Jake Sullivan - Former Adviser to Hillary Clinton HARDtalk

Now on BBC News, it's time for HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk with me, that Zeinab Badawi. My guess is you is

Democratic Party insider, Jake Sullivan, a key adviser to Democrat

such as Hillary Clinton, when she was Secretary of State, as well as

on the campaign trail, last year. Donald Trump has attracted a lot of

criticism at home and abroad over his rhetoric and style of

leadership. But is he not proving more effective in important foreign

policy issues like the fight against extremists, than the previous

democratic administration? -- Democratic.

Jake Sullivan, thank you for joining us. As a key adviser to Hillary

Clinton, can give be objective about the Trump administration? Not

entirely objective. I would have to put my bias on the table. I spent

two years trade to stop him from getting into the Oval Office. But I

think a lot of the things that we predicted during the campaign about

his lack of it as though others have borne out over the last six months.

So I have tried to take a step back and tragedy is fair-minded as

possible and assessing what he is doing. But the zeitgeist was or with

within, wasn't it? He was much more in June with what the voters'

proteas were. I would argue that he had a lot of a Shawville, but when a

came to what they cared about, I think it came to what they cared

about, I think I do more with Hillary Clinton and her approach. --

tuned in with their priorities. So can be seen as a battle between 70

with the policies and somebody who could appeal to voters. Just turn

into a stream must -- just turn into extremist, Donald Trump is much more

assertive on terror than resident Obama ever was. He is more assertive

on Twitter than President Obama ever was. He certainly speaking much more

loudly. But is the carrying the biggest it? Be truly bigger stick. I

would say that the fight against Isis in Iraq and Syria is an

extension of the above policy, not a fundamental change in policy. -- the

truly. Has he added more firepower? Yes, but has been on a slow path

savaged by President Obama. -- started by. You mention Afghanistan.

He dropped the "Mother of All Bombs", as it was known, in April,

on a site in Nangarhar, and it is the largest non- nuclear, the most

powerful non-nuclear weapon available. That would sound as

though he was very much more assertive than President Obama. The

dropping of a single bomb on a tunnel complex in rural Afghanistan,

I don't think is a good indication of the whole policy that he is

pursuing. It is true that he did that. Would rack Obama have done it?

He never took the "Mother of All Bombs" of the table. If an

opportunity had made itself available, a bomb that President

Obama had in his time, he would have used it. The target presented itself

or President Trump, and so use it, but I do see that as a departure

from American doctrine. President Obama seem to be pretty desperate to

get out of Afghanistan. Five years ago, there what 100,000 American

troops there, now that it is below 10,000. And we have seen a rise in

security incidents in Afghanistan is far more than since 2007, and the

last year and a quarter or so. It is true that President Obama troop down

from 100,000 to under 10,000, but before he left office, he fixed

another. He said he was not earned right down further, that they would

keep troops there. Not to take a whole territory, but to train and

buys Afghanistan the security forces. Now Donald Trump is talking

about adding a few thousand more, but to carry out the day mission.

But he was too said Maureen, rather than drawdown, as Barack Obama did.

That was the more assertive. It is interesting, because what Donald

Trump is talking about doing is adding more troops, but he is asking

our Nato partners to step up and add at least half of them. So even he

realises that simply insert a huge numbers of American troops into

Afghanistan is not a winning strategy. In that way, I think his

campaign rhetoric, and what is realised about the realities of this

fight, there is a gap between them. If you want to argue that Donald

Trump is different to Barack Obama in foreign policy, you will get no

argument from me. The point I am making is that when it comes to the

fight between Isis and extremist groups, Donald Trump is carrying

forward Barack Obama's strategy. -- the fight with Isis and extra

mysteries. Under the key issue that President Obama pursued during his

time, the Iranian nuclear deal, resident Trump said during his

campaign that he would care and other net -- he would turn up on day

one. And he is not. That should please you. That does. But our

military and partners is in the region, as does the Israeli security

establishment, they realise that this deal improve security in the

region. Psion have is the continuity on this issue and then carrying it

forward. But I do worry that some of the Stosur Donald Trump is taking

the could make a conflict with the reigning state more likely. And that

would put American lives and stick -- at risk. Looking at Bashar Assad,

the President there, very much an ally of Iran, but he has been

applauding Donald Trump for his intervention. This following the

chemical attack with hundreds dead. Was it a good thing that did it?

Batting was a good thing. But it is a good thing that President Trump

decided to respond to the chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime,

striking the airbase from which the chemical weapons were launched. The

batting was that it was not tied to any broader strategy and Syria

whatsoever. If you breast Donald Trump today on what his solution is

to be Syrian civil war, which is the reservoir from which much of the

extremism in the region is flowing, he would not be up to tell you. I

think after six months, that will be a problem. He has done something is,

though. He targeted, he launched the cruise missiles on the Syrian

government attack. His imposing sanctions on individuals of the

scientific support centre, which is involved in the production and

supplying arms to the ethnic Kurds. So easy is to be quite strong on

Syria. Is interesting the Kurdish point, because that too was a

decision that resident Obama left for him. There was a big that

President Obama were strongly considering doing, that he wanted to

let President Trump decide on. Donald Trump decided to arm the

Syrian Kurds. That is to fight Isis, a worthy an important cause, to rust

Isis from their capital, Raqqa, and to deny the property from which they

could lodge a tax on the waves. But that is not about underlined the

Syrian civil war, for which the administration still has no real

answer. But on the cruise missiles launched, following the chemical

attack, Michael Hayden, the former CIA director, Cena somebody quite

balance, he said that the response was general will -- genuine and add

rubble. He said he should have -- he said that President Obama should

have done that, after, for instance, the two attacks in 13 elected 2013.

-- in 2013. Obama didn't do nothing. And not forgetting the Syrian

civilians in the country. The fact is, at the end of the day, the

Syrian region broke that deal, Celts stock of chemical weapons, and the

writing to the United States to do, once they could, was too big a deal.

-- kept some stock. The drum makes these intemperate comments and act

in a rational way, but it actually seems that you are agreeing that he

does take advice from professionals, from people in the know? I think he

took advice on the narrow decision of the serious try, which has not

been followed by any serious Syria strategy. And when you look at other

decisions that he is taken, he is completely ignored the advice of

every professional around him. His decision to withdraw from the Paris

club agreement is just one important example of where his economic

advisers, is to make advisers, they all said that this was done. --

climate. He went away and did it anyway, and I think he did this were

knee-jerk political reasons. As you know, action on climate change is at

both federal, state, and local level. And Michael Bloomberg, the

former mayor of New York, says we can do a lot of things that business

level, local level, state level, to meet our targets. The United States

is a big, diverse, resilient country. We will move forward in

this. I think it is folly to say that what comes out of Washington

doesn't matter at all. Of course it does. There would be a parent still

it wasn't for presidential leadership and it wasn't for

president Obama going out and getting the Chinese on-board and the

Indians on and rallying the Europeans. That is how we got here

in the first place. And there would be the next step up the double of

ambition without it. -- ladder of ambition. It really matters that

presidential leadership is lacking on this issue. Nikki Haley, that the

US Ambassador to the United Nations, suggested that Donald Trump would be

responsible on climate change. She said that just because the US got

out of a club, doesn't mean they were not there to be responsible.

Everything about them domestic policies are part has been a revival

of that statement. Not only did they would withdraw from Paris, but they

rescinded President Obama's actions which would clean up our energy

fleet and move towards more renewable energy, and improved full

efficiency standards in cars. Trump rode all about back. I'm waiting to

see what the meat is behind what Nikki Haley as saying. It has so

far, we have not seen. He has not withdrawn from the 1992 convention

framework of the change. So will have to see. But you said the

campaign trail that Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit and

unqualified to be the nation's commander in chief. But he has been

coveted by key military figures, such as the former Nato commander,

which the maker has said that he is able to take advice from the

first-class national security team is assembled. Article is hoped in

the early days that when he picked real luminaries, excellent

professionals, like General Motors, as his secretary of defence, and

General McMaster, as is natural security adviser. But this was

somehow help make better security decisions. -- National Security

Adviser. But you cannot advise the President who is fundamentally not

normal. I think he would object to that description, but anyway... He

might object to it, but you can see any way that he makes decisions, the

way that he lashes out, the whether the attacks and the way that he

tries to essentially belittle and divide, that this is not a normal

circumstance, and it is really incumbent on all of us to call it

out as such. The point on these national security advisers... As it

is said to have foreign policy, it is a continuation of Obama here or

there, actually, the actions don't quite match the intemperate

rhetoric. -- as you said just there. A dozen subways. If you take a look

back at Donald Trump is a broader font piracy, you can take it Paris

Agreement as one, you can take what he went and did in Europe, where he

stood before the 9/11 Memorial, which was the one-time in the

history of their lives, where article five, the defensive

mechanism of Nato was triggered on our behalf, and basically harass

them, and refuse to reaffirm America's commitment to make

commitment. -- America's commitment. What did he say? General Motors said

what they world if we withdraw within our borders, and the Americas

would do the right thing. I think we have two listen to what is... EZ one

thing, then he resented that. So you can't judge what happens in the

Trump administration by white Donald Trump himself, necessarily, says.

You need to look more in a holistic fashion. The president of the United

States, showing up in Europe, stepping into Nato headquarters in

Brussels, and conspicuously declining to a firm America's

Article five commitment, at least one person is watching closely. That

is V Putin. And those were several consequences. And nothing James

Mathison is by days later can iron ring that Bell. At this point,

Donald Trump is that a clear message to our allies and our adversarial is

that our commitment to our Nato allies is in doubt. That is

dangerous. Because if it could lead to more instability in Europe, and

if it could lead to possible conflict, there, it would ultimately

be the United States admitted that they would have becoming a sort that

out. You imply that he did not want to

upset the Russians. I did not talk about his motives although I do

think there are a number of questions about how he has followed

the wish list of Vladimir Putin. Regardless of his motive for doing

that in Brussels, Vladimir Putin was watching and that is what he will

have taken away. You mentioned the Russians and, of course, whether the

Russians were involved or not over the hacking, hacking bird Hillary

Clinton e-mail is, that was something that was a major issue at

the time. Another major issue of course was the use of Hillary

Clinton's Private e-mail account to conduct her State Department

You were advising her. You used her Private e-mail accounts to talk to

her about national security issue or State Department matters. Do you

think that was wise in retrospect? Hillary has said it was a mistake

for her to use a Private e-mail server and I think all of us

involved would have done it differently. At the time it did not

seem out of step with what most other cabinet secretaries, senators

and senior figures were doing. At the time it did not occur to us that

would be a challenge in the future. Now that we have looked at it in the

cold light of day, of course we wish we had done differently. Why did you

use a Private e-mail account to talk to her about State Department

matters? It was the e-mail she was using. She had taken it from being a

senator, transition did to Secretary of State. Previous Secretaries of

State had used Private e-mail account. John Kerry was the first to

Secretary of State to have an official e-mail account. This was

how it was done at the State Department at that point in time.

Once you get into the bright lights of a presidential campaign, things

look different. So it was convenience? She said that

repeatedly, for her to have one account and one device. Again, she

underscored repeatedly that it was a mistake and she wishes she had done

it differently. That being said, the amount of attention put on this

issue, of the type of e-mail account that she was using in comparison to

the policy issues and all of the other major questions before the

American people last year, was astonishing and completely reckless

on the part of the press. Do you think it cost her the presidency?

She seemed to think that the entire controversy and the FBI

investigation cost the presidency. It is always hard to identify any

variable in something as complex as this. I will say this. Nate Silver,

the premier statistician who looks at American presidential elections

ran an analysis after November eight and determined that Jim Comey's

rhetoric in late October... The FBI director who wrote a letter

reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton was only ten days to

go in the election, he determined that letter had a material impact

that was the difference between winning and losing.

And James Comey of course then quite unceremoniously sacked

by Donald Trump as director of the FBI.

Right, he was sacked because, in the President's own words,

he thought that Jim Comey shouldn't be pursuing this Russia

He did that privately to the Russians in the Oval Office,

He did that privately to the Russians in the Oval Office,

and that was the meeting he had with Sergei Lavrov,

the Russian Foreign Minister, and also Sergey Kislyak,

the Russian ambassador to the United States.

Now, there's been a lot of made about what Donald Trump said

to them, or not, about US intelligence in the fight

And it seems as though it's the media who is taking the lead

on criticising Donald Trump on this, not the Democrats.

I think what the media is doing is digging to get to the bottom

It's not so much criticism as it is almost every day

they are coming out with some new information.

A new meeting between a Trump official and a Russian official that

Are they the official opposition now, not the Democrats any more?

They're the ones who are taking the lead, as I said,

in being the opposition to Donald Trump?

As you know better than anyone, as you know just from this very

interview, the media's job is to ask the hard questions.

Isn't it also the job of the Democrats, the official

In fact, if you look at some of these hearings where prominent

Trump administration officials have had to come forward and be held

accountable in the Congress, Democratic senators

and Democratic House members have been asking the tough questions

and have been putting the case to the American people that

on the issue of Russia, on the issue of the broader question

of corruption in this administration, with respect

to China, Russia and other countries, that there are real

questions we have to get to the bottom of.

So who is taking the lead for the Democrats?

On the Russia issue specifically, the two key people are Mark Warner,

You have the midterms coming up next year.

I think President Obama is going to have a very important

voice in this over the next two years.

Obviously, he's taken a step back because as the most recently

departed president, he wanted to give President Trump

an opportunity to hit the ground running.

Vice President Biden will be an important voice.

Secretary Clinton has started a PAC where she is helping to support

a lot of Democratic groups and Democratic leaning groups.

Can I just ask you, all three will be active players.

President Obama obviously couldn't run again for office.

Do you think Joe Biden might, or Hillary Clinton?

As for Vice President Biden, you would have to obviously ask him.

What I would say is that he has just set up a PAC to be able to support

I think he's going to be devoting all his energy in the next two

years, not to thinking about 2020, but to thinking about,

how do we take the house of Representatives back in 2018?

Do you think he might run for president, Joe Biden?

I have got completely out of the business of speculating

The Mayor of Chicago, the senior Democrat Rahm Emanuel,

when asked about this kind of thing on CNN said,

Hillary Clinton has got lots of energy.

But you're saying categorically she would not run in 2020?

It's not my place to say anything categorically.

Have you talked to her about it, for instance?

I haven't talked to her about 2020 because it's not even

What is in the realm of contemplation right now

is what she can do to help young people especially,

but progressive groups be able to really effectively operate

in opposition to Trump, and then to win seats that will help

us take back both the House of Representatives at the federal

level and state houses at the state level.

Michael Moore, the very well-known American director,

says one thing the Democrats don't understand is that Trump

He suggests Oprah Winfrey, chat show host.

Somebody that people love, is what he says.

Donald Trump was the outsider, the anti-politician,

I wouldn't rule out someone who doesn't have a career

in politics running for president and being really good.

You can also not have a career in politics, run for president

and be really bad, and I think we're seeing that play out

And there are some tremendous public servants who have served in politics

So I wouldn't rule out people who have served in public office,

and I wouldn't rule out people who haven't.

I think we should have a free for all, and then let Democratic

primary voters decide who the best standard bearer will be in 2020.

Jake Sullivan, thank you very much indeed for coming on HARDTalk.