I urge everyone to take the time to read the entire transcript of Donald Trump\u2019s Nov. 23, 2016 on-the-record interview with the New York Times<\/a>. It will make you cringe, grimace and maybe even cry. Some of it has already been quoted many times: We\u2019ve seen excerpts about his not wanting to \u201churt\u201d the Clintons, about not seeing The Wall as a top priority, and especially that cringe-inducing, Nixonian assertion that \u201cthe law is on my side, the President cannot have a conflict of interest.\u201d Understandably, the mainstream media have focused on statements pertaining to policy [a term that, when applied to Trump, is very generous].<\/p>\n But there is a lot more in the transcript that is not getting the attention it deserves. It\u2019s not as quote-worthy\u2014because it\u2019s not succinct or pithy, or headline-ready. But it\u2019s important to read it, because the parts of the interview that are not being highlighted offer significant insight into Trump\u2019s thinking [again, using that term loosely] and his way of communicating.\u00a0 And it\u2019s not pretty.<\/p>\n My tenth-grade English Composition teacher always said that \u201cwriting is thinking.\u201d A corollary to that truism is that speaking is also reflective of one\u2019s thought process. If that\u2019s the case with Trump, we are in serious trouble.<\/p>\n The New York Times transcript offers a look inside Trump\u2019s brain, via his answers to the questions posed by reporters and editors. This is Trump completely unscripted: not reading from a teleprompter; not campaigning at a rally; not being coached by his handlers [although Kelly Anne Conway and Reince Preibus were sitting next to him]; not Tweeting at 5 am; not calling in to Hannity or Scarborough. This is Trump at the New York Times\u2014a newspaper that he has railed against, but also a media power that he wants to convert to his side. This is Trump attempting to say the things that he thinks a President should be saying to make the New York Times love him.<\/p>\n When you read it, you see that he is doing what he always does: spitballing, winging it, rambling to fill the silence, changing the subject when he doesn\u2019t know what he\u2019s talking about, bragging, exaggerating, talking about all of the people who love him, making shit up on the fly, and\u2014above all\u2014trying to say something that will impress the New York Times. And rambling\u2014lots of incoherent, inarticulate rambling. Imagine this loose-lipped man, who has clearly not thought through any of the issues–except the ones that affect his bottom line–in private talks with world leaders who actually know stuff.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s an example that we probably won\u2019t see quoted on mainstream media, or anywhere else, for that matter. This statement came in response to a question about Trump\u2019s recent meeting with Nigel Farage. The Times reporter wanted to know if Trump had sought help in preventing the development of a wind farm near his golf course in Scotland: [This is the formatting as published by the New York Times.]<\/em><\/p>\n TRUMP: Oh, I see. I might have brought it up. But not having to do with me, just I mean, the wind is a very deceiving thing. First of all, we don\u2019t make the windmills in the United States. They\u2019re made in Germany and Japan. They\u2019re made out of massive amounts of steel, which goes into the atmosphere, whether it\u2019s in our country or not, it goes into the atmosphere. The windmills kill birds and the windmills need massive subsidies. In other words, we\u2019re subsidizing wind mills all over this country. I mean, for the most part they don\u2019t work. I don\u2019t think they work at all without subsidy, and that bothers me, and they kill all the birds. You go to a windmill, you know in California they have the, what is it? The golden eagle? And they\u2019re like, if you shoot a golden eagle, they go to jail for five years and yet they kill them by, they actually have to get permits that they\u2019re only allowed to kill 30 or something in one year. The windmills are devastating to the bird population, O.K. With that being said, there\u2019s a place for them. But they do need subsidy. So, if I talk negatively. I\u2019ve been saying the same thing for years about you know, the wind industry. I wouldn\u2019t want to subsidize it. Some environmentalists agree with me very much because of all of the things I just said, including the birds, and some don\u2019t. But it\u2019s hard to explain. I don\u2019t care about anything having to do with anything having to do with anything other than the country.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n If you were standing on 5th<\/sup> Avenue in New York, and some guy came up to you and said what Trump said about windmills and birds, you\u2019d probably walk away as quickly as possible. And if you were a mental-health professional, and a guy came into your office rambling like that, might you possibly put a note in his chart about incoherent thinking, and maybe wonder if he needed medication or hospitalization?<\/p>\n Here\u2019s another excerpt.This one is in response to a question about mixing his personal business with his role as President, and whether business partners in other countries will try to curry favor with Trump. Part of this has already made the news cycle–the part about “the law is on my side.” But here’s the rest of it. [Buckle up.]<\/p>\n TRUMP: O.K. First of all, on countries. I think that countries will not do that to us. I don\u2019t think if they\u2019re run by a person that understands leadership and negotiation they\u2019re in no position to do that to us, no matter what I do. They\u2019re in no position to do that to us, and that won\u2019t happen, but I\u2019m going to take a look at it. A very serious look. I want to also see how much this is costing, you know, what\u2019s the cost to it, and I\u2019ll be talking to you folks in the not-too-distant future about it, having to do with what just took place.<\/p>\n As far as the, you know, potential conflict of interests, though, I mean I know that from the standpoint, the law is totally on my side, meaning, the president can\u2019t have a conflict of interest. That\u2019s been reported very widely. Despite that, I don\u2019t want there to be a conflict of interest anyway. And the laws, the president can\u2019t. And I understand why the president can\u2019t have a conflict of interest now because everything a president does in some ways is like a conflict of interest, but I have, I\u2019ve built a very great company and it\u2019s a big company and it\u2019s all over the world. People are starting to see, when they look at all these different jobs, like in India and other things, number one, a job like that builds great relationships with the people of India, so it\u2019s all good. But I have to say, the partners come in, they\u2019re very, very successful people. They come in, they\u2019d say, they said, \u2018Would it be possible to have a picture?\u2019 Actually, my children are working on that job. So I can say to them, Arthur, \u2018I don\u2019t want to have a picture,\u2019 or, I can take a picture. I mean, I think it\u2019s wonderful to take a picture. I\u2019m fine with a picture. But if it were up to some people, I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again. That would be like you never seeing your son again. That wouldn\u2019t be good. That wouldn\u2019t be good. But I\u2019d never, ever see my daughter Ivanka.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n There\u2019s more. Much more. To me, a lot of it sounds like Trump is desperately babbling in an effort to find something\u2014anything\u2014that will sound presidential, will make him sound reasonable to the New York Times, and give them an answer that they want to hear.<\/p>\n Read it for yourself. This is the unfocused, inarticulate, inchoate thinking of the person who is about to be our 45th<\/sup> President. Shockingly, after the interview, after hearing Trump’s tsunami of bullshit, the Times editorial board praised Trump for being “flexible” on certain issues.<\/p>\n I\u2019m not a person who prays, but if you are, please do what you can.<\/p>\n [UPDATE: Read additional excerpts here<\/a>, with my commentary.]<\/em><\/p>\n