♪ i'm garmargaret brennan in washington. this week on "face the nation," change is coming to washington. as both parties try to move past the chaos of campaigns '20 and '22, a certain former president is not on board with that. it was a seismic but not surprising announcement. >> the hour has come for a new generation to lead the democratic caucus. >> it's a changing of the guard as democrats move to the minority. that new generation is younger, more diverse and untested when it comes to facing a potential barrage of federal investigations. >> they give you one gavel with the power and the power of subpoena as well and we're going to use it. >> but the republican party will have to deal with the fallout

from attorney general michelle gielan derek merrick garland. >> appointeding a special counsel at this time is the right thing to do. the extraordinary circumstances presented here demand it. >> we'll talk with the former trump deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein, as well as house judiciary democrat zoe lofgren. plus, the former vice president opens up to us about january 6th and the big issue dividing him and themer president. >> the 2020 election was not stolen. we'll take a look at the turmoil in the tech world as twitter teeters. ka kara swisher and scat galloway join us. it's all ahead on "face the nation."

. good morning. welcome to "face the nation." there is some breaking news overnight from colorado as we have learned that five people are dead and at least 18 others have been injured in a mass shooting at club q, an lgbtq nightclub in colorado springs. police say they do have the alleged shooter in custody and the fbi is assisting with the investigation. we begin this morning with former deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. he appointed robert mueller as special counsel for the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election and to determine if there were links between that country and former president trump's campaign. and he joins us in studio. it is good to have you here in an extraordinary week. >> good morning. glad to be here. >> i want to get right to it. due to the former president launching his campaign, the current president may also run for president, the attorney general said it is absolutely

necessary to have a special counsel oversee this investigation into the classified documents found at mar-a-lago and what happened with trying to change the outcome of the 2020 election. if you were in the old role you once had, would you have appointed a special counsel? >> you know, it's easy to second guess from outside the department. i don't know exactly what merrick garland knows, what information was available to him. he didn't say he was required to appoint the special counsel. he said that he thought it was the right thing to do. i believe the circumstances i faced the appointment of robert mueller was the right thing to do with the russian investigation. i think merrick garland made a discretion decision. the department handled it for two years, could have continued to handle it but he thinks this would promote public confidence. it remains to be seen if that's the case. >> you wouldn't have done this? >> my inclination given the investigation had been going on for some time and given the

stage which they've reached, is that i probably would not have. i just can't tell from the outside. >> from where you sit, does the appointment of a special counsel indicate at least a willingness on merrick garland's part to go ahead with the prosecution or is that overreading the decision? >> i think what it indicates is that, you know, despite the fact the department has been at this for some time, almost two years on the january 6th investigation, close to a year of the mar-a-lago investigation, that they still believe that they have a viable potential case. it doesn't mean they made a decision to go forward. but it certainly is an indication they believe it's a possibility. >> now, one case that's been going on longer, the investigation into hunter biden, which cbs has learned the fbi has gathered sufficient evidence to charge him with tax and gun-related crimes. and that is before the u.s. attorney in delaware, david weiss, i believe you know him since he was a trump appointee. can he independently oversee this or do we need another special counsel?

>> this investigation, as you said, has been going on for a very long time, which is not good for anybody and promotes conspiracy theories and suspicion. my hope is the department will make a decision in the near future whether to go forward and hopefully that decision will be accepted by the public. i do believe that the u.s. attorney in delaware has the right experience to make that decision, so i think we can be confident he'll make the right decision in that case. >> okay. so not in that case, but let me ask you about the content of what is being scrutinized here with the former president. i know when you were u.s. attorney in maryland, you dealt with individuals who took classified material, sometimes top secret csi clearance level and kept it at home, and you prosecuted them to the full extent of the law. why should the president be any different? >> you're right. we did have a lot of federal agencies in maryland and so we had a number of cases that came up during my 12 years as u.s. attorney. both under president obama and president bush. and we prosecuted those cases

because we believed the facts justified it. if the facts justify prosecution of president trump, i think the department will make that decision. but we just don't know what the outside. you know, there are extenuating circumstances when it's the president, when there are a lot of staffers and lawyers involved. so i think we have to see how that all shakes out. >> former attorney general barr sat with pbs and this was right before merrick garland's announcement, but he said to indict, the justice department needs to show mr. trump was consciously involved. let's hear what he had to say. >> i personally think that they probably have the basis for legitimately indicting the president. i don't know. i'm speculating. >> you're speculating. >> but given what's gone on, i believe they probably have the evidence that would check the box. they have the case. >> do you agree? >> well, i don't know. i think the attorney general barr, that is mentioned later in that interview, that he was speculating. and i think it's -- you know, there are multiple levels of issue that the department needs to consider, margaret.

number one is, is the evidence sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction? number two is, is it an appropriate use of federal resources to bring that case? a case against the former president, obviously, would be extraordinary. would raise unique concerns. so, i would hope merrick garland and his team would be very careful about scrutinizing that evidence. not just checking the box, but making sure that they're prepared to stand behind the decision that they make. >> so, when you say sustain a conviction, what do you mean by that? does that mean looking at the courts that are likely to prosecute? where would you prosecute this case? florida or washington, d.c.? >> it means ensuring, number one, you get past a jury, that is persuade 12 random citizens that your case proves the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and, number two, it will be sustained or upheld on appeal. the department sometimes brings cases in which they use novel theories that prevail in district court but overruled on appeal. if you bring a case against the former president, you would want

to make sure they were lock solid and prevailing of any appeal. >> and there wouldn't be some national security implication such as political violence? >> you know, that's -- that's a difficult issue, margaret, as to whether or not the attorney general should consider the potential for public unrest if they were to bring a case against the president. >> it has to be considered. >> i think it highlights the importance of the department ensuring that they have a solid case. that is they're going to win a conviction and be able to sustain an appeal. the circumstances, the stakes are higher than in an ordinary case. you need to make sure if you bring that case, you can persuade people that is measurer to -- meritorious and you can win. >> the former president has already said he's not going to comply with any investigations. he said that on friday. what does this mean for the timeline? are we running right into the 2024 presidential campaign? >> i'm concerned about the

timing. obviously, the new special counsel, jack smith, needs to get up to speed in the case. he's not even in the u.s., so he needs to come back and get engaged and supervise his team. he may need to bring in additional team members, people he trusts, to review the circumstances. and then there are other potential delays as well. one of the downsides of appointing a special counsel is the possibility of litigation over the validity of the appointment of the special counsel. that has always been upheld by the courts. litigation can impose additional delays. i think there's a fair chance that this is going to drag in -- well into the campaign season. >> and then the question of whether the candidate wins or not. rod rosenstein, thank you for your insight and for joining us today. >> thank you. before the appointment of a special counsel was announced last week, we spoke with former vice president mike pence about his new book "so help me god." in our wide-ranging conversation, mr. pence details

his story up to and including the january 6th attack. >> the president's words and actions in and around january 6th were reckless. the tweet that he issued the day that i was in the loading dock below the united states senate, endangered my family and endangered people that were in the capitol. and was indefensible. >> why did it take you two years to talk about your anger? weren't you incandescent with rage that your family was put at risk like that? >> margaret, i was angry that day, and many days since. on january 6th i have to tell you that i had to put that aside. the president had decided to be a part of the problem. i was determined to be a part of the solution. to work with leaders in congress, leaders at the pentagon, leaders in law enforcement, to do our part to

finish our work under the constitution. >> you were calling and trying to get the national guard to come in and restore order. did you feel you had to do that because the commander in chief was derelict in his duties? >> margaret, i didn't know what the president was doing at the time. i wasn't at the white house. i had no contact with the president or the white house that day. but when i spoke to the congressional leaders in our first conference call, they informed me that they were getting mixed messages from security personnel. and i asked them if they wanted me to get involved. and they did. >> do you think president trump needs to be held responsible in his events -- in the events that led to january 6th and the violence of that day? >> well, i think everyone that perpetrated the violence at the capitol needs to be held to the strictest account -- >> what about those who fed it? what about those who gave it the oxygen, the lie oxygen to mislead people? >> i'm confident the american

people will hold all those responsible at the end of the day, and history will be their judge. in my book, i -- what i tried to do is share a candid story about the evolution of that controversy. the president -- >> you lay it out in detail leading up to january 6th. it's almost like you couldn't believe this, because you kept telling him over and over, this is not legal, this is not constitutional. >> i did. >> do you look back -- >> many people did. >> -- and say, i wasn't forceful enough and what could you have done differently? >> well, i did tell the president many times that after he exhausted every legal challenge that the campaign had every right to pursue, that he should simply accept the results. the president was hearing from a codray of attorneys who, frankly, should never have been let on the white house grounds, let alone in the oval office,

telling him what the bible says his itching ears wanted to hear. my hope was is that at the end of the day, he would come around. i remember on the night of january 4th, we had a meeting with the president. and part of that legal team in the oval office. the president left on the helicopter. there were no harsh words between us, but he was continuing to make his case and i was continuing to make my position clear. but at his rally in georgia, which i watched on television, the president actually opened the rally about speaking about me. >> i hope that our great vice president, our great vice president comes through for us. he's a great guy. of course, if he doesn't come through, i won't like him quite as much. >> but then he paused. and he said to the crowd, now, one thing you know about mike pence is he always plays it straight. >> and then he called you the next day.

>> i remember in that moment thinking, he might be coming around. >> but he wasn't. >> my continued hope was that at the end of the day, he would recognize what our duty was on that day. as presiding officer under the constitution, to oversee the count of the electoral vote of an election that we lost, but it was not to be. >> will you answer questions about that day before congress? >> congress has no right to my testimony. we have a separation of powers under the constitution of the united states. and i believe it would establish a terrible precedent for the congress to summon a vice president of the united states to speak about deliberations that took place at the white house. >> so, you're closing the door on that entirely? >> i'm closing the door on that. but i must say, again, the partisan nature of the january 6th committee has been a disappointment to me. >> the lawyers and the chief of staff to the president at the

time, mark meadows, who let those lawyers, who had no business on the white house grounds, you think no consequence, only prosecute the people who actually physically went to the capitol? >> there are those that are speaking in defense of people that rioted the capitol and created the conditions where lives were lost. but i believe everyone that was rioting in the capitol that day and perpetrating violence needs to be held to the strictest account of the law. but i do believe that at the end of the day, the american people will hold accountable those that permitted the circumstances around which january 6th was able to flourish into violence that day. >> you also think the fbi executing a search warrant to take classified material from the former president's home was not the way the justice department should have handled it. but to be clear, were you ever

personally concerned about mr. trump's handling of classified information? >> i don't recall ever being concerned about the president or anyone in our administration's handling of classified information. at least among the senior staff, of which i had regular contact. >> but if he had, he would be prosecuted, you would think? >> well, let me say, you know, no one is above the law, but as someone that served on the judiciary committee for more than ten years, having oversight over the justice departmet, i just think there were many better ways to obtain those classified materials from mar-a-lago than to execute a search warrant against a former president of the united states of america. something that had never happened in american history, margaret. >> and never been prosecuted. do you think that that should happen? >> well, my -- my hope is that the justice department will think very carefully about next

steps, you know. i mean, this is a very divided time in the life of our nation. i think our nation needs to heal, but the idea of executing a search warrant against a former president of the united states sent the wrong message to the american people. frankly, sent the wrong message to the wider world that looks at the united states of america as the standard. and that was my disappointment in the decision to execute a search warrant. >> there will be more of our conversation with the former vice president just ahead. we turn now to california congresswoman zoe lofgren. she serves on the judiciary committee and the select committee investigating january 6th. good morning to you, congresswoman. i want to get straight to it. does the refusal of the vice president and the former president to comply with your investigation in any way impede the impact or outcome? >> well, we wish they had come in. certainly, other presidents have come in when asked by the

congress, including gerald ford, teddy roosevelt, many others. it is almost thanksgiving and the committee turns into a pumpkin at the end of december, so we don't have time to litigate this. but i think they've cheated history and they should have done otherwise. we, on the other hand, have received substantial information from other sources and we're in the process of, as i'm sure you know, writing our report now. >> you're continuing to gather information, as i understand it, speaking to two secret service officials recently. what more do you need and are you still sharing that information with the justice department? >> well, we're not sharing information with the justice department. we're doing our own investigation. however, we anticipate when our report is released, to release all of the evidence that we have

asse assembled so the public can see it, including the department of justice. leasut you have, i understand, menthe o is that not the case? >> well, we're not -- no, we're -- we're doing our own investigation. >> right. >> and within a month the public will have everything we found, all the evidence. for good or ill. and i think we've -- as we've shown in our hearings, made a compelling presentation that the former president was at the center of the effort to overturn a duly elected election, assembled the mob, sent it over to congress to try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power. it's pretty shocking. >> as we know, the justice department has its own investigation and that's what led us to the attorney general making news just a few days ago with this special counsel to take up the events surrounding

january 6th. but what does putting this in the hands of a special counsel accomplish here? do you think it actually removes politics or does it still just keep it there since the attorney general will still have oversight of the special counsel? >> well, i think from what the attorney general said, he sought to depoliticize this investigation. obviously, career professionals are doing it, and to have a special counsel overseeing it, but the right wing never fails. up is down and down is up. the effort to depoliticize, they're now criticizing is somehow a political measure. so, you know, the effort to segregate the investigation from the attorney general himself is in the eye of the beholder and, w

of course, the former president is saying he will not partake as if it's a slice of pizza. it's not up to him. he's being investigated for his offenses and we'll see what they find. >> you sit on the judiciary committee. you just heard rod rosenstein say he thinks the da in maryland is sufficient to decide what to do with hunter biden and that case. i wonder if you agree with that or if you think your republican colleagues are right to ask for a special counsel to deal with the current president's son? >> well, i don't know anything about that case. certainly in the case of -- >> but you have oversight of the justice department. >> yeah. but we don't -- i served with mike pence on the judiciary committee. we don't oversee and interfere with individual investigations and cases. that would be improper in terms of oversight. you know, if the president's son has committed offenses, then,

you know, there will be a judgment on whether to prosecute or not. that's the rule of law. just as the rule of law applies to the former president. people in this country have to adhere to the law. and, you know, if you don't, if you commit an offense and the facts are there, then there will be a prosecution. that's what it's about, living in a country where the rule of law, not just politics, leads us. that's about our democratic republic. >> well, the issue of what to do with hunter biden will come before your committee as the chair -- incoming chair of it as said, along with the head of oversight they want to lead investigation -- >> it's nothing -- there's no role for the legislative body in a prosecution. >> no. understood. but are you prepared as democrats for this knife fight? >> well, i mean, we're going to be there. and the incoming judiciary committee chair has a history of

playing a little fast and loose with the truth. we're aware of that. and we'll be there as truth sayers. >> we will be watching. congresswoman, thank you. "face the nation" will be back in a minute. i'm down with rybelsus®. my a1c is down with rybelsus®. in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill. in the same study, people taking rybelsus® lost more weight. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration,

which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. retiring by the end of the year, but not before sitting down with us for an interview next sunday on "face the nation." r advice i. based on your goals, whatever they may be. all that planning has paid off. looks like you can make this work. we can make this work. and the feeling of confidence that comes from our advice? i can make this work. that seems to be universal. i can make this work. i can make this work. no wonder more than 9 out of 10 clients are likely to recommend us. because advice worth listening to is advice worth talking about. ameriprise financial. cleaning is the worst. seriously. there's gotta be a better way. so we gave swiffer a shot. if we don't love it, we get our money back!

spoiler alert: love it! sweeper's heavy duty dry cloths grab dust and hair and lock it away, better than my broom that can push it around. it even gets into hard-to-clean grooves and grout lines! cool! and swiffer duster gets in all those hard-to-reach-places... trapping 3x more dust. heeh yah. switching to swiffer. totally worth it. love it, or your money back. for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis who are positive for acetylcholine receptor antibodies, it may feel like the world is moving without you. but the picture is changing, with vyvgart. in a clinical trial, participants achieved improved daily abilities with vyvgart added to their current treatment. and vyvgart helped clinical trial participants achieve reduced muscle weakness. vyvgart may increase the risk of infection. in a clinical study, the most common infections were urinary tract and respiratory tract infections. tell your doctor if you have a history of infections or if you have symptoms of an infection.

vyvgart can cause allergic reactions. the most common side effects include respiratory tract infection, headache, and urinary tract infection. picture your life in motion with vyvgart. a treatment designed using a fragment of an antibody. ask your neurologist if vyvgart could be right for you. if you can't watch the full "face the nation," you can set your dvr or watch on our cbs streaming network throughout the day on sundays.

good checkup? no, great checkup. aw thank you, doc. for great checkups, crest has you covered because crest pro-health protects 100% of your mouth for 24 hours. i mean we're talking dental hall of fame! densify from crest pro health. like bones, your teeth lose density over time. but crest has you covered. crest densify actively rebuilds tooth density to extend the life of teeth. crest the #1 toothpaste brand in america. how real is the threat of a nuclear disaster or an attack somewhere in the world? "60 minutes" sits down with the person who knows best tonight on cbs.

>> it is week 11 and this weekend brought 77 inches of snow to orchard park, boomer. boomer: that is about the same height of their quarterback. >> the games