On this “Face the Nation” broadcast, moderated by Ed O’Keefe:
Click here to browse full transcripts of “Face the Nation.”
The following is a transcript of an interview with Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott that aired on March 31, 2024.
ED O’KEEFE: We turn now to the Mayor of Baltimore Brandon Scott. Mr. Mayor, thank you for spending part of Easter with us. We appreciate it. After this bridge collapse, this past week in your city, what is the most urgent need right now in Baltimore?
MAYOR BRANDON SCOTT: Well the most urgent need, because our focus will always be on those families. I’m talking focus on the total impact on humans, right. And that begins with the loss of life. That then goes to what’s going to happen for those families, and then the economic realities following this. And that’s where our focus is going to continue to be. We have the salvage operation underway as of yesterday, with one crane and one barge working to start to cut some of the bridge out, that work is happening through the unified command. But we are and always will be focused on the human impact of this tragedy.
ED O’KEEFE: Well, let’s talk a little bit about that. What more can you as a city be doing for those four families, and then more broadly, for the roughly 15,000 workers whose jobs are tied in one way or another, to the Port of Baltimore?
MAYOR BRANDON SCOTT: Well, listen, I said from day one, that my office would be there to support the families in every way possible. And it’s not just me, our partners and Governor Moore and his administration, my partners in Baltimore County Executive Olszewski and County Executive Pittman and their administration, my Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, has work with nonprofit groups that work with immigrants to set up case management for these individuals, we already set up a fund that now has over $300,000 into it for those families, and we will support them throughout this. That could mean that they need ongoing trauma care, that can mean in the future, they need help with different jobs and things like that. But we also have to focus on the impact of the workers and the businesses at the port. I first have to be thankful to President Biden for having the SBA allow us now to have these businesses apply for grants through SBA to be able to keep their business open, keep those folks employed. We’ve been working alongside- and thankful for Governor Moore for making that ask, that’s a strong sign of leadership for these workers in these businesses. We don’t want these small businesses to go away. We don’t want these jobs and my residents and everyone’s residents depend on, to go away. We’re actually opening up a center at 1501 South Clinton Street tomorrow morning, where the folks can come at afternoon at 1pm to come see the SBA. We’ll have our office on- on their on standby, it will be open every single day this week. Very gracious and grateful to the folks that care for us for allowing us to have it there. So that we can be able to help these individuals that are impacted in every way. But as I always say, in situations like this, we have to start with those most directly impacted. And that is, of course, those families.
ED O’KEEFE: You’re talking, when you say SBA, about the Small Business Administration that’s offering now loans of up to about $2 million to the affected companies. You know, ultimately, Congress is likely going to have to get involved in some of this to provide federal relief. What if any kind of direct outreach have you done to lawmakers in both parties to try to make the case for what Baltimore needs?
MAYOR BRANDON SCOTT: Well, listen, I have the best congressional delegation in the United States Congress. And Senator Cardin, Senator Van Hollen, Congressman Mfume, even Congressman Raskin, Congressman Trone, they have all been there on the ground. I don’t have to reach out to them because they’ve been there on site, talking with us, talking with the impacted individuals. And we know that they are going to do everything in their power to bring back resources for this tragedy that doesn’t just impact the city of Baltimore and the state of Maryland. This port is the number one port for cars and farm equipment. So this matters to folks in rural North Carolina, in Kansas, and Iowa, this matters to the global economy. And it does not, this should not be something that has anything or any conversation around party. We are talking about an American tragedy to an American city, American port city, that means so much to this country in the world, and no party conversation should be involved at all.
ED O’KEEFE: Secretary Buttigieg told us a little while ago that there’s still no sense of how quickly this cleanup will happen, or how quickly the bridge will get rebuilt. What happens to the economy of Baltimore in the meantime?
MAYOR BRANDON SCOTT: Well, right now, that’s the things that we’re looking at, right? We’re looking at how we’re going to offload some of the stuff that is in the port and maybe use our partners at Tradepoint Atlantic to help with some of that. We obviously have some stuff on trains that can go out,. This is why it’s so important for the SBA and what they’re doing. We be told- I’ll be meeting with labor leaders in the actual workers myself tomorrow to talk about what kind of other support that they need, while we all wrap our heads around and figure out how we can support them and keep as much commerce flowing as possible. This is going to be a long road. This is not going to be a sprint. This is a marathon and as I said yesterday, with you know anything about long distance running, the folks who get out quickly, never win. We are going to win, because we’re going to make every single step have the right pace, the focus and attention on every detail that we need to to make sure that we not only build back this bridge. That we focus on those humans impacted, and every single detail of that.
ED O’KEEFE: This was a tragic accident. But it seems these days when something like this happens in this country, there are always conspiracy theories and a lot of misinformation thrown around. And in the case of this accident, some downright nasty things said about you online this week. I’ve got to ask you one of the wilder things is some conservative critics blamed the bridge collapse on diversity, equity and inclusion policies in Maryland. Diversity, equity inclusion, better known as DEI to a lot of people. They called you, some critics, “the DEI mayor.” What did you make of that when you heard it?
MAYOR BRANDON SCOTT: Well, as I’ve said, already this week, we know. Listen, I am a young black man and young black mayor in this country. We know that there are a lot of racism, folks who don’t think I should be in this job. I know that, I’ve been Black my whole life. I know how racism- racism goes in this country. But my focus is always going to be on those people. I didn’t want to be out there that night asking- answering questions about DEI. I’m worried about the loss of life. We know how ridiculous that is. Those folks are afraid as I said this week, to use the N-word. This should not be even in conversation. We have to remain focused on the mission at hand and continue from my vantage point to prove those people wrong about people that look like me by doing my job in the best way that I can. And ignoring the noise of folks who simply want to be devices and are afraid that their way of life where people that don’t look like them and think like them can be in control can be in power and actually be better at the job.
ED O’KEEFE: Well, we thank you for spending some time on this Easter talking to us about the situation. As you said, it’s a marathon. We’ll likely be with you through some of the other miles of this and for now, happy Easter and thank you again.
MAYOR BRANDON SCOTT: Thank you. Happy Easter.
The following is a transcript of an interview with House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Mike Turner that aired on March 31, 2024.
Source link
The following is a transcript of an interview with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg that aired on March 31, 2024.
ED O’KEEFE: For the latest we’re joined by the Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg. Mr. Secretary, happy Easter. Thank you for spending part of it with us and good morning.
U.S. SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION PETE BUTTIGIEG: Happy Easter. Good to be with you.
ED O’KEEFE: Part of the reason we wanted to chat with you is because you know, we have this incident in Baltimore. we’ve seen parts of planes falling out of the sky, you’ve described the fact that it’s a national crisis, that more than 40,000 people are killed in car accidents each year, we’re going to work our way through some of this. But let’s begin in Baltimore. How long is it going to take to remove that ship, clear out the debris, and reopen the channel?
SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: We haven’t received a timeline yet. But what I can tell you is the work is now underway, parts of the non-federal channel are already being worked on. And there is a thousand ton capacity lift crane on a barge being put into place now there’s another 600 ton crane on its way to back it up. This is going to be a very complex process, there are even now forces acting on that steel. So it takes a lot to make sure that it can be dismantled safely, to make sure that the vessel stays where it is supposed to be and doesn’t swing out into the channel. But it has to be done. Because that is the only way to get into most of the Port of Baltimore. And of course, it’s important not just to the people in the workers of Baltimore, but to our national supply chains to get that port back up and running as quickly as possible. Then you have the process of getting the bridge back up. That’s going to take longer, but that work is already getting underway as well. We’ve released the first $60 million in emergency relief funding through our department to go toward that work, everything from removing wreckage to design and procurement for the new bridge structure. This is not going to happen overnight. But we’re going to help Maryland do it as quickly as they responsibly can.
ED O’KEEFE: And is there any sense of how long it would take to rebuild that bridge?
SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: We haven’t received estimates on that yet either. I can tell you the original bridge took about five years to build. But that doesn’t necessarily inform us about the timeline on the reconstruction. A lot goes into how that reconstruction will be designed, how the process is going to work. Right now we don’t fully know everything we need to know about the condition of the portions of the bridge that did not collapse. Obviously, that work is underway right now. And a lot of great work under the leadership of Governor Wes Moore by the Maryland DOT. We’re backing them up with funding technical assistance, everything else we can do to help.
ED O’KEEFE: To that point about funding, we’ve heard that it sounds like most of this is going to be paid for by the federal government either about 90%- 80% depending on how it works, the rest by the state. Where’s that money going to come from?
SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: So we’re using an authority called the emergency relief. This is through our Federal Highway Administration. That’s how we got those first 60 million out and there will be more where that came from. Now it is possible we may need to turn to Congress to supplement that fund. That has happened in the past, if you remember the 2007 bridge collapse in Minnesota, ultimately about $260 million put together, including funds that were put through Congress on a bipartisan basis. And I hope and expect this too will be a bipartisan priority. It’s not just the right thing to do for the people of Baltimore. But really important, again, for our whole supply system to make sure that that port and that bridge are operating just the way they were supposed to.
ED O’KEEFE: Well, real quick, you know Congress these days can’t get much of anything done. And there seems to be partisan disagreement about even when to go to lunch. So what exactly would be the pitch to any skeptical lawmaker who says why on earth should we have to pay for this?
SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Well, the pitch is your district could be next. And also this has historically been bipartisan, and I’m not just reaching back to bygone eras. Remember, the infrastructure package itself President Biden’s infrastructure plan went through on a bipartisan basis. A lot of people didn’t think that was possible when we got here in 2021. But the President never gave up on the idea. And sure enough, a lot of Republicans were willing to cross the aisle, work with President Biden, work with Democrats to get this done. If there’s anything left in this country that is more bipartisan than infrastructure, it should be emergency response. This is both and I hope that Congress will be willing if and when we turn to them.
ED O’KEEFE: On another matter. This week, Boeing- or this past week, Boeing announced some big changes in its leadership, the CEO, the Board Chairman, the head of the commercial airplanes unit are all leaving by the end of the year. Are those changes enough to satisfy concerns about the company?
SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Well, one personnel change or several personnel changes are not the same thing as what we most need to see, which is a change in culture. Whoever takes these new leadership positions and everybody else at Boeing, especially those senior leaders who are accountable for the planes that that Boeing produces, and the work that that company does, they need to demonstrate that they put safety first. FAA has been putting Boeing under a microscope ever since this incident happened in January and frankly, there were a lot of concerns about what the FAA administrator saw in the course of those visits and in the audit. He gave Boeing about 90 days to come up with a comprehensive plan to show that they’re on the path to deliver the right kind of quality and safety. We’re about 30 days into that. There are regular check-ins and FAA is not going to allow Boeing to increase their production until they demonstrate that they can do it safely.
ED O’KEEFE: You know, Thursday was the busiest day of the year so far, at least in terms of TSA screenings, because we’re seeing an uptick now ahead of spring break. We’re in the midst of spring break for a lot of people, but given these aviation incidents: the blown off door on the Alaska Airlines plane, the panel that fell off a Delta flight recently, what would you say to those who are scared to fly right now?
SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Well, I would say that every time I step onto an airliner, whether I’m going to look at a bridge, or whether I’m flying somewhere with my husband, and kids, like we will be later this week, I know that I’m participating in the safest form of travel in America. And that what makes it the safest – safest form of travel in America is all of the work and all of the people who stand behind that, including the men and women of our FAA. We’re talking about an extraordinary safety record. And just think about this mode of travel, it involves being propelled by flammable liquids and a metal tube through the sky at nearly the speed of sound. And again, is the safest way to travel. That is because of extremely rigorous standards and processes for inspection. And that’s why so far, since this administration arrived, there have been about 3 billion passengers getting on airplanes in the United States, and 100% of them getting to where they need to go. So we’re going to continue doing everything we can holding airlines, aerospace manufacturers, and everybody else accountable. And turning to those flight crews, mechanics, tech workers, everybody who is part of that safety equation, to try to keep it that way.
ED O’KEEFE: You really sold it there metal- metal to flammable liquid flying through the air. But I hear you on this on the safety aspects of this.
SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Safest in the world.
ED O’KEEFE: You know, if the President gets another four years later this year, you’re gonna be sticking around?
SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Again, I’m right now I’m completely focused on doing a good job in the job that I have. I’m humbled and honored that the President asked me to do this work. We knew, even in those early days that we’d be pursuing the biggest infrastructure package, in certainly in my lifetime, we were able to get that through Congress. Now we’re out there delivering that. There were other things that we never could have seen coming when President Biden invited me to take on this role, like the Baltimore bridge collapse we’re dealing with right now. So I got my head down, hard at work and hoping to do right by the trust that’s been placed in me and really proud of the 55,000 people at the Department of Transportation helping us meet that mission every day.
ED O’KEEFE: I know when a lot of people see you on television these days, they may still think to themselves, “Oh, I wonder if he still wants the big job one day.” Now that you’ve been closer to it, working alongside a president, is it still something you aspire to?
SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Well, I certainly have a new perspective on just how demanding that job is watching President Biden deal with so many concerns, challenges and opportunities for this country. And I’m proud to be a small part of the big team that helps him get that done. I sincerely don’t know what, whether I will run for elected office of any kind again, what I do know is that I’ve been asked to take on a big job. I’m honored and humbled to do it. It’s hard, it’s rewarding, and it’s taken about 110% of what I have to give right now.
ED O’KEEFE: All right, well, we are honored and humbled you spend part of your Easter with us. Our best to Chasten and the kids and we’ll talk again soon.
SECRETARY BUTTIGIEG: Thanks very much. Good being with you.
The following is a transcript of an interview with Cindy McCain, World Food Programme executive director, that aired on March 31, 2024.
ED O’KEEFE: We’re joined by the Executive Director of the World Food Program, Cindy McCain. Mrs. McCain, it’s great to see you. Thank you for joining us. Simply put–
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WORLD FOOD PROGRAM, CINDY MCCAIN: My pleasure.
ED O’KEEFE: Simply put, right now there are too many people in the world going hungry and you have some critical insights into that, which is why we’re so pleased that you’re with us this morning. I wanted to begin with the situation earning the most attention right now in Gaza and as the war continues, the International Court of Justice this week called for Israel to, quote “take all necessary and effective measures” to allow humanitarian assistance into Gaza. What needs to change so that your teams can operate there?
CINDY MCCAIN: Well, first of all, thank you for covering this issue. We need access. We need full, unfettered access and right now we don’t have that. We can occasionally get a few trucks in. We can occasionally get up all the way to the north, but it’s not consistent and is- and is not to scale either. All of the other issues regarding maritime and airdrops and all those are all good. We need any- any way to be able to get food in- in any way we can, but they can’t take it to scale. We really need access to the road and we need to be able to get up to the north, all the way without being caught at checkpoints and turned around.
ED O’KEEFE: I read the World Food Program estimates simply addressing the basic food needs will require at least 300 trucks to enter Gaza every day and distribute food, especially in the north, as you mentioned, but you’ve only managed to get about nine convoys of trucks in since the start of the year. That’s nothing, right?
CINDY MCCAIN: It’s nothing. It really is. We were able to yesterday, or today I guess it was, get nine trucks in, period. We also were part of an airdrop today that was 6.1 metric tons. That’s nothing. We just cannot continue this way. As you know, famine is imminent in the north and so unless we can- can really convince our- our diplomatic groups and our political groups around the world to help convince the Israelis that we must get in and we must do it in a- in a sustained and unfettered- unfettered way. We can’t- people are going to die otherwise, and they already are dying.
ED O’KEEFE: When you or your colleagues speak with Israeli officials about getting that access, what is the reason they’re giving you why they’re not letting you in? Do they not understand the situation? Or is there some other reason?
CINDY MCCAIN: Well, I’m not really sure where the mistake has been made, but I do know that there’s been accusations that somehow the U.N. isn’t doing their job, which couldn’t be further from the truth. So I think again, it’s politics. I think it’s something that- that we’re, you know, various factions are involved in, all I want, all I need to know is when and where we can take the food in, make sure that we can distribute it. That’s what I want to know from the Israeli government.
ED O’KEEFE: You’re especially concerned as well about what’s happening in parts of Africa, specifically Sudan, South Sudan, and Chad, and you said, this could become the world’s largest hunger crisis. Why is that?
CINDY MCCAIN: Well, quite frankly, it’s the forgotten crisis now. Sudan no- is no longer paid attention to in the world media, and- and things haven’t stopped there. People are still fighting, there is no food. We have no access and we’re also fighting a climate change issue there as well. So it’s almost a combination of a perfect storm, with- with 2.2 million refugees across the borders, in various countries, especially Chad and the funding sources that we have right now and our ability to be able to fund, it just isn’t- isn’t meshing. We don’t have enough money and we need to be able to make sure that we can feed the refugees that are across the border, and also get access into Sudan from this- from- from the- the western side, the southern side, through South Sudan, and through the north, we’ve got to get food in there as well, because it can be and will be, I hope not, I pray not, the next- the next largest humanitarian crisis that will- that we will know.
ED O’KEEFE: And not only humanitarian crisis, you’ve suggested it could be a real national security risk for the United States, right?
CINDY MCCAIN: Very much so. People migrate, you know, the bad guys get mixed up in all of this. Food is the- is the major element here in being able to keep populations stable and keep- keep them healthy as well. With those two things not tended to, then people migrate, they run, they take their families, they do anything they can to feed their families.
ED O’KEEFE: You’ve made an interesting point that I think is a good reminder to all of us that these hunger crises around the world are not being caused by natural disasters, but by man-made events and conflict. And nowhere right now, perhaps, at least in this hemisphere, where we sit, is that most apparent than in Haiti, what is the situation there, as you understand it?
CINDY MCCAIN: It’s catastrophic. We- we WFP are still in there and we still are working in the north somewhat and somewhat down towards the center, but it is a very dicey situation. We are continuing our school feeding programs, but once again, as you’ve seen, there have been evacuations of U.N. personnel out of there. It’s just, again, this is a diplomatic solution. This is a man-made crisis, and we need a diplomatic solution to it and we need it now. We need it right now.
ED O’KEEFE: You know, we’d be remiss if we didn’t ask you while we have you about the death of the late Senator Joe Lieberman, who of course, was such a good friend to you and to your late husband, what did he mean to the McCain family?
CINDY MCCAIN: Oh, he was Uncle Joe to my children, he was a friend to my family and- and I had the extreme opportunity of watching two men together, not only navigate the difficulties that the world offered up to them as- as in what they did, but also watch them solve problems together in a way that was gracious and kind and loving towards humanity. And I had the good fortune of being able to call him my friend too.
ED O’KEEFE: Executive Director, Cindy McCain of the World Food Program, thank you for joining us.
CINDY MCCAIN: Thank you for having me.
ED O’KEEFE: And we’ll be right back.
On this “Face the Nation” broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan:
Click here to browse full transcripts of “Face the Nation.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m Margaret Brennan in Washington.
And this week on Face the Nation: A government shutdown is narrowly avoided, but when will Congress tackle the national security risks facing the U.S.?
Following the shocking, fiery raid on a concert hall on the outskirts of Moscow, a branch of ISIS claims responsibility, and U.S. officials confirm the terror group was solely responsible.
We will get the latest from the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul, and former top counterterrorism official Samantha Vinograd.
Plus: As immigration officials brace for a spring influx of migrants, the head of Border Patrol tells us the national security risks that keep him up at night.
Then:
(Begin VT)
SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): The motion is agreed to.
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Shutdown averted. President Biden and Congress agreed to a $1 trillion funding deal. But striking that deal triggers a new attempt to oust the House speaker.
We will ask former Speaker Kevin McCarthy how Republicans can resolve their internal divisions.
And, finally, we will talk presidential politics with Georgia Democratic Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock.
It’s all just ahead on Face the Nation.
Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. We have a lot to get to this morning.
Tomorrow, the Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, will face two legal threats, including the potential of having a half-billion dollars worth of his assets seized.
And President Biden again implores a chaotic Republican-led Congress to fund a foreign aid package and deal with the national security implications of border security.
But we begin on the devastating terror attack overseas. In Russia, citizens are observing a national day of mourning for the 137 people who were killed in an ISIS attack outside of Moscow.
Foreign correspondent Debora Patta starts us off with the latest.
(Begin VT)
DEBORA PATTA (voice-over): Investigators surveying the smoldering wreckage of the aftermath of the weekend massacre near Moscow.
On Friday night, armed men in combat fatigues burst into the Crocus City Hall, a popular concert venue, and methodically began shooting the audience, before setting the place ablaze. Videos posted on social media show people screaming and ducking for cover…
(GUNSHOTS)
DEBORA PATTA: … as the gunmen fired round after round of automatic gunfire.
“Someone’s shooting here,” this man says. “The hall is burning. They have set us on fire.”
Outside, the building was engulfed in flames. Inside, concertgoers tried to escape the relentless gunfire trapped in a crush of panicked people. Another video shows assailants moving with deadly intent through the complex as they gun people down, the full extent of the horror quickly made clear by a growing line of body bags.
The attack comes after the U.S. shared intelligence with Russia warning that ISIS was planning to strike and advising its citizens to stay away from concert venues. But, this week, after a questionable landslide election victory, President Vladimir Putin dismissed the U.S. warning as outright blackmail.
In a televised address on Saturday after the carnage, Putin told a shocked nation that 11 people had already been arrested in connection with the brazen attack, including four gunmen. And despite the fact that ISIS has claimed responsibility, he used the opportunity to bolster support for his war in Ukraine, now entering its third year.
(PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN SPEAKING IN FOREIGN LANGUAGE)
DEBORA PATTA: “The assailants were moving in the direction of Ukraine,” Putin claimed, “where they had a Russian border crossing prepared from the Ukrainian side.”
It’s a charge Ukraine flatly denies and the U.S. has categorically repudiated.
(End VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: That was Debora Patta reporting.
And we’re joined now by the Republican chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Texas Congressman Michael McCaul.
Good to have you here in person this morning.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-Texas): Thanks for having me, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Chair McCaul, this attack in Moscow was carried out by ISIS-K, a group that typically emanates out of Afghanistan.
We know the U.S. had advanced warning. From what you know, is there an ongoing threat in Eurasia, and are U.S. interests a target?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Yes, I – I believe so.
I think that the CENTCOM Commander, General Kurilla, just testified this week before Congress that, within six months, that ISIS-K would have the capability to operate outside of Afghanistan, to do external operations. And it only took six days before they hit Moscow, or outside of Moscow.
And I think Europe is of concern. And it’s sort of like we’re going back to that old playbook where history repeats itself. And that’s why the fall of Afghanistan, the way it was done, and the way we left it with no ISR capability, that intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, puts us in danger, where this is a new battleground training ground for ISIS.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the U.S. did, though, have some ears on this if they warned Russia, right…
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: … that ISIS was a threat here.
You, in your committee, you have been very focused on Afghanistan. And you held a hearing with retired Generals Mark Milley and Frank McKenzie this past week. They both said the State Department failed to adequately plan for the withdrawal from an evacuation from Afghanistan.
Given the threat environment the U.S. is facing right now on multiple continents at once, Haiti, Niger, all the Middle East, are you confident that the United States government is prepared to protect its people in all of those posts and carry out evacuations if needed?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I’m very concerned.
I think what happened in Haiti – our embassy is under threat right now. We’re starting to evacuate them. You know, what happened in Afghanistan, the generals are very clear. It wasn’t the DOD. It was a State Department that never came up with a plan of evacuation, which, by law, they’re required to do.
And so what happened? If you fail…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, they said it was too late when it was put into place. There was a plan, but it was too late.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: It – it – and it was put in place, but only at the time that Kabul was falling and the embassy was starting to be evacuated.
I think what the State Department thought they could do is continue our operations in the embassy and normalize with the Taliban and stay there beyond the military retrograde. And I think that was a serious error in judgment.
And Ambassador Wilson was the major culprit behind that, including all the way up to the White House.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the State Department has pointed out that the Trump administration that brokered the deal for withdrawal could have planned for an evacuation and did not.
What do you make of that?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Yes, they – they’re by law required to plan. I think DOD was starting to pick up the slack.
You know, we saw the threats coming in, the threat vectors. The I.C. was telling us it was going to fall fast. The DOD knew this. And the State Department seemed to have these rose-colored lenses on. When you listen to the White House press comments about it’s not going to be like Vietnam, everything’s fine, and it wasn’t.
That’s why we had the dissent cable come out from the embassy, 23 employees, a cry for help, screaming to get out of there, because they knew what was going to happen.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The government funding bill that was signed last night, 12,000 additional special visas to Afghan nationals who had worked with the U.S., were tucked into this funding bill.
What more needs to be done to help the Afghan allies who worked alongside the U.S.?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, we promised them we would get them out, the Afghan partners, the interpreters. We left them behind.
And that’s the biggest sin of the Afghan evacuation. I think the 12,000 SIVs is a great response and a great start to that. I will commend Speaker Johnson. I worked very closely with him to make sure we had that in there, because, on one hand, Republicans can say oh, my gosh, we left them behind, but then we’re not going to do anything to help them get out with visas.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
So, has Speaker Johnson given you any timeline for a vote on Ukraine aid, given that they are running out of ammunition?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: His commitment is to put it on the floor after Easter. And we are working on this bill.
MARGARET BRENNAN: As soon as you all come back April 9?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I would like to be done as soon as possible.
I think the situation in Ukraine is dire. The front lines are – are – it’s – we can’t – if we lose in Ukraine like Afghanistan…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: … and – and lose to Putin and let him, you know, take over Ukraine and Moldova, Georgia, and abandon our allies, like we did in Afghanistan, does that make the United States weaker or stronger? I think weaker.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But why – why isn’t there that sense of urgency on the speaker’s part? I mean, respectfully, this has been stuck in the House for weeks. You have been warning about this. It needs to be acted on.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: He understands this.
He is in a very difficult spot. And this, you know, motion to vacate the chair thing – I believe he’s committed, because he understands national security. He leans on, you know, myself, the chairmen of Armed Services, House Intelligence for advice on this. And he knows how important this is.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you trust that this will be voted on?
Because, as you just mentioned, that motion to vacate was just introduced by Marjorie Taylor Greene. This is an – an effort to oust him. She has put this in place. You’re all headed home to your districts. You are all going to be asked about this. She’s the only one so far saying she wants to oust the speaker. Will she stay the only one?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: You know, I think it’s indicative that even Matt Gaetz, who was the architect of ousting McCarthy, is saying this would be a huge mistake, because it could actually throw the balance of power over to Hakeem Jeffries.
I think that’s one argument. I think the other argument is, we don’t need dysfunction right now. And with the world on fire, the way it is…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Don’t we have dysfunction right now?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Well, we do.
And with the world on fire the way it is, we need to govern. And that is not just for Republicans, but in a bipartisan way, get things done for the country. That’s in the national security interest of the United States. This is not just Ukraine. It’s Israel and Indo-Pacific as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
Before I let you go, 11 aid organizations have issued a letter saying that Israel is standing in the way of aid deliveries in Gaza, their firsthand experience. Do you doubt their testimonies?
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: I think we are having difficulties.
I talked to, you know, Cindy McCain yesterday, World Food Program. David Beasley, her predecessor. Look, logistics and security are the issue. Israel knows it’s important to get that humanitarian assistance in, because – for a lot of reasons. We have to stabilize Southern Gaza.
But they also need to go into Rafah and take out Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas. So that’s a competing interest here. Unfortunately, cease-fire talks, I think Hamas is playing us…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: … playing – Director Burns talked to, you know, the Israelis. They agreed to the ratio. I don’t think Hamas will. They’re not playing fair.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Chair McCaul, thank you for your time today.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL MCCAUL: Margaret, thanks for having me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, who joins us this morning from Bakersfield, California.
Good to have you back on the program, sir.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-California): Thank you. Thanks for having me on.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, since you left Congress, we’ve had four high-profile Republican departures, including Mike Gallagher, a young rising star, someone you put in key positions, announced retirements, including from one of your lieutenants, Patrick McHenry.
Is the chaos within your caucus driving these departures?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, I think it’s causing some of it, yes.
I mean, the difficulty here is, when you allow eight Republicans to join with all the Democrats to determine who can run the House, when 96 percent decide one way, it creates some chaos. They’ve got to move through this, put the country first and be able to move on.
I think they’re able to do that. Speaker Johnson is doing the very best job he can. It’s a difficult situation. But, look, the one advice I would give to the Conference and to the speaker is, do not be fearful of a motion to vacate. I do not think they could do it again. That was surely based on Matt Gaetz trying to stop an ethics complaint.
I don’t think the Democrats will go along with it too. Focus on the country, focus on the job you’re supposed to do, and actually do it fearlessly. Just move forward.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Patrick McHenry, one of your lieutenants, said you can either die a speaker and worry about them taking you out or live every day as your last.
(LAUGHTER)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you suggesting Speaker Johnson is afraid to take a vote on something like Ukraine?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, no, not at all.
No, no, I don’t think – I don’t think Speaker Johnson’s afraid at all. And I don’t believe the motion will come up. What the – the motion Marjorie put in was not privileged. So it’s not…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: It’s not being called up for a vote. I – I don’t think the Democrats will go along with this either.
We’re close to the election. We watched what transpired the last time. You went three weeks without Congress being able to act. You can’t do anything if you don’t have a speaker.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I think we’ve moved past that. We’ve got a lot of challenges. We have got FISA coming up before us. We’ve got Ukraine funding. We’ve got a border wide open.
Those are the issues the country is actually looking on, the economy and others. If we focus on the country and what the country’s desire…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … I think the personalities can solve their own problems.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, when you were in Washington, you used to deal with Marjorie Taylor Greene, who filed this motion to vacate to oust the speaker.
She’s blaming Johnson for everything from chaos at the border. She says she’s starting this process to end the chaos that Americans are living in every single day. Do you endorse her tactic? What’s the game here?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Look, the one thing I have always found, when you sit down with a member and talk to them, find out what their concerns are, especially when it’s based upon policy, you can solve that problem.
And I watched that with Marjorie, from the vote to speaker to the vote for the Fiscal Responsibility Act. There’s times she was a difference of opinion. And you sit down and find common ground.
Matt’s case was much different. It’s about a personal thing that he had done. And that’s what he was trying, to get something illegally stopped. This is not the case here. So I would not be afraid of a motion to vacate. This is about policy.
And, you remember, our government is defi – is designed…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … to find common ground.
And we’ve got a small majority. But, remember, Margaret, in those nine months, what was the small majority able to do? We actually passed the strongest border security bill – it’s now struck in the Senate – an energy independence bill. We stopped D.C. from decriminalizing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s – it’s dead on arrival in the Senate. It’s not just…
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We reformed welfare. We made the largest…
MARGARET BRENNAN: … stuck there.
(CROSSTALK)
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: But – but listen to what did come into law, the largest cut in American history, more than $2 trillion…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … welfare reform. Took $20 billion back from the IRS going after Americans. NEPA reform, hasn’t done in 40 years, parents bill of rights.
We’ve proven we can govern in many ways…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well…
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … which would actually show to the American public, if we had a new president, got a majority in the Senate, America would be much stronger.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you’ve twice now mentioned Matt Gaetz. So I want to just ask you if you have evidence to back up your allegation.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, I think the Ethics Committee – – it was purely Matt coming to me trying – trying me to do something illegal to stop the Ethics Committee from moving forward in an investigation that was started long before I became a speaker.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Something illegal?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I would not do that. I don’t know what the fact – I don’t know what the facts are there.
It’s a – it’s pers – a personal issue of what he’d done as a member of Congress. I simply would say the Ethics Committee has the right to look at whatever they’re going forward, and I’m not going to get in the middle of it one way or another.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
Putting that to the side, I want to talk about what you are actually seeing happen with legislation, because a lot of Americans look at what’s happening and say, this is chaos. We want actual, real problems dealt with.
On the national security front, that used to be a priority for Republicans. But, as we were just talking about with Chair McCaul, Johnson hasn’t given any timeline really for a vote on this Ukraine package, nor for Israel, nor for Taiwan.
Who is he afraid of? Is it Mr. Trump?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: No, I don’t think he’s afraid of anyone.
Remember, you have certain things before you. Government funding…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not set a date?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Well, I think – I think – I think he is setting a date.
You also have to have – educate the members, be able to move forward with that. I have always believed, in that situation, when I was speaker, securing the border and dealing with foreign policy, you can do it the same time and together.
What I was going to move forward is, take our H.R.2 and also deal with the security issue. I think Israel is actually different. That should have been moved forward with no pay-for long before – especially right after October 7.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Because we have a world that looks like the 1930s. You’ve got this new axis of evil with China, Russia, Iran bounding together.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But that – that was a Johnson choice that you’re criticizing there, just to…
(CROSSTALK)
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You don’t want to send the wrong message.
Well, what I’m saying is…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Mm-hmm.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … you need to work together to move forward.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You’ve got to secure the American border.
What I would use is the power of the majority, is to sit down, just as we did with the Fiscal Responsibility Act. Go directly to the president. If you sit around and try to do four leaders, you’re never going to get to an answer. Sit down and negotiate with the president directly about border security and Ukraine and Taiwan.
I believe you would get to an answer. And you’ve got the power, and use that power of the majority to move.
I believe, when they come back – you just heard the chairman there.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it’s barely a majority at this – at this point.
I mean, by the end of April, you’re going to be down to 217 Republicans to 213 Democrats. I mean, the dynamics change here. Should you have – should you have stayed in Congress?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yes, well, the one thing I will tell you, you still have the majority.
Remember, when we had a small majority of just five, we did pass the most conservative border security bill. We did cut more than $2 trillion. We did pass a parents bill of rights. We did be able to reform welfare. So we did things other Congress couldn’t do with 30-seat majority.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: You have the majority. You can still govern and use that power to do exactly that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It – it sounds like you’re – you’re providing some coaching advice there, sir.
I want to ask you…
(LAUGHTER)
MARGARET BRENNAN: … ask you, though, do you speak to Speaker Johnson? And I know you do speak to President – former President Trump.
Do you have plans to return to government potentially in a Trump administration?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: Look, I have always said I – I will serve whichever way I – if I’m the best person for the job.
But I think people worried about whether they get a job in the next administration is the wrong place to be. You first have to have the election. I think you should be going out to the American public and showing them, yes, with President Trump get elected, we would have a secure border.
We’d have a stronger economy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We wouldn’t be evacuating five embassies. We wouldn’t have war around the world.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, those are counterfactuals.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We would be much stronger and the future would be much brighter.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Those – those are – are counterfactuals.
(LAUGHTER)
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: I don’t think so.
I served – I served with both presidents. That’s exactly the situation today.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We have evacuated five embassies under President Biden. We’ve had high inflation under President Biden.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: We have a wide-open border. We have people who are on the terrorist watch list…
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: … more people in one month of February getting across our border than the entire time when President Trump was in office.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re going to – and we’re going to…
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MCCARTHY: So, that’s actual truths of what’s happening today.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, we’re going to talk to the head of Border Patrol later in the program and our immigration correspondent about some of the specifics of those issues.
Kevin McCarthy, thank you for coming back.
Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Former President Trump faces a massive legal and financial deadline tomorrow, when he either has to post a half-billion- dollar bond following a judgment he and his company committed civil fraud or face the prospect of New York Attorney General Letitia James seizing his properties as collateral.
Joining us now is chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa.
Bob, this is a big point potentially in the campaign. Is he going to be able to pay for this?
ROBERT COSTA: Good morning, Margaret.
Former President Trump’s lawyers say he will not be able to secure this bond by Monday’s deadline. And there could be a delay tactic or an appeal they announce in the next 24 hours. But it’s very clear that, at this point, they don’t have the money to put up, even though Trump’s trying to maybe use the merger of his social media company to get some leverage here.
It is clear the attorney general of New York is moving very aggressively, already has a file in Westchester County to begin the process of seizing assets in that area of New York. And she could use a marshal or a sheriff to begin freezing Trump’s bank accounts and taking prized properties, like Trump Tower and 40 Wall Street, in the coming weeks.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What are the political ramifications of this? Obviously, there are huge financial and personal ones for Mr. Trump.
ROBERT COSTA: Even as he faces this financial crisis, it could be a political crisis as well.
There is a cash crunch in the 2024 presidential race, President Biden’s campaign raising a lot of money. Trump might have to turn to the Republican National Committee to help pay his legal bills, his daughter-in-law Lara Trump now an executive at the RNC, at the same time, a logistical nightmare here, being mired in all of these financial transactions and a possible criminal case over hush money payments in the coming weeks.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we will learn soon more about that case you just mentioned on the hush money front.
Bob Costa, thank you for giving us your reporting.
And we want to note that tomorrow will bring another inflection point in that case regarding hush money. Mr. Trump is charged with falsifying business records to pay hush money to cover up an affair with a porn star. And Mr. Trump is seeking a delay in that past mid-April. Tomorrow, we’re going to find out when that trial will begin.
We will be back in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: For all the political news during the week, be sure to tune in to America Decides, a daily show on our streaming network that airs at 5:00, 6:00 and 9:00 p.m.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will be right back with Georgia Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock and an interview with the chief of the Border Patrol on the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to FACE THE NATION.
We go now to Georgia Democratic Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock. He is part of President Biden’s re-election campaign.
Good morning and welcome to FACE THE NATION.
SEN. RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D-GA): Thank you so much for inviting me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator, your state of Georgia was so key to President Biden’s win back in 2020. Our polling now, though, shows Donald Trump with 51 percent of the potential 2024 vote, Biden at 48 percent. When it comes to black voters, support has dropped since the last election.
Why do you think that enthusiasm has declined?
RAPHAEL WARNOCK: Well, listen, you know, it’s still relatively early in the campaign. And I can tell you, as someone whose name has been on the ballot five times in less than three years, that the polls don’t tell you nearly as much as the people do. I think that at the end of day black voters, Georgia voters, will see that this is a binary choice. And the more Donald Trump talks, the better our fortunes will be. And, in the end, I believe that Georgia voters are going to do for Joe Biden what they did for me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But in states like Georgia, Democrats have been campaigning on action on voting rights, safeguarding democracy, police reform. The administration hasn’t been able to legislate really on any of those things.
Trayvon Martin’s mom was at an event this past week and said, “the people are not understanding what the politicians are doing, and the politicians definitely don’t understand what the people want.” She was talking about the state level, but at the federal level, how do you explain the inaction on these issues?
RAPHAEL WARNOCK: Well, nobody’s been more vigilant and focused on the issue in the Senate on voting rights than me. I was John Lewis’ pastor. And I saw up close his courage, the depth of his commitment, his understanding that change is slow. That’s the nature of politics and history. Often we take one step forward, we take another step back, but we keep pushing.
And in a real sense it’s the history of this country. There are moments when the democracy expands. There are moments when it contracts. And a Donald Trump part two would represent a contraction that we could not bear.
When we think about the threat, the threat on voting rights, the threat on women’s reproductive rights, their ability to decide what happens to their own body. And so we remain vigilant.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have been outspoken on the issue of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. According to CBS polling, it is 61 percent of black adults polled by CBS say Biden should encourage Israel to decrease or stop military actions. And the feelings are really strong, particularly among young voters.
Recently we also saw a thousand black pastors from congregations across the country issue a demand for a cease-fire. Sir, of all the issues facing the black community, why do you think this particular one is resonating in the way that it is?
RAPHAEL WARNOCK: Well, you know, we – we, in the African American community, understand human struggle. We know it when we see it. And I called for a negotiated cease-fire just a couple of weeks ago on the floor of the United States Senate.
Look, the state of Israel is our ally. And they’re – they are our most important partner in the Middle East. But right now we are having an important conversation about principles, about American values, and a real sense that’s what’s at stake.
We cannot forget about the awful attacks of Hamas on October 7th against innocent people, including Americans. We can’t turn away from that. And at the same time, we cannot turn away from the scenes of awful suffering and human catastrophe in Gaza.
And so we will continue to fight for a negotiated cease-fire. I have said very clearly that I think for the – for Mr. Netanyahu to go into Rafah, where some 1.4 million Palestinians are now sheltering, would be morally unjustifiable, it would be unconscionable and I hope that, at the end of the day, cooler heads will prevail and that one day we can get to a two- state solution.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of what the U.S. can control, the question of U.S. military support for Israel is being debated within your party, as you know. Just yesterday, 11 organizations, who operate in Gaza, including the Episcopal church, Oxfam, Save the Children, issued a letter saying, “the humanitarian response in Gaza, including U.S.-funded humanitarian assistance, has been consistently and arbitrarily denied, restricted and impeded by the Israeli authorities.”
Do you worry that continuing to provide American weapons to Israel will sacrifice moral authority? And do you believe that the Biden administration should suspend arms transfers?
RAPHAEL WARNOCK: Listen, Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood. And its enemies are more than just Hamas. There are serious and geopolitical concerns that we have to pay attention to.
But look, we – we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can be consistent in our support of Israel’s right to defend itself and, at the same time, be true to American values and engage this catastrophic humanitarian situation that’s on the ground.
We have a security supplemental right now that’s already passed the Senate, and it hasn’t been put on the floor of the House. That security supplemental will provide humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. It will support our partners in the Indo-Pacific arena.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
RAPHAEL WARNOCK: And it will also check Russian aggression in Ukraine.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK. But I hear you stopping short of saying it should stop transfers. Seventeen Democratic senators have said the administration should reject Israel’s claims that it’s not violating international law. You’re not comfortable with that statement?
RAPHAEL WARNOCK: I – I am saying that we have to continue to engage our partner and to ensure that humanitarian aid gets to the people of Gaza.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
RAPHAEL WARNOCK: And, ultimately, we need a ceasefire.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK.
Sir, I know it is Palm Sunday and you will be headed to church and to preach today. Thank you for sharing your time this morning with us.
We’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the U.S. southern border with Mexico, where the number of border apprehensions ticked up last month. About 16,000 more apprehensions from January.
Our immigration and politics reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez spoke with the chief of border patrol, Jason Owens, who says the agency is on track to record over 2 million migrant apprehensions this year and that most crossings are being aided by a criminal network of smugglers.
(BEGIN VT)
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Are the smugglers setting the rules of engagement here?
JASON OWENS (Chief, U.S. Border Patrol): Yes, they absolutely are. They – they dictate what the flow is going to look like, and we respond to it. Then we try and get out in front of it and deny them the ability to use these areas, especially ones that we think are going to be dangerous for us and for the migrants. But at the end of the day, there’s over 1,900 miles of border with Mexico. Now, when you talk about 20,000 border patrol agents, that sound like a lot. But when you multiply that by 24 hours a day, seven days a week, across the entirety of the year, that number starts to dwindle very fast. And that’s exactly what they’re do. The tactic is, they’ll push groups across knowing that we’re going to respond from a humanitarian perspective and make sure that they’re safe. And while we’re tied up and occupied doing this, what are they doing a couple miles down the road?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Are you concerned about that, about the potential dangerous people or potential terrorists who may be infiltrating the country because you are so focused on processing asylum seekers, families and others who are in distress.
JASON OWENS: Absolutely. That’s – that’s – you ask any law enforcement officer, especially somebody that works in border security, that is what keeps us up at night. It’s – we’re at – you know, closing in on a million entries this fiscal year alone. That number is a large number, But what’s keeping me up at night is the 140,000 known got aways.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: That is not part of the tally.
JASON OWENS: That is not part of that tally. And that’s just what we know.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Is that a national security risk?
JASON OWENS: That is a national security threat. Border security is a big piece of national security. And if we don’t know who is coming into our country and we don’t know what their intent is, that is a threat. And they’re exploiting a vulnerability that’s on our border right now.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: You menged that there has been a dramatic shift in the demographics along the border. We met migrants from Peru, Ecuador, Nepal, Burkina Faso, Mauritania. How are people from Nepal and Africa coming here?
JASON OWENS: So far this fiscal year alone we’ve had people from 160 countries or more come across our border illegally. This is a global issues. We have people literally from all points across the globe making that same journey. And they’re using smuggling routes. Every country and every region has smugglers that try and facilitate a pipeline for them to get to where they’re going and they’re connected with one another. So, they may, if they’re coming from Europe or they’re coming from Asia, they’ll find ways to get to maybe South America. And then from South America they may make their way up through the Darien Gap and – and make their way up through Central America and ultimately find their way to decision points that take them to different points along our borders depending on what smuggling organization that they’re using. But it doesn’t matter where they’re coming from.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Former President Trump has said that we have millions and millions of people coming from jails and prisons. Is that accurate? Millions and millions?
JASON OWENS: I don’t know. I don’t know what the – I don’t know if – if – if they’re – other countries are releasing people from jails and those folks that got released are making their way up or not. I don’t know what the numbers would be. It’s the unknown that scares us.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: By and large, though, are the vast majority of these folks good people, if you will?
JASON OWENS: Yes, I think they absolutely are – are by and large good people. I wish they would choose the right way to come into our country and not start off on the wrong foot by – by breaking our laws. There are still people that we’re finding in those groups, though, that have criminal backgrounds, that have – that have been convicted sexual predators, that have been convicted gang members. A very small amount in that population. But they’re still there.
Most of the folks that we’re encountering that are turning themselves in, you know, they’re coming across because they’re either fleeing terrible conditions, or they’re economic migrants looking for a better way of life. It doesn’t make them bad people, it’s just that they’re not being respectful of the laws that we’ve established as a country and they’re – they’re actually putting people in this country in harm’s way because they’re pulling the border security apparatus off of task.
(END VT)
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by CBS News immigration and politics reporter Camilo Montoya-Galvez.
Great interview, Camilo. It is pretty shocking to hear an official of his level say essentially that the cartels are in charge of the U.S. border. What are the risks that he’s referring to here?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Well, Margaret, we should point out that at a very basic level the situation at the U.S./Mexico border is mainly a humanitarian crisis fueled by record numbers of desperate people who are fleeing desperate circumstances. But what the border patrol chief is telling us, is that it also has national security implications because he’s mainly concerned about the so-called got-aways. These are migrants who are actively trying to evade law enforcement and who are captured on cameras or sensors but are not apprehended for different reasons. And so far this fiscal year, since October, 140,000 people have essentially snuck into the country without being apprehended by border patrol along the U.S./Mexico border.
Border Patrol Chief Owens is concerned about their intentions. Whether they’re criminals. Whether they’re national security threats. And so that is a national security threat that he is outlining.
I do have to underscore too that statistics that are available on this do show that most of the migrants encountered by border patrol agents are not serious criminals. But again, as you know, it only takes one bad case for this to become a serious challenge for law enforcement.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And this is one of the most nuanced and complicated issues. And you were touching on that.
But I know you spent a lot of time recently in Texas and in Arizona. How prepared are the border communities for the uptick that’s expected to happen in next month?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: That’s right. Well, Margaret, we traveled to the Tucson sector in Arizona which is now actually the busiest border patrol region for migrant crossings. More migrants are crossing in California and Arizona than in Texas. A dramatic shift from last year. And the main shelter system there is telling us that they may have to reject migrants, including families with small children, from border patrol because they’re running out of federal funds.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Even with this government funding that was just approved?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: That’s right, which includes a reduction in funding to shelters and NGOs housing migrants. That was at the request the Republican lawmakers. And even that new funding will not get to these people in time. And so border patrol, Margaret, may have to release people into the streets of Tucson, the border patrol chief told us that that is a possibility.
And so while Washington, Congress and the White House continue to bicker over this, the communities at the border are bracing for another crisis.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And you’re getting back to, it’s Congress that controls the purse strings.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: That’s right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And provides the resources and the president tries to set the policy.
I want to ask you about a video that we’re going to show to our viewer because it’s been widely circulated and I think it needs some context.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What we are seeing here are National Guard forces in uniform trying to prevent migrants, who are already on U.S. soil from Texas, from being able to claim asylum. What do we need to know about this, because it’s getting very politicized?
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Well, what we have been told is that a group of several hundred migrants, most of them Venezuelan men, broke through these barriers that the state of Texas has set up near stretches of the border, including in El Paso, to deter illegal crossings. One migrant was arrested for assaulting a National Guard soldier deployed by Texas Governor Greg Abbott. We don’t know what prompted this incident and the migrants to do this. But I do have to underscore that the Texas National Guard is there in El Paso and other parts of the border to physically block migrants from being encountered by federal border patrol agents. Why? Because border patrol agents have a legal obligation to process these migrants if they are physically on American soil and also to refer them to an asylum hearing if they request humanitarian protection. Texas is trying to actively block that. These migrants were already on U.S. soil because the international boundary there is actually in the middle of the Rio Grande, so they had to be processed under federal law.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And that’s the subject for another conversation about that tension between state and federal officials.
Camilo, thank you for bringing us that interview.
CAMILO MONTOYA-GALVEZ: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be back in a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by CBS contributor Samantha Vinograd, a former counterterrorism official for the Department of Homeland Security under the Biden and serving in the Obama administration.
Good to have you here again.
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: Thanks, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, a lot I want to get to you with.
Let me first start, U.S. law enforcement, to be clear, says there is no credible, imminent threat to the U.S. homeland that is known emanating from that error attack that we saw ISIS carry out in Moscow. But how concerning is the terror environment right now for Americans?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: Well, I will say from a counter-terrorism perspective, the attack near Moscow was tragic but it was also unsurprising. The intelligence community has been warning for years that ISIS, despite territory leadership losses, has retained its ability to conduct operations largely through regional affiliated like ISIS-K, who’s claimed responsibility for the attack near Moscow. We’ve seen ISIS-K attack American interests outside the Kabul airport during the evacuation, attack the Russian embassy in Kabul in 2022, and increasingly increase the geographic scope of their operations in Central Asia, Iran and now Moscow.
We also know that ISIS is relying on its regional affiliates to attack its interests in the west. And from my time advising the secretary of Homeland Security, I will tell you that we were concerned about the threat that ISIS-K posed to the American interests and to the homeland and we took certain steps to mitigate them.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Can you tell us what those were?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: Well, without getting into operational details, the Department of Homeland Security and its intelligence counterterrorism and law enforcement partners regularly seeks to get access to the best intelligence possible and then to use analysis of matters, like travel patterns, to inform screening and vetting, to inform cooperation with other partners globally, to try to prevent any potential known or suspected terrorists from just entering the hemisphere. And that’s really where, Margaret, having adequate resources from screening and vetting, both from an information standpoint and from a personal – personnel standpoint becomes incredibly critical.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And that’s where we hear some of the political talking points about the porousness of the southern border and trying to make a connection to a terror threat.
We heard from the border chief here, 140,000 known got aways, but he’s worried about what wasn’t detected. What is needed to fill the blind spots?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: Well, just to put that’s number in contexts, the percentage of got aways to actual encounters between the Trump administration and the Biden administration is basically equal. But when we think about terrorist travel to the United States, we’re talking about travel via air, maritime travel and, of course, land travel.
Now, the federal government has the opportunity to position resources overseas to again try to prevent terrorists from even getting on a plane or boat here in the first place. But at the border itself we have to remember that every migrant being encountered is screened and vetted against terrorism and criminal history data sets. But at the same time, vetting is only as good as the underlying information that a migrant’s identifies are being vetted against. And that’s where I am concerned that we’re under resourced. We’re under resourced in terms of having the information available to make really informed vetting decisions.
With our withdrawals in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have lost certain intelligence capabilities because of other intelligence priorities, like great power competition with China and Russia, we have seen a resource shift. And in light of the expansion of countries of origin showing up at our border, we really need to rethink the kinds of criminal history and terrorism related arrangements we have with other countries so that the vetting team, not just DHS, DHS alone doesn’t conduct vetting, can make the most informed decisions possible based on timely and accurate information.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But to put a finer point on that, when you say it’s only as good as the information available. Not all of the countries if the world hand over their prison registries to the United States government, right? I mean there are certain places we won’t know.
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: They certainly don’t. They’re – we won’t, and that’s where this has to be a mix of the best and most timely intelligence that we can gather, analyze and integrate into the vetting architecture, in addition to these voluntary arrangements that we can agree to with other countries. And my hope is –
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are those being negotiated with like Venezuela, for example? That’s the example that we’ve talked most about.
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: There are, based on my time at DHS and working with the Department of Justice and the Department of State, there is an ongoing discussion about how to enhance our information arrangements with other countries while concurrently within the intelligence community conversations about how to make the best use of intelligence collection and analysis resources. But we need to rethink the international information structure that we have to feed into our vetting architecture.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And there is a time limit on how long someone can be detained for under federal law. So, how quickly can you do all this vetting?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: Well, vetting is a point in time check. Vetting is based on the best information you have at that moment. If the federal government had additional resources, the federal government could vet migrants on an ongoing basis. So, even after they were released, if new information did enter the system, there would be a recurrent vetting process. And that’s where in terms of personnel and technology, the federal government would benefit from additional vetting resources so that all migrants could be vetted on an ongoing basis. That would help improve homeland security.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And the border chief, in that interview, did ask for more technology and more agents.
Quickly, in terms of what’s happening in Texas, the state of Texas doesn’t have all of the vetting equipment that you’re talking about either, do they?
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: The implementation of SB-4 would be hugely detrimental from a homeland security perspective. The vetting architecture that we use at the federal level is incredibly complex and relies on both unclassified and classified data sets. Texas has none of that infrastructure. If Texas detains a migrant, puts them into – puts them into jail, they could be holding a known or suspected terrorist, a transnational organized criminal without even knowing and without even having the proper security to ensure that there’s not a threat emanating from that individual to the homeland. It would be incredibly catastrophic.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Important context.
Sam, thank you.
SAMANTHA VINOGRAD: Thanks.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s it for us today. Thank you all for watching. For FACE THE NATION, I’m Margaret Brennan.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
The following is a transcript of an interview with former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy that aired on March 24, 2024.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the former Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, who joins us this morning from Bakersfield, California. Good to have you back on the program, sir.
FMR. SPEAKER KEVIN MCCARTHY: Thank you. Thanks for having me on.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So since you left Congress, we’ve had four high profile Republican departures, including Mike Gallagher, a- a young rising star, someone you put in key positions, you know, announced retirements, including from one of your lieutenants, Patrick McHenry. Is the chaos within your caucus driving these departures?
MCCARTHY: I think it’s causing some of it, yes. I mean, the difficulty here is when you allow eight Republicans to join with all the Democrats to determine who can run the House when 96% decide one way, it creates some chaos. They’ve got to move through this, put the country first and be able to move on. I think they’re able to do that. Speaker Johnson is doing the very best job he can. It’s a difficult situation but look, the one advice I would give to the Conference and to the Speaker is do not be fearful of a motion to vacate. I do not think they could do it again, that was surely based on Matt Gaetz trying to stop an ethics complaint. I don’t think the Democrats will go along with it too. Focus on the country, focus on the job you’re supposed to do, and actually do it fearlessly. Just move forward.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Patrick McHenry, one of your lieutenants, said you can either die a Speaker and worry about them taking you out or live every day as your last. Are you suggesting Speaker Johnson is afraid to take a vote on something?
MCCARTHY: No, no, not at all–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Like Ukraine?
MCCARTHY: No, no, I don’t think- I don’t think Speaker Johnson’s afraid at all and I don’t believe the motion will come up. What the- the motion Marjorie put in was not privileged. So it’s not- it’s not being called up for a vote. I don’t think the Democrats will go along with this either. We’re close to the election. We watched what transpired the last time you went three weeks without Congress being able to act. You can’t do anything if you don’t have a Speaker. I think we’ve moved past that. We’ve got a lot of challenges. We got FISA coming up before us, we’ve got Ukraine funding, we’ve got a border wide open. Those are the issues the country is actually looking on the economy and others. If we focus on the country, and what the country desire, I think the personalities can solve their own problems.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, when you were in Washington, you used to deal with Marjorie Taylor Greene who filed this motion to vacate to oust the Speaker. She’s blaming Johnson for everything from chaos at the border. She says she’s starting this process to end the chaos that Americans are living in every single day. Do you endorse her tactic? What’s the game here?
MCCARTHY: Look, the one thing I’ve always found, when you sit down with a member and talk to them, find out what their concerns are, especially when it’s based upon policy, you can solve that problem. And I watched that with Marjorie from the vote to Speaker or to the vote for the Fiscal Responsibility Act. There’s times she was a difference of opinion to you sit down and find common ground. Matt’s case was much different. It’s about a personal thing that he had done and that’s what he was trying to get something illegally stopped. This is not the case here. So I would not be afraid of a motion to vacate. This is about policy. And you remember, our government is to- is designed to find common ground. And we’ve got a small majority. But remember, Margaret, in those nine months, what was the small majority able to do? We actually passed the strongest border security bill, it’s now struck in the Senate, an energy independence bill. We stopped DC from decriminalizing–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –It’s dead on arrival Senate.
MCCARTHY: We made the largest–
MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s stuck there.
MCCARTHY: But- but this is what did come into law, the largest cut in American history more than 2 trillion–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Yeah.
MCCARTHY: Welfare reform took 20 billion back from the IRS going after Americans. NEPA reform hadn’t done in 40 years, Parents’ Bill of Rights. We’ve proven we can govern in many ways which would actually show to the American public if we had a new president, got a majority in the Senate, America would be much stronger.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you’ve twice now mentioned Matt Gaetz. So I want to just ask you if you have evidence to back up your allegation?
MCCARTHY: Well, I think the Ethics Committee- it was purely Matt coming to me trying- trying me to do something illegal to stop the Ethics Committee from moving forward in investigation that was started long before I became a Speaker–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –Something illegal?
MCCARTHY: I would not do that. don’t know what the fact- I don’t know what the facts are there. It’s a personal issue of what he’d done as a member of Congress. I simply would say the Ethics Committee has the right to look at whatever they’re going forward and I’m not going to get in the middle of it one way or another.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Putting that to the side, I want to talk about what you are actually seeing happen with legislation because a lot of Americans look at what’s happening and say, this is chaos. We want actual, real problems dealt with. On the national security front, that used to be a priority for Republicans. But as we were just talking about with Chair McCaul, Johnson hasn’t given any timeline, really, for a vote on this Ukraine package, nor for Israel, nor for Taiwan. Who is he afraid of? Is it Mr. Trump?
MCCARTHY: No, I don’t think he’s afraid of anyone. Remember, you have certain things before you, government funding–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why not set a date?
MCCARTHY: Well, I think- I think- I think he is setting a date, you also have to have- educate the members, be able to move forward with that. I’ve always believed, in that situation, when I was Speaker, securing the border, and dealing with foreign policy, you could do at the same time and together. What I was going to move forward is, take our H.R. 2 and also deal with the security issue. I think Israel is actually different, that should have been moved forward with no pay for, long before, especially right after October 7. Because we have a world that looks like the 1930s, you’ve got this new axis of evil with China, Russia, Iran, bounding together. You don’t want to send the wrong message–
MARGARET BRENNAN: But that- that was a Johnson choice that you’re criticizing there.
MCCARTHY: Well, what I’m saying is, you need to work together to move forward. You’ve got to secure the American border. What I would use is the power of the majority, is to sit down just as we did with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, go directly to the president. If you sit around and try to do four leaders, you’re never going to get to an answer. Sit down and negotiate with the President directly about border security and Ukraine and Taiwan. I believe you would get to an answer. And you’ve got the power, and use that power of the majority to move. I believe when you come back, you just heard the Chairman there–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well it- it’s barely a majority at- at this- at this point, I mean, by the end of April, you’re gonna be down to 217 Republicans to 213 Democrats. I mean, the dynamics and change here, should you have- should you have stayed in Congress?
MCCARTHY: Well, the one thing I will tell you, you still have the majority. Remember, when we had a small majority of just five, we did pass the most conservative border security bill. We did cut more than $2 trillion. We did pass a Parents Bill of Rights. We did be able to reform welfare. So we did things other Congress couldn’t do with 30 seat majority. You have the majority, you can still govern and use that power to do exactly that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: It- it sounds like you’re- you’re providing some coaching advice there. Sir, I want to ask you- ask you, though. Do you speak to Speaker Johnson? And I know you do speak to President- former President Trump, do you have plans to return to government potentially in a Trump administration?
MCCARTHY: Look, I’ve always said I- I will serve whichever way I- if I’m the best person for the job. But I think people worried about whether they get a job in the next administration is the wrong place to be. You first have to have the election. I think you should be going out to the American public and showing them, yes, with President Trump get elected, we would have a secure border, we’d have a stronger economy. We wouldn’t be evacuating five embassies, we wouldn’t have war around the world–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, those are counterfactuals.
MCCARTHY: We would be much stronger and the future would be much brighter.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Those- those are counterfactuals.
MCCARTHY: I don’t think so. I served- I served with both presidents. That’s exactly the situation today. We have evacuated five embassies under President Biden. We’ve had high inflation under President Biden. We have a wide open border. We have people who are on the terrorist watch list- more people in one month of February getting across our border than the entire time when–
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re gonna–
MCCARTHY: –President Trump was in office. So–
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re gonna–
MCCARTHY: That’s the actual truths of what’s happening today.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well we’re going to talk to the head of Border Patrol later in the program and our immigration correspondent about some of the specifics of those issues. Kevin McCarthy, thank you for coming back. “Face the Nation” will be back in a minute. Stay with us.
The following is a transcript of an interview with House Foreign Affairs Committe chairman Rep. Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, that aired on March 24, 2024.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re joined now by the Republican chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Texas Congressman Michael McCaul. Good to have you here in person this morning.
HOUSE FOREIGN RELATIONS CHAIRMAN REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL: Thanks for having me, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Chair McCaul, this attack in Moscow was carried out by ISIS-K, a group that typically emanates out of Afghanistan. We know the US had advanced warning from what you know, is there an ongoing threat in Eurasia and are US interests a target?
REP. MCCAUL: Yeah, I believe so. I think that the CENTCOM Commander, General Kurilla, just testified this week before Congress that within six months that ISIS-K would have the capability to operate outside of Afghanistan to do external operations. And it only took six days before they hit Moscow- or outside of Moscow. And I think Europe is of concern. And it’s sort of like we’re going back to that old playbook where history repeats itself. And that’s why the fall of Afghanistan, the way it was done, and the way we left it with no ISR capability- that intelligence surveillance reconnaissance- puts us in danger, where this is a new battleground training ground for ISIS.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the US did, though, have some ears on this if they warned Russia, right?
REP. MCCAUL: — Correct.
MARGARET BRENNAN: — That ISIS was a threat here. You in your committee, you have been very focused on Afghanistan and you held a hearing with retired generals Mark Milley and Frank McKenzie this past week. They both said the State Department failed to adequately plan for the withdrawal from an evacuation from Afghanistan. Given the threat environment the US is facing right now on multiple continents at once, Haiti, Niger, all the Middle East, are you confident that the United States government is prepared to protect its people in all of those posts and carry out evacuations if needed?
REP. MCCAUL: I’m very concerned. I think what happened in Haiti- our embassy is under threat right now. We’re starting to evacuate them. You know what happened in Afghanistan, the generals are very clear. It wasn’t the DoD, it was a State Department that never came up with a plan of evacuation, which by law they’re required to do. And so what happens if you–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — Well, it was too late when it was put into place. There was a plan to–
REP. MCCAUL:– It was put in place, but only at the time that Kabul was falling, and the embassy was starting to be evacuated. I think what the State Department thought they could do is continue our operations in the embassy and normalize with the Taliban and stay there beyond the- the military retrograde and I think that was a serious error in judgment. Ambassador Wilson, was the major culprit behind that, including all the way up to the White House.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the State Department has pointed out that the Trump administration that brokered the deal for withdrawal could have planned for an evacuation and did not. What do you make of that?
REP. MCCAUL: Yeah, they- they’re by law required to plan. I think DOD was starting to pick up the slack. No, we saw the threats coming in the threat vectors. The IC was telling us it was going to fall fast. The DoD knew this and the State Department seemed to have these rose colored lenses on. When you listen to the White House, you know, press comments about our it’s not gonna be like Vietnam, everything’s fine. And it wasn’t. That’s what we had the dissent cable come out from the embassy- 23 employees, a cry for help, screaming to get out of there, because they knew what was going to happen.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The government funding bill that was signed last night, 12,000 additional special visas to Afghan nationals who had worked with the US were tucked into this funding bill. What more needs to be done to help the Afghan allies who worked alongside the US?
REP. MCCAUL: Well, we promised them, we will get them out. The Afghan partners, the interpreters, we left them behind. And that’s the biggest sin of the Afghan evacuation. I think the 12,000 SIVs is a great response and a great start to that. I will commend Speaker Johnson. I worked very closely with him to make sure we had that in there because on one hand, Republicans can say oh, my gosh, we left them behind, but then we’re not gonna do anything to help them get out with visas.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So has Speaker Johnson given you any timeline for a vote on Ukraine aid given that they are running out of ammunition?
REP. MCCAUL: His commitment is to put it on the floor after Easter. And we are working on this bill.
MARGARET BRENNAN: As soon as you all come back April 9?
REP. MCCAUL: I would like to be done as soon as possible. I need the situation in Ukraine is dire. The front lines are- it’s- we can’t- if we lose in Ukraine like Afghanistan and- and lose to Putin let him,you know, take over Ukraine and Moldova, Georgia and abandon our allies like we did in Afghanistan. Does that make the United States weaker or stronger? I think weaker.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Why isn’t there that sense of urgency on the speaker’s part? I mean, respectfully, this has been stuck in the house for weeks. You have been warning about this and needs to be acted on.
REP. MCCAUL: He understands this. He is in a very difficult spot. And this motion to vacate the chair thing, I believe he’s committed because he understands national security- he leans on, you know, myself, the Chairman of Armed Services, House Intelligence for advice on this. And he knows how important this is.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you trust that this will be voted on because as you just mentioned, that motion to vacate was just introduced by Marjorie Taylor Greene. This is an effort to oust him. She has put this in place. You’re all headed home to your districts. You are all going to be asked about this. She’s the only one so far saying she wants to oust the Speaker. Will she stay the only one?
REP. MCCAUL: You know, I think it’s indicative that even Matt Gaetz, who is the architect of ousting McCarthy, is saying this would be a huge mistake, because he could actually throw the balance of power over to Hakeem Jeffries. I think that’s one argument. The other argument is we don’t need dysfunction right now. And with the world on fire, the way it is–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — Don’t we have dysfunction right now?
REP. MCCAUL: Well, we do and with the world on fire the way it is, we need to govern. And that is not just for Republicans, but in a bipartisan way. Get things done for the country that’s in the national security interest of the United States. This is not just Ukraine, it’s Israel and Indo-Pacific as well.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Before I let you go, 11 aid organizations have issued a letter saying that Israel is standing in the way of aid deliveries in Gaza, their firsthand experience. Do you doubt their testimonies?
REP. MCCAUL: I think we were having difficulties. I talked to, you know, Cindy McCain yesterday, World Food Programme. David Beasley, her predecessor. Look, logistics and security are the issue. Israel knows it’s important to get that humanitarian assistance in, because for a lot of reasons. We have to stabilize southern Gaza but they also need to go into Rafah and take out Yahya Sinwar, the head of Hamas, so that’s a competing interest here. Unfortunately, ceasefire talks, I think Hamas is playing us, playing Director Burns. Talk to, you know, the Israelis, they agreed to the ratio. I don’t think Hamas will. They’re not playing fair.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Chair McCaul, thank you for your time today.
REP. MCCAUL: Margaret. Thanks for having me.
The following is a transcript of an interview with Sen. Raphael Warnock, Democrat of Georgia, that aired on March 24, 2024.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to “Face The Nation”. We go now to Georgia Democratic Senator, Reverend Raphael Warnock. He is part of President Biden’s reelection campaign. Good morning, and welcome to Face The Nation.
SENATOR RAPHAEL WARNOCK (D-GA): Thank you so much for inviting me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator, your state of Georgia was so key to President Biden’s win back in 2020. Our polling now, though, shows Donald Trump with 51% of the potential 2024 vote, Biden at 48%. When it comes to Black voters, support has dropped since the last election. Why do you think that enthusiasm has declined?
SEN. WARNOCK: Well, listen, you know, it- it’s still relatively early in the campaign. And I can tell you as someone whose name has been on the ballot five times in less than three years, that the polls don’t tell you nearly as much as the people do. I think that at the end of the day, Black voters, Georgia voters, will see that this is a binary choice. And the- the more Donald Trump talks, the better our fortunes will be. And in the end, I believe that Georgia voters are going to do for Joe Biden what they did for me.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Respectfully, Senator, I- I keep hearing that argument that, oh, the other guy’s worse, is the affirmative argument somehow, I mean, what do you think is actually helping Trump’s appeal, though, among Black voters?
SEN. WARNOCK: Actually, I think we’re seeing a whole lot more than that. Look, Black wealth is up 60%. We’ve seen a 30 year high in the creation of Black small businesses. We’ve invested $7 billion in historically Black colleges and universities, and Black unemployment is at an all time low.
And so I’m very proud of the work that we’ve been able to do together, in partnership with the Biden administration. I’m proud of my legislation that capped the cost of insulin to no more than $35 of out of pocket costs for seniors. I’m trying to get that done for everybody. And, you know, I- as I move across the state and across the country, I’ve made it a habit of late to ask people, if you or somebody you know has had your student debt canceled. And hands go up all over the room. We’ve done $144 billion dollars of student debt cancellation, helping some 4 million Americans. And- and again, I- I think that at the end of the day, people will see that this is a binary choice, the- the juxtaposition, the contrast could not be more stark. And they’re going to send Joe Biden and Kamala Harris back to the White House.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But in- in states like Georgia, Democrats have been campaigning on action on voting rights, safeguarding democracy, police reform. The administration hasn’t been able to legislate, really, on any of those things. Trayvon Martin’s mom was at an event this past week and said, “The people are not understanding what the politicians are doing, and the politicians definitely don’t understand what the people want.” She was talking about the state level, but at the federal level, how do you explain the inaction on these issues?
SEN. WARNOCK: Well, nobody has been more vigilant and focused on the issue and the Senate on voting rights than me. I was John Lewis’s pastor. And I saw up close his courage, the depth of his commitment, his understanding that change is slow. That’s the nature of politics and history. Often we take one step forward, we take another step back, but we keep pushing. And in a real sense, in the history of this country, there are moments when the democracy expands. There are moments when it contracts. And a Donald Trump part two, would represent a contraction that we cannot bear. When we think about the threat; the threat on voting rights, the threat on women’s reproductive rights, their ability to decide what happens to their own body. And so we remain vigilant. I reintroduced a few days ago, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. And I remind my colleagues that the last time we authorized voting rights in this country, it passed the Senate 98 to zero. It was signed into law by Republican President George W. Bush–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Has Leader Schumer told you when he’ll bring that to a vote?
SEN. WARNOCK: — It’s- we have reintroduced it, and we will continue to push the issue. Here’s the thing. I think that the reason why we’re seeing such pushback from the other side on voting rights, on an issue that used to be bipartisan, is because Donald Trump and his allies know that they are losing the argument. They know that they are out of step with the American people on voting rights, on reproductive choice, on the ability of workers to participate and enjoy some of the prosperity that they’re creating for others. People who know they’re losing the argument tend to engage in voter suppression, but we won’t let up for one minute and I won’t rest until we pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have been outspoken on the issue of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. According to CBS polling, it is 61% of Black adults polled by CBS say Biden should encourage Israel to decrease or stop military actions and the feelings are really strong, particularly among younger voters. Recently, we also saw a thousand Black pastors from congregations across the country issue the demand for a ceasefire. Sir, of all the issues facing the Black community, why do you think this particular one is resonating in the way that it is?
SEN. WARNOCK: Well, you know, we- we in the African American community, understand human struggle. We know it when we see it. And I called for a negotiated ceasefire just a couple of weeks ago, on the floor of the United States Senate. Look, the state of Israel is our ally. And there – they are our most important partner in the Middle East. But right now, we are having an important conversation about principles about American values. In a real sense, that’s what’s at stake. We cannot forget about the awful attack of Hamas on October 7, against innocent people, including Americans. We can’t turn away from that. And at the same time, we cannot turn away from the scenes of awful suffering and human catastrophe in Gaza. And so we will continue to fight for a negotiated ceasefire. I have said very clearly, that I think for the- for Mr. Netanyahu to go into Rafah, where some 1.4 million Palestinians are now sheltering, would be morally unjustifiable. It would be unconscionable. And I hope that at the end of the day, cooler heads will prevail. And that one day we can get to a two-state solution. A Jewish democratic state of Israel living in peace, alongside its neighbors, a moment where Palestinian mothers and Jewish mothers can put their children to sleep at peace at night, and awaken to a world that embraces their humanity.
MARGARET BRENNAN: In terms of what the US can control, the question of US military support for Israel is being debated within your party, as you know. Just yesterday, 11 organizations who operate in Gaza, including the Episcopal Church, Oxfam, Save the Children, issued a letter saying “the humanitarian response in Gaza, including us funded humanitarian assistance has been consistently and arbitrarily denied, restricted and impeded by the Israeli authorities.” Do you worry that continuing to provide American weapons to Israel will sacrifice moral authority? And do you believe that the Biden administration should suspend arms transfers?
SEN. WARNOCK: Listen, Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood. And its enemies are more than just Hamas. They are serious and geopolitical concerns that we have to pay attention to. But look, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can be consistent in our support of Israel’s right to defend itself. And at the same time, be true to American values, and engage this catastrophic humanitarian situation that’s on the ground. And I’ve been saying this now for months, we’ve got to make sure that humanitarian aid gets in, to the people of Gaza. And ultimately, we need a ceasefire –
(CROSSTALK)
MARGARET BRENNAN: But should it trigger a suspension of arms transfers?
SEN. WARNOCK: Because the answer to death and destruction is not more death and destruction.
We have a security supplemental right now that’s already passed the Senate and it hasn’t been put on the floor of the House. That security supplemental will provide humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza. It will support our partners in the Indo-Pacific arena.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
SEN. WARNOCK: And it will also check Russian aggression in Ukraine.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, but I hear you stopping short of saying it should stop transfer. 17 Democratic senators have said the administration should reject Israel’s claims that it is not violating international law. You are not comfortable with that statement.
SEN. WARNOCK: I am saying that we have to continue to engage our partner and to ensure that humanitarian aid gets to the people of Gaza. And ultimately we need a ceasefire.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Sir, I know it is Palm Sunday and you will be headed to church and to preach today. Thank you for sharing your time this morning with us. We’ll be right back.
WARNOCK: Great to be with you.
On this “Face the Nation” broadcast, moderated by Major Garrett:
Click here to browse full transcripts of “Face the Nation.”
MAJOR GARRETT: I’m Major Garrett in Washington.
And this week on Face the Nation: the third indictment of Donald Trump. Many believe this could be the most serious case yet. Listen to the words of special prosecutor Jack Smith.
(Begin VT)
JACK SMITH (Special Counsel): The attack on our nation’s Capitol on January 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.
It was fueled by lies, lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government, the nation’s process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election.
I must emphasize that the indictment is only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
(End VT)
MAJOR GARRETT: We will talk with three Trump administration figures who could testify, Vice President Mike Pence and two officials who also told Trump there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, Attorney General Bill Barr and the head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, now a CBS News expert and analyst, Chris Krebs.
Trump attorney John Lauro will also be with us.
Plus: What do Americans think?
(Begin VT)
DONALD TRUMP (Former President of the United States): Every time they file an indictment, we go way up in the polls. We need one more indictment to close out this election.
(End VT)
MAJOR GARRETT: Will Trump’s theory hold?
Former Congressman and GOP hopeful Will Hurd will join us.
Plus, Minnesota Democrat Dean Phillips says his party should look for an alternative to President Biden. We will talk to him about that.
It’s all just ahead on Face the Nation.
Good morning. Welcome to Face the Nation. Margaret is off today.
As we come on the air this morning, disappointing news from Australia, as the U.S. women’s soccer team has lost its knockout round match to Sweden and has therefore been eliminated in the World Cup.
Here in the U.S., the impact of former President Trump’s third criminal indictment has not only underscored divisions in our country between the parties, but it appears that Republicans are also divided as well, with some Trump supporters still believing he did nothing wrong, others not so sure.
And, in that light, we begin today with former Vice President Mike Pence, a man once seen as extremely loyal to Trump, that is, until they lost the 2000 election, at which point Pence says, Trump pressured him to try to overturn the election, and in their favor.
We spoke with Pence in New Hampshire yesterday.
(Begin VT)
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE (R-Presidential Candidate): President Trump was wrong. He was wrong then. He’s wrong now.
I had no right to overturn the election. And more and more Americans are coming up to me every day and recognizing that. And — and for my part, I’m running for president in part because, frankly, President Trump asked me to put him over the Constitution that day. But I chose the Constitution. And I always will.
MAJOR GARRETT: So, I want to ask you about characterizations that have been made by those who speak on behalf of the president’s legal team.
They’ve said this week that all they asked of you, that is to say, the president, was to delay the proceedings to allow states to conduct an audit. Is that a truthful representation of what you were asked to do, Mr. Vice President?
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Major, that’s not what happened.
From sometime in the middle of December, the president began to be told that I had some authority to reject or return votes back to the states. I had no such authority.
I stand by the facts as they occurred. I mean, it — it ebbed and flowed between different legal theories. But, at the end of the day, I know we did our duty. I know we kept our oath. But I — I truly do believe that no one who ever puts himself over the Constitution should ever be president of the United States.
MAJOR GARRETT: Mr. Vice President, if this case comes to trial, would you be a witness against the president?
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: People can be confident we’ll — we’ll obey the law. We’ll respond to the call of the law, if it comes, and we’ll just tell the truth.
Look, I have been telling this story over the last two years, but I must tell you, over the last week, it seems that more and more Americans have been coming up to me and just expressing a word of appreciation for what, by God’s grace, that we did that day.
MAJOR GARRETT: To be clear, Mr. Vice President, you do not regard this indictment as the political persecution of the former president?
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, I have been very concerned about politicization at the Justice Department for years.
I have been deeply troubled to see the double standard between the way that the Justice Department has gone after the president, responded even in — with other Republicans and pro-life Americans and the way they seem to be – – to take no interest in getting to the bottom of allegations of corruption around President Biden’s family.
So I have deep concern about that. But, look, I don’t want to prejudge this indictment. I don’t know whether the government has the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support this case. The president is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
MAJOR GARRETT: Mr. Vice President, tell me about these notes that the special prosecutor referred to in the indictment.
Were those all the notes you took on all of your conversations with the former president at that time? Were you a note taker throughout your time as vice president? Did you hand them off to staff? Were these things you kept yourself? Tell me about the note — the note process.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, I can tell you, Major, I have some limitations of what I can talk about relative to the grand jury.
But there was, from time to time, particularly at important moments, I had a practice of scribbling a note or two on my calendar just to memorialize it and remember it. And I did that in this case. I generally didn’t make a practice of taking notes in meetings over the four-year period of time.
But given the momentous events that were unfolding, I — I — I did take a few notes to remind myself of what had been said. And, you know, from very early on, the very first time the president raised the issue with me that I — that he was being told that I had the right to overturn the election, to reject or return votes, I — I — I told him I knew I had no such authority.
Look, I’m — I’m a student of American history. I knew the founders of this country would never have given any one person the right to choose what Electoral College votes to accept and which ones to reject. I was very consistent with the president about that. And my recollections all reflect that.
But, you know, at — at the end of the day, the president continued to hold to that view. But I knew what my duty was. And, as I said, by God’s grace, we did our duty on that fateful day.
MAJOR GARRETT: Mr. Vice President, what do you believe the president’s state of mind was about whether he won or lost the 2020 election?
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: You know, I really can’t say.
I — I — I don’t know what was in his mind. And it seemed to me, through all that period of time, the — the president was intent, as we all were, in getting to the bottom of voting irregularities that had taken place. There were roughly a half-a-dozen states that had changed the rules in the name of COVID, and, frankly, changed them in ways that could benefit Democrat candidates.
But, in more than 60 lawsuits, all of which I supported, and in reviews at state levels, there — there was never any evidence of widespread fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election in any of those states.
MAJOR GARRETT: Did you ever hear the president say “I lost” or did you ever take part in a meeting where it was clear from other words that he spoke that he knew he had lost and was preparing to leave the White House?
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: I remember one occasion before Christmas where the president asked me what — what — what he thought we ought to do. We were just the two of us in the Oval Office, Major.
And I — I remember, I looked at him and I said: “Look, let all the lawsuits play out, let the Congress do their work to consider objections.” But I said, at the end of the day: “If the election goes the other way, I said we ought to take a bow. We ought to travel around the country.”
And I remember — I remember the president is standing in front of his desk, listening very intently to me. And I will never forget the way he just kind of pointed at me as if to — as if to say: That’s worth thinking about.
But I don’t know what was in his mind at the time.
MAJOR GARRETT: Would you ever vote again for Donald Trump?
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Look, I don’t think I will have to. I have to tell you everywhere I go, we receive encouragement.
MAJOR GARRETT: That wasn’t the question, Mr. Vice President.
Would you ever vote for Donald Trump again?
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Yes. Yes, I know what your question is.
But let me be very clear. I’m running for president because I don’t think anyone who ever puts himself over the Constitution should ever be president or should ever be president again. This country is in a lot of trouble. And we’ve got to get back to basics. We’ve got to get back to keeping faith of the Constitution.
We’ve got to get back to the policies that will make our economy strong, that’ll secure our border, that’ll support our military, that’ll defend our liberties and our values that are under a steady assault by the Biden administration.
And we’re going to work our hearts out to earn the right to be that standard-bearer.
MAJOR GARRETT: One last thing. Do you believe the former president can receive a fair trial in the District of Columbia?
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, I — I — I would hope so, but I – – I don’t want to prejudge the indictment or prejudge whether — whether the government can make their case.
Look, the president’s entitled to a presumption of innocence. And I — I have every confidence that — that he’ll make his case in court. But, at the end of the day, at the end of the day, I’m going to stay focused on where the American people are focused.
But I — I’m also — I’m never going to waver in making it clear to people that, whatever the outcome of this indictment and whatever it’s — you know, wherever it goes, I know I did my duty that day.
MAJOR GARRETT: Former Vice President Mike Pence, thank you for joining us.
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Thank you, Major.
(End VT)
MAJOR GARRETT: We turn now to Bill Barr, who served as the former president’s attorney general, until he resigned following the 2020 election.
Bill, it’s good to see you.
BILL BARR (Former U.S. Attorney General): Good to see you.
MAJOR GARRETT: Last time you were on the show, you said — quote — “The January 6 case will be a hard case to make because of First Amendment interests” — unquote.
Having read the indictment, is that still your view?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, it’s — it’s certainly a challenging case, but I don’t — I don’t think it runs afoul of the First Amendment.
And there’s a lot of confusion about this out there. Maybe I can crystallize it. This involved a situation where the states had already made the official and authoritative determination as to who won in those states, and they sent the votes and certified them to Congress.
The allegation, essentially, by the government is that, at that point, the president conspired, entered into a plan, a scheme that involved a lot of deceit, the object of which was to erase those votes, to nullify those lawful votes.
MAJOR GARRETT: To disenfranchise people?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Right.
And there were a number of things that were alleged. One of them is that they tried to bully the state authorities to withdraw their certification by citing instances of fraud. And what the — and what the indictment says is, the stuff that they were spouting, they knew was wrong and false.
This is not a question of what his subjective idea was as to whether he won or lost. They’re saying, what you were saying consistently, the stuff you were spouting, you knew was wrong.
But it’s not — if that was all it was about, I would be concerned on First Amendment front. But they go beyond that. And the other elements were the substitution of bogus panels that were not authorized panels to claim that they had alternative votes.
And then they — and that was clearly wrong, and the certifications they signed were false, but then pressuring the vice president to use that as a pretext to adopt the Trump votes and reject the Biden votes, or even to delay it. It really doesn’t matter whether it’s to delay it, or to adopt it, or to send it to the House of Representatives.
You have to remember, a conspiracy crime is completed at the time it’s agreed to and the first steps are taken.
MAJOR GARRETT: That’s it?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: That’s when the crime is complete.
MAJOR GARRETT: From a prosecutor’s point of view, is this a case you would have brought?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, from a prosecutor’s standpoint, I think it’s a legitimate case, but —
MAJOR GARRETT: From an attorney general’s point of view?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: But I think there are other considerations, and I would have taken those into account.
But I have also said consistently, really, the Rubicon was passed here when — when Attorney General Garland picked Smith, because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don’t bring the case really have to be made by the attorney general.
And he picked a prosecutor. And I think, at that point, the decision was, if there’s a case, we’re going to bring it. That’s when the Rubicon was passed — was crossed.
MAJOR GARRETT: Were you interviewed by the special counsel?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: I’m not going to get into any discussions I have had.
MAJOR GARRETT: Would you appear as a witness if called?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Of course.
MAJOR GARRETT: Could you describe your interactions with the president on this question about whether or not he won or lost and what you told him?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, I wasn’t — discussed — well, I go through that in my book in painstaking detail, but on three occasions, at least.
And I — I told him in no uncertain terms that there was no evidence of fraud that would have changed the outcome that we had found.
MAJOR GARRETT: One of those associated with a Trump’s defense team had said, if you were called as a witness, they would cross-examine you, and pierce all of that by asking you questions that you couldn’t, to their mind, credibly answer about how thorough that investigation was that led you to tell the president what you told him.
How thorough was that investigation?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, it — I — I think it satisfied us that there was no basis for concluding that there had been fraud in those instances.
Some of them are obvious, OK? One that he keeps on repeating is, you know, that there were more people — that more people voted than absentee ballots that were requested, and that was mixing apples and oranges. And once that was explained to him, we should — we should have heard no more about that.
Others required further investigation, interviews and so forth. And those were done.
MAJOR GARRETT: I want to get your thoughts on Hunter Biden.
On December 21, your last day, or nearly your last day, in 2020 in the role of Attorney General, you said: “I think it’s being handled responsibly and professionally currently with the department.”
This is the Hunter Biden investigation.
“And, to this point, I have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel.”
Do you believe a special counsel should be appointed now in the Hunter Biden matter? And do you regret not appointing one then?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, because the — the —
MAJOR GARRETT: No, which? To which? Should one be appointed now?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: No, when I was the attorney — in order to appoint a special counsel, you have to have a conflict, or should have a conflict of interests.
I had no conflict of interest investigating Hunter Biden. If there was a conflict, it would be Garland’s, and he had to make the decision when he took office as to whether or not it could be fairly handled in the department or whether or not a special counsel was necessary.
I felt, if I prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would actually set things up that he would have probably or the administration would have just canceled the investigation. And I felt he would keep our U.S. attorney in place.
But, once Garland came in, he had the responsibility of determining whether a thorough investigation was being done, and was being done fairly. And I did —
(CROSSTALK)
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe a thorough investigation has — has been conducted?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, I did agree with the — the House Republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel.
MAJOR GARRETT: Is that time passed?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, practically, it may have passed, because there’s not pretty much time to get to the bottom of things, unless Weiss has been doing it conscientiously.
And we have to hear from Weiss as to what he’s done.
MAJOR GARRETT: The U.S. attorney in Delaware.
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Yes. Yes.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you believe, as you said earlier, that there was a lot of shameful self-dealing and influence peddling in regards to Hunter Biden? And, if so, do you believe those are criminally prosecutable actions?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: OK, well, remember, one thing I stress is, those are two different questions, right?
And things can be shameful without being illegal. And I — yes, I thought – – I think it’s grotesque, the cashing in on the office like that, apparently. But I — I think it’s legitimate. It has to be investigated as to whether there was a crime there. And that’s one of the things I’m concerned about, is that it was thoroughly investigated after I left.
MAJOR GARRETT: You’re concerned still whether or not it was thoroughly investigated?
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: I don’t know. I would like to hear about it.
I mean, some of the whistle-blowers raised concerns, in my mind. There’s reasons — before the election, there were reasons to defer certain investigative steps under Justice Department policy. But, after the election, I don’t see reasons for deferring investigative steps.
And, apparently, someone said it was the optics. Well, what are the optics, you know, after the election? That it was the president-elect’s son? That’s not a reason not to investigate.
MAJOR GARRETT: Bill Barr, we thank you for your time very, very much.
FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR: Thanks.
MAJOR GARRETT: “Face the Nation” will be back in just one moment. Please stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to New York and CBS News elections and surveys director Anthony Salvanto, who has some new reaction to the former president’s indictment.
Anthony, what can you tell us?
ANTHONY SALVANTO: Good morning, Major.
In the polling this week, we learned that Americans’ response to this week is about more than what they think of Donald Trump’s actions, but also what they think it means for democracy.
First, half the country believes that, after 2020, what the nation witnessed was a then-sitting president trying to remain in office through what they feel were illegal and unconstitutional means.
Now, they say, if true, that would be undermining democracy, and, for them, these indictments then mean it’s upholding the rule of law and protecting that democracy. But there’s another three in 10, 29 percent, who feel that Donald Trump did try to stay in office, but through legal means.
And what’s telling here is that most of them, like most Republicans, continue to believe Donald Trump’s disproven claims about a fraudulent election.
Now, there’s another echo of Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric in here, and that is this personal connection. Most Republicans, especially most MAGA Republicans, also see these indictments as an attack on people like them. And they also see it as politically motivated. That is their overriding concern, more so than any of the content of the charges.
They think very specifically here that this is an attempt to stop Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign — Major.
MAJOR GARRETT: With the survey data and the perspective, Anthony Salvanto, thank you.
And we will be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MAJOR GARRETT: Welcome back.
For the most part, Republican candidates challenging the former president for the Republican Party nomination are treading carefully in their reaction to this latest indictment, fearing that they have — if not, they’re going to alienate the president’s sizable base of support.
That’s not so with former Texas Congressman Will Hurd, who joins us this morning.
Congressman, good to see you.
So, you were in Des Moines, and you said to Republicans there that the only reason that the former president is running is to — quote — “stay out of prison.”
It was believed that you were booed off that stage. A couple of Republicans texted me in real time that they thought you looked weak. Looking back on that, do you wish you had done that differently, or said things differently, or acted differently?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD (R-Texas) (Presidential Candidate): Absolutely not.
And what — what people are missing was that a number of people actually clapped when I said that, and it was the end of the speech. So, I casually walked off. And I — and I stick behind it.
And this is one of the things that makes me unique in this race. I have been ideologically consistent about Donald Trump since 2015. I have thought he’s been a national security threat to the country and was incapable of growing our brand.
I’m the only one that has never bent a knee to Donald Trump. And — and that’s not going to change, because we — if we want to win elections, we got to be talking about, how do we have unprecedented peace at a time when the Chinese government is trying to surpass us as the global superpower?
How do we have world-class education at a time when our kids are failing in math, science and reading, some of the worst scores in this century? These are the issues that we’re talking about, not talking about Donald Trump’s baggage. And if people agree with that, I need them to go on HurdforAmerica.com and give at least $1 to help me get on the debate stage.
MAJOR GARRETT: What does it tell you, Will Hurd, when you see the president’s polling, your polling, the vast distance between the two, and the sentiment expressed by Republicans over and over and over again that they’re with Trump, and not with people like you who criticize him so harshly?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: Sure.
The election is 25 weeks away. A lot can change. And anybody who thinks that these are overwhelming odds, I would tell them I disagree with them. Nobody thought a black Republican could win in a 72 percent Latino district on 820 miles of the border. But it happened because I showed up to places that people didn’t expect me to be.
National polls — running for president is not — is not a national election. It’s 50 elections. And this is going to always tighten. And the goal is —
MAJOR GARRETT: True enough, but you can’t cite a single state poll where you’re even in double digits.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: Well, because the election’s not today, or it’s not tomorrow. The election is 25 weeks away.
In order to build a campaign and talk to the people that are sick and tired of where the country is going, it takes time. Two-thirds of Americans do not want Donald Trump or Joe Biden on — on the ballot. Like, that is clear, and that has always been the case. And we also know, if Donald Trump is the nominee for the Republican Party, we’re giving four more years to Joe Biden.
So, let me be clear, Major, that the goal is not to peak tomorrow. The goal is to peak before the first — the first election.
MAJOR GARRETT: OK, let’s talk about something that’s not 25 weeks away, but much sooner, the first Republican debate.
Will you qualify for that debate stage?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: I —
MAJOR GARRETT: And, if so, how?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: I haven’t hit the — I haven’t hit the number yet, but I feel confident.
MAJOR GARRETT: Forty thousand unique donors?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: Yes, I — I feel confident that we’re going to get to that place.
MAJOR GARRETT: How close are you?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: I’m — I’m — I’m close.
And I’m not going to get — I’m not —
MAJOR GARRETT: Define close. Is it 10,000?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: I don’t get into details.
(LAUGHTER)
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: I’m close. And that’s why I need the people that are watching this show to go on HurdforAmerica.com, donate at least $1, to make sure that they have someone who is ideologically consistent, meet the requirements to be on the debate stage.
MAJOR GARRETT: Why are you still a Republican?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: I — I’m still a Republican because I believe in a — a strong foreign policy.
I believe in freedom. I believe in actual personal responsibility. That’s not always reflected in many of the people that are in the party. But here’s where it is reflected.
MAJOR GARRETT: Is it reflective of what Donald Trump does?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: No, not at all.
But there’s more people that identify with the —
(CROSSTALK)
MAJOR GARRETT: So, Donald Trump is not a good Republican?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: I don’t think he’s a good Republican at all.
You know, Donald Trump is — is Donald Trump. And — and I believe in these — these — the timeless principles of the party, because I think that leads to limitless potential. And when you look at — when I think about the party, most people say, is it the former president? Is it our elected officials?
In the — I believe it’s the people that are willing to vote for a Republican. And here’s what I have learned crisscrossing this country. There are more people that are sick and tired of the direction the Democratic Party is going. And what they want is someone who’s not a jerk, who’s not a racist, who’s not a misogynist, who’s not someone who’s a homophobe.
You know, this is the opportunity the Republican Party has. And that’s the brand that I’m —
(CROSSTALK)
MAJOR GARRETT: Very quickly, the four words you just used, do all of them apply to former President Trump?
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: At times, absolutely, and, at times, other places and other candidates that are in this race.
Guess what? Slavery — there’s no upside to slavery. We shouldn’t have to be having that conversation this — at — in 2023.
MAJOR GARRETT: Will Hurd, Republican candidate for the presidency in 2024, thanks for being with us.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE WILL HURD: Thank you.
MAJOR GARRETT: And we will be back in just one moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MAJOR GARRETT: We will be right back with a lot more Face the Nation.
Up next, Trump attorney John Lauro.
Please, stay with us.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MAJOR GARRETT: We go now to John Lauro, one of former President Trump’s lawyers. He joins us now from New York.
John, good morning to you.
JOHN LAURO (Donald Trump’s Attorney): Good morning.
MAJOR GARRETT: I want to let you know that we spoke with former Vice President Mike Pence and asked him specifically about your assertions made this last week that all the president did was asked him to pause the certification on January 6, 2021. He told me flatly, quote, “that’s not what happened.”
Your response?
JOHN LAURO: That’s not – that’s not what I said, though, but that’s OK.
MAJOR GARRETT: What — what is it that you believe happened between the president and the vice president? And do you have any fear of the vice president being called as a witness in the case?
JOHN LAURO: I – I – what — no. No. In fact, the vice president will be our best witness. What I said is the ultimate ask of Vice President Pence was to pause the count and allow the states to weigh in. That was my statement. And what – what I’ve said is consistent with what Vice President Pence is saying.
The reason why Vice President Pence will be so important to the defense is – is the following. Number one, he agrees that John Eastman, who gave legal advice to President Trump, was an esteemed legal scholar. Number two, he agrees that there were election irregularities, fraud, unlawful actions at the state level. All of that will — will eviscerate any allegation of criminal intent on the part of President Trump. And, finally, what Vice President Pence believes, and believed, is that these issues needed to be debated on January 6th. He openly called for all of these issues to be debated and objected to in – in the January 6th proceeding.
President Trump, on the other hand, believed, following the advice of John Eastman, who’s a legal scholar, that these issues needed to be debated at the state level, not the federal level. Now, of course, there was a constitutional disagreement between Vice President Pence and President Trump. But the bottom line is, never have — never in our country’s history has those kinds of disagreements been prosecuted criminally. It’s – it’s unheard of.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, can I ask you a couple of very simple, basic yes or no questions? Is there – first, is there any conditions under which the former president of the United States, your client, would accept a plea deal on these January 6th charge?
JOHN LAURO: No.
MAJOR GARRETT: Will you seek a motion to dismiss?
JOHN LAURO: Absolutely, 100 percent.
MAJOR GARRETT: When?
JOHN LAURO: A hundred percent. Well, within the time permitted. This is what’s called a Swiss cheese indictment. It has so many holes that we’re going to be identifying and litigating a number of – of motions that we’re going to file on First Amendment grounds, on the fact that President Trump is immune as president from – from being prosecuted in this way.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have a – do you have a ballpark figure of when you’d be ready for trial?
JOHN LAURO: I — well, I can tell you that in 40 years of practicing law, on a case of this magnitude, I’ve not known a single case to go to trial before two or three years.
MAJOR GARRETT: Understood.
Are you still going to pursue a change of venue?
JOHN LAURO: Absolutely. We – we would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury. One that – that reflects the –
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you have any expectation that will be granted?
JOHN LAURO: That reflects the – the – the – the characteristics of the American people.
It’s up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case.
MAJOR GARRETT: Speaking of the judge –
JOHN LAURO: They’re close to D.C. and a much more diverse –
MAJOR GARRETT: Understood.
Speaking of the judge, earlier this week your client, the former president, said on a social media platform the judge is unfair. On what basis did he say that?
JOHN LAURO: Well, the problem with bringing a case like this in the middle of a campaign season is statements are going to be made in the context of a campaign.
We expect a fair and just trial in the District of Columbia. And – and my role — my role is simply to ensure that President Trump’s rights, just like every American’s rights, are protected every step of the way. And I’m going to do that.
MAJOR GARRETT: You mentioned discovery. In the protective order back and forth between you and the prosecutors, it says, the prosecution, that discovery will be provided, quote, “as soon as possible, including certain discovery to which the defendant is not entitled.”
What’s wrong with that?
JOHN LAURO: We’re – we’re all in favor of protecting sensitive and highly sensitive information. But it’s unprecedented to have all information hidden in a criminal case, including, by the way, information that might be exculpatory and might be exonerative of President Trump. The Biden administration wants to keep that information from the American people.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, in the back and forth on this matter, you – it also was said in the filing to the court that the former president would be willing to come to an agreement on this matter. And what I — what I want to ask you is, would that requirement be something where the president would agree not to release any information that was highly sensitive in this matter, and would he also refrain from any speech that called for or hinted at retribution about anyone associated with the prosecution of this case?
JOHN LAURO: He’s never called for that at all. He’s going to abide by the conditions of his release.
But, of course, we would agree that any sensitive or highly sensitive information be kept under wraps. In fact, we made that proposition to the Biden administration, but they rejected it. They want every single piece of evidence in this case hidden from the American public.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, before I let you go, do you remember what you were doing the early morning of November 9, 2016?
JOHN LAURO: I have no idea.
MAJOR GARRETT: Well, I remember what I was doing. I was covering President- elect Trump announcing that he had won the presidency, about 3:00 a.m. that morning after the November 8th election.
My question to you, John, is how did he know he won?
JOHN LAURO: Well, politicians are convinced in the righteousness of their cause, including President Trump. And he certainly believed that he won. And he did win.
MAJOR GARRETT: But on what basis did he know he had – but on what basis did he know he won?
JOHN LAURO: In 2016 – can I – can I finish? Can I finish?
MAJOR GARRETT: Yes. Sure.
JOHN LAURO: Can I finish?
And he believed in 2020 that he won based on the fact that he had 10 million more votes than in 2016. He had a situation where somehow President Biden, or at that time candidate Biden, received 15 million more votes than Hillary Clinton. And he also understood in 2020 that President – that President Trump understood that he had won all — virtually all of the bellwether counties.
MAJOR GARRETT: Right.
JOHN LAURO: And 84 percent of all the counties in the country.
MAJOR GARRETT: John. John, let me – let me – let me help you with this.
JOHN LAURO: So, on that basis, he believed that he was successful.
MAJOR GARRETT: John, let me help you with this. I wasn’t asking about 2020.
JOHN LAURO: No, let me help you with this because the issue here —
MAJOR GARRETT: I wasn’t asking about 2020, John. John, I wasn’t asking about 2020. I was asking about 2016.
JOHN LAURO: I have to help you with this because – no, no, no, the – the issue – right. The issue —
MAJOR GARRETT: Because – because the votes were still being counted in 2016.
JOHN LAURO: Right, the issue (INAUDIBLE) –
MAJOR GARRETT: The votes were still being counted in 2016.
JOHN LAURO: Right. Right.
MAJOR GARRETT: There had been no recount.
JOHN LAURO: Right.
MAJOR GARRETT: How did he know in 2016 that he had won?
JOHN LAURO: Right.
MAJOR GARRETT: How did he know? On what basis?
JOHN LAURO: Well, the issue – the issue — let me just tell you something. The issue in this criminal case is not what happened in 2016 and whether all candidates say they won. The issue now is, in 2020, whether or not the Justice Department can weaponize criminal law to go after a political opponent and prevent that opponent from running for office. That’s the issue. Not what happened in 2016.
MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time.
JOHN LAURO: Do you think it’s fair — do you think it’s fair that – do you think it’s fair what the – what the Biden administration is doing to a candidate for president?
MAJOR GARRETT: John Lauro, we thank you for your time. We appreciate it.
JOHN LAURO: Thank you.
MAJOR GARRETT: And we will be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MAJOR GARRETT: Welcome back.
We turn now to Minnesota Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips, who might, in fact, be able to answer a question he’s given some energy to. Are you going to run for president against Joe Biden?
REP. DEAN PHILLIPS (D-MN): Well, Major, I have not decided yet. But I will tell you why I’m here. And I lost my dad in Vietnam in 1969. Lived with my great grandparents for two and a half years. And my mom was 24 and widowed. I was adopted when I was three by an extraordinary dad into a remarkable family. I know a little something about living on both sides of advantage.
And I woke up the morning after the 2016 election, the one you just spoke about, saw fear in my daughter’s eyes, my two daughters. I recognized at that moment that millions of Americans have had that same fear for generations. And I promised them I would do something.
I ran for Congress. And I ran a campaign that was about everybody being invited. That was my slogan. I listened to Democrats, Republicans, independents. And I discovered that everybody wants the same thing. Everybody. We want to be safe, we want to have security, both economic and otherwise, we want opportunity and we want unity.
Serving our country in Congress has been a joy. I know you don’t hear that too off. It has been a joy. And I’ve discovered that everybody in the middle, the massive majority of Americans, are sick of anger-tainment, telling us we’re more divided than we really are. They’re sick of members of Congress, state houses, attacking each other instead of attacking problems. They want their families back, their friendships back, their communities back. They want unity.
MAJOR GARRETT: Congressman –
DEAN PHILLIPS: And I want to give voice to them.
MAJOR GARRETT: Yes.
DEAN PHILLIPS: And then, secondly, I want to give voice to Democrats. I’m a life-long passionate Democrat, inspired by Hubert Humphrey and Martin Luther King. Democrats are telling me that they want, not a coronation, but they want a competition.
“The New York Times” poll from this week shows 55 percent of Democratic voters want some alternatives to the current people in the primary. Eighty- three percent of those under 30, Democrats under 30, want alternatives. And about 76 percent are independent.
MAJOR GARRETT: When are you going to – when are you going to decide?
DEAN PHILLIPS: So, I just wanted to make my case.
MAJOR GARRETT: When are you going to decide?
DEAN PHILLIPS: I think – well, let me get to my point.
MAJOR GARRETT: OK.
DEAN PHILLIPS: So, if we don’t heed –
MAJOR GARRETT: I’ve given you some room.
DEAN PHILLIPS: Yes, you have.
If we don’t heed that call, shame on us. And the consequences, I believe, are going to be disastrous. So, my call is to those who are well positioned, well prepared, of good character and competency, they know who they are, to jump in because Democrats and the country need competition. It makes everything better. That’s my call to them right now.
MAJOR GARRETT: So if they don’t, you will?
DEAN PHILLIPS: I’m not saying I will. I — look, I think I’m well- positioned to be President of the United States.
MAJOR GARRETT: You do?
DEAN PHILLIPS: I do not believe I’m well positioned to run for it right now. People who are should jump in because we need to meet the moment. The moment is now. That is what the country is asking for.
MAJOR GARRETT: I gave you some running room, so let’s tighten up the answers if we can.
DEAN PHILLIPS: Sure.
MAJOR GARRETT: Can President Biden beat Donald Trump?
DEAN PHILLIPS: I think he can. But I think the only way to determine that objectively is to go through a process.
By the way, before it’s too late, and I want to tell you this about President Biden, an amazing man. I love the man. He is competent. He is honorable. His integrity, I believe, is unvarnished. He has led this country through extraordinarily difficult times.
This is not about him. This is about listening to people. And I’m afraid, in this bubble here in Washington, people get real tone deaf real fast and we should be listening. That’s what this is about. It’s my call to action.
MAJOR GARRETT: Assess Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign?
DEAN PHILLIPS: Well, first of all, I – I like competition. I’m pleased that people —
MAJOR GARRETT: Is he an adequate competitor?
DEAN PHILLIPS: Not the one that I’m looking for. I don’t believe him to be a Democrat. I think some of the things —
MAJOR GARRETT: Is there something telling in what’s happened around him?
DEAN PHILLIPS: Let me say this, I hear – I think there is something telling. I think he’s using a very similar playbook to a former president who did the same in the Republican Party just a little while ago. And I think we should be cautious of that.
I also think that’s why we need alternatives. I don’t believe him to be a Democrat.
MAJOR GARRETT: Are you –
DEAN PHILLIPS: I do believe, though, that speech is good. More speech is even better. We need alternatives for the massive majority of the middle in America to have some alternatives too.
MAJOR GARRETT: Want to make sure I heard that correctly. You don’t believe Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a Democrat?
DEAN PHILLIPS: I – not — not from the positions he’s been taking, no.
MAJOR GARRETT: Assess Cornell West. Do you have any anxiety about him running as a Green Party candidate?
DEAN PHILLIPS: I do. Anybody who wants to turn the page and go to the future in this country should be worried about Cornell — Cornell West candidacy. Any third-party entrants that would take votes from whoever is going to take on the likely nominee from the GOP, and that’s probably Donald Trump. So I would ask Mr. West, I would ask others who are contemplating third party runs, to please think about your legacy, think about the future, and consolidate around entering a democratic primary because that’s why we have primaries, competition.
MAJOR GARRETT: I’m confused, Congressman. If there’s a conversation that you say needs to occur within the Democratic Party about an alternative to the sitting President of the United States, why isn’t the leading contender for that the sitting vice president of the United States, Kamala Harris?
DEAN PHILLIPS: I think we have a — I think we live in an era of fear. What if I get out of line? What if I take on my party? I know the feeling this week. I think —
MAJOR GARRETT: Is she – is she not – is she not qualified?
DEAN PHILLIPS: I think she’s absolutely qualified. In fact, I think she’s misportrayed. I think everybody in this country should take a little bit of time and sit with people, observe them, know them before you draw conclusions. I think she is more competent and able than many people give her credit for. The job of the vice president is not an easy one.
MAJOR GARRETT: Would she, in your mind, be the heir apparent if for some reason the president of the United States were not to seek the nomination in 2024?
DEAN PHILLIPS: I’m glad you asked the question. And my answer is really simple. Competition. As many people as humanly possible, with the talent, the time, the energy, the ethics to enter a primary should do it. We have 12 Republicans as options for Republican primary voters. Right now, we only have three on the Democratic side. I believe in competition.
We’re the Democratic Party. Democracy means the freedom to make choices. And we don’t have many of them.
MAJOR GARRETT: Let me ask you a historical question. You’ve invoked the names of many Minnesota Democrats. Let me invoke the name of another. Eugene McCarthy ran in 1968 against a well-positioned president with a substantial record of accomplishment for Democratic Party agenda items. He said the reason he had to run was because of the overwhelming issue of Vietnam. That it had to be addressed. Dean Phillips, what’s the Vietnam of this election?
DEAN PHILLIPS: The Vietnam of this election, I think everybody knows, and it’s about turning the page to the future. That is the Vietnam of right now. That’s the quagmire in which we find ourselves.
Mr. Hurd, who you just had on the show, if you could see the green room moments ago, the comradery between Democrats and Republicans who all want the same thing, was represented right there.
And I want to remind the American people, that’s the Vietnam of right now. The quagmire in which we find ourselves we will not get out of from a single leader. If everybody takes a pause, starts reaching out their hands to one another again, starts electing and selecting people of competency and good character, we’re going to get out of this, and I’m optimistic.
MAJOR GARRETT: Dean Phillips, congressman from Minnesota, a Democrat, keep in touch.
DEAN PHILLIPS: Thank you, Major.
MAJOR GARRETT: We’ll be back in just a moment.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MAJOR GARRETT: Welcome back.
Up now, CBS News cyber security expert and analyst Chris Krebs, who as head of CISA, we’ll get into what that means in a second, announced soon after the 2020 election that it was the, quote, most secure election in history. The former president disagreed and memorably, to Chris, fired him.
Chris, it’s good to see you.
CHRIS KREBS: Good to see you, Major.
MAJOR GARRETT: What was the basis of that statement?
CHRIS KREBS: Well –
MAJOR GARRETT: That it was the most secure election in American history?
CHRIS KREBS: So, let’s contextualize that statement a little bit.
MAJOR GARRETT: Please.
CHRIS KREBS: It was issued on November 12th by a group known as the Election Subsector Joint Coordinating Council. So, this was leaders from the federal government, state government, and local government election — involved in the administration of elections, alongside those from – from the private sector and those that – that support –
MAJOR GARRETT: Across the country?
CHRIS KREBS: Yes. So, this was my not statement, this was not CISA’s statement.
MAJOR GARRETT: This is not a red or blue statement?
CHRIS KREBS: Correct. This was a bipartisan joint statement by those that are actually involved in the day-to-day administration of elections. And it was their real-time, in the moment perspective of what was happening around the United States election at that point.
And – and the important part is that it wasn’t just about November 3rd and what immediately preceded and what immediately followed. It was a collective effort really spanning back, from my perspective, back to 2017, that joint effort that we had worked to develop strong partnerships around election security within the federal government, but also with state and local elections.
MAJOR GARRETT: And as I understand it, President Trump encouraged you to do that very work, did he not?
CHRIS KREBS: That — we had the full support of the White House, the National Security Council and those that were immediately within the orbit of the president. In fact, I briefed the vice president, who was on earlier, several times on our election security efforts.
MAJOR GARRETT: What is CISA?
CHRIS KREBS: CISA is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. It was established by President Trump in 2018 and it is, as Jen Easterly, the – the current director calls it, the nation’s civilian cyber defense agency.
MAJOR GARRETT: And at any time when you were briefing either the vice president or the president or senior administration officials about the work you were doing and what it was leading up to in the 2020 election, did they raise any concerns about your ability, your acuity, your trustworthiness or the trustworthiness of the data you were getting back to you?
CHRIS KREBS: We had full support from not just the White House and the executive branch, but also from Congress. We – we briefed Congress. I personally briefed Will Hurd several times, briefed a range of senators and members of the House of Representatives throughout 2020 on our efforts to secure the 2020 election and received, as I said, full-throated support.
MAJOR GARRETT: And when you say security, what does that mean? Does that mean no penetration and that’s it, or does it mean other things under the umbrella of security and secure elections?
CHRIS KREBS: Well, our efforts, starting in 2017, were to work with and established relationships where we could share information and provide cyber security services to state and local election officials so that they could harden their systems and increase the resilience of those systems.
And the key takeaway, as I see it for the 2020 election, is that it was effectively the most audited and most papered election in – in recent history.
MAJOR GARRETT: Why is that important?
CHRIS KREBS: Well, your – your colleague, David Becker, your co-author, runs the Center for Election and Innovation Research. And he conducted a study that says that in 2016, less than 80 percent of ballots cast had a paper record associated with it. Paper records are important because you can audit the results. If there are any questions, you can go back, check your math and ensure the – the accounting was accurate.
By the time the 2020 election rolled around, due to combined efforts of federal and state and local election officials, that number increased to around 95 percent of votes cast, including every one of those close call states. Importantly, Pennsylvania and Georgia both switched systems that had paper ballots associated with the vote. And you could count and recount and audit. In fact, Georgia recounted or audited several times post- November 3rd.
MAJOR GARRETT: And those systems that do that auditing were secure?
CHRIS KREBS: Yes, absolutely. You know, based on our work with the intelligence community, our understanding of –
MAJOR GARRETT: And — what state officials told you and local officials?
CHRIS KREBS: Look — absolutely. Look, I — you know, I continue to think that there are any number of state election officials that had every incentive in the world to prove that something happened to deliver an outcome to President Trump. But that never happened.
MAJOR GARRETT: So with respect, there are those on the Trump side of this ledger who think you might just be a beltway insider, a wise guy, who came to a conclusion and tried to sell it to the president. And just because he didn’t believe you, he had a right to do other things. How would you respond to that?
CHRIS KREBS: Well, he certainly has the right to claim that he won or, you know, it was stolen from him. But as we heard, when he takes that action towards the criminal conspiracy, that’s a different matter. But, again, our role at CISA was in support of state and local election officials and — ensuring that their voices were heard and that the work that they were doing got to the American people to instill and restore confidence in our public institutions.
MAJOR GARRETT: Were you interviewed by the special counsel?
CHRIS KREBS: I was.
MAJOR GARRETT: Would you appear as a witness?
CHRIS KREBS: Of course. Of course.
MAJOR GARRETT: Do you regard this case as persecution of the former president politically or otherwise?
CHRIS KREBS: Well, it’s certainly a prosecution. But as for persecution —
MAJOR GARRETT: That’s — his word is persecution.
CHRIS KREBS: Yes, I — look, this is going to play out as it plays out. And I – you know, it’s a duly authorized investigation by the attorney general. You know, it’s — it’s in – it’s in the courts now.
MAJOR GARRETT: What are your concerns — I know you’re on the outside now, but I know you keep in close contact with those who are monitoring 2024 — about these underlying security and functionality issues?
CHRIS KREBS: Well, I think any time that you put technology systems into a process or into any sort of work flow, there’s absolutely the possibility that there are vulnerabilities or misconfigurations that can take place.
The key for election systems is, you don’t have single points of failure, what’s known as software independence in this case, where a failure of the hardware or software doesn’t result in an undermining of the entire process. And in — the FBI and CISA continue to say that there’s no known capability by an adversary that has been able to change or disrupt the casting, the counting, and the certification of a vote. I continue to have concerns, however, that – that we are not moving fast enough to get rid of some of these legacy systems and reducing vulnerabilities to stay ahead of what’s an intelligent, continually improving adversary.
MAJOR GARRETT: Very quickly, Chris Krebs, how concerned are you about threats to those who work at the local level on election administration?
CHRIS KREBS: Absolutely. The – you know, as we saw in ’22, the threats to election administration officials is off the chart and it’s resulting actually in these officials retiring and leaving the workforce. So, we’re seeing a sort of voter suppression of another kind where there may not be enough opportunities to administer the election process which will cut down on opportunities for people to actually vote.
MAJOR GARRETT: Chris Krebs, thank you very much for coming in this morning.
CHRIS KREBS: Thanks, Major.
MAJOR GARRETT: We appreciate it.
And we’ll be right back.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
MAJOR GARRETT: That does it for today. We thank you for watching. Margaret will be back next week. For FACE THE NATION, I’m Major Garrett. And by the way, I’m not a fan of penalty kicks.
(ANNOUNCEMENTS)
