CNN "State Of The Union With Jake Tapper" - Transcript "Interview with Sen. Kevin Cramer"

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

[09:15:20]

TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. I'm Jake Tapper.

In the coming months, the president's Republican allies in the Senate may be forced to weigh in on the allegations against him and be called as something like jurors in a potential impeachment trial.

Right now, however, many of those normally supportive Republican officeholders are expressing disappointment, if not opposition, to President Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. service members from the Syria-Turkey border, paving the way, essentially, for a Turkish offensive against the Kurds.

Let's discuss with the man joining me now, Republican Senator from North Dakota Kevin Cramer. He is also a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator, thanks so much for joining us. We appreciate it.

A Kurdish military commander told a senior U.S. diplomat this week -- quote -- "You have given up on us. You're leaving us to be slaughtered" -- unquote.

The Kurds have fought alongside U.S. troops in the battle against ISIS for years.

Do you support the president's decision?

SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): Well, Jake, I wish it had been different, I can tell you that, but I'm not sure the president had a lot of choices.

I know we like to sort of oversimplify these complicated relationships. But I think the logical question is, were we prepared to stay there and fight the Turks, given the fact that the Turks seem to be committed to coming across the border and establishing this militarized zone, with or without our staying there?

So I think the president at that point has a -- not so much a binary choice, as a decision to make as to which -- which friend, if you will, do we stand with in this circumstance?

Clearly, the Turks are not the type of ally that the Kurds are, but they are a NATO country, as you have pointed out, and it's not -- it's never quite as simple as just a binary choice.

TAPPER: Well, I'm not sure that Turkey would have attacked if the U.S. had remained there. They have wanted to attack for years, and they haven't done so.

But, beyond that, even -- even positing that what you're saying is accurate, you're voicing support for the United States military retreating, you know, surrendering, in the face of Turks.

CRAMER: Well, we're retreating -- sure, we are retreating from that particular area.

And I think, again, the Turks, while they're not the Kurds, are -- are also a NATO ally. And we can't be in the middle of every skirmish in the neighborhood.

And the circumstantial alliances are -- standard of the enemy -- my enemy is my friend, is fairly common over the decades, maybe centuries in the Middle East, and it's an unfortunate one.

But I do think President Trump ran on the promise to get us out of endless wars. This skirmish between the Turks and the Kurds is one of those -- you know, one of those conflicts that has been going on for a long time. The Turks are not -- or the Kurds -- I'm sorry -- "...are not a monolithic group, as we know, we -- another thing that we tend to oversimplify.

And so I think, yes, the question becomes, what is in America's best interest at a given time or in a given circumstance? And while I don't -- while I'm not all on board necessarily, I'm one of the 70 that voted, for example, earlier this year -- we oftentimes forget that too, Jake, that the president just didn't wake up a few days ago and decide to withdraw.

TAPPER: Right.

CRAMER: He announced a withdrawal nine or 10 months ago that led to some of the same type of pushback.

TAPPER: Right.

Well, Senator, Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced this morning that the president is now ordering most of the remaining U.S. forces in Syria to withdraw because the situation in the border area has gotten so dangerous, after he ordered that smaller withdrawal earlier this week.

You're on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Were you informed of this? Did you -- were you briefed about it?

CRAMER: No, I was not. No, we were briefed, again, after the -- the last withdrawal

announcement and received more information. I felt, at that time, more comfortable than I did prior to the briefing.

I hope that I feel better after I get briefed this -- now this week when we return to Washington, and learn more of the details, because, while there's a withdrawal, what I'd like to know is, a withdrawal to where?

As you know, we have several bases in the region. We -- even though we know a little ways, we don't necessarily go far. What are -- what -- you know, what is the strategy should we need to reengage?

I am pleased that the president has put up, I think it was yesterday, $50 million for humanitarian assistance, stabilization funds, if you will.

I also think the president's doing the right thing in once again demanding more from our European allies in this situation in Syria, because the last thing we need is, of course, for a reemergence or a re -- you know, reorganization of a ISIS caliphate in the area.

And we need to -- we need to watch it. It is complicated. There's lots of factors. But I'm looking forward to being briefed and hopefully comforted.

TAPPER: Sir, with all -- with all due respect, I mean, if you're worried about the ISIS caliphate, I mean, nobody has -- no group has sacrificed more to fight ISIS than the -- than America's Kurdish allies.

[09:20:02]

CRAMER: Right.

TAPPER: And there are reports that ISIS prisoners are now able to escape because of this decision by President Trump.

I mean, I understand the idea of wanting to avoid endless wars, but this decision by President Trump to withdraw the U.S. Special Forces from the region, I mean, this has created a war now.

I mean, it was much calmer two weeks ago than it is today.

CRAMER: Well, it didn't create the war. The war has been going on for a very long time.

TAPPER: I'm talking about the current military action.

CRAMER: And I think it's unfair to suggest that the president created -- well, sure, but, every day, you make decisions that have an effect for that day.

This conflict between the Kurds and the Turks has been going on for decades, if not centuries. And so we're not going to solve it by staying there forever. And I think that's the issue. What is in America's best interest?

And -- and I think the president is -- while, again...

TAPPER: Yes.

CRAMER: ... Jake, be clear, I support the Kurds, and -- but I also don't want to oversimplify it and make it a binary decision, which, at this point, if you're against Donald Trump -- that would be 100 percent of the Democrats -- you're going to take the opposite position of his, and some -- some Republicans the same.

There are a lot of thoughtful Republicans and Democrats, I think, that are considering all the aspects of this. And I think we need to.

But, yes, nobody's been more faithful than the Kurds, particularly with the war on ISIS and -- and holding the ISIS fighters. And therein lies, in my view, I think the other problem.

TAPPER: Right.

CRAMER: And that is, what about our European allies? When are they going to step up?

Why aren't they taking, for example, the ISIS fighters that come from their countries? The president's right to push that issue. And this may be the only way that he can.

TAPPER: I want to turn to the impeachment inquiry in the House, the president obviously under fire for asking Ukraine and China to investigate the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his top political rivals for reelection.

As a hypothetical, just because I think there are a lot of people concerned about the precedent this is setting, would you have found it acceptable if, ahead of the 2012 election, then President Obama had asked a foreign leader to investigate one of Mitt Romney's sons? Would that be OK with you?

CRAMER: Well, I think if -- if the corruption involves a former vice president or a former president, an administration official, rooting out corruption in other countries was something that Democrats thought they were doing with the Mueller investigation.

They were pushing hard for this kind of thing.

TAPPER: But there's no -- but there's no evidence of corruption in -- there's no evidence of corruption in this case.

CRAMER: Well, other than the president -- the vice president bragging in front of a video camera about holding up a billion dollars' worth of military assistance to Ukraine, unless and until such time as they call off an investigation into his son's relationship with a gas company.

TAPPER: That's not what happened, sir. Sir, but that's not what happened. I mean, Joe Biden, and the Obama administration, and the European Union, and the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, and anti-corruption crusaders in Ukraine all wanted this one prosecutor, who was not moving on corruption, they all wanted him fired. And Vice President Biden did say that he wanted him fired.

But that wasn't -- there's no evidence that had anything to do with the gas company that Hunter Biden was advising. So there's no evidence of corruption.

I understand that there's an appearance of impropriety or an appearance of a conflict of interests. And that's a fine allegation for people to say, but that's not what you just said.

CRAMER: Well, I -- I think that we could probably understand why President Trump, after a couple of years of Mueller investigation, $30 million, with zero, zero evidence as well...

TAPPER: Zero evidence of what?

CRAMER: ... of collusion with the Russians, would be a little bit frustrating.

TAPPER: Well, but I guess my question is, do you think it's appropriate for a politician to use his position in foreign policy to push a foreign leader to investigate a political rival?

It's just a yes or no. Is it appropriate or is it not appropriate?

CRAMER: Well, if the political rival happened to have been the vice president of the United States, and this corruption was being investigated even prior to his bringing it up -- and, by the way, it's not like Donald Trump has been exactly covert about this.

There's great integrity in his authenticity, which is something that people out here in the heartland appreciate about him. So he has these discussions in wide open. He released the entire transcript of this supposed phone call that supposedly had all of this quid pro quo, which once again proved to not be true.

There was no quid pro quo in the -- in the phone conversation. So, no doubt that the haters are going to hate.

TAPPER: Yes.

CRAMER: And they're going to try to create this narrative for forever and ever, but ignore the fact that, for two-and-a-half years, we had to endure a Mueller investigation or, you know, a Russian collusion investigation that proved to...

TAPPER: But...

CRAMER: ... actually exonerate the president.

TAPPER: I'm just -- I don't know that it exonerated him.

But, beyond that, I'm just talking about this precedent that a lot of people are concerned about.

(CROSSTALK)

TAPPER: And in terms of the quid pro quo, I don't think it's been established that there was no quid pro quo. We're going to have testimony later this week from the ambassador to the E.U. about whether or not there was a quid pro quo.

[09:25:03]

There's a -- the charge d'affaires in the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, a guy named William Taylor, texted -- quote -- "Are we now saying that security assistance and a White House meeting are conditioned on investigations?" to which the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, wrote back: "Call me."

So there was at least a concern that there was a quid pro quo.

I don't know that it's been established one way or another that -- you're just asserting that there isn't one. I certainly think it's worth investigating. Don't you?

CRAMER: Well, if it is, then it's certainly worth investigating whether Hunter Biden used his status as the son of the vice president to fly around the world on Air Force Two and -- and gaining all kinds of government contracts and -- or positions with companies that he has no qualifications to serve for, and getting a large paycheck as a result of it.

TAPPER: Are you really not...

(CROSSTALK)

CRAMER: So, maybe it's always worthy of investigation.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: Are you really not capable of answering a question about whether or not it's acceptable for a president to ask a foreign rival to investigate his political rivals, to ask a foreign nation to investigate his political rivals without bringing up Hunter Biden?

I'm not defending Hunter Biden getting these gigs.

CRAMER: Right.

TAPPER: I'm just saying, can you say that this is a precedent, and now, in American foreign policy, it's going to be OK for a Democratic president to push China or Russia or whatever to investigate the children or the family of his political rivals?

Is this now the country we're going to live in?

CRAMER: Well, I would say this much, Jake.

I appreciate that -- that we have a president who's very transparent about -- about his opinions, and he's very clear about them. He doesn't -- he doesn't try to do it covertly.

Now, is he -- is he pushing them to do it? I don't get the sense that he's pushing them to do it at all. I think he talks. He thinks out loud. He expresses whatever's on his mind. And people can take that and twist it any way they want to.

But the new precedent for impeachment is that we don't like this president that just got elected, so we're going to spend all four years trying to impeach him.

And, no, I think we have a far too divided country that is reflected in our politics. And I'd much rather see us have a more balanced approach to things, obviously more dialogue, more things like what you and I are doing right now, than -- than these rallies that are -- that are surrounded by riots.

We have a problem in our country in terms of our dialogue. And we need to get -- we need to fix it. Whether that comes from the top down, I suspect it's probably more likely to come from the bottom up. And I hope that's what happens.

TAPPER: Well, the one thing you and I agree on, sir, is that Carson Wentz is a great quarterback.

So I appreciate your time today.

(LAUGHTER)

CRAMER: Yes, he is.

TAPPER: Thanks...

CRAMER: The best.

TAPPER: Thanks -- thanks for joining us. We appreciate it.

CRAMER: It was my pleasure.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source