Trump does a 15-minute interview with NPR.

Full text here. It begins on the subject of covid: 

The vaccines, I recommend taking them, but I think that has to be an individual choice. I mean, it's got to be individual, but I recommend taking them. Many people recommend them. And if some people don't want, they shouldn't have to take them. They can't be mandated, as the expression goes. And I think that's very important. Personally, I feel very comfortable having taken them. I've had absolutely no reverberation....

But then it's all about the 2020 election results, with Trump sticking to his attack on the election and the interviewer, Steve Inskeep, pressuring him until  Trump cuts it off. A few highlights:

Why did Republican officials in Arizona accept the results then?

Because they're RINOs, and frankly, a lot of people are questioning that....
It is not true that there were far more votes than voters [in Philadelphia]. There was an early count. I've noticed you've talked about this in rallies and you've said, reportedly, this is true. I think even you know that that was an early report that was corrected later.

Well, you take a look at it. You take a look at Detroit. In fact, they even had a hard time getting people to sign off on it because it was so out of balance. They called it out of balance. So you take a look at it. You know the real truth, Steve, and this election was a rigged election.

Why is it that you think that the vast majority of your allies in the United States Senate are not standing behind you?...

Because Mitch McConnell is a loser. And frankly, Mitch McConnell, if he were on the other side and if Schumer were put in his position, he would have been fighting this like you've never seen before. He would have been fighting this, because when you look at it, and this is long — is a long way from over.... 

Let me ask you this question. How come Biden couldn't attract 20 people for a crowd? How come when he went to speak in different locations, nobody came to watch, but all of a sudden he got 80 million votes? Nobody believes that, Steve. Nobody believes that.

If you'll forgive me, maybe because the election was about you.... 

Trump says he won't attend the inauguration.

To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2021

Just before that tweet, there was this:

The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2021

And last night, this zombiesque performance:

pic.twitter.com/csX07ZVWGe

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 8, 2021

AND: Here's the transcript for that zombiesque performance. I saw some people calling this his "concession," but I listened and heard no concession: 

We have just been through an intense election and emotions are high, but now tempers must be cooled and calm restored. We must get on with the business of America. My campaign vigorously pursued every legal avenue to contest the election results. My only goal was to ensure the integrity of the vote.... Now Congress has certified the results. A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th. My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power. This moment calls for healing and reconciliation.... We must revitalize the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that bind us together as one national family....

He's saying the process for challenging the result has concluded and he will not challenge it anymore. It's not that Biden really won, but that the process is really over. What exactly is "concession"? It's not a technical term. Nothing depends on it. It's a nicety. We want a particular locution... but why? Is it like saying "uncle"? 

From the Wikipedia article "Concession (politics)":

In modern U.S. elections (presidential or otherwise), a concession is usually a two-step process: first, the losing candidate makes a concession phone call to the winning candidate and congratulates them personally. Second, the losing candidate makes a televised public speech, known as a concession speech, to their supporters, on an (improvised) podium surrounded by the candidate for the vice presidency, their spouses or other important relatives and friends. The concession speech consists of four elements: 

1. The statement of defeat: an admission that the candidate has lost the election to their opponent, who is congratulated on their victory. 

2. The call to unite: an expression of support for the victor's upcoming term in office, and a call for unity under their leadership, necessary after an often divisive and polarizing election campaign. 

3. The celebration of democracy: a reflection on why democracy and the participation of millions of voters in the electoral process is important, and that their choice should be respected. 

4. The vow to continue the fight: a reminder of the importance of the issues the candidate has raised during the campaign, and the policies their party advocates for. The candidate says that these remain important goals to strive toward, promises to continue fighting for them, and urges their supporters to do the same...

Trump's speech does not have the most important element: The congratulation of the opponent! He never mentions Biden. He does not concede that Biden won, only that the process was conclusive. 

Elements 2 and 4 are there, but the 3rd element is reversed. He doesn't say that people voted and he must bow to the people's choice. He's keeping alive the belief that the result that has been certified is not what the qualified voters actually voted for. In his rhetoric, democracy does not prevail. The idea that supersedes democracy is order — smooth, seamless orderliness. 

BUT: Element 2 is incomplete. He wants the people to unite, but just in general. He doesn't say unite behind our new leader!

"Like Nietzsche’s Socrates, Trump was 'the buffoon who got himself taken seriously.' Unlike a Socratic buffoon, however..."

"... Trump never overcame himself. Bereft of the wider critique that once confounded political elites, his personality cult is no longer compelling even as a vessel for ressentiment. Its chief acolytes today are the legacy media operations whose fortunes his nonstop controversies helped revive, opportunistic scribblers hoping to cash in on one more #Maga or #Resistance potboiler, and those who prefer that the media focus on anything except the substantive issues raised in 2016. They will happily ride the Trump gravy train as far as it goes, but it’s already running out of steam." 

From "Donald Trump's influence will evaporate once he leaves office. Here's why/Those who believe in the invincibility of Trump’s personality cult hold a view of American democracy that is at once too cynical and too naïve" by Julius Krein (The Guardian).

Here's the context of "the buffoon who got himself taken seriously," from Nietzsche’s "Twilight of the Idols":

With Socrates, Greek taste changes in favor of dialectics. What really happened there? Above all, a noble taste is thus vanquished; with dialectics the plebs come to the top. Before Socrates, dialectic manners were repudiated in good society: they were considered bad manners, they were compromising. The young were warned against them. Furthermore, all such presentations of one's reasons were distrusted. Honest things, like honest men, do not carry their reasons in their hands like that. It is indecent to show all five fingers. What must first be proved is worth little. Wherever authority still forms part of good bearing, where one does not give reasons but commands, the dialectician is a kind of buffoon: one laughs at him, one does not take him seriously. Socrates was the buffoon who got himself taken seriously: what really happened there?