>> welcome back to stop the -- "face the nation", we are back with republican senator mike lee. senator, you heard the defense secretary say there was not one definitive specific piece of intelligence that indicated these four embassy attacks were being planned, it was a belief. does that give you pause? >> no, not necessarily. look, i want to be clear, within hours after general soleimani was killed, i made a public statement to the effect that, the fact he is dead is a good thing. it is a positive signal for the safety and security of the american people. and i stand by that. this is a guy who would, who has done a lot of damage.

>> brennan: i am not sure if the senator can still hear me, i think we just had an interruption on that feed, so hopefully we will pick it up. standing by, though, in richmond, i am going live to virginia senator tim kaine. good morning to you, senator. >> good morning, margaret. >> and you and senator lee have actually found some common cause here, despite the difference in frustration, a lot of frustration regarding the president's lack of consultation with congress, and i want to dive into that. but let's start off specifically on what we learned, because you are on the senate foreign relations committee which has oversight of the state department and therefore embassies. were you aware that there was any kind of threat specifically to embassy baghdad and 3 other posts as the president has described? >> no, i wasn't, margaret. i was at the classified briefing because i am both an armed services and foreign relations member, that was not told to us

in the classified briefing. nor was there a suggestion that multiple embassies were threatened. and i think that was one of the reasons that the senators in the briefing were so unhappy. we felt that the evidence was far short of imminent threat. we were mad that they were so peace. and we also thought that the administration was very cavalier about the iraqi reaction, the iraqi resolution of parliament that the u.s. should leave. they are like oh that's just the way the iraqis talk, there is a very serious concern and the administration is downplaying it in a way that i think was very unrealistic. but specifically the defense secretary said the gang of eight a was told in specific detail and they chose hot to characterize it to congress. you are saying you were never told of a threat to this embassy? >> no, no. and as i talked to the gang of eight, again, this is classified information, i am

not going put that out on the table, but members of the gang of eight were not happy with the degree of this question of was there an imminent threat? the administration says there was exquisite detailed intelligence, that means there s specific but for it be,justiftf soil to wip ian militade imminent threat and that usually means it is more than a plan, there has been some move toward making a decision to execute on the plan and we heard nothing about that in the briefing or in any of the conversations i have had with the administration leaders. >> brennan: why is it not sufficient enough for the administration to say broadly there was a threat to u.s. personnel in the region as esper said within with days? why don't you trust that? >> well, look, bottom line is, the constitution makes it really plain it is congress that gets to make the decision on whether to go to war and ultimately that is a judgment about the troops weapon don't want to put our troops in harm's way unless

there is deliberation from the american people about whether it is important. now a president can act unilaterally to stop,end against an ongoing attack or imminent through but if it is more than that it is supposed to be for congress because congress will have this debate in a way that the american public will be informed of the the date it is fair to say to their limb and life.es to >> then you run the chance of making mistakes of consequences you can never undo them. the president says he doesn't want to go to war. >> i want to get to that authorization of use of force. >> yes. >> brennan: we went back and we looked and the ring map from 2001 and there is one in in '02 but in the wake of the al qaeda attacks on this country, that was a premise for in authorization congress gave at the time. >> right. >> brennan: it was then used over the past almost 20 years to send troops to to libya, turkey,

georgia, syria, iraq, afghanistan, the yemen, djibouti, the philippines, cuba. there are democrats presidents, why full-throated effort to get a new authorization for military force? >> well, margaret as you know i have been working on this since i came to the senate and i have the same concern. when i came to the senate in 2013 i criticized president obama for taking us into military action in libya without congressional authorization. for going on isis and iraq and syria without congressional authorization. i will say this. when i started on this crusade of six, seven years ago, very few people were interested in it. but in the last year, the good news is, finally members of both parties and in both houses have started to step up and take the congressional responsibility seriously. i do think we have to rewrite and redoutzation that authorizes us to wage war

against nine state terrorist groups that are connected to the perpetrators of 9/11 what you are proposing now, and -- >> here is what i am proposing now. >> brennan: you are working with senator leon it but i want to point out there doesn't seem to be a carveout for imminent threats. >> and there should be. >> how would that not stop what the president just did? >> well, senator lee and i are basically trying to restore this to its constitutional place. so we have a resolution, that basically says no war against iran unless congress specifically votes to authorize it but we do state as we point out the president can defend the nation against an imminent threat. and that is existing law, that is the constitutional framers clearly understood that, we are skeptical of the evidence that this president has put on the table about imminent threat and that's why we are challenging the briefers and that's why we are challenging the president, but at the end of the day, i think this is less aboutt than t

congress. congress of both parties for a very long time have hidden under their desks rather than have votes about war, votes about war are tough, i rations committee, fundamentally different than any vote you will ever cast. >> yes. >> and so many members of congress what they want to go is hide under their desk, let the president just do whatever the president wants, and then they think they can escape accountability for the consequences of war. >> yes. >> it is time to go back to what the framers envisioned. we shouldn't send our best and brighter into harm a's way if congress doesn't have the guts to have a debate and have a vote. >> brennan: all right, senator mccain thank you for lang, mccain, senator mike leon board with it and he joins us now, senator thanks for sticking with us and i know there were some problems with the up link there but we can see and hear you now just fine. .. what senator kaine said is here elected official wanted to get their hand dirty and go on the record to vote for a war which is why congress allowed for this to continue without a new vote on -- can you get other

republicans on board with this beyond your receive and rand paul? >> yes. we can. and i believe we will. look, my grievance here is not with the president of the united states. hehe exercised his power with great restraint and respect for the constitution. it is not even really as much with the briefers, even though i didn't love the briefing the other day as it is with congress. congress is the problem. we have to remember that this isn't just about this president or this war. this is about a about the future question of what any president can do to get us into any war a. over many decades congresses and white houses of every conceivable partisan combination have put us down the path where it is easy for congress to wash their hands of it and step away and say this isn't our problem. we need to look at this problem and -- give a full explanation -- >> brennan: all right with.an y? >> yes. >> brennan: okay.

good. we had an interruption there. you spoke to the president. have you received any private assurance that congress would be consulted if he plans to take future military action against iran? >> yes. and it is always implicit that we will be consulted. i always want to make sure that any step that is taken is either authorized by one of the amuf in question, in '02 or '01 or that there is some indication that the strike in question is necessary in order to repel an imminent or actual attack on the united states. that is always the question and it is one of the reasons why i am cosponsored tim kaine's resolution is to make clear that a neither the 01 or the '02 authorization can be read fair throw authorize a war against iran. >> brennan: but this was -- anything short of war, there is hostile activity. there is, you know, a targeted strike like this. and in what you are supporting here, this resolution, there is

still a carveout for an imminent threat. so how would that stop the administration there doing again what it just did? >> well, any time we have something like this and we signal in advance it is not covered by an existing amuf then yes, we are relying on the good faith use of a commander in chief power by the president. this is not a new precedent, it is not contingent or rooted in this presidential administration. this goes back to 1791, when george washington pointed out it is okay for the president to act in order to repel an actual or imminent attack without authorization from congress. but he also oated that it is important that any sustained military effort does have to be authorized. >> brennan: yojoinin next me i hope you are here sitting across from me so we can see and hear each other more clearly next time. we will be back in a moment we will be back in a moment >>

where others see chaos, we see patterns. ♪ connections. relationships. ♪ when you use location technology, you can see where things happen, before they happen. ♪ with esri location technology, you can see what others can't. ♪

♪ seu entethh r ors. don't sew willeis a spark. we see your kindness and humanity. the strength of each community. the more we look the more we find the sparks that make america shine. ♪

>> presidential campaign trail where former secretary of state john kerry is on a campaign bus trip with former vice president joe biden, and you can hear that bus generator going in the background. good morning to you, mr. secretary. sorry about that. >> good morning, margaret. good to be with you. >> brennan: i want to pick up kind of where we just left off with the two senators. you know, you have been touting joe biden's foreign policy experience as a reason voters should consider voting for him. bernie sanders, his opponent has taken that on as a reason essentially not to specifically focus in on biden's vote to help authorize the war in iraq. he called it appalling that after eight a teen years joe biden still refuses to admit he was dead wrong on the iraq war,r in modern american history.

given what you know about the region and how iran was essentially empowered by that, why doesn't he just call it a mistake? >> well, i think -- in fact, margaret, i think that bernie regrettably is distorting joe's record in the following sense. i mean, he doesn't have what joe biden has, which is eight years of sitting on the national security council, demonstrating his judgment, whether it was on his leadership dealing with the migration that was flowing across our border and helping to resolve that with the presidents of those countries or his work pulling troops out of iraq and negotiating that and working as perhaps the lead point man on that effort. i think that -- i know very well what joe's position was, because i answered those questions back in 2002, 20-- 2003 and 2004 and

it was very clear that what we were doing was listening to a president who made a pledge that he was going to do diplomacy, that he was going to exhaust diplomacy, build a coalition, and a ultimately we learned as joe did and i did that the intelligence was distorted. so joe spoke out and criticized, joe was against what they were doing. the vote was not a vote specifically to go to war. it was a vote for the president to have leverage with respect to getting saddam hussein back to the negotiating table, back to the inspections, excuse me. and i think we were let down and joe has said many times that it was a mistake, obviously, to trust the words of the administration who didn't follow through on what they said they were going to do. and i invite you to go back and read my speech on the floor and others where i said there is not a vote specifically to let the president go to war. so i think bernie is trying to

drive a wedge in there. i understand that, but i think the vice president has unparalleled demonstrated accomplishment and success in foreign policy as chairman of the foreign relations committee and as vice president. and he, in my judgment, is the one person running for president -- >> brennan: yes. >> -- who the moment he takes office has the ability to be able to address a lot of questions, including the credibility of the united states. joe has told the truth. people know that, and i think they will trust in his capacity to lead the country at a very, very delicate time when foreign policy experience is, in fact, a premium. >> brennan: well, it is and in iran you know is front and center right now but virtually every single democrat running for office right now is claiming the same or virtually the same iran policy which is to try to revive the deal that you negotiated. some would say there is a shell of it left now.

shouldn't voters expect more out of an iran strategy from someone trying to be commander in chief? >> well, joe biden is, in fact, providing more, which is to recognize that it is not enough just to go back to where we were, because obviously circumstances have changed and things have evolved in the last three and a half years. and what the haven't biden knows we have to do is make sure now that all the things that we were going to do in the follow on agreement, which was always contemplated -- margaret, you were there, you are an expert in this. you know exactly what the truth is about it. we were trying to take the nuclear weapon off the table first and then negotiate yemen, hezbollah, threats against israel, the regional question of trafficking of arms, and so vice president front and

center as you revive the agreement, but the truth is, france, ger china, russia, are all still trying to keep the agreement in place because they recognizes the the strongest, most transparent, most accountable nuclear agreement on the planet. >> well -- >> and it did take a nuclear agreement off the table until trump decided unilaterally to ignore all of our allies and moved to get out of the agreement and to the president's last days -- >> going on the attack on that deal this morning, specifically mentioning you, perhaps not a surprise, but, you know, i know the deal you negotiated lifted sanctions, gave some relief in exchange for capping the nuclear program. there was also parallel negotiation that released some cash as part of a d the president this week put blame on the administration, the administration you served on

with essentially helping to provide money to the irgc. i want to play a sound bit of what you said in 2016 to cnbc when you were asked about how iran would spend the money. >> i think that some of it will end up in the hands of the irgc or other entities, some of which are labeled terrorists, you know, to some degree i am not going to sit here and tell you that every component of that can be prevented, but i can tell you this. right now, we are not seeing the early delivery of funds going to that kind of endeavor at this point in time. i am sure at some point some of it will. >> brennan: i remember talking to you at the time, money is fungible. >> sure. >> why, though -- >> absolutely. money is fungible. >> why did you think that was a risk worth taking if you of whad happen with that money? >> well, what i was really

saying, i think, first of all, margaret, you are an expert at this. you were there. you know that the president's tweet is a lie, and the president tweeted this morning because i am coming on the show and he knew you would ask me the question or he would put you in a place where you did ask the question. you and the media, i think, need to call a lie a lie. you know -- >> mr. secretary, i asked you that question in 2015 too. >> no, no let me finish. >> yes. and i will answer that. i was saying clearly some money from the budget of iran is going to go to the irgc, it always has. that's no surprise. but the truth is dsn't know this, but the fact is his own defense intelligence agency in 2017 testified to the congress that very, very little money actually went to the irgc at all. most of the money economy of iran which is

precisely what i said and what we all said. so the irgc has never had a problem getting money, margaret, but the fact is, donald trump keeps saying they got $150 billion, a lie, he keeps saying all of that money went to pay for it, it did not. his own defense intelligence agency says most of the money went for the economy of the country. so, you know, we have to stop dealing with questions on donald trump's lies and start dealing with the reality of what is going on, the fact is that the vast proportion of that money went to the economy of iran. >> brennan: yes. >> and they are always going to be funding the irgc, there was no question about a that. >> brennan: right. >> and the irgc budget has not gone up markedly because of the agreement, period. >> mr. secretary, thank you for joining us. i want to take a break as we report from iran. >>

when you humble yourself under the mighty hand of god, in due time he will exalt you. hi, i'm joel osteen. i'm excited about being with you every week. i hope you'll tune in. you'll be inspired, you'll be encouraged. i'm looking forward to seeing you right here. you are fully loaded and completely equipped for the race that's been designed for you. cbs news foreign correspondent elizabeth palmer has been reporting from tehran all week, yesterday she were unexpectedly asked to leave by the iranian authorities and have now departed iran, before she left she filed this reporter's

notebook. >> this weekended with the unthinkable. passr killg erye shoin on b.but had wh the revered military hero, qasem soleimani. >> this is not just a mourning procession, it is a political message. in all my years of covering iran i have never seen stump high-stakes drama. >> the foreign minister warned the u.s. revenge was coming. >> in a clear and proportionate. >> when? >> as we choose. >> they chose that very night. >> iranian missiles fell on two u.s. bases in iraq. >> a rocket attack was launched against the el el assad air bas. >> the world held its breath. >> the fact we have this great military equipment, however, does not mean we have to use it.

we do not want to use it. >> but with no casualties, america held its fire. the two r to call it a draw. ordinary tehran anies heading it out in the first snowfall of the season called it a relief. >> were you relieved when he said there would not be another american attack? >> yes. >> i sleep. >> well? >> very well. >> but another bombshell was about to burst. >> cbs news has learned that u.s. officials are confident that iran shot down a ukrainian jetliner. >> on wednesday morning, wreckage and bodies from ukrainian airlines flight 752 lay strewn across iran's western suburbs. >> by friday when we managed to reach the site there was little left, even for the scavengers. >> local people say that yesterday, thursday, around lunchcks, cshe

pieces that were here away. >> amid rumors of a coverup, world leaders called for an international investigation and the victims families prayed for answers to soothe their grief. >> the answer came suddenly in a stunning tv address that said iran's army had shot down the plane by mistake. >> it was a huge admission for this proud and -- country that may have appeased critics outside of iran but it has inflamed them at home. protests erupted in tehran last night, crowds of students who despise the government for its understandings and ineptitude. iran starts next week not only in conflict with the u.s. but also with itself. >> elizabeth palmer reporting from tehran. we will be right back. >> . p,

witcuers, att so, in case you're looking, e e can help in one place. free training, tools, and small business resources are now available at google.com/grow

>> brennan: that's it for us today. thank you for watching. until next week, for "face the nation", i am margaret brennan. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org ♪

>> welcome to the "overnight news." i'm elaine quijano. the death toll from severe storms that roared across the country this weekend has risen again. at least 12 people are now confirmed dead, some from at least nine tornadoes that tore through the south. more than 230,000 lost power. 13,000 flights are canceled or delayed, and in the east, record heat. boston and pittsburgh both hit 70 degrees. it was a weekend of extremes, as meg oliver reports. tornadoes ripped through at least three states this weekend. in carrollton, alabama, larry