HH: I’m so pleased to welcome back to the program Carly Fiorina, former head of Hewlett-Packard and candidate for president of the United States. Hello, Carly Fiorina, how are you?
CF: I’m really well, Hugh Hewitt, how are you?
HH: Well, I’m a little mystified. I flew this morning from LAX to Reagan, and next to me was a monkey, the star of Night At the Museum and Hangover III was sitting next to me, honest to God.
HH: And you’re probably, (laughing) there’s just an amazing…
CF: Oh, my gosh.
HH: So on the campaign trail, be prepared for anything, Carly Fiorina.
CF: Well, now that we know that TSA fails 96% of the time, maybe that’s how the monkey got through.
HH: I know, it could have been a weaponized monkey. It turned out he was a wonderful, the trainer was a wonderful guy, and the monkey is famous, and he’s grossed a billion and a half dollars in five movies, so I think we have to be very respectful of the monkey. Carly Fiorina, late this afternoon story arrived which is very troubling. A man who waved a large military knife at officers and is believed to have been radicalized by ISIS was shot and killed by police in Boston today. He did more than wave. He lunged at them. He had been under surveillance for a couple of months by local authorities for having been radicalized. How big of a problem are we talking about, do you think? And should the United States have walked backwards with its Patriot Act authorities as it did today?
CF: Well, I think it clearly is a big problem. I think if you listen carefully to the FBI, they are telling us that it’s a big problem. You know, we have, for example, a refugee program from that part of the world where we really don’t know how to track these people. So it’s not simply that there is the opportunity to home grow terrorists, there’s also an opportunity for people to come into this country who have been radicalized. It’s hard for them to be tracked. The FBI director has said flatly and clearly that he believes there are many of these people. So it clearly is a problem. I think with regard to the Patriot Act, I think there are a couple of things that are disturbing about this. One is we’ve known for a long time that the Patriot Act was going to expire. And yet is always seems that in Washington, D.C., it comes down to the very last minute. I think it’s why so many people feel as though, the majority of people now in this nation feel as though we have a professional political class that’s more concerned about protecting its power privileges position than it is about doing the people’s work. And you sort of get that feeling when it comes down to the wire this way, something so important. I am worried, personally, that having telephone companies do what the government used to do is not going to work. I think it’s, there are many people worry about that. I mean, I grew up in the telecommunications industry. I think it’s asking a lot of these companies, and already some of them have expressed a concern about their ability to perform, which is why I think there is an amendment in this bill that says we have to go through a testing period. And finally, I think it’s very legitimate for Americans to wonder why with the collection of all this data there isn’t the opportunity to ask a judge for a warrant to press further. You know, I understand how metadata works and big data works, and it takes a lot of time to collect all this data and discern patterns within the data. And in that time, I don’t think it takes a lot of time to go ask a judge for a warrant. So I think we…
HH: Now tonight, we’ve got a dead terror suspect in Boston, and I just commented in the last segment I wish right now the FBI was searching his metadata. I don’t know that they can tonight, because the program is down. The President hasn’t signed the reauthorization, or the new bill, so it’s dark. There is no metadata to search right now. But I’d like to know who he had called for the last year and a half. Wouldn’t you, Carly Fiorina?
CF: Well, I would, but I also think it’s disturbing that given all this collection of the data that we didn’t know that before he lunged at the officers? Given all the collection of this data, why weren’t the Boston Marathon bombers apprehended sooner? I think those are also legitimate questions. And so I will tell you when I served as chairman of the advisory board at the Central Intelligence Agency, or worked with the NSA, as I have done over the years, what I have always advised our intelligence agencies, they’re good people working really hard to protect us. But what I’ve also advised them is to be as transparent as possible without revealing sources and methods about why they need to do what they’re doing, and talk about it in common language, not in closed door hearings all the time, so the American people can be supportive of these programs.
HH: Now this is why I like Mike Morell’s book so much, and I don’t know if you served with him on the review of this Snowden thing.
CF: I did. I did.
HH: He’s a very impressive man, and a very devoted public servant. And The Great War Of Our Time is a very important book. And he made the case to audiences live and over the phone that I think needs to be made that these tools are necessary. You just advocated for that, Carly Fiorina. Will your campaign be a platform for making obvious that which needs to be known and transparent to the American people, that we’re in the middle of a very dangerous period of time?
CF: Well, I think transparency is absolutely key. I try to practice it myself every day. It’s what I criticize Hillary Clinton for, for example. If you are not transparent, then how can we trust you? And I do think that in these dangerous and rapidly moving times, where people are very frustrated by government, where people wonder whether they can trust their government, and you were joking about the TSA, but honestly, when TSA fails 96% of the time, when the IRS fails to protect our personal information, when the VA fails to server our veterans, these are things that corrode at the American people’s trust in government. And so particularly in these times, where trust of institutions is low and danger is high, it requires leadership that is transparent and willing to talk about issues in a clear way, so that we can all understand and have a conversation about what we need to go doing forward.
HH: Now I want to turn to Hillary Clinton’s credibility numbers. They have taken an amazing hit of a period of 30 days or so. They have plummeted extraordinarily, a full 53%, according to a Quinnipiac poll last week, say she is not trustworthy. To what do you put the sudden precipitous decline in her credibility to, Carly Fiorina?
CF: Well, I do think that there has been a lot of news about what has gone on at the Clinton Foundation. And I think it’s just common sense that people would say no, it just doesn’t sound right that foreign governments are providing tens of millions of dollars to this family foundation while she’s serving as Secretary of State. It just doesn’t sound right that they are providing money to Bill Clinton through a shell company while she serves as Secretary of State. It just doesn’t sound right that the State Department is approving weapons transfers from some of these same governments that were giving money to the family foundation. On the other hand, Hugh, I’ll tell you something else that I find, honestly, equally disturbing. It’s equally disturbing to me that with those kinds of numbers, that 53% of the American people don’t find her trustworthy, that her support among Democrats for the nomination doesn’t seem to be wavering. And the reason I say I find those numbers disturbing is because does it say that we have reached a point where we have so little trust in our public servants that this is just, people think it’s the norm? Oh, yeah, you know, Bill and Hillary Clinton, they personify the political class, not they’re not transparent and trustworthy, but we’re going to vote for them anyway. I find that very disturbing, because that means citizens are giving up on their political leadership and their government.
HH: That’s very interesting. This is the full three paragraphs from the CNN story today. They did their own poll, May 29-31. The polls noted Hillary’s highest unfavorable ratings in 14 years amidst allegations of missing emails and faulty financial gains to Bill Clinton’s foundation. CNN noted that 46% of people said they view Clinton unfavorably as compared to 50% who held an unfavorable view for the Democratic presidential candidate, marking a decrease in favorability, which was 53% in April. Further, CNN reported that 47% feel that Clinton cares for them, marking a fall from 53% last July. CNN’s survey also found that 57% of the people who believe that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy again shows an increase from 49% in March, 8%. So that is, it’s hemorrhaging of trust and credibility, but you’re right. There isn’t a challenger, Carly Fiorina. Is the Democratic Party so without talent that no one can step up even against this backdrop?
CF: Well, you know, of course Bernie Sanders and the former Governor of Maryland would take issue with that. They would say that they are challenging her, that they’re going to really give it a go, and let’s see where that goes. But I think it remains the case that the majority of the party is behind her. Let’s see. Let’s see where that goes.
HH: Should she be supporting the TPA? I’ve got a minute left. I want to ask you about the TPA, both whether you support trade promotion authority and whether she ought to be answering the question at least.
CF: Well, I think she ought to be answering these questions. Of course, I support free and fair trade. I would just like President Obama to tell us what’s in it, because anytime you have a complicated deal, and the President speaks about it in lofty terms, we now have learned that the devil’s in the details, and the details are frequently very different than the lofty goals with which he describes the deal. So I’d like to know what’s in it.
HH: Carly Fiorina, always a pleasure to talk to you, thank you for joining me on my D.C. day.
End of interview.