Senator Lindsey Graham joined me this morning:

Audio:

09-23hhs-graham

Transcript:

HH: Here is Joe Biden in 2018 talking about the Ukraine. Cut number 25:

JB: Well, I was, not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over convincing our team, our, others to convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, try to guess the 12th, 13th time to Kiev, and I was going to, supposed to announce that there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn’t. So they said they had, they were walking out to a press conference, and I said no, I said I’m not going to, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said. I said call him. I said I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said you’re not getting the billion, and I’m going to be leaving here, and I think it was what, six hours. I looked. I said I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.

HH: Joined now by United States Senator Lindsey Graham. Good morning, Senator, always a pleasure to have you.

LG: Well, that’s a good lead-in to me, the old, good old son of a bitch lead-in. How are you doing?

HH: (laughing) I’m good.

LG: (laughing)

HH: I’m good. I’m not going to call you…have you heard that Joe Biden quote before?

LG: No, never ever.

HH: What does that tell you about this weekend’s rush to judgment? It’s another example of verdict first, trial later when it comes to Donald Trump. And I don’t think anyone’s heard the Joe Biden quote saying he got the prosecutor fired.

LG: Well, it makes the Kavanaugh story look like good journalism.

HH: (laughing)

LG: So here’s the deal. All things Trump have been looked at regarding Russia. Now it’s time for all things Ukraine to be looked at. I like Joe Biden. I’ve been a friend of his for a very long time. But we can’t have two standards here. The prosecutor was looking at things in the Ukraine, and he got fired, and there’s all kind of allegations about the Ukraine dumping information into the legal system and political system in 2016 about Manifort and others, you know, Hunter Biden, what kind of situation did he have financially? I’m hoping somebody will take a look at all things Ukraine like they did with Russia from the Department of Justice. As to the President’s phone call with the newly-elected Ukrainian president, I would urge him to continue to be as transparent as possible and tell us as much as he can without compromising executive privilege so that we can understand what happened.

HH: Now it’s possible POTUS could say something, the President could say something that would be shocking. He could say to Putin, for example, Lindsey Graham saying bad things…

LG: Trump? No way.

HH: Yeah, Trump could say Lindsey Graham’s saying bad things about me on Twitter. Would you put a hit on him? And then we would know about that, and that would be impeachable, right?

LG: (laughing)

HH: That, there are things he could say that would be impeachable.

LG: Now is this a hypothetical, or are you…

HH: (laughing)

LG: (laughing)

HH: I don’t know what the President…

LG: Yeah, I hope that’s…okay, yeah. But yeah, here’s the point. Phone calls between the president and foreign leaders should be a fairly privileged circumstance, because if it’s not, I don’t know how you can become president of the United States and be effective in your job. But having said this, this whole dust-up about a whistleblower, I would just urge the President, you know, he’s talking openly about the conversation, to release as much as possible. And here’s what I think. I think you’re going to find more about that phone call in the coming days. You’re going to be surprised about the level of transparency regarding that phone call. And in turn, that should put pressure on the system to find more about what Joe Biden was talking about.

HH: Now two weeks ago, you referenced this, it was a smear against Brett Kavanaugh. Now, it’s this. Is it ever going to stop? It’s Trump Derangement Syndrome. It grips the media on any occasion. This is not insignificant, but running to impeachment the way every Democrat, your friend Elizabeth Warren, your friend Kamala Harris, your friend Bernie Sanders, they all want impeachment. Is this ever going to stop?

LG: Well, I think it’ll stop in his third term.

HH: (laughing)

LG: Third term, but I think he needs to really, you know, plough through in his second term. Here’s the deal. They’re calling for the impeachment of the president of the United States based on an excerpt from a book review talking about an alleged sexual assault that never occurred. Now that’s ridiculous. So here’s the truth.

HH: You mean Kavanaugh. They’re calling for the impeachment of Kavanaugh.

LG: Yeah, yeah.

HH: Yeah.

LG: Okay, so he had this book review about a book coming out about Kavanaugh, and in the book, there’s an allegation of a sexual assault that’s mentioned in the book. But when you go to the person reference in the book, the authors never talked to her, and she says I don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s the basis of impeachment. That’s not an impeachable offense. That just shows the people who hate Trump beyond reason. That’s all that proves.

HH: Let me talk about this leak of the President’s phone, the whistleblower.

LG: Yeah.

HH: This is an excellent way to destroy the whistleblower statute. Now I talked to three former lawyers to presidents last week. The whistleblower statute does not apply to the president.

LG: Right.

HH: But like every other thing that Democrats have used, like destroying the confidentiality of the grand jury testimony, the rule of law gets put aside when attacking Donald Trump gets put center stage. They don’t care about confidentiality of whistleblowers. They don’t care about the confidentiality of grand jury testimony. It’s all about getting Trump. Do you think the media realizes what they look like?

LG: I think if they did, they would stop, because people, you know, you’re a conservative guy, but you know, you understand the reality is that when it comes to Trump, you’ve got to be suspicious of everything. Did they get a warrant from the FISA Court based on a fraudulent application, that the dossier they used to get a warrant against Carter Page is not verified to this day? They were told that Christopher Steele had a bias. They went ahead anyway. They never told Trump about the counterintelligence investigation designed to protect the target. Counterintelligence investigations are supposed to protect people. But here’s the deal. When it comes to the phone call, this is one of the most privileged matters any president would have, I would think, is a conversation with a foreign leader. But the times in which we live, I believe, that President Trump is going to blow you away with his willingness to disclose and be transparent about this phone call, because I think he did nothing wrong and he has nothing to hide. And the day that happens is the day that the inquiry about the interview with what was said by Joe Biden begins in earnest. So get ready for some disclosures from the President that I think will exceed every expectation. I can’t promise you this will happen, but I think the President will clear the air when it comes to the whistleblower allegation.

HH: Now this is sensitive, Senator. I always try and keep kids out of my conversations…

LG: Yeah.

HH: …because public officials ought not, the sins of the father ought not to be visited on the son.

LG: Sure.

HH: And so you know Joe Biden.

LG: Yeah.

HH: Do you know Hunter Biden?

LG: I don’t know Hunter that well. Beau Biden I knew very well, was a wonderful man. I’ve known Joe Biden for 30 years, and I think he’s a decent guy who’s been wrong about almost everything, foreign policy-wise, but sincere and honest. But here’s the problem for me. As much as I like Joe and respect the Biden family, if Don, Jr. got $.15 cents from some foreign entity while Trump was president, it would be front page news. And we’re talking about a prosecutor being dismissed in the Ukraine, bragging about it, and at the same time, a member of Biden’s family receiving a substantial amount of money from that part of the world. I just think it proved to Republicans that if nothing else, the rule of law should apply to both sides.

HH: Will you hold a hearing on the Biden’s at the Judiciary Committee?

LG: I think the best way to do this, quite frankly, and that’s a good question, is for somebody independent of politics to do what Mueller did with Russia – have somebody look, it doesn’t have to be a special counsel, but to look at the substance of that interview. Was any money paid to the Biden’s, Hunter Biden? What was it paid for? Was there any interaction between the prosecutor being dismissed and these transactions? Again, I admire Joe Biden. I like his family. But the Trumps have gone through hell. Everything they’ve ever said and done regarding Russia has been laid out. And you had, you know, a two year investigation. So I hope the President will be transparent with a phone call that he made to the newly-elected Ukrainian president. I think he will, and I hope somebody in the Justice Department will look at the Ukrainian matter, not politicians.

HH: Are we going to get hearings on Spygate? Because I really do think we need to…

LG: Yes.

HH: Oh, we are? Tell us about when and who’s going to be called.

LG: You’re talking about Horowitz?

HH: Yeah.

LG: Yeah, well, we’re going to call Horowitz. You see, I’m chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and we have oversight over the FBI and the Department of Justice. Here’s the question. During the 2016 campaign, you had two candidates for president. Both of them were being investigated for different reasons. Why did Hillary Clinton’s investigation result in no action? Was it based on the lack of evidence or a political bias? The counterintelligence investigation of the Republican nominee of president is a very big deal. Did President Obama know that there was a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign? And Hugh, why did they not tell President Trump that they had suspicions about people working for him being tied to Russia? The goal is to protect the target of foreign influence. They told Dianne Feinstein that a Chinese member of her staff was linked to the Chinese government, and she fired them. Why did that not happen to Trump? The FISA warrant on four different occasions, the court issued warrants against Carter Page. Was there any real credible evidence that Carter Page was a Russian operative? After being warned about Christopher Steele’s biases being in the tank against Trump, wanting her to win and Trump to lose. Did they verify the document that was the chief reason the warrant was issued? And if they didn’t verify the document, did they mislead the court? And will the court take corrective action? And for the FISA Court to survive, it’s going to have to prove that it can clean up its act.

HH: Now Senator Graham, I have withheld judgment on a lot of things. I always said leave Mueller alone, and I’m glad that they did.

LG: I did, too.

HH: I had a very high opinion, I had a high opinion of Comey. I had a high opinion of McCabe, but it is looking increasingly to me like James Comey defrauded the President with that briefing before he became president while he was president-elect, that there was an investigation underway, and that Comey intended to get dirt on the president with that briefing. Do you agree with my assessment at this point?

LG: Well, the fact pattern is that there was a briefing where he assured the President he wasn’t under investigation. He goes into his car, gets on some kind of super duper computer and logs in the conversation. But more importantly, did James Comey and McCabe and the rest of the group, did they submit an application for a warrant against an American citizen based on a document paid for by a rival political party that’s unverified to this day? Did they in any meaningful way alert the court that you should be suspicious about Christopher Steele and what he’s up to? That, to me, is very important. Did Obama know about the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign? And what kind of direction did they issue to the intelligence community, Comey and others? And was there a real attempt after the election to spy on the transition team? Was there a legitimate reason to believe that Flynn and others were doing anything wrong other than trying to charter a different policy regarding Russia?

HH: All right, Iran is coming next, but first, judges. You knew if you were talking to me, judges. There are now 8 Appeals Court nominees, there’s only been one hearing on Halil Suleyman Ozerden.

LG: Yes.

HH: First of all, is he going to get a vote?

LG: Yes.

HH: It looks like he’s going down.

LG: No, he’s going to make it.

HH: He’s going to get through committee?

LG: Yeah.

HH: Okay, number two, what’s up with these other Circuit Court nominees? How about one hearing a week for the next eight weeks so we can get them on the Circuit?

LG: We will have all the hearings for the outstanding Circuit judges done by the end of the year.

HH: Faster, faster, Senator Graham.

LG: (laughing) We’ve done 150 judges.

HH: Okay…I, just the Circuits.

LG: A pace never seen before in the history of the United States Senate.

HH: I’m thinking of Chariots of Fire.

LG: Be patient.

HH: I want you to, can you make me faster?

LG: Be patient. Be patient.

HH: All right, to Iran. First about my friend, Robert O’Brien, his new deputy, Matt Pottinger.

LG: Right.

HH: What’s your reaction to O’Brien’s appointment, Pottinger as his deputy’s appointment?

LG: Home run, solid. I’ve known Robert for a long time. He worked on the Rule of Law Task Force where I served as a reservist in Afghanistan. He’s well-seasoned in terms of the world and national security issues. He’ll be a great advisor, and he’s got a solid deputy. So the President has a good team around him right now.

HH: Now let’s talk about Iran and the response to their attack on Saudi Arabia. Ben Rhodes is blaming the withdrawal from the JCPOA, you know, the Metternich of MSNBC. What do you think about Ben Rhodes’ criticism?

LG: I think that Iran is testing Trump in the region. I think the JCPOA was one of the most flawed deals since Munich. What it did was it allowed the ayatollah to be flush with cash, never required him to stop being the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, had nothing to do with his missile program, and the sunset clauses made the inspection regime a joke. Terrible idea, terrible deal, glad Trump got out. And here’s what’s happening now. They’re throwing a fit. They will eat grass to wait out Trump if they have to. An attack on the Saudi oil field is an act of war. When this happened in the 80s when Iran attacked ships and was provocative against U.S. interests in the 80s, Ronald Reagan hit their navy and hit oil platforms. And if there is no military retaliation against the Iranian act of war, I think it would be a mistake.

HH: I want to emphasize something you said. They will eat grass if they have to. This is important for Americans to understand.

LG: Yes.

HH: The Iranian regime does not care about the Iranian people, and they’ve got lots of money and lots of supplies, and they will go to the mattresses to last out sanctions. Sanctions will not move this despotic regime.

LG: Right.

HH: Is that what you meant by they’ll eat grass?

LG: Yes, sir. They are firm in their commitment to dominate the region. This is a religious theocracy. Rocket man is sort of a mafia state. The ayatollah and his regime have a view of Islam, they’re going to purify it in the image of Shiism. They want to destroy Israel. They’re not joking and they want to dominate the Mideast. To do that, they’re trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. So if they attack Saudi Arabia and nothing happens, they’re going to believe that they’re home free when it comes to a path to a weapon. So if they get hit and they get hit hard, not an all-out war, I think you’ve got a chance to reset the Mideast before it gets too late. But they’re determined to do whatever it takes. They think they can outlast Trump. And here’s my hope. My hope is that President Trump showed measured response to the drone being shot down, which was a good thing. The Iranians took that the wrong way. Now’s the chance to reset when it comes to Iran. And if we give them a pass here, the Arabs are going to believe that nobody’s going to stop them, and they’ll go buy their own nuclear weapon and you’ll have a nuclear arms race. This is a very big deal.

HH: President Reagan in Operation Preying Mantis waited, waited, waited, put up with a lot, then he sunk a third of the Iranian navy.

LG: Right.

HH: I believe he hit Kharg Island as well after a warning was given.

LG: Yes.

HH: Are those the sorts of things you think could be done that are proportionate? And the President’s concern is about proportionality. Not many people died, if anyone, in the attack on Saudi Arabia. But it’s going to get worse, and they could hit the UAE nuclear stuff.

LG: Well, so here’s the point. I think if you look at those two operations, I believe in ’87 and ’88, I was in the Air Force back then. And I’m so glad they caught the guy that killed the navy diver in 1985, that TWA flight. A good friend of mine was a defense attorney down in Athens. He was supposed to come up to Germany to do a court martial, and he actually missed that flight. Had a ticket for it and missed it. So that era is very real to me. But what Reagan did is that as Iran continually harassed shipments in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, he got to the point where he’d had it and sunk a bunch of their ships, and he attacked oil platforms later that were used to attack an American ship. And guess what? Iran went silent. And when Qaddafi was hit by Reagan in ’86 after challenging us, and you know, and shooting at American interests, he bombed Qaddafi’s residence, killed his daughter, the Berlin attack, the disco attack set off a response by Reagan. And that shut Qaddafi down. We need something like that. Hit their economic targets like an oil refinery, oil storage. Go after the IRG military assets to make it real to the IRG that if you engage in this behavior, we’re coming after you.

HH: Now the President responded. He took a shot at you, said ask Lindsey how invading Iraq worked out. So I’m going to ask you. How did invading Iraq work out, Senator Graham?

LG: Well, I don’t cry at all that Saddam is dead. We left too soon, and you make a good argument the intel was flawed and we shouldn’t have gone in. You can make a hell of a good argument that we left the wrong way without having no residual forces behind. But I’m not asking President Trump to invade Iran. I’m asking him to do what Ronald Reagan did. Take a provocative religious theocracy, and reset the Mideast by punching them so they won’t go further and escalate their attacks. And if the Arabs believe you can’t count on America and the West, they’re going to make their own bets when it comes to nuclear weapons. The Europeans are pretty much worthless on issues like this. We’re the glue that holds the world together, not the policemen. The oil fields in the Mideast have been strategically important to the U.S. Even though we’re less dependent on them, the world very much is. And it’s in our interest to have a stable world economy. Navigation of the seas has been a strategic interest of the United States. So the President has been strong on Iran. He’s been strong on North Korea, destroyed ISIS, but the Iranians took his measured response with the drone the wrong way. And I would advise President Trump, who I like a lot, and I’m not asking you to invade Iran like Bush invaded Iraq. But I am asking you to send a signal to the Mideast that’s unequivocal to the IRG, to the Iranian regime, and to our allies that you’re more like Reagan, less like Obama.

HH: My penultimate question has to do with Hong Kong, Senator Graham. You were late, so I’m taking you in the penalty box.

LG: Absolutely.

HH: The Hong Kong demonstrators, I talked to a very senior foreign official who used to represent the United States government. He’s retired now. He said that Deng Xiaoping and President Xi Jingping have a lot in common. They’re not that different. He said as well that if we, you know, there’s not going to be a democracy in Hong Kong. China’s not going to let that which they’ve regained fall apart again, and they can’t have an Eastern Europe situation, that the prospect of a lot of violence is out there, and that Americans ought to help the Hong Kong demonstrators achieve a resolution. What do you think we ought to be doing vis-à-vis, I watched Marco Rubio and Jim McGovern have a great hearing last week with a bunch of Chinese dissidents, and they’re brave and noble people, what do you think we ought to be doing to help not make this worse there?

LG: Well, the common theme here is the rule of law. There was an agreement between the Chinese government and the British that when they handed over Hong Kong that it would be an autonomous area. They would be able to live their life the same way. They would be able to elect their leaders and practice capitalism. And that was a deal they made. So here’s the problem with China. If you have a dispute over an island, they don’t have take it to arbitration or court. They build a military, they militarize the island. If you do business in China, they don’t respect your intellectual property. They steal it. When it comes to currency manipulation, they do it. They manipulate the value of their currency against IMF rules. So the bottom line here is it’s about the rule of law. So I would tie their behavior in Hong Kong to the overall trade deal. If we’re not willing to enforce agreements that the world signs with the Chinese, and if we don’t hold them accountable, then nothing’s safe. So this is a defining moment for the Trump presidency to put China on notice that we expect you to abide by the agreement with Hong Kong.

HH: All right, my last question, I’m circling back to Halil Suleyman Ozerden. You said he’s going to get a vote and he’s going to clear. Ted Cruz has said he’s going to vote against him. Josh Hawley’s on the fence. If you send the nominee without a recommendation to the floor, will he get through the Senate GOP with 50 or 51 votes?

LG: Yeah, I think he will. He was a Navy fighter pilot. I found him to be highly-qualified. I didn’t know much about him. I thought he did a great job in the hearing. The case in question, he dismissed a complaint about a religious liberty case, but 21 other judges did the same thing because there was going to be a change in policy and there’s no use proceeding with the case in front of you if the policy was going to change. So I’ve got letters coming from Catholic diocese talking about how good he’s been on issues of faith. He’s a man of great faith. I think he was a great nominee by the President, and I’m going to stand behind him, and we’re going to vote, and that’s the way the process goes. And let me tell you, you’re a big fan of changing the 9th Circuit? The 9th Circuit is changing in front of your eyes.

HH: Yeah, Bumatay and Van Dyke are great nominees. I just need to get them a hearing. I don’t know why you don’t do all eight of these nominees at once, seven. We’ve already had a hearing for Ozerden. How about a panel of seven Circuit nominees?

LG: (laughing) Well, that would work if everybody was like you, but we’ve got Democrats who believe that might be more than the market would bear.

HH: Well, again, is it every two weeks that you hold one hearing?

LG: No, we’ll double up. We’re going to have, I think, two a week for two or three weeks. We’re going to do two a week.

HH: And my very last question, if you’re a Republican judge out there or a judge who cares about originalism and textualism, and you’re eligible for senior status, does Lindsey Graham want you to take senior status?

LG: You know, Disney World is an incredible experience. I want you to get to know your family better. I want you to have the time you’ve earned. You can still be a judge. But sit back, relax, and let me find somebody in their 40s to take your place. You would be doing the world a great service.

HH: Amen. Senator Lindsey Graham, thank you. Have a good morning.

LG: Yes.

HH: Bye bye.

End of interview.