Mediaboss Marketing

On this "Face the Nation" broadcast, moderated by Margaret Brennan:

Clickhere to browse full transcripts of "Face the Nation."

MARGARET BRENNAN: I'm Margaret Brennan.

And today on Face the Nation: The Supreme Court preserves access to an abortion pill, for now.

click to expand

And a daring evacuation of U.S. government personnel out of the embattled country of Sudan. Overnight, the mission to get U.S. diplomats and other personnel out of Sudan was successful. But what about the hundreds more Americans still trapped there?

We will talk with Delaware Democrat Chris Coons. He's on the Africa Subcommittee in the Senate.

Then: The Supreme Court makes an emergency ruling to keep mifepristone accessible for abortion, but sends the case back to the lower courts. Is the fight over? We will tell you what's next.

And the politics of abortion within the Republican Party. Our Robert Costa sat down with former vice president and potential 2024 candidate Mike Pence. Will he enter the race and challenge the former president?

(Begin VT)

ROBERT COSTA: Are you leaning in or are you leaning away from running?

MIKE PENCE (Former Vice President of the United States): Well, I'm here in Iowa, Robert.

(End VT)

MARGARET BRENNAN: Plus, a series of deadly shooting errors, firing first and asking questions later, is taking its toll on a nation already anxious about gun violence.

We will talk with the mayor of Kansas City, Quinton Lucas, about the challenges he's facing running a blue city in a red state.

Finally, an interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He's back in power, but what's different now?

It's all just ahead on Face the Nation.

Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation.

We begin with a daring Special Forces rescue operation to get American diplomats out of Sudan, where fighting continues, as two top generals there jockey for power.

The State Department says security conditions aren't expected to improve anytime soon, and has temporarily suspended operations at the U.S. Embassy in Sudan's capital, Khartoum. Meanwhile, there are still hundreds of American citizens stranded in Sudan, where the airports have been closed for days.

For more now, we turn to national security correspondent David Martin.

David, good morning.

DAVID MARTIN: Good morning.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So, this operation was high-risk. You had U.S. forces flying 800 miles from Djibouti to Ethiopia, then launching from Ethiopia to Sudan, and then had to go all the way back to Djibouti at the end, airlifted about 100 people out of the U.S. Embassy.

How did all this come together?

DAVID MARTIN: Well, distance was the primary challenge here, 800 miles. Helicopters just can't go that far. So you had to set up this forward staging base in Ethiopia, where they could top off before the aircraft went into the embassy in Khartoum.

The other thing was the uncertainty of whether or not they were going to be shot at. Both generals of these two warring sides had been warned in no uncertain terms, do not interfere. But you couldn't count at that, because we have -- we have seen all these cease-fires break down.

So the aircraft went in at night low level. And they had 100 special operations commandos on board. Those commandos set up a perimeter around this landing zone that was just outside the embassy and guarded that perimeter while the diplomats boarded the helicopters.

Overhead, there were two C-130 aircraft, one of which was for communications. The other was a gunship ready to take anybody who tried to approach the embassy under fire. They were on the ground for a little more than half-an-hour.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Wow.

DAVID MARTIN: No shots were fired. And then they were back on their way.

Somebody called it a pretty easy in-and-out, but it was long and grueling night. I mean, from start to finish, it was 17 hours.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And it was so high-risk. This went, sounds like, as best as could possibly be expected.

But there are still hundreds of American citizens who are on the ground. There is no plan to evacuate them. These were just government personnel pulled out. The State Department and the Pentagon say they will do what they can to help Americans get out. What does that mean?

DAVID MARTIN: Well, it certainly doesn't mean going in and seizing the airport and doing the normal kind of evacuation aboard airliners out of there.

What it means is conducting reconnaissance along this land route that goes from Khartoum all the way over to Port Sudan on the Red Sea, which is a 12- hour drive under the best conditions. So they can conduct reconnaissance over that. And then they can have U.S. Navy ships waiting to take in any Americans who make that drive.

But that, again, will be at the -- at a minimum, a long and grueling drive. And the conditions are just chaotic.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes. And it is such a high-risk environment.

David, thank you very much for all of your reporting.

DAVID MARTIN: Sure thing.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We go now to Democratic Senator Chris Coons, who joins us from Wilmington, Delaware.

Good morning to you, Senator.

I know you've said you feared this violence for the past few weeks. And it was this intense fighting between Sudan's armed forces and a paramilitary group that led to this dramatic evacuation. Do you think the U.S. should have pulled out sooner?

SENATOR CHRIS COONS (D-Delaware): Well, Margaret, if I would been on this show, just two weeks ago, we wouldn't have been talking about fighting in Sudan, because there wasn't any.

There were special envoys from the U.N., the A.U., the U.S. all negotiating with these two generals, General Hemedti, General Burhan, of the regular army and the paramilitary. I'm still hopeful that they could return to a civilian government. It unwound fast in just the last week. And I'm grateful that our Special Forces have now successfully overnight evacuated the U.S. nationals who work in our embassy in Khartoum.

This is a temporary suspension. It's my hope and theirs that we will be able to return to Khartoum and the situation will stabilize. But, Margaret, this is the same sort of thing that happened in Kyiv in Ukraine, that has happened in other countries, in Yemen and Syria, where, when the fighting gets intense quickly, we rely on our Special Forces to evacuate U.S. nationals who staff an embassy in a country that descends into a war zone.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I know you've been saying the country may tip into all-out civil war.

Russia and China have really been extending their influence throughout Africa, Russia in Sudan as well, including that paramilitary group Wagner. They -- they have left behind hundreds of American civilians in Sudan, who now don't necessarily have a way out of the country. Are you concerned about how the United States can use some kind of leverage to help its citizens escape?

SENATOR CHRIS COONS: Well, Margaret, just a reminder that Sudan is a vast country. It's the third largest country in Africa, a country of 45 million people spread over a huge amount of territory.

Yes, I am concerned about the safety and security of U.S. nationals who've been serving in humanitarian missions or in other ways across the country. There are quite a few U.S.-Sudanese dual nationals in the country, and the U.N. and the U.S. and a number of other countries will do their best to help return to civilian rule, to end the fighting, to support a stabilization in Sudan.

But as for right now, an evacuation through some overland convoy is the most likely path out for folks who work for the U.N. and the World Food Program, for example, who serve other countries in Khartoum and around the country, and for those remaining U.S. nationals who may wish to leave.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But does the U.S. have any leverage to stop the fighting?

SENATOR CHRIS COONS: Just a reminder, Margaret, this is a country that for 30 years was under the brutal dictatorship of...

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

SENATOR CHRIS COONS: ... Omar al-Bashir. It was on the state sponsor of terrorism list. We don't have deep relationships with the Sudanese military or with the paramilitary force, the RSF.

We have some leverage, in that we provide development assistance, humanitarian relief. But, frankly, these two warring factions have started what may well be a fight to the finish. And we may have limited leverage in the next couple of weeks and months, as they carry out a fight to see who will ultimately be in control of the security of Sudan.

MARGARET BRENNAN: And that is why there's so much concern.

I want to ask you as well about your position on the Judiciary Committee. CBS interviewed earlier this week an attorney for an IRS agent who is seeking whistle-blower status from Congress to share information, he says, would contradict sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee regarding the investigation into Hunter Biden.

Do you think it's worth looking into the possibility of undue influence here?

SENATOR CHRIS COONS: Look, anyone who comes forward and seeks whistle- blower protection status should be given that status. That's part of what we've put in place over many years, a system that allows career folks who work in different federal agencies the chance to blow the whistle and testify if they see something wrong.

I will remind you, nothing's been presented yet. This person hasn't come forward in any detail. If and when they do, if there's any substance to it, I expect that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin, and the ranking member will ensure that they are fairly and appropriately treated.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you confident in the conduct of Attorney General Merrick Garland when it comes to this case?

SENATOR CHRIS COONS: I am.

Look, President Biden, from the days he was campaigning to his first days as president, made it clear that he thought restoring the independence of the Department of Justice, removing any political influence for potential investigations was a core value that he brought to this service as president, and I'm confident that that's in no small part why he chose a seasoned circuit court judge, someone with also deep experience at DOJ.

I am confident that Merrick Garland has conducted himself appropriately here.

MARGARET BRENNAN: CBS reported back in October that the FBI had gathered evidence sufficient enough to charge Hunter Biden with tax and gun-related crimes and sent it to the U.S. attorney in Delaware.

And we know that, in the coming days, Mr. Biden's attorneys are set to meet with the U.S. attorney in Delaware. Do you have any sense if this is going to conclude soon? It's been ongoing since 2018.

SENATOR CHRIS COONS: No, I don't, Margaret, nor should I. It is an ongoing investigation that, as you say, has been conducted for years. The U.S. attorney here in Delaware is the U.S. attorney who was appointed by the previous administration.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.

SENATOR CHRIS COONS: And, look, if there are any charges ever brought, we'll discuss them at that time. At this point, I think this is a long- going federal investigation, which I hope will reach a conclusion at some point soon.

MARGARET BRENNAN: All right, Senator Coons, thank you for joining us this morning and giving us your perspective.

SENATOR CHRIS COONS: Thank you, Margaret.

MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the Friday Supreme Court decision, which preserves access to a widely used abortion pill, for now, while the legal process in the lower courts continues.

Chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford joins us.

Jan, it's good to have you back here.

This was a decision you predicted, 7-2, the dissent coming from Justice Alito, Clarence Thomas also objecting. The Supreme Court is keeping the drug available now. So what happens next?

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, that's right.

I mean, the bottom line is that this drug will remain available nationwide without any restrictions while these appeals play out. And that could take at least a year, I mean, even though this case is really on a fast track.

There's an argument next month before a panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which will decide at some point whether that lower court judge in Texas was right that the FDA improperly authorized mifepristone some two decades ago.

But regardless of whatever the appeals court decides, whoever loses is going to go right back to the Supreme Court and ask the justices to step in and decide the merits, whether the FDA properly followed the right steps when it approved mifepristone in 2000, and then when it agreed to make it more widely available, easier for women to get in 2016.

That will set the stage for a major Supreme Court case on abortion access possibly as soon as next year.

MARGARET BRENNAN: An election year too.

Jan, there's great irony in the fact that the Supreme Court sent the decision on abortion access back to the states after Dobbs, and now we're talking about going back to the Supreme Court to decide on it again.

Will the justices -- I mean, how involved will they get? I mean, you think this is inevitable it ends up there?

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I think it's going to go right back to the Supreme Court, because whoever loses will appeal it and ask the justices to get involved in decide it.

I don't think that they will.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You don't think they will hear it?

JAN CRAWFORD: I don't think they will ever reach the merits.

Well, I think they will -- they will have to hear it. But I think they're going to dismiss it on standing grounds. They're going to say that these challengers who went after the FDA authorization weren't able to show that they had right to be in federal court in the first place.

And let me just -- I mean, those are kind of bedrock conservative legal principles that really go to the heart of this case. To get into federal court, you can't just be upset about some issue. You have got to show you have been harmed, that you have a stake in the case. It can't be just something speculative in the future.

And I think that's a real problem for the challengers here. Now, the lower courts saw it differently. The Trump appointee, federal judge, saw it differently. But these conservative justices take those kinds of standing issues very seriously, because it goes to the point of judicial restraint.

And that's why what they're doing with this case is entirely consistent with what they did with Dobbs, the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and - - last year and sent it back to the states.

What they're doing in this case is really saying, if they follow this rule on standing, that these challenges don't have business being in federal courts. We're going to set -- keep that kind of a high bar for getting into the courts. We don't want federal judges ruling on these social issues. That belongs in the political process.

So, the bottom line for this case, I think, next year...

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.

JAN CRAWFORD: ... whenever they get back to it, is, I think they're going to dismiss it on standing. I think these conservative justices will join with the liberals and say, the challengers don't have a right to sue in this case.

It could be 8-1, possibly even unanimous.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Very quickly, a lot of scrutiny of Clarence Thomas. What do you think is going to happen to him?

JAN CRAWFORD: Well, as you know, there's been reports that he failed to disclose a couple of different things on his disclosure forms, vacations that were paid for by a really rich friend of his that he didn't disclose.

The rules on that were not very clear. They were recently amended. So, he said he will report that going forward. I think the more problematic one is some property that he and his family sold to the same friend, that that wasn't disclosed. His -- his -- people close to Thomas have suggested that's because he didn't make a profit on that.

See the original post here:
Full transcript of "Face the Nation" on April 23, 2023 - CBS News