Fox News "The Story with Martha MacCallum" - Transcript: Interview with Sen. Lindsey Graham

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

But first, let's go back to our top guest tonight, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham. Senator, welcome, good to have you with us tonight.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

MACCALLUM: So, you say that the policy -- you know, when you read through all of these transcripts, which I know you haven't done, and we're going to get to that in just a moment.

GRAHAM: Yes.

MACCALLUM: But that it proves that there was a lot of incoherence from the administration on what they wanted to do.

GRAHAM: Here is one common theme. Not one person has talked to President Trump about whether or not he wanted a quid pro quo. So, Taylor is saying that he assumed there was a quid pro quo based on what Sunderland told him, the E.U. ambassador.

He has said previously there was not -- now that his memory has been refreshed -- I presumed there was, but this whole thing is a joke. And Volker, the envoy to Ukraine said there was no connection between meetings and investigating Biden.

MACCALLUM: So, it is interesting though, because Sondland said he is the one who actually spoke. He did pick up the phone and speak with the president at one point.

GRAHAM: Right.

MACCALLUM: And he said the president told me that there was no quid pro quo.

GRAHAM: Right.

MACCALLUM: And that he wanted Zelensky to do what he ran on. That -- that's a pretty telling statement.

GRAHAM: Well, so, you've got -- you've got a statement from the president to Sunderland, says no, this is not a quid pro quo. I want him to clean up corruption before I give him $400 million.

The president of the Ukraine said, no, I was never threatened by President Trump. I never believed there was a quid pro quo, where I had to investigate Joe Biden and Hunter Biden to get $400 million of military aid.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

GRAHAM: The whole thing is a joke. The whole thing is being driven by partisans in the House. Adam Schiff is not looking for the truth and the testimony is incoherent. It depends on who you talk to.

But there's one common theme here. The President of the Ukraine and the president of the United States have both said there was no quid pro quo.

MACCALLUM: All right, with regard to Adam Schiff, here's what he said today when he walked out of this transcript release.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Most important facts are largely not contested. The president enlisted the whole departments of government in the illicit aim of trying to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent as well as further conspiracy theory about the 2016 election that he believed would be beneficial to his re-election campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MACCALLUM: So, once again, just like during the Russia probe --

(CROSSTALK)

GRAHAM: Right, yes.

MACCALLUM: Adam Schiff before this process has really actually begun, the public hearings are until next week, he already knows what the answer is here.

GRAHAM: Yes and that statement is full of crap. So, Bill Taylor would -- what does he base his belief that there's a quid pro quo on? What is the factual basis, a conversation with Sunderland?

Now, here is a question. Why did Sunderland change his testimony? Was there a connection between Sunderland and Democratic operatives on the committee? Did he talk to Schiff? Did he talk to Schiff staffers?

I've been a lawyer for a very long time, but when somebody changes their testimony, they suddenly recall something they didn't know before. It makes me incredibly suspicious. Why did Sunderland change his mind? What were -- what prompted him to change his mind about maybe there was a quid pro quo when I said there wasn't?

MACCALLUM: All right. Well, you know, the whistleblower issue with regard to Adam Schiff is a big one here.

GRAHAM: Right. Right.

MACCALLUM: And I know that you said that you believe that this process can't go forward until the whistleblower is known and questioned in some way shape or form.

GRAHAM: Right.

MACCALLUM: A lot of stories out there about who this person is and it all seems to be coming from sort of one source. So, we're still hanging back on this, but there are indications that this person may have worked in the NSC, may have worked in the Obama administration and been a holdover.

GRAHAM: Right. Yes.

MACCALLUM: Why do you think you have to hear from that person in order to move forward?

GRAHAM: Without the whistleblower complaint, we wouldn't be talking about the subject matter right now, right? So, what if the whistleblower was tied to a Democrat? What if the whistleblower was tied to Brennan and people from the Intel community, he'd been out to destroy the Trump presidency even before he got elected? What if this person came from that world? What if they had a bias?

The whistleblower statute is being abused here. It does not give person anonymity when it comes to making a claim of wrongdoing it protects them from being fired.

The Constitution Trump's the statute no American including Donald Trump should be accused of something based on an anonymous source. I want to know who the whistleblower is, what ties they have to the Intel community if any, and were they working with the Democrat? Did they have an agenda like Brennan and Clapper?

MACCALLUM: All right. So, you know, a lot of folks would say that that's exactly what needs to happen. And that the Judiciary Committee needs to bring Adam Schiff before it and ask those questions.

GRAHAM: Yes, yes.

MACCALLUM: Is that something that you are going to do?

GRAHAM: No, you -- I'm not going to subpoena a member of the House. If they subpoena me, I wouldn't go. We have separate branches of government. The State Department is the entity in question, not the Department of Justice.

I'm hoping the Foreign Relations Committee will look at whether or not Hunter Biden and Joe Biden did anything wrong when it came to firing the prosecutor. The point I'm trying to make is if Adam Schiff talked to the whistleblower before he actually filed the complaint that becomes relevant.

But you're not going to have one body subpoena somebody from the other body, but if you do bring the whistleblower forward and there -- they've been asked under oath, did you talk to Adam Schiff? Then all bets are off about Adam Schiff being a witness, he can be called then.

MACCALLUM: Yes. Well, you know, I mean a lot of folks have pointed to statements that you've made in the past and said that they want you to bring forth Hunter Biden, and perhaps even Joe Biden, the former vice president.

GRAHAM: Yes.

MACCALLUM: And ask them these questions from your position as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

GRAHAM: Right.

MACCALLUM: And you said that you can't do that.

GRAHAM: No. Number one, the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn't have any jurisdiction over the State Department. The allegation is that they withheld aid to the Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden's company. That's a State Department inquiry, not a Department of Justice inquiry.

So, at the end of the day, the Senate is set up, we have jurisdiction is limited to the Department of Justice and the FBI. But I do believe based on John Solomon's reporting, somebody needs to look at whether or not the State Department was being asked to do things to get rid of the prosecutor because he was getting too close to Joe Biden.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, you believe that is not your jurisdiction. Despite the fact that some people say that they think laws might have been broken.

GRAHAM: Well, the point is a lot of people are frustrated. They want to get back at Hunter Biden and Joe Biden because they think they did more wrong than the president. We have a process in the Senate.

I think what we need to do is take the John Solomon evidence that he and -- that he disclosed and have a hearing regarding the State Department about what role they played in having this prosecutor fired, and see where it goes from there. That's what I think we should do.

MACCALLUM: Right.

GRAHAM: And the whistleblower needs to be named and we need to be able to cross-examine that person for any bias.

MACCALLUM: All right. With regard to Rudy Giuliani's role in this, you've said that you want him to testify.

GRAHAM: Yes.

MACCALLUM: He is one person you think would appropriately be testifying before your committee. Are you going to do that?

GRAHAM: I invited him and he hasn't responded. He's the president's lawyer, so I doubt we could actually get him to come unless he volunteered to come. So, what I hope will happen is that we will look at to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden connection to firing the prosecutor based on the John Solomon discovery about e-mails between the State Department and this company.

MACCALLUM: Yes.

GRAHAM: That's the way to start this thing as to what's going on in the House. I think it's a political sham. I think there is no evidence at all the president engaged in a quid pro quo, and I am closed-minded to the idea of impeaching this president based on this phone call.

MACCALLUM: All right, you also -- just going back to the origins of the Russia investigation, because I know you met with the Attorney General Bill Barr today, right?

GRAHAM: Right.

MACCALLUM: So, what can you do to update -- tell us to update us on that and will there be any further hearings with regard to Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe and invoking the 25th amendment and all of those things that you've mentioned in the past?

GRAHAM: Right. Well, the first thing I'm going to do is start with Horowitz. His report is about done. We'll get him to come before the committee to talk about what he found in terms of FISA warrant abuse in the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign.

I think his report is going to be stunning, I think it's going to be damning, I think it's going to prove that the system got off the rails and we need corrective action. Where I go from there, I won't know until I hear from him.

But here is the difference. I trust Horowitz to be fair. I don't trust Adam Schiff to be fair. I trusted Mueller to be fair. I don't trust the House Nadler-Schiff team to be fair to the president.

This whole process in the House is driven by partisan politicians who hate Trump's guts. That's the big difference between Mueller and Horowitz.

MACCALLUM: So, now, we're going to -- the American people get a chance to see what's going on in these public hearings, we hope, as that moves forward.

GRAHAM: Yes.

MACCALLUM: So, Lindsey Graham, chairman, thank you very much. Good to see you tonight.

GRAHAM: Thank you. Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source