A question of grammar is at the center of President Donald Trump’s latest battle with the media.
Last Thursday, the Wall Street Journal released an eye-popping interview with Trump, who said, among other things, that FBI employees who had criticized him were guilty of treason, that America should tighten its libel laws, and that Mexico was still going to pay for the border wall Trump plans to build.
The most eye-popping quote of all was Trump’s apparent admission of being on good terms with the tyrannical leader of North Korea: “I probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un.” Huh? (The two have traded barbs on Twitter, most recently about the size of their, um, nuclear buttons.)
Count Donald Trump among the flummoxed.
“Obviously I didn’t say that. I said ‘I’d have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un,’ a big difference,” he tweeted on Sunday. “They knew exactly what I said and meant. They just wanted a story. FAKE NEWS!”
— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 13, 2018
It’s a subtle difference, but a critical one. If Trump said “I,” he was claiming to be on good terms with the unstable leader he famously termed “Little Rocket Man.” If he said “I’d,” he was merely commenting, with habitual bravado, that he and Kim would get along famously if they ever had the opportunity. So which was it?
Short answer: It’s hard to say. Trump talks quickly; the audio recordings released by the Journal and the White House are inconclusive. After repeated listens, this writer is inclined to hear “I’d,” but it’s hard to say.
The White House has one strong point—it would be weird, even by Trump-ian standards, for the president to brag about his amicable relationship with the North Korean government, with whom he spent all of 2017 rattling sabers. And then there’s this bit of digital sleuthing from writer Yashar Ali:
Former oppo researcher in me has been obsessing over this so I reduced the background noise and slowed his voice down to 40 percent and he says “I’d”
— Yashar Ali ? (@yashar) January 14, 2018
But is the president right about the rest—that the Journal was doing a deliberate hatchet job, misrepresenting him for sensational clicks? Well… hardly. If they were mistaken, it seems to have been an honest mistake, particularly given the full context of Trump’s remark.
“President Xi has been extremely generous with what he’s said, I like him a lot,” Trump began. “I have a great relationship with him, as you know, I have a great relationship with Prime Minister Abe of Japan, and [I/I’d] probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong-un of North Korea.”
The surprised reporter interjected: “Just to be clear, you haven’t spoken to the North Korean leader, I mean, when you say a relationship with Korea—”
“I don’t want to comment on it,” Trump cut across him. “I’m not saying I have or I haven’t.”
Given Trump’s follow-up comment, it’s easy to see why the Journal reporters heard what they did: Trump seemed to divulge a piece of information about international relations, then declined to clarify when they followed up. That, coupled with the fact that Trump made the comment about Kim while rattling off a list of regional leaders he has great relationships with in the present, means the notion that Trump might have said “I’d” probably never occurred to the transcriber.
Besides, there’s a bigger problem with Trump’s accusation: Would the WSJ really try to sabotage Trump? WSJ editor Gerard Baker last year took heat in media circles for being too friendly with the president—a fact that hasn’t gone unnoticed by Trump himself.
“Every month we’ll do one of these,” Trump told the Journal’s reporters on Thursday. “Because I do respect and I love and, I think, Gerard. … All I’m asking is one thing, you know what I’m saying, it’s very easy, treat me fairly.”
Given all this, it would have been easy for the White House to turn the Journal’s apparent error into free good publicity. Imagine if, instead of bleating conspiratorially about FAKE NEWS, Trump had graciously pointed out the error, said he had been misheard, and asked for a correction. The Journal might still have dug in its heels, but Trump would have clearly been in the right, and would even have looked statesmanlike.
Imagine.
