Lindsey Graham - US Senator HARDtalk

Now it is time for HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk, from Lake Como in Italy.

I'm Sarah Montague, and I'm here at the annual Ambrosetti Forum,

where some of the world's big thinkers and politicians are meeting

to consider some of the challenges we face.

They voted that one of the biggest risks to the world

is the American presidential election.

Among those here, the Senator Lindsey Graham.

He said that Donald Trump is a jackass, and that their party,

the Republicans, should unendorse him as their candidate

for president.

Senator Graham was a candidate himself.

He is widely respected on foreign affairs and has warned that

Donald Trump has no understanding of the world and is not fit to be

America's commander-in-chief.

So, what happens if he ends up as America's President?

Lindsey Graham, welcome to HARDtalk.

Thank you for having me.

"Not fit to be America's commander-in-chief".

Why?

What is so wrong with Donald Trump?

That was my view at the primary, and the way you become

commander-in-chief is not have to impress me, but the voters.

I think temperament and judgment are his biggest problems right now.

He is winning in three areas.

Best able to defeat Isil when you ask the American people,

Clinton - Trump.

Trump.

Best able to handle the economy?

Trump, not Clinton.

Best able to bring change to Washington -

Trump, not Clinton.

With those three back things going for you,

how are you losing?

He loses to her simply because people are worried

about his judgment, temperament and experience

to be commander-in-chief.

The Republicans should win this year because in our country,

it's very hard for one party to control the White House

for 12 years.

There is some Obama fatigue.

But his inability to convince the American people as an individual

that he can deal with the crises that come with being

commander-in-chief is the reason he's losing, and if he can overcome

that, then he could actually win this election.

But what are your fears about him?

That judgment, that temperament, what do you think,

if he were in the position of being President of the United States,

that he could do?

I don't believe he's going to wake up one day and create World War III.

He has a family and children, in fact, grandchildren.

I don't think he's mentally unstable, I just think his world

view is something to me that's perplexing.

Putin is not our friend.

When you look at Putin as a potential ally,

I think you misunderstand where Putin's coming from.

Syria - I understand the idea of being aggressive against Isil,

but you're not going to win the war from the air,

and he talks about leaving Assad in power.

I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan 38 times and I have learned

that the Arabs will not accept Assad staying in power in Syria

because he is a proxy and puppet of Iran.

At the end of the day, when it comes to Middle East

politics, sizing up people, who is your enemy, who is your

friend, a lot of concern there.

We will look at the detail of that in a minute,

but in terms of getting to the point where you say he is not fit to be

America's commander-in-chief, that doesn't sound...

There are plenty of people you disagree with on policy,

not least President Obama.

And Secretary Clinton.

I disagree with her.

My belief is the way he has handled himself has led to that conclusion

on my part, but I see change.

I see him actually getting a bit better.

For example, on Muslims, and you said that what he said

on the Islamic world, one thing you cannot do is declare

war declare war on Islam itself, and you said he had done that.

He has changed his position slightly on who will be allowed into a Trump

America.

So to the American people and to our friends in Great Britain,

you can't win the war without partners in the faith.

The one thing you don't want to do as leader of the West is declare war

on the religion.

So, when you ban all Muslims, you're basically saying

that the faith itself is the problem.

There are elements within the faith that most people within the faith

reject, that have to be dealt with in partnerships.

So you see change.

It is actually encouraging the understanding that we need

partnerships.

He talks about the King of Jordan in glowing terms.

Now he says that the ban will be directed towards countries

and people who have a history of terrorism, which is different

than banning an entire religion.

But it is from any nation that has been comprised by terrorism,

which is arguably almost any country in the world.

Almost every country has a terrorism problem.

There way you win the war, there is no capital to conquer,

no air force to shoot down, no navy to sink.

We are fighting an ideology.

Here is the good news, and this is what I would tell

Mr Trump and Secretary Clinton.

Most people in the faith are not buying what Isil are selling.

The young people of the Islamic world don't want to go

to the 11th century.

Most fathers and mothers do not want to turn their daughters over

to Isil, so how do you defeat this ideology?

You have to build up the lives of others.

We have to provide a hope for life to compete with the glorious death.

When Trump says we can't nation build any longer,

that's disturbing to me.

All these things are things are things that other politicians say.

You have said that your fellow Republicans should unendorse him

as their candidate.

That was during the primaries.

Are you not saying that now?

You can endorse him if you like.

Here's our nominee and he won.

That ship has sailed.

I'm not going to vote for him nor her.

Who would you vote for?

Probably John McCain.

I will write in somebody.

You will write in someone else's name - that is a waste, isn't it?

Isn't that like giving a vote to Hillary Clinton?

I hear that a lot.

At the end of the day, here's what I think.

I'm a person like anyone else and I have to be convinced

that the person I'm voting for is capable of doing the job.

Maybe Mr Trump gets me there over time, but right now,

I don't feel like I have a choice.

Most Americans feel like the two choices we have

are woefully unacceptable.

I feel your pain.

She is highly distrusted.

He seems to be a bit shaky, to be nice.

Bit shaky?

In the eyes of the American people.

We're talking about you.

You've said of him, if we nominate Trump,

we will get destroyed and we will deserve it.

Well, you did, and now you're saying, well,

maybe he's OK.

I think that what he's doing is making all the problems we had

in 2012 worse.

He gave a speech a couple of days ago about immigration.

We're not going to deport 11 million people.

We can deport felons and croks, but we're not going to win

the election unless we do better with Hispanics.

Bush got 44% in 2004, we're down to 27%.

I believe...

And even lower according to some polls.

I don't know where Trump will wind up, but here is what I do know.

I'm not going to vote for someone who would deport my grandmother.

What Mr Trump doesn't realise is these 11 million illegal

immigrants have children and grandchildren who are US citizens.

And we need to understand as a party that the biggest impediment

to growing amongst the Hispanic community is not our ideology,

they are conservative, is that they view us through this

immigration debate as harsh and intolerant.

His numbers with young women...

For the party to grow, for us to win the White House,

we've got to grow among Hispanics and young women.

Do you accept that actually all those things you're talking

about, the problems Donald Trump has, in a way, are actually problems

that have been brewing for decades?

Totally.

Absolutely.

It's all around immigration.

There's about 40% of the Republican primary voter who doesn't

want to embrace the idea that some of them can stay.

Taht they learn the language, pay the fine and get in the back

of the line.

The idea that they all have to go to enforce the rule of law,

to be pure of the rule of law.

That has divided the party.

He seized upon that.

What did he do...

I am curious about is, is there something else?

Is there something that dates back Nixon's Southern strategy,

where almost it was dog whistle politics, and now it is just a more

overt form of bigotry that he has capitalising on.

I think his approach to immigration...

Is racist?

Yes, has a tone of "them".

They are mostly drug dealers and mostly rapists and some of them

are good is, one, not true.

OK, but that is what Donald Trump says, but can he say it

because the Republican party has kind of been leading to that point?

The supporters the Republican party have been left

with really have been...

That's the signals they have been...

That message resonates.

He's playing to people's worst instinct and fears.

You're going to lose your job to foreigners, I'm going to get

you a better trade deal.

The illegal immigrants raping your wife and selling your kid drugs.

That message preys on people's fears because the world is changing.

You know there are plenty of people, not least the likes of Nigel Farage,

UK Independence Party, who come over and reinforce this

point, which is about the little people.

It is that people have heard from politicians,

really, they've overpromised, and now the electorate feels

disillusioned and betrayed.

Well, one, I wouldn't use him as a model.

I don't see his party doing very well.

The bottom line is that there is anxiety among working-class

people throughout the world.

That the job security you once had no longer exists.

The idea of working for one company for the rest of your life

is probably going to be difficult to achieve,

so when a politician comes along and says,

I'm going to protect your job from unfair trade, there are a lot

of people believe that, yes, we need to stop all these trade

agreements with all these different people, because they're

costing me my job.

There are a lot of people believe the economy is not there for them.

I see that.

And all politicians are guilty of that overpromising,

which has led to disillusionment?

I think yes.

I think that's a pretty fair statement.

Here's what drives me crazy as a politician.

When I hear a politician like Mr Trump and Secretary Clinton,

quite frankly, saying you don't need to adjust entitlements,

you don't need to ask younger workers to work longer before

they get retirement and get a pension and get public health care

benefits based on their age, that you're not doing them

a service, because you're not going to deport 11 million people.

I hate it when people tell folks something I hear that has not

a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

What happens to the Republicans?

Let's say post-election.

We're going to change or die.

And what is going to happen to all the Republican voters

or people who would have been supporting Donald Trump?

Are they going to come back behind establishment characters like you?

Here's what I hope they will rally around.

If you believe in conservatism, help me sell it to a larger audience.

If you believe it's good to have a strong military,

so do I.

But if you want rational immigration reform, count me in,

but I can't promise you we're going to deport all 11 million.

Deport the crooks.

My goal is to have an immigration system that supplements

the declining workforce.

What I hope the Trump voter and all those that make up

the mosaic of the Republican Party will focus on what we have

in common.

And understand that without upping our game,

without growing the political pie, that we're going to die.

If you're worried about four years of Hillary Clinton,

what about 2020?

How do we win?

Why are we losing?

I'm not the enemy.

But you will know, and this is happening in many countries

around the world, that traditional parties like the Republicans

are fracturing because people...

I mean, you don't behave like you're in the same party as Donald Trump.

And yet...

Can you really see the Republicans coming together?

Yes, I think the desire to win will overcome our differences.

I hope.

How do you grow the party?

Young people, 35 and younger.

You may not believe in climate change, but they do.

So I want a party that can communicate to young people.

I'm socially conservative.

I am pro-life.

But I am not pro-rape.

So if a woman is impregnated because of a rape, I think most

people in America would say that's her decision to make.

So on social issues, I believe in traditional families.

But the Supreme Court has ruled.

Let's protect the church, the mosque and the synagogue

from performing weddings consistent with their faith,

but not beat on people just because they have a different lifestyle.

So many people have said the Republican Party do all this -

talk about Trump as an inexcusable bigot and then they say while Trump

should be our next President.

I'm not saying that.

I'm not supporting Mr Trump for a variety of reasons.

You're very critical of what he says about President Putin.

He has said, I've always felt that Russia and the United States should

be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism

and restoring world peace.

Now what is wrong with that?

Number one, Putin is not an agent for world peace,

he's a disruptive influence.

The rule of law matters to me.

If you have a problem.

If Scotland wants to break away from the UK, there is a process

to do it.

If you have British tanks outside of Scottish homes I would say

the referendum is probably not fair.

So the idea that the Crimea in Trump's mind, well they wanted

to go to Russia, that's not the way you decide such events.

The Urkaine...

He's dismembered a neighbouring country.

It's a proxy war between Russia and the Ukrainian people.

He's propping up the butcher of Damascus, Assad, who is the most

disruptive influence in the Middle East.

So I would say that when it comes to Putin, that he is not

a friend of freedom.

Democracy has died inside Russia.

Every institution of democracy has been snuffed out.

So if you don't see that as the American president,

you are making a huge mistake.

Do you think he represents an existential threat

to the United States?

I think the way he has conducted himself is a threat to all of us.

I think anybody who would dismember their neighbour through the force

of arms is a threat to all of us.

I think anybody who would keep a man like Assad in power,

a disruptive influence time a million, in the Middle East,

is a threat to us, yes.

And you have said, I would literally shoot his planes down if he attacked

the people we trained, because we have to do that.

You were talking about those US-trained rebels in Syria.

Here is what I would do.

I would give the Syrian people the chance to take their country

back and not have the American people decide who is their

president, let them decide.

OK, I asked a different question.

You would be prepared to shoot down Russian planes?

Here's the deal, if we're going to train Syrians to take Assad

on because it's in our interests for him to go, every Arab nation

objects to Assad being in power because he's a proxy of Iran.

To leave him in power means that Iran basically controls yet

another Arab capital.

So I've concluded it is in the US interests for Assad to go.

I don't want a war with Russia, I don't want a war with Iran,

but they are backing Assad.

If we're going to train the Free Syrian Army

and they're attacked by Russian helicopters,

or Syrian forces, we have a moral obligation to help them,

because they don't have an Air Force.

You've also argued for troops on the ground, for American troops

back on the ground in Syria dealing with this.

And Iraq.

People would say, are you crazy, look what happened in Iraq,

look what happened in Afghanistan?

You know, what I would tell those people?

Are you crazy?

Look what's happening?

450,000 people killed in Syria.

You have Jordan, Syrian refugees are overrunning

the kingdom of Jordan, one of the great allies we have.

Are 20,000 American soldiers going to make a difference?

Yeah, you need ten.

It would make a huge difference.

How do you hold the territory once you liberate Raqqa?

Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

You could argue about should we have gone in, but I can promise you,

if we had stayed, Isil would not exist today.

Four years ago, his entire national security team told Obama,

help the Free Syrian Army while they were intact.

He chose not to.

Hezbollah came in to help Assad when he was on the ropes,

now the Russians are in.

So Assad is being helped by the Russians and Hezbollah,

an Iranian proxy, and the Free Syrian Army has been abandoned.

And Syria is ten times worse than if we had done

this four years ago.

We have a situation though where actually the Secretary

of State, John Kerry, has come to a deal with Moscow

so that there is more coordination on air strikes.

What a joke.

This whole concept that we've got to deal with

the Russians is a joke.

They're bombing the people we're training.

Most of their sorties flown against the Free

Syrian Army, not Isil.

Russia's interests and ours don't align.

They're not in there to fight Isil, they are in there to keep Assad

in power and as soon as we realise that, the better off we will be.

If you would shoot down Russian planes because there are attacking

Syrian rebels.

They would stop attacking Syrian rebels.

OK.

Is the same true for Turkey, where of course in recent fighting

it's hit US-backed Syrian Kurds?

This is the dilemma with Obama's policy.

As much as I dislike Erdogan, who is a Putin in the making,

I understand their problem.

The YPG Kurds are the main force we're training inside of Syria.

And the Turkish leader sees them as allied to the PKK.

And so do I.

So this whole construct is absurd.

They're relying on a Kurdish force who doesn't care about Assad.

But the principle of they're attacking our friends,

and who have done a huge amount in Syria in America's interests,

or aligned with America's interests, in reclaiming ground

from Islamic State.

I appreciate the fact the Kurds have fought against Isil.

They're ambivalent about Assad, that's why we're training them.

The Arabs won't fight unless you promise to take

Assad out.

Very few Arabs are coming to the fight just to fight Isil,

because they see Assad as a bigger threat to the long-term

future of Syria than Isil.

If Turkish aeroplanes bomb American special forces helping the Kurds,

that would be a terrible thing and I hope they can talk about not

allowing that to happen.

Turkey says that America must extradite Fethullah Gulen,

who it believes is behind the recent coup.

We have a process to do that.

Should America consider his extradition to Turkey?

I find Erdogan's Turkey to be a disturbing place.

I'd be very reluctant to send anybody back to Turkey assuming

they would get a fair trial, but there is a process in place.

Turkey is a Nato ally, but in front of us

we see the breakdown of institutions in Turkey.

The coup, nobody can support a coup if you believe

in the democratic process, but look what Erdogan is doing,

he's becoming a Putin within Nato.

The justice minister says if the US does not deliver Fethullah Gulen,

they will sacrifice relations with Turkey for the sake

of a terrorist.

I would say we have a process in the United States in terms

of who we extradite and how.

Ultimately it's going to be a political decision.

Yeah, well I don't know if it would be political, I don't know

how much of it will be the rule of law driven,

but I would tell our Turkish friends this.

The road you're going, you're going to sever relationships

with the United States in the west if you keep this up,

because no world leader will be able to sit on the sidelines

in perpetuity and watch Erdogan put everybody in jail he doesn't

like or has a paranoid view of.

So here's what I would say, that Turkey to me is a problem that

can't be ignored much longer and they are on a collision course,

not only with the United States but the west in general.

Stop while you still have a chance.

Let's turn to a different subject.

That of one of America's, one of the world's biggest companies,

Apple.

Now it has been paying an effective tax rate on its European profits of,

well it was 0.005% in 2014.

It went up to 1% in 2003.

That's why the EU's Competition Commissioner has said,

you owe 13 billion euros in back taxes.

Should they pay up?

I tell you what, Ireland is in a bind, because they're

attracting people to invest in Ireland with low tax rates.

The rest of us should understand that capital will go where it's most

welcome, so you can blame Apple all you like.

But they are a company and they have a duty

to their shareholders.

The 35% tax rate in America makes it hard for somebody

to stay in America.

If we don't lower our corporate tax rates more people are

going to go other places.

As to Ireland, did they violate European laws?

I can't say I'm an expert, so they will have to fight for

Apple.

Let me tell you this.

If the Irish government doesn't fight for the deal it gave Apple

and other people, then they're going to be a hard place to do

business in the future.

The whole idea of Brussels...

I think I know why people in England wanted to leave.

The idea of having a bureaucracy in Brussels more powerful

than your own parliament probably rubs people the wrong way.

OK, but there is also, as the Competition Commissioner

pointed out, and many people have a huge sympathy wit this,

they see this huge company doing what the rest of us can't do,

because she said, if my tax bill was 0.05% falling to 0.005%,

I think I'd take a second look at it.

We all know that, because that's how individuals have to do behave.

What's fair?

There is a process.

Rather than saying Apple should pay, let's let the process go forward.

There is an appeal process.

I do know this.

It's not surprising me that a company would go to a place

where there had to pay very little taxes.

So ultimately that is what needs to be...

Ultimately we need to make sure our companies pay their fair

share and we don't drive them away.

One thing Republicans can do, post-Trump, post-2016,

is look at some of these hedge funds that enjoy a tax rate of capital

gains rates versus ordinary income on transactions that probably should

generate ordinary income.

I think one of our problems for working-class people

is we are seeing that we favour the rich way too much.

I started the programme by commenting on your description

of Donald Trump as a jackass.

Now you sound like you have softened on him considerably.

You've pointed out a lot of criticisms you made

were in the primaries.

We are now lost to him.

What good does it have me to call him names after he beat me?

He is moving on immigration slightly in a better direction.

He has modified the Muslim ban.

There is a chance he might be president.

At the end of the day, if he is president, don't

you think he will need all the help he can get?

I'm a Republican.

If she wins, as a Democrat, I'm going to help her fix

an immigration system that is badly broken.

The next president of the United States will have

to make hard decisions about Iran and Syria and Iraq.

I'd like to help.

If they think we need to send troops into Iraq,

as a Democrat, I'd like to be the Republican saying, yes,

she is right to do so.

If we need a military presence to end the war in Syria

and have a sustainable victory by holding onto our gains,

I'd like to give the next president, including Donald Trump

some political cover.

I guess what I'm trying to tell your audience,

that I am 61 years old.

I ran for president.

It didn't work out for me.

I have a pretty good understanding what the next president

is going to face to the extent that if I can help them,

I will.

Senator Lindsey Graham, thank you for coming

on HARDtalk.

Thank you.

Thoroughly enjoyed it.

Well, a lot of cloud out there early Monday morning,

it's also very humid, misty around coasts,