Fox News "Your World" - Transcript: Sen. Rand Paul on North Korea, Gina Haspel, Russia probe

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MACCALLUM: We will see. The president also suggested that China may be sort of interfering in some ways, although he said he has got a great relationship with President Xi, so we'll see where it goes. Marc, thank you so much. Good to see you tonight.

So, earlier this evening, I spoke with Kentucky Senator Rand Paul who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked him what he thinks about the president saying that the Libya model is not going to be repeated in North Korea and a few other topics as well, watch.

(VIDEO CLIP STARTS)

RAND PAUL, US SENATOR, KENTUCKY, REPUBLICAN: It would be disconcerting to the North Koreans to see the Libyan example, and I think it's part of getting a deal. I hope there is a deal in North Korea, but I think we will have to reassure them, that yes, this will be different than Libya and that this will be a deal in which, if you give up your nuclear aspirations as well as your nuclear capabilities, that there and peace and in likelihood, as the President said, prosperity.

MACCALLUM: You're concerned at all about the President saying that we would offer protection for him? What does that mean?

PAUL I think it may be over-stating the case, protection may be from us invading and having regime change, that's what happened in Libya. The West did invade Libya. The West did affect regime change in Libya, and it's been a model that resonates with all up and coming nuclear powers - Iran and North Korea, that they wonder about our sincerity. It's also why some of us have argued it is a bad idea to get out of the Iran agreement because it sends a signal that we are not going to be consistent and following through with our agreements.

MACCALLUM: All right, I want to ask you about Gina Haspel. You voted against from the very beginning, you were very adamant that you were going to vote against. What are your concerns now that she will be the CIA director?

PAUL You know, I think the confirmation process at least gets candidates to say things they hadn't said previously. She did finally come out and say that she thought that water boarding did not work. She never got to the point where she said it was immoral, but she got closer to where a lot of us think we ought to be is that that's it's not what we are as a people.

You know, that torture and water boarding is really not we should be doing. But I am still concerned about the reports that Trump was surveilled. I asked her several questions today, and she did deny that the CIA had anything to do with British intelligence, and in the end, she actually said to me and this is supposed to come in writing, but she says that there was no communication between the British intelligence and John Brennan giving them information about the Trump campaign.

If that is true, it contradicts a lot of news reports that is out there. I hope it's true and I hope she will actually put it in writing, but today, she denied to me that there was ever a meeting between British intelligence and John Brennan where information about surveillance of the Trump campaign was transferred. And we asked very specific questions...

(CROSSTALK)

MACCALLUM: That was that was a very, very interesting exchange and an interesting question on your part. Are you disturbed by this "New York Times" piece that came out last night that says that the reason that there was a counter terrorism investigation even opened up was because they really didn't have any criminal charge, so they opened the counter terrorism operation sort of in the hopes of finding something?

PAUL I have been troubled from the very beginning that I think people were dishonest in the intelligence community to go after President Trump based on a dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and they didn't tell the judge it was paid for by the Clinton campaign. That sounds like lying from the get go. It sounds like an agency run amuck with maybe feelings of hatred towards the president, and so yes, I have been very worried about bias at the CIA and I want to make sure that it never happens again.

MACCALLUM: All right, you had the gumption to come up with a bill that would actually balance the budget and cut the budget by $13 trillion over 10 years, and we have a Republican senate majority but only 21 senators actually voted for anything that looks like a balanced budget deal.

PAUL Herein lies the problem. All of these Republicans go home to the Rotary Club and they say, "I am for the Balanced Budget Amendment," and the Balanced Budget Amendment balances in five years, so I gave them a chance to see whether their promises to the people are correct. Remember, they also promised to repeal ObamaCare, and then six or seven of them changed their mind and refused to vote to repeal ObamaCare, now today, 30 of them or close to 30 of them would not vote for a budget that balances in five years.

Now, I want to correct one thing, it's not a cut of $13 trillion, it was a cut of only $32 billion dollars per year, that's is the 1%. When you say $13 billion, you are saying against proposed increases, so cut $13 trillion of proposed increases from a baseline that starts with what we spent last year, it's only 1 percent a year, $32 billion.

MACCALLUM: Is there anyone in particular that surprised you in that vote? I know Bob Corker did not vote for it, Lindsey Graham has said he thought it would decimate defense spending that's why he didn't vote for it, did they surprise you or anyone else in particular surprise with their vote?

PAU: No, I think Lindsey is typically a dissembler on these things. He said it would affect the defense and it had no cuts in defense. It said, yes, to cut 1 percent of the total, but it said the appropriations committees could decide where to cut it. Now, the appropriations committees could have said it would be the defense appropriations, but that's very unlikely since the Republicans control it and don't want to cut defense.

But the bottom line is, you do have to look at military and non-military and entitlements, the whole ball of wax, and if you cut one penny out of the dollar, it would balance. But I think this shows the hypocrisy of many Republicans who say they are for balanced budgets, but are unwilling really to take the tough vote.

MACCALLUM: All right, so no one in particular that surprised you with their vote?

PAUL No, I think it was kind of the standard. The establishment for the most part voted to keep the established ways of massive spending and trillion dollar deficits, exactly like we had under the Democrats, and that's a disappointing thing.

We promised to be better, and now I gave them a chance to try to be better and yet, the establishment Republicans said, "No, we like the status quo."

MACCALLUM: Very interesting, senator, always good to talk to you. Thank you for being here tonight.

PAUL: Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source