A Spy exclusive: the missing pieces from the Times Ivanka interview

By A.J. Liebling
Meta-Content Generator

The reaction from sentient carbon-based life forms to the recent slurpy interview of schmatte peddler and senior White House official Michaela [Surely, Ivanka? – Ed.] Trump at the hands of three veteran New York Times Washington reporters must have been hard for the interviewers to bear.  Lobbing softball after softball at the clueless object of patriarchal lechery, the reporters managed to convey the impression that Ivanka was really, really trying hard and was really, really a good person notwithstanding her handmaid-like loyalty to a crooked bigoted ignorant admitted sex criminal that she calls, adorably, “Dad.”

Maggie Haberman, shown here in tense negotiations
with Times editors

Now Times reporters, like their fellow ink-stained wretches, are known for accepting criticism of their work with all the introspection and grace of the thrice-married dental hygienist from Azusa upon learning she was being booted off The Bachelor the day after banging him on their magical date at Knott's Berry Farm.  But in this case the Spy's crack investigative team has learned that the oft-beset gentlepersons from the Times may have a point.

The Spy has obtained exclusively the portion of the interview piece that was unaccountably cut from the published version in which the Times gang asked the questions that any competent journalist would ask of a senior administration official with no more idea of what her job entails than her boss and father.  Why the Times's legions of (mostly male) editors thought that these sections did not deserve to appear in the final piece is something only they can answer, but let's stop being so mean to Jodi Kantor, Rachel Abrams, and Maggie Haberman.

As you're about to read, the missing piece of their story should restore their reputations:


<haberman-add4-ivanka interview itemprop="author creator" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Person>
>Ms. Trump appeared confounded when asked why she was qualified to occupy a series of senior positions in the government of the most powerful nation in world.  “I'm a really good listener and a good learner and my husband is so smart – he knows everything,” she said.
>“I mean I don't ask you why you are qualified to ask me questions in your Gap jeans and Birkenstocks.”
>“And a lot of women these days are washing their hair.  You should try it sometime,” she added.
>Nor was she any more able to explain how she would manage the manifold conflicts of interests that arise from her continued involvement in various Trump-branded enterprises, including hotel projects with shady finaglers linked to dictators and malefactors around the world, hideous shoes, and tacky jewelry.
>“I am a very honest person and I would never do anything wrong,” she said.
>When asked about the apparent conflict that arose when she participated in meetings with Chinese President <clerk put in name> shortly before receiving valuable trademark approvals from the Chinese Government, she said, “And the problem is what exactly?  I mean, I have the right to make a living, don't I?”
>She was equally hazy about the details of her child care plan, which would funnel almost all benefits to richer parents because it is premised on tax deductions.  “I am very supportive of working mothers.  My children's two nannies both have children back in El Humidor or wherever and I let them call their kids on our computer twice a week, after my children are in bed.”
>Although she mentioned many times her devotion to her children, and correctly provided their names and ages after a brief consultation with her phone, she did not understand how her father's anti-environment policies threatened their future.  “I know that my children will have a wonderful environment whether they choose to live in a 20-room co-op on Fifth Avenue or a rambling mansion in Bedminister, N.J,” she said.
>Nor did she offer any justification for her father's support for a health care plan that would deny insurance to 24 million and kill tens of thousands of them while providing $900 billion in tax cuts to the richest sliver of American society.
>“I am letting my brilliant husband Jared make all decisions about health care.  You should ask him.  He went to Harvard.”
>At this point, she pressed a button summoning a servant with a thick Eastern European accent, who whispered into Ivanka's ear, accented by a hideous purple-and gold-filigree earring the size of a turnip.  She smiled and said: “I am so sorry but I have an extremely important exfoliation to attend to.  I am finished with you now.  By the way, have you ever heard of concealer?”
><I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT I HAVE TO EARN A LIVING DOING THIS.  WHY DIDN'T I GO TO LAW SCHOOL?  WHY DIDN'T I MARRY THAT NERDY GUY IN WINTHROP HOUSE WHOSE DADDY OWNED 20 OFFICE BUILDINGS?  WHY GOD WHY? TAKE ME NOW.>
<end mhaberman-add4-ivanka interview>