The Trump 60 Minutes Interview and Anti-Trump Protests

Donald Trump gave his first in-depth interview after his election win to CBS' "60 Minutes" on Nov. 13. The interviewer was Leslie Stahl. Should you care to watch the broadcast version (sans commercials), Click Here.

I used the term broadcast version because it was heavily edited. I do not mean to imply it was falsely edited; rather, from watching it, editing was clearly evident.

Overall, I found the interview to be excellent. Stahl asked good, probing questions and Trump's replies were in kind.

I would encourage the reader to watch the interview.

As one might imagine, I do have a couple of comments - and, actually only two - one comment on Stahl and one on Trump.

On Stahl:

She asked Trump about protests by his supporters that did not seem appropriate. Trump responded by emphatically asking anyone doing such to stop immediately - the correct response, I feel.

The issue with Stahl was that she did not sufficiently note the protests across the country on an anti-Trump nature; many of which were violent - Click Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, and not just in this country.

Nor did Stahl pose any questions as to Trump's reactions to news reports that indicate many of the anti-Trump protesters were/are paid to do so; mainly by George Soros - Click Here, Here, Here, and this one of the busses in Chicago used to bring in protesters.

I found these omisions by Stahl to be reflective of the normal, progressive media attempting to create false impressions.

Other than that, I felt Stahl did an excellent job.

On Trump:

During the interview I was impressed with both Trump and his family in responding to questions - many of the questions both probing and relevant.

While discussing Supreme Court appointees, Trump was asked whether he would seek to overturn the law governing same sex marriage (i.e., Obergefell v. Hodges ruling by the Supreme Court). His answer was, in effect, that it was law and that the law should stand. Again, the correct answer, I feel.

However, his answer as to a desire to overturn Roe vs. Wade (or not) was less than positive. Yes, he has a right to his opinion; but, he answer was the wrong one in MY opinion.

He kind of "hem-hawed" a bit when answering; but, wound up indicating that were it overturned the results would be left up to the States. While per Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution makes this answer correct, he should have given the same answer as he did in the same sex marriage question.

I felt he erred significantly in this answer. And, I would have much preferred he gave my answer.

Those two complaints were all of significance I found. Again, watch the interview - very informative.

For those wishing to read more about Roe vs. Wade, and it's not as straightforward as many would like to believe, the below links offer information on the subject - each with their own "take" on the law:

From Cornell Law on Roe vs. Wade


From "Women History"