"So I got into a catcher’s squat next to his chair, conveying to him that I was listening intently but also forcing him to look down at me while he talked, which kept him from being distracted by the others at the table."
I feel like I learned more about keeping a subject's attention in this one sentence than I have in a full semester in journalism school. Will probably try this technique in the future...
1
Most people who comment here suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Good for you, Mr. Schmidt. Way to go!
2
A good interviewer will adjust her/his strategy to the situation. It's important not to always be on the attack. Defensiveness on the part of the interviewee can impede the effectiveness of the reporter and future interviews.
3
You made the best of a totally unexpected opportunity. You did a great job and I appreciate the fact that you're quick on your feet. Unfortunately, the subject of your interview has the intellect of a worm. Of course, that's no reflection on you. I feel you're very dedicated to your work. You could have just sat and enjoyed the day in a luxurious place. Thank you!
4
A courtesy reminder of what happened once a renowned journalist did his job and critically cross-examined Donald Trump in his face: http://bit.ly/2lrL9z4
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
4
I'm so conflicted and frustrated...at the time so detrimental to our system of government when the country is so divided about the path forward and what we're becoming... considering that the life span for Democracy is just 200 yrs, how anyone at such crucial time have such commonplace, mediocre, second-rate interview with this "so called president?" Let me just ask, by this time don't we all know what he represents, didn't he told us enough in his thousands of lying tweets and statements, doesn't anyone understands that this person is a horrific menace for our fragile system? Deranged person who holds a power of "nuclear monarch" and could activate the nuclear codes in a span of 35 minutes, that's how weak our system is, when people around him seriously discussing tackling him and not letting his fingers to get to Nuclear Codes.
Yes, we're living in nightmare reality.
No, to this abdication of journalistic integrity!
NYTimes must do so much better and your journalism is usually brilliant. This historic time requires from free press to keep the highest standards, at any cost.
https://www.vox.com/2017/11/30/16517022/impeachment-donald-trump
3
This is by far the best opportunity to understand the stream of consciousness thinking of Trump. If only he had a better understanding of the way things really work in the real world.! Mr Schmidt did a great job of restraint in letting him ramble in his disconnected thinking. What a coup.
7
Congratulations Mr, Schmidt. Great job managing this based on your previous interview with this man; I concur with the conclusions that guided your actions. Unlike the interviewee, you learned from experience. As to the interview transcript itself, anyone who has read previous transcripts of this man's unedited words must draw the inescapable conclusion that he is the most ignorant President in recent history, far exceeding Mr. Bush (W). It is also inescapable that he is guilty based on his repeated expressions ("no collusion" times 16!) demonstrating a deep consciousness of guilt, delighting prosecutor(s).
9
As evidenced by this chance spontaneous interview, President Trump is one of the most accessible presidents in our history.
As long as you are a member of an elite social club. How many real normal everyday people eat there?
12
I read the first report on this interview the afternoon it happened. Trump comes off as unable to string a sentence together, much less a coherent thought sequence. His comments about the cable channels not surviving -- I'm a political news junkie, but the sound of his voice revolts me. I've taken to flipping to movie channels and old sitcoms a lot. What good would follow up hard questions trying to pin him down on issues have served - he lives in his own fantasy world.
6
As the saying goes, Trump is not the sharpest crayon in the box.
His ego coupled with a pathological, narcissistic lying behavior shows he is not mentally healthy. He probably believes the silly comments he offers reporters and others because, well, he said it so it has to be true.
History will look back on this poor excuse of a President poorly and that's the legacy Trump has already created in less than one year in office.
So SAD!
7
Shame-Shame Michael Schmidt/ NYTimes! you get a face to face and you go weak by not questioning him on his low class moral character, his disgraceful behavior, his juvenile name calling and most importantly - his constant lying to the American pepole. Everytime you reporters get face time with him the issue of his charater is avoided. Instead, we get "are you going to fire Mueller" for the 100th time. A kid reporter could do better. He plays you. you should know better. You reporters only chastise him when he watching you on TV never when you get him in person. he has not earned your respect.
You are just as pitiful as those Republications he belittles and they turn around by saying how great he is. I am a conservative - well educated, good income who likes most of the policies being put forth but maintain that our president should be high to a standard of high moral character. please, next time he pursues the NYT for an interview make it #1 to call him out for his dishonesty to the American People. We expect and deserve better!
1
This context this article provides really helps, and Mr. Schmidt, it sounds like you handled this interview very well. The interview speaks for itself, and your non-confrontational style proves it. Thank you for the fine reporting.
10
I disagree vehemently with those that say, and Mr. Schmidt that pushing back on Trumps inane ramblings would have caused Trump to clam up and cancel the interview.
We know enough about Trump already to understand he likes to live in a "Happy place", hell, even his own chief of staff panders to him. The reporter would have done us all a service, had he pushed Trump on his lies, to see how Trump justified his world view.
This was an opportunity squandered.
1
See Ezra Klein's comments on Michael Schmidt's article in Vox.com. Very helpful, if scary as well.
2
Trump could be interviewed by a fourth grader.
1
- and I think i made a mistake with trying to quote what JLaw said about Trump - that was... not... nice but it had a lot to do that I just had heard this:
'For all the times that you rain on my parade'...
- and as Ed had said that -
'Cause if you like the way you look that much
Oh baby you should go and love yourself'
He actually wanted to write instead of -
'and love yourself'
'and ... yourself' -(you know what he meant - guys)
AND as I actually (also) beliebe that LOVE ALWAYS wins - I think after the interview Mr. Schmidt should have given Von Clownstick a big kiss - just on his mouth!
Perhaps with a little tongue?
Now that REALLY would have been a great end to this GREAT interview!!
3
Trump's not fooling anybody ordering a salad. Look at the gut on him.
11
Maybe my imagination, but tone of many comments different than yesterday’s ... more negative, critical, bitchy, one-sided ... wonder if some of these are planted or “fake” comments, ie not true individual opinions ...
3
''wonder if some of these are planted or “fake” comments, ie not true individual opinions'' ...
Could be? - just think about Halle Berry and her ''real'' comment -
''you can be a good person with a kind spirit and still tell people to go .... themselves when needed.
3
I saw some of the criticism of this interview and wholly disagree. Trump is a counter puncher unbound by truth or accuracy. Risking an abrupt conclusion to his unvarnhished thoughts sparked by perceived confrontation could have squandered this opportunity to let "Trump be Trump". And to what point? The big news here isn't convincing Trump to see the flaws in his thinking, but to ensure the public is fully aware of his individual reality.
22
Asking questions might have derailed opportunity to hear 45 unscripted and unmanaged. The reporter handled this well.
20
Mike Schimdt, thanks for another window into his mishegas ...
11
Just want to share this article in case someone missed it...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/is-america-headed-for-a-new-kin...
To all the readers who write such thoughtful, reflective comments, to all amazing editors who we need more than ever, to the Constitution that protects our free press and speech, let's drink to that!
Have a Happy, Peaceful 2018!
9
The most interesting commentary on the Schmidt interview was by Charles Pierce in Esquire Magazine. On the basis of Trump's comments, he inferred that Trump's mental status is declining: memory loss, limited vocabulary and word choice, repetition, speaking fragments of sentences, switching topics in mid-sentence, emotional volatility.
11
Schmidt certainly didn’t challenge Trump in any significant way and to that extent the interview was less about questions and answers and more about Trumps incoherent stream of consciousness, with encouragement from the reporter. I think the text of the monologue/diatribe is only interesting insofar as it confirms one’s worst fears about how Trump’s mind works and how tenuous is his grip on reality.
9
Honestly, does it really take any great amount of probing to find out what goes on in the mind of a mental midget? And by the way, Orange was bored on his vacation? Read a book you dope!
18
Why doesn't this article link to the one it's about?
6
Mike Schmidt should be ashamed of himself for essentially letting that ignorant child give a stupid monologue. Was he so glad to be in the same room with his "hero"? Geez, I will cancel my subscription. Shame on the the once proud NYT!!!!!
4
George: honestly, did you want Schmidt to ask "hard hitting" questions? Why, to hear Schmidt's point of view? Because we all know Trump would have walked out within about 3 minutes!
8
3 MINUTES? MORE LIKE 2
1
Seems to me that the NYT is blinded by the light.
1
Ok, let us suppose for the sake of argument, that Mr. Schmidt did all he could with the best of journalistic practice. The real question is why the New York Times printed the piece? Mr. Trump's soliloquy was riddled with errors -- the Washington Post identified at least 25 and a day in advance of the Times. All of his comments had been previously published or aired, including the statements about China and Mr. Mueller.
3
I have no objection to this interview since the more we hear from Trump's, the better equipped we'll be to deal with his Presidency. Keep talking, Donald, and sooner or later, you'll say something that will really get you in trouble!
9
I think the point is, Schmidt enabled Trump's rambling and self aggrandizement to SHOW it to the world.....would you rather he'd have asked "hard hitting" questions? Trump would have walked out! AND the many errors were part of the POINT of the interview, Trump has no concept of reality as it is generally known.
10
Well, no one can fault Mr. Schmidt for not bending over backwards to be "fair" to Trump. I have no criticism for Mr.Schmidt's uncritical interview, even though I know he has a history of being a good deal less fair to others, see:
https://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraugh.... It is interesting, scary is actually the word, to read Trump unfiltered.
I do, however, fault the NYT for it's handling of the story. There seems to have been a very partial fact check that popped up briefly, but basically NYT printed at least two dozen lies and did little or nothing to correct the record.
One example, when Trump babbles about millions joining "associations" a reasonably informed reader is left going "what?" with no clarification from NYT that it's just something Trump proposed once and has done nothing about. A low information reader will be left with the impression there are "associations" replacing Obamacare exchanges. Should NYT not have said something?
7
That Margaret Sullivan post mortem of a Michael S Schmidt anonymously sourced article gome terribly wrong contained this lame ratiknalization from masthead (un)worthy Matt Purdy: “We got it wrong because our very good sources had it wrong.” Mr. Purdy, if your sources might be agenda driven, and they sold you a bill of goods, they can hardly be characterized as “very good sources.” In fact, they are terrible sources who should be made to earn the Times’ trust. Purdy’s rationalization almost guarantees that this mistake will be made over and over again.
One would have to be unthinking to believe that Christopher Ruddy was unaware of Schmidt’s regular stories highly critical of Hillary Clinton in setting up a Trump 8nterview with someone viewed at least as potentially friendly to Trump. Serving as an unfiltered conduit qualifies in Dumpster fire world.
2
Trump’s Dot-Dash mind is “ not connected to Itself”. ....and he has the nuclear codes.
3
I actually don't think he has the real nuclear codes. I think there are a few smart people who have figured this out.
Great job- Michael. The interview reinforced that he is scared since the reality is catching up. He stole the election by KGB help, division and fear mongering. No matter how he attempts to divert our attention, it is clear that his election was well coordinated between his team and the KGB. Typically, a liar repeatedly denies the truth as we are experiencing with him. Our nation has so many issues need to be dealt with. But Trump deals with only one issue which is the truth and there is a saying “what goes around comes around”.
3
Trump is sui generis. Scared? This has worked for him for decades. He is so completely unaware, it's hard to think he feels normal emotions anyone else would feel under the same stimuli. He's grotesque and terrible in every conceivable way possible for a human.
6
I'm so conflicted and frustrated...at the time so detrimental to our system of government when the country is so divided about the path forward and what we're becoming.
Considering that the life span for Democracy is just 200 yrs, how anyone at such crucial time have such commonplace, mediocre, second-rate interview with this "so called" president?
By this time don't we all know what he represents, didn't he told us enough in his thousands of lying tweets and statements, doesn't anyone understands that this person is a horrific menace for our fragile system and the Constitution? Deranged person who holds a power of "nuclear monarch" and could activate the nuclear codes in a span of 35 minutes, that's how weak our system is, when people around him seriously discussing tackling him and not letting his fingers to get to Nuclear Codes.
Yes, we're living in nightmare reality.
No, to normalizing the everyday insanity!
No, to tiptoeing around the maniac in WH!
NYTimes and WAPO are the two major newspapers doing brilliant job covering this disastrous presidency This historic time requires from free press to keep the highest standards, at any cost.
7
If there is someone who does not need to be interviewed it is trump! He fills the air waves daily with lies and disinformation. Most people do not want to hear about or look at this disgrace! The only good story about him is when he is GONE! FOR GOOD!
8
It's hard to comprehend that finding oneself able to interview Trump would be considered an opportunity when in a year we've found how limited his thought process is, how terribly limited his vocabulary is and how shockingly willing the Republican Congress is to grovel and kowtow to the likes of this person who would be homeless under an overpass if his rich daddy hadn't left him rich. There is no way one could enter any endeavor with his set of horrors and ever climb any ladder of success.
4
Trump is the PRESIDENT whether we like it or not, and therefore his opinions, his meandering ramblings, need to be heard.
2
Why would anyone want to interview him at this point? The man is not respected anywhere. The man has something wrong with him. Probably drugs. His tongue is always coated, white, he slurs his words, he cannot and does not ever make sense.
Sorry, Mr. Schmidt, you are probably a good person, nice man, but your subject matter is so flawed, it just seems like a waste of time.
All we are waiting for is to vote in 2018 and then throw him out in 2020. He's nuts, he's dangerous and he is the most boring person I've ever witnessed.
11
Short sleeves, tanned, golfing — we are all freezing up here — and Trump makes lame quips about global warming.
3
Trump makes uneducated and stupid equips about global warming confirming to all of us that this is another topic about which he knows nothing. Ignorant and proud of it.
8
I miss Tim Russert.
1
The fact that Schmidt sat there and challenged nothing is not journalism. Being present does not count as journalism. Bottom line - MS might once have been a journalist, but sadly he was on par (sorry for the golf joke) with Kelly Anne Conway or Sean Hannity. Move along. Nothing to see here. Seriously - absolutely nothing.
3
Michael Schmidt, the interviewer SAID he let Trump talk and felt it was better to just let Trump talk....would you really think it would have been better to read more on Michael Schmidt's views and observations, or just LET Trump talk?
3
Interviewer Schmidt handled the unexpected interview with a deft, light touch...he didn't act subservient, he acted neutral and thus encouraged Trump to keep talking....which is what an interview SHOULD be.
5
The interview revealed the true man mentally unfit Flight of ideas etc.. .Mr. Schmidt was right tp let him ramble on. Surely the 25th amendment should apply!
6
Dear Mike,
If you had done anything else, you would have been accused of bias reporting.
Good for you to just let him rant. We all assume if he is awake, he is lying so that is just that!
You did a good job and were smart about it.
THANK YOU!
8
Sandra hits the nail on the head. Trump was Trump and Mike, you used good journalistic training and expertise and "calling" the interview in the way you thought it was most useful and productive. I am sure you would have responded in a much more prepared way if this were a scheduled interview. The only beef I have with The NYT handling of this story is this: Its breathless reporting of events leading up to this, your understandable posture at the table (squatting) and quite pictorial. But my gosh, NYT, as reporting and stories go, you treat this piece as Moses coming from the Mount and meeting Schmidt. Certainly NYT your reporters go in harms way often with nary any acknowledgement of that. And here we have Mike who happens to have 30 minutes with Trump as it is Moses:Schmidt. NYT you are a world-class newspaper, a newspaper of record and here in this weak story you are breathless with excitement over the scoop. I was a reporter for 13 years and taught reporting at a state university for 12 years and let's face it, this is a ho-hum story that Mike either tripped over or was set up for. NUY you are breathless with this accomplishment and it is not deserved. Sorry.
Since this seems difficult to grasp, let's be clear: there is no knowledge here. There're no plans, no strategies, no goals, no hopes for the future.
There's only an aged baby lurching around, screaming and yelling, making demands, making threats, making whatever at any moment for whatever reason. Or more precisely, screAming GIMME! GIMME MORE!
So...why'd he get elected? It's us. Not the Electoral College, not gerrymandering, not the MSM, not this, not that. It's us.
WE let the country down. Now, we're looking for excuses and alibis. But fact is, WE did this.
You want better? Good. Go vote, go organize, go work.
Oh, by the way: the stuff Trump said in this interview is a hilarious pack of lies, easily as funny as the promise to release the tax returns, or his oromises on carried interest, or his promises on Medicare.
Not worried about this fat slob. Worried about us: how could we stoop this low?
9
I'd rather have this lightly-directed body of Trumpian words than nothing at all, and believe that Mr. Schmidt approached his task intelligently and correctly. I used to do the same as a criminal investigator when dealing with a person over whom I had little power; one sometimes must take what one can get.
And get, he did. Yet again, the man who believes he's his own best spokesman has demonstrated his lack of grasp of not only the issues, but of the conventions of conversation. He appears yet ungrounded in a sustainable reality. It ain't pretty, but it certainly is "fit to print."
5
The photo is wonderful, confirming as it does at once glance the suspicions of thousands that Trump's baggy suits are designed and tailored to hide an enormous rear end and a bulging stomach, the lower half of the fantastically contorted, b-grade hollywood star hairdo. The outline-profile he presents in everyday (non-golfing) life is most likely the result of an almost-full body corset.
3
Linda Qiu, the Times “fact checker,” ran a top ten lies from this interview. The WaPo counted no fewer than 24 lies in 30 minutes, or 4/5 of a lie every minute of the interview.
We have never had a president who never lies. We have never had a president who lies so frequently, and with so few compunctions about it.
4
I worked at NBC News for 45 years. We had one field producer, who would go out and interview people and jump in with her next question before the subject even finished answering. I called this approach, "Shut up, my question is more important than your answer."
I found that a long pause after an answer, generates perhaps the most important insights. Subjects most often cannot stand silence.
5
The effort sounds akin to allowing a psychotic, ranting homeless person to speak unhindered - while taking notes. Trump is the Chauncy Gardner of the new millennium.
1
That was the point, I think.
1
You were recording, not reporting. There's a difference and you seem not to understand it.
1
I think Schmidt did exactly what he needed to do to keep Trump talking....and I'd guess he knew what he was doing and why. He got a 30 minute or so unscripted, un-'Managed' interview with the man.
2
I find it curious that you started your article telling anybody he had a white hat on and your editors decided to show an image of him wearing a red hat.
For me that creates a credibility problem about the content of your story.
This seemed to be more of a story about you than about your interview.
We now know that you played Little League Baseball as a catcher and your knees hurt you and whatever else you said about yourself.
I wonder if that implies that all of your articles are about you and not about your subjects.
Nevertheless your article was a terrific way for New York Times to use ink and fill a space.
1
The interviewer Michael Schmidt, stayed OUT of the interview as much as was humanly possible and he seems to be getting it from all sides for that!
2
Mike Schmidt knows how to throw fuel on a fire. In an effort to "explain" how his "interview" with Trump went down. He, perhaps unwittingly, exposes both his lack of serious journalistic mettle and his obsequious pandering to this president.
Interesting how the meeting came about as a result of Schmidt being invited to lunch at the Grill Room by Chirs Ruddy, a "longtime confident of Trump" and the CEO of the right-wing rag Newsmax. Ruddy is a member of this private golf course and club. By coincidence, their lunch date just so happened to coincide with Trump's round of golf ending and his entrance to the Grill Room.
When Ruddy and Schmidt approached Trump's table, the reporter assumed a "catcher's crouch" so Trump would look down at him and not be distracted by those around him. Nice try Mike . . . you are as delusional as your subject. Yogi Berra you are not! It comes off more as Schmidt genuflecting to Trump, and the president looking down on him because that is what he does to those he views as inferior. Schmidt also claims he asked Trump "questions about the most pressing issues of his presidency." Perhaps he didn't read his own transcript --- there was little evidence of tough questioning, and no evidence of any follow-up to Trump's misinformation and blatant lies.
2
Oh, c'mon, apparently Michael Schmidt couldn't please most here no matter HOW he'd have interviewed the man!
For me, I think he gave Trump room and more to say what he wanted to say, and showed a very light touch in handling a fearsome egotist.
2
RLiss: You seem intent on defending Schmidt from any criticism at all. Are you his mother? Father? Him?
1
Michael Schmidt should've asked the president if he read any good books during his vacation.
2
A better question might be, not has he read any good books during vacation, but any pages of books. I doubt if many pages get turned in any books that Trump picks up. A reader, he is not. He can barely read the speeches off the teleprompter (you know, the machine that Obama used and for which he was roundly disparaged. Only Obama could read and make sense of what he was saying. Trump cannot).
2
Michael Schmidt - kudos for seizing an opportunity and having the ability to manage an incoherent, rambling, blowhard with the attention span of a gnat.
6
The interview was just another reading of trump inner most thoughts. Just the same narrative a different day. This is the leader of the swamp who supports the kkk ,hatred but loves the Russians . The republican party pathetic
2
OK, we all KNOW that, so what? I think Schmidt a great interview.
1
Yes, very, very good ... well done indeed. I've read that A. Hitler was a great interview too after the passage of the Enabling Act in 1933 ... not so much the morning of 30 Apr 1945.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ George Santayana
4
- and before the New Year - dear Mr. Schmidr - or any reporter of the NYT - can't you guys next time you sit after lunch with the Orange Man call up Jennifer Lawrence or ME - that we finally can tell the dude what everybody who meets him should tell him first?
Y'all know the word with the big F - YOU!!
2
The published interview served, above all, to allow Trump to express his core dogma to his base: there is no collusion; America first; the economy is doing great. It was an opportunity for him to have these messages presented as front page news in the ultimate MSM publication. Now Fox, Newsmax and others can quote “Trump’s Interview in the NYT” and make him sound legitimate. His base will never read the whole thing. They will never understand how woefully shallow and incoherent he is. I’m afraid you just provided him a powerful platform for his propaganda.
12
I'm not sure that Trump's base considers an interview in the NYT to be worth bragging about. I'd be happy if the President tried to cash in on that with his coast-hating constituency.
1
Nonsense. In the first place, his base doesn't READ the NYT and I think Schmidt handled it very well and with a light touch....he let the man HANG himself with his own words.
3
In Trump’s mind, it really all boils down to No news is bad news.
Much has been made of his apparent belief that politics is theater and it can, and should, be conducted just like the reality television that was his second home for a decade. Trump’s peril, then, is in allowing that calculation to overrule an even more basic tenet of showbusiness:
Always leave the audience wanting MORE.
4
It's sad that the story is that he got the interview. The interview is important, making the details of how he got it should not be the news; it makes Trump once more the headline on what frankly is a triviality. Once more his name in lights, once more the hero that is difficult to stalk.
I think Schmidt was forced to give a follow up "how the interview happened" type of article based on the asinine comments made by most of the people here on NYT!
Reporters around Trump -- like his staff and family -- behave like battered wives. Schmidt says he sank into the catchers' squat to make Trump focus on him, but the posture is a groveling one, signaling "I'm inferior" and "Don't attack me." Battered wives also attempt to create a small sphere of freedom for themselves by not provoking the batterer. But it's not really freedom, is it? It's learned helplessness.
7
Great interview Mr. Schmidt ~ a smart move letting him speak uninterrupted. Trump would've ended it immediately, if any hard ball questions were directed at him. It doesn't look promising for another interview! Kudos ~ we witnessed an unfiltered interview and it was mesmerizing ~ scary. He'll surely never grant another impromptu interview with the media, unless, it's Fox News, etc. It's surreal he's POTUS.
14
I'm imagining Trump talking to Putin with only Putin's translator, as happened during the G20 summit in July 2017. That must have been a truly hilarious and frightening translation! Putin now has the only record of the meeting. Maybe this is another thing Putin has that could be used to blackmail Trump. When Trump feels flattered and loved he babbles and spills his inner thoughts in an unguarded, childish way. What might Trump have said/promised to try and impress Putin?
4
Some readers criticized my approach, saying I should have asked more follow-up questions. I was one of those. And the fact that you were the lunch guest of Christopher Ruddy only confirms to me both your naivete and the fact that you were played.
4
So, NYT reporters can ONLY have lunch and associate with known, card carrying liberals?
1
Reporters and lawyers often uncover otherwise hidden truths by letting an interviewee speak without prodding, tell lies without refuting them, and repeat untenable or peculiar positions without interrupting the discharge. IPatience under pressure often allows parties to hang themselves.
And when done well, this creates for posterity a record of how the interviewee's mind worked and what incidents, problems, and fantasies dominate the speaker's thinking. It's Gotcha Journalism and Revelation by deposition. Fiction and drama employ this in letters, journals, dreams, and monologues. Shakespeare did it wonderfully with Prince Hamlet, Browning with his dramatic monologues.
That spontaneous revelation is worth a score of corrections of Trump's sillier assertions, and allowing the demented monologue to be spewed out prevented the unelected President from getting angry and stalking off.
We shall treasure this self-condemning blubbering long after tRump is gone.
13
Mike, I thought you played third base--you know, for glorious Phillies of 1980?
Thanks for the interview. Personally if I saw Mr. Trump I would run the other way, so it's a good thing there are people like yourself who are paid to listen to this strange man.
And what a delight it is to see how these rich fat-cats amuse themselves while the rest of us struggle to pay our bills.
8
Commenters - in this article and the initial article of the interview - are emulating the actions of the reporter they criticize - focusing on the minutiae of the interview process rather than the difficult predicament this nation is in due to Trump as president. We all know that Trump won't - or can't - answer hard questions. What are we the people to do with his string of incoherent and unrelated responses?
4
Impeach him for total incompetence and lying.
1
So how would you have interviewed him differently? Hard hitting questions that would have guaranteed he's have walked out after 3 minutes?
Who said the questions needed to be "hard hitting"? There's no need to go on the attack. Why not just simple followup requests of clarity on on the fabrications that were coming out of Trump's mouth? Isn't this Journalism 101?
Kudos to Schmidt and the Times for the excellent reporting. I did not read the transcript as simply a rambling narrative by Trump but some very careful and skillful inquiries by the reporter knowing that they will get a desired response. More importantly the Times printed the interview without elimination of the right wing talking points and self aggrandizement by Trump . How any members of the GOP base can call this fake news is beyond me.
8
It's a must read! Schmidt knocked it out of the park by letting him ramble in his dementia...I recently read that the true personality really comes out in advancing dementia. If you are sweet and kind, you often just become more of that as the disease advances.
I suspect Schmidt's interview transcript may become a historic document from these sad times.
4
Collusion, implies that you knowingly conspired with another party. What's it called when you unknowingly conspire with another party?
Wonder what Trump did to Mr Ruddy that made him decide that it was ok to let the president wander into this mine field
I doubt any of Trump's "followers" dare to say "no" to him.
It's always interesting when coherent people try to have a conversation with someone who is not coherent, is expert at it, is a distractor, a diverter, a narcissist. There has never been a character who has reached this pinnacle of power in this country and been able to capture the entire news media every single day he's been in office to say absolutely nothing of value, outside the fact he inflicts horror on everyone but the super rich and corporations who are almost giggle in unison over his tax gift. This is Shakespearian Mad King literature with the groveling Republican Congress falling over themselves several times a day to pay homage to the Mad King. Do they even know the damage they're doing to themselves? Do they even care? At some point this nightmare has to end. Please wake me from this terrible dream then.
9
It is always useful to hear Donald Trump talk without his minders or a teleprompter. It quickly becomes obvious that he has no idea what he is talking about. At the same time, he sees himself as brilliant. I wish it were all just a Broadway play. We could laugh and applaud. But unfortunately he really does occupy the most powerful office in the world. Our only hope is for Democrats to win big in November 2018, and to replace Trump in 2020.
15
truly incredible. excellent reporting to let trump talk. it is a fact that asking trump questions and expecting concise, even related answers is counter-productive. stand press interviews do not work. schmidt to be commended for having good sense and journalism skills to seize the moment with skillful professionalism. one day... the results of this method will be even more illuminating. perhaps even radical. and not to trump’s benefit. thank you to schmidt, his editors, the ny times, wpost and all journalists working hard to protect our constitution , our country.
12
I think this interview was a wasted opportunity with a president that rarely answer questions from the press.
At times Mr Schmidt even indulges him with Fox and Friends type questions like did Eric Holder do a better job of protecting Obama. I hope that Mr Schmidt attempt to ingratiate himself with Trump pays off with another opportunity to ask him substantive policy questions.
1
You can't get into substantive policy questions with a narcissist in advancing dementia! Twitler doesn't have the bandwidth.
6
Yes, those hard hitting "real" questions would have caused Trump to walk out after about 3 minutes....that would show him! (sarcasm)....
What I find amazing is that after a year of Trump as POTUS - and much longer as candidate - it still seems to be of importance to some what this guy actually says and how an interview is conducted. Trump may just as well say the exact opposite tomorrow - who would be surprised? Will he care at all what he said during this interview? Will anything he said here really protect Mueller? Of course not.
Yes, I think Mr. Schmidt handled the situation correctly. As a result we can see in Trump´s ramblings what we all knew already: that he is amazingly incoherent in his thinking, a narcissist and totally unfit for office. Yes, we got the true Trump. But that we do get in his insane Tweets as well. Does the lack of tough follow up questions matter? I do not think so. All these discussions show that many of us are still (desperately) trying to apply certain normal standards to what interviews, communication, policies, etc etc with a real POTUS should be. They show that we still assume that Trump is capable of acting normal, capable of having real plans for his Presidency, capable of caring for your people. After all the insane things that have happened we should all undertand that this is not the case. Mike Schmidt might as well have interviewed a golf ball or a local dog. Sadly so, the results of that interview would be just as relevant to what the POTUS and the WH do next or do not do.
8
I often think that many of those "hardball" questions that some reporters are fond of just goad the president into saying something in anger, not necessarily relevant or true. Some reporters are more interested in making the news than reporting it.
1
Congrats to Mike Schmidt for getting this interview.
Trump: "I have absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department."
This is the most statement in the whole interview. Trump obviously sees himself as a Putin-like dictator and above the checks and balances provision clearly stated in the Constitution. We should all be terrified.
10
The transcript tells more about the pres' state of mind than we have seen in most press snippets. A narcissist wilts into rage at anything he perceives as a challenge. End of access. Better to expose the pres' rambling psychosis in full for as long as he sits still. There is plenty of investigative reporting available elsewhere... this piece shows us what we need to see. Excellent work.
8
I thought Schmidt was way too passive in his interview. Anyone could have done the interview the way he did it, merely yessing him to death: no skill required. He didn't appear to have any knowledge of any of the subjects being discussed. By agreeing with him on everything he was condoning all Trump's actions and beliefs. A terrible interview and a wasted opportunity.
2
By yessing him to death, he allowed the rambling. He wasn't condoning, he just let the babble out. If he had tried to engage as one would normally as a reporter, Trump would have just cut off the interview. There is "no opportunity" with Trump. He has no knowledge, never will. A child can see he is not "right in the head". As a matter of fact, many parents comment on how their small children view him.
4
Yes, those hard hitting "real" questions would have caused Trump to walk out after about 3 minutes....that would show him! But oddly it's what most people here seem to have wanted....I thought Schmidt handled it with a light touch, was not subservient, but rather neutral in his responses to Trump.
Reading what the president said made me understand just how incoherent and lost Trump is. We should all be very scared that he is the leader of the free world.
8
Does anyone else get the feeling that the president staged this whole scenario so that he could be interviewed without his press staff and advisors by his side? We know from prior stories on Trump that he likes to take control of the story and write his own narrative. Why else would a NYT reporter who has broken other anti-Trump stories in the past be invited to a lunch with a conservative "longtime confidant" of Trump and then be seated at the table right next to him? Trump needed a way to send a message to someone -Mueller maybe - and could not do it while being 'babysat" by his advisors and lawyers.
4
Trump is obsessed, absolutly driven by being the MOST of anything. This kind of hyperbole speaks to the state of the President's mind. Trulmp is saying he knows all he could possibly know about the taxes because he knows more than even "the greatest CPA" ( I suppose he misses the point that it would probably be better if he knew more than the greatest economist since CPAs do tax preparation. Economists study the theory of how money works. It is the more sophisticated. Trump shows little interest in theory and its application to solve problems. He shows little interest or curiosity in much of anything. He's a man who has NO discernable knowledge. That, alone, is dangerous. Trump is utterly obsessed with being perceived as the king of the hill. I have seen little evidence that Trump actually does understand any issue on anything but the most superficial level. There is a terrifying gap between what he imagines he knows and what the reality is. He is a man who is nuerotically obsessed by whether he is loved. It is what gets him up in The morning. Since Trump lacks self awareness he will never appreciate how his kind of thinking is very problematic in solving problems at the complex level. He will never see how his behaviors offend and alienate. He does not comprehend that he needs to listen and read and wait before he reacts. He is just looking for his next round of adulation, the next time he can say " I know more than any president ever".
6
Don't pull your punches, Mike. I know you want to say
"The public deserves to know whether we have a Silvio Berlusconi or a King Lear in office so that they can decide whether to move away from major metropolitan areas in 2018 before North Korea, China, and Russia nuke them into smithereens."
Just say it. Don't dance around the issue with "[Letting the President ramble] was the best way to learn as much as possible about the president’s mind-set and his views on issues like North Korea."
3
It is a challenge to interview a pathological liar who happens to be our president. The more Trump gets caught lying - the more he lies. The result is that we have little to learn from any interview because, collectively, we do not trust our commander in chief.
We still do not know why, for example, Trump started playing nice with China. North Korea? Maybe. Business interests? More probably.
2
Seems to me Mr Schmidt wasted 30min of his and Trump's time. Nothing new revealed just old news and more embellishments of himself.
Unless it's all about Trump, in his mind it isn't newsworthy. This is a very sick man on so many levels, and to think he leads the most powerful nation in the free world. This is insanity.
3
People keep missing the point with Trump. He is a bumbling, corrupt fool who is wrong about nearly everything. The one thing he is not wrong about is that people have had it with the political status quo. Almost half of the voting population so desperately wants real change that they are willing to turn their backs on the party establishment, on the truth, on rational debate, and any and all semblance of reason and sanity.
It is the utter and complete failure of both political parties to provide the populace with real change that drives this. Trumpism will continue (or get worse) until a sane leader comes along to address this legitimate need.
1
So being polite and allowing the president who is much more important that him to control the conversation is somehow wrong? This is more like a conversation than a formal interview, if it was formal it would never have occurred. It is evident that the president is fair, I would never even talk to the NYT, they would get no questions of anybody. Same with the other arrogant media. He is far nicer than I would be.
''He is far nicer than I would be.''
Cheating at Golf is NOT ''nice''!
2
- and looking for a single new ''expression'' or even ''word'' - from Von Clownstick I ran this Interview through a word-processor and I have News for anybody who thinks Von Clownstick said anything new.
No he didn't!
And for anybody who thinks it was ''a great behind the scenes piece'' let me tell you guys - If my dad - who stood next to Von Clownstick a few years ago in a bathroom - both doing - how is it called? - a ''golden shower'' - and Von Clownstick - who at this times wasn't called Von Clownstick - leaned over to my dad and asked him: How much you got? - now that would be a truly ''great behind the scenes piece'' -
Right?!
3
I think that Mr Schmidt did the best he could and most importantly did NOT ask any tough questions. Why? Because as some have pointed out Trump might get angry or dismissive, perhaps even refer to the NYT as a failed newspaper, etc. But then again, who knows what he might have done. What struck me after reading the interview is how very incoherent and random Trump's thought is. Allowing this president to speak openly is the best way, in my opinion, to get a sense of how very unqualified he is to be president of this country.
54
Interviewing him reminds me of trying to land a 10 pound fish with 2 pound test line. You have to let the fish run. And Trump's mouth certainly ran in the NYT interview.
Whatever he may have revealed about policy, it clearly reveals his inability to hold a thought, to articulate it clearly and concisely.
I think he believes that if he repeats something frequently (i.e. "no collusion") that it must therefore be so, or that others who need little persuading will agree with him. Specifics? Evidence? Reason?--all unnecessary or "over-rated," a word he loves as much as loves to brand his opponents "failing."
One can find stronger arguments on an elementary school playground scuffle. Except this is the Ivy League educated President of the United States, sounding about as coherent as a drunk at last call.
He thinks the investigation into his ties to Russia make America "look bad"? One has to ignore a lot of what Trump himself has said and done to believe Mueller's investigation makes us look bad.
2
C'mon... give the guy a break. For all his faults, the Trump speaks moron fluently.
2
In conclusion -
If we are now at the stage that it is a ''brilliant strategy'' to let Trump ''hang himself'' - as other commenters wrote - or that the Times reports all the nonsense Von Clownstick will contradict tomorrow with other nonsense - the American people might one even elect the racist Birther as President?
And then what will Mr. Schmidt do?
Having lunch with him in his Golf Club?
7
Were Schmidt's approach so unique, it would have been worth something. But the fact of the matter is that the prevarications, the outright lies, the disjointed flitting about have become so commonplace a trademark of Trump as to be without value. Had Schmidt challenged Trump, as a Mike Wallace would have done in his heyday, we might have had a more insightful interview that was worth something.
31
Or you would have nothing!! That is what this newspaper deserves.
''That is what this newspaper deserves.''
The NYT is a total beautiful newspaper and deserves much much better than just some 30 minutes after lunch with a pretty average Golf Player at his Club.
I mean if Von Clownstick would have a decent handicap - and a Big Bertha - but I completely Dowd it that he even has a Big Bertha - and
in any decent Golf Club he would have been black-balled - which he actually was!
3
Yes, had Schmidt challenged Trump it would have been more insightful; and it wouldn't have lasted more than two seconds.
2
Trying to get a direct answer out of Donald Trump is like trying to get a front line car lot sales man to give you the actual price of a car. He is the most indirect, evasive, say nothing person imaginable. He must be the most frustrating person to even try to interview let alone get anything of substance that is believable. I give Mr Schmidt credit for making the best out of an impossible situation. Praising Mueller is probably the most significant nugget to come from this fools gold mining expedition. When ever Trump gives a rival or someone he is having a problem with a complement, it usually means they will be terminated shortly. Such as; James Comey, Sean Spicer, Michael Flynn, Reince Priebus, and Paul Mamafort.
50
Thanks to Mike Schmidt, I will no longer worry myself over threats of a second term, but will calmly count the days Trump remains.
32
Fascinating. Thanks for this article. To me the interview illustrates Trump's strategy of 'keeping his enemies close' - constantly attacking the NYT in public yet agreeing to give a 1-1 half hour interview with them. It also illustrates Trump's ability to hold contradictory views simultaneously and just go with whichever one fits with what he wants, at any time. A strategy that has worked amazingly well for him, which itself illustrates how broken our political discourse has become.
39
My appreciation to the President for his willingness to meet with you as a member of the press. I appreciate the Times being so careful in doing nothing to alter or editorialize the interview, only transcribing it. Please, Mr. President, continue to do these types of interviews on occasion. I appreciate your candor, honesty, and sincerity with the reporter in describing important plans for the country.
19
Not to mention coherence, Trump's famous coherence, always on display.
1
"Important plans for the country."
Now THAT'S comedy.
2
Great snark.
The freelance critics who castigate Schmidt for this interview have a very narrow view of what journalism is. They insist it must be constantly back-and-forth, conversational, inquisitive and confrontational.
I disagree. There is more than one way to skin a cat, or a president. Schmidt chose, in this instance, to give the president plenty of rope with which to hang himself - and he did. It's difficult to see how the naysayers can insist this was not a productive approach.
There are many occasions where reporters have adopted a more aggressive approach with the president or other subjects of their interviews. That's fine. But it's not the only way. It's not necessarily, in the case of this president, even the best way.
79
Hang himself??? You must be an idiot. He told the truth, you just don't like it many others do.
If there was "truth" in the midst of that word salad gobbledegook, I have yet to find it.
2
He wouldn't know the truth if it bopped him on the head.
2
This narrative resembles techniques used when wrestling bears or approaching gorillas in the wild; the crouching catcher's position, maintaining eye contact, not challenging the subject during the exchange.
The resulting article was extremely enlightening. Trump's sense of domination equals any Mafia don's.
41
Looking forward to "Trump the movie", the last sequel of the "Godfather".
Sorry, PA, but your advice could get someone killed in a real-life encounter. Perhaps the key admonition in confronting a gorilla is AVOIDING eye contact at any cost.
3
The idea that getting 30 minutes of the president on the record is more important than the quality of those 30 minutes doesn't make sense. As others here have pointed out, there were no new revelations. Moreover, fact checking from the WP revealed that Trump lied or mislead once every 75 seconds.
26
Transcribing the actual conversation with Trump gave the real "quality" of what our President has to say.
3
The value aside from documenting more lies is that Trump said he assumed Mueller would be fair, taking the wind out of the sails of those republicans calling for an investigation into Mueller.
1
So DJT set a new record for lying. News!
1
Michael, you did a great job. Best thing to do is allow him to speak, from which you got more out of him then putting on a CNN-type of confrontational show that does no good. Well done.
36
- and all these commenters here who criticize Mr. Schmid - y'all just jealous about having lunch in a real Golf Club... and on top of it being entertained by a man who very sadly wasn't Ed Sheeran.
7
The president's statement that he believed Mueller would treat him fairly is a setup. If Trump (alone)
determines at some point in the future that Mueller is unfair to him it gives Trump the excuse he needs to fire Mueller.
12
But it worries me a lot more - that a real reporter from the beautiful New York Times thinks he just had interviewed Ed Sheehan!
And why did Mr. Schmid conclude:
''As I drove away from the club, I called my editors to tell them I had just spent half an hour alone...''?
2
Maybe so his editors would know? This is in fact a highly newsworthy story ... the Piece of Trump of the Untied States speaking at length essentially unedited ... AND exclusive.
9
Of course he's going to call his editors!!!! Are you kidding, this was a major coup/accomplishment!!! It was a great end to a behind-the-scenes piece about how this extraordinary happenstance interview came about.
17
Was Michael's question about pursuing the email investigation one of the pressing issues facing Trump's administration? Of all the issues he might have asked about?
12
You're right, of course... he should have asked the Trump to hold on for a minute while he called you for advice.
1
Yes that was an excellent question, because pursuing the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails makes the United States into a third world banana dictatorship. Don't you think it still matters whether or not we have a president who respects any of our presidential norms or the Constitution?
2
Very interesting content and technique. President Trump is largely uncontrollable anyway and his words speak for themselves. I would be interested in hearing more about Michael Schmidt's conversations with a conservative opinionista such as Christopher Ruddy whose style is um, different ,and whose opinions would be interesting to unpack a bit.
8
Wow very impressed with this story. Very professional got himself in a situation which allowed this interview to take place on the Presidents home grounds but in a nonformal atmosphere which leads to a more open discussion. Mike Schmidt's experience shows thru and I give him plenty of credit!!!!
52
I believe Mr. Schmidt made the right call in not questioning Donald further or trying to confront him with the lies he was telling. There is no reason to, simply because Donald does lie almost every time he opens his mouth. Does he really think Mueller will treat him fairly, or just a lie? If Roy Moore would have won the election, would Donald still have said he endorsed him out of obligation? That's the problem with interviewing a pathological liar, There is no way to get to the truth.
59
Or as I would have done run him out of a place where he had no business staying unless a guest of someone. You think that being an ass and arrogant makes you a success, I think a failure.
are you talking about trump here?
3
Vulcanalex, please, just - go back to Vulcan, or wherever it is you’re from. You bring nothing to the discussion but anger and bitterness. Happy New Year to you, and I hope things get better for you there on Vulcan, or wherever. :)
2
Mike did exactly what he should have done .. let the guy talk and hang himself.
Right on, Michael!
70
Why can’t I find the transcript of the entire interview in this newspaper?
13
I hope the editors give this reporter a big bonus, great work!
17
To all of the Trump trolls/voters who believe that Trump should just talk freely, without being challenged when he lies or brags or humiliates people, DR from New England says it best in his comment, 'ignorance and dishonesty are not points of view!'
P.S. to Trump supporters - apparently, you're angry with poor people who you feel have their hands out (when far too many are poor because they have been defrauded by Trump and his billionaire Cabinet member-types) you're scared of black and brown people (because you're desperately trying to put anyone, anyone below you) you feel that American manufacturing should be artificially supported by limiting the kind of cheaper foreign imports (that Trump made his money on), you're threatened by higher education (when that is your only ladder up out of low income) you care far more about aborted cells than about 9 million poor living children that Trump just took health insurance away from - BUT Trump just gave billionaires massive tax cuts that will kill your social security when you want to retire, and Trump has spent close to $150 MILLION of YOUR money on his vacations in 2017 - why doesn't that bother you?
66
"P.S. to Trump supporters?"
Um, I don't think too many of the Trump supporters you're addressing read the Times, Post, or any other legitimate news organization's website. Their heads are buried in Fox or Breitbart. (fyi, we are the choir). The OTHER Trump supporters you'll find at the WSJ, but you'll need a different message.
15
Well Gee there is at least one, and they don't because of the massive bias in most every part of this organization. I do it to keep track of the opposition and to get a laugh at some who live in a fantasy alternative reality. Almost as amusing as some SF, other than these people actually exist and think themselves right.
Canislupus - I hear you, but unfortunately I've run into a lot of people I never would have expected to be Trump supporters this year - educated people who held their noses because they just believed that the tax cuts were going to break their way. The message that we have to keep sending out consistently is that the bulk of the tax cuts did not go their way but they've endangered their own social security for their retirement, and caused irreparable damage to our society in the process. So, yes, sad to say, there are Times readers who voted Trump.
2
The picture shows the president in a red cap. Story says he took off a white cap. Both are right probably. Picture was not from the day of the interview. Sloppy. And since a picture is worth a thousand words, it makes it appear the reporter is wrong when he describes the hat. What happened to The Times’s attention to detail? Another example of just grabbing a picture and slapping it with a story.
4
Huh? What? The caption clearly identifies the photo as taken on Friday - the day AFTER the interview; so it's not a stock photo from last spring or last year. No way does it compromise the author of the article: red hat/white hat . . . Trump has a lot of hats LOL and they both say 45 anyway.
What a laughable, but good, example of a laughable attempt to discredit a very fine piece of work from a reputable newspaper. Yes, I'm using the same word twice as it does apply to both "example" and "attempt".
42
I suspect using the picture of him in a different hat, on a different day, on the golf course was a brilliant way of demonstrating that this "hard working president" was mostly working on his swing and hanging out in the grill for hours afterward. Well done, NYT!
Really, to all who have Monday morning quarterbacked the reporter's approach and content: this was a surprise to him. Had it been scheduled, the reporter would have studied and prepared. I doubt he carries a camera. It's the NYT, and they really know what they're doing. You try it sometime.
2
All of Trump's statements.......sound like a page from a Kurt Vonnegut novel.
25
suppose it had been Hilary or Bernie that Mr. Schmidt had the good fortune of interviewing one-on-one. NYT readers would've been falling all over themselves praising him as the "Reporter of the Year" blah, blah. The guy made the most of a spontaneous situation - sorry NYT readers don't like the origin of the news
10
Living in his twisted bubble of reality. Endless nonsense and lies. Cant' be gone soon enough.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/29/trump-sounded-delusional-in-his-new-york...
16
Talking about yourself???
what is your problem, Vulcan?
1
I find this sentence of Mike Schmidt's yarn intriguing: "I told [President Trump] I would not do that and I needed to file a story off the interview on deadline." As if Schmidt was being asked to do something untoward. Why didn't Schmidt simply say, "Sorry, can't, gotta file this story" -- rather than, "I will not." Weird, self-serving, off-putting.
4
A cynic might point out that Trump's offer could--wittingly or not--have been an attempt to influence the journalist's writing in Trump's favor.
7
There is a big difference between Mr. Schmidt saying "I will not" versus "No thank you." to Trump's offer of a free round of golf at his private club. Professional journalists do not accept anything from subjects of their stories. Trump knows that and was, as usual, out of bounds making the offer. Mr. Schmidt wanted to make sure that Trump wouldn't offer again. Can you imagine how much money a reporter could make from a guy like Trump? (Of course, too, a "fake" story would never get by editors.
8
How stupid, he loves his course and being respected wanted to share it. So having the Coast Guard play the course was an attempt to curry favor??? You are thinking like say Hillary or Obama, not the president.
Unfortunately, like most reporters, by not following up with questins to clarify blatant lies, which Trump stated many, he gets a pass. Media needs to hold him accountable for his alternative facts and mistruths ( beter known as lies).
5
How about enumerating the lies, remember to be very specific and that opinion or what he insists was his motivation can't be lies. Just more idiotic lies by such as you.
I doubt that any legitimate reporter on the White House beat ever feels clean after a day's work covering Trump. I know I wouldn't. Everything about Trump is dirty and it rubs off on everyone who comes in contact with him.
22
I wonder how many showers Sharon H. has to take every day to get all the dirt off her.
1
Trump is human leprosy. He corrupts everything he touches.
1
I wish I still had my rookie Mike Schmidt trading card. It would be worth alot more now after this article.
6
It's a tough crowd, Michael. Get Trump to talk.
"Ah, but the strawberries, that’s, that’s where I had them"... "
There are plenty of analyst and reporters to correct, comment, and fact check. Let the man Queeg himself. Good job and I hope you are now have better access for America's sake.
11
Extremely well played by Mr. Schmidt ... he just kept gently opening the spigot ... letting us see Trump’s natural, inaccurate, confused, delusional thought process ... funny but tragic ...
23
How bizarre that a reporter has to have a strategy that allows The Donald to spout his unthruths. Had Michael interviewed The Donald two hours later, The Donald would have contradicted most of what he regurgitated earlier.
Truth is gossamer in The World of The Donald. That we read and put any credence in his words is ludicrous.
8
Well, Mike, you did a fine job of following the guidelines for talking to a person with advanced dementia:
1. Never argue, instead agree.
2. Never reason, instead divert.
3. Never shame, instead distract.
4. Never lecture, reassure.
5. Never say “remember”, instead reminisce.
6. Never say “I told you”, instead repeat/regroup.
7. Never say “you can’t”, instead do what they can.
8. Never command/demand, instead ask/model
9. Never condescend, instead encourage/praise.
10. Never force, instead reinforce.
34
And your editors should have said, Did you ask him follow questions to flesh out the facts/ Granted, an interview with a political or business leader is a Big Deal...but a half alone without engaging in a real fact-based dialogue is just 30 minutes wasted. My suggestion: going forward, when an assertion is made that is not true, the truth should be printed right along side - maybe red type for the assertions that are false, along with green for the actual facts.
2
There was the accompanying story delineating some of the lies. ("Falsehoods" is rather euphemistic/) Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post's Factchecker, also published a piece on a couple of dozen of the Fabricator-in--Chief's fabrications in just 30 minutes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/12/29/in-a-30-m...
Great work...keep the truth flowing. My only critique, you should have thanked the president for his offer of a round of golf with a polite decline, even with that red hot story in hand.
6
Giving the president enough rope is probably the best that can be done. There is no point to challenging trumps statements; he just lies and talks in circles. That may argue for not giving him a platform altogether. But that will only work if all media black trump out, and that will never happen.
Carry on, NyTimes. Even if it's not perfect.
14
The main thing I learned from Donald Trump’s stream of consciousness is that he felt compelled to state 14 times that “there was no collusion.” The second thing I learned — and this from the excellent White House reporter of the Toronto Star — is that this 30-minute interview contained 28 misstatements of fact. And because no one seems to dare to call the President on his lies and misstatements, he keeps on repeating them.
12
"As I drove away from the club, I called my editors to tell them I had just spent half an hour alone with the president." Mr. Schmidt appears to have been so overcome by his good fortune, he forgot that his sycophantic, enabling approach to interviewing and his unwillingness to challenge Trump accomplished nothing. Just ask yourself this. What do we know now that we didn't know before?
3
What did he enable? He gave Trump the opportunity to make a fool of himself, and every news outlet in the country (excepy Fox) fact-checked Trump's delusions. I'm not sure what brilliant trap you imagine a reporter can devise with a man who will brazenly deny saying things the whole world has heard him say. It's this reporter's job to ask questions, Trump's job to answer them, and the job of other journalists to compare those answers to the facts or to previous statements. The interviewer should be praised for getting this disturbed man to talk. If he had pulled a Sam Donaldson in this context, the interview wou have ended in moments. He read the situation well.
8
That he has no intention of firing Mueller for example. That he has been soft on China trade to get their cooperation and that might not continue. Things that I know but that this organization generally does not. Mueller has not been fired as I saw reported almost as fact here.
1
I was embarrassed for Trump. I know he is immoral, a lier, pretty much uneducated, and just a twisted mind looking at the world through "green colored" lenses. Mike Schmidt let rump expose his personal failings at understanding, understanding of history, law, governing, etc. I pitied his lack of knowledge and how to talk in sentences. I have no pity for what he has done to the Republican Part, to American Justice, and believe firmly that he is a traitor. What I came away with is the Putin did not need to be a "super spy" to urn Trump into a Russian Agent. He can't resist anyone who pats him onhis overblown head, like Schmidt did in this interview. Pity my President, and yours, is such a completely empty drum. Not a bit of substance anywhere, in any field of human intercourse. What has brought us to this condition should frighten all of us. Indifference, depending on others to be alert and self-defensive has failed. We each must quit being so tolerating of fools.
17
It seems most commenters who liked the way the interview was conducted believe the value was in the transcript, which revealed the president's incoherent speech. But how many people read the transcript? I think most just read the news story, which "translates" the president's ramblings into more understandable statements, making him less alarming than he really is. Therefore the public is not served by this type of journalism.
The reporter, acting in the best interests of the public, should have spoken truth to power and asked the president to defend his wild claims. Then the interview would have been truly worthy of the Times, even if it ended abruptly.
4
Mr. Schmidt, I would very much like it, and I don't think I speak only for myself, but I would very much like it if you could go back and try to remember what was said by the president the several times the recording is "unintelligible". I realize there's probably not groundbreaking news in that lost content, but this is such a subtle (and not so subtle) portrait of this man via his words, that every word, nuance, his shifts in tone or subject is as very much a part of the story, as the captured dialogue. Thanks.
6
To Mr. Schmidt:
Good, solid reporting. You did not need to manipulate and make the president mad. I will be able, reading your interview, to make my own judgement - and that is what journalism should be about, All the news, fit to print. Your story is exactly that.
Thanks. (An old editor...)
18
Michael Schmidt literally fell into a grovelling crouch to importune our so-called president. Thank you, New York Times.
On the other hand, the interview subject ordered a salad so maybe it wasn't Donald Trump after all, just his stand-in.
4
I disliked that approach, not for grovelling but rather trying to manipulate. I would tell you to take a seat if you wanted to talk to me.
What a coincidence! Just happened to be invited to lunch by the president’s buddy. Just happened to be seated next to the president’s table. Just happened to be introduced to the president. Just happened to have a catcher’s squat chat with the president. Just happened to get an “interview” with the president. Just happened not to ask about Flynn or anything that might have the president feel challenged. Softball!
4
Why do reporters treat Trump like he has a functioning brain? His opinions quite often change. He has no fixed long term strategy, other than to make himself richer. He lies more than any other President in history. The Muslim and transgender bans have been overturned, so he often fails. Let’s face it, the media can’t cover Trump. He is a moving target on a random course.
6
what interview? I keep hearing about it but can't find a transcript anywhere, hardly any quotes even, just "and the president said...." And a whole paragraph is blacked out. If there's a transcript where is it?
3
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/us/politics/trump-interview-excerpts....
Wait, isn't this how, in part, Trump got elected? By the media giving him air time and print space and refusing to call out his lies? Whatever you want to call it, the NYT's article is one of support and deference to Trump. The media are still willing to take crumbs if only to be at the table. That is how this monstrous fraud became your president.
7
Not for one minute do I believe that the NYT would take this approach to Obama or Hillary Clinton. If Hillary Clinton had claimed she had no dealings with Russia and it was then revealed that she was pursuing a Moscow hotel deal during the campaign, does anyone think the NYT would let her talk about Russian collusion without asking about that? That a NYT reporter would say, “we thought it better to say nothing and let the readers make their judgments?” I don’t think I’ve seen one news outlet even ask Trump about that glaring contradiction. This is more of the same shameful, scared-of-confronting Trump coverage that the media ran during the campaign. What is it about him that intimidates Times’ reporters so much?
5
Good job Michael! Now we really know what’s on his mind. Nothing wrong with that.
2
Michael,
As a former longtime journalist, you don't need to defend your interview to me. I perfectly understand your strategy. As a journalist, you have to size up your interview subject and proceed accordingly.
I have no doubt if you had been hard-charging and challenging, he would have just huffed off and you'd have no interview.
Better to give him a little rope and let him run with it. Good job. A good reporter needs to be prepared to take advantage of such a circumstance, and I think you did a good job. Let all those who have never conducted an interview for a newspaper kibitz all they want. They didn't get the interview - you did and you did a commendable job considering your subject.
Signed,
A former 30-year newspaper journalist.
15
Let us know how you feel about this in comparison to the Chris Matthews, Holt or Tapper interviews.
1
What does that have to do with anything?
My current understanding of the situation (CUS) is that many readers are critical of Michael Schmidt for not asking follow-up questions. Several have expressed the view that President Trump was given a platform to say whatever he wanted without being challenged on the lies, exaggerations chaotic thinking that was on display.
But Schmidt explained why he chose not to ‘press’ the President. . . ‘During our conversation in July, I learned the challenges this president poses in interviews. He can jump from an issue like the Russia investigation to a policy matter before going off on a tangent about something like his golf game. If you try to interrupt him, he often continues talking. Given this, I employed a strategy in which I asked questions about the most pressing issues of his presidency and then allowed him to talk.’
Schmidt has studied Trump more than 99% of the population. He is a professional journalist whose reputation is determined by how well he does his job.
And Schmidt is ‘the man in the arena’. He had the intelligence to create and then sieze the opportunity. The President stayed with Schmidt for half an hour, pretty well one on one.
The ‘Trump Interview’ story confirmed Trump’s unfitness for the role of President.
Can anyone help me here? I would like to develop a better understanding of the situation (BUS). What are the critics seeing that I am not?
Peter Rennie leadershipaustralia
10
The president sounds legitimately deranged in this interview. Politics aside (I know it's hard), I really do wonder how tightly wound he is.
10
I am really surprised at the criticisms. Are you all reporters? Mike Schmidt has been doing this for a very long time, and he clearly knew precisely what he was doing. The idea of "pushing" Trump like you could a normal, functioning human being is ludicrous. As if this would make him more self-reflective, and all of a sudden become something other than a demented sociopath? Facilitating this quixotic stream of consciousness provides us rare extemporaneous access to Trump's lunacy. A few times it seemed Mike slipped and a functioning 12 yr old would have realized the pandering. Not Trump. He was lost in himself, as usual. After all, the Presidency is all about him, is it not?
12
Chris Ruddy is one smooth operator and is successful because he has a warm personality, a quick mind, and a beautiful way of expressing himself. I think it is interesting that Mr. Ruddy (I believe he doesn't play golf) invited Mr. Schmidt to Trump International at the same time the president finished his round and ordered a salad in the clubhouse. Ummm, let's see .... a top New York Times reporter seated next to the president at an informal lunch. Just by chance, of course. Even though there was little news, it is always fun to read what Trump says when he is Trump being Trump. I bet Mr. Schmidt was a great catcher then as he is now.
2
He repeated "no collusion" 15 times.
It's pretty clear that Trump has ADHD (as well as other psychopathology). His perseveration is a compensation mechanism he uses to try to regulate his own attention.
And this man is president of the United States.
10
Schmidt's explanation rings true. His technique was absolutely the only way this information could have been obtained. It was an expert get by a seasoned professional. Of course this is far more than I can say for 80-90 percent of the other reporting in the NYT these days unfortunately.
2
Congratz to Mike Schmidt on seizing the moment. By comparison, can you imagine how Woodward and Bernstein would have felt if they had been able to catch Nixon off-guard in such a candid interview?
I'll be glad when we can look at this whole unfortunate episode in the rear-view mirror of history.
3
The excerpt from the Trump interview reads like a story of a teenager who was given a key to the house to have a study group. Then asked to explain a day later why there are beer cans, empty liquor bottles to his parents.
5
Huge props to The NY Times for their fascinating coverage of this deeply, deeply troubled president. Trump unedited & unabridged was, well, fascinating and very disturbing. The 'leader' of the free world appears to be losing his marbles.
12
I agree heartily that letting Trump speak uninterrupted and undirected was the absolute best way to talk one-in-one with Mr. Trump. It is an amazing record of a very atypical mind.
If there ever is a cross examination of Mr. Trump under oath, this would be an interesting method to use. The verbal diarrhea possibilities are staggering.
The interview also showcases the inherent national security risks this man presents when left alone with world leaders. Mr. Trump is easily manipulated. I’m sure this interview is being studied by many foreign diplomats.
8
As a journalist, I appreciate Michael thinking on his feet. You can't shape or control a surprise opportunity like that. Just go with it and let it unfold. In the end, Mr. Schmidt opened a new window for us all to see through. For that, I thank him.
10
I want to believe the reporter -- but the more he explains the more I now believe he is backfilling, to explain a specific lack of skill, intention, and awareness of what was actually happening. I am fine with letting Trump speak and capturing what that reveals about the inner-workings of his psyche. I was amazed that the reporter, however, didn't even follow up with easy questions like "what do you mean?" or "how did you arrive at that?"
The reporter seemed more intrigued and impressed (maybe with himself) than interested and inquisitive. We need to move beyond binary either/or analysis -- as if follow-up means only confrontational. Here's how the reporter wants us to view his choices: "Some readers criticized my approach, saying I should have asked more follow-up questions. I believed it was more important to continue to allow the president to speak and let people make their own judgments about his statements."
No sir, that is a false dichotomy, and we need not buy into that framing. A both/and analysis understands that follow-up questions need not push back, challenge, or confront the subject. With more skill and sophistication (it is the NYT, after all) follow up questions may just entail inviting the subject deeper into his own thoughts.
I assert that this never occurred to this reporter. That once Trump said YES to the interview, the reporter simply saw securing the "get" as a win -- and let POTUS and the media complete the job for him.
3
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
POTUS 26
I appreciate Mike’s reporting and his ability to get a one on one interview with Trump. Since Trump is the biggest star in his own universe, it makes sense to just let him talk and not try to disrupt him with too many follow-up questions.
You could do that with a more thoughtful subject, like Obama or even W but in Trump’s case it’s best to just let him babble on. He will hang himself with his own words eventually and then call if “fake news”.
2
Never mind the absence of push-back or follow-up questions in Schmidt's interview. Enough has been said about that. And forget the unchallenged factual inaccuracies (which would be called "lies" in any other context). Schmidt does nothing to explain why he gave an affirmative and encouraging response to Trump's question, "does that make sense?" It is not Schmidt's job, or shouldn't be, to engage in Trump's bottomless need for validation. Worse, if it was a simple mistake that came from being in such unusual circumstances, Schmidt might think to own it and give credence to some of the criticism now coming his way. Instead, the Times issues a defense disguised as a reporter's notebook.
1
Mr. Schmidt, Thank you for enduring what must’ve been excruciatingly painful encounter both for your knees and your patience. Nice strategy for managing his attention in a crowded space.
3
Schmidt makes the error of defending his interview because Trump said something new, as if that matters. Nothing Trump says matters in any standard sense. That is, he cannot be held accountable for it; he will deny it or change it at will. All he is saying in any given moment is what he thinks is to his advantage at that given moment, regardless of its truth content.So giving any value to any of his utterances in terms of what they mean for policy or his actual stance on anything is a fundament fundamental journalistic error. It may be worthwhile in some sense to take down his ramblings and publish them, but to defend them on the grounds that he said something new or different is worse than foolish. All he is saying in any given moment is what he thinks is to his advantage at that moment, regardless of its truth content. So, while there may be value in taking down his ramblings, justifying that by giving any credence to anything he says, is a fundamental journalistic error. Issues of truth and believe have nothing to do with anything this man says.
3
Wow, well played, Michael. Tracking Trump's conversational patterns is like watching a fly trapped in a glass jar, bump, change course, bump, change course. As for those who got on your case about not interrupting Trump and not asking followup questions, they are clueless about what it's like to interview our current president.
6
Mr. Schmidt did himself and his readers something of an injustice by describing this stream-of-lack of consciousness discussion with Benedict Trump as an "interview." But it was redeemed by the accompanying narrative of the lies uttered by POTUS (the Piece of Trump of the Untied States). It is truly alarming to see the chasm between the reality as perceived by most of the world and the perceptions held by the man whose de facto goal is to undercut the foundations of American society in as many ways as possible.
1
Two other interviews where Trump was forced into hard follow ups he didn’t walk away, he actually divulged much more important information.
The ending of this write up smacks of access journalism and acquiescence to an unstable man’s demands, not a rare interview with a Statesman.
2
Puhleezz, Donald J. Trump has never been a statesman.
1
My point exactly.
I’m amused and annoyed by the commenters here who take Schmidt to task for not pushing back or rebutting obvious lies. That would be treating trump like a responsible, sane person. Any push back, any correction, any follow-up and that 30 minutes wouldn’t have gone past 30 seconds. He has either walked out of interviews or simply talked over interviewers, increasing the fabulosity as he goes. This was the most illuminating interview I’ve yet to read because it reveals the increasing degradation of the man’s mind. Which I’m sure will be allowed to erode even more without intervention. But I presume the current GOP would prop up a dead man to get what they want before the hoped for ‘18 blue deluge.
5
Rewatch the Tapper and Holt interviews and let us know if you find anything different in their approach.
There is a difference, too, between planned interviews which allow time for staff to work out questions and possible responses. Schmidt’s interview was nearly spontaneous and without prep time. In the untelevised circumstances — trump in the familiar, relaxed dining room of mar-a-lago — it would have been very easy for him to simply call staff to remove the reporter or for he himself to get up and go. I do believe the free-form, unhinged nature of this interview is more revealing than the more carefully planned ones in past months.
1
Not only the White House press office, but Donald's legal team, hates being blindsided by unfiltered Trump. I can imagine the older members of the president's team keeping nitroglycerin tablets handy while reading the transcript.
Remember, "he doesn't listen and he doesn't pay." That doesn't relieve the lawyers from representing their client.
2
The thing about listening to Trump is that he says whatever he feels like at the moment -- but it isn't necessarily meaningful, and frequently not true.
Another advantage that comes from dropping to a lower level when speaking to someone is that it makes them feel safe -- it's often a good strategy for an adult to put themselves at a child's level in a conversation, rather than looking down on them. All good results from the Trump interview -- yak yak yak -- but I am so fed up with hearing it.
While I too would have liked you to ask more follow-up questions, I can sympathize with your approach. There is no interviewing this President. His thoughts are so garbled and inchoate he never really says anything - he only repeats the memes set most deeply in his memory, such as it is. What emanates from his mouth is little more than nonsense babble. I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone could keep a straight face around this pitiful excuse for an adult human.
5
Brilliant strategy. Just Brilliant. And, WOW, to have the insight to keep below the interviewee and the reasons for that are as fascinating and illuminating as the whole background. This is evidence, not just opinion.
3
While I'm not surprised, it is certainly disappointing to have my suspicions confirmed; all one must do in order to gain access to the President of the United States is pay the $200,000 or so it costs to join his club. Then, get to know people who know him. Make friends. Use the TV, you'll see who he's buddies with by watching, then wait to see them at the club and you are in if you are given to the right sort of flattery. I doubt there is a security check at the club. The one in FL had a Wi-Fi network that was accessible from a boat in the water near Mar A Lago from 500 feet away.
So if you want to talk to the President, maybe get involved in real estate, you know what to do in order to become a real American Success Story.
Just keep in mind that the people in this circle are very bad at crime. They leave notes and emails behind detailing what they're planning, exactly what they're doing, and then summing it up afterwards and complimenting themselves on a job well done. They don't even use fake names (most of them) so it'll all be traceable. They post photos from all over and they smile at the cameras. They're terrible liars. You'd think they'd be experts by now, but no. Jeff Sessions, for example, *giggles* a little bit and smirks after every lie he tells.
I'm just a random lady online. Imagine what a seasoned spy could do with all of these folks.
3
In psychology, there’s an idea known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. It refers to research by David Dunning and Justin Kruger that found the least competent people often believe they are the most competent because they “lack the very expertise needed to recognize how badly they’re doing.”
Can we say Trump?
I appreciate that Mike Schmidt gave Trump ample rope to hang himself. By not challenging him, Trump exposed too much of his thought processes, or lack thereof. Clearly not competent, knowledgeable or having an accurate view of reality, this interview enlightens the public as to the danger Americans face led by such an individual.
He, and Congress, must be voted out.
5
I enjoyed and appreciated the interview. It was pure Trump. Well done.
3
"So I got into a catcher’s squat next to his chair, conveying to him that I was listening intently but also forcing him to look down at me while he talked, which kept him from being distracted by the others at the table." Essentially you need to keep the rattle away from the baby while teaching it the alphabet.
This must have been a difficult encounter, Mr. Schmidt. Trump is the most un-presidential person I have ever seen in this office and to go eye to eye with him is a challenge I would only leave to others.
4
Fascinating account of Michael Schmidt’s interviewing scoop of Pres. Trump. It makes me feel so grateful that we still have a free, independent, fact finding press to hold the powerful in Washington accountable for their words and deeds. To those who think the reporter should have engaged in aggressive follow up questions, I say he played it correctly. Give Trump enough line and he will hang himself. The man has no filter or self control. Great job, Mr. Schmidt.
4
Access marginalized the gravity of the opportunity. If Michael’s in the moment strategy was to get Trump on the line for further one-on-one opportunities, doesn’t the revelation of it all in print enable Trump’s handlers to black-ball him downstream? I think the real revelation here is when a reporter is sent to cover whatever is happening in vacation mode and suddenly the opportunity arises, he got caught flat footed and played Trump’s game, think Larry David in the low chair negotiating his role on Fatwa, the Musical, i.e. Michael got played like the rest of us.
So many negative reactions on the interviewer not pushing back enough. Being non-combative. Will we never learn to end this divisiveness? You can catch more bees with honey than vinegar. Compromise and adapt wins the initiative.
3
I appreciate this explanation - it helps clarify the circumstances of the rare and spontaneous opportunity you had to interview the President. What I wish you had been better prepared for - instead of kneeling before him it seemed - is using such an opportunity to find out what parts of reality he is aware of and which he is not. If you understood that he doesn't like to be interrupted, then why bother giving him yet another platform to spew his idiocy? Don't waste your time. Just once I would like someone from The Times to control an interview with Trump and if in attempting to do so they find that he gets mad, then let him get mad! If your goal was to let us judge him for ourselves, then we should have had an opportunity to see first-hand and in real time his defensiveness, his avoidance of hearing anything negative, his blaming of everyone else for his self-inflicted wounds, and his out-right rudeness and insulting behavior. You missed a great opportunity to reveal his true nature.
Have you heard he tweets? There's his true...albeit lying nature.
A masterful "reeling in" of the Big Fish by a journalistic pro at the golf course. Nice work, Mr. Schmidt!
4
With many politicians it makes for a terrible interview to let go the reins and allow them to fill the air with talking points, spin, fluff, lies, propaganda. They never make a slip, never give you something newsworthy, and often never give you anything true that's worth printing. Of course, the stellar example is Mrs. Clinton, but you could fill a large book with the names of other such experienced pols. With such hardboiled pols the interviewer ought press hard for a true and relevant answer and control the q&a to get answers. If you do your job, you'll never get another interview with that character, and indeed, most pols will avoid you like poison. Unfortunately, tv is full of interviews that pols control and they are awfully tedious, terrible news reporting; such programming absolutely stinks up the joint, but are the usual fare. But with Trump, if you give him his head, he's likely to say at least a couple of things that are not lies, not branded phrases, and that are true, and are news, that are revealing. Those are the nuggets that make Trump an interesting interview, and the interviewer appear sapient. This is the part of the Trump persona that anyone should like, even if you hate most other facets of the man.
I think I understand why Mr. Trump seemed dazed and confused. He remembered Mike Schmidt as a third baseman, not a catcher.
1
In an accompanying story this morning, a report was given on the falsehoods iterated by President Trump. Would be interesting to learn how much of what he said was factually correct.
How wonderful would it be to see Jeremy Paxman interview Trump on live TV...
I'd even pay for it.
('Paxman is known for his forthright and abrasive interviewing style, particularly when interrogating politicians. These appearances were sometimes criticised as aggressive, intimidating and condescending, yet also applauded as tough and incisive', according to Wikipedia)
What this tells me is that no matter the tactics the interviewer uses, there is no pinning the president down. He controls the interview by moving subject to subject. With Trump, the truth is always a moving target.
1
Let's face it, Trump is a stream of consciousness kind of guy. He starts off on a topic, gets interrupted or changes his thoughts, and it's on to the next topic. This kind of mental behavior is not suited to one who holds the office of the Presidency, especially when it includes the kind of defensive reactions and attacks on others that we get so frequently from him.
We know from the tweets that Trump is easily bothered and lashes out without thought on the irritant or person of the day, sometimes he tweets his remarks even by the minute. Again, as I have expressed before in numerous comments, Trump does not possess the required demeanor to be president. That said, we may have to endure this kind of thinking for the next three years. The best that we can hope for is that his actions will speak louder than his words.
5
As someone who consults to executives on language and how to use it effectively, I want to point out that the brilliance on Mike Schmidt's part was not asking permission to record the interview until Trump had begun talking.
Having already started to unload, the recording issue morphed from a threat about accuracy with legal implications to a much more important question for Trump; an invitation to stop talking, something our President finds virtually impossible to do once he's begun. In that context, he waived off the danger of being accurately quoted in order to gratify his insecurities. Great work, Mike.
8
As a former journalist who more than once found herself in a position to get an unexpected interview with a famous person who rarely did one-on-one, congratulations are in order for Michael Schmidt.
The part about the "catcher's squat" was especially amusing, given that reporters are often in uncomfortable circumstances in order to get the story.
I especially liked how Mr. Schmidt chose to let Trump run on and hang himself. This wasn't the time to ask tough follow-up questions, but rather to allow Trump to show us all who he really is without carefully written speeches or prompters.
6
Mike Schmidt's was a brilliant strategy, the result well-executed, this explanation simple and elegant. As for those who chalk it all up to "luck," one should recall that such luck favors the prepared mind and requires a certain bravery and boldness, too. In all, great job.
5
"Mr. Trump immediately told me that there was no collusion between his associates and Russia’s effort to influence the election — something he would repeat 15 more times during the interview."
15 times?! Methinks the so-called president doth protest too much.
Shakespeare anticipated Freud's much later discovery of this rather transparent defense mechanism, where the guilty party inadvertently broadcasts the truth by denying it excessively. I think that's a fair description of Trump's increasingly anxious efforts to avoid being indicted, impeached, and discredited as our worst president ever.
3
I think Schmidt made a good decision to just let Mr. T. hang himself with words.
You cannot have a rational conversation with an irrational person. A journalist cannot use normal ways of dealing with this man. He must be removed from office one way or another...
11
- and I'm ready for an interview too -
and I'm even a natural blond -
and I can tell you you guys stories...
about a dude I once met in a Golf Club...
6
How fascinating - you know Von Clownstick?
You even sat on the same table with him - Just awesome!
Really AAAAwesome!!
9
I frequently read a large number of comments to articles and keep an informal count of the number of the agree/disagree comments for a given piece.
I was very surprised by the number comments about the purpose, technique or contents of the article. Overwhelming proportion of negative comments on the article.
There seems to be a vast number of folks who have little appreciation for the value of primary source data. Quotations from this interview will end up in future histories of this presidency.
The transcript reveals patterns of thought in granular detail. Patterns.
Since there is the Goldwater rule, this interview is the next best thing--it gives each reader the chance to peek behind the curtains and form his own opinion.
The NYT is cited as primary source information in many of the history books we read. This article delivers.
Thanks NYT.
410
''Quotations from this interview will end up in future histories of this presidency.''
Yeah - but they hardly will have a chance against any quotes about ''grabbing'' - or how hot Ivanka is - If you know what I mean?
7
From Westfield, NJ? If so, our parents were great friends.
"Quotations from this interview will end up in future histories of this presidency. "....Hardly
As a reader, I appreciate the further explanation of how the interview came to be and the strategy behind it. The media still needs to find a way to push back more against the President's lies and misstatements. The article that was printed was valuable, newsworthy, and good journalism, to be sure. Still, the American public needs journalists to be stronger protectors of reality in today's politics; not just inactive observers.
41
This is brilliant and I give Mike Schmidt a huge amount of credit for the way he handled this. Those who think he should have pushed back are missing the point; by letting "Trump be Trump" Schmidt posted the most amazing transcript of an interview with seriously messed up human being. We got a wormhole into a seriously demented brain. Schmidt didn't have to push back or argue, all he had to do was keep Trump going and Trump hung himself without knowing it.
If Schmidt had pushed back it would have confirmed his base's feelings that there is a media conspiracy against Trump. This way his base doesn't have much to bite on and for the rest of us, we get confirmation of what we already knew about this sociopath: he's a horror of a human being who, for a variety of reasons, a basket of similarly deplorable human beings supports.
Bravo Mike Schmidt. Keep on his good side and let Trump be Trump.
267
If Mr. Schmidt asked follow-up questions, Trump would have shutdown and the NY Times would have lost access forever. We are dealing with a man that is unlike any President in modern history.
Trump reminds me of astray cat my mother took in many years ago. At first, he was skittish, lacked trust and ready to scratch up the hand that fed him. He was always ready for a fight. She left a plate of milk and some tuna. He came back a few days later, she left more food. This went on and on for weeks and the cat slowly became affectionate and trusting of my mom. One day the cat busted open the screen of an open window and wanted in to the house that fed him milk and tuna. He stayed until he died.
The NY Times (or another paper) will get that hard interview and ask the questions you want, just be patient. They know what they are doing.
50
I've had a cat very much like that. No one will convince me that cats don't demonstrate gratitude. Actually, I've had many species of animals who expressed gratitude, not just for me, but for food and for not being itchy, and for not having pain. Things like that.
You're right. But here's a question for you and everyone else; is he reading the comments? He reads this paper. Can't he see that if we can see his feelings about tuna, so can some dangerous people and outfits.
1
I guarantee you, from now on Michael Schmitt will be reluctant to investigate or post any stories that reflect badly on Trump. That is how he wins these media people over. Schmitt really failed to take Trump on when he made the flat out outrageous staement that he had absolute power to do what ever he wants with the Justice Department. That is code for I have the power to go after my political "enemies".
19
I guess this is 'news' unless you calculate the opportunity cost of what isn't covered. I learned the reporter got lucky and experience knee pain. The more this President gets covered, and people like me click on stories and read them, the greater his reality-star influence. He says he'll stay in office because of media's hunger for ratings, doesn't he. Hope to the heavens that's wrong. Meantime, my own NY's resolution is to define 'news' more narrowly and read only that. I'm part of this problem.
6
Although many pundits, reporters and their audiences interpret Trump's tweets, rally rants and interview blather as evidence of mental illness, dementia or some pathological incoherence, actually he is the heir to the double talk genius Professor Irwin Corey. Trump's stream of consciousness dialogue and cryptic references represent a well tested strategy of drawing publicity for commentary the true meaning of which eludes interpretation. If you relied on such puffery when negotiating a real estate deal with this guy you might walk away from the table believing you understood the terms of the deal. Sorry sucka !
It is this snake oil salesmanship at the Republican have learned to love. Like they used to say in 1930's sing along films: follow the bouncing ball.
"The greatest middle class tax cut" at the beginning of the song becomes the "greatest tax cut"' the middle class be damned by the unspoken terms of the law. Does he know what he is selling? Obamacare repeal was sold as great healthcare for the 20 million who would lose coverage. His undermining of the law is sold similarly. As long as he provides cover for the goals they have long been frustrated in achieving, the GOP will stand by their "con"man.
The NYT should not let Trump blather away...to do so allows his deceit to rule the day, and his name to dominate the media. Prepare for an interview and relentlessly ask follow up questions.
If you negotiate a business deal with Trump, you pin him down or walk.
24
Seems to me Trump was just practicing his shtick and that performances like this belong in the Arts & Entertainment section.
21
Thank you for explaining why you were easy on Trump. However, I stand behind my initial statement: “lamest interview I’ve read in the NYT”. It was almost a puff piece.
26
Are you sure it was really him? You said he ordered a salad ...
57
I think you're on to something.
This entire episode reads like fiction.
8
This is a sad day for journalism at the NY Times. The Washington Post fact checker lists 24 lies or misleading statements during Mr Schmidt's interview. And he can't be challenged politely on at least one. This is no different than Fox news or even an interview with a High School paper. When Pres Trump says something like he know more about legislation than any President in history. Mr Schmidt couldn't even say: "Does that include President Johnson who was Senate majority leader before becoming President?" Mr Schmidt can at least admit he made a boo boo rather than doubling up as he has done.
27
Thank you! I didn't understand the point of the interview at all.
4
By letting these outrageous statements hang there, Schmidt was being a clever reporter. This was not a "gotcha" interview with a normal subject. It was an opportunity to show Trump's lies in the context of the interview. His preposterous claims are left dangling, for everyone to see. If Schmidt had challenged, Trump would have shut down. Instead, we have a chilling account of a mad king.
3
Technique was fine. Anyone who reads the verbatim can see all one needs to do is give Trump rope. He hangs himself. It appears too many readers hold so much venom for Trump they don't want to see anything but a stoning. Metaphors, like a Trump, run amuck.
54
We all know how unusual this is to get an interview, but please, where is the interview? This feels like you're patting your own back...and for what? Nothing was accomplished.
21
Donald's golf swing looks like Charles Barkley's. Ouch! Put that in your political algorithm.
2
Nothing, absolutely NOTHING resembles Chas. Barkley's golf swing.
This is the only time I'll ever take up for DT.
Some commenters criticize the Schmidt/Trump interview, saying Schmidt didn't "get" anything of substance from Trump. Of course he didn't! Trump doesn't have anything of substance to say - he just opens his mouth and rattles of whatever pops up in his brain. Face it! Trump isn't very intelligent, does not have any depth of perception about world affairs, healthcare, taxes, or anything else. He's in way over his head and the gutless GOP Congress supports it! Appalling!
100
This is not up to the standards of the Times. Other journalists may find obsequious replies to POTUS the price they must pay for access, but your approach distorts the search for truth.
12
This limp "apology" is everything that's wrong with the current crop of "journalists" who are happy to let trump's rambling lies go unchallenged.
12
I think Mr. Schmidt did great, given the material. The subtlety of crouching before Trump reveals all about his narcissism and legendary distractibility! Without challenging any of Trump's ramblings he has demonstrated how this dysfunctional mind works: loops of fancy with perseverant leaps of disconnected irrelevancy. Challenging Trump's assertions may have been gratifying but would have yielded nothing other than blocking future access. This interview will be quoted in future assessments of the Trump presidency. Well done, Failing NYT!
3
Don't understand how this can be described as an interview. Here's the NYT as the platform, say whatever you you want, unchallenged.
7
To budding reporters:
1. Learn to play golf.
2. Keep your squat muscles in shape.
15
If the President of the United States agrees to ramble, on tape, for 30 minutes, that IS worthy of news media attention. The reporter showed excellent judgement by doing nothing to interrupt the unfiltered deluge.
160
This is so true. Trump is just so unintelligent and his unchallenged and unfiltered remarks in this written dialogue just confirm this - but we already know this! Trump tells us this every. single. day. Enough already! It's time to impeach this con artist.
2
Absolutely. Asking Trump questions on touchy subjects could bring censure to Schmidt. Let Trump implode.
3
Trump denied colluding with the Russians 16 times in 30 minutes? Schmidt's on-the-spot reporting coup is a moment for the history books.
Well. Good for you. Congratulations. But after your interview was published maybe you could have coveted something else today? Especially after the NYT ran an hysterical article yesterday about Trump dominating the news. I’m starting to think he was right when he said the Times would let him win re-election because it thinks it needs him for its popularity.
9
Amen to that !!
Mr Schmidt took advantage of an opportunity and used his best judgement. This interview was spontaneous and at Trump's golf course so understandably more casual than one at the WH, for example. Unfortunately, this is exactly how the press, and especially TV, "interviewed" Trump during the campaign - just let him ramble on (although he was somewhat more coherent then). The problem then was that his supporters, and many who would not normally support him, never heard his gibberish challenged directly. What struck me this time was how much he sounded like my mother as dementia was overtaking her and there was absolutely no point in trying to have a rational conversation or even trying to break into the circular pattern of her obsessions at that point. This is our president and we have to deal with it.
149
Exactly.
2
Mr Trump talks AT people not to people they are not conversations they are diatribes.
43
"Michael, come on Michael....Come on, sit over there." Flattering, warm, intimate, even seductive. I think that gives some sense of the allure of his power. So much so that he actually feels news was made that day as he lists statements that can change from one second to the next as news. Michael, come on Michael...
23
What the critics of your interview fail to understand is that it is important to let the president make statements that establish a record of his thinking and his intent. This has value in itself. It's called journalism, people. And consider this: It is not pandering to give the president enough rope to hang himself.
166
I think you did a great job Michael! You were fair . Sometimes just have to let crazy be crazy
54
My guess is you called a much better game as a catcher than as a reporter. Better luck next time.
5
Maybe not great news, but an interesting view of 45-his self absorption, his need to talk, to impress.
26
I can understand this journalist's approach in persuading Trump to open up as much as he did, but while reading the transcript last night something struck me. When he referred to his former opponent (again) as "Crooked Hillary," I thought, "Why has no one ever called him on that?" It would almost be worth being thrown out to reply, "Why do you do that? Why do call names and treat people with so little respect? It only makes you, and the Presidency, appear smaller, and diminishes your standing in the international community. The world's biggest stage is no place for schoolyard taunts." I'd love to see how he responded to THAT
50
I agree- I'd also love to hear his answer to, "Why do you lie so much?" and "What happened in your childhood to cause you to be such a mean-spirited bully?"
1
Great idea, Mike. Better to let him do what he does best: run his mouth. Follow-up questions would to more lies and then end up irritating him.
28
He is his own worst enemy. Let him run his mouth, it will be his undoing.
2
Mike Schmidt did exactly the right thing. He had no time to prepare questions for this impromptu, unexpected "interview." In such a case the thing to do with Trump is to just nod and appear agreeable. Then he will condemn himself out of his own mouth. The transcript, incoherent, repetitive and filled with misstatements, lies and boasts, shows Trump for what he is: a man with serious mental problems very likely including senile dementia.
91
I don't know about dementia and Trump. It doesn't fit. Hear me out. When you read it, it's a jumble of unfettered stream of consciousness, right? If you listen to him saying it though, it's a good example off what could better be called jive talkin', slicksterism, fast talking, hucksterism. It's a skill, a real talent, and he must be pretty good at it.
"I employed a strategy in which I asked questions about the most pressing issues of his presidency and then allowed him to talk."
Oooo, a "strategy"!. "I...allowed him to talk". Respectful professionals don't take the attitude of"allowing" a president, prime minister or chancellor (even if you can't stand him or her) to "talk" - they don't interrupt. If you can't manage the interview that's your problem and perhaps you need to hone a new "strategy".
The article is quite self-congratulatory. Its a small example of why so many readers roll their eyes at political reporters.
9
It is sad or a bit terrifying that we have a president who may get upset by a question and change the subject, lie, or walk away. It is equally a very bad sign when his train of thought can't stay on a subject that doesn't interest him at that second in time.
I am a big time NYT fan - but I am not sure what the big deal is with this interview. I suppose it is a "catch" to sit alone with the president for 30 minutes, but when he just rambles on about whatever interests him in his somewhat delusional world without any corrections or interesting/challenging questions.... haven't we been hearing Trump ramble on about his incoherent world view for way too long already?
How much more proof do we need that he is not emotionally or intellectually equipped for one of the most challenging & important jobs on the planet?
34
I'd love someone to ask him, "Have you ever been diagnosed with ADD or seen a mental health professional?" "If not, would you be willing to do so?" Like the annual physical, an annual mental assessment should be a requirement too.
I don't understand all the criticism of Mr. Schmidt. I see him increasingly on air with his NYT colleagues and I see a cool, level head, working with objectivity and emotional intelligence. I see someone who assessed the situation and did what he could with it. I see him and Haberman and others doing their best to exercise journalistic integrity, trying their best to report "what is" rather than trying to support an agenda.
Reporters like Mr. Schmidt are why I continue to pay for the NY Times as I seek unbiased and objective insight into the goings on of this crazy world. Because he's human, he ain't going to be perfect, but I see a professional journalist understanding and trying to live his obligations to society.
Don't bow to the public current, Mr. Schmidt. Continue to be that rock in the stream that represents principle. It may be a lonely place, but it is a good place.
76
Given the informal setting and the impromptu arrangement, I think Schmidt was right on the mark.
Letting Trump ramble in his self-aggrandizing, incoherent manner simply reinforced what we already know about our Liar-in-Chief: He is a sad spectacle of a human being. That he is President is frightening, which this interview also reinforces.
46
Failing to ask follow up questions is a disgrace when you have the rare opportunity of having almost a half hour alone with Trump - unless you are a fan rather than a journalist.
12
Nice work. Great to see a reporter reporting vs telling us what to think.
15
Mr. Schmidt's explanation is as unconvincing as the "news" he purportedly extracted from Mr. Trump. The interview was no more than an infomercial. There was no depth to the questions asked with insubstantial follow up. Mr. Trump's comments on Mr. Mueller and on China were not new, rather oxymoronic "old news".
9
The strategy of letting Trump speak is very helpful for readers to understand the unedited Trump. Agreeing with his false statements is however regrettable and unprofessional. Mr. Schmidt might want to practice the art of interviewing without necessarily endorsing Trump's blatantly false statements.
5
Here Mr. Schmidt describes how Mr. Trump 'jumps' from issue to issue and frequently goes 'off on a tangent.' Yes, that sounds like our president, all right.
Inevitably, I'm reminded of the psychiatric concept known as 'flight of ideas.' This 'flight' involves a fast flow of thought producing conversation that rapidly flips from topic to topic.
Those with manic disorders are especially likely to betray themselves with speech that evinces a flight of ideas. The president is no doubt included in this category because, as every Trump watcher knows, he has a remarkably short attention span, and the connections between a great many of his thoughts are barely discernible or completely mysterious.
It is a somewhat eerie experience to realize that such a mind has attained the highest office in the land, but attention spans among Americans have become notoriously shorter in recent decades, especially since the internet is an open invitation to flip from one subject to another to another in rapid succession.
Thus, Trump's appeal may be largely based on the fact that he is the first major US politician to exploit the mental aberrations that new technology has created in the mass mind. As Trump goes from pillar to post, so goes much of the nation. We tweet little next-to-nothings on one subject and then move right along to the next.
Conclusion? In one significant way, we have the president that we deserve. Now, moving right along . . .
18
Get more familiar with the dog whistles and code talking and you'll have no problem connecting what does seem a lot like flight of ideas. If you don't want to get into his mindset, that's totally understandable. The connections are disturbing.
1
I take your point, MystLady, but trust me, I have spent many hundreds of hours observing Trump through the media and I am fluent in the odious dialect of his dog whistles and code words.
The fact that most of the nation learned during the campaign to understand what Trump is talking about does not make his manner of speech any less flighty, nor his mindset any less peculiar. It only means that, with the help of the media, we have become competent breakers of his code.
It is indicative of our danger that the president has forced us to dabble in psychiatry, whose practitioners are, of course, taught methods not only to understand flights of ideas but to develop the interpretive skills that help them, over time, to make therapeutic sense of such ideas.
Many people get through life expressing themselves in loose associations but suffer from no more than a lack of upward mobility for their violations of consecutive logic, which is surely suffering enough.
The great irony of our time is that Trump's loose associations contributed greatly to the success of his presidential campaign. This is surely is a sign that something has gone very wrong in the American psyche.
The problem with Trump's flights is that they now lead him, as president, to land on ledges from which he could fall with disastrous consequences for us all. Or, as you put it, 'The connections are disturbing.'
1
Schmidt concludes by repeating the claim that in this interview Trump contradicted the members of his party by saying that he believes Mueller will treat him fairly. But there is no contradiction. What Trump did here is issue a threat: he will fire Mueller if Mueller doesn't treat him "fairly." Trump alone knows what constitutes "fairness." Trump took advantage of the Times' presence to add his own threatening warning to the toxic stew being cooked up by his Republican cronies.
7
I disagree with most of the responses here to Michael S. Schmidt's reporting. He has studied our "so-called" president enough to know that he doesn't answer follow up questions anyway, but harps on himself. If we are going to convince more Trump fans of the nature of our concern, it has to be objective and non-judgemental and that is what this interview was. Trump felt he would be treated with respect and fairly with Michael Schmidt and was totally himself in all its bravado and lack of nuance. People reading can view the president's own words uncolored and hopefully, realize how unfit he is for the job he was elected to do. In fact, they can read and know that he doesn't really know what the job entails and the limits to his Constitutional authority.
34
Very well said and sadly, too true.
2
Congratulations on a spectacular piece of reporting. However, the premise, "I believed it was more important to allow the president to speak and let the people make up their own minds about his statements." is flawed. The vast majority of his statements have long since led to the conclusion that while the lights are on, there's nobody home.
3
After careful consideration, I agree with the strategy Mr. Schmidt took to secure and execute such an unorthodox, rare interview opportunity - with a subject who is predictably unpredictable. Schmidt saw a chance to engage in a raw and unhindered Q & A session with a president who happens to be under unprecedented scrutiny to the degree that national interests may be at stake.
With that said, Schmidt knew that his priority as a journalist should be to give the public a chance to evaluate Trump's mindset and mental health through unfiltered interpersonal communication. Hardball questions, debate, spin and 'gotcha' style questions would have ended Schmidt's interview as soon as it started.
To the contrary, and to Schmidt's credit, he took an approach that was and will be invaluable in terms of giving mass public audiences news content that can't be considered 'fake' - after all, it came unfiltered and relatively uninterrupted - straight from the horses mouth.
So, read the transcript again and you decide: too loony to lead? lacking mental stability? ... OR ... appropriately possesses the necessary levels of awareness needed to lead and the capacity to comprehend consequences of crucial decisions he is empowered to make (or not empowered to make), for the protection, safety and well being of the American people?
24
Hopefully, copies might be forwarded to the doctors who will soon be examining the President's "fitness."
1
This behind the scenes is fascinating, and gives us another bit of insight to the mind of Trump. I have no problem with the interview itself; sure, the reporter could have asked harder questions, but the goal of holding power accountable is balanced with letting them say what they want, and allowing the reader to decide. I, for one, appreciate that opportunity. Also, when you let Trump speak, it is made clear how inarticulate and incomprehensible he is. And, his many lies are often leavened with truths (eg Comey and Russia).
13
Daniel Dale, the Washington correspondent for the Toronto Star, rejected Schmidt's argument that he needed to let Trump talk without interruption. He argues that a skilled interviewer can politely challenge his subject or in my experience let them clarify what they say in order to show the illogic behind it.
6
Fascinating! How easy it seemed to be to land this interview and get the chatty president live.
To quote maybe the most important point about why Donald Trump was so willing, this point struck me:
"On Wednesday, the president invited the press to a local fire department, where he shook hands with emergency medical workers. He said little of note, but I sensed from watching him that he was bored by vacation and wanted to engage with the news media."
I watched that encounter and couldn't help but notice how bored the firefighters seemed to be. They looked uncomfortable as the president bragged incessantly, particularly about his tax bill, which likely won't benefit the people he was addressing.
In fact, I almost played a little game, imagining what they were thinking. Most of what I thought was unprintable--except for the idea that maybe they hoped the fire alarm would signal-- but again, they didn't smile or seem happy the president was taking so much time to tout his own record.
I think it's important to notice the mien of people the president addresses, except perhaps for the many sycophants usually surrounding him.
Outside his base, these video clips are fascinating for the body language of people who appear more bored than the president was the day you interviewed him.
198
Great point about the body language and facial expressions of those near trump when he speaks. I've been intrigued by the odd expressions on melania's face, mostly a combination of boredom and contempt.
22
I wonder how bored the firefighters and other first responders will be when they realize that to help subsidize the golf courses owned and/or patronized by the 1%, they will now have to pay for their turn-out gear and other equipment they may have to buy with after-tax money.
1
Christine,
I do the same thing! I saw an event the other day with a young African American servicewoman behind him as he was going on and on and on about something offensive. I felt so sorry for her, and all others who are caught up in the whirlwind of insanity that is this so-called administration.
1
It's worth reading the entire interview, which I found through a link on Politico.
It's supposedly in the Times Political section but nowhere to be found if you scroll through the digital section. Only exerpts.
18
What an inane article. Why give this print or cyberspace? Please, please, stop the silly coverage which the Oval holder thinks is good press. We know him for what he is, so stop with the piling on. Newsworthy coverage for 2018, please.
34
This "interview" had all the worth of Trump standing behind a podium and rambling for thirty minutes - none. I expected better from the Times. Then again, I didn't expect anyone at the Times would be buddies with the owner of propaganda outfit Newsmax.
34
I don’t want to read this kind of interview very often, but I do think it offers an important, unfiltered view of the president.
How can a person be simultaneously frightening and boring?
The interview is weird and unpleasant, but that’s not the fault of the NYT.
2
Regarding the catcher's squat, Omarosa was right - bowing down to Trump works.
56
I find it regrettable that the Times values access over quality. Scoop mentality is killing journalism.
96
It appears you don't realize the purpose of journalism - which is to report the news, fairly and without bias. News should not be similar to fan magazines.
2
"News should not be similar to fan magazines."
Correct. Which is why THIS passage is so alarming.
"I went to Mr. Trump’s golf club with his longtime confidant Christopher Ruddy, who had invited me for lunch. We were seated at a table next to the president and a few minutes into our meal, Mr. Ruddy, who runs the conservative website and television channel Newsmax.went over to say hello to Mr. Trump. The president appeared excited to see Mr. Ruddy, who often goes on cable television to defend him."
1
I agree, and it may be true that the only way to interview this president is to allow him to ramble on unchallenged. But the Times dropped the ball by printing the transcript without any comments. Perhaps it would have been best to print two versions of the transcript, one without comments and one with annotations pointing out lies, exaggerations that amount of lies, and contradictions with what he has said before. That would have been a service both to those who want to see the president naked and those who look to journalism for accuracy and truth.
Your best approach to a man who lives to see his name in the paper (above the fold naturally) might have been to decline to sit down with him or to interview him at all. The ‘failing N.Y.T.’ could have used the column inches more productively then for yet another nonsensical rambling monologue from your President.
23
The last sentence tells your story. And your editors said "Atta boy."
11
But Mike, you let the President lie and say untruths unchallenged. You appear not to take responsibility: your interview normalizes Trump lying
97
It's hardly normal for a president to say China treated him better than anyone in history. No need to fact check that. During the interview, trump was given free reign to expose his ignorance, insecurity, and habit of spewing lies so monumental the untruth was manifest. This interview was masterful.
12
Do you really think the president would have continued with the interview if he had been challenged?
1
No, no no -- you've got to let someone 'hang themselves with their own words'
(or with their own rope).
3
Hey, Michael. Were you catching siftballs in Little League? Because you sure know how to throw them! Not asking follow up questions, not calling him out on his numerous lies and, word of all, not defending the fourth estate as the pillar of our democracy that it is, is why we have this nightmare in the White House in the first place.
44
Mr. Schmidt was conducting an interview, not a debate.
5
Alex, you don't grasp that Trump has a mental illness -- he is irrational. Best way to catch a crazy is to let them talk -- let Trump expose his lies. He will eventually make a huge slip of the tongue, unaware that he did just that.
5
Shame on you. Very disrespectful when we are trying to promote tolerance and acceptance of everyone's point of view.
3
Ignorance and dishonesty aren't points of view.
6
Good for you. You got to interview the president. However, there is nothing of any substance in this article that is new or different. I’m surprised that The NY Times considered this fit for print.
46
I still hope to see the day when this President will take note of the death of an American hero like Private First Class Emmanuel Mensah, an immigrant from Ghana, who died trying to rescue a fifth person after rescuing four from that hell fire in the Bronx. That was the news most fit to print on the day the President enjoyed his salad.
320
So the New York Times is just like Fox News. They let Trump say whatever his version of the truth might be and give it maximum coverage as if his delusions are legitimate. They don’t ask challenging questions or use facts with Trump because clearly NYT is too in awe or intimidated or mentally challenged. Read the transcript of Mike Schmidt’s dictation.
54
Maybe, just maybe, our President will admit that the NY Times is not "fake news."
3
No, sorry, it was not an interview but a breathless listening session. What a wasted opportunity. And this self-defense column is more wasted space.
63
Your interview shows perfectly how the mind of this man works. He says so many opinionated things that are not linked to any facts or reality, you question why you are even taking the time to read it. He is the "captain" but you can probably see the panic in the eyes of his staff, much like the crew of the Caine....wondering what happens next and when do you decide you have to act.
20
Where is the full transcript, or did Trump/Kelly control that too; i.e., he would grant you this (faux impromptu) interview only if you agreed to never post the full transcript, lest he look more idiotic than he did notwithstanding your crafty excerpts.
The only thing surprising and exclusive about this (staged) interview was that the NY Times would agree to be Trump lawyers' pawn in this PR stunt that was nothing more than an attempt to attack Mueller and crew.
P.S. Instead of talking about "collusion" how about you instead have asked Trump about his dealings with Russia or Russians, and the "C" word ("conspiracy") which is the prosecutor's friend. No one cares about collusion or obstruction, Trump and gang are getting nailed on multiple conspiracies and RICO.
9
What a scoop; 2017 was the year for you after all! :)
7
It has been reported by Reuters that Russian ships have been spotted offloading oil into North Korean ships in violation of U.N. sanctions. What will Our Fake So Called President do now that he has been publicly humiliated by Putin?
Blame Hillary? Obama? Chem trails? Space aliens?
Try desperately to change the subject?
9
“ I believed it was more important to continue to allow the president to speak and let people make their own judgments about his statements. “
WRONG! this planet has had more than enough of this gasbag droning on at will. it is well past time for journalists to challenge him.
81
It's not as if we haven't heard him doing exactly the same thing ad nauseam in his rallies and at the White House podium. There are already hours and hours of audio and video of these performances. So what if you added another 30 minutes to the archive?
What we HAVEN'T seen or heard is his capacity (if any) to respond to actual questioning on facts or issues. Rather than playing straight man to this buffoon, you could have actually tried to elicit something like that from him.
1
Challenging Trump only gets his dander up - he would have walked away saying "that's all", which we have seen him do on other occasions. This reporter did a really good job with the opportunity he had.
Just for comparison: Remember how President Obama responded: with respect.
1
the president is cognitively challenged and the abilities he has left are focused on telling lies and boasting
50
This captures the Current Ocupant in an undisputed interview text that cannot be called “fake news.”
He utters incoherent and grandiose nonsense, brags incessantly, and appears to be losing whatevervgripbhe’s had on objective truth.
It was never much, but Mr. Schmidt captures the psychological underpinings of an unraveling ego. His pathetic need to repeat “no collusion” 15 times, and his beliefs that he can do whatever he wants to the DOJ is a first hand unobstructed account from his own lips of his belief that he is unaccountable to laws or to the Constitution which he is sworn to serve.
10
While the other Commenters have valid points, my experiences with people who are just such blowhards and enamored with their ability to weave a good story in which they are the Victor and Victim, often in the same paragraph, cannot be stopped once they get on a roll. They are the epitome of the crook who can't wait to tell about his little bitty part in the bank robbery until you finally get all the salient details for example. For the better follow-up questions , the fact check articles that are routinely published in the times are much more useful, from my perspective. Confronting Trump, in such ad hoc circumstances, merely feeds his ego, or is a chance for "Gotcha" journalism.
15
Somewhere, somehow, some reporter is going to do some actual journalism with this president, and call him out on any aspect of reality, since he lives in a world entirely of delusion. That reporter will be a hero.
That reporter is not you. Enough letting him talk. It's time to make him stop.
33
Sorry Katherine, the reporter’s job is not to argue with the President. It is to get his statements on the record on various subjects. We, the public, the citizens can see for ourselves how this Presidents statements compare to reality. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Lincoln said that. Trump’s act is wearing thin. It would be best if he was voted out, not impeached. The people must directly reject this stain on our democracy.
6
A good reporter asks questions and follows up; a great reporter maximizes opportunities and knows when to throw out questions and shut the heck up and just let the subject speak. NYT was equally brilliant in just printing the whole jaw-dropping transcript. Hats off!
85
I hate to write this, but the crux of the story shouldn't be about how the journalist got the scoop. He happened to be in the right place at the right time, and did his job. The story should remain reporting and discussing the incoherent rubbish Trump - the supposed leader of the free world - spewed forth.
All too often these days, based on the number of article views, photo clicks or twitter trends, if something 'goes viral', we invariably end up discussing how good the writer must be, or what a great camera angle it was, and lose track of the underlying subject!
11
Mike, you did a great job. You have us a view into the disjointed, narcissist mind of Trump. No one should ever expect a journalist to do a normal back and forth interview with Trump.
37
"Some readers criticized my approach, saying I should have asked more follow-up questions. I believed it was more important to continue to allow the president to speak and let people make their own judgments about his statements."
Total cop out. This isn't journalism, this is stenography. The NYT takes the same tack as PBS Newshour- ask a question, receive a ridiculous non-sequitur answer, and then move on to the next question. Without being at all challenged, Trump logically believes he has answered the question satisfactorily and can crow accordingly, while the reader stews. Who's ends are served here?
70
Nice work Michael. But you could have gotten the same story watching Trump & Fox-Friends, the president's personal political propaganda machine.
14
I think you should head right back and play a round of golf. The president invited you and you deserve it.
Oh, and next time you are at the grill, ask him about his tax returns. Ask him if the loans he received from Duetsch bank were guaranteed by the Russians. Ask him about what he might have said abut Putin to Mike Flynn.
Well, actually, Mueller already has all that information. No need to embarrass the president. Let him talk. He can embarrass himself.
7
You made news, not Donald Trump, and that is the failure of your interview with him.
11
Trump ordered a salad. Wow.
3
Like the picture during the campaign of his with a yuge (fried) taco bowl “salad?”
1
The Times' Trump interview, notable for the butchered grammar and inability to complete either a sentence or a thought, should strike real fear into your heart – it sure does into mine.
14
The New York Times has repeatedly wasted these rare opportunities with a baffling “we’ll just sit and take dictation” approach.
Interviews like this teach us nothing. We already know he’s self-aggrandizing, prone to lying, disjointed to the point of incoherence, and myopically focused on denying the obvious (collusion with Russia, where multiple associates have already pleaded guilty and his son admitted it in email).
A better interview would have asked tougher questions — with follow-ups — challenged his falsehoods, and produced something more insightful and revealing. How does he react when confronted with his untruths? Does he actually understand anything in the tax plan at all, let alone better than all the CPAs? What is his long-promised health plan? Infrastructure? Why hasn’t he defeated ISIS in 30 days like he promised? Why hasn’t he provided his tax returns as he promised? Will he submit to an interview with Mueller, or with Congress, under oath? When, specifically? What is his plan to prevent further Russian interference in our elections? These are obvious questions, which will (still) go unanswered.
Instead, you just let him talk. And all you got out of him was 100 tweets, strung together. A high-schooler could have nodded politely as the recorder ran and Trump babbled. The New York Times should do better.
22
Boy, you sure do go to great lengths explaining just how completely unplanned and accidental this interview was.
"I just happened to have been invited to lunch by the CEO of Newsmax, who just happened to have been sitting a few feet away from his good buddy ... "
Yeah .... some accident.
23
As any good reporter knows, you have to adapt to the person you are talking to if you expect to get answers. When the president* responds with gibberish just let him spew. He doesn’t want to learn facts and you are not his teacher.
10
Schmidt must have learned the art of "Trump whispering" from Maggie Haberman. Good job, Mike.
6
So big deal, everything Trump said he has said before -- he was just using you Mike Schmidt to repeat his claims about no collusion, Roy Moore, China etc, yawn. The man is a complete blowhard, emptiness and vanity personified and all you did was confirm that. No Big Scoop here.
4
You are right that it is better to allow him to talk and talk and talk and let people see how delusional this man is . No follow up questions needed . He puts the noose around his own neck . People know , they just pretend not to know . Good job .
11
Any time you can get half hour with Any President, unscripted - you have to grab it for all it’s worth! I love the NYT!
15
When a delusional man running the country claims to know more about the tax plan than anyone, maybe ask a question, any question, about details. His comments on Mueller aren't news. He will do and say whatever he deems politically expedient. If no one will call him out on his lunacy, our country is doomed and you will have helped its demise. You were a transcriptionist for a racist egomaniac, not a reporter.
9
Any one else notice how many times the reporter made themself appear clever and sly in their tactics - like a fox craftily working the situation to capture its prey? Something smells here. A sense some revisionist history being spread on this toast. At any rate, why is this an issue? Be glad we got the President to talk at all. Can we drop this new zeitgeist of attacking literally everything?
3
Mr. Schmidt states here that it is up to the reader to decide. Of course it is. But if I want to hear Trump bloviate, I can go to Twitter. I want him to answer a a hard question."
Sir, you say there is no collusion, how do you explain your son's meeting with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary? What of Flynn's phone calls, did he make those without your knowledge? What are your dealings with Deutsche Bank?"
How about, "You will benefit greatly from several provisions of the new tax bill, mainly the pass through exemption, did that affect your support? How does that create jobs? Why didn't you demand a bigger middle class tax cut?"
There was no news made here. 30 minutes wasted. Good luck with the NewsMax gig.
17
Trump's talking — rambling, really — is not too surprising. The actual cliffhanger here is "As I drove away from the club, I called my editors to tell them I had just spent half an hour alone with the president."
Trump didn't even remember him from Oval Office interview.....
8
We already know the man is incoherent and unfit for office. Letting him talk was fine in previous interviews to allow him to reveal who he is as a person, but the time has come to start asking tough questions and not treat him like a rich uncle who your glad has given you some of his time. I am disappointed and expect more from the Times instead I'm getting Fox and Friends and that is a low bar indeed.
8
Curious how Mr. Schmidt came to be invited to lunch at Trump’s “club” by Mr. Ruddy.
15
Treating the Pres. like a special-needs child does nobody any favors. It means one journalist handles a tape recorder, others parse the lies in another article, and psychiatrists/psychologists across the land make their unitary diagnosis of malignant narcissism. hhhmmmmm...perhaps that's the one way he might create jobs.
3
There's an element to this interview, the big score with the Big Kahuna, etc., that just bothers me. It could be that I perceive the president's self-aggrandizement rubbing off on the reporter who then aggrandizes the Big Scoop. But what scoop? Trump pays so little attention to his own words they can mean anything, or nothing. And then others parse his outpourings, desperate to find seeds in the manure.
8
You have to give him credit for speaking his mind directly without handlers and PR people selling a message. Readers can either like what he said, or not, without the reporter’s obvious bias and pithy comments.
1
I applaud Michael Schmidt’s reporting strategy here, but I can’t help but think that this account of it somehow fetishizes Donald Trump. I don’t recall any similarly breathless or detailed stories about Barack Obama. I have no idea if reporters sat, stood, or squatted to interview him.
Trump says lots of things to lots of people, and most of what he spouts is sound and fury, signifying nothing. Yet the Times treats him here like an Oracle that’s reachable only by the most cunning Delphic priests.
Trump won the election in part because he got more coverage than a train wreck, every single day. This piece, in a sense, is rubbernecking the rubbernecking. It’s an account of how the Times got an interview during which Trump told 24 lies in 30 minutes, according to the Washington Post. I think that serves Trump more than it does readers of the Times.
7
"I believed it was more important to continue to allow the president to speak and let people make their own judgments about his statements."
Just as the Founders intended, no doubt. But what a publicity windfall for the NYT, eh?
"Some readers criticized my approach, saying I should have asked more follow-up questions."
That and the fact that you co-wrote "A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next?" as the headline of a column by the former public editor of the NYT put it, probably has readers a little wary.
The defensiveness on Twitter of some of your colleagues about the piece was also off-putting. The NYT and its reporters should be able to take honest criticism, even if it hurts your feelings.
12
Sarah Sanders and team very unhappy with Secret Service, hotel management and the NewsMax guy.
After all, Schmidt revealed that Trump really plays golf.
2
I was grateful for some insight into what had produced this eccentric “interview,” which was more a conduit for 45’s discombobulated and falsehood-studded, hyperbolic self-justifications than a journalistic exchange. I wonder, if in retrospect, 45 feels that he was treated “fairly,” i.e. in the sycophantic way he expects from his MAGA crew. Personally I think that true fairness to the readers of the Times demands that ex post facto fact-checking be provided, since stopping the Trump train of relentless self-congratulation and self-defense apparently would require a Superman-block.
2
The beauty of this scoop was that, although Micheal Schmidt was understandably unable to ask those probing questions, due to the extreme narcissism of his subject, he nevertheless got an excellent portrait of the current state of this delusional personality, and it's even more delusional than ever. Good to know. But I mean that seriously. In depth answers cannot be expected to come out of this man, but self-revealing ramblings: Yes.
Oh, and if DJT thought he was appealing to the Base, he forgot, or it didn't occur to him, that they would never read the NYT.
5
Why do I get the feeling Mr. Schmidt was set up by Ruddy and Trump?
12
About 90% of the articles in the NYT -- whether about politics, media, entertainment, science, lifestyle, you name it -- include at least a gratuitous swipe if not a long-winded jeremiad against Trump. How refreshing to read an article that simply reports the facts without the typical unsolicited vilification.
2
I get where you're coming from, Mike, and I respect how you handled the interview. The one big screw-up for me was that once he opened the door to chat about Mueller, you had a perfect opportunity to ask if he was going to testify under oath in the investigation. He has already boasted that he would testify about Comey's "lies." But journalists have to follow up and discover his strategy. Deposing Trump could be the biggest story of the decade and the finale of his presidency.
5
Well know we know there was no Trump collusion with Russia and that the Dems did it all. Breaking news worthy of the front page.
You might want to look at the fact check stories that outline how many times Trump lied during this interview.
4
Mr. Schmidt, how was it you were with Mr. Ruddy of Newsmax. I have nothing sinister in mind, but he's not a beat reporter; he's the head of the Newsmax operation and as you say often defends Trump on cable and elsewhere. Is Ruddy an off the record source who speaks to you with Trump's blessing? Just an acquaintance you rub elbows with despite NYT's largely polar opposite viewpoint? Or something else. Since this is the 'insider' perspective, it would be interesting to know, if you care to comment.
12
Still....a very disappointing interview. How else do you challenge the falsehoods (some would say lies) without follow up questions? Your need to justify your mistakes with this article proves you missed an important opportunity. And your coda, like a giddy teenager running home to tell Mom, is another example of being in your own bubble. Disappointing
3
"despite the fact that we’re “the failing New York Times,” he thought we had treated him fairly."
Of course the New York Times treated him fairly. They're NOT asking follow up questions, they just sit and let Trump lie to them over and over without corrections. You're treating him exactly as he wants. He's in his comfort zone when he is not challenged. And he can gaslight the country. But you're more than stenographers, or at least you should be. You are journalists. You are supposed to be asking tough questions. You are supposed to not let people like Trump get away with lying. Please do better. America deserves better than stenographers.
8
Mr. Trump very notably complains that the New York Times is a very bad paper, but then grants an impromptu exclusive interview. The reporter did the exact right thing and let him use you as a direct mouthpiece. His message came through, loud and unclear.
6
The contents of the interview are shocking enough. But this account of how it happened is downright scary. What other world leader would give an impromptu interview to a reporter he barely remembers, then seem surprised that the reporter rushes to file the story?
8
Even without this background information, I was impressed with the interview. Trump is hard to pin down. Often his own words indict him far more than an interviewer’s challenges. Trump comes across as arrogant, combative, and delusional. Schmidt did well to just let him pontificate.
31
"I believed it was more important to continue to allow the president to speak and let people make their own judgments about his statements."
This approach - let a president talk without interruption and let the public judge - had merit when presidential lies and ignorance were considered major news. But with Trump lies don't matter. Neither do displays of ignorance. We've entered a new age where truth and knowledge are no longer important to a large segment of the American population. What matters to this segment is that their biases be confirmed with any piece of information be it truth or fiction.
Trump intuitively understands our new fact and knowledge free culture. Mike Schmidt and other reporters don't. The end result of this "let a president talk" approach is that Trump gets to freely communicate his lies and display his ignorance to his followers with the NY Times giving unintentional weighty approval to Trump's corrosive and fact free politics.
The NY Times is being played by Trump. It has unintentionally become another mouthpiece for his cult. A new approach is needed. The NY Times needs to challenge Trump when he veers from reality and spouts lies and delusions.
11
Trump outmaneuvered the reporter, plain and simple. He is a smart PR man and as it became clear he could pontificate without challenge, he continued for 30 minutes. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter much. We already know this about the President. Because he's a serial lier, much of what he said is meaningless, Does anyone really believe he's okay with Mueller?
1
I certainly wish there was more follow up, but since Trump clearly has ADD, I think the reporter felt he did what he had to do to keep Trump talking rather than get cut off. There is a lot to mine here: most notably that Tump’s complicit GOP and media propagandists are waging a disinformation campaign against Mueller who Trump is on the record - recorded!- as saying is FAIR. This is huge. Just like the admission with Lester Holt about Comey’s firing.
5
I have been deposed as an expert witness in a number of medical malpractice cases. Prosecutors know it is best to let witnesses ramble on and smart witnesses are coached by the defense to answer questions as briefly as possible. Trump seems to have learned nothing from his multiple depositions over the years.....nobody should be surprised.
41
Nice job on this interview. I thought the comments I read today about his mental acuity were telling and your handling of Trump was spot on. The readers/voters need to see how his mind functions (or not). Readers can reach their own conclusions but I think he is unfit for office and his disjointed comments in this interview just confirm this. I am not speaking to his political views but, rather, his deteriorating mental state. Had you challenged him head-on, he would have ended the interview as he does when he gets confused. Sad.
15
My theory is reporters don’t challenge him because they know he will cut them off if they do and if they just let him talk, he might dig that grave deeper. No help from them. Just him, digging that grave deeper and deeper.
25
While I appreciate the difficult spot the reporter found himself, something still went terribly wrong.
Trump says, all the Democrats say there is no collusion.
Reporter: Could you name one?
Trump drops a name, because he is impaired, and is caught in a lie.
That one slight follow up could have changed the tone of the entire interview.
Now we basically reside at square one. Trump rambles and the people interpret as he pleases.
6
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that is an outrageous lie. Challenging him with a follow up questions may have ended the interview prematurely. Reading his own disjointed words is very revealing.
3
I wish Mr. Schmidt had a different notion of what are “the most pressing issues” of the presidency. For example, questions about Trump’s ongoing conflicts of interest, why Kushner is still given security clearance, the sexual abuse cases against him, especially now in light of #metoo movement, the lies he told the American people about just how much he and his family stand to lose with tax bill, how much time he spends playing golf and the hypocrisy of his past complaints about Obama playing golf - and yes, of course Korea was an most pressing topic. These are topics on the minds of many Americans - we can otherwise hear Trump ramble on and rant his delusional mumble jumble when he tweets.
5
He would never answer those questions unless under subpoena, and even then he would probably lie.
3
All of these questions? Don't think so.
In any case, this doesn't mean they shouldn't be asked, and asked repeatedly!
1
Mr. Schmidt: Your contribution to this interview was what Trump gets to say in his little chats with Putin.
Sorry. Just, it could have been so much more.
1
Trump said litte new so the conventional interview strategy did only some service. I'd love to hear the question asked "How can you state you are X and Y? Everyone knows that cannot be true because..." He might well just end the interview being confronted on his lies like that, but your sacrifice would be worth it. Another NYT reporter can take your place. Same wth the White House reporters: Please show some indignation to the Press Secretary and President when they spout lies and untruths - and of course, give credit where credit is due - if you can find an instance.
2
The truth about Trump is out there, published by the NY Times during the election campaign, as well as prior decades. Trump supporters refuse to consider it in order to openly insult us, as they would by sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly babbling.
1
Any solo or private access to Trump by a reporter should end with asking him for the date of his next press conference.
3
The president continues to call the paper failing. Meanwhile, the readers who spot the steps towards false equivalency and normalization are treated to a barrage of articles explaining how hard it is to cover this president. Score one for the guy in power; he is simultaneously commandeering the news cycle and bending the fearful, tiptoeing reporters to his will.
6
I don’t see how this article serves the public. Does blowing one’s own horn about one’s wiley reporting skills in finagling an interview out of the president (and thereby unnecessarily antagonizing the president, his supporters and, by the reporter’s own account, the White House staff) serve the public interest or the reporter’s own ego? I’d say the latter.
2
Several thoughts here: Mr. Schmidt showed professionalism and skill in his one-on-one with Trump. When I first learned of this, all I could think was, How did he manage this coup of sorts? The best method in revealing a person's mind-set is to do what this journalist did: Let the subject talk. Don't interfere. The inconsistencies, the self-defense, the boasting, the going back to the same issues, i.e., Russia-gate, reveals volumes of this man's psycho-social make-up.
I don't know if Mr. Schmidt is a parent. Or perhaps he remembers from his early childhood education that one of the best methods of communicating with a young one is to lower one's body to eye level. In Trump's case, the writer got a "twofer" - not only did he squat at one point, but he also had to look up toward T's face. No wonder the guy was actually civil for once!
5
While I wish Mr. Schmidt had pushed back just a bit on some of the things Trump said, I admire how he got the president to sit for an interview. And I continue to be baffled that this petulent, addled, narcissistic, know-nothing con-man is our president.
But what continues to baffle me more is, where are the Democratic voices pushing back? In the interview, Trump said one of the most illiberal, undemocratic, downright scary things a president can say, that he thinks that he should have complete control over the DOJ. Five minutes after the interview was published where were Schumer, Pelosi, anyone, howling back that no, Mr. President, that isn't how it works? Why didn't they school him, loud and long, from A-Z, on the responsibilities and limits of the presidency?
Why do Democrats continue to be so inept?
When 2018 and 2020 roll around they have to give us more to vote for than just that they aren't Trump.
7
It is hard to imagine some one as incoherent as Trump in control of the nuclear code. Pray for cool and composed senior advisors to say NO! If need be physically restrain POTUS.
2
Congrats on the interview. It was stunning to read how obsessed he was that there was "no collusion" with Russia during the election. Repeat it 15 times? You have to ask whether he thinks of Mueller and the investigation night and day?
Maybe there really was "no collusion", but it is worrisome if our President dwells so much on the past when there is so much now and in the future that we have to address. Or maybe something is there and if you can deny it enough, you can hope it will go away?
1
Our family supports the President and thought your interview was fine. Earlier I read the transcript & could tell you were listening &allowing him to speak. Anyone who is a good communicator should understand how to handle different people’s speaking styles. You did your job well, maybe you’ll get the next interview first lol! I enjoyed your listing of how he made news, most of it we’ve heard already, but with all the neg criticism out there, a lot of what’s been actually said, like about Mueller, is continually debated as if it’s not true! especially on MSNBC. Why should every report and interview be confrontational? Cable media has been discussing your interview for 48 hours now, as a means of adding to the usual trashing of the President. Rest assured you did a fine job! Best wishes for a Happy New Year!
4
You might want to look at the fact checks of this interview and read about how many lies Trump told. Why are you supporting this liar?
1
Kudos to Mr. Schmidt! He knows what "makes the President tick" and rose to the occasion! Good stuff! Congratulations!
3
I worked for a man who could ramble on and on without ever seeming to take a breath. It was difficult to get a word in, much less ask a question. I’m not sure that interrupting the Donald would have been productive. It wasn’t for me. Good job getting this unsupervised interview, Michael.
2
I'm sorry. Eventually a reporter is going to actually have to do his or her job and hold the president accountable by asking the hard questions. This "we thought it best to let the president speaks and let the readers make up their own mind" cop-out has to end.
7
Kudos - right place, right time, right amount of deference. Let him ramble and see what pops out. His flight of ideas are a glimpse into this thought processes and obsessions. He says the press are his enemies but we all know he adores the attention.
6
Without prodding Trump the slightest bit on his inconsistencies and lies, the interview just reads like a long series of Trump tweets instead of journalism.
It was exciting for Schmidt, though, that's evident from the interview and from this walkthrough.
8
I am baffled by the arrogance of the commenters who think interviewing a cognitive gadfly like Trump would lend itself to any kind of “hardline” journalistic technique. Michael Schmidt demonstrated exceptional skill not only in positioning himself at the right place at the right time but in assuming what was in fact a “submissive” posture by squatting at Trump’s tableside when he first engaged the president thus ensuring his preferred place of presumed dominance in the situation. He reminded the president of their past encounter which Trump remembered favorably thus establishing a comfort level and rapport based on previous acquaintanceship. Schmidt didn’t press, he played. I for one think he did a terrific job considering who he had to work with. Thank you, Michael, for your skill, your expertise and the insight you brought to us.
483
We are talking about lowering the bar even lower here. This kind of mentality is a real threat to the Constitution, to Free speech, to the norms of democratic society, dangerously slippery slope.
Beware!!!
1
We cannot know for sure that, upon reading this article (or having it read to him...), Trump will care either way, but Schmidt revealing his "expertise" and "excessive skill", i.e. to remain "submissive" by squatting down, was probably more self-serving in this article than ultimately helpful to himself and his fellow journalists going forward. He admitted to manipulating someone who quite delusional-ly fashions himself the greatest manipulator.
1
It takes zero skill to sit and take notes from a deranged idiot. No skill whatsoever.
1
Normally, talking to the US President would be a big deal. An honor of a lifetime.
Normally.
6
You did Times readers a disservice by filing another one of these interviews where Trump spouts gibberish and you transcribe it. As he was giving you word casserole about health insurance and associations, a simple follow up question would have focused the interview and caused him to clean up his language. That's what Lester Holt did. He wasn't confrontational at all. He mildly pressed for a clarification of Trump's vague answers, and ended up getting Trump to admit to firing Comey because of the Russian investigation.
Your failure to do even the mildest sort of framing is what people are criticizing. You tout three items as being newsworthy in this article, yet none of them are. We already knew he thought Roy Moore would lose. What harm would have come from asking Trump WHY he thought Roy Moore would lose?
Trump explicitly tweeted that he was going soft on China in order to get their help with North Korea back in APRIL. The fact that you think this is newsworthy as the year winds to a close shows you haven't been paying attention.
Your paper has also widely reported on Trump's legal strategy with Mueller: cooperate with him in public and play nice. Trump reiterated this during your interview. It is not news.
Do better.
3
Getting a half hour, one-on-one, interview with a President who openly criticizes your paper is a major coup for any reporter. Michael Schmidt’s cleverness, persistence and tact, combined with the President’s obsessive desire to be heard, enabled this to happen. Critics of this are merely expressing professional jealousy over a major accomplishment that they weren’t part of. The only risk here, in my view, is that the WH may now decide to increasingly limit Press access to POTUS as a result.
4
Agree with John M except that advice about a reporter allowing someone to chatter away disjointedly should not be generalized to include other interviewees. With Trump, you are likely to get (as Schmidt did) the type of blather that someday will contribute to his impeachment.
Having read the transcript of your conversation with the president, with all due respect, it was more of a monologue than an interview. A reporter's job is to challenge someone who is not telling the truth - or misleading his audience. We have Twitter for his ramblings, I expect more from the NYTimes.
5
You may have Twitter, but I don't. How do you know it's Trump?
1
Is "You're in charge of the DOJ" a question? This is an extremely suggestible individual so if the opportunity arises again, please don't lead him to believe he has powers that he really doesn't have. It gives him ideas.
It's always amusing to read the entire transcripts of the Times interviews with Trump. His weird repetitions, obsessive prattling and boasting. Thank you for printing them. A shame, though, that you didn't ask him about the huge tax break he'll be getting and how he squares that fact with the his tax bill fictions.
1
It was a good interview - you got real news out of Trump who is a master in getting free publicity. Ignore the haters.
6
Michael Schmidt was starting out in the Sports Dept. when I was finishing up. He has a knack for interviewing people -- and it is a thrill to see him react to this opportunity, particularly in a catcher's squat. Well done, man.
George
10
I find it particularly dispiriting that the mere opportunity to sit down and essentially perform the job of stenographer to President Trump made Mr. Schmidt so giddy.
He asserts "the president did make news." Evidently Mr. Schmidt deems news to be words said in a certain order that weren't explicitly uttered in exactly the same order before. Certainly nothing new in principle was said. Trump was playing "presidential" regarding Mr. Mueller because ALL his people had been engaged in a concerted shellacking of the independent prosecutor all week long. Saying he "knew" Moore would lose merely provides us with another example of Trump attempting to spin bad decisions. But to Mike Schmidt? Oh, that's news. Real news. Sad.
1
All Trump does is bluster and lie when he doesn't know something in an interview anyway. The benefit to this interview is seeing his completely delusional mindset. The fact that ANYONE supports someone this obviously mentally unstable can only mean bad things for the future of this nation.
5
The tragedy here is that Trump is still lying about things which, even we the public, know are truth. The further tragedy is that so many Republicans are lying on his behalf. We need to clean house in the name of our democratic republic. Tis man is a plain very ordinary criminal.
4
This is a really interesting account of how the interview was obtained. This scoop is very rare. The criticism is focused on anti Trump sentiments. That’s not only unfair but also does a disservice to the President and to the NYT readers. Let us make up our own mind. There’s reporting new, there’s making news, and there’s interpreting news. Each is different. Many Trump haters just want interpretations - negative ones. I think that reporting and potentially making news is much more important. I can interpret on my own. And interpretation can occur later. The opportunity to report and maybe make news trumps (pun) the desire to interpret. Let us make up our own minds. NYT readers are pretty sophisticated!!
2
Excellent job. You allowed him to perform a live "stream of consciousness" and it told the story of a man who is clearly thinking like a teenager. Had you interrupted, you would have risked your presence at the table. Good job. I would not have done different. Thank you.
4
Michael, Thanks for explaining your approach-- it's important context for readers. I know you to be a stellar reporter and am sorry that so many people gave you such a hard time. If only everyone understood just how difficult it is to try to ask questions of this president. It is far from a normal situation.
3
A journalist’s job is to collect and report information to the readers. You did that. Attacking the interviewee is not a requirement, so why are people so upset that you didn’t do that? The man said he hoped you would treat him fairly. That should be an automatic, no matter who is interviewed. It’s unfortunate that fair treatment is rarely the case.
1
It's not an attack to ask relevant questions.
3
I listened to part of an interview Prince Harry recently did with Barack Obama and it's painful to compare Obama's level of responses--showing thoughtful, knowledgeable concern for people and institutions, with these disjointed, narcissistic, ill-informed ramblings by Donald Trump. He is indeed his best spokesman, and it's enough to make many who listen to him grieve for our country.
12
Glad you got this interview. Sure, follow-up questions would be great but not at the expense of continuing the interview. Hard choice, made in real time. Next time he is in front of a gaggle of reporters he will get lots follow-up questions to the information you elicited.
3
While I think softsoaping an interview subject is not good journalism and would like to have seen a more interrogative approach here.
However I can see that in this particular situation - an interview by happenstance during Mr Trump’s leisure time and when he’s in a friendly environment with friends nearby (Trump likes his comfort zones) - was probably why he agreed to the informal interview and appeared more at ease in the transcripts.
He must also be a very tricky person to interview, with his rambling, inchoate style and sudden diversions onto new topics - with PR for Trump estates thrown in occasionally (“Both sides are equally bad - btw, I have a winery nearby!”). But I would love to see a more combative, questioning approach that points out contradictions viz. words vs actions - even though it would last mere seconds before he stormed out.
His streams-of-consciousness tend to generate news by themselves of the “What on Earth?!” variety regardless.
1
I've read a lot of the criticism of this reporter's interview. I suggest those who are complaining try to do an interview cold, in the middle of a loud club room (all those "inaudible" breaks in the transcript weren't caused by nothing), talking with a subject who hops from topic to topic and is ready to halt the interview at any moment. I applaud the moxie Michael Schmidt displayed in getting the interview. I can only imagine the reaction when he called New York to say he'd just spent a half-hour alone with Trump.
3
This rambling interview tells me one thing. Those closest to this man know full well that he is a man in decline. As the stress of Muller's investigation increases he will likely come apart. As a human being this is sad. As POTUS this is dangerous. It cannot end well. It can end as a disaster for us all.
8
When someone wants to dig a hole for themselves, all you need to do is hand them a shovel. There's proof plenty Trump's team colluded with Russia. Question is does Trump understand the concept of plausible deniability....I guess we'll find out.
4
Some of his statements were clearly over the top (“I know the details of taxes better than anybody. Better than the greatest C.P.A.") but when they are spoken by POTUS there should have been follow up.
1
You did right to let him prattle on. It's his own words that will ultimately scuttle him -- not Mueller, not "fake news," not Congress -- his own words reveal his absolute unfitness for the job.
Thank you for inching him one step closer to the ugly truth he will have to eventually meet up with.
Unless he wants to deny that it's HIS voice on YOUR tape recorder.
Andy Stein, a blast from the past. What's HE doing there? Looking for another Ann Coulter to date, or another Ponzi scheme to bamboozle suckers with? Interesting he's hanging around with a Newsmax guy at the table next to Trump, who no doubt inspires his hairstyle.
2
Nice work eliciting the babble and staying out of its way. This is history. Kids will read these quotes, or ones like them, in 50 years and wonder how we survived this.
5
Just as with the journalists at the White House briefings, they MUST call Trump or SHS on it when they say things that aren’t true. They get to be at these events, we do not—we NEED them to be our proxies, to represent us when they are there and we cannot. If they don’t, they not only fail to do the jobs we pay them to do, they become complicit in the telling of the lies that are hurting America.
3
What can we learn from someone who has only a casual relationship with the truth? Not much, unless the questioner is searing, not obsequious, as here.
So by handing their megaphone to this President, while genuflecting at their “exclusive,” Mr. Schmidt and the Times honor him, not them, or us.
1
I believe that this Trump unfiltered approach is incredibly important. I just think the fact check has to be inserted closer to the source material.
Congrats on grabbing the opportunity even your description of how this happened is informative.
3
Thank you Mike Schmidt for giving us a looK into the Pandora's box a/k/a Donald Trump's mind.
As most of us expected, it is a shallow, dark and mostly empty place except for piles of self-congratulatory tweets.
Ugh!
3
Mr Schmidt - On the off-chance that this happens again, can you write this on a card and keep it with you? "Mr President, how much will you personally, and the Trump Organization, benefit from the changes in real estate and other investments in the new tax law?" It would be nice if someone could ask him.
6
Trump certainly would not answer before first speaking with his attorney.
1
Interesting but makes me feel very afraid. The actual interview made some pretty delusional statements. After knowing that over 100 mental health professionals marched thru NY pushing for Trump to be removed makes me afraid for our country knowing a guy likes this, this unhinged is in charge.
2
Good job Michael.
Anything the press can do
to enlighten us is good work.
3
I find some of the actual questions offensive. For example,
SCHMIDT: You control the Justice Department. Should they reopen that email investigation?
SCHMIDT: He’s been very good to you.
These seem more like sycophantic prompts than questions. He does not control the Justice Department. Why does Schmidt have to insert his own opinion of Alan Dershowitz, which just happens to coincide with the president's opinion?
In contrast, this question is fine:
SCHMIDT: What are you willing to do on infrastructure? How far are you willing to go? How much money?
In other words, open ended is fine, but not parroting untrue things that the president believes just to keep him talking.
5
Many reader`s criticisms of the NYT's (and Michael Schmidt's) reporting reflect the fact that they want more of a debate with Trump as opposed to just reporting the president`s words. But a debate needs a willing opponent; someone prepared to listen and respond to opposing views. This president is rarely willing to debate.
So what should a journalist (and journalism) do in the meantime? How about reporting the facts? and the president's words? Particularly when given in such an unguarded and spontaneous fashion, I think they can give considerable insight into his thoughts, preoccupations and values.
2
Thank you.
It was a great interview.
I hate to say this but you played POTUS well.
It came as if the POTUS was on that proverbial couch seeking a treatment.
It was a total POTUS unplugged.
I have commented earlier that I wish the NYT would publish verbatim the interview - every word.
And if the guidelines allow - even put the audio out for us to hear the POTUS in an unscripted moment.
Talk about being at the right place at the right time.
2
And, it's timely appearance only a few weeks prior to the examination of the President's health just might be invaluable to us all.
1
A good interviewer lets the interviewee speak when there's no set topic. The interviewer can always double-back with a similar question if the original isn't answered. I believe an interviewer should only "hammer away" if the purpose of the interview is a single subject.
1
This explanation leaves me feeling sicker about the interview than the lack of one.
1
45's brain is so frighteningly vacuous! He really struggles to string his scattered Coolwhip thoughts together. What a pinball game. I was disappointed that his lies weren't challenged at all. True, Mr. Schmidt couldn't have prepared for this unexpectedly granted interview, but he should have pushed back on the most obvious whoppers. This is the second, recent NYT 45 interview where his false pronouncements and lies were accepted without question or request for further explanation or support. I've never seen any other American politician handled so delicately during interviews. Journalists shouldn't be afraid to rough him up and make him present his views with facts. They shouldn't be enablers.
2
agree. stress him and he will just shut you down, leave, and never talk with you again except to insult you via twitter. better to let him demonstrate just how ADD (and ADDled) he is, and how easily he makes ex-post-facto justifications for the stupid stuff he does.
3
In my opinion, this article is a well intentioned but off the mark discourse on what was an act of journalistic malpractice. As the Washington Post reported, over the course of this 30 minute interview, the President uttered a lie on 24 separate occasions. Not once did this reporter question or even remotely challenge a single one of these falsehoods.
This wasn’t an interview, this was a soliloquy. This type of “journalism” has helped to enable the national crisis of confidence we are now confronting. I always thought journalism was about speaking truth to power. I hope this newspaper sees fit to responsibly Interview this President at its earliest opportunity.
4
Thumbs up , Michael Schmidt! Thank you for making this happen! Your quick thinking , right there on the spot, showed us the scary truths. We see the President's own thoughts in his own words! After experts read this interview... Michael Beschloss, presidential historian, look so worried and we have never heard Ezra Klein sound so frightened !
3
What I want to know is: What did Maggie and Peter think about the interview?
While I applaud Mr. Schmidt and the Times for getting the interview I find this piece self serving and baffling. We do not need play by play or an explanation to justify the interview. Just report the news factually. How a reporter chooses to conduct an interview is between the reporter and editors. It seems as if covering the current WH resident makes the free press over analyze the way it covers POTUS.
1
We learned long ago that Trump cannot carry on a coherent conversation. We already know his thinking is disjointed and delusional. We already know that if he says anything regarding specific policy intentions the odds are better than 50-50 that either he or someone in his administration will soon say or do the precise opposite.
So explain to us again the benefit of not asking follow-up questions. It seems to boil down to "We don't want to make the toddler angry".
20
While I am an avid NYT reader and greatly appreciate most reporting of Michael Schmidt (and many of his colleagues), I take issue with the approach with POTUS that simply allows for a stream of consciousness, without challenging the falsehoods that he clearly verbalizes. In my opinion, it is the job of the free press to be the public's eyes, ears and VOICE, questioning authority and speaking truth to power. Enough with "letting Trump be Trump"!
29
After reading this, it is clear to me that if this man remains in office, our lives are in danger. I understand republicans owe their donors and how such an obligation might weigh on them more than quaint notions of fealty to country. It is also clear that power is the ultimate prize in the careers of some politicians.
But neither loyalty nor power counts for much from a wasteland or a grave.
44
As a former reporter, I understand not wanting to ask something that would make the president clam up or walk away. But a good journalist asks the hardest questions last so that if the interview subject gets mad, at least you have something.
In any case, the world is already privy to Trump's random thoughts, insults, and delusions via his Twitter account. The guy seriously won't shut up. So I would really (really!) like to have heard Trump pressed to explain in detail his vast knowledge of health care and the tax bill, or to defend his obvious lie that the ACA was "gutted."
As an aside, the transcript demonstrates again that Trump rarely makes sense--that is, he simply cannot think or speak coherently. I've maintained since the campaign that if news outlets had stopped massaging his blather into reasonable quotes and simply printed verbatim or aired ten minutes of any one speech, soliloquy, or press conference, some voters might have caught on much sooner to the fact that Donald Trump is either mentally disturbed, supremely unqualified, suffering from dementia--or all three.
190
During the primaries when Trump was getting wall to wall free coverage from cable TV and winning primaries, I finally forced myself to watch one of his rallies to see what all the fuss was about. I seriously could only stand ten minutes of it and figured out pretty quickly that he was an idiot narcissist. He blathered on about himself the whole time I watched. Never turned him on again. If his supporters couldn’t figure that out rally after rally, they will never get it. He has a steady 37% approval rating from them. Lost cause. Deplorables forever.
4
I believe it was Sports Illustrated that interviewed Trump on the golf course specifically about golf. I learned that Trump is, by far, the best golfing President ever. I believe his handicap is around 12. His scores are hard to know because he takes his share of mulligans. Few, if any, have seen him play a clean round. Nonetheless, he takes his golf seriously and is in awe of PGA players he has played with, including Tiger Woods. He is generally a good partner and is respectful of the game.
Myself, I found the information about his golfing demeanor to be more revealing than a political interview that happened to be at a golf course.
1
You believe his handicap is around 12, but his scores are "hard to know". Good grief, call it what it is. He cheats.
7
Mulligans in friendly golf are not considered cheating. I suspect you have never played golf, but have an opinion on the subject nonetheless.
I don’t think they’ll name a tree for him at Augusta, as they did for Eisenhower. If they had to walk the course, Eisenhower would have thrashed an out of breath, out of shape, yuge, Trumpster fire.
2
This is so interesting. Thank you for sharing background on how reporting sometimes happens. It's a learning curve with each new president, I would imagine. Keep going. Keep learning. Keep us informed.
19
Schmidt, you did the right and you did it well. I haven't seen a link to the entire transcript, but heard enough passages read to recognize a mind not suitable for the nuclear football.
I have seen enough press scrums, which also can't go into depth. I doubt Trump even recognized how unusual the setup was.
Ignore the envious other and thank you for using my subscription cost well.
4
I have had my own professional conduct commented upon by "civilians" and found it unfair, so I have some sympathy. But at the same time I just don't understand how many of the assertions he advanced went unchallenged. It's honestly mind boggling.
2
Mike did just the right thing in this situation. Follow up questions would have shut things down. There is a place for such. At press conferences, when Trump lies blatantly and objectively, such as repeating his number of bills signed lie, he has to be called on it, and then grilled about the provenance of his information. He won't be able to adequately answer the "who told you that" follow up, but that's the point--to show that he can't answer, because he's lying.
4
Trump held one press conference this year. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/22/trump-held-only-...
1
Congratulations to you Mr. Schmidt. Your strategy of asking one question and allowing the president to speak worked well. By using this strategy, we can see more clearly how the president thinks and how his mind works. Well done!
3
Appreciate the explanation. While I understand your approach in theory, and agree that cross-examination would not have been effective here, a few incredulous interjections might have been warranted.
2
Interesting insight into the president's new clothes. Good uptake by Mr. Schmidt, even if the result is decidedly alarming.
3
After reading the transcript excerpts, I thought Mr. Schmidt was too passive an interviewer. That doesn't mean he should have been hostile and aggressive. But there's a way to politely point out that Trump is lying or incorrect about something, or to ask him to explain one of his nonsensical utterances. Trump gets enough opportunities to ramble incoherently. Part of the media's job is to challenge and scrutinize a leader's statements. And part of being a leader is job -- perhaps a part we've taken for granted until this presidency -- is telling the truth, dealing in fact, and testing ideas before acting upon them. If Trump is revealed to be ignorant or a liar, or so fragile that he can't handle questions and cuts short an interview, that's newsworthy.
But Mr. Schmidt's interviewing style was the least of the problems with this interview and the resulting stories. The article itself was more or less a transcript, without any context or explanation of what Trump said that was true or reasonable, and what was false or nonsense. And if you're not going to provide that in the main article itself, at least do it in a separate sidebar or "analysis". (The absence of such analysis here was even less forgivable, because this was an exclusive.) Finally, roughly 24 hours later, another article pointed out 10 Trump falsehoods in the interview. Too late. Trump got to put out his misguided version of the truth, unchallenged in the Times, for an entire day.
4
Great job, Michael.. Persistence wins every time.
3
Thanks for letting us in on the way in which you approached the interview, and how you conducted it. It is not often that we get to see this.
In addition, I think that criticisms of your decisions to let him talk are like bar room talk about how the barstool occupants would make better coaches at football games than the coaches on the field.
6
I disagree with Pierce Randall about the merits of the middle ground approach, that he describes. Nobody can expect that an interview with Trump is going to yield insightful responses that shed light on his plans or on the reasoning behind his decisions/plans. So what is the point of an interview and what can it tell us? Follow up questions would have provided Trump with a structure; Something most people being interviewed, and especially previous presidents, are able to impose on their own verbalizations. By Schmidt not interjecting, we can see that Trump is unable to structure his responses. At times his inability to focus and structure a response results in an incomprehensible answer. That provides readers with information about his cognitive functioning. It shows clearly that he is impaired.
3
Any insight into the president's state of mind is valuable, and I applaud Mike Schmidt for his entrepreneurial zeal and creativity. Erudite conversation isn't Trump's style, so forcing him into a detailed policy discussion would have alienated him and likely resulted in Schmidt's exile to his host's table. It's clear that when engaging the president 1:1, Trump has to feel he's the dominant voice (and mind, alas) in the exchange or you're going to get waved off.
3
Congratulations on this piece! Beautifully told. You really provided a fair portrait of our president & made clear that it's critical to let Trump's words & actions speak for themselves. You really made the most of a tremendous impromptu experience.
4
I think the interview style made sense for the occasion. In an ideal world we would be able to have more interactive interviews with the President, but Trump would probably shut it down at the first challenge. His ramblings give a pretty full picture of where his mind is at, and it’s just as shallow as we have seen all along. I don’t see how a more challenging interview would do any more than reveal another tantrum.
3
Excellent practice to allow us to see Trump’s speech in print. Little doubt remains that he is suffering from a cognitive issue and his condition leaves the country at risk. I sincerely hope that he will be relieved of his duties before he causes some kind of disaster and that the country can restore itself from the damage he has caused. Let hope we can survive President Pence as well
14
I agree with John M., and would expand his comment to include the fact that when you try to have a coherent conversation with a person whose mind skips around like the president's, interrupting them generally only leads to more tangents. Someone who can't answer a direct question directly (not won't, but can't) is not going to be able to keep track of follow-up questions.
I think Michael Schmidt acted wisely (and based on his previous experience) in choosing a few questions to ask, then letting Mr. Trump say, in turn, what he chose. In a way it was like Twitter suddenly had no character limit and Mr. Trump could speak unfettered for as long as he wanted.
I think it's interesting to get the meta-story; the story behind the story. People don't need to read it if they don't want to. I'm a subscriber and I'm glad The Times began its Insider section.
17
The issue wasn't that Schmidt didn't conduct a better interview; the issue is that in the write-up, he let all of Trump's statements, blusters, and untruths go effectively unchallenged. If he could not have asked follow-up questions, then he should have added his own factual annotation immediately alongside the President's responses.
2
But if the words themselves speak volumes, why follow up or explain the delusions away? This was an impromptu interview. His Majesty rarely grants interviews. This was a so-called lucky break, for all of us to get an inkling into what's going on in the head of the madman. This is the reality of the times! Not sure its worth ensuring that Mr. Schmidt never gets an interview again having explained all the lies and fantasies to readers who at this point know them all by heart anyway.
2
"I believed it was more important to continue to allow the president to speak and let people make their own judgments about his statements." Right you were. Ever so often this is the best way to unveil someones character. Especially in the case of Mr. T.
29
I am confused by all the criticism of this interview. There does need to be some sense that Trump is off his rocker and this interview shows it. I agree that letting him speak was a good thing to do.
8
These spontaneous interviews with this very "challenged" individual is revealing, not of the policies or ideas he chatters on about, which are fleeting as we all have come to learn, but "HOW" he expresses himself. With years of experience behind me in teaching learning challenged youngsters, I would conclude he definitely fits that category. Plus there is a strong overlay of ADS. At his age, this cannot be corrected. It amazes me, every time I hear him speak, that he managed to rise to the level of president of anything, especially of a nation. What in the world were the voters thinking when they were voting? Or perhaps they put their logic on "hold" when they made their choice. Do hope, now that so much has been revealed, by these interviews and other weird pronouncements, that many who chose him are suffering from voter regret and will make wiser more thoughtful choices in 2018 and 2020. If not, our nation and the world will be in BAD, SAD, HUGE trouble for years to come.
5
"What in the world were the voters thinking when they were voting?" Well, I was thinking that I had been cheated by the Democratic Party. I still strongly resent having been put in the position of being forced to vote for either the spouse of a former President, or a reality show host who I believed was a bigot and who I knew had no respect for his family.
There's poorly conceived glee in Mr. Schmidt's story. He was lucky enough, he said, to not get ousted when trying to interview Trump and that was accomplished by not asking vital questions while enduring the pain of a catcher's crouch. The reporter was a recording and nothing more. Best to go back to third base, Mike, a position without pain.
2
Just to be clear, the interviewer approached Trump in a crouched position while he requested an interview. The interview, "granted" may be too formal a word but will have to do, the two sat at a table for the interview itself.
1
While I understand your approach, I think the media - and especially nyt - vastly overestimates the amount of information that the general public knows and holds in their minds. To make appropriate and accurate judgements, it’s vital to have as much information as possible. Letting Trump talk has its upside, but I disagree with just letting people make their own judgements without providing them as much pertinent information as possible in the same place. We need to stop assuming everyone remembers everything relevant. It’s not unfair to Trump to present what his says with facts and additional insight to fill in context for the reader. In fact, I would say it is unfair to your readers and the public to not add important context given the rarity with which this type of event occurs. Without knowledge of relevant information surrounding the issues discussed, readers can and will make judgements that you, and many othere nyt employees, know are incorrect. Only harm comes from that happening and journalists have a duty to prevent that harm when they can.
2
The president does what he does; however his lack of insight in to himself is a lens for us to learn about ourselves. How do we get to the place where a president says he has absolute rights and that 16 times he didn’t do this or that? He doth protest too much. And also he can’t see himself and so he asks us to make his image in our infatuation with his vacancy. I am tired of doing that.
2
The President seems to be echoing strains of his counsel’s previous advice that a President can’t obstruct Justice. Therefore as long as there is no Russian collusion (a claim he repeated fifteen times) there’s by implication no other potential charges to worry about. That he has absolute right to do as he pleases with the DOJ.
1
As a reporter, you just got the experience of a lifetime. Don’t listen to what others say, I think the on your feet hustle you showed to get a one on one interview with a sitting President is something you’ll reflect on, and a story you’ll share, all of your life. Enjoy it and congrats!
7
I think Mr. Schmidt handled this "interview" very well. Asking Trump follow up questions or challenging his statements would not only confuse him, but most likely make him combative.
Better to let him "vent" and afterwards analyze his "rant".
When you read the transcript, it appears that Trump thought he was with his psychologist rather than a reporter for the Times.
One thing is for sure. Trump is totally ignorant of the Constitution and the checks on his power that reside within It.
At the least, he needs to take a course in civics, similar to the course that immigrants must take who are seeking to become US citizens.
6
While getting this "scoop" is a feather in your cap, I and fellow Americans/voters wish you took a harder more aggressive stance on questioning at least some of Donald Trumps fabrications. Maybe the possibility of Donald walking out of interview if he felt he was getting cornered tempered your gameplan. I wasn't there if that was the vibe, but without any pressure, the "scoop" has less impact. If our President walked out and didn't finish , that folks would be more of a story more then article I just read.
5
This context would have helped readers make better sense of the article with edited excerpts from the interview. But even without context, what would have reassured readers that you weren't being played or biased in Trump's favor would have been straightforward or neutral questions that stuck to facts, rather than interjections like claiming the President has control of Justice, or leading questions, responses or statements that flavored or spun the interview's direction, like, "You would have run completely differently" or "Believe me. This is..." or "A very short period of time" or "He’s been very good to you", all of which read as kiss-ups, rather than neutral engagements.
2
Question: How did the reporter respond when Trump asked him to treat him fairly? A response was left out of this narrative.
1
As a reporter, I can understand how and why this "interview" came out the way it did. Out of the blue, one of the most difficult people to get to talk to is sitting a few feet away and, on the spur of the moment, agrees to talk with a guy who happens to be a reporter for the New York Times -- on the record, on tape (or, rather, probably recorded on his telephone).
The room is noisy, there are plenty of distractions with people walking by, there are no ground rules -- Trump could get bored or annoyed at any moment and get up and walk away -- and so Schmidt could only do what he did: keep the guy talking and try to cover several key topics without scaring the guy away.
And just let the President speak for himself. And speak. And speak.
What resulted was unfiltered and revealing and spontaneous. It was one kind of "interview." Not the kind that would have taken place in a formal setting, with formal ground rules, but one that revealed just as much in its own way.
12
I think everyone is focusing on the wrong thing: the way one interview was handled. The issue isn't journalism methods, it is that our president has the mind of a child, a not very bright child at that, and should not be allowed to continue as president. That leads to the huge issue of what should be done about this. In one way this is the worst crisis the US has ever faced.
5
Asking follow-up questions is hard - you need to balance tact, which means being verbal enough to ask a question without the insult implied, as well as deep knowledge of issues, in other words, being more of a policy wonk than anyone in the room.
I think this is the kind of journalism we need, and we can get it every day on BBC in their Hardtalk series or The World.
Sorry, I have no respect for one more reporter who choose not to ask for any depth to their discussion. NPR is totally useless, in terms of asking hard, detailed questions. Must the NYT follow suit? I guess the answer is yes. If I was Schmidt, I would be embarassed by what a handmaiden he was in this interview.
95
A journalist questioning this kind of interviewee walks a fine line. First, it was not a scheduled Q&A so Schmidt had to make sure Trump didn’t feel threatened or blindsidechis own worst enemy when he talks, so simply allowing him some free rein is often enough to confirm what most of us already know about the man — he dissembles, he lies, he’s clueless about his own motivations and what motivates others. Just allowing him the opportunity to speak is confirmation of how dangerous to the health of our democracy he is.
2
Agree 100%. This is an arrogant response to reasonable criticism
Better nothing? You kidding, right?
1
Although nothing of this is at all unpredictable, it continues to amaze that a guy who talks and acts like this got to be president. All those bankruptcies. All that lying and cheating and taking advantage.
How can people stand him? It continues to baffle me that this unbearable smug nasty blowhard fools anyone.
616
@Susan Anderson
People don't like liars and cheaters who push for things they themselves oppose, but those same people are happy to turn the other way when a liar and cheater will do their bidding: it's called opportunism, and it is rampant.
So much of the criticism of Trump concerns his hair, his bombast, "interpretations" of his intentions based more on how a person feels about him in the first place. For a guy with the entire MSM intent on tripping him up, he is getting a lot more done than he should.
There is much talk from the Left about "how the US appears to the rest of the world, thanks to Trump". Do we really believe that the people of any other nation lie awake at night worrying how they are perceived, thanks to their leaders? My guess: they are largely self-interested, and Trump merely holds a mirror up to our motivations, in a crude and off-putting way.
I would greatly value, as an Obama voter, those registered Democrat friends of mine to start doing real expository work on Trump policy: drop the Russia collusion trail which will lead nowhere, stop obsessing on each tweet and what it means after saying the POTUS is dumb anyway, and present your vision for the future. I am politically unaffiliated, so I rely on the two parties to run candidates that are serious. It got so bad last year I voted for Gary Johnson.
Hint: I don't think the country is ready for an Atheist/Socialist in 2020, but run one for POTUS and we can find out if we need to wait until 2024.
2
That's the power of television married to propaganda techniques. Some people confuse Reality TV with reality...and this includes television executives.
2
Susan, I assume you were not amazed that a Community Organizer got to be our President. The difference Susan is this President actually worked prior to his election and he did one heck of a job at that. Susan, can we please get past the left's anger and accept that this is our President? I did not vote for Obama but I respected the fact that he was our President. By the way, start counting accomplishments that both men have had in their office. I believe you will see President Trump has done more for this Country in one year then Obama did in eight.
2
When you’ve got someone chattering away disjointedly, it’s a good idea to let them talk. Asking pointed follow-up questions would only have turned Trump hostile. As one can see from the transcript, Mr Trump can’t carry on a coherent conversation.
836
But he chatters away disjointedly all the time, that's not news; he needs to be questioned pointedly, he needs to be held accountable for sweeping and unfounded assertions, and if that means he's hostile so be it. Reporters are there to ask the questions the public needs answered, because we can't be there to ask the questions ourselves. I'm sick of interviewers letting him run on with his nonsense and never bringing the conversation back to shared, verifiable, actual reality.
4
I agree with John M - 100%!
3
Disagree. "Chattering away disjointedly" is what he does on Twitter every day. What you have is an opportunity to probe those disjointed thoughts, treat POTUS like an adult, and see if he can speak coherently when asked to. The priority for this reporter is made clear by the kicker to this piece: to tell his editors he "had just spent half an hour alone with the president." The goal was to suck up, and he succeeded.
4