Trump SLAPS DOWN New York Times report on his Mexico deal

El Presidente Trumpo was not pleased with a report from the New York Times last night that the U.S. did not actually get any concessions from Mexico and that most of the items they agreed upon where things that Mexico had already agreed to.

He anger-tweeted about it and rejected the story:



Here’s what the NYT said, from the Hill:

President Trump’s deal with Mexico on Friday to drop plans to impose sweeping tariffs on the country in exchange for Mexico’s promise to crack down on illegal migration is reportedly made up largely of actions that Mexican officials had already agreed to in discussions over the past several months, The New York Times reported Saturday.

According to the Times, officials from both countries said Mexico’s agreement on Friday to deploy its national guard throughout Mexico, “giving priority to its southern border,” had already been promised in March during secret discussions with then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Olga Sanchez, the Mexican secretary of the interior, in Miami.

Officials told the Times that the central part of Friday’s deal, which expanded the program permitting asylum-seekers to remain in Mexico while their claims are processed, was also agreed upon before Friday’s announcement. The Times noted that the Migrant Protection Protocols were announced in December by Nielsen during a House Judiciary Committee hearing.

And, interestingly, a Mexican official was very reticent to admit that one thing the president touted wasn’t quite true:

Interesting. We’ll have to see what comes of the new deal. I saw a report that Mexicans were celebrating this morning, but we should expect that of the government officials…

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

31
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
16 Comment threads
15 Thread replies
16 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
newest oldest most voted
Alabamamom
Member
Active Member
Alabamamom
Proud Nana
Member
Noble Member
Proud Nana

AvatarAlabamamom Great article, thanks for posting !
Good Trump clapping

toon
Member
Trusted Member
toon

It would be a travesty to the American Left if Trump did something America benefits from and the media couldn’t spin as a negative or a lie.

Proud Nana
Member
Noble Member
Proud Nana

toontoon Amen !

Charli
Member
Noble Member
Charli

The Mexican government would have to destroy the drug cartels to make good on their agreement with Trump, so the tariffs are bound to go into effect down the road. Aren’t we all sick of the games? I blame all of this on the House and Senate….all the do nothing politicians who refuse to do their jobs for the American people and act as though they represent the illegals invading America. VOTE ‘EM ALL OUT!!!

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

The NYT has discoved the fact that (*gasp!*) advance negotiators are used. What children they are.

That was standard practice long before John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin went to Europe seeking deals for the Revolution.

You don’t just throw two heads of state together to hash out deals from scratch. By the time the Principals make contact, most terms have been established. Sometimes it takes a strong Executive to close the deal. So what? Anyone with a quorum of neurons that connect can understand this.

Don Sutherland
Member
Active Member
Don Sutherland

Many of the parameters were agreed months ago, well before Trump made his tariff threat, which has likely hurt bilateral relations. That existing agreements were repackaged into a broader agreement is not necessarily a bad thing. The overall agreement is reasonable.

There are two issues, though, that deserve mention. First, the idea that terms were negotiated only because of the Trump tariff threat is incorrect. The evidence shows otherwise. Second, a number of exaggerated claims about the agreement have been made e.g., assertions about new and large agriculture purchases, that were not set forth in the document provided by the U.S. Department of State or reported by Mexico.

Overall, it’s a reasonable and incremental agreement. Some changes were made e.g., increased national guard deployment. The focus should be on what it is, not what it’s not.

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

You have no actual way of knowing what public rhetoric from Trump was needed by Obrador in order to sell this deal on his side. It’s highly likely that it took a tariff threat to move his more powerful opposition (and the media) to back his play here.

That would be the case regardless of when terms were negotiated.

Don Sutherland
Member
Active Member
Don Sutherland

We disagree. IMO, the hypothesis that the tariff threat hurt more than it helped is the stronger one for a number of reasons. First, most of the terms had previously been agreed before the threat was ever made. Second, some implementation problems existed, but both parties had a stake in the initial agreements and mutual interest is a powerful driver in leading parties to fix things that they adopted but aren’t working. Third, coercion undermines confidence, especially among allies and shows disrespect to friends. Fourth, given the visible nature of his threat, the President had to show a big achievement for that threat. That led him to overstate what had happened–essentially implying that nothing had existed before the agreement. On a separate matter, had he declared that the U.S. and Mexico had reaffirmed existing agreements and understandings, added to several provisions e.g., increased National Guard manpower in Mexico, and would… Read more »

K-Bob
Editor
Noble Member
K-Bob

AvatarDon Sutherland Your first reason doesn’t make a difference to the argument. I already showed that prelim negotiations are SOP.

Your second is a given, but ignores politics.

Your third is backwards: a tariff threat is one nation treating another as an equal adversary. It’s psychologically better than simply strong-arming them under the table in hopes they will comply like a good, puppet regime.

Your fourth is mere, NYT-esque, assumptions-based slander.

I already pointed out that securing useful things like allowing our special operators to work in Mexico (helping fight the cartels) was something easier to gain when tariffs are on the table.

Thor77
Member
Trusted Member
Thor77

Irrespective of when it happened, Trumpf should get the benefit of it. Is he trying to make a bigger deal of his tariffs… hell yeah. But it still doesn’t take away from Mexico agreeing to take care of a few things. I still think the tariffs are BS. But he deserts little credit if this ACTUALLY works in our favor. We should know in a few months.

DemocratsRFubar
Member
Noble Member
DemocratsRFubar

No matter what the President does, they will cry foul. Sick of the democrats.

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

“I saw a report that Mexicans were celebrating this morning…”

Imagine how much more, Americans will be celebrating when the invasion ends and illegals are deported!

Renny
Member
Noble Member
Renny

Basically she’s (Brennan) asking this poor woman if the President is lying. If only they’d have asked questions like this about Obama. Tough spot for that lady.

Alabamamom
Member
Active Member
Alabamamom

I agree with your statement “If only they’d have asked questions like this about Obama”. It’s what Rush calls “random acts of journalism”. This is another reason Americans loathe MSM.

DinoDoc
Member
Active Member
DinoDoc

The double speak by the Mexican Ambassador leads me to believe the Ag deal Trump touted in addition to this is BS. As for the rest, I’m inclined to believe the slowing jobs report in the face of Trump wanting to start numerous Trade Wars led him to take a fig leaf deal from Mexico and call it a win. Regardless though, I hope the Mexican government follows through on it.

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

The President said some things were agreed upon ,but were not mentioned in the report, one in particular will be announced later,so maybe the President was fibbing just a little bit,because right now we really do not know the details of border security for no tariffs.

PVG
Member
Noble Member
PVG

Trust but verify…..

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

Well, if the NYT said it then it must be………………..an obfuscation or an outright lie. How is this newspaper still in business?

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

sjmomsjmom Easy…the whole state is full of libtards.

Don Sutherland
Member
Active Member
Don Sutherland

The company is profitable. Its digital business is growing. From its Q1 results released on May 8: NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)– The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) announced today first-quarter 2019 diluted earnings per share from continuing operations of $.18 compared with $.13 earnings per share in the same period of 2018. Adjusted diluted earnings per share from continuing operations (defined below) was $.20 in the first quarter of 2019 compared with $.17 in the first quarter of 2018. Operating profit was $34.6 million in the first quarter of 2019, flat compared with $34.1 million in the same period of 2018 as higher digital-only subscription and other revenues were offset by higher operating costs. Adjusted operating profit (defined below) decreased to $52.4 million in the first quarter of 2019 from $55.5 million in the prior year as higher revenues were more than offset by higher adjusted operating costs. Mark Thompson,… Read more »

Michael Thomas
Member
Active Member
Michael Thomas

The libturds are claiming the Mexican gov’t agreed months ago to make the moves they recently announced after Trump’s threat of tariffs. Hahahaha these turds will lie about anything for some perceived gain. It is unfortunate we have to coexist with the trash on the Left.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

It’s hard to say. The Mexican Ambassador didn’t concede that Mexico agreed to buy more goods in a signed agreement. However, she did say they were going to buy more and nowhere in Trump’s tweet did he say that Mexico signed up as part of the deal to avoid tariffs. If the assumption is made because he previously tweeted about immigration control then that’s on us.

Did this agreement to avoid tariffs even have a name or was just on good faith? If it was a signed agreement with a name I missed it.

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

I am not sure we even have an agreement.The Presidents Tweets did not give all the details,saying only that some details would come in a later report.I believe Trump got Bamboozled by Rubio,Paul and a few others.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Avatarbigsir74 IMO it’s too early to know that without the details. If Mexico came to the table and agreed to take acceptable measures then we should probably give them a chance to come through. If they don’t the tariffs have only been suspended. We can fire them right back up.

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

Thanks Kong,Rubio and Paul for the past few weeks were both announcing they did not like Tariff’s on Mexico.and were against Trump’s placing them

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Avatarbigsir74 Yeah, and they were also talking about stopping it. That doesn’t mean that was the reason he backed off the tariffs necessarily. Mexico came to the table and wants to work with Trump. Being so, we can’t really determine which one was the reason. Picking one is speculation at this point. According to Trump Mexico has agreed to things they never have before. We’ll just have to wait and see if they follow through and what Trump does if they don’t.

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

Thanks Kong always enjoy reading what you have too say. Covering all the bases,little baseball lingo there.

ryan-o
Member
Noble Member
ryan-o

Tariffs would’ve put a dent in our economy but it would’ve left a crater in Mexico’s. They know this.

jamespubliusmadison
Member
Trusted Member
jamespubliusmadison

Being our neighbor to the south, Mexico can’t get away with attacking protesters in front of cameras like totalitarian governments around the world, so there’s no doubt they have to cave to U.S. tariffs.

Don Sutherland
Member
Active Member
Don Sutherland

The State Department wouldn’t be “hiding” things. Its document outlines exactly what was agreed.

Back to Top of Comments