Bob Graham, Former Senator and Governor of Florida HARDtalk

Coming up next for you, it's HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk, with me, Zeinab Badawi, in the US state of Florida.

My guest is one of the most popular politicians in contemporary US

history. He is Senator Bob Graham, the former governor of Florida who

also served three terms in the U.S. Senate. But with Donald Trump in the

White House and the Republicans controlling capital Hill, have

Democrats like him lost the political arguments?

Senator Bob Graham, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you very much, I

appreciate you coming to this side of the Atlantic. Thank you. You have

spent most of your life in public service as a politician. Does that

make you a professional politician? In some places that's considered a

pejorative. I think that being a politician in a democracy is one of

the highest callings. You have the responsibility to make this

difficult system of government work for the benefit of the people. And

if that makes you a professional politician, so much the better. You

have somebody in the White House now who has styled himself as the anti-

politician, Donald Trump, businessmen, and that has kind of

resonated quite well with a lot of voters. -- businessman. Politicians

are not always held in high esteem. Yes, and there has been a vein of

American political leadership which has prided itself in not having any

previous experience in politics all government before they were elected.

The results of that have been somewhat mixed. I personally think

that if you have open-heart surgery you wouldn't want to be the first

person that that position had ever operated on, and I think in

politics, there is some benefit in having experience and having dealt

with similar individuals and issues, and we can bring all of that to the

best resolution of the problem moving forward. So you are saying

Donald Trump does not have the right experience to do the job he is doing

now? Well, I think he would be better off in some of his actions in

the first 50 days of his presidency illustrate this, if he had had some

previous political experience. Has he packed his Cabinet with lots of

business people and so on, successful people like Rex

Tillerson, who had a very polishing career as an oil executive. I mean,

these are people who have got things done, and it is good to introduce

cloud like that into the political system. -- blood like that. I

believe that having had some experience doing the job for which

you have just been elected is advantageous. So were you surprised

when Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton by just over 1% in the

presidential election? Because Florida is not natural Republican

territory. It was Democrat under Barack Obama, and George W bush won

it by just a few votes. Were you surprised and disappointed? Yes, I

was surprised and disappointed. I thought Hillary Clinton was uniquely

prepared to be president of the United States at a very challenging

time. But I think one of the lessons, and there are a number of

lessons from the 2016 election, was that Trump, or people on his behalf,

had been listening to what the American people were saying, and

what they were hearing was that many people felt that the government had

forgotten about them and disrespected them, was not dealing

with the issues that affected their lives, particularly economic issues.

Trump, and Senator Sanders on the Democratic side, were the two

candidates who did listen and they spoke to those concerns. I think one

of the challenges for the Democratic Party is going to be to reconnect

with what had been its most reliable source of support, working people

who deal day today with those economic problems that caused them

to be so distressed. -- day to day. So have the Democrats lost the plot?

Barack Obama, after the defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump,

said this, which is a very interesting quote. " We know that

the Republicans have been very systematic in building from the

ground up and communicating to state legislatures and financing school

board races and public utility commission races, and you know I am

a proud Democrat, but I do think we have a bias towards national issues

and International is used". -- International issues. Correct, I

bought -- I agree with President Obama. I believe we have lost touch

with our core constituents. The message we were communicating was

not something they were interested in listening to. We have a challenge

to come up with some creative solutions to the issue of the

forgotten Americans and the political skill to put those ideas

into place. So do you think now about the kind of people in the

United States who backed Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and those

who backed Donald Trump, that there is a divide there? You know, gay

marriage, that kind of thing appeals to one group of people indie

American population, others are more interested in economics. You think

society is now polarised, or the think Democrats will move towards

the kind of territory Trump is now occupying? I think there is a

divide, but it is more in terms of how you express the issue rather

than sharing common values on the issue. I think if you gave Senator

Sanders and Hillary Clinton and exam on the key issues, and they would be

in 90% of instances, their answers would be the same. But Bernie

Sanders made those issues that he had heard people lamenting about the

centrepiece of his campaign, and it was somewhat of a less important

part of the message that Hillary Clinton communicated. I think that

was a significant reason that Donald Trump was elected President. Do it

Democrats like you, known as the dog house Democrats, because you are

from the progressive wing of the party a few years ago, when you have

the more conservative Democrats and you always in the doghouse with them

because your liberal stance, you support things like the environment,

you are very active in trying to get clean water in Florida and so on,

but these issues again are not necessarily priorities for the

American people. The pew research survey did a survey in July 2016,

before the election, and out of 14 issues, the environment was number

12 out of 14. The top issues were things like economy, jobs,

healthcare, education, which are the very subjects Donald Trump is

focused on. He says, you know, unemployment was only 4.7% in

February, I am bringing jobs in. He is hitting the right notes. Yes,

clearly he was hitting the right notes. I also believe he took the

opportunities that were available to him to localise it, to say, well,

this is not just a theory. I am concerned about the people in

Indiana who have worked this company that is about to move to thousands

jobs to Mexico. -- 2000 jobs. He took a general issue and put it in a

very specific, tangible, understandable setting, and said, as

president I am going to do something about it, such as changing our trade

relationships with Mexico. Do you think he is striking the right note

when, for example, he accuses the Obama admin is to -- Administration

of, during the election, budding Trump Tower. No... He tweeted that

Obama was either bad or sick. You do not have to resort to schoolyard

yelling and defamation of other people in order to listen to people

and understands what they are fundamental concerns are, and show

that you care about those people. I think that President Trump has

fallen into a pattern of making this very emotional, in this case, he has

just called the former president of the United States a criminal because

of wiretapping without going through a judicial process, which is a

crime, and he has... Overstepped the line? He has a responsibility to

make some basis on making that charge, and to be able to back up

that basis. It has been over ten days since he has done this and he

is yet to come forward and say, here is why I feel that President Obama

committed this criminal act. James Kearney, the head of the FBI, has

dismissed the claim. -- James Kearney. -- Comey. There has been

quite a lot of invective held at the US intelligence agencies by Donald

Trump, in particular over the alleged leaking by them of certain

activities that he undertook in Moscow. Is it good for a president

to be a plain speaker like that Lord do you think it is dangerous,

because he needs to keep the intelligence establishment on side?

-- like that, or do you think. It is not only bad practice. It is an

assault against our national security for the President to have

such a toxic relationship of the intelligence community. The purpose

of the intelligence community, primarily, is to inform

decision-makers and especially the president of the United States, as

commander-in-chief, on issues that might threaten the security of the

American people. If there is not a relationship of trust and respect

between the President and the intelligence community leadership,

we have just wasted tens of billions of dollars every year as we try to

collect the information that will put the President in the best

position to make wise decisions that are beneficial to world peace and to

the security of Americans. You are calling for a bipartisan, bicameral

enquiry into quite what Donald Trump and his colleagues' links to Russia

were during and after the election. We already have some enquiries, the

FBI is doing one. Isn't that enough? Do we need any more? I have

advocated that the existing intelligence committees in the house

and the senate take the first shot at doubling the information. That is

what happened after 9/11. For the first two years, the committees of

Congress were responsible for gathering the information about what

happened. Then it was turned over to a citizens' commission, who took

another two years to further examine 9/11. That is the process. I think

it is particularly important now, because if we do not show to the

Russians that we take this very seriously, that an attack against

the fundamental essence of our democracy is totally unacceptable,

then I think they are going to hear a message of immunity. We did this,

lots of people have verified that we were responsible, and yet the

government didn't do anything, so let's keep doing it. Not only

against the United States, but next year, or later this year, 2017, we

are going to have elections in France, Germany, the Netherlands,

other places around the globe, and they are likely to be subjected to

Russian interference in their elections. Do you think we will ever

get to know quite what has gone on? Yes, I think it is a no ball fact.

-- knowable fact. We just have to take it out of being a partisan

political issue and make it an issue about the sanctity of American

democracy. I think we can get fully to the bottom of this and be able to

answer to the people of the world just what was the nature and why did

the Russians become so involved in US elections. You were a chair of

the senate intelligence committee. You also chaired the Congressional

enquiry into the September 11 attacks. We have also seen, on the

grounds of security, Donald Trump is saying that it is necessary to ban

citizens from half a dozen Muslim majority countries. He has also been

very critical of judges and officials who have said that they do

not agree with that move. Is that also something that worries you?

It does. First at a practical level. If we are going to be successful in

the war against Isis it will be largely because we formed successful

partnerships with Muslims as individuals and Muslim nations. And

to go out of their way to throw sand in their face and be disrespectful

of their religion is no way to build those partnerships. So I think this

attitude of singling out Muslims and specifically saying that their

access to the US will be more limited than anyone else to announce

from the podium that he would like to exclude all Muslims from coming

to the United States, those are exactly what we'll energise Isis and

make it even more of a threat than it is today. So when Donald Trump

says, I want to make America a safer place and therefore these measures

are necessary and we know that terrorism is one of the top

priorities for American citizens, you think this kind of measures will

not make America safer? I think they are absolutely the opposite effect.

-- they have. Are the right countries on the list? I would have

put Saudi Arabia on the list. To me, Saudi Arabia is the country that had

the closest relationship with Osama Bin Laden and in support of the 19

hijackers who carried out 9/11. To leave them off the list of Muslim

countries, middle eastern countries which have acted in a way

detrimental it against the US, to me makes no sense at all. But of course

the Saudi authorities have said consistently and persistently that

they had no institutional involvement in the September the

11th attacks and that was really the finding of the congressional

enquiry. My conclusion, having read most maybe even more of the

available material on the issue, is that Saudi Arabia was the principal

facilitator of the hijackers and that 9/11 would not have occurred

but for that facilitation. The Saudi government refutes that totally.

Talking of immigration of a different kind, the wall that

President Trump says he will build and of course Florida's Hispanic

population is about 23%. This is actually still, again, a move which

was quite popular with a lot of people because they are concerned

about drug pushers coming in and also migrants coming in and pushing

down wages because they are taking jobs from low paid and unskilled

workers, so again he is striking a chord with a lot of voters in

Florida. I have two concerns. One, a history of trying to build walls or

bans or other physical barriers and keep out your enemies has not been a

very good one. The French invested greatly in building the marginal war

before World War Two started and Hitler in a couple of days ran his

tanks are for all around it. I think the same thing will happen to this

wall in terms of its ability to exclude people from coming to the

United States. Second, I think it takes your eye off the real issue.

The real issue in my opinion is that, yes, we need to have secure

borders, but we also need to be contributing to the well-being of

our neighbours, so that they will have less of an impetus to want to

come to the United States. And more of cooperation, not less, in my

opinion, is an important key to stabilising the border between the

US and Mexico. It is interesting that a lot has been made about this

statement by Trump having to deport 2 million, maybe as many as 3

million, because President Obama deported 2.7 million in regular

migrants from Carberry, far more than any other president before him.

-- migrants, far more. So is what President Trump suggesting very

different from what Barack Obama did? In the early days of the Trump

administration, it appears as if he has been more aggressive and

assertive in deporting those who came to the United States without

documentation. I think what we need is what President Obama advocated

and came very close to accomplishing, which is a

comprehensive immigration law that deals with all of the issues that we

have. Legal immigration, whether people can come to the US and get

proper papers and work legally, what do we do about the now 11 million

undocumented aliens who are in the United States? Do we let them live

as a shadow class forever or do we figure out some way which they can

be assimilated into the US? President Trump blustering in his

proposal of things that are dramatic and intangible, like the wall, have

taken us away from dealing with what I think is really going to be

permanent and significant in resolving this issue of immigration

in the US. Just finally looking at the state of the Democrats in the

United States, I mean, really your fortunes are very low at the moment.

The Republicans control both houses of Congress, obviously the White

House... Ewen McKenzie six states -- you control. Democrats like you are

really losing the argument. Your kind of politics is out of fashion.

I don't think so. I think you are being a little bit harsh. Let's

remember that Mrs Clinton did get almost 3 million more votes than

Donald Trump. The difference particularly in the US Senate is

only two... 52. So it isn't as if it's a tidal wave of change. I think

the Democratic Party does need to look seriously at itself, more than

trying to organise around specifically identifiable groups of

voters. That we organise around policies that will be beneficial to

those voters, as our traditional base. The Democratic Party has been

the party that represents the interests to the working American

family. It has done enormously good things from education to healthcare,

the economic opportunities. We need to go back to those values and I

think the Democratic Party will be around for a long time. How should

they conduct themselves now on Capitol Hill? We have the US Supreme

Court, the Senate hearing will have -- be happening soon. The Democrat

support is needed. Do you think they should play hardball? It is tempting

to say that they wouldn't even give a hearing to the person that

President Obama nominated to fill this vacancy in the Supreme Court,

why should we give their selection any particular support? I think that

would add further to the public's discontent about the way that

government is being operated. It's almost childish to say they did a

bad thing, so we're going to reciprocate with an equally bad

thing. I think we ought to judge this... The gentleman who has been

nominated on his merits, which seemed to be superficially at least

very solid, and if he stands the test of close scrutiny vote for him.

Similarly, look for opportunities such as on infrastructure, which

Democrats have long supported, to find common ground. Let's show the

American people that the American democracy can work for them. Senator

Bob Graham, thank you very much for coming on HARDtalk thank you.

Things are going to turn more unsettled as we head towards the end