Question: Sir, about letting bygones be bygones, did you mean it?
The President-Elect: Yeah, I mean it. I’ve already decided not to follow up on some legal actions that were mentioned during the campaign. Really not worth it. Worth it, for sure, legally. But we have to move. We have to move on. I don’t want distractions. Got enough anyway.
Question: Does this apply to undocumented immigrants?
The President-Elect: When you say undocumented immigrants, you are insulting immigrants. You are either an immigrant, soon-to-be American, or you are a cross-border ruffian with contempt for America and real Americans — by which I mean everybody here, and throughout the land, who works and follows the rules. Let’s clear this up right away, okay? You’re an immigrant, you in the first row. And you, in the third row. And me, and my wife, and all of us. We are a nation of immigrants, no finer cliché about this great land. And we shall keep it this way.
But our borders will be secure.
And the law will be enforced. That is, you make people respect it.
Now about these illegals. We’re going to go after them. We’re going to give them one chance — one. Turn yourself in, get a parole. You are paroled to go home, you can apply to come back, stand in line. We’re not wasting money keeping you in jail, detention center, what-all. We’re not going to mess with records, who was here when. No, you leave peacefully, you can come back peacefully. Legally.
You don’t use that one chance — details to follow soon, confer with some of my aides, including Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Sheriff David Clarke, both of whom are in town, we’re talking, along with Mayor Giuliani and Senator Sessions and some others that are gonna be part of top-of-the-class security team we’re putting together — one chance, folks, and then we’ll have a system to come for you. No violence, not on our side. Just a peaceful, legal arrest and deportation. No appeal. Habeas corpus applies to citizens, not to alien criminals. Rules are rules, promises are promises, and American security and legality first, second, and last.
Now, speaking of security, foreign. International. We’re gonna turn the U.N. into condos. Turtle Bay, great real estate. The U.N., if it is not the nest of hypocrites we always suspected, should go where the action is, such as Calcutta, or Nairobi, or Kinshasa.
Okay, just kidding. But you get my point; we get a serious forum for negotiating real deals in international relations, or we find another system. We’ve had great ambassadors to that place — Moynihan, Bolton, Kirkpatrick are their names. I don’t know if the lessons they offered ever took. We can try again. Got some great people on my list for the next envoy. It’s a tough job, but somebody’s got to do it — and he or she’s got to be good, so we can say we gave it one more try. If it doesn’t take, then goodbye, United Nations. Go to Mauritius. The Seychelles. New York is a great city, and we don’t need you. One more chance.
International security. Tell you something: I understand the term, but frankly I’m tired of it. American security, much better way of describing what the aim of our foreign policy should be. A lot of nonsense was said about me during the campaign because nobody listened to what I said. David, I see you there in the first row, you know what I mean, you said it just the other day, called me a no-goodnik or whatever, said I’d be impeached inside a year.
What kind of word boy are you, David? Is that credible? Aren’t you supposed to speak from evidence? From thoughtfulness? Who gave you the right to be an oracle? You are a journalist — or you say you are. You report, factual. You and some of your friends say I don’t know zilch about foreign affairs. You think because you think you do, I must be a zero, a nothing.
Are you so sure?
I am a businessman, a New Yorker, an American, David. What makes you think I am not open minded, fair-minded, honest-minded? Why the nasty, bigoted prejudice? Is it due to my outer-borough background? Do you think I am tacky, rude, coarse? And what makes you think this? Your Chicago degree? Your sinecure at the NPR? — supported by taxpayers and charity, not the free market, I might note. Your friends in Georgetown, where Washington’s smart set still live? After giving us what?
My friends, I see no need to waste time on this kind of pettiness. As a news consumer, I will offer the opinion that the recent presidential campaign was not the finest advert in living memory for the glories of American journalism. Fair and accurate, just the facts, read it here first — I’m not sure the media today understand those old tried and true values of journalism. It’s not my job, you can say what you want. It’s not my business, but in the interest of your own industry, and its importance to American democracy, I’d recommend, in all modesty, some serious soul searching.
Now as to the industry I am in now, this government industry. A lot of people think the best plan is to reduce the population of Washington, D.C. But to do that, we have to work with what we find. Sometimes we have to put people in jobs in order to find a way to cut the job. For example, you find that your job is really just replicating, or even working against, another job. So this tells you something is wrong. So either you fold them into one job, or you end them both. But to do that, you gotta know. So for now, we’re filling the jobs that come with the Office of the President. Cabinet members. Sub-cabinet members. Agency heads. Okay, then we can see. In the meantime, we want good people top fill these jobs and we want them ready to work for a dollar a year.
That’s it for now. I’ll take a few questions, appreciate you keep ’em short.
Question: Mr. President-Elect, what are you going to say to your supporters whom you encouraged to join you in saying, “Lock her up!”
The President-Elect: You want to know? I’m saying to them: Yes, she might well deserve it. After due process and all. No question. Why, look at what happened to David Petraeus. Look at that general who recently was convicted, ex-chief of staff and all. Breaching security is a serious offense.
But I am also going to say: the damage is done. We were right to call attention to it, and to the reckless, lawless, arrogant, feckless, attitude so many in Washington have taken for granted is their privilege, their entitlement. It is not. They work for the American people — not the other way around.
We will have an investigation. We need to know, plug all possible holes for the future. Whether there will be indictments, not for me to say now. If there are, will I recommend pardons, within the limitations and prerogatives of my office and the full independence of the judiciary powers, yes — big if, as you see, but yes. We do not need to drag this out now. We have to work to do.
I will say this. In the course of these reviews, I want to recommend, again within all the reservations required by the autonomy of the responsible authorities, full and complete pardons for such military men who erred with regard to the handling of classified information.
If I am going to recommend turn the page for a high official who should have known better, with entire communications systems compromised, I certainly would find it hard to rest at night if I did not recommend the review of cases of generals who, after all, did far less. Or you take that pathetic soldier who does not know who he is — it was a crime, where the generals, who certainly should have known better, made mistakes. But he is a pathetico, as my friend R. Emmett Tyrrell would say. We do not have to keep him in jail for the rest of his life, or her life, if we are going to be turning pages, and we have work to do and do not need to fret over spilt milk. We are not into revenge.
That’s it, ladies and gentlemen. Until next time, goodbye.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.