CNN "State of the Union" - Transcript: Interview With Sen. Joni Ernst

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

My next guest, Senator Joni Ernst, said last week that she was interested to see how one might influence the other. She pointed to criticism during the trial by the president's defense team of Joe and Hunter Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERNST: Iowa caucuses are this next Monday evening.

And I'm really interested to see how this discussion today informs and influences the Iowa caucus voters. Those Democratic caucus-goers, will they be supporting President -- Vice President Biden at this point?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Biden has seized on her remarks, saying that the senator revealed more than she meant to.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: She spilled the beans. She just came out and flat said it.

You know, the whole impeachment trial, for Trump, is just a political hit job to try to smear me, because he is scared to death to run against me. And he has good reason to be concerned.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Joining me now, Ohio Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. She served in the Army National Guard and retired as a lieutenant colonel.

And she has a new opinion piece in "The Des Moines Register" taking on the Democratic presidential candidates ahead of the caucuses.

Thanks so much for being here, Senator. We appreciate it.

ERNST: Yes, thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: So, former V.P. Biden's chief strategist, Mike Donilon, responded to your comment.

He said: "We welcome your panicked admission of who you know would win this battle for the soul of our nation. Please keep it coming, because this validation from you is the best we can get."

Is Mike Donilon right?

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: Are you focused on Biden because you think he poses the greatest threat to Trump?

ERNST: No, I think that, in -- in that conversation we were having with reporters the other day, it was quite evident the House managers brought up Vice President Biden and his son Hunter and Burisma over 400 times in their opening argument -- 400 times in their opening arguments.

TAPPER: The Democrats did that?

ERNST: The Democrats did that.

And then the president's White House counsel spent a number of hours laying out the -- the situation with Burisma.

So, I was just pointing out that Iowa has very smart voters, very educated caucus-goers. And if they're paying attention to all the dynamics with the candidates, that might be something that they would take into consideration.

TAPPER: The Republicans have been defending President Trump, saying his pressure campaign with Ukraine had nothing to do with electoral politics, had nothing to do with Biden's campaign.

I'm wondering if you think that, by linking them, you undermine that argument at all?

ERNST: I don't think it undermined at all.

I think that, again, what we have seen is the Democrats presenting their case. And I think it just really did show that there was something of concern with Burisma. And so I think that -- excuse me -- the Democrats can -- can follow that. They will make that decision as they go to the caucuses tonight.

But I do think, overall, there is a corruption issue in Ukraine. We have pointed this out for years. I know...

TAPPER: Not necessarily about the Bidens, you're saying. Just in general, there is a corruption issue.

ERNST: Not necessarily. In general, in general, there is a corruption issue there.

And, of course, the president honed in on that and -- and took that issue on. But, again, you know, we want to see how this influences our caucus-goers tomorrow evening as they head out to their polling places.

TAPPER: But that does seem to undermine the argument that this wasn't about electoral politics, given that you're saying you want to see how the mention of Joe and Hunter Biden -- and we should point out, there is no evidence that anybody did anything illegal regarding the Bidens and Ukraine.

And Joe Biden was carrying out U.S. policy.

But it does -- it does seem to suggest that you think that this could have an effect.

ERNST: I think this does. Whether that was the intention or not, now everything is tied together.

So, the information about the Bidens is out there. And so now it is up to the American people to decide, you know, was that a good choice for Hunter Biden to be on that board, especially at a time when his father was trying to ferret out corruption in Ukraine, having his son working for the most corrupt oligarch in Ukraine?

TAPPER: You voted against a motion to hear from new witnesses on Friday.

So did Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. But they also have said that what President Trump did, asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, was inappropriate and wrong. Both of those Republican senators said it was inappropriate and wrong.

[09:20:16]

Do you think it was inappropriate and wrong?

ERNST: I think ferreting out corruption is absolutely the right thing to do.

Now, if he was tying it to other things, that's -- that's the president. It's probably something that I wouldn't have done, but focusing on corruption absolutely is...

TAPPER: He didn't bring -- he didn't mention corruption in that call, though, as you know. He just mentioned Joe and Hunter Biden and Burisma. And then he mentioned this conspiracy theory about Ukraine interfering in the election in 2016.

ERNST: Right.

So, again, probably not something that I would have done. It's out there. He's done it.

TAPPER: So, because -- so it was wrong?

ERNST: He's done it now.

The president has a lot of latitude to do what he wants to do. Again, not what I have done, but certainly, again, going after corruption, Jake...

TAPPER: So, you're saying it's not perfect. I get that. But, like, if it's not something...

(LAUGHTER)

ERNST: Maybe not the perfect call.

TAPPER: If it's not something you would have done, why wouldn't you have done it? Because it was wrong? Because it was inappropriate? ERNST: I think, generally speaking, going after corruption would be the right thing to do.

TAPPER: No, but going after the Bidens.

ERNST: He did it -- he did it maybe in the wrong manner.

TAPPER: In the wrong manner.

ERNST: But I think he could have done it through different channels.

Now, this is the argument, is that he should have probably gone to the DOJ. He should have worked through those entities, but he chose to go a different route.

TAPPER: Assuming President Trump is acquitted on Wednesday, and assuming you're going to go to acquit him...

ERNST: Right.

TAPPER: Yes.

Are you confident that he won't do this again, that he won't try to get another foreign country to look into a political opponent, whether it's Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg or someone else?

ERNST: I think that he knows now that, if he is trying to do certain things, whether it's ferreting out corruption there, in Afghanistan, whatever it is, he needs to go through the proper channels.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

ERNST: So, again, using the DOJ and other international organizations to get to that corruption.

So, the vote that will likely come on Wednesday will likely be a vote of acquittal. And the argument is...

TAPPER: And you're going to vote to acquit?

ERNST: Yes, I will vote to acquit, because, again, whether you like what the president has done or not, we can argue this up one side and down the other all day.

Does it come to the point of removing a president from office? I don't believe this does. I will tie it back to Obama and his hot mic moment with a former president of Russia, where he said -- he literally said, give me some space in my election. Oops. OK. Talking about elections.

TAPPER: But he was talking about missile defense.

ERNST: And -- and, yes, but a missile defense that the Congress wanted him to build up, make much more robust to protect American citizens.

And President Obama chose not to do that, as long as the Russians gave him space in the elections. That, nobody brought up for impeachment.

So, the very -- very fact that, because aid was held for about two months, because there wasn't an official White House meeting, people are wanting to impeach this president, what President Trump did, it -- it doesn't rise to the level of what President Obama did.

TAPPER: But you do say it was in the wrong manner.

ERNST: It was in the wrong manner. I will agree to that.

TAPPER: You wrote a new -- you wrote a new op-ed that criticizes Democrats for what you call socialist policies, the Green New Deal, the Medicare for all.

I just -- I'm curious, because I have heard a lot of conservatives talk about the multibillion-dollar, they have described it as payoffs to farmers, including up to almost a -- I think almost $800 million here in Iowa, that that is socialism, in the same way that Medicare for all would be socialism.

How come you don't consider payoffs from the government to farmers who are struggling because of the president's trade war, how come that's not socialist?

ERNST: Well, it's all tied together.

Again, because those farmers would be trading overseas -- and now we have seen these trade deals done. I'm really excited about that, another huge win for the president with USMCA and the phase one China deal, great for our farmers.

But our farmers would have been trading, seeing those commodities sold overseas. The government was working on these trade deals. So, we are getting tariffs in from those other countries. So that is what is going to those farmers.

TAPPER: But you know that new numbers show farm bankruptcies jumped 20 percent last year. Crop prices, even after these trade deals, are still falling.

Hasn't the president made things tougher for farmers?

ERNST: Well, I think they have made it better in the long run.

And a lot of our farmers -- if you ask Iowa farmers, is the president doing the right thing, they will say yes. And we know we need to tighten our belts. So, yes, there were a number that really had to tighten up this last year, the year before.

But what I heard from one farmer, she said, you know what? I'm tightening my belt. Things are tougher right now, but I know in the long run this is going to be better for my grandchildren. They won't have to struggle with China cheating us the way we have experienced in the past.

[09:25:05] So, one gentleman from the Iowa Soybean Association, he put it very well. He said that, you know what? The hurt we're feeling right now is no different than the hurt we felt five years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago from China.

So, if we can get this right and have a better future, then they were willing to go through that short period of hurt, so that we can do better for our children and grandchildren.

TAPPER: Senator Joni Ernst, Republican of Iowa, thanks so much for being here.

ERNST: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: We always appreciate seeing you.

ERNST: Yes, welcome to Iowa.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source