GOP Rep. Mike Turner: "The administration could be sharing more with Congress" on Iran

[0:00] And we're back with Ohio Republican Congressman Mike Turner. He joins us this morning from Dayton. [0:05] Good morning to you. [0:08] Good morning, Margaret. [0:08] You served on the Armed Services Committee. Back in March, the Republican chair of it said [0:13] the administration's not given enough detail. That was March. It's now July. Are you satisfied [0:17] with what you're being told? Excuse me, it's August. [0:20] Well, I mean, yes. Still, the administration could be sharing more with Congress. I don't [0:28] think anybody is satisfied with the level of information that we're receiving, although [0:31] it is a dynamic conflict. I think also that that's true even as the administration is looking [0:37] to its review, both in Europe, the conflict in Iran, the issues with Ukraine. Across the [0:44] board, both the House and the Senate have registered that the Pentagon needs to be sharing more information [0:50] with Congress. Well, on Friday, out at Camp David, it was all on camera. The president's [0:56] team gathered. They talked about initiatives they're working on. They all praised him. [1:02] And Secretary Hanks has said Iran has shown no willingness to honestly negotiate. Here's [1:08] what President Trump said. Listen. [1:10] I'm losing faith in them because they do lie and they do misrepresent. Well, the other day, [1:17] the five missiles were shot. We knocked them down, but we were in the midst of a negotiation. [1:22] Well, they always want to talk, but they break their words so often. They've been very dishonest. [1:26] They've been very dishonorable to deal with, but that makes no difference. [1:32] So that was the president laying out why he doesn't trust diplomacy with Iran. [1:36] Last night, he said there's a diplomatic opening and a deal may be within reach. [1:42] Will you support it sight unseen? Are we at risk of the president cutting a flawed [1:46] deal just to end this unpopular conflict? Well, I don't think it's cutting a flawed deal. [1:53] I mean, this is part of a process, obviously, of where Iran has to be in a position where, [1:59] as the president has set out the two goals, and that is, one, that they abandon their nuclear [2:04] ambitions and certainly restarting their nuclear enrichment programs, and certainly the issues [2:12] of an open Straits of Hormuz, and so that we return back to an open Straits where commerce and the flow [2:21] of oil and natural gas can resume. So the war should continue until there is some diplomatic deal [2:28] regarding the nuclear program? Because right now they're just talking about the Straits. [2:30] Well, it's not really, as you know, this began with Epic Fury where the president went in, [2:38] which, you know, we've described as an inevitable conflict as a result of where Obama left us with [2:44] the, you know, watching until Iran began to get closer and closer to enough nuclear material to [2:51] have an opportunity for nuclear weapon. The International Atomic Energy Agency said that they were weeks [2:56] away as a result of where they were, where they were left before Epic Fury, then we have- [3:01] In terms of enrichment capacity, not weaponization. [3:05] Well, yes. Well, they would have the opportunity to be able to do so. And then with, with the, [3:10] with the Straits and their closing the Straits, you know, and then the, we had the Memorandum [3:15] of Understanding where it looked as if they were going to come to a deal. And then now the president [3:21] has been trying to enforce the opening of, of the Straits. Now, if Iran would, where all metrics [3:27] would show that Iran is, is in a position where they're going to have to come to a table, [3:33] whether it's economics, where it's energy production, whether it's the, the loss of [3:38] critical infrastructure, military infrastructure, the loss of, of their military capabilities, [3:43] all metrics would show a declining capability to continue. [3:47] Uh, they're going to have to be in a position where ultimately, uh, they're going to have [3:52] to concede to the opening of the Straits and returning to commerce. [3:55] Well, we'll see. Um, but the president said their perimeters, I think he meant parameters [4:02] of possible deal. Um, but we'll track that diplomacy. Let me ask you though about what's [4:06] happening on U.S. soil. The FBI warned cyber actors are attacking water utilities in at least [4:12] seven states. CBS is reporting that U.S. officials are probing to determine whether it's [4:17] Iranian hackers behind it. They've done something similar, uh, back in 2023. [4:22] President Trump was asked, and here's what he said. [4:26] You know who's behind it? Minnesota, because they're grossly incompetent. I think the governor's [4:31] behind it. I don't think there was an Iranian cyber attack. [4:36] I know it takes a while to officially attribute an attack, but has Congress at least been told [4:40] which states are impacted? Is Ohio? And, and is this an attack on U.S. soil amid a war? [4:46] Well, not, not, we certainly have not been informed at this time, but I think you've [4:51] correctly pointed out, Margaret, that, that Iran has attacked, uh, our critical infrastructure [4:57] previously. There have been reports obviously of China hacking and Russia hacking. Well, [5:01] one thing that we have to acknowledge is that our adversaries, Russia, China and North Korea, Iran, [5:06] look at the critical infrastructure that support our, our civilian, uh, infrastructure, [5:11] like water, um, are seen as valid military targets by, uh, our adversaries. And so these need to be [5:19] monitored. They need to be hardened. Uh, these are things that, that we do not do. We would not do. [5:24] And Iran certainly has been doing this well before this conflict. And this is something we certainly [5:29] need to be aware of and we need to be diligent. Well, we're certainly in a conflict where we would [5:34] expect that they would continue that which they were doing to us before. [5:37] Um, I want to get to a bit of politics, uh, out in Ohio, your colleague, Max Miller. Um, [5:44] according to the latest court filing, he's been accused of domestic abuse. Uh, the court filing [5:49] says he shoved his then wife, held a gun to her head, poured hot water on her and had concerns he [5:55] may have broken their two year old daughter's collarbone, according to both police reports [5:59] and court documents that were filed. He just went live in a social media stream [6:05] and denied these allegations within the past hour. Um, my question is not about his marriage or his [6:11] personal life, but I'm asking about the politics here, uh, and the party. Should there be an ethics [6:17] probe to look into this? Well, Margaret, what you just said when you began this question is that this [6:22] is a matter of litigation. This is best handled in a courtroom and not in a TV studio. And this is, [6:28] you know, that type of speculation is better for TMZ than CBS. [6:32] Well, we've covered with other lawmakers, including in the other party, the Democratic Party, [6:38] credible allegations against people running for office. We take those allegations seriously. [6:44] Uh, when it comes to Mr. Miller, he was previously accused in 2021 by President Trump's former [6:48] spokesperson of abusing her when they dated. So given these two instances, is it at least something [6:54] Republican leadership should look into? Well, again, this is, this is an issue that is currently [7:00] part of, of a divorce and part of litigation that's in a courtroom. And, uh, the court should [7:06] be handling this, which is clearly ongoing. And that's where this needs to be, not in a television [7:11] studio. So it, it doesn't matter to you. It's not that it doesn't matter to me. I, this is, this, [7:17] this is where the court needs to handle this. The court has filings, which is what you just said. [7:21] You were reading that there were court filings, court needs to handle this issue [7:25] as to whether or not it's the, is the truth and where truth will then be resolved, [7:31] which is where things belong in a court, where people file papers in a court, as you just read. [7:37] So you want the court to handle it before Republican leadership looks into it? [7:40] This is litigation. This is, this is a court matter, not a television matter. [7:45] Right. And not one for Republican leadership is what I hear you saying. [7:48] Uh, I, I, I've said to you that this is not one for you and I to handle in a television studio. [7:54] This is one that's in court. Okay. We handle these allegations seriously, [7:58] regardless of the political party. And these are not media allegations, as you said, [8:02] they're court documents. Um, Congressman Miller claimed it was a media construct. [8:05] And it's being handled in court, which is where it belongs. [8:08] I got it. You don't want to comment. I understand. Um, in terms of, uh, your portfolio on armed services, [8:15] I do want to ask you about what has happened within the past few days. Russia fired a barrage of [8:21] ballistic missiles at Kyiv. Only one of them was intercepted. President Zelensky said that's [8:27] because there are no interceptors left. I know you've asked the president to allow for him to [8:33] be able to produce Patriots. We had thought there was a breakthrough. However, President Trump seemed [8:39] to backtrack on that Friday. He said, quote, we're talking about it, but it's a hard thing to do to give [8:44] away that kind of technology. Is it on track or is it not? Are we letting Ukraine license Patriot [8:52] interceptor production? Right. Well, the actual quote that he said, he was talking in that, [8:58] in that paragraph, he was talking about Tomahawks and Patriots. Uh, they also went on to say that the [9:02] negotiations were ongoing. Um, it is very, very difficult, uh, on Patriots, which are defensive [9:08] in the, in the quote, actually, it included Tomahawks, which are also offensive. Um, I, I do think [9:13] that there are ongoing negotiations concerning providing a broader opportunity, uh, for, uh, Ukraine to have [9:20] access to, to Patriot, um, technology to be able to have production and, and defensive technology. [9:28] This is going to be very important, both for allies and for Ukraine. This technology, [9:33] because it has become so central around the world, because missile technology [9:38] is proliferating. So defensive technology needs to proliferate. Uh, we have the most advanced technology, [9:44] and there is high demand for it. And the president stepping up and saying that we need to look to, [9:49] uh, being, being able to license this technology is really going to be important, [9:53] both for Ukraine, our allies, and really, I think for the United States. [9:56] But you think it's still in process. [9:58] I think it's still in process. I think it's incredibly important. [10:01] And I encourage the president and the Pentagon to move as swiftly as possible [10:05] to ensure that Ukraine can, you know, every night there are people who die in Ukraine, [10:09] because Russia is sending missiles into Ukraine and hitting, um, defenseless, uh, civilians, [10:17] not military targets, but defenseless civilians. There was outcry because a missile landed in a [10:22] field in Poland. But every night there are missiles that lie, that land on people and kill them in [10:28] Ukraine. We need to help them. Yes. Understood. And, uh, NATO did call [10:33] up those instances. We have to leave it there, Congressman Turner. We'll be right back.