Interview: Laura Ingraham Interviews Donald Trump on Fox’s The Ingraham Angle – January 10, 2020

Interview: Laura Ingraham Interviews Donald Trump on Fox’s The Ingraham Angle – January 10, 2020

>>Mr. President, thanks so much for being
with us tonight.>>Thank you, Laura.
>>Today, Mike Pompeo gave a very forceful press conference on the fallout from the Iranian
jetliner going down. His concern is that people aren’t understanding the imminent nature of
the threat of Soleimani, and he was pressed on that today. He said there were large-scale
attacks planned on U.S. facilities, but he didn’t go more specific. Don’t the American
people have the right to know what specifically was targeted without revealing methods and
sources?>>Well, I don’t think so, but we will tell
you that probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad. You saw that happening. You saw
with all of the men, very few women, circling it and circling it very strongly and very
viciously, knocking out windows and trying to get and they were close to getting in,
and I called out the military. They said we’ll have it there tomorrow. I said, nope, you’ll
have it there today. We’re not going to have another Benghazi on our hands. And we did
a really amazing job. I get no credit for it, but we never get credit for anything,
and that’s OK. In the meantime, we have the greatest economy we’ve ever had, a lot of
other things. But I think you would have had another Benghazi had we not acted quickly.
That could have been stopped, and this was stopped. And we had our Apaches going there,
the great helicopters, and they were dropping flares all over the place, and a lot of things
were happening. They had acted real fast and everybody disappeared. But —
>>Did they have large scale attacks planned for other embassies? And if those were planned,
why can’t we reveal that to the American people. Wouldn’t that help your case?
>>I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies. And I think that probably
Baghdad already started. They were really amazed that we came in with that kind of a
force. We came in with very powerful force and drove them out. That ended almost immediately.
But Baghdad certainly would’ve been the lead. But I think it would’ve been four embassies
that had been military bases — could’ve been a lot of other things too, but it was imminent.
And then all of a sudden he was gone.>>Why is Nancy Pelosi describing her briefing
as dismissive and disdainful? Mike Lee said it was insulting, the Intel briefing. What
wasn’t said to mollify the concerns of some of your strongest supporters like Mike Lee?
>>Yes, he is a great supporter. He’s a friend of mine. He called me just a little while
ago and he said I just wanted to get some more information. And he was — look, I have
also had calls from some of the senators; some of the congressmen said it was the single
best briefing. One person said they have been there for 10 years. It’s the single best briefing
they’ve ever had. One said 20 years, the single best military briefing they’ve ever had. I
understand what Mike had, Mike wanted certain things said and we just couldn’t say and we
could probably say maybe individually to him. And he’s certainly a trustworthy person.
>>Are you worried that the Democrats can’t be trusted with classified information? Because
that’s kind of what it sounded like when Pence gave that interview and talked about sources
and methods the other day.>>I am worried about it, certainly. I am worried
about it. Can you imagine? Here we are, split-second timing, executed — like nobody’s seen in
many, many years — on Soleimani? Can you imagine they want us to call out and speak
to crooked corrupt politician Adam Schiff? Oh, Adam, we have somebody that we’ve been
trying to get for a long time. We have a shot at him right now. Could we meet so that we
can get your approval, Adam Schiff? And he’d say, well, let’s do it in a couple of days.
Oh, OK, let’s wait a couple — it doesn’t work that way, number one. Number two, they
leak. Anything we give will be leaked immediately. You’ll see breaking news, we’re about to attack
in 25 minutes or do something. And by the way, I’m not somebody that wants to attack.
I probably could’ve attacked 5 times, 10 times having to do with Iran. I’ve been very guarded
because I don’t want to do that. But we may have to do something. We have to be in a position
where we can do it even from the negotiating standpoint. But hopefully it won’t be necessary.
We have tremendous sanctions. They’re doing very poorly. They have riots all over their
country. And they can straighten it out easy but it’s up to them.
>>Speaking of sanctions –>>Whatever they want to do.
>>– Ilhan Omar I think said today that this is akin to economic warfare against Iran,
even though she supports sanctions against Israel.
>>Yes. She hates Israel. She hates Jewish people. And you just have to take a look at
her rhetoric. It’s incredible what’s happened to the Democrats in Congress. They used to
be supportive of Israel. Today they are supportive of her and Tlaib. That’s another real winner,
Tlaib, and AOC who knows nothing. AOC knows nothing. Poor student, poor everything and
then she comes and she talks about the Green New Deal and all these poor fools. Say, oh,
isn’t it wonderful? Isn’t it wonderful? But as I said last night in Ohio, I don’t like
talking about the Green New Deal. It’s too early. I want to save it for about two weeks
before because they may change their mind.>>Bernie Sanders was out, you’re not surprised
to hear this, last night discussing Iran, what happened and he basically said this.
>>Just as we were led into Vietnam and Iraq by lies, the Trump administration is misleading
us on Iran. They have justified the assassination of Qasem Soleimani by claiming that he was
planning imminent attacks, and yet they produce no evidence that would justify this claim,
not even in a classified setting.>>I don’t see it happening. We are there for
a very, very strong reason. They cannot have nuclear weapons. The Iran nuclear deal signed
by President Obama gave them $150 billion, and that’s when the real terror started. They
took that money and they used it all over the place. You look at Yemen, you look at
all of the things that were happening, including Syria, they were using — I want to say they
gave $1.8 billion in cash — $1.7 billion, $1.8 billion in cash. Green cash, beautiful,
green cash. You almost say where do they — how do they have the power to do this? Plane loads
of cash — and instead of Iran saying thank you very much. That’s really nice. Let’s go
and get along. Let’s do well. Let’s do deals together. Let’s build buildings in Iran — they
said death to America and they said it when they were signing. When Kerry signed — and
by the way, Kerry violated the Logan Act.>>He’s out there — he’s out there just slamming
you –>>Well, no. He totally violated. This man
totally violated the Logan Act with his conversations, OK? But when Kerry was out there and making
the deal, and they have people screaming, “Death to America. Death to America,” I say,
who signs a deal while they’re screaming death to America? This was —
>>Well, they’re saying you destabilized the Middle East after campaigning as a man of
restraint, non-interventionism. Elizabeth Warren is saying this. Kerry’s saying this.
All the old Obama folks are out there, Susan Rice. They’re all kind of waiting in the wings.
They’re like, see, he’s the guy that we told you he was.
>>If you look at the Middle East right now, it’s much tamer than it was when I got in.
When I got in, it was just all over the place. Number one, we got rid of the caliphate — the
ISIS caliphate. We have tens of thousands of ISIS prisoners. We’ve killed most of their
fighters. We’ve gotten rid of ISIS. Now, they come back and we take care of it. Other people
should take care of it. Other countries should take care of it. Europe did take them back
–>>Is NATO going to actually step up? I know
they’ve committed to doing more in the Middle East —
>>Yes.>>But what specifically is NATO going to contribute
that’s going to take some of the burden off the American taxpayers?
>>So when I came in, as you know, NATO was virtually a dead organization. It had no money.
Nobody was paying except us. Practically nobody was paying. If you look at a chart of money
and funds received, it looked like a roller coaster down. Now, and Secretary Stoltenberg,
I think he’s terrific. In my first year, I raised $130 billion from them, not from us,
and now he just announced $530 billion all because of me. He’s my biggest salesman, my
greatest salesman, Secretary Stoltenberg. But I said to him, look, you’re there for
Russia and Europe, OK? By the way, NATO’s much more for Europe than it is for us, and
yet we pay –>>What are we protecting them from now with
all the money we’re sending in NATO?>>We’re protecting them — we’re protecting
–>>What — who are we protecting them from?
>>Well, they build and office building for $3 billion. They do lots of things that they
shouldn’t be doing before I got here, but I raised a lot of money. We can use NATO in
other locations. We can use NATO as an example in the Middle East, and that’s what we should
do. And frankly, it’s more palatable to countries in the Middle East if an international force
comes in rather than just the United States. And from our standpoint, let somebody else
pay for it. Why are we always paying? We pay for everything. One thing, I moved my troops
out of Syria — on the border between Turkey and Syria. That turned out to be such a successful
move, Laura. Look what happened. Now they protect their own — they’ve been fighting
over that border for 1,000 years. Why should we do it? And then they say he left troops
in Syria. You know what I did? I left troops to take the oil. I took the oil. The only
troops I have are taking the oil. They’re protecting the oil. I took over —
>>Why are we taking the oil, not taking –>>Well, maybe we will. Maybe we won’t. We
–>>They’re protecting the facility.
>>I don’t know. Maybe we should take it, but we have the oil. Right now, the United States
has the oil. So they say he left troops in Syria. No. I got rid of all of them other
than we’re protecting the oil. We have the oil.
>>The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that after the strike, “Mr. Trump told associates
he was under pressure to deal with General Soleimani, to take him out, from GOP senators
he views as important supporters in the coming impeachment trial in the Senate, associates
>>Sounds like you got a leaker here in the White House — or someone —
>>Well, it’s not — it’s fake news.>>What is — is this fake?
>>They just made it up. It’s fake news.>>OK. Wall Street Journal —
>>I used to think leakers. They just make it up. They’re all very dishonest, most of
them are really just — I mean, 80 percent are dishonest, and I mean really dishonest.
They made that story up.>>So no concern about —
>>You notice the way they –>>Lindsey Graham, or —
>>Well they don’t — no, not at all. By the way, absolutely not at all. We have tremendous
support. Look, in the House we are 196 to nothing, and we got three Democrats. So therefore
it was bipartisan, I guess you can say. We got — nothing, they had nothing. We didn’t
lose one Republican vote, as you know, that’s very unusual. In the Senate, I think I have
the same, if not more support. I don’t have to do that. I would never compromise what
we’re doing with Iran and potential war, and all of the things that — where we’re doing
so well –>>We’re not doing Bush 2.0 here. This is not
Bush 2.0, this is not WMD –>>You know what I want in the Middle East?
I don’t people having nuclear weapons because they’ll use them. I don’t want people having
nuclear weapons. That’s my biggest thing.>>John Kerry was up there yesterday saying,
well, you guys got out of the Iran deal and that’s what’s caused all the tension —
>>You know how bad the Iran deal was? The Iran deal, I did a great thing getting out
of the Iran deal. They gave them 150 — they gave them the 1.8 billion, forget that. You
couldn’t do inspections at the most important locations. And you know another big thing?
They have the right to do ballistic missiles. We couldn’t go into areas and, look, we’d
have to give massive notices. So if they were doing something, they could clean them up.
It was ridiculous. But most importantly, it expires. This is a short-term agreement. And
now, once it expired, they have an absolute, clear, unstopped path to have nuclear weapons,
unstopped. In a very short period of time, the deal that President Obama made with John
Kerry, who may be the worst negotiator I’ve ever seen, that deal expires. And you know
what? Once it expires, you can’t do what I did, I mean, because they have a deal that
says, once it expires, they can do what they want to do. You cannot let Iran have a nuclear
weapon, that’s what I’m doing.>>Pete Buttigieg and other Democrats, I — I
predicted this when I talked to Mike Pompeo yesterday, are actually blaming your moves
against Iran for the downing of that commercial jetliner in Iran, in Tehran the night of this
the strike by Iran to our Iraqi facilities. Your reaction to that charge?
>>Well, a couple of people started that and they got hit real fast by a lot of different
people, not me. I think it’s just low life — look, he’s not going anywhere, he was a
lousy mayor of a place that is not doing well, and Indiana is doing unbelievably well. Indiana,
the state had the best year they’ve ever had, thank you very much. But that city was badly
run. If you look at what’s going on –>>Jackie Speier’s saying —
>>He’s going nowhere, and she’s another beauty. I mean, take a look at her past. Check out
her past, please.>>The Iraqi Prime Minister has notified Mike
Pompeo about potential plans, drawing up plans for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq period.
You ran on pulling out of the Middle East.>>I don’t —
>>Why not use this opportunity to say we’re done?
>>I’m OK. I’m OK with it. By the way, listen —
>>You’re OK with removing our troops from Iraq?
>>– listen just so you understand. That’s what they say
>>– pulling out of the Middle East.>>I don’t —
>>Why not use this opportunity to say we’re done.
>>I’m OK with it. By the way –>>You’re OK with removing our troops from
Iraq?>>That’s what they say publicly. They don’t
say that privately. Because if we leave, that means they’re not going to be able to —
>>But why not leave?>>I’m not so bad with it. When I heard that,
I said — I have it down to 5,000 troops. We had many, many troops there in Iraq. And
we’re there only in the training. We train them. But if they want us to leave — but
they speak different publicly than they do privately.
>>But are we sending more troops to the region as we speak?
>>We’re sending more to Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia’s paying us for it. We’re doing something
that nobody’s ever done. I said to Saudi Arabia — we have a very good relationship with Saudi
Arabia. I said listen, you’re a very rich country. You want more troops, I’m going to
send them to you but you’ve got to pay us. They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited
$1 billion in the bank. We are going to help them but these rich countries have to pay
for it. South Korea gave us $500 million. They’ve never gave us — they gave us $500
million. I said you got to help us along. We have 32,000 soldiers in South Korea protecting
it from North Korea. You’ve got to pay. And they gave us $500 million. I mean you saw
that breaking news because nobody wants to report that stuff. I’m not sure anybody knows
it. It might be sort of saying you have some — I mean, that’s good stuff. But they’re
a wealthy country. They build all your television sets. They took that away from us. They build
the ships; they’ve built a lot of things. I said look, we’re protecting you, you got
to pay. They paid us $500 million. They’re going to pay us a lot more.
>>Do you think that Iraq should repay the American taxpayer for these bases —
>>Sure.>>– for what we’ve done there?
>>You heard that from me.>>Yes. I —
>>Absolutely. I said we built one of the world’s most expensive airport facilities anywhere
in the world. I mean I wish we had it in New York. I wish we had it in Washington. We build
runways that are 15,000 feet long. At LaGuardia they’re 7,000 feet long. In fact, I think
they’re 20,000 feet long over there and deep thick concrete and steel. Nobody ever built
runways like this. OK, it’s way over built but that’s OK. But we have billions of dollars
into that. I said if we leave you got to pay us. If we leave, you have to pay us by embassies.
You have to pay us for the money we put in.>>How are you going to collect?
>>Well, we have a lot of their money right now. We have a lot of their money. We have
$35 billion of their money right now sitting in an account. And I think they’ll agree to
pay. I think they’ll agree to pay. Otherwise we’ll stay there.
>>>>Mr. President, we just learned that Nancy
Pelosi has announced she’s sending articles of impeachment next week to the Senate. What’s
your reaction?>>Well, I think it’s ridiculous. She should’ve
sent them a long time ago. It — it just — it belittles the process, what they’ve done to
impeachment, it’s like — I was interviewed by a very, very good writer — reporter, somebody
that you know very well, I could say, Bob Woodward. He said he’s doing something. And
this time I said maybe I’ll sit down. Because nobody’s done more than me — I mean no body
— if you’re look at three years with the economy, with regulations, with the tax cuts,
with everything — one of the things, we’ve rebuilt our military — our military was totally
depleted. Our military was old and depleted. And he said, you know, you don’t look like
somebody who’s under impeachment. As you know, he’s slightly covered Nixon, and he covered
Clinton. But Bob Woodward, he said, you actually look like you’ve won everything, you look
happy. I said I am happy. So maybe I’m wired a little bit different, I don’t know —
>>Impeachment managers — anyone that you would prefer to see? She hasn’t named —
>>– well we have a team. We have a team.>>But her impeachment managers, they haven’t
named any –>>Well, I would love to ask a couple of their
people some questions, like Schiff. Why did he lie? Why did he make up my statement? Totally
made it up. But again the whole thing unraveled when I put in the transcript, because it’s
all about the transcript, and it’s all about the president of Ukraine saying he did nothing
wrong.>>How long do you think this will last?
>>We’ll it depends if they have a trial, it probably takes a few days, or a week, and
— or unless we want to have a bigger trial, where we’re bringing in the whistleblower,
which I’d love to do. And I’d love to bring in the informant who disappeared. I’d love
to bring in the second whistleblower who disappeared. I’d love to bring in the inspector general,
why did he bring it up there — he should’ve never done it. He didn’t want to see the call
— he didn’t want to see the call. He took his whistleblower — who’s a fraud — he took
the whistleblower’s report and he put it in. They said to him, you know, if it’s — if
that’s the case — if you have to do that, what we’ll do is we’ll show you the actual
call. No, no, no, I don’t want to see it. What’s that all about? Why did he do that
— inspector general? So I’d like to interview the inspector general, why did he do that
and put everybody through –>>Are you worried about future presidents,
what’s this is going to do to the presidency in the future?
>>I think it cheapened the word impeachment. I think impeachment’s a very ugly word. But
I think this cheapened the word impeachment. I think Nancy Pelosi and Schiff — you know,
because he’s corrupt. I mean here’s the guy stands up at the United States Congress and
repeats a conversation — except it was a fraud, he made up a conversation. He was saying
my conversation and was totally wrong, and he knew it. He said don’t call me, I’ll call
you. That’s from The Godfather, that’s from — that’s a mafia statement. I never said
that. He said eight times, “quid pro quo.” It was no times. He made up a conversation
and repeated it in front of Congress, and because he has immunity we can’t do anything
about it. I’d like to say why did you do that? You know, these people are frauds and it’s
very bad — no, they cheapened the word impeachment. It’s a bad word to start off — I really say
it’s an ugly word. To me it’s a very ugly word. But maybe it played to our benefit.
>>When we talk about impeachment now, it looks like McConnell is agreeing with Josh Hawley’s
proposition –>>Good.
>>– to dismiss these articles of impeachment if Pelosi doesn’t send them over. My question
to you is, why not have them dismissed today? Why would McConnell just say, we’re done with
these games? Or do you want a trial –>>Well, in many ways I’d like a trial and
I’d love to have sleepy Joe Biden, I’d love to have his son. I call him, where’s Hunter.
I’ve change his first name to where, where’s Hunter. I’d love to have the whistleblower
who wrote a fake report. The whistleblower is a person that is — you know who the whistleblower
is? By the way, everybody knows who the whistleblower is —
>>The whistleblower is still working in the White House?
>>Everybody — I don’t want to say, but everybody knows about the whistleblower and they know
about the whistleblower’s lawyer. But then do you remember, there was a second whistleblower.
I want to know what happened to the second whistleblower, what happened to the informer?
Remember that, an informer. They all disappeared when I gave the transcript because I gave
the transcript and that blew everything apart because we have an accurate — and the only
thing covered by the hearings was that now people agree — everybody, even our great
lieutenant colonel — please call him lieutenant colonel. Our great lieutenant colonel agrees
that the transcript was accurate. I think he had one word different, we changed the
one word — it meant absolutely nothing — the transcript was professionally done by the
best people there are — Just one second. So we have a transcript, they never thought
I’d release it — they probably never thought I had it. I can only say thank goodness they
had it. Because I — otherwise I would’ve been falsely accused and it would’ve been
sadly my word against them. But we had other people on that call — think of this; I was
going to do something wrong on a call where I know there are many people listening.
>>Always.>>The President of Ukraine said I did absolutely
nothing wrong, he said I had no pressure whatsoever. He didn’t even know what we were talking about.
And we called them before I released the transcript — because it’s a terrible thing to have to
release the conversation with a leader from another country, it’s a terrible thing. I
mean what are other counties other than Ukraine, what are they saying? So anyway, they have
no case –>>Why not call Bolton, why not allow him to
testify? This thing is bogus –>>I will have no problem other than one thing.
You can’t be in the White House as president — future; I’m talking about future — many
future presidents, and have a security advisor — anybody having to do with security handling
though and other things.>>– that privilege?
>>Well, I think you have to for the sake of the office. I would love everybody to testify.
I’d like Mick to testify, I’d like Mike Pompeo to testify, I’d like Rick Perry to testify,
I want everybody — but there are things that you can’t do from the standpoint of executive
privilege. You have to maintain that. So, we’ll see where it all goes. But especially,
a national security advisor — you can’t have him explaining all of your statements about
national security concerning Russia, China, and North Korea — everything — we just can’t
do that.>>How about ?
>>I think for the good of the others. Look, Nancy Pelosi will go down as probably the
least successful Speaker of the House in the history of our nation. She has done nothing,
the only thing she’s done is she finally got done one of the best trade deals our country
has ever made to USMCA, that’s with Mexico and Canada — but I did that. She doesn’t
even know what it says — she has no idea what it says. She was forced to do that — you
know why? She wouldn’t have done it, but she did nothing. So now she can say I signed something.
She is obsessed with impeachment, she has done nothing. She is going to go down as one
of the worst Speakers in the history of our country. Now, in all fairness, she’s hurting
our country. She’s very bad for our country. And she’s become a crazed lunatic. But she
will go down as — I think maybe the worst speaker in the history of our country.
>>How do you get –>>And she will be overthrown pretty soon because
she’s doing very little and the people are tired of it. And she’s controlled by the radical
left. She’s controlled by AOC, she’s controlled by this Tlaib — that’s another great one
— and she’s controlled by Omar. That’s who is controlling her, the radical left.
>>We just heard that they are thinking about adding another article on impeachment, they’re
floating this, to include the events over the last few weeks. Here’s what Chuck Schumer
just said:>>So they can’t win an election that’s going
to take place in 10 months, they know that, and they only thing they can do — it’s like
with their Congressman Green, when he said, we can’t beat him, we have to impeach him.
And they all know that. They’re making things up. This is the craziest thing anyone’s ever
seen, and the two articles that they put in, as you know, they’re not crimes, they’re not
— they’re not even allowed to be put in. It’s a disgrace.
>>Doesn’t that show the weakness of their case, that they’re still trying to rebrand
this as something else?>>I think it —
>>I’ve never seen anything like this, this is —
>>No, I think it’s incredible. I think it’s really hurting them. Look, my numbers are
the highest — my poll numbers. You have this guy that goes on television all the time,
he gives phony numbers. My poll — as you know, my poll numbers right now, today, are
the highest they’ve ever been. And by the way, people love that we took out this horrible
terrorist, they love it, Soleimani. They love that we took him out. They think it’s so fantastic.
He should have been taken out over the last 20 years by somebody. Te should have been
taken out a long time ago. But my numbers are the highest they’ve ever been, and a lot
of it because of the impeachment hoax. It’s a hoax. How would you like to be two, two
and a half years, I’m under investigation — federal investigation before I even ran.
In my opinion, before I came down the escalator, but from the time I came down the escalator,
I’d been under investigation. They found nothing. They found nothing. Who else do you think
in Washington –>>Not — well, Steve could have withstood
it –>>No, no. Think of it.
>>.>>Not only withstood it mentally and I think,
you know, somebody said –>>But accomplished.
>>– it actually energized me, yes, because it makes me angry. But think, who else could
have withstood that? You take some of these Democrat senators. They couldn’t withstand.
You know what would happen? Number one, they’d fold up like an umbrella, and number two,
they’d be guilty of a lot of stuff.>>
>>Will you slap the sanctions back on China, the tariffs if they — if you sign them —
>>Well . People don’t know.>>– if you sent the extra tariffs if they
don’t fulfill what they said they would do?>>Oh yes, well, I have the right to do that,
but people don’t realize I still have the tariffs. 25 percent tariffs on China are $250
billion worth of goods, I still have those. And by the way, remember they used to say
we paid for it? No, no. China devalued their currency and they’re paying for it. And we
have a great relationship with China right now, so I don’t want to speak badly of anyone,
but they are having the worst year that they’ve had. Last year was the worst they had. In
67 — was 57, now it’s 67 years, and they wanted to make a deal and we made a deal,
and it’s a great deal. Now we have a Phase Two deal, which will start at some point,
but Phase One was very important for banking. You know what we did? We opened it up to banking,
but for banking, for our farmers, for manufacturers, it’s a great — it’s great.
>>China, though, is –>>We have a lot of these deals that I’ve made.
South Korea, Japan. Japan is –>>I’ve documented all of this.
>>We have all these deals.>>No one else has touched this.
>>But remember this. They’re all kicking in now. We didn’t have anything. We had horrible
deals or a no deal. The Japan deal we had no deal. We’re getting $40 billion. What this
is going to do for our economy is going to be amazing, and it’s just now — it just started
a month ago. It’s just starting kicking in.>>On the human rights issue in China — and
you don’t talk a lot about it, but it concerns a lot of our strongest supporters, Evangelical
Christians, Catholics, other people who are really concerned about human rights. Got a
million people in reeducation camps, internment camps. The Catholics were getting missiles
in their pews at Christmas that had tributes to Xi instead of silent night. Crazy stuff
happening. Reagan saw the power of the moral argument for freedom and married it to the
economic and military argument for peace through strength. Can you do more on that front without
damaging your ability to make future trade agreements more on the human rights —
>>Well, I’m riding a fine line because we’re making not good trade deals. We’re making
great trade deals –>>But human rights count.
>>They do count, and when you say Reagan, look. I was a big fan of Reagan, but he wasn’t
heavy into it. He wanted to do certain things. He wasn’t really heavy into it, but he wasn’t
also making trade deals. He let Japan come in and take our automobile market. You know,
as much as I like Reagan, he was not good on trade.
>>Well, he didn’t trade with the Soviet Union at all. We didn’t have a big bunch of students
from the Soviet Union coming in the United States.
>>I think we should be able to trade with Russia. I think we should be able — I think
getting along — by the way, getting along with Russia now that the witch-hunt has ended
having to do with Russia, now that they’ve spent $45 million, found nothing, think of
this.>>Mr. President, when you look at this trajectory
of your administration, huge progress on trade, credible progress on dealing with our political
foes, ISIS, incredible deregulation, judges. You’ve done a lot. On the economy today we
found out that — still added 146,000 jobs. Unemployment historically low at 3.5 percent.
But we do have a little bit of a stall out on wage growth, which you ran on, and we’ve
seen some, 2.9 percent last year, 0.1 percent —
>>Yes, versus — I know.>>– over the last month. But we don’t have
a tight labor market. If we had a tight labor market we’d be seeing real increases in wages.
>>Yes.>>I hear that your team is planning on advocating
more foreign workers coming in for some of these high-tech companies. I’m very concerned
about that as our body of supporters.>>I know. I know you’re concerned. And so
is Mark Levin a little bit.>>Yes, we’re concerned because Americans —
>>And so was the great Lou Dobbs –>>You ran on American jobs —
>>Lou Dobbs is concerned too. But I’ll say, Lou, here’s the problem. I’m demanding that
Japan and all these companies — countries that have these massive — we have nobody’s
ever seen before. I say you got to open up. I call — Prime Minister Abe’s a friend of
mine, I say Shinzo, you got to open up more plants in the United States. And they tell
me we want to do it. We want to do it. They start opening. They can’t get labor. We need
help, otherwise we could just say don’t open up any —
>>If they couldn’t get labor, wages would be going up. Wages aren’t going up.
>>Wages are going up.>>Not in the high-tech industry. We’re seeing
a plateauing of wages –>>We wanted 3 percent and it went up 2.9 percent.
In the last two years, wages have gone up more than they have in 25 years.
>>But for Google, why reward Google? Google’s working against you in your campaign.
>>No, no, I don’t want to reward Google. I’m not — I’m not a fan —
>>Those guys –>>I’m not —
>>All they want is low-skilled workers instead of well-paid workers.
>>Laura, I’m not a fan of Google. But I’m a fan of great companies, OK?
>>You didn’t run on bringing more foreign workers into the United States.
>>Not foreign workers. We have to allow smart people to stay in our country. You graduate
number one in your class at Harvard, you graduate from the Wharton School of Finance —
>>Yes, that’s a small percentage of what they want.
>>No it’s not. It’s a lot.>>But you ran on people training their foreign
replacements, that you ran against that. Americans — it’s humiliating for an American worker
wo worked for a company for 30 years, now is told, you’ve got to train your foreign
replacement who lives in Korea and they’re going to pay him 20 percent.
>>No, no, that’s different. That — I would never do that. But we do need workers in our
country and I do want an immigration policy — nobody’s been better on immigration than
me — by the way, and we won the funding for the wall. And the wall has been built anyway,
because I was taking it out of the military and everything else, and now it’s easier.
We need people — I got Foxconn to go into Wisconsin. They have to get people, they spent
a fortune. They built the most incredible plant I’ve ever seen. In Wisconsin, Foxconn
–>>But why shouldn’t we have American graduates
of colleges and universities taking those jobs?
>>We do. No, we do. We do, but we don’t have enough of them. We’re not — we don’t have
enough of them and we have to be competitive with the rest of the world too. The companies
want to hire these people and they can’t –>>They want to hire people they can hire for
the cheapest amount because that’s what they want.
>>I’m not talking about cheap. I’m talking about brainpower. They want to hire smart
people and those people are thrown out of the country. We can’t do that.
>>No, no, you ran on American first. Anyway —
>>No, no, this is America first.>>All right, yes —
>>Excuse me — I just have to finish this. If we tell smart people to get the hell out,
that’s not America first.>>That’s not what we’re saying.
>>That’s a bad thing.>>There’s a never-ending appetite on the part
of corporate America to bring in as much cheap labor as possible to drive down wages. That’s
just going to happen.>>Laura, I have so many companies coming into
this country. You’re not going to have to worry about it. It’s always going to be a
shortage. If somebody’s smart sitting in this position — we have so —
>>Yes.>>– many companies coming in from Japan.
Japan is doing many car companies, China now is going to start building a lot of things
— you know, they haven’t been doing it too much. We have so many companies wanting to
come in and they don’t have the labor. But they’re coming in.
>>Alright –>>And I’ll tell you what, we’re doing great.
Our country is doing great, our economy is doing great.
>>>>Mr. President, I know you’re close to the
Queen and she has a lot of affection for you, you have great visits over there.
>>We have a great relationship.>>Would you be able to give her any advice
for some of the rogue royals? Like, what’s happening there, it seems like there’s a lot
of tumult. And you’ve been so good at keeping your kids together in a close-knit family.
>>I think it’s bad, I do. I think — she’s a great woman. I sat with her — I was supposed
to be with her 15 minutes, I stayed an hour and a half. By the way, I got killed by the
press — she wanted me to stay. The press said, no, no, he was supposed to leave that
was very rude. We had a great time. Then we had dinner, we were honored, our country was
honored; I sat with her for a long time, and she was smiling and laughing the whole time.
>>Protocol is important for her. She — the tradition of the monarchy and the responsibilities
–>>But we have a very great relationship. I
think this was a blindside — she was blindsided by this whole situation and I think it’s too
bad. But you know, she’s been the queen, has to be an all-time record, from the time she
was like 25 a d now she’s 94. She’s never made a mistake, if you look. I mean, she’s
had like a flawless time.>>I think Harry should go back, come back
and take a look –>>Well, I think — I think — you know, I
don’t want to get into the whole thing, but I find it — I just have such respect for
the queen, I don’t think this should be happening to her.
>>IOC announced today — and this is our final question, Mr. President — just announced
that no politics at the upcoming Olympics — new policy — by any of the athletes. Would
you like to see that extended to the United States, where politics stay out of sports?
I know you’re going to the big LSU-Clemson game on —
>>Well, I am, and I was responsible for getting the Olympics. The Olympics is coming to Los
Angeles, and I was called by the mayor, and he said, could you do us a favor, when I was
president-elect, and he said, could you do this? And I worked very hard, and we got the
Olympics and we have the World Cup coming into the United States. And I don’t know,
I guess you can say that no politics, but people are going to talk politics. I think
politics — I do believe I’ve made politics somewhat more exciting. The New York Times
would be dead right now, it would be filled —
>>What are they going to do without you?>>The Washington Post would be out of business.
I hate to say it but cable television would be — it’s obsolete. Cable would be out of
business, so we’ll go another, hopefully, five years and we’ll keep everybody happy.
>>Thank you so much that was fantastic.>>Thank you very much.

30 thoughts on “Interview: Laura Ingraham Interviews Donald Trump on Fox’s The Ingraham Angle – January 10, 2020

  1. I wish he spoke more Presidential like Obama. Where's all the ums and ahs? There is suppose to be a certain ratio of 3 ums and 2 ahs for every other word! jj lol Trump 2020!

  2. Please do something for the lower class. They need to see something from you. If not min wage then something. Show them some love, seriously.

  3. We are being lied to as our politicians waste tax money on missions while America's workforce participation rate is a low 65% and fake numbers are spewed. Gains in employment are mentioned dismissing net loss and wages declining. Politicians ignore real problems that face Americans that are being allowed to die to maximize drug profits and we pay oil companies to find oil they get to keep andballow price fixing there too. And income taxes needs to be abolished. America can do better. We need Andrew Yang ASAP!

  4. The Democrat trolls will be ranting about this phenomenal interview, because it's their feeble attempt to get back at a man who they know that none of the circus clowns that are vying for the Dem nomination, can defeat. President Trump is the GREATEST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
    If you disagree, don't hide behind your mama's keyboard. Call me at 215-287-0400, IF you're evolved enough to be civil and articulate enough to conduct a respectful conversational debate.
    If you want to act like a jerk, don't waste yours or my time.

  5. I watched this on Fox News TV last night, it was odd there were repeated sentences by both Trump and Ingraham, like they filled time and were editing to emphasize or fill time. So far at 16 minutes no repeating. Very odd

  6. 22:00 FALSE, FALSE, FALSE, one of the WORST deals ever for the U.S.A.. Just look at the verbiage, it is virtually lock step with U.N. agenda 21/30, population reduction/replacement, green this, sustainable that. And look at all the jobs they want to oust! You thought H1B, now H2A, alphanumeric soup was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet! 27:00 Great trade deal my arse… Trading my future, trading our children's future.

  7. 29:50 Well, that's novel, 45, "would never do that". POTUS, it is HAPPENING , has been happening for the past I don't know how many years. 30:00 Lies, lies, lies; 45 said it, "competitive". POTUS we cannot live on "competitive". Somethings got to give.

  8. 13:18–14:24 who the hell is "us" in this statement? Where's the billion dollars Saudi Arabia is paying, the $500M from S Korea?

  9. Laura Ingraham you are very lucky to be invited by President Trump to the WH. Only thing I don't like about about you Ingraham, you ask question, then interrupts President again and again, trying to show you know all. Laura, if you know all the answers, why question the President? What are you trying to prove? You are a guest, have some respect, let the man finish, then add your take. Laura stop interrupting. That's a bad habit.

  10. Trump didn't offer any "evidence" that U.S. embassies were being targeted by the Iranian general. He only said that he "believed" embassies would be. While it is possible that Soleimani was in Iraq to discuss future activities to harass American interests, "belief" is not evidence of this. In Trump's alternate universe, "gut feelings" and "belief" mean the same thing, and since careful examination of the facts is not part of Trump's modus operandi, everything he says or does cannot be assumed be done in the country's interest, but to inflate his own ego and impressing his fan base. His threat to attack 52 Iranian cultural sites was an indication of his fear that Iran might make him pay for his impulsive action; with Trump, there is no telling what his "gut" will tell him to do next, and what price the U.S. will pay for it. He can keep claiming it will be Obama's "fault," but history will judge otherwise.

  11. I believe Iran, Russia, China, and maybe even North Korea are all going to team up and attack and invade America. I believe it also tells us this in the bible. The end times are very near. Trumps gonna have 3 terms as well

  12. You know what, it's cool, let bernie burn this whole country down if slow death by immigration is the alternative.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *