Mr. President, thanks for doing this. Thank you. The reaction to your press conference in Washington was swift and intense. Former CIA Director John Brennan described it as "treasonous" and a potentially impeachable offense. Why the push toward conflict with Russia in Washington on both sides? Well, I think Brennan is a very bad guy. And if you look at it, a lot of things happened under his watch. I think he is a very bad person. I also think that when you watch Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, when you watch all of the things that happened, and Comey, take a look at that, and McCabe who has got some pretty big problems, I assume, you look at the deception, the lies, what's gone on in the last fairly long period of time - before I won. I mean, long before I won. During the campaign. I guess probably during the Republican - when I was fighting against 17 other Republicans. So, this has been going on for a long time. But these are people that, in my opinion, are truly - they're bad people. And they are being exposed for what they are and it's a shame that it has to happen, but it's really hurt our country. Their view is that the United States is forever in conflict with Russia which is our chief global adversary. And anyone who doesn't believe that is betraying the United States, without taking up whether that's true or not. Why do you think there is this bipartisan consensus on that in Washington? It's sort of incredible because if you look at World War I and World War II, that was Germany. And in World War II, Russia lost 50 million people and helped us win the war. I was saying to myself the other day, I said Russia really helped us. I'm not pro-Russia, pro-anybody. I just want to have this country be safe. I don't want nuclear weapons, even people thinking about it. Russia and the United States control 90 percent of the nuclear weapons in the world. And getting along with Russia - and not only for that reason - that's a good thing. Are they our chief adversary, would you say? Well, they are a strong military, but their economy is much smaller, as you know, than China. I don't want to even use the word adversary. We can all work together. We can do great. Everybody can do well and we can live in peace. But I think it's very, very important. And I've watched your show a lot and I see how you're talking about really the magnificent size of China, you look at the size of what they've done in a fairly short period of time, that's because of a lot of bad leadership on behalf of the United States. We allowed that to happen. We allowed them to make hundreds of billions of dollars. Right now, as you see and you probably have noticed that things are happening. We have to bring it more into line. We have to level the playing field between the United States and China. And we've increased our net worth. We've increased our worth by more than $7 trillion since the election. And we're about twice the size of China, our economy. But China still is a massive economy. They have the second biggest by far. So, NATO. NATO was created chiefly to prevent the Russians from invading Western Europe. I think you don't believe Western Europe is at risk of being invaded by Russia right now. So, what is the purpose of NATO right now? Well, that was the purpose. Right. And it's OK. It's fine, but they have to pay. And they weren't paying. And other presidents went and they'd make a speech and then they'd leave and nothing would happen. And the fact that they didn't pay is not a new fact. This is something that people have known for a long time. Other countries were delinquent. In the real estate business, we use the word delinquent. They didn't pay. They didn't pay for past. So, I went there three or four days ago and I said, folks, you've got to pay because we're not going to pay it from 70 to 90 - and I think 90 is really the right - depending on the way you define it, 90 percent - we're not going to pay 90 percent of the costs to defend Europe. And on top of that, the European Union kills us on trade. We lost $151 billion last year on trade. They don't take our product. They don't take our farmers, beautiful goods. They don't take our cars. And if they do, the rate of tax is many times what we would charge them. We only charge them 2.5 percent. Their tariff is very substantially higher. I mean, in the case of China, we charge 2.5 percent when they send a car. And when we send a car into China, they charge us 25 percent. How is that fair trade? People say, we don't want tariffs, but how is that fair when one country gets 25 percent and another country gets 2.5 percent? And by the way, the one getting 25 doesn't even want the cars. They want them to build those factories - they want those factories built in China. They want those factories built in Europe. So, now, we're doing things that have never been done before in this country and you see what's going on. It's been very pleasant to watch. So, membership in NATO obligates the members to defend any other member that's attacked. So, let's say, Montenegro, which joined last year, is attacked. Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack? Why is that - I understand what you're saying. I've asked the same question. Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. Yes. I'm not against Montenegro. Or Albania. By the way, they're very strong people. They're very aggressive people. They may get aggressive. And, congratulations, you are in World War III. Now, I understand that. But that's the way it was set up. Don't forget, I just got here a little more than a year-and-a-half ago. Right. But I took over the conversation three or four days ago and I said, you have to pay. You have to pay. And the secretary general said that, because of President Trump, last year, we had an additional $44 billion raised for NATO. And this year, it's going to be much more than that. And the countries all agreed. It was very unfair. They weren't paying. So, not only are we paying for most of it, but they weren't even paying and we're protecting them. Add that to your little equation on Montenegro. As you traveled around Europe and looked at Europe over the years, can you think of a place that has been improved by mass immigration or movements of large numbers of refugees? Not one. Not one? And, in fact, one of my big things - and some people were insulted - I think a year ago, they would have been totally insulted. Now, maybe there could have been a couple out of all of those countries. I said the immigration policies in Europe are a disaster, you're destroying Europe, you're destroying the culture of Europe, the crime is up in those areas and you better do something. I tell them that. Look, it's not me, it's not anything, you just look at the numbers and the numbers speak. But the culture is changing rapidly and the crime rate is changing more than rapidly. You better do something. I told them that. What are the lessons for us, watching that? Well, we have to be very strong on the border. Now, we're much stronger than we ever were on the border and our numbers are much lower, but still we're getting the wall. We're putting in about $5 billion. We've already started the wall, 1.6 billion. Started in San Diego, California. It's almost completed in that area. And by the way, the people are really asking for it. It's interesting. They probably go down as we don't want the wall, but when it came to their backyard, they wanted that wall and they wanted it up fast. But we've started the wall. We are going to continue with the wall. It's so necessary. But we have to have strong immigration policies. Our laws are so bad, Tucker, somebody comes in and they step in our land and now we end up with a court case that takes seven years, but the people never show up to court. It's so bad and we have to do something about it. Like, if they come into our land, we have to say, I'm sorry, you have to leave. Not I'm sorry, please come to court; we're going to put you in court, you'll come back in three years for your trial and then they never show up. That's what's happening now. It's crazy. Why do you think so many political and cultural leaders in the United States disagree with you and are making the case that borders are themselves immoral? It's incredible. I mean, the Democrats are for open borders, which means crime. It's not a question of, like, what do you think it means. Open borders means crime. And you look at - MS-13 is pouring in and we stop them better than anybody else could. But when they get through - and then we send ICE because ICE is tougher than they are. And now I understand there's a big move to try and get rid of ICE. But MS-13, these are tough, vicious people. They don't like guns. They like using knives better because it's more painful. These are vicious people. And you know the story. You cover it plenty. And ICE goes in and they get them out. They get them out. They put them in jail or they throw them out of the country and they don't even think about it. And now, there's a movement to get rid of ICE because ICE is tough. If you don't have tough people doing that job, you're going to have crime like you've never seen it. So, it is incredible. The Democrats want open borders which is basically saying we want open borders, we want crime. Why do you think they want that? Maybe it's a political philosophy that they grew up with. Maybe they learned it at school. Maybe they are fools. I don't know. Now the second half of our interview from Helsinki with the president. He had a lot to say about the Mueller indictments. A very interesting exchange on Angela Merkel, whether she or Vladimir Putin is a better leader for their people and more. Here it is. You spoke with the Russian president about the hacking of the DNC servers. Those indictments were announced just a couple of days before you left on your European swing. What do you think of the timing of those indictments? Well, I don't think of the timing as much as I think of other timing. Barack Obama was president - I wasn't president when this happened. Barack Obama was the president of the United States when all of this - this was when I was getting elected. So, I was being elected. And, I guess, I assume this stuff all took place in that area or before. And he was president. And they informed him of it and he did nothing. And then, after I won - see, he thought Hillary was going to win. After I won, he said this is a big deal. Well, it wasn't a big deal as long as she won. So, it's a disgrace. And, frankly, it's a disgrace what's happening to our country. Would it be possible for you to direct the Department of Justice, FBI to take possession of the server and have - assuming no government investigators looked at it, which seems to be the case right now, and get to the bottom of it? So, as I've told you, and the answer is, absolutely, it is possible. And maybe, at some point, it will be done. But I've wanted to stay out. My Department of Justice is the one branch, the one group that I'm very little involved in. Same with the FBI. Am I disappointed that they're not looking at all of the crooked things taking place on the other side, like the Pakistani man who left with these three servers, knew everything about Schultz? Knew everything. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And I think he had three servers. I believe they even had them and they don't want to use him. For the DNC, where the server was never taken by the FBI, they went in there and Podesta or somebody threw them out of the office. They said get out of here. And yet, they go after other people like there's no tomorrow. And you understand that. I spoke to you about it before. As they said, you are winning, don't get involved because I don't want to have people accuse me of anything. So, I've stayed very much uninvolved. But am I allowed to be involved? Totally. Will I be involved? We'll have to see as it goes along. I mean, right now, people are finding out a lot of things that they never thought. And in all fairness to the IG report, it was an unbelievable report except at the end where they sort of tried to be politically correct. But when you talk about bias, there has never been biased like that. Strzok, on the other hand, that was totally bias. But that report was a good report except for the basic conclusion. Which wasn't even bad. Having met with, talked to, watched carefully Angela Merkel in Germany, Vladimir Putin in Russia, who do you think, from the perspective of their countries, does a better job representing the interest again of their countries? So, Angela was a superstar until she allowed millions of people to come into Germany. That really hurt her badly as you know. She was unbeatable in any election. She allowed millions of people to come in. And when they came into Germany, they passed everywhere else and they went to lots of other countries, although Hungry would not take any in. But what happened is it was a great migration. And, obviously, it's hurt Angela very much. I don't want to say who is better, who is not better, but I will say this. She's been very badly hurt by immigration. Very, very badly. So, China is a very rich country, as you often say. How many refugees and immigrants does China allow? I'd say probably none. Why is that? I'd say how about asking me about Japan, how about asking me about South Korea, how about asking me about a lot of other countries that are very successful? Is there pressure on those countries to allow millions of refugees and immigrants to come in? I don't even think that people making the decision would want to waste the phone call. There's no chance. Check out Japan. Ask them. How many have you taken in the last one year? You can count them on your fingers. No, it's different. But wait. If the key to success as a country is immigration, how can those countries be successful? I'm not even talking about key to success. And it depends on what immigration, what's going on. But you're asking me about China and I added Japan, I added South Korea, I could add other countries also. It is virtually impossible. I'll tell you what Mexico has very strong immigration laws. If Mexico wanted, they could stop this huge flow of people coming up from different parts of South America, including Mexico, and pouring into our border. Our laws are so bad. We have the worst laws anywhere in the world. We have the worst immigration laws in the world. We don't have any law. We have an opposite to law. And then, on top of it, you have the right to separate children, OK. So, everything is bad, but you have the right to separate children. It's really disgraceful that the Democrats aren't doing something about it because we need their votes, as you know. So, I hope we're going to get enough Republicans that we don't need them come November. But the Democrats, we need their votes. We have, as you know, 51. And even the 51 is not really there for obvious reasons in the Senate. And in the House, it's fairly close. We need Democrat votes in order to get it done. And they really just want to resist. Their whole thing is resist, right? That's their big theme. Resist. What do you get from resistance? But it's resist and obstruct. That's what they are all about. It's the only thing they're good about. They are not good politicians. They have got horrible policy, but they are very good at sticking together and resisting and obstructing. But that's hurting our country. But we'll get the immigration laws changed. President of the United States, thank you for the conversation. Thank you very much.