today? the limits i acknowledged - today? the limits i acknowledged i - today? the limits i i acknowledged i had? today? the limits i - acknowledged i had? this payment _ acknowledged i had? this payment reporting - acknowledged i had? this payment reporting that you acknowledged to you that earlier_ acknowledged to you that earlier and the evening. that is not true- _ earlier and the evening. that is not true. what _ earlier and the evening. that is not true. what i _ earlier and the evening. that is not true. what i said - earlier and the evening. that is not true. what i said was l is not true. what i said was instead of my everyday starting at seven and going to bed at midnight it would be smarter for me to pace myself a little bit more. i said for example, the eight, six soft, instead of starting a fundraiser at nine o'clock, started eight o'clock. people get to go home ten o'clock. that's what i'm talking about. i'm not talking about... have you looked at my schedule since i made that stupid mistake in the campaign, in the debate? my schedule has been full bore. where has trump been? right around been full bore. where has trump been? rightaround his been full bore. where has trump been? right around his golf cart, filling out a scorecard before he hits the ball? he's done virtually nothing. i have

had i do know many for the roughly 20 major events for that someone with thousands of people showing up. ijust think it's better for the i always have an inclination whether i was playing sports or doing politics just to keep going, nonstop. ijust have to pace myself a little more. pace myself. in the next debate i'm knocking to be travelling into 15th time zones. that's what it was about. by the way, even with that i love my staff but they add things, they add things all the time. i get help from my wife. anyway. zeke miller, associated press. the

miller, associated press. two questions _ miller, associated press. two questions for _ miller, associated press. two questions for you. _ miller, associated press. two questions for you. first - miller, associated press. two questions for you. first on the nato _ questions for you. first on the nato summit, president zelensky in your— nato summit, president zelensky in your meeting he pressed you to lift_ in your meeting he pressed you to lift your— in your meeting he pressed you to lift your limitations on ukrainian use of american weapons, saying that ukraine cannot — weapons, saying that ukraine cannot win the war unless those limitations are lifted. are you reconsidering your position on that? — reconsidering your position on that? secondly, leaders of your own party— that? secondly, leaders of your own party have said that they are not— own party have said that they are not worried about that debate~ _ are not worried about that debate. they're worried about the next — debate. they're worried about the next that night and that bad night after that. how can you reassure the american people _ you reassure the american people that you are up to the task— people that you are up to the task and _ people that you are up to the task and that there won't be more — task and that there won't be more bad nights at the debate stage — more bad nights at the debate stage or— more bad nights at the debate stage or somewhere else? first thing _ stage or somewhere else? first thing about zelensky asking for the ability to strike deep into russie — the ability to strike deep into russia. we've allowed zelensky to use _ russia. we've allowed zelensky to use american weapons in the near— to use american weapons in the near term — to use american weapons in the near term and to use american weapons in the nearterm and in to use american weapons in the near term and in the near abroad _ near term and in the near abroad into russia. whether or

not he — abroad into russia. whether or not he should be tied, for example, zelensky, he is not, if he _ example, zelensky, he is not, if he had — example, zelensky, he is not, if he had the capacity to strike _ if he had the capacity to strike moscow, strike the kranilin— strike moscow, strike the kremlin would that make sense? it wouldn't. the question is, what — it wouldn't. the question is, what is _ it wouldn't. the question is, what is the best use of the weaponry he has in the weaponry were _ weaponry he has in the weaponry were getting to him. i've got him — were getting to him. i've got him a — were getting to him. i've got him a more long—range capacity as well— him a more long—range capacity as well as — him a more long—range capacity as well as defensive capacity. so our— as well as defensive capacity. so our military, and following the advice of my commander—in—chief, the chiefs of staff— commander—in—chief, the chiefs of staff of— commander—in—chief, the chiefs of staff of the military as well _ of staff of the military as well as— of staff of the military as well as a secretary of defence in our— well as a secretary of defence in our intelligence people. we're _ in our intelligence people. we're making it a day—to—day basis — we're making it a day—to—day basis of— we're making it a day—to—day basis of what they should and should — basis of what they should and should not do, how far they should _ should not do, how far they should go in. that's a logical thing — should go in. that's a logical thing to— should go in. that's a logical thing to do. second question related — thing to do. second question related to... how can you reassure _ related to... how can you reassure the american people that you — reassure the american people that you will have more bad

nights— that you will have more bad nights on debate stage in terms of foreign policy. the nights on debate stage in terms of foreign policy.— of foreign policy. the best way to assure _ of foreign policy. the best way to assure them _ of foreign policy. the best way to assure them is _ of foreign policy. the best way to assure them is the - of foreign policy. the best way to assure them is the way - of foreign policy. the best way to assure them is the way i - to assure them is the way i assure myself. and that is, am i getting the job assure myself. and that is, am i getting thejob done? am i getting thejob done? can i getting thejob done? am i getting the job done? can you name me somebody who's gotten more major pieces of legislation passed in three and a half years? i created 2000 jobs just last week. so a half years? i created 2000 jobsjust last week. so if a half years? i created 2000 jobs just last week. so if i slow down i can't get the job done. that's a sign that i shouldn't be doing it. but there's no indication of that yet. none. but if we got here? merrick. how are you? i am well. . ., , ,, well. the elections in the us are consequences _ well. the elections in the us are consequences around - well. the elections in the us| are consequences around the world — are consequences around the world. you have pretty high standing _ world. you have pretty high standing in europe. ijust ask

president _ standing in europe. ijust ask president emmanuel macron about you and _ president emmanuel macron about you and he — president emmanuel macron about you and he says we're happy to have _ you and he says we're happy to have him — you and he says we're happy to have him as the president of the united states. but there is a concern _ the united states. but there is a concern that many people in poland. — a concern that many people in poland, across europe are worried _ poland, across europe are worried that the former president may win the election. there _ president may win the election. there is— president may win the election. there is a — president may win the election. there is a lot of concern that donald — there is a lot of concern that donald trump may weaken nato, stop supporting ukraine or porsche _ stop supporting ukraine or porsche ukraine to give up territories into russia. they are correct. your self morning just— are correct. your self morning just two— are correct. your self morning just two minutes ago about it. so nry— just two minutes ago about it. so my question is, do you think that— so my question is, do you think that europe will be left on its own — that europe will be left on its own it— that europe will be left on its own if donald trump wins the election? _ own if donald trump wins the election? and what is your advice _ election? and what is your advice to— election? and what is your advice to european leaders to prepare — advice to european leaders to prepare for possible us

disengagement? look, i think... look, ithink... how look, i think... how can i say this without sounding too self—serving? i'm not having my european allies come up and say joe, don't run. what i hear them say is, you have got to win. you can't let this guy win. you can't let this guy win. he will be a disaster. a disaster. i mean, ithink he said in one of those rallies, don't hold me to this, recently, nato, ijust learned about nato or something to that effect. foreign policy has never been his strong point. he seems to have an affinity to people who are authoritarian. that worries me, as i can tell you, that worries europe, that worries poland. and nobody including the people in poland thinks that if it wins and in

ukraine will be the end of it. what i can say is i think i'm the best qualified person to do the best qualified person to do the job, the best qualified person to do thejob, to make sure the best qualified person to do the job, to make sure that ukraine is does not fall, that ukraine is does not fall, that ukraine succeeds but the european alliance say strong. you may recall nobody was talking about finland joining nato. i remembertalking talking about finland joining nato. i remember talking right after we got elected in geneva and he was talking about what we should do, we couldn't be in eastern europe and etc. i said you are looking for the finland isolation of ukraine. you can get the nato waystation of finland. at about four weeks later i got a call, that's not true, but five months later the president of finland to come and see me. he sat my office, i invited to the oval office. we sat down and talk. he said i want tojoin nato, can

sat down and talk. he said i want to join nato, can you help? i did. want to join nato, can you help? idid. it want to join nato, can you help? i did. it was want tojoin nato, can you help? i did. it was an automatic. then i got a call from the swedes. i beg your pardon. so finland joined nato, 800 mile border is significant. they are already allies but they were not part of nato. i can't recall, he said in a closed meeting but wouldn't mind it being repeated, he said we decided in family, the people of finland decided they had to be part of nato. it's in our interest because of the joint ability to be to gather. to dissuade any attack on finland. the same thing with sweden. it took a lot of selling to some folks, particularly in turkey and other places to create the

expansion. but it expanded. and we're a hell of a lot stronger because of it. we're more secure because of it. and by the way, i was able to get 50 other nations, 50, to support ukraine. 50 for that we were able to bring about a coalition of your and asia, able to bring about a coalition of yourand asia, japan able to bring about a coalition of your and asia, japan and south korea. ijust met with, we talked about a relationship between australia, new zealand, japan, south korea, the united states. we're making the world safer, stronger because we have to deal with the new arrangement that exists in the world. the cold war is over. the postwar era is over. what is to replace a? i respectfully suggest i have a pretty good idea of what that should be. we're just gonna

idea of what that should be. we'rejust gonna get idea of what that should be. we're just gonna get stronger. david sanger. where is he? be nice, david. david sanger. where is he? be nice. david-— nice, david. the nato declaration _ nice, david. the nato declaration that - nice, david. the nato declaration that was i nice, david. the nato - declaration that was issued yesterday, it was very notable because — yesterday, it was very notable because it described china as a decisive — because it described china as a decisive enabler of the war in ukraine _ decisive enabler of the war in ukraine. for its provision of critical— ukraine. for its provision of critical goods to the russians. as part— critical goods to the russians. as part of— critical goods to the russians. as part of a broader partnership that seems to have cemented in place in the past two or— cemented in place in the past two or three years, i think one you were — two or three years, i think one you were a _ two or three years, i think one you were a little bit doubtful of when _ you were a little bit doubtful of when you we asked you about it sometime ago. we would be interested to know if you have a strategy now of trying to interrupt the partnership between china and russia for them — between china and russia for them and whether or not in a second — them and whether or not in a second term you would pursue that, _ second term you would pursue that, if— second term you would pursue that, if you could describe that —

that, if you could describe that strategy to us. and along the way— that strategy to us. and along the way could you also tell us whether— the way could you also tell us whether you think, just if follow—up on polices question, that if— follow—up on polices question, that if you _ follow—up on polices question, that if you were in a room with vladimir— that if you were in a room with vladimir putin again the way you were _ vladimir putin again the way you were three years ago or with— you were three years ago or with president she that a few years— with president she that a few years ago you would be able to negotiate with them, —— xi for the handle _ negotiate with them, —— xi for the handle them? negotiate with them, -- xi for the handle them?— the handle them? first, we discussed _ the handle them? first, we discussed and _ the handle them? first, we discussed and i _ the handle them? first, we discussed and i raise - the handle them? first, we discussed and i raise in - the handle them? first, we discussed and i raise in the| discussed and i raise in the nato summit in arms race, the future of china is in involvement, what they are doing with russia in terms of accommodating, facilitating and getting access... for not supplying weapons themselves, discipline mechanisms for them to be able to get weapons. china's position is basically, i've spent more time with xi than any world leader has come over 90 hours since being

present two vice president all the way through. by the way, i handed all my notes. three believes that china is a large enough market that they can entice any country including european countries to invest there in return for commitments from europe to do a, b, c or d or not to do things. what happens is we had a long discussion about what we cannot, we have to make it clear, china has understand that if they are supplying russia with information and capacity along with working with north korea and others to help russia, and armament that they are not going to benefit economically as a consequence of that by getting the kind of investment they're looking for.

for example, we're in a situation, we've established contact with china remember after the "balloon" coming down? we set up a new mechanism. there is a direct line between xi and me and our military has direct access to one another and they contact 18 other when problems. the issue is that we have to make sure that xi understands there is a price to pay for undercutting both the pacific basin as well as europe as it relates to russia and dealing with ukraine. for example, if you want to invest in china, you know this area really well, if you want to invest in china you

have to have a 51% chinese owner, you have to make sure you do by their rules in you don't have the authority... you have to provide all access to the data and information you have. there was while they're in the last administration and other administrations where the access to that market was enticing enough to get companies to come in because they had access to over a billion people, a market, not a billion people, a market, not a billion but a lot of people in the market. so they were doing it. that got curtailed when we started saying we're going to play tjy started saying we're going to play by the same rules. for example, the idea that they don't abide by the international rules as relating to subsidising products by government funding. guess what, they're knocking to be able to export to the united states without a significant terror. others are doing the same thing

around the world. it is a concern. it is a concern that you have both china, north korea, russia, iran, countries that are not necessarily coordinated in the past looking to figure out how they can have impact. inaudible. yes, i do but i am not prepared to talk about the detail in public. and i think you will see that some of our european friends are going to be curtailing their investment in russia, i meant, excuse me, in russia, i meant, excuse me, in china, as long as china continues to have this indirect help to russia in terms of

being able to help their