i'm jane pauley. "face the nation" is just ahead. and please join us when our trumpet sounds again next sunday morning. ♪ . i'm major garrett in washington. 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. >> the attack on our nation's

capitol on january 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on a 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 emphasie that the indictment is only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. >> 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 cyber security and infrastructure security agency now a cbs news expert and analyst, chris krebs. trump attorney john lauro will also be with us.

what do americans think? >> every time they file an indictment we go way up in the polls. we need one more indictment to close out this election. >> will trump's theory hold? former congressman and gop hopeful will hurd will join us. minnesota democrat dean phillips says his party should look for an alternative to president biden. we'll 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 thereof been eliminated in the world cup. in the u.s. the impact of former president trump's third indictment has not only underscored divisions in our

country between the parties but appears republicans are divided as well, with some trump supporters believing he did not wrong, others not so sure, nand that light we begin with former vice president mike pence once seen as extremely loyal to trump, that is until they lost the 2020 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. >> president trump was wrong. he was wrong then, he is 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 for my part, i'm running for president in part, frankly because president trump asked me to put him over the constitution that day, and i chose the constitution and i always will. >> i want to ask you about characterizations that have been made by those who speak on behalf of the president's legal

team, they asked this week all they asked of you, 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? >> major, that's not what happened. from some time in the middle of december, the president began to be told 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. it ebbed and flowed between different legal theories, but at the end of the day we did our duty and kept our oath. i truly do believe that, you know, no one who ever puts themselves over the constitution should ever be president of the united states. >> mr. vice president, if this case comes to trial, would you be a witness against the president? >> people can be confident, we'll obey the law and respond to the call of the law if it comes, and we'll just tell the

truth. look, i've been telling this story over the last two years, but i must tell you, over the last week it seems more and more americans have been coming up to me and expressing a word of appreciation for what by god's grace we did that day. >> to be clear m vice president, you do not regard this indictment as the political persecution of the former president? >> well, i've been very concerned about politization at the justice department for years. i've been deeply troubled to see the double standard between, you know, the way that the justice department has gone after the president and responded even in -- with other republicans and pro life americans and the way they seem to take no interest in getting to the bottom of allegations of corruption around president biden's family. 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's entitled to the

presumption of innocence. >> mr. vice president, tell me about these notes that 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 notetaker throughout your time as vice president? did you hand them off to staff? were these things you kept yourself? tell me about the note process. >> 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 to memmalize it and remember it and i did that in this case. i generally didn't make a practice of taking notens in meetings over a four-year period of time. given the momentous events that were unfolding i did take a few notes reminding myself of what had been said. the first time the president raised the issue with me that he was being told that i had the right to overturn the election,

reject the return votes, i told him i knew i had no such authority. 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, it at the end of the day, the president continued to hold to that view, but i knew what my duty was. as i said, by god's grace we did our duty on that fateful day. >> mr. vice president, what do you believe the president's state of mind about whether he won or lost the 2020 election? >> you know, i really can't say. i don't know what was in his mind, and it seemed to me through all that period of time, 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 dozen

states that changed the rules in the name of covid and frankly changed them in ways that could benefit democrat candidates. in 60 lawsuits, all which i supported and in reviews of state levels, there was never any evidence of widespread fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election in any states. >> 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 he knew he had lost and was preparing to leave the white house? >> i remember one occasion before christmas where the president asked me what he thought we ought to do. we were just the two of us in the oval office, major. i remember i looked at him and 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, travel around the country. i remember the president standing in front of his desk listening very intently to me, and i'll never forget the way he

pointed at me as if to -- as if to say, that's worth thinking about. i don't know what was in his mind at the time. >> would you ever vote again for donald trump? >> look, i don't think i'll have to. i have to tell you, everywhere i go -- >> that wasn't the question, mr. vice president. would you ever vote for donald trump again? >> yeah. yeah. 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 themselves over the constitution should ever be president or be president again. this country is in a lot of trouble. 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 will secure our border, that will support our military, that will defend our liberties and values under steady assault by the biden administration, and we're going to work our hearts out to be the right to be that standard bearer. >> do you believe the former president can receive a fair trial in the district of columbia?

>> well, i would hope so, but i don't want to rejudge the indictment or prejudge whether the government can make their case. look, the president's entitled to a presumption of innocence, and i have every confidence 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. i'm also never going to waiver in making it kclear to people, whatever the outcome of this indictment and whatever -- wherever it goes, i know i did my duty that day. >> former vice president mike pence thank you for joining us. >> thank you, major. we turn now to bill barr who served as former president's attorney general until he resigned following the 2020 election. good to see you. >> good to see you. >> last time you were on the show you said, quote, the january 6th case will be a hard case to make because of first amendment interest. having read the indictment is that still your view? >> well, it's certainly a

challenging case, but i don't think it runs afoul of the first amendment. there's a lot of confusion out there about this and 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 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, nullify those lawful votes. >> disenfranchise people? >> right. >> and there were a number of things that were alleged. one of them is, that they tried to bully the state authorities o withdraw their certification by citing instances of fraud. 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 sayig consistently, the stuff you were spouting, you knew was wrong. if that was all it was ability about, i would be concerned on first amendment front. they go beyond that. the other elements the substitution of bogus panels not authorized panels, to claim 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 eject the biden votes or even to delay it. it doesn't matter whether it's to delay it or 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. >> that's it? >> that's when the crime is

complete. >> from a prosecutor's point of view, is this a case you would have brought? >> from a prosecutor's standpoint it's a legitimate case. >> from an attorney general point of view. >> there are other considerations and i would have aken those into account. i've said, really the rubicon was passed when attorney general garland picked smith because the kinds of decisions, the kinds of judgments that would say don't bring the case 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 -- >> were you interviewed by the special counsel? >> i'm not going to get into any discussions. >> would you appear as a witness if called? >> of course. >> could you describe your interactions with the president on this case about whether or not he won or lost and what you told him? >> well, i wasn't discussing -- i go through that in my book in painstaking detail, but on three occasions at least, and -- i told him in no uncertain terms that there was no evidence of

fraud that would have changed the outcome. >> those associated with the trump's defense team 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 about how thorough that investigation was that led you to tell the president what you told him. how thorough was that investigation? >> well, i think it satisfied us that there was no basis for concluding that there had been fraud in those instances. some of them were obvious, okay. one he keeps on repeating is that there were more -- 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 have heard no more about that. others required further investigation, interviews and so forth and those were done. >> i want to get your thoughts on hunter biden. on december 21st, nearly your last day in 2020 in your role of attorney general you said i think it's being handled professionally and responsibilitily with the department.

this is the hunter biden investigation. to this point i have seen no reason to appoint a special counsel. do you believe a special counsel should be appoint nouds in the hunter biden matter and do you regret not appoint one then? >> no. >> no to which? should one be appointed now? >> when i was the attorney general -- in order to appoint a special counsel you have to have a conflict or should have a conflict of interest. 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 is necessary. i felt that if i prejudged that and preempted his decision, it would set things up that he would have 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. >> do you believe a thorough investigation has -- >> yeah --

>> has been conducted? >> i did agree with the house republicans that there was a time where he should have appointed a special counsel. >> has that time passed? >> well, practically it may have passed because there's not very much time to get to the bottom of things unless weiss has been doing it consciously, we have to hear from weiss. >> the u.s. attorney in delaware? >> yes. >> do you believe as you said earlier there was shameful self-dealing and influence pedalling with regards to hunter biden and do you believe those are prosecutable actions? >> one thing i stress those are two different questions, right, and, you know, things can be shmeful without being illegal. yes, i think it's grotesque the cashing in on the office like that. apparently. but 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. >> you're concerned still whether or not it was thoroughly

investigated? >> i don't know. i would like to hear about it. some of the whistleblowers raised concerns in my mind. there's reasons for -- 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. apparently someone said it was the optics. what are the optics? you know, after the election, that it was the president-elect son? that's not a reason not to investigate. > william barr, thank you for your time very much. "face the nation" will be backk inin just one e moment. please stay with us.

i got this $1,000 camera for only $41 on dealdash. dealdash.com, online auctions since 2009. this playstation 5 sold for only 50 cents. this ipad pro sold for less than $34. and this nintendo switch, sold for less than $20. i got this kitchenaid stand mixer for only $56. i got this bbq smoker for 26 bucks. and shipping is always free. go to dealdash.com right now and see how much you can save. we go now to new york and cbs news elections and surveys director anthony salvanto who has reaction to the former president's indictment. what can you tell us? >> good morning, major. the polling this week we learned americans' response this week is more of what they think of donald trump's actions but what they think for democracy. first, half the country believes

that after 2020, with 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 it's upholding the rule of law and protecting that democracy. but, there's another 3 in 10, 29%, 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 republicns, 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? >> the survey data and perspective, thank you. we'll be rightht back. in my ozemempic® triri-zone, i lolowered my a a1c, cv ris, and lolost some weweight. in s studies, ththe majojority of pepeople reached d an a1c undnder 7 anand maintainined it. ozemempic® lowowers the rirk of majoror cardiovasascular evs such as ststroke, hearart atta, or deaeath in adulults alalso with knknown heart t di. and you u may lose w weight. adadults lost t up to 14 p po. ozozempic® i isn't fofor peoe with typype 1 diabetetes. don't share neneedles or p pe, oror reuse neeeedles. don't take ozezempic® if you or r your familily evever had mededullary ththyroid cancncer, oror have multltiple endococe neneoplasia sysyndrome typyp, oror if allergrgic to it.. stopop ozempic® and get medical l help rightht away if you getet a lump or swelllling in youour neck, sevevere stomachch pain, or n allelergic reactction. serious siside effectsts may ininclude pancncreatitis.. gallbladadder problelems may oc. tell y your providider about v n problems o or changes.s. tataking ozempmpic® with h a sulfononylurea or r insulin mamay increasese low blood sugagar risk. side effffects like e nausea, vomitingng,

and diarrhrhea may leaead to dehehydration,, whicich may worsrsen kidneyey problems.s. ask yoyour health h care provir about the e ozempic® tri-zone. yoyou may pay y as little e as. you lolove rich, delilicious ice e cream. but yourur stomach d doe'. that disagagreement ends rigight now. lactaid d ice cream m is the creamy, rereal ice creream you e that wilill never memess with your r stomach. lactaid icice cream. ♪ zyrtetec! ♪ works s hard at hohour one anand twice asas hard whenen you take e it again the e next day.. so betetty can be e the... barcode bebeat conductctor.

let's s be more than our a allergies!! and fofor fast, alallergy ref with a powowerful decocongest, try zyzyrtec-d. . welcome back. for the most part republican candidates challenging the former president for the republican party nomination are treading carefully in their reaction to the latest indictment. fearing that if not they will alienate the president's sizable base of support. that's not so with former texas congressman will hurd who joins us. good to see you. you were in des moines and 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 they thought you looked weak. looking back on that, do you wish you had done that differently or said differently or acted differently? >> absolutely not. 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. i stick behind it. this is one of the things that makes me unique in this race. i've been ideologically consistent about donald trump since 2015. i've 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 been to donald trump and that is not going to change. if we want to win elections we have to be talking about how do we have unprecedented peace at a time when the christ government is trying to surpass us as a super power, how do we hav education when our kids are failing. not talking about donald trump's baggage. if people agree i need them to go on hurd for america.com and give $1 to get on the debate stage. >> when you see the president's polling, your polling, the vast distance that's between the two, and the sentiment expressed by republicans over and over again

that they're with trump and not people like you who criticized him harshly. >> 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% 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 a national election. it's 50 elections and this is going to always tighten and the goal is sdpooshs, but you can't cite a state poll where you're in double digits? >> because the election is not today or it's not tomorrow. the election is 25 weeks away and 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 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 peak tomorrow. the goal is to peak before the first election. >> 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? if so how? >> i haven't hit the number yet, but i feel confident -- >> 40,000 donors. >> how close are you? >> i'm close. >> define close. >> i'm not -- >> 10,000? >> i'm not getting into details. i'm close. that's why i need the people watching go on hurd for america.com donate at least $1 to make sure they have someone who is ideologically consistent, meet the requirements to be on the debate stage. >> why are you still a republican? >> i'm still a republican because i believe in a strong foreign policy, believe in freedom, personal responsibility. that's not always reflected in many of the people that are in the party, but here's where it is reflected -- >> is it reflective of what donald trump does? >> not at all. but there's more people that identify with -- >> donald trump is not a good

republican? >> i don't think he's a good republican at all. donald trump is donald trump. and i believe in 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? i believe it's the people that are willing to vote for a republican and here's what i've learned crisscrossing this country. there are more people sick and tired of the direction the democratic party is going and what they want is someone who is not a jerk, who is not a racist, misogamist, not a homophobe. this is the opportunity the republican party has, and that's the brand that -- >> the four words you used do all apply to former president trump? >> at times absolutely and at times other candidates in this race. slavery, there's no upside to slavery. we shouldn't have to be having that conversation in 2023. >> will hurd, republican candidate f for the preresidenc

2024 t thank you f for beieing us. >> thank y you. >> we'll b be back in n just on momement. it's posossible toto get outute - [speakaker] to f feel sense ofof camaradaderie agagain. - [speakaker] to f find the toolols to livive life b bet. - [narrarator] thrhrough generousus communinity suppop, we've coconnected d warriorsrd their fafamilies w with no ct physicalal and menental healah servrvices, lelegislativive adv, carereer assisistance, a ande skilill trainining for 2 20 y, and we a are just t getting g s. (ambience of room, birds, scrolling content on phone)

you tried. limiting when it was okay. no tech behind closed doors. but social media's algorithms of addiction always won out. it's not your fault. alone you can't stop it. together, we will. we have a plan. join us. ( ♪♪♪ )

we will be right back with a lot more "face the nation." up next, trump attorney john lauro. please stay with us.

>> it's one of the great sport cities in the country. kansas city has embraced their newest franchise with standing ovations 8 seconds at a time.