CBS News
Transcript: House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Mike Turner on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan,” Oct. 6, 2024
The following is a transcript of an interview with House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Mike Turner, Republican of Ohio, on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” that aired on Oct. 6, 2024.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Ohio Republican, Mike Turner. Good to have you back with us.
REP. MIKE TURNER: Thank you for having me on, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to get to the Middle East, but first on this issue of concern regarding political violence. Would you agree that language like what we just heard there is unhelpful?
REP. TURNER: Well, I think it certainly characterizes the reality that Donald Trump has had two attempts on his life. And I do think that there is work that needs to be done, both by the administration and by Vice President Harris. The administration has come out and publicly stated- Matt Olsen from the Department of Justice on CBS News acknowledged that there is an active, ongoing threat from Iran to kill, actively plotting, to kill Donald Trump. You’ve had no statements from the administration towards Iran as to what that would be, which would be an act of war, and you don’t have any statement from Vice President Harris condemning this or even recognizing that there’s an active plot from a foreign nation to kill her opponent. I think there’s certainly a role for her to play and for the President to play in this, in both identifying that there are threats against Donald Trump that need to be acknowledged and responded to, to deter. I think all the candidates need to de-escalate, certainly in their language.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But it is the Biden-Harris Justice Department, Matt Olsen works for them, who laid out those charges about the Iranian state. You don’t mean to imply here anything that would suggest Eric Trump’s allegations that Democrats are trying to kill him?
REP. TURNER: No, of course not. But I do think that Vice President Harris needs to actively state and acknowledge that her administration is saying a foreign power, which would be an act of war, is actively trying to kill her opponent. They have- this administration has made stronger statements–
MARGARET BRENNAN: — okay, that’s different–
REP. TURNER:– about Iran’s hacking activities than they have about the active plot to kill Donald Trump, which the administration acknowledges ongoing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, because of the concern in regard to anti-government violence in this country and domestic violent extremists, the language specific to who is carrying this out, I think you would agree is important.
REP. TURNER: I absolutely agree that there needs to be a toning down of rhetoric on both sides, but there has to be an acknowledgement, which has not happened, from Vice President Harris that there’s active plots from a foreign nation to kill her opponent.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you want the FBI to release the results of its investigations prior to November 5, as Senator Rubio on Senate Intelligence has called for?
REP. TURNER: Its investigations into the assassination attempt?
MARGARET BRENNAN: The two assassination attempts at this point, which are not substantiated to have any ties to the state of Iran or to political actors at this time.
REP. TURNER: Well actually, it really can’t be said that they’re- saying that there have been no substantiated ties doesn’t mean that the investigation has concluded that there are no ties. And I want those investigations to- to come to a conclusion and determine whether or not either of these plots have any nexus or connection to the active plot the administration is saying that Iran is- is plotting in attempting to kill Donald Trump. Which, again, this administration needs to make clear to Iran that would be an act of war, and needs to have a very strong response from the administration
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, before the investigation is concluded, because it may not wind up before November the fifth, would you like the FBI to make public some of its findings, to rule out some of the conspiracy theories like we just heard from that stage that the political opposition is responsible?
REP. TURNER: I don’t think they’d be able to do that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You don’t think they would be able to?
REP. TURNER: I think they need to conclude and they need to get to truth. I don’t think they would be able to get to a point to release information that would conclusively indicate that either of those individuals acted completely alone.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to turn to the Middle East. You’ve already taken us there and talking about Iran specifically, but where we are right now is nearly exactly a year from that terrorist attack on October the seventh. You called that a huge intelligence failure from the Israelis when it happened. Given all that has happened in recent weeks, I wonder what you assess about Israeli intelligence now.
REP. TURNER: Well, the United States is working cooperatively with- with Israel in ways that we were not necessarily working prior to October 7 and- and I do think that- that Israel has changed its focus in its intelligence collecting and its assessments of its- of its intelligence. I mean, they certainly have risen to the occasion to understand that they’re in an active conflict and looking to ways- and to diminish the capabilities of their adversaries.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That nearest adversary at the moment appears to be the government of Iran. What should the 40,000 US troops that President Biden has deployed to the region be bracing for? Are you concerned that the United States will get drawn into this conflict if Israel carries out strikes on Iran.
REP. TURNER: Right, so this is another area where the administration has not risen to the occasion. President Biden said that the nuclear program of Iran is off the table. It should not be a valid military target by Israel and, or, the United States–
MARGARET BRENNAN:– Do you think it should be?–
REP. TURNER: — Absolutely. In fact, the President himself, President Biden, has previously said that the United States would not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, and that he would use military action if necessary. His own Secretary of State has said, more than two weeks ago that Iran’s breakout time to become a nuclear state was two weeks. So you have Iran now actively–
MARGARET BRENNAN: But it’s still not weaponizing. US intelligence has not said Iran has made the decision–
REP. TURNER: — They have not publicly stated the- the current status of the program, other than what Blinken has said that the breakout time was- was two weeks. The- looking to proportionality, where Biden says that Israel can only respond in proportion, is as if this administration says Iran can send 200 missiles into Israel, and as long as we have missile defense that takes them out, we won’t look at Iran’s provocation there trying to kill and destroy individuals and towns in Israel. That should be the response. The understanding should be that Iran has moved beyond their proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis to have direct attacks to Israel, and Israel needs to be able to defend itself, and Iran needs to pay a price.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, the CENTCOM commander is currently in Israel, helping to advise some of the Israeli military. But just to be clear, the United States really only has the equipment that could take out the kind of underground facilities that are essential to the Iranian nuclear program. Are you advocating for the United States to be involved in offensive action?
REP. TURNER: I believe it’s completely irresponsible for the President to say that it is off the table when he’s previously said it’s on the table. For him to give Iran the comfort that their actions of attacking directly, Iran, will not have any consequences for their nuclear weapons program is irresponsible.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So not a yes or a no. But- but I want to ask you about something that’s happening in your district, because you have a vested interest in what’s happening in Springfield, Ohio. This is the town that’s gotten so much attention in the past few weeks because the Haitian migrant population there. Going all the way back to February, you’ve been sending letters asking for federal help. You’ve brought some of the local officials here to Washington to advocate how to deal with the strain of the population growth. Have you gotten the federal help you’ve asked for- for Springfield, Ohio?
REP. TURNER: No. You know, Mayor Rue has done an excellent job in Springfield, both in advocating and in trying to pull the community together. He’s come here. We’ve taken him to the federal agencies that have the type of funding that should be released for what is a federally created problem. The Biden administration, through expanding the parole program, I believe illegally, brought 500,000 people here from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti and others. And 15,000 to 20,000 people settled in Springfield, Ohio. But then the administration did something even more shocking last week. They indicated that they were not going to extend, but the temporary protected status that these individuals have, which could result in their going into an illegal status, and Springfield would have, these individuals would not have, in any direct federal support, and the community would get no additional assistance as to how to handle this almost 10% of the population of the of the city that now would fall into an illegal status as a result of the administration terminating their protected status.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Which may happen in the coming year, so this could be an issue for the next president, whoever that President is. Congressman, thank you for explaining. Face the Nation will be back in a minute. Stay with us.
Watch CBS News
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
CBS News
New discoveries could rewrite the history of early Americans — and the 4-ton sloths they lived with
Sloths weren’t always slow-moving, furry tree-dwellers. Their prehistoric ancestors were huge – up to 4 tons – and when startled, they brandished immense claws.
For a long time, scientists believed the first humans to arrive in the Americas soon killed off these giant ground sloths through hunting, along with many other massive animals like mastodons, saber-toothed cats and dire wolves that once roamed North and South America.
But new research from several sites is starting to suggest that people came to the Americas earlier – perhaps far earlier – than once thought. These findings hint at a remarkably different life for these early Americans, one in which they may have spent millennia sharing prehistoric savannas and wetlands with enormous beasts.
“There was this idea that humans arrived and killed everything off very quickly – what’s called ‘Pleistocene overkill,'” said Daniel Odess, an archaeologist at White Sands National Park in New Mexico. But new discoveries suggest that “humans were existing alongside these animals for at least 10,000 years, without making them go extinct.”
Some of the most tantalizing clues come from an archaeological site in central Brazil, called Santa Elina, where bones of giant ground sloths show signs of being manipulated by humans. Sloths like these once lived from Alaska to Argentina, and some species had bony structures on their backs, called osteoderms – a bit like the plates of modern armadillos – that may have been used to make decorations.
Júlia d’Oliveira / AP
In a lab at the University of Sao Paulo, researcher Mírian Pacheco holds in her palm a round, penny-sized sloth fossil. She notes that its surface is surprisingly smooth, the edges appear to have been deliberately polished, and there’s a tiny hole near one edge.
“We believe it was intentionally altered and used by ancient people as jewelry or adornment,” she said. Three similar “pendant” fossils are visibly different from unworked osteoderms on a table – those are rough-surfaced and without any holes.
These artifacts from Santa Elina are roughly 27,000 years old – more than 10,000 years before scientists once thought that humans arrived in the Americas.
Originally researchers wondered if the craftsmen were working on already old fossils. But Pacheco’s research strongly suggests that ancient people were carving “fresh bones” shortly after the animals died.
Her findings, together with other recent discoveries, could help rewrite the tale of when humans first arrived in the Americas – and the effect they had on the environment they found.
“There’s still a big debate,” Pacheco said.
“Really compelling evidence”
Scientists know that the first humans emerged in Africa, then moved into Europe and Asia-Pacific, before finally making their way to the last continental frontier, the Americas. But questions remain about the final chapter of the human origins story.
Pacheco was taught in high school the theory that most archaeologists held throughout the 20th century. “What I learned in school was that Clovis was first,” she said.
Clovis is a site in New Mexico, where archaeologists in the 1920s and 1930s found distinctive projectile points and other artifacts dated to between 11,000 and 13,000 years ago.
This date happens to coincide with the end of the last Ice Age, a time when an ice-free corridor likely emerged in North America – giving rise to an idea about how early humans moved into the continent after crossing the Bering land bridge from Asia.
Mary Conlon / AP
And because the fossil record shows the widespread decline of American megafauna starting around the same time – with North America losing 70% of its large mammals, and South America losing more than 80% – many researchers surmised that humans’ arrival led to mass extinctions.
“It was a nice story for a while, when all the timing lined up,” said paleoanthropologist Briana Pobiner at the Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins Program. “But it doesn’t really work so well anymore.”
In the past 30 years, new research methods – including ancient DNA analysis and new laboratory techniques – coupled with the examination of additional archaeological sites and inclusion of more diverse scholars across the Americas, have upended the old narrative and raised new questions, especially about timing.
“Anything older than about 15,000 years still draws intense scrutiny,” said Richard Fariña, a paleontologist at the University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay. “But really compelling evidence from more and more older sites keeps coming to light.”
In Sao Paulo and at the Federal University of Sao Carlos, Pacheco studies the chemical changes that occur when a bone becomes a fossil. This allows her team to analyze when the sloth osteoderms were likely modified.
“We found that the osteoderms were carved before the fossilization process” in “fresh bones” – meaning anywhere from a few days to a few years after the sloths died, but not thousands of years later.
Her team also tested and ruled out several natural processes, like erosion and animal gnawing. The research was published last year in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
One of her collaborators, paleontologist Thaís Pansani, recently based at the Smithsonian Institution, is analyzing whether similar-aged sloth bones found at Santa Elina were charred by human-made fires, which burn at different temperatures than natural wildfires.
Her preliminary results suggest that the fresh sloth bones were present at human campsites – whether burned deliberately in cooking, or simply nearby, isn’t clear. She is also testing and ruling out other possible causes for the black markings, such as natural chemical discoloration.
“A giant ground sloth”
The first site widely accepted as older than Clovis was in Monte Verde, Chile.
Buried beneath a peat bog, researchers discovered 14,500-year-old stone tools, pieces of preserved animal hides, and various edible and medicinal plants.
“Monte Verde was a shock. You’re here at the end of the world, with all this organic stuff preserved,” said Vanderbilt University archaeologist Tom Dillehay, a longtime researcher at Monte Verde.
Other archaeological sites suggest even earlier dates for human presence in the Americas.
Among the oldest sites is Arroyo del Vizcaíno in Uruguay, where researchers are studying apparent human-made “cut marks” on animal bones dated to around 30,000 years ago.
At New Mexico’s White Sands, researchers have uncovered human footprints dated to between 21,000 and 23,000 years ago, as well as similar-aged tracks of giant mammals. But some archaeologists say it’s hard to imagine that humans would repeatedly traverse a site and leave no stone tools.
Peter Hamlin / AP
“They’ve made a strong case, but there are still some things about that site that puzzle me,” said David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University. “Why would people leave footprints over a long period of time, but never any artifacts?”
Odess at White Sands said that he expects and welcomes such challenges. “We didn’t set out to find the oldest anything – we’ve really just followed the evidence where it leads,” he said.
While the exact timing of humans’ arrival in the Americas remains contested – and may never be known – it seems clear that if the first people arrived earlier than once thought, they didn’t immediately decimate the giant beasts they encountered.
And the White Sands footprints preserve a few moments of their early interactions.
As Odess interprets them, one set of tracks shows “a giant ground sloth going along on four feet” when it encounters the footprints of a small human who’s recently dashed by. The huge animal “stops and rears up on hind legs, shuffles around, then heads off in a different direction.”
CBS News
New discoveries could rewrite the history of early Americans — and the 4-ton sloths they lived with
Sloths weren’t always slow-moving, furry tree-dwellers. Their prehistoric ancestors were huge – up to 4 tons – and when startled, they brandished immense claws.
For a long time, scientists believed the first humans to arrive in the Americas soon killed off these giant ground sloths through hunting, along with many other massive animals like mastodons, saber-toothed cats and dire wolves that once roamed North and South America.
But new research from several sites is starting to suggest that people came to the Americas earlier – perhaps far earlier – than once thought. These findings hint at a remarkably different life for these early Americans, one in which they may have spent millennia sharing prehistoric savannas and wetlands with enormous beasts.
“There was this idea that humans arrived and killed everything off very quickly – what’s called ‘Pleistocene overkill,'” said Daniel Odess, an archaeologist at White Sands National Park in New Mexico. But new discoveries suggest that “humans were existing alongside these animals for at least 10,000 years, without making them go extinct.”
Some of the most tantalizing clues come from an archaeological site in central Brazil, called Santa Elina, where bones of giant ground sloths show signs of being manipulated by humans. Sloths like these once lived from Alaska to Argentina, and some species had bony structures on their backs, called osteoderms – a bit like the plates of modern armadillos – that may have been used to make decorations.
Júlia d’Oliveira / AP
In a lab at the University of Sao Paulo, researcher Mírian Pacheco holds in her palm a round, penny-sized sloth fossil. She notes that its surface is surprisingly smooth, the edges appear to have been deliberately polished, and there’s a tiny hole near one edge.
“We believe it was intentionally altered and used by ancient people as jewelry or adornment,” she said. Three similar “pendant” fossils are visibly different from unworked osteoderms on a table – those are rough-surfaced and without any holes.
These artifacts from Santa Elina are roughly 27,000 years old – more than 10,000 years before scientists once thought that humans arrived in the Americas.
Originally researchers wondered if the craftsmen were working on already old fossils. But Pacheco’s research strongly suggests that ancient people were carving “fresh bones” shortly after the animals died.
Her findings, together with other recent discoveries, could help rewrite the tale of when humans first arrived in the Americas – and the effect they had on the environment they found.
“There’s still a big debate,” Pacheco said.
“Really compelling evidence”
Scientists know that the first humans emerged in Africa, then moved into Europe and Asia-Pacific, before finally making their way to the last continental frontier, the Americas. But questions remain about the final chapter of the human origins story.
Pacheco was taught in high school the theory that most archaeologists held throughout the 20th century. “What I learned in school was that Clovis was first,” she said.
Clovis is a site in New Mexico, where archaeologists in the 1920s and 1930s found distinctive projectile points and other artifacts dated to between 11,000 and 13,000 years ago.
This date happens to coincide with the end of the last Ice Age, a time when an ice-free corridor likely emerged in North America – giving rise to an idea about how early humans moved into the continent after crossing the Bering land bridge from Asia.
Mary Conlon / AP
And because the fossil record shows the widespread decline of American megafauna starting around the same time – with North America losing 70% of its large mammals, and South America losing more than 80% – many researchers surmised that humans’ arrival led to mass extinctions.
“It was a nice story for a while, when all the timing lined up,” said paleoanthropologist Briana Pobiner at the Smithsonian Institution’s Human Origins Program. “But it doesn’t really work so well anymore.”
In the past 30 years, new research methods – including ancient DNA analysis and new laboratory techniques – coupled with the examination of additional archaeological sites and inclusion of more diverse scholars across the Americas, have upended the old narrative and raised new questions, especially about timing.
“Anything older than about 15,000 years still draws intense scrutiny,” said Richard Fariña, a paleontologist at the University of the Republic in Montevideo, Uruguay. “But really compelling evidence from more and more older sites keeps coming to light.”
In Sao Paulo and at the Federal University of Sao Carlos, Pacheco studies the chemical changes that occur when a bone becomes a fossil. This allows her team to analyze when the sloth osteoderms were likely modified.
“We found that the osteoderms were carved before the fossilization process” in “fresh bones” – meaning anywhere from a few days to a few years after the sloths died, but not thousands of years later.
Her team also tested and ruled out several natural processes, like erosion and animal gnawing. The research was published last year in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
One of her collaborators, paleontologist Thaís Pansani, recently based at the Smithsonian Institution, is analyzing whether similar-aged sloth bones found at Santa Elina were charred by human-made fires, which burn at different temperatures than natural wildfires.
Her preliminary results suggest that the fresh sloth bones were present at human campsites – whether burned deliberately in cooking, or simply nearby, isn’t clear. She is also testing and ruling out other possible causes for the black markings, such as natural chemical discoloration.
“A giant ground sloth”
The first site widely accepted as older than Clovis was in Monte Verde, Chile.
Buried beneath a peat bog, researchers discovered 14,500-year-old stone tools, pieces of preserved animal hides, and various edible and medicinal plants.
“Monte Verde was a shock. You’re here at the end of the world, with all this organic stuff preserved,” said Vanderbilt University archaeologist Tom Dillehay, a longtime researcher at Monte Verde.
Other archaeological sites suggest even earlier dates for human presence in the Americas.
Among the oldest sites is Arroyo del Vizcaíno in Uruguay, where researchers are studying apparent human-made “cut marks” on animal bones dated to around 30,000 years ago.
At New Mexico’s White Sands, researchers have uncovered human footprints dated to between 21,000 and 23,000 years ago, as well as similar-aged tracks of giant mammals. But some archaeologists say it’s hard to imagine that humans would repeatedly traverse a site and leave no stone tools.
Peter Hamlin / AP
“They’ve made a strong case, but there are still some things about that site that puzzle me,” said David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University. “Why would people leave footprints over a long period of time, but never any artifacts?”
Odess at White Sands said that he expects and welcomes such challenges. “We didn’t set out to find the oldest anything – we’ve really just followed the evidence where it leads,” he said.
While the exact timing of humans’ arrival in the Americas remains contested – and may never be known – it seems clear that if the first people arrived earlier than once thought, they didn’t immediately decimate the giant beasts they encountered.
And the White Sands footprints preserve a few moments of their early interactions.
As Odess interprets them, one set of tracks shows “a giant ground sloth going along on four feet” when it encounters the footprints of a small human who’s recently dashed by. The huge animal “stops and rears up on hind legs, shuffles around, then heads off in a different direction.”
JonBenét Ramsey’s dad shares details about progress in long-unsolved murder case
New discoveries could rewrite the history of early Americans — and the 4-ton sloths they lived with
New discoveries could rewrite the history of early Americans — and the 4-ton sloths they lived with
JonBenét Ramsey’s dad shares details about progress in long-unsolved murder case
New discoveries could rewrite the history of early Americans — and the 4-ton sloths they lived with