and me they're taking out
39:47
my family they're trying to disfigure me
39:49
those nonsense but I mean I wish I could
39:51
give them a newsflash you know the next
39:52
time I'm gonna be in Washington probably
39:53
be visiting the Smithsonian okay I have
39:56
no interest I think these people are a
39:57
bunch of jokers I mean I know I did we
40:01
only one way I could go into politics
40:03
that is if there was a seismic change in
40:06
our population where people really did
40:08
want the truth and they really wanted to
40:10
fix it they wanted people and they'd
40:13
have to be it couldn't just be me they'd
40:14
have to be a legion of me say okay look
40:16
we got to really fix the problem okay
40:18
we're tired of the nonsense the swamp is
40:21
like draining us dry
40:22
there's no drain on the swamp except for
40:25
the drain on the American people into
40:27
the swamp
40:27
suta mean so the America be able to say
40:29
cut was completely done with this
40:30
nonsense we got to hire some people
40:32
they're gonna tell the truth and fix it
40:33
and see if they do uncle trump's trying
40:36
to you know final question you brought
40:38
up your family I know that joining
40:40
Trump's group was hard on your marriage
40:43
what's the status this guy's like a you
40:45
this guy's like a character with the you
40:47
finish I'm saying part of my marriage
40:49
has a capacity it was like a full-blown
40:51
nice well I didn't want to be boyish a
40:54
something funny's okay and I told this
40:55
to the press I said I'm Adam problem I'm
40:57
my wife she's filed for divorce I said
40:59
the minute we fire Priebus they're gonna
41:02
drop that story seven to 10 minutes
41:04
after and boom as soon as Priebus got
41:07
hit they dropped the divorce story on me
41:10
and you know the whole problem that I
41:12
had with the birth and my wife and I and
41:15
the whole thing so it was an unmitigated
41:17
catastrophe so it's awesome I got hit
41:18
professionally I got hit personally I
41:21
got hit politically I don't you're fine
41:25
you're the rubber ball feel this this is
41:27
like real hair really I know it's great
41:28
look at the second house that's like an
41:30
Italian chia pet if you're nice to me
41:31
I'll let you use it one night before I
41:33
put it on eBay I choked that before I
41:35
started the company I had hair like
41:36
Fabio so yeah well see there you go so I
41:38
didn't lose it yeah thank God
41:41
although that's a fantastic dye job
41:44
right that's Latin American dictator
41:45
Brown okay because I was I was using
41:48
Cuban leader black on TV but it looked
41:50
terrible so now we're gonna Latin
41:51
American dictator Brown and I patched up
41:54
with my wife you know I love my wife and
41:56
I think she loves me and we were
41:59
fighting like dogs and we were fighting
42:01
for a lot of different reasons some of
42:03
them are politically based and I'm gonna
42:05
tell you something that is very true and
42:08
if you got it listeners out there our
42:10
viewers they really want to learn from
42:12
other people's mistakes or shortcomings
42:13
let me tell you one of mine
42:15
I got my priorities walk in 2017 that's
42:20
the facts I oversized my ambition I over
42:24
sized those things that are not really
42:26
as important as things like love of your
42:29
family and your friends and the
42:30
commitment to those things that are
42:33
grounding and solid and I got my
42:35
ambition and it it caused the universe
42:38
to smash me in the mouth and so I'm up
42:43
off the canvas now not a few teeth are
42:45
missing but I love my wife and I'm
42:48
committed to her I hope I can make it
42:50
work with it fantastic great story good
42:52
luck a great comedian
43:05
[Music]
43:16
[Music]

Saturday 24 March 2018

EXCLUSIVE FULL UNEDITED Interview of Putin with NBC's Megan Kelly

02:04
In my opinion, the people you have mentioned are not analysts. What they do is propaganda. Why?
02:10
Because everything I spoke about today was done not on our initiative, it is a response to the US ballistic missile defence programme and Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002.
02:31
If we speak of the arms race, it began at that very moment, when the United States pulled out of the ABM Treaty.
02:39
We wanted to prevent this. We called on our American partners to work together on these programmes.
02:46
Firstly, we asked them not to withdraw from the treaty, not to destroy it. But the US pulled out. It was not us who did this but the US.
03:01
Yet we again suggested we work together even after this. I told my colleague then, “Imagine what would happen if Russia and the US joined forces in the crucial area of strategic security.
03:16
The world would change for a long period to come, and the level of global security would rise to an all-time high.”
03:26
The reply was, “This is very interesting.” But they ultimately rejected all our proposals.
03:31
Then I said, “You understand that we will have to improve our offensive arms systems to maintain a balance and to have the ability to overcome your BMD systems.”
03:41
They replied that they were not developing the BMD systems to counter us, that we were free to do as we pleased, and that they would not view our actions as spearheaded against the US.
03:51
No, it was after the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, and the conversations I mentioned were in 2003–2004.
04:29
We have always said that developing the missile defence system creates a threat to us. We have always said that.
04:36
Our American partners would not publicly admit it, claiming that the system was spearheaded mainly against Iran.
04:42
But eventually, in conversations and during talks they admitted that, of course, the system will destroy our nuclear deterrence potential.
04:54
Imagine the situation. What was the point of signing the treaty back in 1972?
05:02
The United States and the Soviet Union had only two regions that they defended from missile attacks: one in the United States and one in the Soviet Union.
05:12
That created a threat for a potential aggressor who would be struck in response. In 2002, the United States said, “We do not need this anymore. We will create anything we want, globally, all over the world.”
05:57
No, not for good reason.This is complete nonsense.
06:00
Because the missile defence system protects from the kind of ballistic missiles that no terrorists have in their arsenal.
06:11
This is an explanation for the housewives watching your programme.
06:15
But if these housewives can hear what I am saying, if you show it to them and they hear me, they will understand that 9/11 and the missile defence system are completely unrelated.
06:30
To defend themselves from terrorist attacks, the major powers must join their efforts against the terrorists rather than create threats for each other.
07:15
I spoke about several systems today. Which one are you referring to, the heavy-duty intercontinental ballistic missile?
07:35
All the systems I mentioned today easily overcome missile defence. Each one of them. This is the point of all these developments.
07:46
Yes, of course.
07:50
It did, very well.
07:52
Some of these systems require additional work. Some of them are already deployed. Some are in serial production.
08:13
Getting back to the beginning of our conversation, there is a missile defence system deployed in Alaska. The distance between Russia’s Chukotka and Alaska is only 60 kilometres.
08:26
Two systems are being deployed in Eastern Europe. One is already in place in Romania. Construction of another one is almost finished in Poland.
08:37
There is also the navy. US ships are based very close to Russian shores both in the south and the north.
08:45
Imagine if we placed our missile systems along the US-Mexico or the US-Canada border in their territories on both sides and brought our ships in from both sides.
09:01
What would you say? Would you take action? Meanwhile we would respond that you are escalating the arms race? Ridiculous, isn’t it? This is exactly what is happening.
09:26
I want to say that the United States, when it withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002, forced us to begin developing new weapon systems.
09:35
We told our partners about it, and they said, “Do whatever you like.” Fine, that is what we did – so enjoy.
10:13
Of course not. I did not know at the time how we could respond, to be honest. So it seems that our partners believed we would have nothing to respond with.
10:22
Our economy was is dire straits, as well as the defence sector and the army.
10:28
Therefore, I do not think anobody could have thought that in such a short period of time we would be able to make such a gigantic leap in the development of strategic weapons.
10:36
I think the CIA must have told the US President that we would not do anything in response. While the Pentagon said something like, “And we will develop a powerful cutting-edge global anti-missile system.” So they did.
10:50
But I will answer your question directly. I can tell you what we told our American partners, what I said personally at the time.
11:04
Who was President in 2002, 2003 and 2004?
11:21
Actually, we kept going on about it for 15 years. I said, almost literally, that we would not develop a system of anti-missile defence the way you are doing.
11:32
Firstly, because it is too expensive, and we do not have the resources. And secondly, we do not know yet how it would work: you do not know, and we certainly do not either.
11:41
But, to preserve the strategic balance so that you would not be able to zero out our nuclear deterrence forces, we will develop strike systems that will be able to break your anti-missile systems.
11:57
We said this plainly and openly, without any aggression, I just told stated we would do. Nothing personal.
12:05
And the response was, “We are not doing this against you, but you do whatever you want and we will presume that it is not directed against us, not against the United States.”
12:34
I heard you.
12:36
I would also like to say that in 2004 – I mentioned this today –I said at a news conference that we will be developing weapons and even mentioned a concrete missile system, Avangard as we call it.
12:51
It is called Avangard now, but then I simply spoke of how it would work. I openly said how it would work. We hoped that this would be heard and the US would discuss it with us and discuss cooperation.
13:03
But no, it was as if they had not heard us. Strategic offensive arms reduction and an antimissile defence system are different things.
13:12
We will be reducing the number of delivery vehicles and warheads under the New START Treaty.
13:16
This means that the numbers will be reduced on both sides, but at the same time, one party, the United States, will be developing antimissile systems.
13:23
This will ultimately lead to a situation where all our nuclear missiles, Russia’s entire missile potential will be reduced to zero.
13:30
This is why we have always linked this. This is how it was in the Soviet-American times; these are natural things, everyone understands this.
14:02
They can. Today they can. But you are developing your antimissile systems. Antimissiles’ range is increasing, and so is their accuracy. These weapons are being upgraded.
14:12
This is why we need to respond to this appropriately, so that we are able to penetrate the system not only today but also tomorrow, when you acquire new weapons.
15:22
Look, I did not say that the testing of some of these systems had been unsuccessful. All the tests were successful.
15:30
It is just that each of these weapon systems is at a different stage of readiness. One is already on alert duty in line units. Another is in the same status.
15:41
The work is proceeding on schedule with regard to some systems. We have no doubt that they will be in service, just as we had no doubt in 2004 that we would make a missile with the so-called cruise glide re-entry vehicle.
15:56
You have been referring all the time to intercontinental ballistic missiles, new missiles…
16:01
No. I am saying that we are developing just one brand of new heavy missile, which will replace a missile that we call Voyevoda, and you have dubbed it Satan.
16:18
We will replace it with a new and more powerful missile. Here it is: a ballistic missile. All the other missiles are not ballistic.
16:26
Therein lies the entire meaning of this, because any antimissile defence system operates against ballistic missiles.
16:32
But we have created a set of new strategic weapons that do not follow ballistic trajectories and the antimissile defence systems are powerless against them.
16:44
This means that the US taxpayers’ money has been wasted.
17:20
There are two reasons why we would respond with our nuclear deterrence forces: a nuclear attack on the Russian Federation or a conventional attack on the Russian Federation, given that it jeopardises the state’s existence.
17:50
Exactly, there are two possible reasons for a nuclear retaliation.
18:13
The START-3 Treaty will expire soon. We are ready to continue this dialogue. What do we consider important?
18:20
We agree to a reduction or to retaining current terms, to a reduction in delivery vehicles and warheads.
18:29
However, today, when we are acquiring weapons that can easily breach all anti-ballistic missile systems, we no longer consider the reduction of ballistic missiles and warheads to be highly critical.
18:51
In the context that the number of delivery vehicles and the number of warheads they can or will carry should, of course, be included in the grand total. And we will show you from a distance what this will look like.
19:06
Our military experts know how to conduct these inspections. In this sense, there are fine-tuned mechanisms and a sufficiently high level of trust.
19:20
Generally, military experts are working together professionally. Politicians talk a lot, but military experts know what they are doing.
19:32
I am also an officer, and I am the Commander-in-Chief. I also served as a military intelligence officer for 17 years.
19:54
I do not see it from an emotional perspective. This gave me a lot of experience in the most diverse fields. I found it useful when I moved on to the civilian sector. Of course, this positive experience helped me in this sense.
20:13
You know, after I left the intelligence service, I worked as Assistant Rector at St Petersburg University.
20:21
I worked with people, established contacts, motivated people to act and brought them together. This is very important in the academic environment.
20:34
Later, I was Deputy Mayor of St Petersburg. I assumed even greater and broader responsibility.
20:43
I dealt with St Petersburg’s international ties, and that is a metropolis with a population of five million people.
20:48
While working in this capacity in St Petersburg, I first met Henry Kissinger. Of course, all this helped me in my work at that time, and my additional experience later helped me in my work in Moscow.
21:18
It is hard for me to say. I have no other experience. The only thing I know is that my partners, including heads of state and government, are exceptional and outstanding people.
21:28
They have gone through stringent selection and elimination procedures. There are no chance people at this level. And each of them has his or her own advantages.
22:15
I am sorry, but this is not a very tactful question. Each of my partners is good in their own right. In all, we had good relations with practically all of them.
22:27
With Bill Clinton, though he was leaving office, we were able to work together for several months.
22:37
Then with presidents Bush, Obama, and with the current President too, but to a lesser extent, of course. All of them have something to respect them for.
22:52
At the same time, we can argue and disagree with each other, and it happens often, we have diverging views on many issues, even on key ones, but we nevertheless managed to maintain normal, human relations.
23:06
If it were not for that, it would have been not only harder, but much worse for everyone.
23:26
It is important not to project strength, but to show it. It is also important how we understand power. It does not mean banging the table with a fist or yelling. I think power has several dimensions.
23:42
Firstly, one should be confident that he is doing the right thing. Secondly, he must be ready to go all the way to achieve the goals.
24:24
Well, I have breaks. There are your Russian colleagues, there is the internet. But we do not do this on purpose.
24:35
They take the photos they like. I have lots of photos of me in the office, working with documents, but nobody is interested in them.
24:52
You know, I have seen “photos” of me riding a bear. I have not ridden a bear yet, but there are such photos already.
25:37
First, there are many politicians around the world who are older than I am and who are still working active.
25:48
Not only in the United States, in other countries, too. There are many such people, in Europe and everywhere in the world.
25:53
But if a person assumes the highest offices, he must work as if he is doing it for the first and last day of his life.
26:04
There is the Constitution. I have never violated it and have never changed it.
26:12
Of course, if voters give me the opportunity to serve another term, I will do it to the best of my ability.
27:00
You know, these would be very close.
27:04
Our biggest achievement is that our economy has changed radically. It has almost doubled in scale. The number of people living below the poverty line has decreased by half.
27:17
At the same time, the number of people living below the poverty line remains large, and we must work on that.
27:28
We must remove the gap between people with very high and very low incomes. In this context, we have many achievements and many unresolved issues.
27:43
Back in the early 2000s, our population shrank by nearly a million people a year. Can you imagine the scale of the disaster? Almost 900,000 people.
27:52
We have reversed this trend. We have even achieved a natural population increase. We have very low infant mortality, and we have reduced maternal mortality to almost zero.
28:02
We have prepared and are implementing a large-scale programme of supporting mothers and children. Our life expectancy is growing at a high rate.
28:13
Much has changed in our economy. But we have not achieved our main economic goal: we have not yet changed the economic structure as we need to.
28:23
We have not yet reached the required growth of labour efficiency. But we know how to do it, and I am confident that we will do it.
28:32
The thing is that we had no opportunity to do this before, because until recently we did not have the macroeconomic conditions for taking specific measures in these areas.
28:43
At the beginning of our path, inflation was about 30 percent, but now it is 2.2 percent. Our gold and currency reserves are growing, and we have achieved macroeconomic stability
28:56
This offers us an opportunity to take the next step towards enhancing labour efficiency, attracting investment, including private funds, and changing the structure of our economy.
29:08
I am talking in large blocks. There are also more specific areas, such as modern technology and artificial intelligence, digitalisation, biology, medicine, genome research, and so on.
29:54
Thank you.
29:56
Mr President, good to see you again.
29:59
Good afternoon.
30:00
So, we are here in Kaliningrad. Why is that? This is a port that, I am told, could not be more threatening to NATO, to Europe. It is a Russian military base. It is a Russian military port.
30:10
It is home to some of your nukes. Are you trying to send a message?
30:18
Why Kaliningrad? Because I regularly visit Russian regions. This is one of these regions.
30:26
This time, I came here to attend a conference of the regional media, which they decided to hold here.
30:40
It was not my decision but theirs, your colleagues from the Russian regional media.
30:47
I have an agreement with them that I attend such meetings once a year and meet with them, and that is why I am here today. It does not have anything to do with any external signals; it is our domestic affair.
31:12
Understood. So, the last time we met in June, I asked you about the conclusion of our American intelligence agencies that Russia interfered in our presidential election.
31:22
You told me that there was nothing specific in these reports, that if there is anything specific, you said, then there will be something to discuss.
31:28
You told me, as they used to say in the KGB: addresses, houses, names. Since then, 13 Russians and three Russian-owned companies have been indicted by a special prosecutor named Robert Mueller in the United States for interfering in our election.
31:45
The IRA agency, Yevgeny Prigozhin and others running a cyber warfare operation out of an office at 55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg, Russia. Addresses, houses, names. So, can we have that discussion now?
32:03
Of course. We not only can but I think we must discuss this issue if it keeps bothering you. But if you think that the question has been asked, I am ready to answer it.
32:17
Why would you allow an attack like this on the United States?
32:25
What makes you think that the Russian authorities and I gave our permission to anyone to do anything?
32:33
You just named some people; I have heard about some of them, some of them I do not know, but they are just individuals, they do not represent the Russian government.
32:46
Even if we suppose, though I am not 100 percent certain, that they did something during the US presidential election campaign (I simply do not know anything about it),
32:56
it has nothing to do with the position of the Russian government. Nothing has changed since we spoke last time in St Petersburg.
33:16
There are some names, so what? It could just as well be some Americans who while living here, interfered in your own political processes. It has not changed anything.
33:28
But it was not Americans. It was Russians. And it was hundreds of people, a monthly budget of 2.5 billion dollars, all designed to attack the United States in a cyber warfare campaign.
33:40
You are up for re-election right now. Should the Russians be concerned that you had no idea this was going on in your own home country, in your own hometown?
33:49
You know, the world is very large and diverse. We have rather complicated relations between the United States and the Russian Federation.
33:59
And some of our people have their own opinion on these relations and react accordingly at the level of the Russian Government and at the level of the Russian President.
34:12
There has never been any interference in the internal political processes in the United States.
34:19
You have named some individuals and said that they are Russian. So what? Maybe, although they are Russian, they work for some American company.
34:30
Maybe one of them worked for one of the candidates. I have no idea about this, these are not my problems.
34:38
Do you know that, for example, after the presidential election in the US, some Ukrainian officials sent messages congratulating Hillary Clinton, even though Trump had won? Listen, what do we have to do with this?
34:52
Now, in my opinion, Mr Manafort, that is his name, he was initially accused of having something to do with Russia’s interference in the presidential election in the United States.
35:03
It turned out that just the opposite was true: in fact, he had connections to Ukraine. And he had some issues with Ukraine. What do we have to do with this?
35:14
You know, we have no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. But if you are interested in talking about this, I would like to widen the scope of our discussion.
35:27
I want to go through it. I do want to go through it. If we can do it step by step that would be more clear for the viewers who are following us.
35:35
Let me ask you this: you say the Russian Federation did not order it. Do you condone these activities?
35:40
We do not condone or order. But I say that there are internal political processes in the United States itself and there are people who wanted to achieve some result.
35:50
They could have used some tools in other countries: such technologies exist. They could have sent relevant information from France, from Germany, from Asia, from Russia. What do we have to do with this?
36:03
Well, all right, Russians, but they were not state officials. Well, Russians, and so what? The are 146 million Russian people, so what?
36:18
What fact?
36:20
What have you done to satisfy yourself that it was not Russians? You suggest maybe it was Americans, maybe it was the French.
36:30
What have you done to satisfy yourself that the 13 Russian nationals who have just been indicted, those three Russian companies, including, as you pointed out, some of your close friends, were not behind this? This has caused an international incident.
36:42
I know that they do not represent the Russian state or the Russian government. And I have no idea what they did and what they were guided by.
36:50
Even if they did something, then our American colleagues should not just say something in interviews with the media but give us specific data, with proof.
37:01
We are ready to consider it and talk about it. But you know what I would like to say…
37:06
That would be great. Will you extradite them to the United States?
37:11
Never. Just like the United States, Russia does not extradite its citizens anywhere. Have you ever extradited any of your citizens? This is my first point.
37:21
Second, I do not believe anything illegal was committed.
37:26
And, third, we have repeatedly suggested that the United States and Russia establish relations in this area and sign a corresponding interstate treaty on extraditing criminals.
37:39
The United States has evaded this proposal and does not want to sign it with Russia. What are you hoping for?
37:45
That we will extradite people to you whereas you will not? This is not a proper way to go about international affairs.
37:50
There is more to it. Please listen to me and take to your viewers and listeners what I am about to say.
37:56
We are holding discussions with our American friends and partners, people who represent the government by the way,
38:02
and when they claim that some Russians interfered in the US elections, we tell them (we did so fairly recently at a very high level): ”But you are constantly interfering in our political life.“
38:18
Would you believe it, they are not even denying it.
38:21
Do you know what they told us last time? They said, ”Yes, we do interfere, but we are entitled to do so, because we are spreading democracy, and you are not, and so you cannot do it.“
38:37
Do you think this is a civilised and modern approach to international affairs?
38:44
Yesterday, you and I talked about nuclear weapons, and that once the United States and the Soviet Union realised that they were moving towards possible mutual destruction,
38:58
they agreed on rules of conduct in the security sphere given the availability of weapons of mass destruction.
39:10
Let us now agree on how to behave in cyberspace, which never used to have such a big role and scope.
39:19
We made a proposal to the United States, our partners back during President Obama’s watch: let us agree on how we build our relations, develop common rules acceptable for all, and adhere to them in cyberspace.
39:34
The first reaction of the Obama Administration was negative, but then, at the very end of his presidential term, they told us: ”Yes, it is interesting, let us talk about it.“
39:46
But again, everything disappeared and vanished in some swamp. Well, let us agree on this, we are all for it.
40:02
The US does this all the time.
40:12
No, and there are no plans in Russia to do so. It is impossible. It is impossible for us.
40:16
First, we have principles whereby we do not allow others to interfere in our domestic affairs and do not poke our noses into other people’s business.
40:30
My second point is that we do not have a comparable number of tools.
40:36
No, we simply cannot do that.
40:38
You told me just yesterday, because we were amping our missile defence systems, we have to respond in kind with increased nuclear technology.
40:45
Now you want me to believe that we attacked your Russian elections and you say, we are going to take that road.
40:56
This is not a matter of missiles. This is a completely different area. In addition, we lack the necessary instruments.
41:04
This is a completely different area of activity. It has nothing to do with cyber warfare. Russia does not have the kind of tools the US has.
41:13
We do not have global media outlets comparable to CNN. You think we do? We have Russia Today, and nothing else.
41:22
This is the only Russian media outlet, and even then, it was designated…
41:30
You keep interrupting me, this is impolite.
41:34
We have one media outlet, Russia Today, and even it was designated as a foreign agent so that it is unable to do its work properly.
41:44
It is the only media outlet of this kind, while the US has a whole range of outlets, and immense possibilities online.
41:49
The internet is yours.
41:50
The United States control all the internet governance tools, all located on US territory. Do you think that a comparison can be made in any way?
42:02
This is simply impossible. Let us come together and agree on the rules of conduct in cyber space. But it is the US who refuses to do so.
42:11
David and Goliath. The Mueller indictment is very specific about what the Russians were doing.
42:16
There is a specific email, a damning email that is cited therein by a female Russian who appears to have been caught red-handed.
42:23
She says as follows, “We had a slight crisis here at work. The FBI busted our activity. Not a joke. So I got preoccupied with covering tracks together with the colleagues.
42:32
I created all these pictures and posts and the Americans believe that it was written by their people.”
42:38
And now you want to sit here and say you do not have the tools to do it? That we have the market cyber interference? This is just not true.
42:49
I do not even understand what you are talking about. You see, this is just nonsense.
42:55
The US Congress analysed the information from Russian sources that appeared online.
43:04
The information coming from media outlets like Russia Today was also analysed and turned out to be one hundredth of a percent of the overall information flow in the United States, just one hundredth of a percent.
43:20
Do you think that this fraction had any impact on the election? This is just nonsense, don’t you see?
43:28
This is the same old business when the people who lost refuse to admit it. You see, I have commented on this on a number of occasions.
43:38
It has yet to be seen what the US policy toward Russia will be like under the current administration.
43:46
Many things remain unclear, since we have not yet been able to start working or to establish normal contacts.
43:53
However, it is absolutely clear that the current US President adopted a specific stance in terms of domestic policy,
44:03
and decided to reach out to the people who were ready to support his campaign promises.
44:10
This is what led to his victory, not any kind of outside interference. To claim otherwise makes no sense.
44:17
Will anyone believe that Russia, a country located thousands of kilometres away, could use two or three Russians, as you have said,
44:24
and whom I do not know, to meddle in the elections and influence their outcome? Don’t you think that it sounds ridiculous?
44:35
Now you are talking about causation. But I am still on whether you did it.
44:38
And it is not true that you do not know the individuals who were accused of conducting this. One of your good friends is actually accused of helping conduct this.
44:47
His name is Yevgeny Prigozhin. Do you know him?
44:50
I know this man, but he is not a friend of mine.
44:54
This is just twisting the facts. There is such a businessman; he works in the restaurant business or something.
45:01
But he is not a state official; we have nothing to do with him.
45:16
Certainly not.I have plenty of other things to worry about.
45:24
Did you hear what I just said? He is not my friend.
45:28
I know him, but he is not a friend of mine. Was I not clear?
45:35
There are many people like that. There are 146 million people in Russia. That is less than in the US, but it is still a lot.
45:44
A prominent businessman? So what? There are many prominent people in Russia.
45:49
He is not a state official, he does not work for the government; he is an individual, a businessman.
46:07
Who are those people? And what dirty work? I do not do any dirty work. Everything I do is in plain view.
46:15
This is your prerogative; some people in your country enjoy doing dirty work. You think we do the same. That is not true.
46:25
It is a) the fact that you know him, you admit that. He is a prominent Russian businessman.
46:32
And he is specifically accused of running this operation;
46:35
b) this is the same man who has been accused of sending Russian mercenaries into Syria and they attacked a compound held by American back militia.
46:44
This guy gets around.
46:52
You know, this man could have a wide range of interests, including, for example, an interest in the Syrian fuel and energy complex.
47:02
But we do not support him in any way. We do not get in his way but we do not support him either. It is his own personal initiative.
47:12
Well, I know that there are several companies, several Russian companies there, maybe his among others, but this has nothing to do with our policy in Syria.
47:20
If he does anything there, he does not coordinate it with us; he probably coordinates it with the Syrian authorities or the Syrian businesses he works with.
47:29
We do not interfere in this. Does your government interfere in every step your businesses take, especially small businesses?
47:38
It is essentially a medium-sized business. So, does your president interfere in the affairs of every medium-sized US business? That is just nonsense, isn’t it?
47:48
If the 13 Russian nationals plus three Russian companies did in fact interfere in our elections, is that okay with you?
48:00
I do not care. I do not care at all because they do not represent the government.
48:07
Not at all. They do not represent state interests. If you are worried about anything, state it officially, send us documents proving it and explain what exactly those people are accused of.
48:23
We will see if they have violated Russian laws…
48:28
No, this is not true. If they violated Russian law, we will prosecute them. If they did not, there is nothing to prosecute them for in Russia.
48:39
But after all, you must understand that people in Russia do not live under US law but under Russian law. This is how it is.
48:46
If you want to reach an agreement with us, let us negotiate, choose the subject, make an agreement and sign it. But you refuse to do this.
48:56
I am telling you for the third time: we have proposed working together on cyberspace issues.
49:03
But the US refuses to work like this and instead throws 13 Russians to the media.
49:09
Maybe they are not even Russians, but Ukrainians, Tatars or Jews, but with Russian citizenship, which should also be checked: maybe they have dual citizenship or a Green Card; maybe, the US paid them for this.
49:22
How can you know that? I do not know either.
49:26
I will give you one piece of evidence. Andrei Krutskikh is an advisor to the Kremlin when it comes to cyber issues.
49:34
In his speech to an information security forum in February 2016, he reportedly said, quote,
49:41
“I am warning you. We are on the verge of having something in the information arena which will allow us to talk to the Americans as equals.”
49:50
What do you think he meant? Because it certainly sounds like a threat right before an election hack.
49:58
Sometimes I think you are joking.
50:03
No, I am deadly serious.
50:06
A man says something about how he sees our contacts and our work with our foreign partners, the US in this case, in a certain area.
50:16
I have no idea what he said. Ask him what he meant. Do you think I control everything?
50:26
So what? There are 2,000 people working in the administration; do you think I control everyone?
50:34
Peskov is sitting in front of me, he is my press secretary and he sometimes says things that I see on television and think, what is he talking about? Who told him to say this?
50:43
I have no idea what he said. Ask him. Do you really think I can comment on everything administration or government personnel say? I have my own work to do.
50:57
I think when it comes to our two countries you know exactly what is going on. And this is Russia’s problem now.
51:05
It is. The heads of the US intelligence agencies just testified to Congress that Russia, Russia poses the greatest threat in the world to the American security, greater than ISIS.
51:13
You cannot get the sanctions lifted. The relationship between our two countries is nearly non-existent right now. Did not this interference, whether you knew or you did not know about it, backfire against Russia?
51:30
Listen, you are exaggerating.
51:32
I do not know about someone saying something and I am not going to comment on it, and neither do I follow what is going on at your Congress.
51:42
I am more interested in what is going on at the State Duma, if they have approved a bill on a healthcare or utilities issue; if they delay certain discussions or not.
51:54
Is a special interest lobbying against a nature conservation, or forestry, or environmental law? This is what I am interested in.
52:06
You should follow what they are discussing in Congress; I have enough on my plate without that.
52:13
You know that the sanctions have not been lifted. You know that the relationship between our two countries is at not an all-time low but is getting there.
52:23
And this is in part the reason. And so, Russian interference in the American elections is important.
52:30
Listen, sanctions have nothing to do with the myth of some Russian interference in the US election.
52:38
Sanctions are about something else entirely: the desire to halt Russia’s progress, to contain Russia.
52:46
This policy of containing Russia has been pursued for decades, on and off. Now it is back.
52:53
It is a misguided policy, which not only affects Russian-US relations but also US businesses because it frees up space for their competitors on our market.
53:10
You and I were at the St Petersburg Economic Forum. The largest business delegation was from the US.
53:20
People want to work with us, but they are not allowed to; they are contained in order to contain Russia.
53:28
They have been contained and contained so that our defence industry cannot develop, among other things. We discussed this yesterday.
53:38
Did they manage to achieve anything? No, they did not: they have never managed to contain Russia and never will. It is simply, you know, an attempt with tools that…
53:57
I think it is impossible to contain Russia anywhere. You need to understand this.
54:00
Listen, you cannot even contain North Korea. What are you talking about? Why would you do that?
54:07
Why do we have to contain, attack or cast suspicion on each other? We are offering cooperation.
54:14
That is my question to you. That is my question to you. Why, why would you interfere in our election time and time again?
54:22
And why would not you, for that matter? Let me put it to you that way.
54:25
You have spent a day, every time I have seen you, in St Petersburg, in Moscow and now here in Kaliningrad, telling me that America has interfered in Russia’s electoral process and that Russia has a robust cyber warfare arsenal.
54:35
And yet you want us to believe that you did not deploy it. Do you understand how implausible that seems, sir?
54:44
That does not seem implausible to me at all, because we do not have such a goal, to interfere.
54:49
We do not see what we have to gain by interfering. There is no such goal. Let us suppose this was our goal. Why, just for the sake of it? What is the goal?
55:05
Listen to me. Not long ago President Trump said something absolutely correct. He said that if Russia’s goal was to sow chaos, it has succeeded.
55:18
But it is not the result of Russian interference, but your political system, the internal struggle, the disorder and division. Russia has nothing to do with it whatsoever.
55:33
Get your own affairs in order first. And the way the question is framed, as I mentioned – that you can interfere anywhere because you bring democracy, but we cannot – is what causes conflicts.
55:49
You have to show your partners respect, and they will respect you.
55:57
You once said, Mr President, that you believed the interference in our election was done by some patriotic Russians. An answer like that, you understand, will lead people to ask, are you the patriotic Russian?
56:15
I am the President of the Russian Federation. It is my constitutional duty to address a host of issues concerning the protection of Russia’s interests.
56:25
When I spoke of patriotic people, I meant that you can imagine that, in the face of a deteriorating Russian-US relationship, people – and people use cyberspace – will express their points of view, their opinions, including on this global network.
56:44
Of course, they are free to do so. How can we really prohibit it? But we cannot control it and, most importantly, we are not directing it.
56:51
Please note that this is not the position of the Russian state.
56:56
The Russian intelligence services cannot find out who is doing this, bring it to your attention? You are unable to stop it?
57:06
Perhaps if we looked into it carefully we would find those people, if they exist. But we have no such goal.
57:14
We propose holding official talks and you refuse. So what do you want? For us to open investigations just because Congress said so?
57:23
Let us sit down, sign an agreement on working in cyberspace and comply with it. How do you want to do it? There is no other way of conducting international affairs.
57:33
So you have no goal to stop it. So what does that mean for our elections in 2018 and 2020? We can expect more of the same?
57:42
I did not say that stopping it is not a goal. I said we had…
57:48
No, I did not. I said we do not interfere in our people’ private lives and cannot stop them from expressing their opinion, including on the internet.
58:00
But I also said that Russia’s official position is that we do not interfere in the political processes of other countries as a state. That is the most important part.
58:11
I want it to be recorded in our conversation today, for people in the US to understand this.
58:20
And forgive me, but I am trying to get to one level below that, whether you have the goal of stopping your own citizens from behaving in this manner, which has undermined relationships between our two countries?
58:36
I want to say that we will stand in the way of everything that violates Russian law or our international agreements.
58:44
For the third or fourth time, I will say that we are ready to sign a corresponding agreement with the United States.
58:52
You still refuse. Let us sit down at the negotiating table, identify what we consider important, sign the document and comply with it with proper verification.
59:12
You are the President, sir. Respectfully, I still did not hear an answer about whether you want to crack down on the Russians who committed those crimes.
59:18
It sounds like the answer is no. If I am wrong, please correct me. I understand you want a negotiation with the United States directly. But internally, you could put a stop to this if you had the desire.
59:29
I want you to listen to me. We will counter anything that violates current Russian law.
59:39
If the actions of our citizens – no matter what they are and whom they target – violate current Russian laws, we will respond.
59:51
If they do not violate Russian law, we cannot respond.
59:58
With anything. If no Russian law has been broken, no one can be held accountable.
60:07
I must look at what they have done. Give us the materials. Nobody has given us anything.
60:15
You know this. Hacking into the Democratic National Committee, hacking into John Podesta’s email, creating interference in our election by creating bots that spread false information on Twitter, on Facebook.
60:22
Spreading this information when it comes to Black Lives Matter, when it comes to the shooting we just had in Parkland, Florida, when it comes to our presidential election.
60:29
Spreading fake news in order to alter the course of the presidential race. That is what I am talking about.
60:38
With all due respect for you personally and for the body of the people’s representatives, the US Congress – and we treat all these people with respect – I want you to really understand this.
60:50
Do you have people with training in law? Of course, you do. One hundred percent. Highly educated people. We cannot even launch an investigation without cause.
61:04
Our conversation today or an inquiry in the US Congress is not sufficient cause. Give us at least an official inquiry with a statement of facts, send us an official paper.
61:20
After all, a conversation on air cannot be grounds for an investigation.
61:25
The intelligence agencies in the United States, now a special prosecutor with a criminal indictment – that is not enough for you to look into it?
61:36
Absolutely not. If you do not have legal training, I can assure you that an inquiry is required for this.
61:44
Then you should understand that a corresponding official inquiry should be sent to the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Russian Federation.
61:52
That said, we do not even have a treaty on how to proceed. But send us something in writing at least.
61:57
Vladimir Putin could not order an investigation into whether this was done in a way that undermines its relations with a major partner, the United States of America?
62:12
Give us something in writing, an official inquiry. We will look at it.
62:21
There is nothing in writing. Send an inquiry to the Prosecutor-General’s Office
62:26
It is necessary to go through official channels rather than with the help of the media and harsh words in the US Congress, levelling accusations against us that are totally unsubstantiated. Give us something in writing.
62:39
Let me ask you this: you were President back in 2001 when the FBI arrested one of its own, Robert Hanssen, for spying for the Russian Federation.
62:48
In retaliation, President George W. Bush kicked 50 illegit Russian spies out of the United States, and the Kremlin did the same, throwing 50 Americans out of the US Embassy in Moscow immediately.
62:58
This is a tradition that goes back for decades. December 2016: after our intelligence agencies agreed that Russians interfered in our election President Obama expelled dozens of Russians and seized two Russian-owned properties.
63:13
And yet, you did nothing, you did nothing in response. Why not?
63:20
We believed and I still believe that there were no grounds for this whatsoever. This is the first point.
63:28
Secondly, this was done in clear violation of international law and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
63:38
The totally groundless seizure of our property constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. We were strongly hoping for a response from the new Administration.
63:49
But since none is forthcoming – and I have already said this and the Foreign Minister repeated this – we will turn to the appropriate courts of the United States to protect our interests.
64:04
Let me ask you about President Trump. Anytime he says anything about you it is supremely deferential. Never a harsh word for you.
64:13
Although if you look at the ways he speaks about members of his own party, even members of his own staff, never mind of the other political leaders, he frequently personally insults them.
64:24
Why do you think he is so nice to you?
64:28
This is not about being nice to me personally, in my view.
64:30
I think he is an experienced person, a businessman with very extensive experience and he understands that if you need to partner with someone,
64:41
you must treat your future or current partner with respect, otherwise nothing will come of it. I think this is a purely pragmatic approach. This is my first point.
64:53
Second, even though this is his first term as President, he is a quick study, and he understands perfectly well that trading accusations or insults at our level is a road to nowhere.
65:12
It would just mean depriving our countries of their last chance for dialogue, simply the last chance. This would be extremely unfortunate.
65:23
You may have noticed that I, for my part, show respect to him and all my other colleagues, not only in the United States, but also Europe and Asia.
65:35
You may, but the truth is our President has referred to the leader of North Korea as “little rocket man.”
65:42
So he is not quite as diplomatic depending on who he is talking about. I am sure you saw that, yes?
65:50
Yes, I did. You are aware of our position on that account. We urge everyone to show restraint.
66:05
The question is not entirely appropriate, because President Trump’s work should be assessed by his constituents, the American people.
66:14
There is one thing I would like to say: like it or not – we may dislike certain things as well – he does his best to keep the election promises that he made to the American people.
66:34
So, he is consistent in this sense. I think that, in fact, this is the only proper way to show respect for the people who voted for him.
66:56
Well, again, this is up to the American people to decide. He has strong leadership qualities, of course, because he takes responsibility when he makes decisions.
67:07
To reiterate, whether some people like his decisions or not, he still goes ahead and does it. This, of course, is a sign of leadership qualities.
67:26
No.
67:29
No.
67:32
I have other means of expressing my point of view or making decisions. Well, Donald is a more modern person.
67:52
Maybe.
67:54
Let me ask you one question going back to the election interference issue. There are two theories on you at least.
68:02
One is that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State you felt that she interfered with the elections here in 2011 and 2012, inciting protests here, including against you and it made you angry.
68:15
Two is when the Panama Papers were leaked showing a massive money trail that led to you and some of your associates that that was the last drop for you.
68:25
Do either of those things make you angry?
68:28
This is complete nonsense. Speaking about Hillary, I know her personally, and we generally always maintained a good dialogue every time we met.
68:42
I cannot understand why at some stage… Her advisers probably suggested that she focus part of her election campaign on criticising developments in Russia.
68:54
Well, it was their choice. I never took it personally. It was just their policy.
69:04
As for all those files, this is complete nonsense. They mention some of my friends. So what?
69:14
As you know, this has had no effect whatsoever. This is nothing but nonsense and media chatter. I have forgotten all about it.
69:22
I do not remember what it was all about. Actually, nothing of this kind can make me angry. I am guided by pragmatic considerations, not emotions.
69:38
Since you mention it, a friend of yours was mentioned in those Panama Papers. Let me ask you about him.
69:43
Sergei Roldugin. Legend has it that this guy introduced you to your ex-wife, that he is the godfather to one of your daughters. He is a cellist by trade, right?
69:59
Yes, I know him very well. He is a friend and a wonderful musician. He has devoted his life to art and music.
70:08
By the way, many artists here are also involved in business one way or another. Apart from me, Sergey also has other ties in the country, including business people who have involved him in this work.
70:23
He has made his money legally. He has not made hundreds of billions [of dollars]. Everything he earned he has spent on the purchase of musical instruments abroad, which he has brought to Russia.
70:40
He uses some of these instruments personally, for example the cello. He plays the cello.
70:50
Yes, something like that. But it is a unique instrument.
70:57
Yes, it is. He must be eccentric, but then, all artists are eccentric. To spend all this money on musical instruments.
71:05
I think he bought two cellos and two violins. He plays one himself and has given the others to other musicians, who are playing them. He has brought all these instruments to Russia.
71:19
According to the Panama Papers, this mass of series of leaked documents about offshore bank accounts, he has got assets, this cellist,
71:27
of at least a $100 million, including a one-eighth stake in Russia’s biggest TV ad agency, a $6 million yacht, a stake in a truck manufacturer, a 3-percent interest in a Russian bank.
71:39
He must be one heck of a musician.
71:43
Well, I know nothing about his business, but I do know that he has only enough money to buy these musical instruments.
72:00
All the rest is on paper. He does not have anything else apart from what he has bought. Maybe he does have something else, but you should ask him about it. I do not control his life.
72:15
But the question is how a cellist makes that much money? People ask it because many people believe that is really your money.
72:23
Listen, just look at many Russian art figures, and probably there are people like this in your country as well.
72:28
After all, there are art personalities in the US, including Hollywood celebrities who either run restaurants or own some stock.
72:36
Aren’t there many people like this in the US entertainment industry and art world? I am sure that there are many people of this kind, and more than in Russia.
72:43
In Russia, there are also quite a few art figures who do business apart from their creative work. In fact, there are many such people, and he is just one of them.
72:51
So what? The question is not whether he runs a business or not or whether he made a profit or not.
72:57
The question is whether there were any violations. As far as I know, he did not commit any violations.
73:03
That is right. There is no issue with making money. I am an American, we are capitalists. The question is whether that is really your money.
73:13
This is not my money, that is for sure. I do not even know how much Mr Roldugin has, as I have already said.
73:19
As far as I know, he has not committed any violations in his business and creative undertakings, he did not violate any Russian law or norm.
73:36
Speaking of money, back in the 1980s and 1990s, in the wake of multiple bankruptcies, the Trump Organisation found it hard to secure loans in the United States and looked elsewhere.
73:46
Mr Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., said that ten years ago and I quote, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
73:59
Were you aware of the degree of Russian money flowing into properties?
74:08
This is all nonsense. There were no investments in Trump properties in Russia, as far as I know.
74:14
I do not even know if there were any serious plans for making these investments.
74:18
Look, you keep thinking that the whole world revolves around you. That is not the way it is.
74:32
Do you think we know everything what Donald Trump’s son has said? You see, this is not the way things are.
74:38
Donald came here to Russia when he was not even nominated. I did not even know that he had been to Russia.
74:46
I learned about it only afterwards, when I was told that as it turned out he had been to Russia. By the same token, I ignore what his son said on this occasion.
74:57
Did Donald Trump’s son infringe on any rules or laws? If so, charge him. If he did not, why do you keep picking on every word?
75:16
Years ago, before Donald Trump ran for president, he said he knew you and he spoke with you a lot. Is that true?
75:21
No, I had never met him. You mean before he became President and before he decided to run for President, right?
75:32
No, we had not met. We never talked to each other, neither by phone or otherwise.
75:48
We will see what the Russian voters decide.
75:55
How does somebody like Vladimir Putin, who is as popular as you are here in Russia, feel any threat from Navalny?
76:02
I realise he has got in legal trouble, but could you pardon this guy and let him mount a meaningful challenge to you?
76:13
As for the question about whom I could work together with and whom I would not want to work together with,
76:17
I can tell you in all honesty that I would like to and am ready to work with people who want Russia to become a stronger, more effective, competitive and self-reliant country.
76:35
But to achieve that, the people we are talking about should have a clear plan of action designed to promote national development in today’s environment.
76:46
There are people like that, including…
76:52
But Navalny is such as man and has a fair amount of popularity here in Russia.
76:59
Any person can be pardoned if he deserves it.
77:06
If he deserves it. There are no exceptions for anyone. No exceptions.
77:16
But we are not talking about pardon now; we are talking about certain political forces. They do not have a development programme for the country.
77:23
What do they have that is positive and what I like? That they expose problems, and this is actually good, this is the right thing to do, and it needs to be done.
77:38
But this is not enough for the country’s progressive development, simply not enough.
77:44
Because focusing on problems is not enough; moreover, it is even dangerous, because it can lead to destruction, while we need creation.
77:56
Our political analysts tell me you are exactly right about your chances in the upcoming election, that you have no meaningful opponents so you will likely win.
78:03
What is next after that? The Chinese President just abolished term limits. Is that something you would ever do?
78:16
I do not think that I should talk about my political plans with you now at this meeting, in this conversation, in this interview for American television.
78:29
But I think I told you yesterday, I never changed the Constitution or adjusted it to my needs, and I do not have any such plans today.
78:42
As for China, before criticising decisions in a country like China, you need to think and recall that there are 1.5 billion people living there and, after thinking about it,
79:00
you need to come to the conclusion that we all are interested in China being a stable and prosperous state.
79:09
How it should be done best, it is probably up to the Chinese people and the Chinese leadership.
79:21
Can you leave power? Because some of the experts that we have spoken to have said it would be near impossible for you because someone in your position would likely either be thrown in jail by your adversaries or worse.
79:34
They say it is actually sad that you will have to stay in power in order to stay well.
79:45
What your so-called experts say is their wishful thinking. I have heard a lot of nonsense like this.
79:52
Why do you think that I will necessarily be succeeded by people ready to destroy everything I have done in recent years?
80:01
Maybe, on the contrary, a government will come to power determined to strengthen Russia, to create a future for it, to build a platform for development for the new generations.
80:14
Why have you suddenly decided that some destroyers would arrive and wipe out whatever they can?
80:20
Maybe there are people who would like this, including in the United States. But I do not think they are right, because the United States,
80:28
I think, should be more interested in the other option – in Russia being a stable, prosperous and developing country,
80:35
I mean if you really can look at least 25–50 years ahead.
80:48
I have been thinking about this since 2000. Thinking is not a crime, but in the end, the choice will still be up to the Russian people.
81:02
Whether I like or hate someone, other candidates will run for president and eventually the citizens of the Russian Federation will make the final decision.
81:20
Let me ask you a bit about Syria. Do you believe the chemical weapon attacks in Syria are fake news?
81:31
Of course.
81:32
Firstly, the Syrian Government destroyed its chemical weapons long ago.
81:36
Secondly, we know about the militants’ plans to simulate chemical attacks by the Syrian army.
81:46
And thirdly, all the attempts that have been made repeatedly in the recent past, and all the accusations were used to consolidate the efforts against Assad.
82:02
We are aware of these goings-on, and they are not interesting. One wants to say, “Boring.”
82:11
The bodies of dead children thanks to sarin gas attacks? That is boring?
82:18
Are you sure that these deaths are the result of chemical attacks by the Syrian Government?
82:24
I, on the contrary, blame this on the criminals and radicals, on the terrorists who are staging these crimes in order to lay the blame on President Assad.
82:40
That is not what the United Nations has concluded. They autopsied the bodies of the dead children.
82:48
Your Foreign Minister suggested it was all made up. Do you believe that?
82:57
Of course. I am absolutely sure that it was. Because there was no serious investigation.
83:03
Maybe there were dead bodies, which is to be expected in a war.
83:08
Look how they liberated Mosul: it was razed to the ground. Look how they liberated Raqqa: the dead have not yet been removed from the ruins or buried.
83:18
Do you want to talk about this?
83:26
That is what we call whataboutism. That is you pointing to somebody else’s bad behaviour to justify your wrong or that of your ally.
83:34
We are talking about Assad and dead children thanks to sarin gas. Sarin gas. And you are telling an international audience it never happened?
83:45
Look here, to be sure that this was indeed how it happened, a thorough investigation must be conducted and evidence must be gathered at the site.
83:53
Nothing of this has been done. Let us do this.
83:59
Let us do it. They wanted to investigate the helicopters and the UN wanted to go and check the helicopters that were on site.
84:07
And Russia said no. Russia said no. Why?
84:13
There was nothing of the kind. Russia did not say “No.” Russia is for a full-scale investigation.
84:20
If you do not know this, I am telling you this now. It is not true that we are against an objective investigation.
84:29
That is a lie. It is a lie just as the vial with the white substance that allegedly proved that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which the CIA gave to the US Secretary of State.
84:48
He later apologised, but the damage had been done, the country had been ruined. This is yet another piece of fake news, which has no substance behind it.
84:57
An investigation should be conducted to gather the substance. We are in favour of such an investigation.
85:08
Since the beginning of the year, there have been at least four chlorine-based chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
85:15
Our Secretary of State Tillerson just said that Russia bears the responsibility for this given your earlier promises to reign in chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
85:25
Your response?
85:30
I will tell you that a) we have nothing to do with this, and that we demand a full-scale investigation.
85:36
As for crimes, go back to Raqqa and at least bury the dead bodies, which are still lying amid the ruins after the air strikes at residential neighbourhoods there.
85:47
And investigate these attacks. This will give you something to do.
85:56
One of the questions that our audiences have is how do we walk this back?
85:59
How do we get to the place where these two great nations are less adversaries and something closer to allies, which we clearly are not right now.
86:12
Do you agree we are not?
86:18
Unfortunately, we are not. But we were not the ones who made the US our adversary. It was the US, the US Congress, who called Russia its adversary.
86:27
Why did you do that? Did Russia impose sanctions on the United States? No, it was the US that imposed sanctions on us.
86:37
No, I do not. Can I ask you a different question?
86:40
Why did you encourage the government coup in Ukraine? Why did you do that?
86:45
The US directly acknowledged spending billions of dollars to this end. This was openly acknowledged by US officials.
86:51
Why do they support government coups and armed fighting in other countries? Why has the US deployed missile systems along our borders?
87:01
Listen, Russia and the US should sit down and talk it over in order to get things straight.
87:06
I have the impression that this is what the current President wants, but he is prevented from doing it by some forces.
87:13
But we are ready to discuss any matter, be it missile-related issues, cyberspace or counterterrorism efforts. We are ready to do it any moment.
87:25
But the US should also be ready. The time will come when the political elite in the US will be pushed by public opinion to move in this direction.
87:37
We will be ready the instant our partners are ready.
87:45
I strongly believe that my legacy would be to create a powerful development momentum for Russia,
87:57
and make the country a resilient and balanced democracy that is able to benefit from the latest advances of the technology revolution.
88:09
We will keep up our efforts to improve our political system and the judiciary.
88:16
And I am certain that all this, taken together, would strengthen the unity of the Russian Federation and the unity of our people,
88:22
and enable us to move forward with confidence for years to come.
88:29
Mr President, thank you very much for having us here.
88:33
Thank you.

are we in the end times of the bible 2 california earthquakes 6.4 followed by 7.1 magnitude today and lots of aftershocks

are we in the end times of the bible 2 california earthquakes 6.4 followed by 7.1 magnitude today and  lots of aftershocks, so far californi...