The hosts of CBS This Morning have previously fawned over Hillary Clinton and potential candidate Elizabeth Warren, but on Tuesday they grilled Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul. The Senator appeared to promote his new book, but Charlie Rose focused on Paul's stand against government surveillance. He dismissed, "Senator McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham have both said this is revenue-raising, that is a performance."
After the Republican denied the claim, Rose wondered, "So, it's not about selling books?" Regarding bulk data collection and the Senate fight over it, Norah O'Donnell repeated Obama administration talking points, saying of Attorney General Loretta Lynch: "Her office had previously prosecuted more terrorism cases and they say they need this ability, these roving wiretaps, in in order to prevent terrorism. Why not do that if it would prevent another attack?"
Paul shot back, "The Department of Justice Inspector General came out with a report just this past week and said that the bulk collection of data hasn't cracked one case." After O'Donnell pressed the point again, the Senator followed-up by sarcastically noting that the "Constitution is inconvenient."
The aggressive questions stand in contrast to how Rose interviewed Hillary Clinton. He referred to the Democrat as his "friend" and began the segment (on his PBS show) by reading a poem from Maya Angelou.
When O'Donnell interviewed potential presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren in 2014, she wondered, "what's going to happen if Republicans take control?” before admitting, "I guess that was a softball of a question, wasn't it?"
CBS should be credited for offering a lengthy interview to a Republican presidential candidate. The segment clocked in at eight minutes and 15 seconds. The co-hosts at the superficial Good Morning America on ABC would never allow such an expansive conversation. However, when Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley or Clinton (should she decide to actually talk to the press) stop by CBS This Morning, will they be equally grilled?
A transcript of the May 26 CBS This Morning segment is below:
8:03
8 minutes and 15 secondsGAYLE KING: The Senate will try one more time this weekend to extend government programs that collect cell phone data. One big reason for the delay is Senator Rand Paul's ongoing protest. The presidential candidate and other Republicans blocked a final vote last week and the Senator spoke more than ten hours on the Senate floor yesterday – on Wednesday, rather -- denouncing programs that he calls unconstitutional.
CHARLIE ROSE: Critics from both parties accused Paul of grandstanding. Privacy advocates and some senators are on his side. In the middle of this controversy, Paul is released a new book it is called Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America. Welcome back, senator. Good to have you.
RAND PAUL: Thanks for having me.
ROSE: Let me start with what we just talked about, in terms of the introduction. Senator McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham have both said this is revenue-raising, that is a performance. More than a substantive effort likely to lead to a serious change that you intend.
PAUL: I think that's an unfair characterization. I think most people who know me and have watched my career would say that, if anything, I'm very sincere about this issue. Our founding fathers thought that it was very clear that warrants have an individual's name on it, that you couldn't have a warrant that said Verizon on it and collect all the records of all the people of America through one single warrant. So, I think I'm right in line with what the founders would have fought more and I'm proud of the fight. I think there will always be naysayers and people who want to snatch at you for different reasons.
ROSE: So, it's not about selling books?
PAUL: No. I think it's really about, to me, the Bill of Rights. And I think it's about the Fourth Amendment. I think somehow my party gets all caught up in the Second Amendment, which is fine. But we don't protect the Fourth Amendment enough-- But, actually, I think neither party ends up protecting the Fourth Amendment enough, which is the right to privacy.
NORAH O'DONNELL: I think this is a really important debate to have because there are certainly privacy concerns. But critics of yours say you have a pre-9/11 mind-set. I just spoke with the Attorney General Loretta Lynch, whose -- her office had previously prosecuted more terrorism cases and they say they need this ability, these roving wiretaps, in in order to prevent terrorism. Why not do that if it would prevent another attack?
PAUL: Well, the interesting thing is the Department of Justice Inspector General came out with a report just this past week and said that the bulk collection of data hasn't cracked one case.
The President's privacy commission also said the same thing. So in practicality, it's not working. But one of the reasons I oppose it is when we've done this indiscriminate collection of data, indiscriminate searches, one of the things has been bias. In the civil rights era, we've tapped the phones and we looked at individuals without warrants because of their race. We did it to the Japanese Americans based on race. We also did it to Vietnam war protesters. So, I think that it's very important not to let the government do general warrants. They need to be specific. They need to have suspicion and they need to have an individual's name on it.O'DONNELL: But what they're saying is that's an extra step they have to take. And if you –
PAUL: Well, yeah, if the Constitution is inconvenient – but the thing is we obey the Constitution because it protects the rights of all individuals. And it also keeps bias out of there. You don't want systemic bias to enter into government. If you give government too much power, there's always the danger of having systemic bias.
ROSE: My guess is you think you came come out of this with some sort of compromise?
PAUL: Maybe. And what I'm looking for right now is to see if the other side will negotiate. All I asked for was two amendments and a simple majority vote. So, I'm not being too unreasonable. I'm just asking for two amendments and a simple majority vote. I'd like to have a vote on ending the bulk collection. I think we can win that vote. I think the vast majority of the American people say you shouldn't be able to collect my phone records if I'm not suspicious, if you don't have probable cause and if a judge hasn't signed a warrant, why would you get to look at my phone records? You can tell a person's religion 85 percent of time from their phone records. You can tell who their doctors. You can most of the time tell, sometimes, what medical procedures they're having and you can tell what medicine they're on. These are things that the government shouldn't know about you without a warrant.
O'DONNELL: But the administration already supports that, they would end government bulk collection. They're going to let a private company –
PAUL: They should stop that.
O'DONNELL: I know. They're saying their going to let a private company do it.
PAUL: Well, here's the thing about the President. He's disingenuous about this. The President started this program through executive order. He could end it anytime. The Second Court of Appeals, the court that's right below the Supreme Court, said it's illegal. Why doesn't he stop it? What's he waiting for? He said, "Oh, Congress can stop it." He started it on his own. He should stop it and I've asked the President repeatedly, stop the program.
KING: You know, you've come under attack, your book Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan politics to Unite America. In the book, you say, quite frankly, "the GOP brand sucks." You said you want a new GOP. That's a quote from you. You said you want a new GOP. What does that mean and what does it look like to you?
PAUL: You know, I think it has to be, I say, with tattoos, without tattoos, with overalls, with business suits, black, white, we need to be a more diverse party.
KING: But they all say that, Senator.
PAUL: I know. You're right. People say that, and I'm not saying it is enough. But I also think that a lot of predominantly minority audiences we have just ignored over the last 30 years. We just gave up. I think going and attending helps. But I think also having something to say. So, I've talked a lot about criminal justice reform. I think the war on drugs has disproportionately affected the African American and the Hispanic population and the poor population, in general. I also talked a little bit about privacy and surveillance and how it has had bias in our country. I've also talked about a foreign policy, really, that I think ought to be more reasonable and less overreaching.
ROSE: And what would a more reasonable foreign policy be with respect to ISIS today?
PAUL: I think we have to stop them. But I think a more reasonable foreign policy wouldn't have invaded Libya, wouldn't have invaded Iraq.
ROSE: But that's past.
PAUL: Well, the thing is that the past can also be the future. In the sense that your behavior in the past -- that's why the question, when people asked Jeb Bush would you have invaded Iraq knowing what you know now, and he fumbled the question. But the reason it's important, what about Assad? Assad is still there. Should we invade and topple Assad? What will come after? About two years ago, I fought against the President and the hawks in my party saying that we shouldn't topple Assad.
ROSE: Should we do more to stop ISIS?
PAUL: I think we should do everything that is necessary to stop ISIS.
ROSE: So, what is that?
PAUL: Well, what it takes is coalition building.
ROSE: Is it more weapons to the Iraqi Army?
PAUL: It could be a variety --
ROSE: Is it advisers on the ground? More special forces?
PAUL: It could be a variety of things. One, you need to look at who are the most significant and most effective fighters. Those would be the Kurds. So I would arm the Kurds. I would recognize the Kurds as a nation. I would take a lot of the equipment that is rotting in Afghanistan, and I would give it directly to the Kurds, not through the Shiite government. I would tell the Shiite government that, you know what? If you don't include Sunnis, you're never win this war. This war will never be won. You can never occupy those Sunni territories. Shiites won't be able to do it and Americans won't be able to do it. So, you need to incorporate Sunnis into the government in Iraq. You also need a solution between the Kurds and the Turks. I'd like to see Turkish troops on the border of Turkey helping with us as well.
ROSE: And Shia militias?
PAUL: It's more difficult, because the thing is, the more the Iranians getting involved with the Shiite militias, the more it turns off the Sunnis and pushes them back to –
ROSE: But if it's necessary to stop ISIS?
PAUL: Well, I think you need everybody that's willing to fight against ISIS. And it's difficult. We have tolerated so far the Shiite militias and we have tolerated the Iranian influence. I'm not sure we could stop it, if we wanted to. The thing is that people need to understand the Middle East is complicated and there are no easy answers. We need to do what we do to protect American interests. That means our consulate at Erbil needs to be defended better than Benghazi was defended and Baghdad needs to be defended. But the thing is that the ultimate victory is going to become when civilized Islam steps up and civilized Islam says that this aberration that is ISIS is intolerable.
KING: How are things with you and Mitch McConnell these days? I'm wondering.
PAUL: I don't think we need counseling yet. But –
KING: Kentucky Bourbon, perhaps? Okay.
PAUL: No. We actually have a very personable relationship. We are friends and we get along fine. On the NSA thing, we are on opposite sides. But I think we both keep it very civil. I've not had any harsh words with him. Or him with me.
KING: All right.
PAUL: And I'm still hoping that we can find an arrangement that ends bulk collection and if they were able to defeat me and reauthorize it, that will occur that may well occur. But it only will happen if they allow me to have a vote on ending bulk collection.
