[스크랩] *북한 비핵화를 지적한 푸틴의 단독기자회견 "Russia Today"기사와 러시아 대통령궁 홈페이지 전문기사

(추가)러시아어로 된 대통령궁 홈페이지 관련 부문 원문과 해석(구글)

Конечно, что такое денуклеаризация? Это, в известной степени, разоружение Северной Кореи. Разумеется, – и я всё время об этом говорил, могу ещё раз подтвердить, об этом говорит и северокорейская сторона, – Корейской Народно-Демократической Республике нужны гарантии своей безопасности, сохранения суверенитета. Но какие это могут быть гарантии, кроме международно-правовых? Можно подумать, и, наверное, это будет правильно, о международных гарантиях, но они тоже лежат в сфере международного права. Поэтому ничего другого мы здесь не придумаем. Насколько будут эти гарантии существенными, насколько они будут отвечать интересам Корейской Народно-Демократической Республики – сейчас об этом рано говорить, но нужно сделать первые шаги к повышению доверия. И мне кажется, что в целом в конечном итоге это возможно.


물론, 비핵화는 무엇일까요? 이것은 어느 정도 북한의 군축이다. 물론, 저는 항상 이것에 대해 이야기해 왔습니다. 그리고 북한은 이것을 다시 말할 수 있습니다. 조선 민주주의 인민 공화국은 안전 보장과 주권을 보유해야 합니다. 그러나 이러한 보증은 국제 법 이외의 어떤 것이 될 수 있을까? 국제적인 보장에 대해서는 그렇겠지만, 국제 법에도 있습니다. 그것이 우리가 여기서 다른 것을 생각할 수 없는 이유이다. 이러한 보증이 상당할 경우, 민주 공화국의 조선 민주주의 인민 공화국의 이익에 얼마나 부합할지 말하기는 너무 이르지만, 신뢰를 쌓기 위한 첫 단계가 필요하다. 그리고 저는 결국 그것이 가능하다고 생각합니다.

*아래의 원문기사는 지난 25일, 러시아 블라디스보스톡에서 있었던 북러 정상회담 직후, 푸틴의 단독기자회견의 전문이며, 출처는 러시아 대통령궁(백악관과 같음)홈 페이지에 실려있는 영어기사입니다.

News conference following Russian-North Korean talks

Following his talks with Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Kim Jong-un, Vladimir Putin answered media questions.

April 25, 2019  12:45

Russky Island, Vladivostok
 

                                                News conference following Russian-North Korean talks.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon,

I suggest that we go straight to questions and answers. I will try to answer your questions. Go ahead, please.

Question: Mr President, this was your first meeting with Kim Jong-un. There is significant interest towards him as a person around the world. Could you share with us your impressions about him as a person and a politician, and whether you are satisfied with the outcomes of the talks?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, my colleagues and I are all satisfied with the outcomes of the talks. Chairman Kim Jong-un is quite an open person and speaks freely. We had a very detailed conversation on all items on our agenda and discussed them in various aspects, including bilateral relations, sanctions, United Nations, relations with the United States, and, of course, the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, which is the main subject. I can confirm‎ that he is quite an interesting and substantive interlocutor.

Question: Mr President, coming out of these talks, what in your opinion are the real prospects for denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and for Pyongyang and Seoul to improve their relations? What needs to be done to achieve this? What steps need to be taken and what barriers will have to be overcome? What prevents the parties from reaching common ground?

Vladimir Putin: The most important thing, as we have discussed today during the talks, is to restore the rule of international law and revert to the position where global developments were regulated by international law instead of the rule of force. If this happens, this would be the first and critical step toward resolving challenging situations such as the one on the Korean Peninsula.

So, what is denuclearisation all about? It implies North Korea’s disarmament to a certain extent. Naturally (I have noted this on numerous occasions and can confirm‎ this once again), the North Korean side is also talking about this. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea needs guarantees of its security and sovereignty.

But what guarantees can there be, except those based on international law? We can think about international guarantees, and this would probably be correct. But these guarantees also lie in the sphere of international law. Therefore we will not invent anything new here.

How substantial will these guarantees be, and to what extent will they meet the interests of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? It is still too early to talk about this today, but it is necessary to take the first steps towards strengthening trust. To my mind, this seems possible on the whole.

It was possible as far back as 2005, when the United States and North Korea signed the relevant treaty and agreement. For some reason, our American partners suddenly decided that the provisions stipulated and coordinated by the United States were not exhaustive, and that it was necessary to add something else there. These aspects were included in the treaty, and North Korea immediately withdrew from it.

If we act like this, and if we take one step forward and two backwards, then we would fail to achieve the desired result. But it will eventually be possible to achieve this goal, if we move forward gradually and if we respect each other’s interests (here I am talking about all the parties involved in resolving the North Korean problem or the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula), if we move ahead carefully, and if we respect each other and each other’s interests.

Question: Could you please tell us if you are planning to inform Donald Trump of today’s meeting or discuss the results of the talks with your other colleagues, due to gather in Beijing tomorrow? To what extent do Russia’s and US efforts correlate on the Korean track, and do the interests of our countries regarding the situation around the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea coincide?

Vladimir Putin: They coincide in some respects.

Of course, I will certainly speak with the leadership of the People’s Republic of China in Beijing tomorrow. But we will also discuss this matter and today’s meeting with US leadership in the same open and candid manner. There are no secrets here; Russia always voices an open position, there are no conspiracies. Moreover, Chairman Kim Jong-un himself asked us to inform the US side about his position, about his questions arising in connection with processes on the Korean Peninsula and everything taking place around this. Therefore, I repeat, there are no secrets here. We will also discuss this with the Americans and our Chinese friends.

Regarding your question as to whether our interests coincide with those of the United States on this issue, I can say that this is also true. For example, we advocate complete denuclearisation: this is a fact. Actually, we completely oppose the global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. And that is why a considerable share of steps within the framework of the United Nations is being coordinated. True, we will not conceal the fact that the sides often wrangle over specific clauses while making the decisions, and you know this well. But, naturally, we prioritise efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear conflicts; this is our common priority.

But I have the impression that the North Korean leader also shares this viewpoint. All they need is national security guarantees. Everyone must think about this together.

Question: During Kim Jong Il’s rule, Russia planned to build a gas pipeline to South Korea via North Korea and to upgrade railways in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. But many of these projects are in limbo because Pyongyang now faces sanctions. Did you discuss these projects with Kim Jong-un? Is the Russian side interested in these projects today?

Vladimir Putin: I spoke about this. We have been talking about this matter for many years. This includes direct railway traffic between South Korea, North Korea and Russia, including our Trans-Siberian Mainline, opportunities for laying pipelines – we can talk about both oil and gas, as well as the possible construction of new power transmission lines.

All of this is possible. Moreover, in my opinion, this is also in the interests of the Republic of Korea, I have always had this impression. But, apparently, there is a shortage of sovereignty during the adoption of final decisions, and the Republic of Korea has certain allied obligations before the United States. Therefore, everything stops at a certain moment. As I see it, if these and other similar projects were implemented, this would create essential conditions for increasing trust, which is vitally needed to resolve various problems.

North and South Korean railways have linked up not so long ago. In principle, there is a connection to Russia already. So far we have been unable to operate trains there, even in the test mode. We will work on this steadily, intensively and patiently. I hope that we will be able to accomplish this someday. The sooner we do this, the better.

Question: Is Kim Jong-un ready to continue contacts with the United States of America? And what is the North Korean leader’s mood?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, he is determined to defend his country’s national interests and to maintain its security. If North Korea’s partners (I am talking about the Americans, in the first place) voice a desire for constructive dialogue, then I believe that it will eventually prove impossible to do without talks. As I see it, there is no other way. But you had better ask him about what he can or cannot agree to.

Question: Has the topic of North Koreans who work in Russia been raised during the talks? They are supposed to leave our country, but they do not want to. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, we talked about this. There are several different options here. There are humanitarian issues, and there are issues related to the exercising of these people’s rights. There are smooth, non-confrontational solutions. I must say that the Koreans work well for us, never giving the local authorities any trouble. They are very hardworking people, law-abiding and disciplined. We discussed it.

Question: In the 2000s, there was a six-party format for mediating the Korean issue, and the parties even managed to achieve some agreements. However, for obvious reasons, the format has now been suspended. Do you think it makes sense to revive it under the current conditions?

Vladimir Putin: I do not know whether this format should be resumed right now, but I am deeply convinced that if we reach a situation when we need to work out certain guarantees for one of the parties, in this case, security guarantees for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, then international guarantees will have to come into the picture. It is unlikely that agreements between two countries will be enough.

But ultimately, it is up to the country that it primarily concerns, so it is primarily up to North Korea. If that country deems guarantees only from the United States or from its southern neighbour, South Korea, the Republic of Korea, to be enough – well, good. If this is not enough, which is more likely, I think, and if we get to that at all, which we would like very much, then this six-party talks format will certainly be highly relevant to develop a system of international security guarantees for North Korea.

Question: Mr President, yesterday you signed an executive order introducing a fast-track procedure for issuing Russian passports to Lugansk residents. Are you aware of the fact that the response around the world and in Ukraine to this initiative was overwhelmingly negative? By doing so, aren’t you provoking the country’s new president, Vladimir Zelensky?

Vladimir Putin: Are you saying that there was a negative response? It is strange when decisions of this kind are met with a negative response. Let me explain. Poland, for example, has been issuing identity cards to ethnic Poles for as long as ten years, I think, since 2009. Hungary and Romania went as far as give away passports to ethnic Hungarians and Romanians, respectively.

In this connection there is a question: are ethnic Russians living in Ukraine worse than Romanians, Poles or Hungarians, or Ukrainians who live there but feel an unbreakable bond with Russia due to various circumstances (family ties, mixed marriages or other considerations)? I do not see anything extraordinary in this regard.

Moreover, when other countries neighbouring Ukraine have been doing the same for many years, why should Russia refrain from taking the same steps, especially since people living in Donetsk and Lugansk republics are in a much more challenging situation than the ethnic Poles, Romanians and Hungarians living in Ukraine? In fact, they face a lot of hardship. They are deprived of the most basic human rights, for example in education. They even have problems moving around Ukraine or third countries, and even in Russia. Sometimes they cannot even buy a plane or train ticket. This is beyond all reason.

As for provoking anyone, the government and I personally are far from provoking anyone. The question of passports is a purely humanitarian issue and nothing more. As for the current Ukrainian authorities and those set to replace them, both the outgoing and the incoming leadership, as far as I know, and judging by their public statements, have never intended and will not sign off on an amnesty bill. They do not intend to recognise the special status of the Lugansk and Donetsk people’s republics. These are the key provisions of the Minsk Agreements. This means that they do not intend to implement the Minsk Agreements.

But what about the people who live there? Will they be abandoned? Will they continue to live in complete isolation? After all, it was not Russia that isolated them, but the Kiev authorities. We were not the ones who did it. This also directly contradicts the Minsk Agreements. They have not restored anything, neither the economic ties, nor financial relations. Nothing. In addition, these people face humanitarian issues. It goes without saying that we cannot stand by and just let it be this way.

That said, provoking anyone is not what we are after. If Ukraine’s incoming leadership finds the courage to implement the Minsk Agreements, we will facilitate these efforts and will do everything to bring the situation back to normal in southeast Ukraine.

Question: To continue on the subject, what is your general assessment of the election in Ukraine? What do you think about the development of Russian-Ukrainian relations with the new President?

Vladimir Putin: I do not know. It will depend on the policy pursued by Ukraine’s new political leadership. We want and are ready to restore these relations in full but we cannot do it unilaterally.

As for my assessment, what is there to assess? This is a complete failure of Poroshenko’s policy. Complete and absolute. I am sure that the new authorities are bound to understand this. They are well aware of this. Let’s look at their first steps at least. Understanding is one thing but adopting a realistic policy in the interests of one’s nation is another.

Question: To continue the topic of your executive order, Poroshenko is now trying to rally his partners to convene the UN Security Council. As for the Western reaction, the term of “territorial integrity” is being used. Does your executive order concern Ukraine’s territorial integrity because the President that is still in office qualified it as an attempt at annexation and formation of a Russian enclave on Ukrainian territory?

Vladimir Putin: Look, I think I have already answered this question. When other neighbouring states issued passports, there were no attempts to submit this question to the UN Security Council. But why are they being made in this case? What is the difference? There is none at all. The only thing is that people living in the Lugansk and Donetsk people’s republics are in a much worse position. This is a humanitarian issue. Well, let him submit it and we will discuss it.

At one time Mr Poroshenko suggested there should be a UN presence on these territories for protecting and ensuring the security of OSCE observers. We agreed but our Ukrainian partners instantly rejected the idea. They demanded more than that, notably, that everything should be transferred to the UN forces. This is a separate issue and it may be discussed. However, this is not a desire to resolve the issue through dialogue with the people who live on these territories. These are all attempts to bend them in this or that way, to resolve these issues by using force, either directly or indirectly, and, in effect to settle the legitimacy issue with regard to the government produced by the coup d’état.

 Thank you. I wish you all the best

                                     http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/60370

So, what is denuclearisation all about? It implies North Korea’s disarmament to a certain extent. Naturally (I have noted this on numerous occasions and can confirm‎ this once again), the North Korean side is also talking about this. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea needs guarantees of its security and sovereignty.

이 부분이 북이 핵무기를 버린다는 발언 내용입니다만, 영어가 짧아서......분명하게 말할 수가 없네요.

아래의 기사는, 펜 앤 마이크라는 언론사가 러시아의 관영매체인 "Russia Today"의 원문을 바탕으로 썼다는 것입니다. 언론사의 기자 말이 맞다면, "Russia Today"의 "핵무기 포기" 표현은, 위의 러시아 대통령궁 표현에 비해 매우 강력하고 명확하게 북의 핵포기를 말하고 있습니다만,,,, 어쨌든, 한반도 비핵화라는 것은 북의 비핵화라는 점에는 큰 변화는 없다고 봅니다.  

The main thing and this is something we talked about today at the talks. The most important thing is to restore international law. We need to come back to situation where international law sets the rules instead of might making right. This would be the first and most important step towards resolving such complex situations such as the situation we have on the Korean Peninsula today. What does denuclearization mean to a large extent? This means that North Korea will have to disarm.

다만, 아래의 언론사는 상당히 보수언론이므로, 북이 주장하는 한반도 비핵화가 아니라, 미국이 주장하는 북한 비핵화를 명확히 한 푸틴을 매우 칭찬하지만, 원래, 푸틴은 물론, 시진핑도 "북의 핵보유국 불인정"에는 이전부터 미국과 동일한 입장 임을 몇 번이나 공개적으로 천명한 바 있습니다. 나아가 북의 핵무기가 폐기되면, 그와 함께, 주일,주한미군의 필요성이 감소해, 동아시아의 미군철수로 이어진다는 것도 현실이 될 것은 분명하다는 점을 놓치지 말아야할 것입니다. 때문에, 왜 6자국에 의한 다자안전보장체제가 동아시아에 필요한 것인지도 이해해야 할 것입니다. 

북미는 작년 6월의 첫 정상회담에서 한반도 비핵화라고 쓰고 북비핵화를 대신해 체제안전보장을 약속했습니다. 물론, 이것은 남북 정상회담에서도 반영되어 있으며, 남북군사합의서는 그 일환의 과정입니다. 따라서, 남측은 작년 12월 국가외교전략지침으로서 "북한비핵화는 체제안전보장을 위한 방향"이라고 결정한 것입니다. 

이같은 북핵문제의 본질적인 변화는 최근 몇 년 사이에 이뤄진 것이 아니며, 적어도 2010년으로 거슬러 올라가야 합니다. 즉, 최소한 10년이라는 과정을 거쳐 현재의 단계에 이르렀다는 것을 늘 염두해 두어야 할 것입니다. 

************

"푸틴도 김정은 버렸다"...라는 이 언론사의 과장된 제목은, 그 후에 올 주한미군의 철수를 전혀 고려하지 못하는 얄팍하기 이를 데 없는 "비명"에 불과합니다.  

   [단독] '푸틴도 김정은 버렸다'...“‘비핵화’ 의미는 북한이 핵무기 버리는 것"
 
 2019.04.26 16:36:37

“미국과 러시아 모두 완전한 비핵화 원하며 WMD 확산에 반대”...일정 앞당겨 서둘러 귀국
“미국과 러시아의 이해관계 어느 정도 같다”

하노이 정상회담에서 도널드 트럼프 미국 대통령에게 망신당한 김정은이 실추된 위신을 회복하기 위해 러시아를 찾았지만, 블라디미르 푸틴 러시아 대통령은 미국과 러시아는 북한의 완전한 비핵화를 원하며 이에 대해 이해관계가  어느정도 일치한다고 밝혔다.

푸틴 러시아 대통령은 25일 김정은과의 회담이 끝난 뒤 기자회견에서 미국과 러시아의 이해관계가 어느 정도 일치한다고 말했다.  푸틴은  “미국과 러시아는 모두 '완전한 비핵화'를 원한다”며 “사실상 우리는 대량살상무기(WMD)의 확산에 반대하며 이 점에서 미국과 러시아의 이해관계는 어느 정도 일치한다”고 강조했다.

러시아 정부가 운영하는 영어 방송국인 러시아 투데이(RT) 유튜브 채널을 통해 생중계된 이 회견에서 푸틴 대통령은 “(회담의) 중요한 이슈는 ‘한반도 비핵화(denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula)’였으며 넓은 의미에서 ‘비핵화’가 의미하는 것은 북한이 핵무기를 버리는 것”이라고 밝혔다. '비핵화'의 의미가 '북한 비핵화'라는 점을 분명히 밝힌 것이다. 이는 트럼프 미국 대통령이 베트남 하노이에서 열린 미북정상회담에서 밝힌 '비핵화'의 정의와 같은  흐름이다. -->이 부분 문재인 대통령이나 통일부,외교부, 국정원장 등에 의해 몇 번이나 나왔던 발언입니다만, 보수언론은 거짓말이라고 의심하고, 진보언론은 그다지 중요하게 취급하지 않았습니다.  한국정부의 한반도 비핵화의 기준은 강경화 외무장관이 지난 번에 밝혔던 91년의 남북비핵화 공동선언입니다.

푸틴 대통령은 “김정은이 가장 우선적이고 중요하게 원하는 것은 그의 나라의 이익을 보장받고 그의 국가의 안전을 보장받는 것”이라며 “국제법으로 북한의 주권을 보장하는 것이 필요하다”고 지적했다. 이어 “북한의 파트너인 미국은 건설적인 대화에 관여할 준비가 돼 있다”며 “나는 다른 방법은 없으며 김정은은 대화에 참여해야 한다고 생각한다”고 강조했다.

그는 “김정은이 회담 중에 자신의 말을 미국에 전할 것이냐고 직설적으로 물어왔다”며 “나는 미국과 중국에 김정은과의 만남을 포함해 모든 문제들에 대해 솔직하게 이야기할 것”이라고 했다.

6자회담에 대해서는 “지금 당장 6자회담을 재개해야하는지에 대해서는 모른다. 결국은 북한의 결정에 달려있다”며 “북한이 미국과 한국 각각으로부터 보장을 받는 것에 만족한다면 그것으로 좋지만 만약 이것이 충분하지 않다면 6자회담 형식이 북한에 국제적인 안전 보장을 주는데 매우 유용할 것”이라고 했다. 김정은은 이날 일정을 7시간이나 앞당겨 귀국한 것으로 알려졌다.

                                  https://www.pennmike.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=18544

   [단독]푸틴 북한 관련 발언 전문 “미국과 러시아 이해관계 어느정도 같다”
 
 2019.04.26 16:19:39

푸틴, “미국과 러시아는 모두 ‘완전한 비핵화’를 원한다”
 “김정은, 내게 ‘미국인들에게 나의 입장에 대해 말할 것이냐’고 직설적으로 물어...”

 “美中에 김정은과의 만남에 대해 관해 솔직하게 이야기 할 것”
 “국제법으로 북한의 주권 보장해야”

블라디미르 푸틴 러시아 대통령은 25일 김정은과의 회담이 끝난 뒤 기자회견에서 회담의 “가장 중요한 이슈는 ‘한반도 비핵화(denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula)’였다”며 “넓은 의미에서 ‘비핵화’가 의미하는 것은 북한이 핵무기를 버리는 것”이라고 밝혔다.

푸틴 대통령은 “김정은이 가장 우선적이고 중요하게 원하는 것은 그의 나라의 이익을 보장받고 그의 국가의 안전을 보장받는 것”이라며 “국제법으로 북한의 주권을 보장하는 것이 필요하다”고 지적했다.

푸틴 대통령은 “미국과 러시아는 모두 완전한 비핵화를 원한다”며 “사실상 우리는 대량살상무기(WMD)의 확산에 반대하며 이 점에서 미국과 러시아의 이해관계는 어느 정도 같다”고 강조했다.

그는 “김정은이 회담 중에 자신의 말을 미국에 전할 것이냐고 직설적으로 물어왔다”며 “나는 미국과 중국에 김정은과의 만남을 포함해 모든 문제들에 대해 솔직하게 이야기할 것”이라고 했다.

6자회담에 대해서는 “지금 당장 6자회담을 재개해야하는지에 대해서는 모른다”며 “북한이 미국과 한국 각각으로부터 보장을 받는 것에 만족한다면 그것으로 좋지만 만약 이것이 충분하지 않다면 6자회담 형식이 북한에 국제적인 안전 보장을 주는데 매우 유용할 것”이라고 했다.

양연희 기자 yeonhee@pennmike.com

다음은 푸틴 대통령의 기자회견 중 김정은과의 회담 관련 부분 전문(全文)이다.

Q(기자): ‘북한 김정은에 대한 첫인상은 어떠했으며 첫 북러 정상회담 결과에 만족하는가?’

Your first meeting with Kim Jong-un attracted a lot of interest so could you please comment what is your personal impression of North Korean leader? Are you satisfied with the outcomes of these talks?

A(푸틴): 나와 김정은은 회담 결과에 만족한다. 김정은은 꽤 열린 사람이다. 우리는 양국 관계와 유엔의 대북제재 문제, 미국과의 관계 등 우리의 어젠다에 대해 열린 대화를 나눴다. 물론 가장 중요한 이슈는 ‘한반도 비핵화(denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula)’였다. 우리는 이 모든 이슈들의 다양한 측면에 대해 구체적인 대화를 나눴다. 나는 김정은이 이야기를 나누기에 꽤 흥미로운 인물(interesting person)이라는 점을 확신한다.

Yes, I'm happy with the outcome. Both me and my colleagues were happy. Chairman Kim is a rather open person and he engages in an open discussion on all the issues we had on our agenda. This includes bilateral relations, the issues of sanctions the United Nations, their relations with the United Stated and of course the primary issue denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We talked in detail. We addressed various aspects of all those issues and I can just confirm‎ that he is a rather interesting person to talk to.

Q(기자): ‘김정은과의 회담 후에 당신은 한반도가 비핵화될 희망이 있다고 생각하는가? 평양이 러시아와 증진시키려면 어떠한 조치들이 취해져야 한다고 생각하며 장애물은 무엇이라고 생각하는가?’

After these talks do you think there is hope that the Korean Peninsula be denuclearized and do you think that you Pyongyang and Seoul can have better relations? What should be done to make that happen? What steps should be taken? What is the obstacle on that way?

A(푸틴): 김정은과 내가 오늘 이야기를 나눈 것 중 가장 중요한 것은 국제법을 회복시키는 것이었다. 우리는 무력이 국제법을 정당화하기 이전의 상태 즉 국제법이 규칙을 만드는 상태로 돌아가야 한다. 이것이 오늘날 한반도의 현 상황과 같은 복잡한 상황을 해결하는데 가장 우선적이고 가장 중요한 단계일 것이다. 넓은 의미에서 ‘비핵화’가 의미하는 것은 북한이 핵무기를 버리는 것이다.

The main thing and this is something we talked about today at the talks. The most important thing is to restore international law. We need to come back to situation where international law sets the rules instead of might making right. This would be the first and most important step towards resolving such complex situations such as the situation we have on the Korean Peninsula today. What does denuclearization mean to a large extent? This means that North Korea will have to disarm.

그리고 내가 이전에 여러 번 밝혔듯이 그리고 북한이 공개적으로 말하듯 북한은 주권이 보존되는 것에 대한 보장이 필요하다(DPRK needs guarantees that its sovereignty will be preserved). 또한 지금 제공할 수 있는 유일한 보장은 국제법의 보장이다. 우리는 지금 완전히 새로운 무엇인가를 발명할 수는 없다. 따라서 이러한 보장이 얼마나 강하냐에 따라서 북한의 필요를 만족시킬 수 있을 것이다. 현재로서는 이러한 것들에 대해 이야기하기는 너무나 이르다. 우리는 먼저 신뢰 구축 방안이 필요하다.

And like I said many times before I can repeat this again and this is what North says openly. The DPRK needs guarantees that its sovereignty will be preserved so the only guarantee you can offer is international law guarantees. Of course we could consider offering some international guarantees as well but that would be also part of international law. So we can't invent something totally new here. So how strong those guarantees will be will meet the needs of the DPRK. It's too early to talk about these things at this point. We need some confidence-building measures first.

그러나 원칙적으로 이는 지난 2005년 미국과 북한이 이 문제에 관해 서명했을 때 가능했었다. 그러나 훗날 무슨 이유에서인지 미국인들과 미국의 파트너들은 이것이 충분하지 않으며 그들은 이 합의에 무엇인가 다른 것을 포함시킬 필요가 있다고 생각했다. 그리고 그들은 추가하기 시작했고 그것이 바로 북한이 협정을 파기한 순간이었다. 만약 그것-한 발짝을 나간 뒤 두 발짝을 물러서는 것-이 우리가 사용하는 접근방식이라면 우리는 절대로 아무 곳에도 다다를 수 없을 것이다. 그러나 우리가 서로의 이해를 존중하고 즉 북한문제와 한반도 비핵화 문제에 관계된 모든 국가들의 이해를 존중하고, 주의 깊게 전진하며, 서로의 이해관계를 존중한다면 이 문제를 해결될 수 있다.

But in principle this can be done this could be done back in 2005 when the US and North Korea signed an agreement on this matter. But later on for some reason the Americans, the American partners thought that this was not enough that they needed to add something else to this agreement and they started adding things and that's when North Korea withdrew from the treaty. If that's the approach we use one step forward and two steps back we'll never get anywhere. However if we respect each other's interest and I mean all the parties involved on the North Korean issue and on the issue of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula if we proceed with caution if we respect each other, respect each other's interest, this can be done.

Q(기자): ‘트럼프 대통령에게 이에 대해 말할 것인가? 미국과 러시아의 이해관계는 같은가 다른가?’

Do you think you would tell President Trump about this video? Maybe you will talk about the talks during your meeting with some other colleagues of us? What about the efforts of Russia and the US. Are their interests the same or not?

A(푸틴): (미국과 러시아의 이해관계는) 물론 어느 정도는 같다. 나는 내일 베이징에 가는데 중국의 지도부에 (김정은과의 만남에 대해) 이야기를 할 것이다. 그러나 나는 미국의 지도부와 김정은과의 오늘 만남을 포함해 이 모든 문제들에 대해 솔직한 대화를 나눌 것이다. 비밀은 없다. 러시아의 입장은 항상 열려있다. 우리는 아무 것도 숨기지 않는다. 사실 김정은은 내게 ‘미국인들에게 그의 입장에 대해 말할 것이냐고 직설적으로 물었다. 한반도에서 일어나고 있는 과정들에 관한 그의 질문들과 관련된 모든 것들은 내가 밝혔듯이 비밀은 없다. 우리는 이에 관해 미국인들에게, 중국인 친구들에게 이야기할 것이다.

To a certain degree they are the same. Of course when I go to Beijing tomorrow I will talk to the leadership of the People's Republic of China about this. But we'll also have a frank discussion on all these matters including the meeting I had today with the US leadership. It's no secret. Russia's position is always open. We don't hide anything. Actually Chairman Kim asked me directly to tell the Americans about his position and the questions that he has with respect to the processes taking place on th Korean Peninsula and everything it involves. So like I said this no secret. We are going to talk about this to the Americans, to our chinese friends.

그리고 당신은 내게 미국의 이해관계와 러시아의 이해관계가 일치하는지 여부에 대해서 물었는데 어느 정도에 있어서는 그렇다. 미국과 러시아는 모두 완전한 비핵화를 원한다. 사실상 우리는 일반적으로 대량살상무기(WMD)의 확산에 반대한다. 이것이 우리가 유엔 안에서 우리의 입장을 조율하는 이유다. 물론 다른 면에서 당신도 이미 알 듯이 미국과 러시아는 자주 싸운다. 그러나 핵 갈등으로 인한 위험을 줄이는 것과 관련해서는 당연히 우리는 이를 최우선 관심사로 공유한다. 나는 김정은도 이러한 관점을 공유한다고 생각한다. 북한은 단지 그들의 안정 보장을 원한다. 이는 우리 모두가 함께 생각할 필요가 있는 것이다.

Now you asked me whether our interests coincide. Russia and the United States, to a certain extent 'Yes'. Both of our countries want complete denuclearization. In fact we are against WMD proliferation in general. That's why we coordinate out positions withing the United Nations to a large extent. Of course on the other hand as you know quite often we fight over certain formulas but as regards reducing the risk of nuclear conflict we share this priority absolutely. And I think that actually the North Korean leader shares this view as well. They just want to have guarantees of their security and that's something we need to think about all together.

Q(기자): ‘전에는 한반도를 관통하는 가스관 연결 계획과 철도 연결 계획이 있었다. 그러나 제재 때문에 이러한 계획들이 중단된 상태다. 당신은 이러한 계획들에 대해 김정은과 이야기를 나눴는가? 러시아는 이들 계획에 관심이 있는가?’

To be back of the times the previous leader of Korea there were plans to build a gas pipeline to Korea which would rather throughout the whole territory. There were also plans to build railroads and because of the sanctions many of these plans are on ice. Did you discuss any of these projects with Kim? Is Russia interested in any of this project?

A(푸틴): 그렇다. 내가 아까 말했듯이 김정은과 나는 이러한 것들에 대해 몇 년 동안 이야기를 하고 있다. 우리는 한반도의 남쪽과 북쪽, 러시아를 직접적으로 연결하는 철도를 원한다. 러시아는 그 철도를 시베리아를 관통하는 철도와 연결하기를 원한다. 또한 우리는 파이프라인 구축을 원한다. 우리는 석유와 가스 전력망을 만들 수 있다. 이 모든 것들은 가능하다. 사실상 개인적으로 나는 이것이 한국의 이익과도 맞는다고 생각한다. 그러나 최종 결정을 내릴 때 주권의 결핍이 있었다. 한국은 동맹 미국에 대한 의무가 있다. 그러나 곧 상황이 정상화될 것이다. 따라서 우리가 특정 시점에서 이러한 프로젝트에 착수한다면 이는 신뢰를 구축하는데 도움이 될 것이다. 예를 들어 최근에 한국과 북한의 철도는 연결됐으며 이는 러시아에 또한 연결됐다. 그러나 지금 당장 우리는 시험 운행을 해야 할 것이다. 그러나 이는 우리가 인내심을 가지고 계속해서 일을 해나가야만 하는 것들이다. 나는 특정 시점에서 우리가 이를 할 수 있기를 희망한다. 빠를수록 좋다.

Yes. Like I said earlier we have been talking about these things for many years we want direct a railway communication between the souther part of th Korean Peninsula and the northern part and Russia. We want to connect the connect the railway to the trans-siberian line. We also see a pipeline built. We can talk about oil and gas. We can build new power grid. All this can be done and in fact personally I believe that this would be in the interest of the Republic of Korea, South Korea as well. But there is some shortage of sovereignty when making final decision. The the Republic of Korea has some obligations before its ally, the United States. But sooner or later the situation will normalize so if at a certain point we implement such projects this will help build trust, something we really need when addressing these crucial issues. For example, recently the railroads of North and South Korea got connected and they are also connected to Russia but for right now we'll have to run some pilot trains experiment but this is something we'll keep working on patiently. I'm hoping that at the certain point we'll be able to do that and the sooner the better.

Q(기자): ‘김정은의 태도는 무엇인가?’

Chairman Kim is ready to continue his contacts with you. What kind of attitude does he have?

A(푸틴): 김정은이 가장 우선적이고 중요하게 원하는 것은 그의 나라의 이익을 보장받고 그의 국가의 안전을 보장받는 것이다. 그러나 북한의 파트너인 미국은 건설적인 대화에 관여할 준비가 돼 있다. 나는 다른 방법은 없으며 김정은은 대화에 참여해야 한다고 생각한다. 김정은에게 무엇을 원하며 무엇은 원하지 않는지 직접 물어보시라.

Well, first and foremost he wants to ensure his national interest and ensure his country's security. But if the partners of North Korea primarily the United States are ready to engage in constructive dialogue. I think there is no other way you have to have a dialogue. I think there is no other way but you have to ask him what he wants or doesn't want to do.

Q(기자): ‘러시아 내 북한 노동자들에 대화를 나눴는가? 내가 알기로 북한 노동자들은 곧 러시아를 떠나야 한다. 그러나 그들은 떠나기를 원치 않는다.’

Have you spoken the issue of North Korean workers who work at Russia as far as I know they are to leave Russia but they don't want to do that.

A(푸틴): 그렇다. 우리는 상황에 대해 이야기를 나눴다. 이용 가능한 다른 옵션들이 있다. 인도적 이슈들이 있고 북한 노동자들의 권리와 관련된 이슈들이 있다. 그렇다. 대립을 피하면서도 이용 가능한 해결책들이 존재한다. 러시아의 북한 노동자들은 일을 잘 한다. 그들은 근면하며 법을 잘 지키는 사람들이다. 그렇다. 김정은과 나는 그 문제에 대해 이야기를 나눴다.

Yes, we did talk about the situation and there are different options available. There are humanitarian issues. There are issues related to the rights of those people. Yes, there are solutions available that would allow us to avoid confrontations. Those Korean laborers work well in Russia. They are diligent, law-abiding people. Yes, we did discuss this issue.

Q(기자): ‘지금 이 시점에서 6자회담을 재개하는 것이 도움이 될 것이라고 보는가?’

There was six-party forward of the Korean settler that there was some kind of agreement bit of the sides but format, this process is not working. Do you think it would be useful to use these contacts now?

A(푸틴): 나는 지금 당장 6자회담을 재개해야하는지에 대해서는 모른다. 그러나 만약 그러한 순간에 다다른다면 북한은 분명히 국제적인 보장이 필요할 것이다. 나는 그것이 몇몇 국가들 간의 양자 협정 충분할 것이라고는 생각하지 않는다. 결국은 북한이 이 문제에 관해 결정을 내리는 데 달려있다. 만약 북한이 미국과 한국 각각으로부터 보장을 받는 것에 만족한다면 그것으로 좋다. 그러나 만약 이것이 충분하지 않다면 6자회담이 필요할 것이다. 만약 우리가 이러한 시점에 다다른다면 6자회담의 형식은 북한에 국제적인 안전 보장을 주는데 매우 유용할 것이다.

I don't know if we should resume six-party talks right now. But if we get to the point where we'll have to come up with the guarantees for one of the parties, I'm specifically of course about the DPRK will certainly need international guarantees. I don't think it would be enough to have bilateral agreements with some countries but in the end it's up to the country we are talking about. It's the DPRK that has to make a decision on this matter if they are satisfied to have guarantees of the United States only of South Korea only, that's good. But if this is not enough and I think, I tend to think that this is not going to be enough even I mean if we get to this point we really would like to have that. If we get to this point, the format of the six-party talks could be quite useful to offer international safety guarantees to North Korea.

                                  https://www.pennmike.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=18542

북러정상회담에 대한 본인의 예측과 평가는 아래의 해설기사를 참고하세요.

*북러정상회담과 러시아 안보수장 방한의 의미
2019.04.24. http://cafe.daum.net/flyingdaese/Vfr0/1571

*북러정상회담,"푸틴은 왜 북의 안전보장을 강조했나"
 2019.04.25. 20:39 http://cafe.daum.net/flyingdaese/Vfr0/1581

*러, 文대통령에 北관련 '러·중 공동행동계획' 설명 -- "러중 공동계획"이란 무엇인가?
 2019.04.25. 21:48 http://cafe.daum.net/flyingdaese/Vfr0/1582

*트럼프, 북비핵화에 대한 미중러의 연대를 확인하다
2019.04.27. 02:18 http://cafe.daum.net/flyingdaese/Vfr0/1592

[단독]트럼프 "푸틴, 북한 문제 관련해 미국 도울 수 있어 기쁘다고 해" 북한 압박한 푸틴 트럼프와 교감 있었나?
 
2019.04.26 22:34:13

푸틴-김정은 회담 후 폭스뉴스와의 인터뷰

도널드 트럼프 미국 대통령이 푸틴-김정은 회담과 관련해, "푸틴 대통령이 김정은과 북한 문제와 관련해 미국을 도울 수 있어서 기쁘다고 말하는 것을 봤다"고 말했다. (Even today I see where President Putin in Russia made the statement that it's great to be able to help us with Kim Jong-un and North Korea.)

트럼프 대통령은 25일(현지시간) '폭스뉴스'와의 인터뷰에서 "우리는 핵무기를 제거하기를 원한다"면서 이같이 밝혔다. (We want to get rid of the nuclear weapons.)

그러면서 "우리는 모두 핵무기를 없애기를 원하며, 러시아와 중국도 그것(핵무기)을 없애도록 해야 한다"고 강조했다. (We all have to get -- Russia has to get rid of them and China has to get rid of them.)

트럼프 대통령은 이어 "시진핑 중국 국가주석이 북-중 국경과 관련해 큰 도움을 줬다"며 "많은 좋은 일들이 일어나고 있다"고 덧붙였다.  (By the way China, President Xi has been a big help. And, you know, a lot of good things are happening.)

트럼프 대통령의 이런 발언은 2020년 미국 대통령 선거 출마를 선언한 조 바이든 전 부통령이 자신을 비판한 데 대해, "미국이 다시 전 세계로부터 존경받고 있다"며 반박하는 가운데 나왔다.

트럼프 대통령이 북-러 정상회담에 대해 언급한 건 이번이 처음이다.

앞서 푸틴 대통령은 김정은과의 회담 뒤 기자회견에서, 김정은이 자신에게 직설적으로 김정은 자신의 입장을 미국 측에 전달할 것인지 물어봤다고 밝혔다.

김민찬 기자 mkim@pennmike.com

※다음은 트럼프 대통령 폭스뉴스 인터뷰 전문 (기사 관련 부분 볼드체)

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST:  All right.  Joining us now from the White House -- I assume the White House -- is the president of the United States. 

 Mr. President, thank you for taking the time.  We really appreciate you joining us. 

 DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (via telephone):  Hi, Sean.  Thank you. 

 HANNITY:  All right.  A lot of breaking news tonight, and you haven't really talked at length in an interview about a lot of issues. 

 Let me start with this issue of the Ukraine.  I don't know if you were following the top of the show or John Solomon's new report or that both Catherine Herridge and Sara Carter are reporting tonight, we now have text messages from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, never before seen, discussing recruiting White House sources to spy on you. 

 Take it in any order you like. 

 TRUMP:  Well, I think it's incredible when you hear it.  These are great reporters, all three, and when you have them on your trail, that's a problem.  These are people that should be getting Pulitzers, not the ones that got the Pulitzers that got everything wrong. 

 If you listen to them, they got everything wrong.  Go back and read some of their early and mid articles.  They didn't have a clue what was going on and they win Pulitzer Prizes.  These are the ones that should be winning. 

 It sounds like big stuff.  It sounds very interesting with Ukraine.  I just spoke to the new president a little while ago, two days ago, and congratulated him on an incredible race.  Incredible run.  A big surprise victory.  That’s 75 percent of the vote. 

 But that sounds like big, big stuff.  I’m not surprised. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President, Ukraine is offering this evidence to the United States.  Would you like the United States -- with all this talk about collusion, they are saying they included on behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016.  Does America need to see that information in spite of all of the attacks against you on collusion? 

 TRUMP:  Well, I think we do.  And, frankly, we have a great new attorney general who has done an unbelievable job in a very short period of time.  And he is very smart and tough and I would certainly defer to him.  I would imagine he would want to see this. 

 People have been saying this whole -- the concept of Ukraine, they have been talking about it actually for a long time.  You know that, and I would certainly defer to the attorney general. 

 And we'll see what he says about it.  He calls them straight.  That's one thing I can tell you. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President, our own Catherine Herridge, investigative reporter Sara Carter -- big breaking news tonight: Senate Republican chairman submitted a letter Thursday to the Department of Justice, the attorney general. 

 We have new texts from November of 2016 from Strzok and Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources from within your White House to spy on your administration and reveal that they have one particular contact within the White House.  The vice president's chief of staff whose wife was working as an analyst for Strzok on the FBI investigation on Hillary's private server. 

 Have you heard this report tonight, sir? 

 TRUMP:  I just heard it a little while ago.  Frankly, it's very disconcerting.

 If you look at what's been happening, they were the same two, the two lovers that decided to use the FBI server instead of their private so they didn't get caught.  These two were beauties.  There is no doubt about it.  They were going hog wild to find something about the administration which obviously wasn't there. 

 We have nothing to do with Russia except that we have been tougher on Russia than any administration in 50 years -- a lot tougher than Obama.

 But these were the two that talked about the insurance policy just in case Hillary loses.  If she loses, we’ve got an insurance policy.  Well, that was the insurance policy.

  Now, she lost and now they are trying to infiltrate the administration to -- really, it's a coup.  It's spying.  It’s everything that you can imagine.  It’s hard to believe in this country that we would have had that. 

 I don't know if you remember a long time ago, very early on, I used the word "wiretap" and I put it in quotes, meaning surveillance, spying, you can sort of say whatever if you want.  But that was a long time ago, and I have never seen anything like it a blow up like you have never seen. 

 Now I understand why, because they thought two years ago when I said that just on a little bit of a hunch and a little bit of wisdom, maybe, they -- it blew up because they thought maybe I was wise to them or they were caught.  And that's why.  Because, if they weren't doing anything wrong, it would have just gone by, nobody would have cared about it.  It was pretty insignificant. 

 I thought, when I said it, and that's pretty amazing.  So you see now they are trying to infiltrate the White House.  This is long after the election.  It's a disgrace. 

 And, again, hopefully the attorney general will do what's right and I really believe he will. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President, the attorney general actually used the word "spying" on your campaign.  We know of Stefan Halper and his contact that he made with Papadopoulos and Carter Page and Sam Clovis.  We know about the FISA warrant as the Grassley-Graham memo said, the bulk of the information in the application was the Clinton bought and paid for Russian of all things dossier, ignored by the Mueller report which I will ask you about in a second here. 

 But those are two specific incidents of attempts to get into your campaign.  Your reaction to all of that? 

 TRUMP:  Well, I think they made many attempts.  And then you see the lying and you see the leaking. 

 And you see Comey lied Congress.  Nothing happened.  You see him leaking.  Nothing happens. 

 And this is leaking classified information.  This is leaking really big stuff.  I remember the young sailor.  In fact, I helped him out with his family -- 

 HANNITY:  Kristian Saucier.

 TRUMP:  -- because I thought he was so unfairly treated as you know.  I remember he had confidential information which is a much, much lower standard than classified.  And they put him in jail for a long time.  They took away his life. 

 And then you look at what Hillary Clinton did with 33,000 emails and hundreds of thousands of text messages or emails going through the Weiner server or computer.  Hundreds of thousands of which many were classified.  And nothing happens to her. 

 And, yet, they put a young sailor on for doing something innocent, showing his mother and his friend what the desk looked like, the desk in a 40-year-old submarine.  I think Russia and China would have had that picture many years ago. 

 So it's really a double standard like you've never seen, very, very unfair.  But hopefully that will change.  I think that will be changing. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President, closed door testimony recently revealed Strzok and Page that they were laughing at the idea that Hillary investigation was a real investigation.  And that it went directly into Loretta Lynch's office, which now raises a whole new set of other questions.  And they were confident about that. 

 And it was Strzok that did the interview with Hillary, uncharacteristically, frankly unprecedented, allowed two other people in that interview while she was being interviewed in an investigation.  Comey, of course, exonerated her but he even acknowledged top secret classified information on that server. 

 I did disagree with you at the time.  You after the election were basically saying let bygones be bygones, let's not go down this road. 

 Do you regret saying that and do you think now if we are really to get to the bottom and the truth?  It has to also include Hillary Clinton, the email server, which would be an underlying crime and obstruction, which everyone in the media seems to care about -- the intent behind the 33,000 subpoenaed emails deleted, Bleach Bit, hammers, SIM cards.

 TRUMP:  No, I don't regret saying it.  When I won, they were all saying lock her up.  Lock her up.  I said, no, no.  Let's get on with life. 

 That was different.  It was like right after the election you want to get a new page and turn over a new leaf.  And I said let's get on with it, let’s, you know, build up the economy -- which by the way is doing record business. 

 I’m so proud of the economy.  We are doing numbers that nobody has ever believed.  Probably the best economy we’ve ever had.  Best unemployment numbers we’ve ever had.  It's been incredible. 

 But I said, let's get on with our life.  Let's forget about the past. 

 But now what happened is fairly shortly after that great evening, they started coming at us with the insurance policy.  And everything they did was so dishonest.  And then, we really started looking into a lot of things like her deleted emails and acid washed emails which is unheard of because of the expense of doing it, and how she got away with it, how her lawyer got away with it, how all of these things happened. 

 Don't forget, whether they interviewed her that was on July 4th weekend.  It was very, very late into the July 4th weekend. 

 They asked her questions.  They didn't have a stenographer.  They didn't have anybody swear her in.  They didn't have a tape recorder.  They just walked in, asked her some questions.  And that was fine. 

 In the meantime, look at what she’s done, how she’s destroyed the lives of people that were on our campaign, she has destroyed their lives and the DNC.  And frankly when the FBI went into the DNC, the DNC told them to get the hell out of here.  Think of that.  They told that to the FBI and they wouldn't give him the server. 

 I want to find out what's on that server, the DNC server, because that's the big thing.  Nobody has seen that server yet.  The FBI didn't see it, and these are the top people at the FBI where you had absolute dirty cops.  These were dirty cops. 

 Now, the FBI -- I know FBI guys, these are the best in the world.  But the people leading it -- Comey and McCabe and Strzok and Page and all of these people, the lawyer who admitted frankly how crooked things were.  I mean, when that testimony comes out, it's already come out partially, when that testimony comes out from the attorney for the FBI, you’ll see. 

 So, I really say, now we have to get down because this was a coup.  This was an attempted overthrow of the United States government.  We had people coming out to vote from all over this country that are in love with what we are doing.  It's called Make America Great Again.  That's what we have done and we are doing. 

 And this was an overthrow and it's a disgraceful thing.  And I don’t -- I think it's far bigger than Watergate.  I think it's possibly the biggest scandal in political history in this country.  Maybe beyond political.

 So I think that a lot of things are being learned right now, just like you just mentioned just a few moments ago, again with Strzok and Page.  These are sick people.  These are sick, sick people. 

 HANNITY:  You know -- 

 TRUMP:  So let's see what happens with McCabe and Comey and Brennan and Clapper.  They weren't in the act.  And let's see what happens and let's see how high it goes up.  It's inconceivable when it goes to Clapper, Brennan, Comey, these people -- I would imagine that some other people may be a little bit higher up also knew about it and maybe a lot higher up. 

 HANNITY:  You mentioned -- I mentioned now Strzok and Page independently in their conversations.  Peter Strzok had said about the collusion there is no "there" there.  Lisa Page closed door testimony actually said after the nine-month FBI investigation, they had no evidence of anything with you and your campaign and Russia.  That's before the appointment of Mueller. 

 We also had the House Intel Committee report.  That's two no collusion.  Then the Senate bipartisan committee and now the Mueller report is you said, oh, any news?  No obstructions.  No collusion. 

 TRUMP:  That's right. 

 HANNITY:  What is your full reaction to the Mueller report? 

 TRUMP:  Well, it was, as I call them, 13 angry Democrats.  They were supplanted by five more, five more were added.  And you got up to 18, 19, 20, they are all Democrats, many of them made major contributions to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

 And they had one of them was one of the top people at the Clinton Foundation, Jeanne Rhee.  Then you had Weissmann, you had some bad, bad, bad people.  No friends of Trump.  I had no friends. 

 It was like a one-sided witch-hunt as I called it.  And, you know, Bob Mueller, I turned him down to run the FBI, the next day, he was appointed to be this -- special counsel as they call it.  It’s a really much tougher word than that I won't use it.  And it was a terrible thing. 

 He was conflicted for that reason.  He also was conflicted because of the fact that Comey and him are best friends.  So, if not best, very close to best.  But I would say best friends.  You look at pictures of the two of them in the past. 

 We had a nasty business transaction the two of us.  I have a nasty transaction with him and then all of the sudden he is my prosecutor.  Very, very unfair.

 And with all of that and $35 million spent, think of that, over two years ruining lives of people, ruining their lives, people going out of business because they couldn't afford lawyers.  That's just unbelievable what happened.  How bad it was.  I can't even tell you how bad it was.  Nobody knows how people suffered. 

 Great people that came to Washington, they came to D.C. to set the world in a very positive way on fire.  They wanted to clean things up and do a great job.  But all of a sudden, they are testifying on nonsense.  And it's really -- you know, with all of the things you've heard, nothing had to do with the campaign.  Nothing had to do with Russia, collusion. 

 But the bottom line is, with a group of very serious Trump haters, and a group of I call them angry Democrats, somebody who was very conflicted at the top, no collusion and also no obstruction, because the statement was made and the attorney general, you know, understood it very well and he read it and he made a decision right on the spot.  No obstruction. 

 So, you had no collusion, no obstruction, $35 million spent, and unlimited manpower, woman power, and there is nothing.  Nothing. 

 And it was a very bad two years for this country.  But what has happened we found everything going in the opposite direction, and I think, now, it’s turning, unbelievable.  The tables have turned.

 And you are seeing things come out like you just -- like you just noticed and it's -- I think it's goings to be very interesting. 

 It's very important for the country to now find out how that whole thing started.  And in all fairness to Bob Mueller it started long before he was appointed.  This was going on long before that.  You understand. 

 The first lady and I came down on the escalator on June 16th.  And this started very shortly after that.  It was a disgrace.  Disgrace. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President, we expect a lot more coming out in the days, weeks, and even months ahead.  We know at least 53 more closed door -- the testimony closed door of many of these players that will be released.  We know that the inspector general, he now will have his report.  We expect some time in, perhaps, in May, likely in May, where he will -- he has been investigating the FISA abuse issue. 

 And then, of course, we have Huber on leaking and whatever his report ultimately ends up becoming.  We know that -- you know, there is a lot of information.

 And then the issue you have the last time I talked to you about a month ago, you said you would classify the FISA applications, you would declassify Gang of Eight material, 302 material. 

 If the Grassley-Graham-Nunes memos are correct and the bulk of the information in the FISA applications were even as the "New York Times" suggested this week, may have been misinformation from the Russians that Hillary bought and paid for, that was disseminated to the media and the American people before that election -- you know, what would that mean to you? 

 TRUMP:  Well, first of all, I was very impressed that "The New York Times" did that because that was the first good glimpse that maybe mainstream is going to pick up the greatest political scandal in the history of our country, again, bigger than Watergate, because it means so much. 

 This was a coup.  This wasn't stealing information from an office in the Watergate apartments.  This was an attempted coup.  And it's inconceive -- like a third world country -- and inconceivable. 

 And I have to say I think information is coming out and it's come out fast, much faster than anybody would have thought.  And there are a lot of people very nervous about things that are going on.  And I will say that I.G., the Inspector General Horowitz, he -- other than his conclusion, where he said no bias but he meant that in a different way than you would think.  He gave a great report last time. 

 And I really hope that he is going to give -- I don’t know him, he was appointed by Obama.  That bothers me a little bit.  But I think he’s -- everything I can see, he’s really an honorable guy. 

 And I think he knows how big this is I think he knows how big this is.  And if he is as honorable as he is supposed to be, the I.G. report coming out in three or four weeks from what I hear is going to be and should be and almost has to be a blockbuster because he has access to information that most people don't.  And that's what he did the last time he was able to find things that a lot of people, great students of this whole thing like Devin Nunes who’s -- who deserves a medal and Meadows and Jim Jordan all these guys, the way they -- Biggs. 

 And you know every one of them they worked so hard.  They worked -- they just couldn't stand what was happening to the country.  They knew what was going on. 

 The biggest problem with the Mueller report, he didn't mention any of this.  He didn't mention Strzok and Page and McCabe and Comey and the lies and the leaks and overthrow and the whole thing with the Hillary Clinton got a win 100 million to 1, two lovers, two sick lovers, especially the one. 

 I mean, these were like children and they are FBI people, the top people in the FBI.  I’m so embarrassed for the FBI when you look at it. 

 But this was -- he didn't mention the insurance policy.  It's a very, very sad thing.  It can be cleared up incredibly well. 

 But, you know, you know and so I do that without -- if you didn't go any further, there are tremendous problems.  I’m trying to be very nice and I want to be very tempered, but there are tremendous problems on the other side.  If you had no other information, other than what you have right now, tremendous problems on the other side. 

 But, why didn't they mention in the Mueller report all of the horrible things that we found out about the other side, including the fake dossier, the fake dossier which even "The New York Times" now says was fake, which, again, I respect that they came out and said it. 

 This is too big a deal for mainstream media to give up.  But the nice part is, as far as Trump is concerned and Trump administration, there is no collusion and there is no obstruction.  Now it's time to look at the other side. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President, if, in fact, "The New York Times" is right and the dossier was a disinformation campaign by Russia, that would mean as Bruce Ohr testified behind close the doors that he even told -- and by the way, I agree with you about the FBI, 99 percent are good people.  And this is only a few at the top.

 But, if, in fact, they used that dossier as the bulk of information and it's disinformation -- to use "The New York Times" words -- from Russia that Hillary Clinton, the opposition party candidate paid for, that they never fully informed the FISA judges of and the Grassley-Graham memo, Nunes memo were right, that means that everybody signed off on those four FISA applications that would be, the first one, Jim Comey.  That would be Sally Yates, Boente, and Rod Rosenstein, that means they never verified what they told that court. 

 I would say that's a fraud on the FISA court.  What do you say? 

 TRUMP:  Well, from what I understand, they’d all be in a very big pile of trouble.  That's the way I look at it and that's the way I hear.  They would be in a very big amount of trouble.  It would be a terrible thing if that's the case. 

 And, you know, they have been denying that.  And they started blaming all sorts of people, Papadopoulos who nobody knew, and Carter Page, who I actually feel very sorry for.  I never met them.  But, you know, they made him -- they used him to try and get -- to try and spy on the campaign. 

 You know, they went in and these two guys were put on councils having to do with various things.  What difference does it make?  But they were put on to foreign relations councils and with a large number of other people.  And as soon as people saw their name -- even though I didn't meet Carter Page and Papadopoulos I actually sat at a table with him for about 15 minutes and that was it.  I never spoke to him or anything. 

 And they were -- you know, they have suffered a lot.  Like I don't see that they were not foolish because, you know, the way it all happened was so crazy.  But they were hit like very few people have ever been hit.  That was really to get to me.  That was to get to the campaign. 

 They started using them in order to spy on our campaign.  It would look like, I mean, again, it will come out at some point so I don't want to be the one to say.  But to me it seems to be pretty obvious when you look at what happened with Carter Page and it's -- they were spying.

 The attorney general said it better than anybody the other day when he was asked yes, I think they were spying on the Trump campaign.  You can't say it any better than that.  And I think so, too. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President, I’m going to -- I have to ask you about the New Green Deal, Biden and the media.  But one last, last question.  Will you declassify the FISA applications, Gang of Eight material, those 302s, or, you know, what we call on this program the "bucket of five"? 

 HANNITY:  Yes.  Everything is going to be declassified and more, much more than what you just mentioned.  It will all be declassified.  I’m glad I waited because I thought that maybe they would object struck if I did it early and I think I was right. 

 So I’m glad I waited.  And now, the attorney general can take a look, a very strong look at whatever it is.  But it will be declassified and more than what you just mentioned. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President, we’re now in the election season and Joe Biden made his big announcement today.  I thought it was a very warm welcome you made for him on Twitter which I read at the beginning of the show mere tonight. 

 Generally, your thoughts on him, his entry into the race.  You have Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren, Robert Francis O'Rourke, your reaction to the, well, now a record number of slate of 20 people that would like to take you on in 2020? 

 TRUMP:  Well, I don't know who it is going to be.  Maybe Sanders or maybe Biden. 

 I think, you know, when you look at Joe -- I have known Joe over the years.  He is not the brightest light bulb in the group, I don't think, but he has a name that they know. 

 He is coming on with some little cute statements about me that he talked about the way the world is today.  Well, I will tell you the way the world is today is we have a strong military. 

 We have choice for our veterans.  They have choice now instead of waiting in line all day long, all week long, all month long.  They have choice.  They can go out to a private doctor.  We pay the bill and they don't have to die waiting in line. 

 We have the biggest tax cut in the history of our country.  We have gotten rid of the individual mandate.  We have had the biggest cut in regulations which is one of the things creating all these great jobs because we have the best unemployment numbers that we’ve ever had. 

 Today, we have the most people working literally today, just came out.  We have the most people working than we have ever had in the history of our country.  Almost 160 million people are working to have jobs.  And it's incredible. 

 So, you know, that's really where we are today.  We rebuilt the military.  We have ordered jets, the likes of which no country has.  We have fighter jets, the F- 35, the F-18.  We have jets the likes which no country has at all. 

 We are ordering great, great ships, boats, and aircraft carriers and they are all being built in the United States.  That's jobs.  It's all being built right here. 

 Best equipment in the world.  Best missiles in the world.  We don't want to use them but if we have to, we are set. 

 Nobody has what we have.  Nobody has our military.  Nobody is even close. 

 When I came in, we had a depleted military.  We had an economy that was going down. 

 You remember the numbers.  They were terrible.  And they were going down.  We were going to be in negative numbers very soon.

 And now, we have numbers that are incredible.  The economy is setting records. 

When foreign leaders come in to see me, Sean, they always say, thank you, it's great to meet you, sir, and congratulations on your economy.  It's the greatest economy anywhere in the world -- which it is.  Nobody is even close to us.  That's because of the things we have been done. 

 So, when Biden makes the statement talking about the soul, I mean the soul, take a look at the Obama -- you know, I heard somebody say before that there was such dissension and division.  People forget there was tremendous division during the Obama administration, tremendous division.  We actually have a great spirit right now. 

 And, you know, just to finish that off.  We are a country respected again.  We are respected all over the world.  They all respect us.

 Even today I see where President Putin in Russia made the statement that it's great to be able to help us with Kim Jong-un and North Korea.  We want to get rid of the nuclear weapons. 

 We all have to get -- Russia has to get rid of them and China has to get rid of them.  By the way China, President Xi has been a big help.  We are working on a great trade deal.  But he’s been a great help at the border I’m talking about the border between North Korea and China. 

 And, you know, a lot of good things are happening.  We are respected again throughout the world.  And that's a great thing. 

 HANNITY:  Well, in Biden's case in particular, he is going to run on his economic record versus yours, his position on Iran and Israel and North Korea versus yours. 

 But, generally speaking, we have not just Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, about 100 House, Senate members at least and many of the Democratic presidential candidates for 2020 have bought into the New Green Deal.  Everything is free, no oil, no gas.  Comrade de Blasio has added no steel building or glass buildings in New York in five years.  But importantly, airplanes are gone, combustion engines gone. 

 How do you react if these are the policies you will be running against? 

 TRUMP:  Well, it's interesting because I just heard about this crazy deal in New York City where they want to build concrete buildings that little tiny windows.  You know, I built a lot of buildings, Sean, I can tell you, the bigger the window, the better I did with it.  People want big windows and now they’re going to take them down to nothing.  Now, the whole thing is crazy. 

 The New Green Deal, OK, and it's got to be some kind of a joke.  It's got to be -- they have to be kidding but, you know, I saw the senator from Hawaii who was so nasty to Judge Kavanaugh -- and that's another thing, we'll soon have within a period you have about two months 145 brand new federal judges and two Supreme Court judges.  But she was so nasty to now judge, Justice Kavanaugh, so horrible. 

 And they asked her about it, the New Green Deal.  They said, how about that?  And she goes, well, I’m in Hawaii and I understand they won't allow airplanes. 

 And she said, it's hard for me but I will approve it anyway.  Even though there is no way.  Somebody said they will build a train to Hawaii. 

 No, it's a crazy thing.  I can't believe they are really serious.  But I hope I get a chance to run against it.  I hope they don't decimate it. 

 Sometimes I almost wish I didn't say as much as I have said to you about it, because I want that to go through and I want to run against it. 

 I don't think they are going to win anyway but sure as hell not going to win with that legislation.  Never going to happen anyway from a practical standpoint, obviously. 

 But it is amazing to see the senators -- senators that I have known for a long time, distinguished Democrats, and they are fawning behind her.  She is talking about the deal, but I don't know if they are kidding.  I don't know if they are desperate for votes or I don't know if they are incompetent, but they are sitting behind her and they are acting like they actually agree with what she is saying about fuel and cows and all of the things.  I mean, it's ridiculous situation. 

 So I just hope it keeps going.  I hope nobody criticizes it too badly.  I have already done too much tonight, because maybe I would have talked them out of it and that would have been a very bad thing. 

 HANNITY:  OK.  You don't want to do it. 

 We had an incident this book.  I want to go to the issue of the border -- obviously, a defining issue for you. 

 TRUMP:  Right. 

 HANNITY:  And Congress was unable to override your emergency declaration.  The Pentagon who identified, I believe the figure was $9 billion of unused monies and you were going to apply that to the wall. 

 TRUMP:  Right. 

 HANNITY:  Then we had the incident this week where we had some people cross our border and literally, you know, took one of our guys' guns.  You put out a tweet better not happen again. 

 TRUMP:  Yes.

 HANNITY:  What's the latest with both the wall?  What's the latest on that situation and what is -- I don't know if you heard about this contractor that said he can build a whole wall for a lot cheaper than anybody else and get it done by 2020. 

 Are you aware of that? 

 TRUMP:  Yes, we are dealing with him, actually.  It's Fisher comes from North Dakota, recommended strongly by a great new senator as you know, Kevin Cramer.  And they are real. 

 But they have been bidding and so far they haven't been meeting the bids.  I thought they would.  But we’re up (ph) for a bid -- we are building many sections of wall right now that's under construction right now.  And I intend to have by the end of next year over 400 miles of wall which renovated a lot of wall already.  A lot of the wall was, you know, I’m good at this stuff.  That's what I do.  We renovated a lot. 

 We had wall that was falling down but structurally strong or can be strong.  So we saved a lot of money.  We renovated.  We fixed it and it's much quicker and frankly much less expensive. 

 So, we have renovated a lot and we built a lot.  We built a lot of new wall.  In some cases, we have ripped all wall down because it was in too bad of shape and we built brand new wall.  But we are building a lot of sections.

 And actually, over the next two to three weeks, we are giving out at lot of different sections.  They will be building it in different areas by different contractors, a similar design and a really good design. 

 HANNITY:  And you have the -- 

 TRUMP:  Less money, much more beautiful and actually stronger. 

 HANNITY:  Let me -- "The Washington Times," let me go to the issue of media and New York -- I’m sorry "The Washington Post," "New York Times" received Pulitzers for their, quote, coverage of the Russian probe. 

 You've seen the coverage over two-plus years.  Russia, Russia, Russia.  Trump, Trump, Trump.  Collusion, collusion, collusion.  The Mueller report couldn't be any more clear on the issue specifically. 

 Do you think the news media in this country and their coverage on this owes you an apology? 

 TRUMP:  Well, they do owe me an apology, a big one.  They owe you an apology and all of the people that you mentioned previously and some of the other people --

 HANNITY:  I’m not holding my breath. 

 TRUMP:  We actually had a lot of support.  I mean, I watch you and Tucker and I watch Laura and your great guys in the morning with Steve and Ainsley and Brian.  Brian came a long way.  I kid him but he came a long way, and so many other people. 

 Not only on FOX, in all fair news.  But you look at -- Jesse has been so great.  I mean, just so many people.

 But we had, really, a lot of support, including as you would say "The Washington Times" and some others.  But, generally speaking, it's corrupt reporting.  Generally speaking it was fake news. 

 And a term that, you know, I’m very proud of somebody said which is the best of the names, I don’t know, maybe fake news.  Who knows what it is? 

 Now, they use it.  You know, they use it to describe something.  They think they get out of it by use it. 

 They are tricky people.  But they were fake, they were corrupt.  If they could change, I would be the first one to say I respect the fact that you have changed.  But if they don't change, they have lost all credibility. 

 If you read the stories that they wrote about the Russia witch-hunt and, by the way, guys like Dan Bongino and Gregg Jarrett and Justice Jeanine, how about Judge Jeanine whose mother just died today which is horrible. 

 HANNITY:  I know.  Our prayers are with her.

 TRUMP:  I just spoke to her.  She is a great woman, loved her mother more than anybody other than her beautiful children.  But, I mean, she loved her mother.  She was a great daughter.  You know, she has gone through a hard time. 

 But how about -- how about Jeanine?  And I mean, it's been incredible. 

 We have far more support than people understand.  If we didn't, I wouldn't even be talking to you right now.  I mean, it would be a total mess. 

 We had enough to fight the deep state.  We had enough to fight corrupt media, mainstream media.  I mean, NBC, I think was worst, frankly. 

 I think NBC is more corrupt than CNN if that's possible.  And I made them a lot of money with "The Apprentice".  Can you believe it? 

 I was on that thing 12 years with "The Apprentice".  They wanted to sign me three or four more years.  They came up to my office.  I said, I’m running for president.  They've tried to talk me out of it. 

 I figured at least they would give me, for whatever reason, they would give me great, but they were --- I think they were more hostile frankly than CNN, which is hard to believe. 

 But this fake, horrible stuff, nobody can believe how dishonest they have been. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President I have known you personally for well over two decades.  And by the way I don't think the fake news brand is going away, but on all the issues you ran on -- conservative, originalist, constitutional justices, tax cuts, deregulation, Israel, Iran, foreign policy, the wall.  We're now energy independent for the first time in I think 70, 75 years.  We are now a net exporter of energy. 

 TRUMP:  Right.

 HANNITY:  The one thing Republicans, you've gotten part of it done.  That was that the individual mandate. 

 TRUMP:  Right. 

 HANNITY:  And you want to take on healthcare and Mitch McConnell said not this year. 

 TRUMP:  Well, he is going to be great.  Mitch is doing a very good job.  We really work -- he’s got a passion for the courts, and a passion for judges.  We worked great on that.  And we’ll be really good with healthcare.  I mean, we want to have -- we are going to do things that nobody has ever seen on healthcare. 

 But we have to get back to the House.  And in order to do it, we have to take back the House.  If we don't take back the House, then we have a problem.  You are never going to have good healthcare, because Obamacare is a disaster.  It’s too expensive, not working. 

 And we had it done.  It was done and then John McCain at the very last moment late in the evening went thumbs down and everybody said, what was that? 

 John McCain went thumbs down.  He did the Republican Party a tremendous disservice and did the nation a tremendous disservice.  Tremendous.  And it's unfortunate but we had it done. 

 And had we known he was going to -- because he said he was voting for it all day long.  Had we known he was going to vote against it, I think we could have convinced one of the other two people that voted against it.  We could have convinced them.  I feel confident to go for it.

 But we didn’t even try because we knew we had John McCain and we had everybody, and we’re all set.  And he went thumbs down at the very last moment.  And I thought it was a disgraceful thing to do and very, very bad for our country and bad for healthcare. 

 But we're going to do something that will be great.  We have to get the House back.  It will be much better than Obamacare.  And don't forget, they want to take 180 million private insurance plans away, people, 180 million people are going to be stripped of their great insurance that they have right now because we have made great insurance available to people. 

 Obamacare is actually, it's very important, but it's actually a smart part.  We have a very big case in court.  I think eventually the Democrats and Republicans would come together. 

 But we have a fantastic plan that we'll be rolling out and subject to us winning back the House, keeping the presidency, which I think we're going to do.  And also obviously winning the Senate. 

 And as you know, in '18, we picked up seats in the Senate but nobody ever gives us credit for that we won the governorships of many states, including Ohio and Georgia and Florida and we had, you know, just great.  We were at 53 to 47.  Nobody talks about that.

 We had actually a very successful -- we really did.  We had a very successful ‘18 election and don't forget the Senate that approves the judges nominees.  But it approves most importantly perhaps the judges. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President, in this whole investigative process, you never invoked executive privilege.  You handed over every document.  You told your staff to cooperate, that's fairly unprecedented.  And, yes, everybody knows that you said it was a witch hunt.  Pretty often, you said, you’re innocent, no collusion the whole time. 

 And you talked about, oh, why don't we fire, you know, Mueller or Rosenstein, whatever happened to be.  But you had the authority in the Article 2, according to Alan Dershowitz and other lawyers, but that’s a separate issue.  You never did those things.

 And I guess my question, when you said this week, you will now fight all subpoenas and enough cooperating.  Can you expand on what you meant there and what that means? 

 TRUMP:  Well, very simply, because enough is enough.  I could have fired everybody.  But --

 HANNITY:  Under Article 2. 

 TRUMP:  I wanted to you have transparency.  Article 2.  I could have fired everybody.  I could have fired Mueller.  I you could have fired anybody that I wanted to fire, Article 2. 

 I fired nobody other than Comey, and very interesting and that was early and people don't talk about that, but the very interesting thing about firing Comey is that everybody wanted him fired, all the Democrats.  I mean, virtually everybody, the Democrats thought he was horrible.  The Republicans thought he was horrible. 

 And I said, you know, this is going to be wonderful.  I’m going to fire this guy.  When he gets fired, I think it would be popular.  It thought it was go going to be bipartisan firing. 

 And he got fired and the Democrats sat back and they though, and the same people that two days earlier saying how horrible he was, were saying, oh, this is a terrible thing. 

 It’s -- what's a terrible thing is they are not putting our country first.  I have been the most transparent president in history.  I said let anybody speak.  The White House counsel can speak. 

 I heard, I mean this is incredible, but I heard they interviewed 500 people I didn't know we had that many people between the White House and other branches.  I mean, who would think they interviewed 500 people if that is possible to be correct. 

 They spent, as I told you, $35 million.  They had unlimited human resources.  They had the FBI working for ‘em.  They had U.S. attorneys.  They had the Justice Department working for them.  And they found no collusion. 

 But I was totally transparent.  I didn't tell anybody you can't go.  I could have.  I could have sell you are not going to testify.  Nobody is going to testify.

 When I say it, they do what I say.  I could have said that.  But what happened, Sean, is I wanted to be totally transparent.  So, then we get no collusion, no obstruction. 

 And then the House starts (ph).  Now, we’re going to go and we’re going to go further.  And I said, we’ve had it.  That's enough. 

 HANNITY:  Mr. President, only for the constraints of time, I would love to ask you in detail about all these candidates.  How about one word description on some of the top candidates for 2020?  Like, for example, if I say the word Joe Biden, one or two words? 

 TRUMP:  Well, I think we are calling him Sleepy Joe, because I have known him for a while and he’s a pretty sleepy guy.  He’s not going to be able to deal with President Xi.  I will tell you.  That's a different level of energy and, frankly, intelligence. 

 So, I thought to refer to him as Sleepy Joe, because -- a lot of people wanted me to take the word "sleepy" to something that rhymes with it.  Does that make sense to you?  And I thought it was too nasty.

 HANNITY:  Yes, I guess.  Well, welcome to the race.  I see you at starting gate.

 (CROSSTALK)

 TRUMP:  But he is not going to be able to do the job. 

 HANNITY:  What about Bernie Sanders? 

 TRUMP:  Well, he’s got a lot of energy but he has got misguided energy and he’s done very poorly in terms of the Senate.  He has had very little legislation.  I think he talks a lot and doesn’t get it done. 

 HANNITY:  Robert Francis O'Rourke? 

 TRUMP:  Well, it's a fluke.  Ted Cruz did a good job.  I helped him a lot in Texas.  We went down and had a couple of massive rallies.  And the people of Texas are incredible.  They figured it all out. 

 He is fading very fast.  I think he is fading very, very fast.  It looks like he’s going to be a thing of the past very soon.  But he was a hot item for a little while. 

 I’ll show you how dishonest the press was.  I went down to El Paso.  We did a tremendous rally, I guess we had 35,000 people between inside and out, at least.  And he had 502 people, and the press said, they both had big rallies.  They both had big rallies.

 I said, wait a minute, one has close to 40,000 people, one has 500 people, and they were very much comparing them.  That's the way the media is.  But then that’s why people don't like the media. 

 They got to straighten it up, because otherwise, it's not free press.  But he is fading fast, there’s no question about it. 

 HANNITY:  All right.  We have about a minute left, less than a minute left.  Mayor Pete, Kamala Harris? 

 TRUMP:  Well, I don't see either of them.  I think she has got a little bit of a nasty whit but that might be it.  And Mayor Pete is not going to make it. 

 HANNITY:  OK.

 TRUMP:  I would hope he would.  I hope -- I’m rooting for him but he is not going to make it. 

 HANNITY:  All right.  Mr. President, you have been very yen generous, once again, with your time.  I have think it's important, sometimes I know when you do other interviews that people want to play gotcha fight and they had their own agenda.  But every once in a while, I think it's important for the American people to hear you in answer in your own words at length on some important issues. 

 We do appreciate you coming on and giving so much time to this audience in particular.  Thank you. 

 TRUMP:  Thank you very much.  Thank you, Sean. 

                          https://www.pennmike.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=18552

   

출처 :통일의 건널목에서,,,, 원문보기▶   글쓴이 : 뽀로로