Transcript: Fault Lines Episode 63 Interview with Senator Bob Corker

Les Munson Appreciate that. So, you've, as we were just talking before the podcast, were on a sabbatical from public life for the last couple years. What are your thoughts about how things have gone in Washington while you were gone?

Senator Corker Well, it's headed in the same direction it was when I left, and that is on a little bit of a downward situation. But look, I'm hopeful that it's going to move into a little different direction. I've liked a lot of the policies that I've seen put in place. I mean, I'll be the first to say that, but the whole public discourse just continued to go in a direction that I thought was sad for our country. And, certainly, what happened on January 6, who would have ever thought? And what a sad day for us and what it represented and be glad to talk about that more if you want to.

Les Munson Yeah, it's hard for, I think, for any of us who worked in the capital not to be profoundly affected by what we saw on the 6th. I was pretty, I guess, traumatized is the right word. We'd very much love to hear kind of how you reacted personally to what you saw.

Senator Corker Yeah. Well, first of all, it's interesting. Les, I know you're still there in town, even though you're not right in the capital. But you get away from it, which is a great thing to do, for an extended period of time, and you see this untruth thing. I have these conversations a lot. There's still a lot of people that want to talk about it. And if you set aside whether you felt like the election was fair or not, which still is a debate for some people, not for me. I quickly congratulated President Elect Biden and wished him well in the service. But, if you set that whole thing aside - people think, well the voting was changed; they were mailing. Okay, well set that aside. For the President of the United States to cause hardworking Americans to believe that Congress can overturn an election or that Vice President Pence could overturn election, and people believe it, and him lead them to the place that they were led on January 6th, just speaks to the frailty of our democracy. I mean, who would have ever thought that a sitting president would incite people? I know people think there were different levels of that, but incite people to come and break into the Capitol to try to overturn election. You and I've traveled the world together, and that happens in places that we went to - I mean in Banana Republics and maybe a place like Venezuela or whatever but not in the United States. And I think it's a wakeup call for all of us to realize that what you say is so important that if you have - the other thing that's happened, Les. I was just on a long phone call. Think about where we are - I know you've been a lifelong Republican, and

I've been a lifelong Republican. And we used to talk about policies, right, like fiscal control, and America's role in the world and alliances and trade and immigration - that ended with President Trump coming in. It was all about being 100% with President Trump for many people, obviously not me and not you. But think about how dangerous that is. That all of a sudden. And if you talk to these people who run for election, they'll tell you that all people ask about is not about those policies - matter of fact they don't get any questions about policies. They get asked, in a primary on the Republican side, they get asked one thing: are you with Trump? And so, think about the danger of that. We respected President Reagan. We respected the Office of Presidency under President Reagan, under President Bush ’41, under President Bush ‘43. And certainly, respected the Office of President under President Trump, but we didn't have this fealty to them where you couldn't show any daylight on any policy or somehow or another. So, I just think that's been a big wakeup call I hope that will stay with us for a long time. And people realize it's the policies, not the person. We should show respect. But we got into a very dangerous place as a country.

Les Munson How do you think the Republican party gets back to that point where it's the policy that we're talking about and not the personality? And where these things that we care about, American leadership in the world and that kind of thing, is more important than, a profane name calling tweet from someone that we think is fighting for us. How do we get back to that those Reagan years or the Bush years? Or the next evolution of them? Is that even possible?

Senator Corker Yeah, I think that it is. But the words you just used I think are choice, and that is “fighting for you,” right? I mean, that's what all of that behavior indicated to people - was that he was the only one that was truly fighting for them. But I think that it’s not going to change probably by 2022 because there are going to be congressional races, and people are going to be worried about primaries. As you know, most of the country now when they run, they don't worry about the general election. They worry about the primary. So, it'll be really incumbent upon the standard bearer: the person who ends up being nominated in 2024. Hopefully, never again, will we see President Trump in that position. At least that's my position. I'm not trying to pass that on to you. So, it's unlikely that we're going to have a personality that's like that. And let's face it - one thing I have to say about him: he had a grip on the Republican party and on people and on their psyche that we haven't had a standard bearer half. So that's not going to happen again. I can't imagine there's anybody who's thinking about running that's going to have that ability to just cause people to be gripped to them. And so, it'll have to be more about policies, won't it? It'll have to be about that. And I think by 2024 it's likely we get back to that place. Now, we still have shunned issues like fiscal concerns. You saw Mitch Daniels op-ed yesterday I'm sure. Where he's saying, hey, a good friend of mine, I'm folding the cards; I mean those days are over. Apparently, nobody cares anymore. So, we're still going to have some big issues to deal with it that are not popular today because they cause us to have to make tough decisions. And I think there’ll be a return to some of those at least by 2024.

- 2 -

Les Munson So, in the next few days, the Senate is going to have an impeachment trial for the former president. How do you think the Senate should handle that?

Senator Corker Well, hopefully way more soberly than the house did. My view of these things is more mid- to long- term. And I've said it publicly before, but I was concerned in the first place with the way the impeachment came off the Senate. I mean off the House floor with no hearings, obviously a moment of high passion. I thought it denigrated the process. An impeachment trial is a big deal. It’s one of the most serious things, as you know, other than declaring war that Congress does. So, people say, well, shouldn't they be punished? My worry was that as much as people may have been pulled off of Trump by virtue of his conduct, especially after the election. Well, Les, some people fell off, thankfully, and hopefully more will. But who do they like less than any human being in the world if they're Republicans? With all respect, to have Speaker Pelosi be the face of trying to undo him. I'm sorry, I'm just talking not about constitutional issues. It just seemed to me that it was going to strengthen his hand to a degree. And to the extent that the Senate impeachment, which it feels like may not get to 67 votes, that's just strengthened his hand. I do think Republicans are rightly concerned about constitutional issues. I don't know the constitutionality of trying a former president. I really don't. I know they've had this Jonathan Turley in talking with them. And Les, the big debates in the senate take place at lunch, not on the Senate floor. So if it does occur (I know that you know, a couple senators are working on a censure instead). If it does occur, I hope that it will be done in a sober manner. And really, senators shouldn't be saying how they're going to vote. I mean, as you know, they're jurist. And so they should listen to the evidence and invoke their conscious. Again, if it occurs, and we'll see if it does.

Les Munson Let's talk about President Biden. He's been talking about unity pretty consistently since the end of the campaign during the transition and first few days in office. What do you think of that message? Is it legitimate? And if so, how long can he maintain that and try to lead the nation really in a kind of nonpartisan or bipartisan manner?

Senator Corker Well, you and I both know President Biden. I came on the Foreign Relations Committee; and when I was first elected and sworn in in January of ’07, and he was chairman. Ultimately, I became chairman. And that's where we worked together. He's a, I like him a lot as a person. I don't know of anybody who knows him that doesn't like him and his life story of tragedy within his family and how he handled it. We worked with him a great deal when he was Vice President. I love, I thought his comments at the inauguration were mostly very, very good. And I thought the people they had - that young lady who did the poem, my gosh, I've asked our staff, if they can find her address, I can send her a note. I mean, she just so inspiring. And so, there was so much about it that I thought was spectacular. But then, he comes

- 3 -

into office. I didn't vote for Trump and I didn't vote for Biden. I didn't. I knew Trump too well to vote for him. (And by the way, now, I think other people have gotten to know him the way that I'm knew him. It hadn’t made enough difference yet, but they've gotten to know him.) And as much as I like Joe Biden, I knew where policy he was going to go. And I couldn't support that. I just couldn't. And you and I both have a lot of friends that have come into the administration. I've texted with several alums. I know you have. But it's been like whiplash, hasn't it? So, you can talk unity, and I do think that's his natural tendency. He is a person that I think is not just naturally divisive. I think he does want to bring people along. But, gosh, as I've been saying all along, hey, it's the policies. And it really is like whiplash year to go from where we were to where we're going. And, so, I think that's the policies and the tremendous difference is already probably undermined. And you know, Les, I have no idea. They're talking about doing this zillion, trillion package, and they're going to do it through reconciliation, they say. I mean, unless Joe Manchin and a few others are going to be in a very different place, I don't know how they're going to do that either even with reconciliations. So, I think he's getting off to a rocky start. He's done well with his confirmations. And he has some people that you and I both know are very qualified to do their jobs. But the talk was great. Putting things together has been good. The policies, obviously, are not that unifying.

Les Munson So, eight years ago, when Tony Blinken was nominated to be the Deputy Secretary of State, he was confirmed, but he only got two Republican votes. I think it was you and Senator Flake. Just a week ago, he got 28 Republicans to vote for him for his confirmation as Secretary of State. Do you think it's possible that at least in the Senate we're seeing a little more bipartisanship than people might realize?

Senator Corker Well, I hope so. And you and I both had a warm relationship with Tony. And he obviously he knows foreign policy. Certainly, knew foreign policy more than I did when I first got there for sure. So, I hope so. I hope that's the case. I don't remember what it was that caused myself and Flake to be the only two to vote for him. Thanks for reminding me of that; I forgot all about it.

Les Munson I think it was seen. Sorry to interrupt. I think it was seen as a proxy vote on Syria policy. And Senator McCain, of course, it was around then, was very upset and kind of led a lot of Republican votes away from Tony.

Senator Corker Yeah. And actually, I think Tony was more on our side of the Syria issue if I remember correctly. And yeah, I hope that what you're saying is the case. And maybe, because of even what happened on January 6, maybe people have talked a little bit and want to be a little more respectful of people who are qualified, but may share differing views than them realizing that it is president's prerogative as long as

- 4 -

someone is qualified and has the appropriate character and integrity, which Tony has, that they should be certainly affirmed.

Les Munson Let's talk about some of the big challenges facing the Biden administration. China is the biggest one. They’re our peer competitor or near-peer competitor in the world. It's an adversarial relationship. China's been flying over Taiwan's airspace since Inauguration Day. There have been border clashes with India near Tibet. China seems to be kind of ramping up the heat to see how President Biden reacts. How do you think he's going to handle? How do you think President Biden is going to handle this challenge from China?

Senator Corker Well, I think he's going to handle it the way many people have been talking throughout the election. And that is that he's going to try to build alliances to deal with China. And not do it the way President Trump did, which was mano to mano and these willy-nilly tariffs. Let me say this, so I do think he'll work with other countries to bring pressure to bear on China. China needs to have pressure to bear on them for all the intellectual property theft and mercantilism, all the things they're involved in. There needs to be pressure. Now, it's going to be difficult because as you know, I mean, a lot of our allies are doing a whole lot of business with China. It affects their GDP. And so, these alliances are way more difficult to put together, especially as we've let it continue to creep over the years. But that is the only way, I think at the end of the day, we're going to be able to put the kind of pressure on that needs to be put in place. You and I met with Madam Foo numbers of times, and as opposed to our country where we speak with 1000 voices, people overseas it's hard for them to determine what our policy is: This senator may say that, the President may say that, Secretary of State may say something different. In China, they all say exactly the same thing. So, it's top down. And what they worry about, as you know, is stability. And a one-party system has to worry about stability. In our country we've got an outlet for people to express themselves and it's kind of gotten in a very divisive place now, which we've been talking about But in their country, not. And so I still think China wants to continue its rise. I think they want to continue the stability. I don't think they're interested in skirmishes, but I think they're going to be pressing the limits nonstop. And we've got to figure out a way with others to counter that. If it just is about the US and China, I don't think we'll get to where we need to go. But it is the single biggest, I know everyone says this and you and I've talked about this in the past (history is fraught with conflict: one country surpassing another economically and conflicts occurring), it is the most major foreign relations issue for us to manage the relationship with China. It dwarfs everything else that we have to deal with.

Les Munson One of my favorite memories of working for you was meeting with Madam Foo in Beijing in one of those super fancy halls that the Communist Party has. And you two talking about North Korea, and her advice to you was to just not worry about it.

- 5 -

Senator Corker Yeah, just don't worry about it. But again, you're emphasizing the point of it because of stability, right? They didn't want a bunch of North Koreans coming across the river into China, and destabilizing that part of their country.

Les Munson Let me ask you about the Middle East. President Trump had some success diplomatically with the Abraham accords, these peace deals between Israel and some of its Sunni Arab neighbors. They seem like a very significant thing. What's your assessment of those? And are there other things that President Trump did well that President Biden would be advised to keep doing?

Senator Corker Yeah. So, thank you for bringing that up because not everything about what's happened over the last four years has been negative, for sure. But let's look at it. If you think about it, any Republican president would have nominated conservative judges. Any Republican president would have worked on pro-growth tax reform. Any Republican president would have done some of the deregulation that took place to allow the free enterprise to flourish even more. The thing that singularly is a President Trump accomplishment that I'm not sure any other Republican president would have handled or I know they wouldn't have handled the way he handled. But to get to the place that he got is a huge triumph. Because of some of the other activities, Les, that I'm involved in. I'm talking to folks in the Middle East, and it's about business. It's not about policy, but it's amazing what's happening right now. The first step, of course, was having the summit with the Arabs in Riyadh, convening everybody. Most presidents would have met with the NATO folks, right. I mean, that's what I would have recommended. Let's meet with our allies first. So, he convened this meeting; he then moves the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which people about passed out (but every president said that they were going to do it in years), and then he does away with the Iran agreement, which was an organizing force for everybody, right? There's Israel, the Arabs, and what they've done by this normalization is phenomenal. I was talking to a guy that used to come to our office. I won't mention his name. He had an office in Tel Aviv; he had an office in San Francisco. I called him right as all this was breaking, and the phone rang like it does when it's long distance. And I said, you must be in Tel Aviv. He said, “no, you're not going to believe where I am.” This is a Jewish businessman, by the way. “I am in Riyadh, I've got access to every high level person here. They want to meet with me.” It's going to be, look Les, it's like a gold rush. Just that normalization to be able to fly directly between the countries, what it's going to mean to (you're probably working on those in your business), but what it's going to mean to those countries and what it's going to mean politically. It is a huge breakthrough. And why the President didn't talk about those kind of things, instead of how much he disliked somebody or some race of people or whatever, I

- 6 -

don't know; but for that I give him credit. And let's face it, I give Jared Kushner credit because it was Jared that made it happen.

Les Munson You mentioned the Iran nuclear deal. Of course, President Trump took the US out of it. Iran is now violating the terms of that deal. The Biden Administration has talked about either going back in or crafting a new deal. Of course, John Kerry is sitting there in the National Security Council and in the cabinet as the climate advisor. He's the one who put together the deal to begin with. What would your recommendation to President Biden be about how he pursues a relationship or a diplomatic initiative with Iran?

Senator Corker Well, certainly, I know there's tremendous dislike of the former Trump administration, but he should build off what has happened. And to me the biggest mistake in the world would be to jump back into the agreement. You remember, Les I know, we talked about it: the biggest flaw in the agreement was obviously the sunset provision. I mean, you’re kidding me, we had a 10-year sunset provision, but they can develop incredibly sophisticated centrifuges while they're waiting and just be ready to often run. So, it was tremendously flawed. And, first of all, whether they could even get to an acceptable agreement if they began talking about it? I just think they should build off the strength that they have now to gather. Iran’s okay - they're developing their highly enriched uranium; they're stepping it up a little bit; they’re really being their own worst enemy right now. I mean I've never known them to be that particularly bright in the things that they do. But let's face it, they're just making the case. They're certainly showing something about their intentions, aren't they? And so, I think I would really slow walk it and try to bring. We worked by the way, when President Trump first came in, we worked with Tillerson, Ben, Carden. And I actually went over and drafted legislation to do away with a sunset provision and a couple of other issues relative to their missile research and development and all of that; and the administration, McMaster, was working with the Europeans to try to do away with the sunset provision. And I think the French were open to that; the United Kingdom was open to that. It was Angela Markel that really wasn't willing to even begin discussing. And so that went kaboot. And that's when President Trump decided that he was going to withdraw. So, what Iran is doing right now is making the case, from my standpoint, why those things need to be dealt with.

Les Munson So, one of the things that you did in the Senate that I think was very significant was write the law that compelled President Obama to bring the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to the Senate and to the House for review. And you and your legislation gave Congress an opportunity to vote on that deal. I think that had a huge impact on the debate going forward. And a lot of the criticisms we saw was because people saw what was actually in the deal in those short timelines. Do you think Congress should be playing more of an active role in that kind of review of foreign policy decisions by the President going forward?

- 7 -

Senator Corker I do. And you know, of course, you and Jamil, if I remember correctly, probably wrote 98% of that. And thank you, it was a great public service. But think about where we were last. We had a President Obama who. I think it was in May of the year, we passed this thing. Basically, I wrote him a letter and asked him how you plan to incorporate this Iran deal; and he, within 48 hours, they wrote back. I was surprised. Well, we're going to do an executive agreement; we're going to go to the UN Security Council and ask for approval. So, no vote by Congress, no presentation to Congress. Pretty unbelievable. So, we began to work. And if you remember, people of the same party really don't want to counter presidents of the same party. And so, we quickly we realized we can never force him to turn it into a treaty like people thought. I mean, that's his decision, not ours. We knew we couldn't do that. But could we force him to have to bring it to us and vote? And by the way, it's all those annexes that we put in there that I think actually gave Trump the ability to utilize the fact that they were in violation in certain cases to actually undo the agreement. So, it actually didn't just give us, and, by the way, it gave us the ability to see: to know all about the negotiations, to see all the intelligence. And so all of that gave people an understanding of what the deal really was, which helped undermine it. But think about where we were. It's funny how public service. So, John Kerry's testifying in our committee. And as you know, you can look around the committee and kind of get a sense of what people are thinking. You can tell what they're engaged. And the big deal to me and to you and to Jamil and all of us was that we put the sanctions in place, so Congress ought to have some role in undoing the sanctions. I mean, it really was Congress that brought Iran to the table. And let's face it, let's give Bob Menendez a lot of credit. He and others, ourselves, all of us, we worked to put those sanctions in place. So really? The administration is just going to go to the UN Security Council and undo what Congress did so. So that alone was causing people to have their antenna up. And so, in a hearing, John Kennedy, excuse me, John Kerry. I asked the question, or somebody asked a question. Well, will Congress be able to play a role in alleviating the sanctions? He goes, oh yeah, sure. And so, the next question was, when? He goes, eight years. And I looked over at Tim Kaine, and I realized it was startling to Tim Kaine, right. And so we began with Tim. And then we got another and then if you remember right before the vote in the committee to pass this great bill out. It's been maligned, by the way, by a lot of people who totally,

Les Munson Totally falsely maligned

Senator Corker Woefully maligned. I mean, believe me, yours truly has been maligned greatly over something that I think was a Herculean effort on our part. But it passed out of the committee. But remember, there was no chance this was going to pass out of the committee. Passed unanimously, I think. And passed on the Senate floor, 98 to two. And yes, I think that's the kind of thing, to answer your question in a long- winded way, that is the kind of thing Congress should be doing. But the fact is the administrations should bring those kind of things to Congress as a treaty. We've seen what happened. Now, let's face it,

- 8 -

I mean, other countries, they don't know where the United States is going to be. When you do these executive orders, they get flipped the next time someone comes in. And now do they think President Trump might get reelected in 2024? Hopefully not. Hopefully, never. But my point is, we'd be much better as a nation if Congress was involved in these things through treaties, not through executive orders.

Les Munson Amen. Grant, you get the last foreign policy question.

Senator Corker Sorry I filibustered so much.

Grant Haver No, Senator Corker, thank you so much for sharing your wisdom with us. I know you hit on this a little bit, but it seems like politics has gotten a lot more performative than substantive in recent years. How would you encourage your fellow senators, your former coworkers, to change their ways and be more focused on substance? Or do you think there are bigger things at play that will need to change to change our politics?

Senator Corker Well, it's a great question. I, we used to, there were a few senators who I felt like was there on a mission. Okay. And I never expected to serve more than 12 years. It's tempting after you've been there that long and you're chairman of a committee like that. Certainly, was something that I thought about before deciding not to run. But there are other senators who are they're on a mission to. And one of the things that we used to talk about was our constant majoring in the minors. I mean, the big issues. It seems like we have these fights over, but, I mean, I'm just going to use this: I realized that this day has come and gone and until there's a crisis, it's probably not going to come up. But seriously, so we spend a huge amount of time on appropriations bills and a budget that's 35% of the budget, and we never talk about entitlements that are going to like be bankrupt. Okay. I don't remember a conversation that we had that was serious about that. So, I do think for Congress to deal with the big issues that our nation has to deal with is important. And I think that in doing so would garner much more respect from the American people. It seems like that so much of it is over who shot john, and it is performative. And actually, in fairness Grant, the executive branch has such dominance over foreign policy, and I'm switching off on you a little bit. But they really do. I mean we did a lot. It's a great privilege to be in the Senate. But the executive branch really with the State Department and National Security Council, they sort of dominate foreign policy. And back to the performative comment. I kind of felt like towards the end, Grant, I'd become a commentator, or you're an influencer. You're trying to influence policy. But I do think that Congress. I don't know if you remember: a great example, Grant, when the President Trump started abusing the authorities in the 1974 Trade Act, where he was using the national security waiver to put tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and European Union really under national security. So, I remember leading the charge on the floor. But I'm sorry, I think there were like seven people who co-

- 9 -

signed with it. But what an abuse of authority. I could use abuse of something else, but an abuse of authority. And that was a moment where Congress, whether you are democrats or republicans. Democrats wouldn't join because they kind of like putting tariffs on other people that might help organized labor in America. Or let me put it this way: they didn't want to counter organized labor in America. So, we ended up in this situation where, really, seven senators co-sponsoring something to rightly have the power. Now may have been that some people wanted to put those tariffs in place. May have been. I don't think so. But that's a great example of sort of a personality based: the democrats, their base. It was instead of Congress standing up and taking its rightful role on that particular issue, we missed an opportunity. And every time we do this, as Les knows and you know, every time we do that, the executive branch gets stronger. The norms change, and it's even more difficult for Congress to assert its role. And that's why the point Les made about Iran, giving Congress the ability to weigh in; I don't remember that happening, Les, in modern times where Congress stood up and said: no, this is not going to happen. And we need more of that to occur.

Les Munson All right, Senator, I have to ask you this question. Since you are probably one of the greatest entrepreneurs ever to be in the Senate, who are you with: the hedge funds or the day traders on Reddit?

Senator Corker You know, I read something about it last night. The way these papers are, Les you know, I read them in the morning read them at night because they're constant. And I was reading the Wall Street Journal last night and this morning, and I don't even get what's going on. Okay, Reddit thing. I'm a dinosaur, but just got an update, looks like it's been a 40% drop in value so I hate to be the people that were holding it last night when they went to bed. But I'm with neither. I'm an old fashioned guy and probably not too intelligent. I don't think I own a share of stock right now, and I've missed an opportunity so everybody on this watching this is going to laugh at me. But I'm trying to invest in things that I'm actually doing. And the volatility - I have no idea why the markets it’s close to 31,000 today. I don't get it. But my job today is building companies myself. And then through Jefferies helping other people build companies. And that's something that's more to my suiting than day trading, and things I don't understand.

Les Munson Senator, we'll leave it at that. Thank you again for being with us today. It's great to talk to you. We miss you in Washington. I know the Senate misses you, but it looks like you're thriving in Chattanooga. So, thanks again.

Senator Corker It's great to be with you. And thanks for talking with me. And hopefully we'll do it again. Thank you.

- 10 -