'This Week' Transcript: Sec. Jeh Johnson

Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson on the ISIS threat.

ByABC News
May 10, 2015, 9:36 AM

— -- This is a rush transcript. It may contain errors and will be updated.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Starting right now on ABC'S THIS WEEK, ISIS in America -- inside the urgent new FBI warnings -- jihadists here in the homeland ready to strike.

Plus, military bases around the country now on high alert. Our exclusive live interview with Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson.

2016 shakeup -- why these long shot candidates are making big waves.

A Texas-sized conspiracy theory goes viral -- why some think martial law is on the way in the Lone Star State. The surprising response from the state's governor.

And Deflate-gate takedown -- what will happen to Super bowl hero, Tom Brady?


MARTHA RADDATZ, HOST: Good morning on this Mother's Day.

I'm Martha Raddatz.

Great to have you with us.

We start off with those dramatic new warnings from the FBI that hundreds, maybe thousands of ISIS followers inside the U.S. are being urged to kill Americans.

Military bases nationwide increasing security -- our exclusive live interview with the Homeland Security secretary just moments away.

First, the very latest on these extraordinary warnings from senior justice correspondent, Pierre Thomas -- good morning, Pierre.


And that urgent Friday conference call, the FBI director and Homeland Security secretary met with thousands of law enforcement officials from across the country to warn them about an unprecedented social media campaign by ISIS that is reaching Americans in every state.


THOMAS (voice-over): The meeting of top law enforcement officials came on the heels of Sunday's shootout in Texas by two men believed to be ISIS supporters communicating with the group via social media.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Police officers that were nearby saw what was happening and engaged the two men and shot and killed them there at the scene.

THOMAS: FBI Director Comey told reporters he believes ISIS has a large social media following in the U.S., numbering in the hundreds, if not the thousands. Those followers every day are being urged to join the Islamic State and Comey says told to kill, kill, kill wherever they are.

In response to Comey's concerns about ISIS' use of social media, the U.S. military is making security changes at bases across the country.

Here's ABC's Matt Gutman.

MATT GUTMAN, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: This is just the U.S. Coast Guard installation here in Miami. And like all U.S. military installations worldwide, security here is heightened.

Now, this wasn't just prompted by that FBI warning. This also has to do with ISIS supporters posting online the names, pictures and addresses of 100 U.S. servicemen and women.

THOMAS: In a number of recent cases, the military has been a target right here at home. This spring, a member of the Illinois National Guard was charged with supporting ISIS and allegedly planning an attack on his fellow soldiers.

In the last two years, the FBI has stopped more than 50 Americans trying to join ISIS or support the group overseas.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They are shooting out into the ethospehere thousands and thousands of messages a day, over 90,000 messages a day.

THOMAS: ISIS has been waging a secret war, a social media campaign unlike anything U.S. law enforcement has seen before. Their supporters mimic the popular Grand Theft Auto video game, selling murder and mayhem as fun.


THOMAS: ISIS radicals use hip-hop to lure young recruits.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is Madison Avenue meets documentary filmmaking meets news channel with P.R. sensibilities and a marketing value.

THOMAS: Some in Congress believe the U.S. online response to the ISIS social media onslaught has been weak.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at their fancy means compared to what we're not doing.


THOMAS: The FBI has hundreds of investigations of suspected home grown radicals, many involving ISIS -- Martha.

RADDATZ: Thanks very much, Pierre.

RADDATZ: With us now, our exclusive guest, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us.

JOHNSON: Good morning, Martha.

RADDATZ: We have been talking about the ISIS social media campaign for well over a year, and yet the urgency this week coming from the FBI was quite extraordinary.

JOHNSON: Well, let me begin with this. This weekend, we’re celebrating the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany. Next week, here in Washington, we celebrate National Police Week, in honor of our fallen heroes in law enforcement. We encourage the public to attend these events. There were thousands of people on the National Mall last week celebrating VE day. We want the public to be vigilant, to be aware, but we encourage people to go to public events, sporting events. But we’re very definitely in a new environment, because of ISIL’s effective use of social media, the Internet, which has the ability to reach into the homeland and possibly inspire others. And so our government and our state and local law enforcement are having to do a number of things to address that, which is why FBI director Comey and I spend a lot of time these days talking to police chiefs, sheriffs around the country. We did that in a video teleconference just on Friday.

RADDATZ: Which was quite extraordinary in itself. You had really thousands of local law enforcement. Are homegrown jihadists ready to strike here in the U.S.?

JOHNSON: We have these types of bulletins, video teleconferences on a regular basis. Director Comey and I thought it be appropriate that we personally participate. And your question reveals the new environment we’re in, in that because of the use of the Internet, we could have little or no notice in advance of an independent actor attempting to strike. And so that’s why law enforcement at the local level needs to be ever more vigilant and we are constantly reminding them to do that.

RADDATZ: It is the current structure of Homeland Security, the FBI really prepared for this kind of threat? Or are we going back and saying, look, we’ve done it all right before, we’ll do the same thing? There is no command and control, really, on these home grown jihadists. There might be.

JOHNSON: Well, that’s correct. Every event, every attempted event, is very definitely a lesson learned. But since 9/11, we’ve come a long way in our ability to interface with state and local law enforcement. Just on my watch in the last 16 months, we’ve had to ramp up our communications with state and local law enforcement because of the manner in which the global terrorist threat is evolving. And the FBI and my department work every day together to get information out to law enforcement on the local level.

RADDATZ: Let me go back to some of these statements by Director Comey. It’s like they’re saying kill, kill, kill all day long. There is nothing different between inspired and directed. If you can’t travel, they’re saying kill where you are. Are you as concerned as Director Comey? Would you say this is the urgency that we should be concerned about? Kill, kill, kill?

JOHNSON: We’re very definitely in a new phase in the global terrorist threat, where the so-called lone wolf could strike at any moment. Which is why the FBI in my judgment has done an excellent job of interdicting those who are attempting to travel to Syria, who commit overt acts in furtherance of material support to terrorism. It is a new environment, but we are not discouraging Americans from doing the things they do on a daily basis.

RADDATZ: We’ve had a strategy for countering violent extremism for about three years now. Is one of the problems it hasn’t really been implemented?

JOHNSON: I would disagree with that. Since I’ve been secretary, I have personally participated in engagements with community leaders, in the Islamic community and elsewhere. I’ve been to New York with Deputy Commissioner Miller, who I know is coming on, Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles and other places, where I personally meet with community leaders about countering violent extremism in their communities. That has to be part of our efforts in this new phase. And I think they’re making progress.

RADDATZ: And are the local communities doing enough?

JOHNSON: The local communities, it varies. Some are very tight-knit. Some do a very good job of knowing what’s happening in their neighborhoods and their communities. Others are still a work in progress. But just in the last year, I’m seeing progress. We see success stories in law enforcement reports, but there’s more we need to do, very clearly.

RADDATZ: What about a social media campaign? You look at their social media campaign, and it is really quite extraordinary. Senator Cory Booker said our efforts are laughable.

JOHNSON: Well, I would disagree with that. But it’s important to remember that a lot of the counter narrative needs to come from within the community. And so when I meet with community leaders, I am asking them, what are we doing to counter this narrative? It is slick. It is effective. But we need to get the message out, and that’s not necessarily a government objective, a government mission. It has to come from within the community. It has to come from Islamic leaders, who frankly can talk the language better than the federal government can. And so when I meet with community leaders, Islamic leaders, that’s one of the things that we urge them to do. Some have began it. We’ve seen some good progress, but there is a lot more that can be done.

RADDATZ: And specifically on the military, quickly, if you will. Was there a specific threat, or is it what Pierre mentioned?

JOHNSON: It’s pretty much self-evident. I saw other groups have called for attacks on government installations, military installations, which is why we have ramped up our federal protective service at federal buildings around the country, and why the military, the Department of Defense, is taking action itself. These are prudent steps, these are prudent, cautious steps, in a time when the public and law enforcement and our government needs to be vigilant and needs to be aware.

RADDATZ: Thanks very much for joining us, Secretary Johnson.

RADDATZ: Now, let's bring in John Miller, deputy commissioner of Intelligence for the New York City Police Department.

He interviewed Osama bin Laden in 1998.

And retired General Peter Chiarelli served in Iraq and was vice chief of staff of the Army when Nidal Hassan opened fire at Fort Hood in 2009, killing 13 people.

I would like to start with you, John Miller.

Your reaction to what Secretary Johnson just said.

Are we doing enough?

JOHN MILLER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INTELLIGENCE, NYPD: I think we're doing enough. I think we're doing all we can.

You know, Martha, one of the -- one of the issues in the post-9/11 world is when you're at -- when you're on high alert 100 percent of the time, after a while, you're never really on high alert. So when they turn up the warnings a little bit, it's usually because the traffic and the calls for violence have been turned up at the same time. And we usually get a pretty good result from that, which is people are more aware and people do step forward and give us the -- any observation that concerns them.

RADDATZ: Well, John, recently, you said if this is going to succeed, it needs to move with speed, it needs resources, loud, articulate voices and communications savvy. It needs to have what ISIS has and it needs all that now.

Do we have all that now?

MILLER: We don't have all that. And I -- I have to say, you know, I sat in a room with Secretary Johnson in New York City this week, with some of our key Muslim community partners. And they brought with them an agenda which -- which has its points, about concerns about surveillance and investigations and so on.

They had a long list of things they wanted us to stop.

What wasn't really on the table, and I think what the Secretary is calling for, I think what I've been calling for with our community leaders, is while we understand there are so many things that they are concerned need to stop, there are some things that we're concerned need to start and that's those community leaders, um, are -- are not -- are not -- are not as engaged in the counter-message as we would have hoped, because Corey Booker may say the government effort is pathetic. I like Corey a lot, but this can't be a government effort. If a government effort that's countering a -- a call for violence that's cloaked in religion is coming from the government, it's already poisoned.

This needs to come from those credible voices in the community.

What's ISIS using, Martha?

They're using Apple computers. They're using Directors Final Cut software. They're -- they're using the same stuff that every other 19 and 22-year-old who's got some creativity can use to send out powerful messages.

RADDATZ: John...

MILLER: And and we need to see those counter-messages coming now.

RADDATZ: And -- and, John, I want to move to General Chiarelli on this.

General Chiarelli, you spent a lot of time at Fort Hood. And as we mentioned, you were vice chief of staff of the Army at the time of the massacre at Fort Hood.

What will this raised alert level really accomplish?

GEN. PETER CHIARELLI (RET.), FORMER VICE CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. ARMY: Well, of course, it will be tougher to get on post. It will take a little bit of extra time.

But Fort Hood is a large, large land mass and it's -- it's really difficult to -- to do the kind of security when you have 40,000 soldiers.

I would worry about some of the off post establishments. As you know, Martha, they are chock full of soldiers on a Saturday or a Sunday night. And that's got to be of concern, also.

But this will, in fact, get everybody looking a little bit harder, asking questions and making it a little bit tougher to get on post every single day.

RADDATZ: And -- and when you look at this, General Chiarelli, and you look at those -- which is virtually a target list that ISIS put out, even though it was probably gleaned from social media, does the military, especially those families down there, get nervous about this?

CHIARELLI: Well, I think everybody gets a little nervous. But I think you've also got to remember that those kind of lists are available just about anywhere. They published them, yes. But military service is not something that one keeps secret. It's available just about anyplace.

So I think you have to put it into perspective.

But anytime you have a directed threat like that, it does make people much, much more concerned.

RADDATZ: OK, thanks very much, General Chiarelli and John Miller for joining us.

Up next, crime and punishment -- the NFL expected to weigh in on Tom Brady imminently.

Will he be the highest profile player ever suspended by the NFL?

Plus, why it could be a big week for 2016 Republicans -- the new candidates who might reshape the race.

Back in just two minutes.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They need to Tom Brady for a year. One day for the inflation, 364 days for everything else. Once, just once, I would like to be able to stand up and give some nice, slow clap applause to a cheater who smiles and says, yes, you taught me. I left a trail a mile wide. I'm honored that you've recognized my cheating skill by only saying it was more probable than not that I knew about the cheating. I would stand up and applaud that.


RADDATZ: Keith Olbermann coming down hard on Tom Brady for Deflate Gate.

But is the Patriots' star quarterback really going to get sidelined for a season?

With the NFL expected to make an announcement about Brady's fate imminently, let's bring in ESPN analyst Jesse Palmer and "USA Today" columnist Christine Brennan.

And Christine, I want to start with you.

This is obviously very different from things we've been discussing, the serious personal issues, like Ray Rice.

But this does go to the integrity of the game.

So what should they do here?

CHRISTINE BRENNAN, "USA TODAY"/ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Martha, I think that the NFL will suspend Tom Brady. It could be as little as two games. It could be four. I don't see it being a season long. I just don't see that. Maybe six. But somewhere in that two to six range. That's what I see.

He could actually appeal and maybe it would end up being four down to two games, something like that.

I think there will be fines for the Patriots, maybe a fine, also, for Tom Brady. And I also think there could be a draft choice or two taken away by -- from the Patriots. The NFL is not pleased, not only with, of course, the cheating, but, also the lack of cooperation from not only Tom Brady, but also the Patriots.

RADDATZ: And Jamie, would that go far enough? or do you think that goes too far?

Jesse, sorry?

Jesse, can you hear me?

JESSE PALMER, ESPN ANALYST: Oh, sorry. You're -- you were asking me...

RADDATZ: You -- you were waiting for Jamie there. Sorry.

PALMER: I heard Jamie...


PALMER: -- and I wasn't sure.

Well, you know, I think this is an interesting predicament. Obviously, I think the NFL is going to come down with some sort of punishment in this. I do think the New England Patriots will get fined. I actually expect that to be a hefty fine considering they may be viewed as repeat offenders. Remember back in 2007, they were found guilty of stealing signals from the New York Jets.

I do agree that they could lose draft picks.

But, you know, to me, when you read the Wells investigation and that report, there is nothing conclusive. They just say that in general probability, Tom Brady had some sort of general awareness that there was wrongdoing going on. I think it's a slippery slope if the NFL starts handing down fines or suspensions without concrete evidence.

You know, we just heard -- we've seen domestic abuse recently. It was video evidence, and people get fined.

When people fail PED tests, there's urine samples. There's blood samples, things of that nature. But there's nothing conclusive in this so far.

So I do think the NFL needs to be careful when it comes down to its fines and suspensions in this case.

RADDATZ: But and Jesse -- Jesse, quickly on this. You were a quarterback.

Can you imagine an equipment manager doing anything to footballs without you knowing it?

PALMER: Not without me knowing it. People do need to understand that the manipulation of footballs is very widespread throughout the NFL. Quarterbacks are so particular with the footballs they play with on game day. Some people like their footballs more inflated, some like them less inflated.

But people at home have to understand, on game day in the NFL, both teams don't play with the same football. Each offense is afforded to bring their own footballs to the game. Therefore, equipment staffs, each and every week throughout the NFL, are doctoring the footballs based on what their quarterback prefers.

RADDATZ: And then Christine, very, very quickly on this issue, well, if this wasn't Tom Brady, would the NFL have already decided on this?

BRENNAN: Oh, I think actually, either way. Um, I -- I don't think that matters. But I do think he's going to be suspended. And I think the NFL cares very much about this integrity issue. And so any player, really, but certainly he is as high profile as they come.

RADDATZ: OK, thanks to Christine and Jesse.

And coming up, the new conspiracy theory going viral -- is martial law coming to Texas?

And next, Bill Clinton on the defense again over those Clinton cash questions.

Will Hillary pay the price? Back in two minutes.


RADDATZ: Back now with our politics buzzboard. Kicking it off, Hillary Clinton, pushing immigration reform, calling for a path to citizenship for the undocumented.




RADDATZ: Republicans responding this weekend.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Comprehensive immigration reform, I'm not for that.


RADDATZ: Meanwhile, new comments from Bill Clinton making headlines. The Clinton Foundation under fire for its donors. So will he keep raking in millions in speaking fees while Hillary runs?


BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.: Oh yeah. I got to pay our bills.


RADDATZ: And three new Republicans jumping into 2016. Mike Huckabee.




RADDATZ: Carly Fiorina.


CARLY FIORINA, FORMER CEO, HEWLETT PACKARD: This is a pivotal point for our nation.


RADDATZ: And Ben Carson.


DR. BEN CARSON, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: It's time for the people to rise up.


RADDATZ: Of the three, Ben Carson takes the crown in our Facebook senti-meter. With the most interactions around his presidential announcement.

And the roundtable is here, and we're starting off with our lightning round. Our top headlines of the week, let's begin with Gwen Ifill, co-host and managing editor of PBS "Newshour." The headline of the week for you.

GWEN IFILL, PBS NEWSHOUR: Diversity on the Republican side. We saw, now we have Marco Rubio, a Latino. We have Carly Fiorina, a woman. And we have Ben Carson, an African-American, and that is not the biggest diversity. It's also diversity of opinion, diversity of the full range of the Republican debate. And that's (inaudible) what anybody expected to see on the Republican side.

RADDATZ: OK, Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, headline of the week?

RICH LOWRY, NATIONAL REVIEW: My headline of the week is that Democrats don't seem to care whether their nominee is ethical or not, which is great news for Hillary Clinton. Judging by the latest polls, the Democratic Party is a party of bashing the 1 percent and of total indifference to the money grabbing of the Clintons.

RADDATZ: And Greta Van Susteren from Fox News?

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: My headline is the World Health Organization has said that the epicenter of Ebola, Liberia, has now ended its Liberia problem. I think that's huge, but look out. We've got to worry about Nepal, because the monsoon season is coming, and we've got to worry about cholera there, but that is my future headline.

RADDATZ: Ok, Slate magazine's Jamelle Bouie, welcome.

JAMELLE BOUIE, SLATE MAGAZINE: The economy. The economy grew by about 213,000 jobs last month, and if that continues this year, if it continues into 2016, then we should expect an election season that's pretty evenly matched with both sides, you know, there's no - evenly matched, I already said that, so both sides evenly matched.

RADDATZ: OK, thanks all of you. Much more from the roundtable next, and coming up, is the military planning to take over Texas? Why some are saying yes this morning. But first, our powerhouse puzzler. Here is the question. How many consecutive years have women served as treasurer of the United States? And for bonus points, name the current U.S. treasurer. Right back with the answer.


RADDATZ: So how many consecutive years have women served as treasurer of the United States and who is the current U.S. treasurer? Let's see what you came up with. Good luck.


IFILL: I'd say all of the treasurers have been women, that's my guess, and I think the current one is Rosie Rios.

LOWRY: I say five years, and I wrote the answer in very small illegible print.


LOWRY: But I assure you that's the correct answer.


VAN SUSTEREN: Mine is just a completely random guess, seven. I have no idea. It could be 70 or zero.

RADDATZ: I know. Jamelle.

BOUIE: I say seven years, and I have no idea who the treasurer is.

RADDATZ: Well, no 1., the answer is 66 years. The last male treasurer was in 1949, and the current treasurer, you should have all listened to Gwen.


RADDATZ: Her signature is on every dollar bill. We'll be back in a moment with that Texas sized conspiracy theory.


RADDATZ: Now to a Texas-sized conspiracy theory, sparking headlines across the country, including this week in "The New York Times." The theory, that an upcoming Pentagon training exercise is actually part of a plan to impose martial law. To many, it's far-fetched but not to some of the top politicians in the Lone Star State.

Here's ABC's David Wright.



DAVID WRIGHT, ABC NEWS REPORTER (voice-over): From Willie Nelson on down it's practically the slogan of the state.


WRIGHT: And that may explain the reaction to Jade Helm 15, a multi-state training exercise for U.S. Special Forces planned this summer for the Southwest.

Talk show host Alex Jones among the many stirring up concerns on conservative Web sites and social media that Jade Helm is a Trojan horse for a federal invasion, a dress rehearsal for martial law.

ALEX JONES, INFO WARS: This is in preparation for the financial collapse and maybe even Obama not leaving office. I'm telling you this is so huge.

WRIGHT: Never mind the Pentagon's reassurances to the contrary.

REPORTER: Is the U.S. military planning to overtake Texas?


LT. COL. MARK LASTORIA, SPOKESPERSON, U.S. ARMY SPECIAL OPERATIONS: All we want to make sure that our guys are trained for combat overseas.

WRIGHT: At a town hall meeting in central Texas, this lieutenant colonel got an earful.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is a preparation for martial law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not a preparation for martial law.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because that's what you say.

WRIGHT: Remember the Alamo?

Texas does, only in this remake, those wouldn't be Santa Ana troops marshalling in the desert. Texas politicians have added fuel to the fire by taking those concerns seriously.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: You know, I understand the concern that's been raised by a lot of citizens about Jade Helm. I think part of the reason is, we have seen for six years a federal government disrespecting the liberty of the citizens.

WRIGHT: Last week, Texas Governor Greg Abbott called up the Texas state guard to monitor U.S. troops and protect the constitutional rights of Texans, drawing this wise crack from Jon Stewart.



STEWART: Yet another waste of Texas funds that could have been spent on actual threats, like your infamous chainsaw massacres. I mean --


WRIGHT: But in the Lone Star State, plenty of people are worried, now telling Washington --


WRIGHT: "THIS WEEK", David Wright, ABC News, New York.


RADDATZ: Our thanks to David.

Radio talk show host Alex Jones, who as David said has been one of the leading proponents of this theory, had agreed to join us this morning but he did not show up at our studio.

So, let's bring back the roundtable to weigh in on this.

Boy, this got some real legs, this story, and it certainly had to do with Greg Abbott and Ted Cruz talking about it.


RICH LOWRY, EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW: Well, they're pandering to a vocal minority. I'm all in favor of a healthy distrust of the government but not paranoia. There are many threats to our liberty. The U.S. military isn't one of them.

And besides, federal control of Texas is something that was pretty much established in the mid-19th century by President Polk. So, the idea that the federal government is going to go in and retake over Texas is just nonsense.

RADDATZ: I would agree with that wholeheartedly but really, how did -- it's -- why did they talk about it? Why did they -- why did a Ted Cruz or a Greg Abbott talk about how this Texas state --


GWEN IFILL, CO-HOST & MANAGING EDITOR, PBS NEWSHOUR: You're allowed to talk about whatever you like. Free speech is a great thing.

but then there's this shouting fire in a crowded theater idea, which you're not allowed to do. And then there's this idea that people on the Internet and who can get instant soap boxes around the world can make things seem credible and that's where leadership kicks in.

And if you're a senator or you're a governor, it's your job to hose the fire down, not ignite it.

RADDATZ: And, you know, Greta, one of the things I was going to ask Alex Jones about this is, when you -- you heard General Chiarelli, you know the military installations across the country are raising their alert level. There seems to be an element of danger to this for the military if you start telling people they're about to take over.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Yes. And, you know, whatever happened to the telephone? Why in the world isn't Governor Abbott speaking with the Pentagon, the Pentagon speaking with the governor? I mean, how we let things deteriorate in this country that everyone goes to the Internet and get -- and goes basically wild?

And it's a lot because our leaders are not showing a whole lot of leadership and giving instruction to the American people. This was -- you know, when I was on the air, I got a million e-mails about this like that Texas was somehow under siege or something. It was pretty crazy.

But the problem is I do fault our leaders. They're supposed to lead. They could have just picked up the phone and they could have headed this one off at the pass a long time ago, but they don't.

RADDATZ: Which leaders are you talking about?

VAN SUSTEREN: I'm talking about leaders, I'm talking about the Democrats, the Republicans, the governors, and the Pentagon, the president and the Hill. You know, all -- many of these problems that we have, a lot of it (ph), is because nobody is talking to anybody.

RADDATZ: Well, they tried -- you saw in the piece, they tried to shut this down.

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, this was long after -- long after we were deep into it. I mean, that's the problem. Often, many of these problems, they don't start talking until we're deep into. They don't try to head things off at the pass. Our leaders don't talk to each other enough. And so, of course, the citizens have wild imaginations as a consequence.

RADDATZ: Jamelle?

JAMELLE BOUIE, SLATE: You know, I think this could be stopped by more talking, too. But judging by the kind of reaction people had, in Texas (ph), President Obama explained that this was not a takeover of Texas, do you think that some of these ordinary citizens would say oh, yes, we're going to trust Obama?

VAN SUSTEREN: I don't think this started now. I don't think this started now. I think that this great distrust -- part of what Rich was talking about which is healthy for the country, but a lot of this has been going on for quite some time and it's because there hasn't -- you know, this has been going on decades, there has been a declining amount of our leaders talking to each other and communicating effectively with the American people.

RADDATZ: Jamelle?

BOUIE: I both agree and I just think that this kind of paranoia and conspiracy-mongering would have happened kind of regardless of any of that. I mean, these -- a lot of these are folks who just have this inherit distrust of the federal government and of President Obama in particular.

So, I'm just not sure how much you could have done to preempt or preclude in that kind of reaction.

RADDATZ: And, Rich, are we going to see more of this? I think we're going to see more distrust as the election ramps up.

LOWRY: Well, we've always seen distrust and it's on both sides. You know, both sides --

IFILL: But also the military?


BOUIE: I don't see liberals worried about military takeovers.

LOWRY: Well, you look at the left. They have the anti-vaccers. They have unscientific fears about nuclear power and GMO foods. During the Bush administration, you actually had a prominent liberal write a book about how Bush was preparing for a fascist takeover of this country.

So, there's a distrust of government on both sides. It just takes different forms.

IFILL: I agree with him on that.


Up next, that terror attack in Texas sparking a debate over free speech, and later, as college students don their caps and gowns this weekend, we hear from the Navy SEAL whose commencement address struck a chord across the country.



MICHELLE OBAMA, FIRST LADY: As potentially the first African-American first lady, I was also the focus of another set of questions and speculations, conversations sometimes rooted in the fears and misperceptions of others. Was I too loud or too angry or too emasculating? Or was I too soft? Too much of a mom, not enough of a career woman?


RADDATZ: We'll take that up with the roundtable in just a moment.

But let me start with you, Gwen, and let's talk about Hillary Clinton staking out her position on immigration this week, to the left, saying she would go even further with executive action than President Obama has.

IFILL: If you look at what the Clintons have been doing, they have been under fire, she has been under fire, of course, not only because of the e-mails and because of Benghazi, but, also because of the handling of the Clinton Foundation and what they thought they were going to do this week was have Hillary and Bill Clinton in Africa, showing the good work of the Clinton Global Initiative, which there is much good work, and have Hillary in Washington or in Nevada, in this case, talking about substance.

So she talked last week about mass incarceration. She talked this week about immigration. And she talked a lot about gay marriage and gay rights. She's going to focus on the substance. They are going to focus on saying this is very unfair, what's happened to us, we do good work.

It didn't exactly work the way it was designed, partly because Bill Clinton can't help himself and he always takes it one step farther than is helpful, necessarily, to his wife's campaign.

But on the other hand, she -- her substance part was out there for all to see. And you've got to give something -- when we talk about horse race all this time at this stage of the campaign, to see candidates giving policy speeches, which you can decide you agree or disagree with.

RADDATZ: But -- but Greta, she's -- she's really challenging Republicans who have a very tough balancing act here. Let's think back to Mitt Romney and the self-deportation comments.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, well, first, I have to disclose, my husband's a very strong supporter of Governor Martin O'Malley, who is not in the race, but suspected to be.

Now, having said that, look, you know, no matter what she says, we're all going to seize upon it and we're going to dissect it. I frankly don't think it matters much what anybody says right now, because I don't think anyone at home is paying attention who's running for president.

We're all interested in it and it's fascinating, because we like to see how the sausage is made.

I think what's got more more is how is the economy doing a year from now?

And they're going to matter whether they trust her or trust anybody else.

And I think that's what's going to matter.

Right now, it's fascinating to us and we dissect it and we take every little sound bite and we -- you know, we throw it up against somebody else. But frankly...

IFILL: We are on a Sunday morning talk show.


VAN SUSTEREN: No, but I think -- but I think -- I mean I think it's fascinating.


VAN SUSTEREN: I mean we dissect it, but I -- frankly, in my hometown of Appleton, Wisconsin, they may be watching right now, but they're also figuring out Mother's Day.


VAN SUSTEREN: You know, they're all thinking about how -- you know, is mother -- you know, who's going to sit next to mother if mother is in a bad mood or if mother is (INAUDIBLE)?

That's what I think. I mean it's fascinating, but I think...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My mother is never in a bad mood.

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I mean like...


VAN SUSTEREN: Who gets to sit next to mother, you know?


RADDATZ: Look, Hillary Clinton is staking -- is going to the left on immigration, but she's getting pushed from the left. You've got Senator Elizabeth Warren and now New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who have co-authored an op-ed in "The Washington Post" this week calling for increasing the minimum wage, paid family leave, investing in education, called "How To Revive the American Dream."

And Mayor de Blasio is unveiling his version of a Contract With America here in DC this week.

What does -- effect do you think this has on her?

BOUIE: Right. I think this gets back to something you were saying, Greta.

RADDATZ: Or maybe that's obvious. Maybe that would just point it out.

BOUIE: I don't think any of this is so much for the voters at home. I think it's very much for activists, for people within the Democratic Party. I think it's signaling. You know, Warren and de Blasio pushing Clinton from the left, I think she will almost certainly adopt some of those positions. But to signal to potential competitors like Governor O'Malley that, listen, I have my left flank covered, there is no room for you.

And I think to activists and immigration activists and criminal justice reform activists, she's not only saying I am on your side, but by publicly making these sort of statements and commitments, if she is president in 2017, they now have a hook, right.


BOUIE: They now have a way to say you owe us something and you need to do something about it.

VAN SUSTEREN: And also, at this point, it really is an effort to look at raising money.

BOUIE: Right.

VAN SUSTEREN: And you want to say the right thing so that the groups will contribute money to you, groups that you're trying to get, because money, whether we like it or not, really matters in these races.

LOWRY: Right, well it's -- it's a brilliant successes for the left, because they don't really -- no offense to Governor O'Malley or others -- they don't really have a viable challenger to her, but they still moved her in their direction.

I mean just look on immigration. At the very least, everyone agreed that President Obama had pushed to the very outer limits of the envelope of his legal authority on immigration. And here you have Hillary Clinton saying she will go further. That's really remarkable.

RADDATZ: Let -- let's move on to -- to Bill Clinton's comments this week. They don't really seem to be hurting her, but no apologies, I've got to pay our bills. And I just work here.


RADDATZ: Bill has never gone away and he's back even stronger.

IFILL: No. And here's the thing we should always, always remember about the Clintons. And we've all been covering them now for many -- for a long time and nobody is talking about it at Mother's Day, but we're thinking about it, which is that it never -- is that people have internalized a lot of the Clinton's perceived shortcomings. They knew things about Bill Clinton before he was elected and decided it was OK.

They knew things about Hillary Clinton. And so the polls, and a huge grain of salt, it's early. It's kind of silly even to be talking about them in terms of horse race, but in terms of how these candidates are perceived, and Hillary Clinton in particularly, people have baked a lot of it into the cake.

And that's what I think (INAUDIBLE).

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you know, I think...


VAN SUSTEREN: And the Bill Clinton comment, what's particularly dangerous for her is it shows a tone deafness. Look, when -- when she said to Diane Sawyer that the day they left the White House, that they were -- she was dead broke, literally probably true, because they'd been living in, you know, in the White House and the governor's mansion before that. And they didn't have many assets.

But it's like Lebron James, the day before he signed a multi-million dollar contract. Technically dead broke, but not about to be.

But it shows, you know, people back in Iowa, who she needs to, you know...


VAN SUSTEREN: -- communicate with, they need to understand her, that -- she just wasn't dead broke. And now you've got Bill saying he's going to pay the family's bills...


LOWRY: You make this sound as though...


LOWRY: -- if he's not giving $500,000 speeches, the lights are going to be turned off...

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, and it...

LOWRY: -- at Chappaqua.

VAN SUSTEREN: -- it's a...


RADDATZ: -- I want to quickly...


RADDATZ: -- in the -- in the short amount of time we have, to -- to move on to the Republican race.

Three new candidates this week. You seem to think Mike Huckabee has a pretty good chance.

BOUIE: I don't think Mike Huckabee has a very good chance. I think he's a very interesting guy, in part because he seems to represent this constituency in American politics that doesn't really have a place in either party.

What about sort of viable third parties as being like libertarians. But there aren't that many people in the United States who are, you know, very socially liberal and very economically conservative.

There are a lot of people in this country who I think endorse the welfare state. They like Social Security. They like Medicare. They like help for their kids and their -- and their elders. And they're also very traditional in their values.

And that's kind of Mike Huckabee's wheelhouse. And it's unfortunate for him that like that's not going to take him anywhere in terms of national politics, but just in terms of political analysis.

And so you -- it's an interesting phenomena.

VAN SUSTEREN: But -- and he won Iowa in '08.

LOWRY: That's true.

VAN SUSTEREN: And he got the Evangelical vote. But what's so interesting here, here's got Santorum trying to get the Evangelical vote, which takes that away from him. And now you've even got Governor Bush at Liberty University sort of beginning to sort of make inroads...

IFILL: Scott Walker...


IFILL: Ben Carson...

VAN SUSTEREN: -- but they're all...


VAN SUSTEREN: -- trying to get that -- that Evangelical vote is getting split up.

RADDATZ: I want to hit two quick things here, the attack in Texas this week and -- and the question of free speech. You talked about Pam Geller, who had this conference to paint cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. You said, "Pamela Geller is bomb thrower, but only a metaphorical, not a literal one. That's the difference between her and her enemies and between civilization and barbarism."

Do you think she should have done

LOWRY: We...

RADDATZ: -- what she did?

LOWRY: -- we -- we live in a country where literally nothing is sacred. And if we're going to accept, in effect, an assassin's veto, in this instance, we're going to say nothing if off limits except for depictions of Muhammad and that is perverse. And the purpose of this event was to say we are not going to accept violent extremists setting the parameters of speech in this country.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know what, though, here's the problem, is that there is no one I know who denies that she had a First Amendment right and all of them do. They had a First Amendment right to do that.

But with everyone -- every right comes some sort of judgment. You have a First Amendment right, the Nazis did, to march in Skokie when 20 percent of the population in Skokie were Holocaust and this was 1977 -- Holocaust victims or -- or actually part of it?

And they have a First Amendment right. But sometimes you use good judgment. And what she was doing was mocking an entire religion of Muslims. Amir Hekmati, a Marine who is in Iran's prison, he's Muslim. He -- he say -- he served for the rest of us. There 20,000 -- 15,000 to 20,000 Muslims in the military.

And so we have to be careful. We have to use good judgment about how we exercise that right.

Absolutely, she had a First Amendment right to do that. One hundred percent behind her. And I've actually been in court representing people with the First Amendment with things I don't agree with, because I do believe in that right.

But I also believe sometimes you need to use better judgment.

RADDATZ: OK, about those disagreements on the Sunday shows.


RADDATZ: Thanks to everyone.

That's a big court -- that big court ruling against the government's domestic spy program after this from our ABC stations.



SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: The whole program really is not consistent with the Fourth Amendment. And what we find out today is that the appeals court thinks that it's not even consistent with the statute, the Patriot Act.



SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R), FLORIDA: One day, there will be an attack that's successful. And the first question out of everyone's mouth is going to be, why we didn't -- why didn't we know about it?


RADDATZ: Reaction to this week's court decision that struck a blow to the government's domestic spy program. A federal court ruling the NSA's collection of millions of American phone records is illegal.

Joining us now, Senator Richard Burr, chair of the Intelligence Committee.

Thank you for joining us, Senator Burr.

SEN. RICHARD BURR (R), NORTH CAROLINA: It's good to be with you.

RADDATZ: I want to...

BURR: Thank you, Martha.

RADDATZ: I want to start -- you think this bulk collection of all Americans' phone records should continue.

BURR: Well, I do think it should continue for the simple reason that it's very effective at keeping America safe. And in addition to that, we've had absolutely no incident of anybody's privacy being intruded on.

Let me just remind your listeners, that we collect telephone numbers that are de-identified. We don't know whose they are. And the only time we're interested in them is if we know that they have talked to a telephone number of a terrorist. And if that happens, we have to go to court and a FISA judge, looks at the evidence and gives us permission then to find out whose telephone number that is.

It still does not allow us to look at any content of the conversation.

RADDATZ: Certainly others feel very, very differently about this, Senator Burr. The USA Freedom Act is coming up for a House vote this week, expected to sail through. It stops the NSA collection of every Americans' phone records and targets instead only those with a reasonable suspicion they're related to terrorism.

Why not back that?

BURR: Well, it's real simple. That turns us back to pre-9/11. We had the opportunity to do that even without a judge's order.

We did it with a national security letter. And it was time consuming. It was cumbersome, but that was the rules then.

And what we looked at was the impact of 9/11 and the fact that we might have been able to stop 9/11 had we had bulk collection. Again, we have --

RADDATZ: Do you have any proof that would happen? Do you absolutely think we could have done that had we had all these records?

BURR: Well, there's no absolute. I can only take the advice of those who were involved at the time and because of the connection we couldn't make, they suggested that if we had been able to bulk collect telephone numbers, we could have traced and connected that dot and caught al-Mihdhar who was in San Diego.

But the reality is that the bulk collection does not give us any American's name. So, we go further now with the fact that we've got to go to court. That's a presidential directive, before we can look at anybody from a standpoint of their identification and their telephone number, and if we had to go to content, I can assure you it would take another court order.

I'm sure that the FBI --

RADDATZ: Senator Burr, I --

BURR: -- in post-Texas -- go ahead.

RADDATZ: Senator Burr, I want to move on in the minute or so we have left here to these warnings about ISIS within this country, and you heard those warnings and we had Secretary Johnson talk about that.

How concerned are you and are we doing enough?

BURR: Well, let me just say that the men and women throughout the intelligence agency and through law enforcement are 24/7 on this. We've certainly seen an uptick in social media. We've seen the target of military individuals. There was every reason to raise the alert.

We can't stay at this alert level 24/7, 365 days a year, but it's important that we respond to any potential uptick in terrorism. The intent is there.

There are individuals in this country that are under surveillance. But the reality is, there's no specifics, just like Garland wasn't specific, but we did know about the individual. We had no reason to suspect exactly what the attack might have been.

RADDATZ: OK, thank you so much for joining us this morning, Senator Burr.

We'll be right back.

BURR: Great to be with you.


RADDATZ: It's commencement time when so many speakers are looking for just the right advice for graduates. So, this morning, we shine our Sunday spotlight on Admiral William McRaven's surprising speech last year that went viral and is still resonating today.


RADDATZ (voice-over): He's had one of the most remarkable military careers in recent history, taking on some of the toughest special operations missions, including the raid to take out the world's top terrorist.


RADDATZ: So, imagine the response when this was the simple advice Admiral William McRaven offered graduates last year at the University of Texas.

MCRAVEN: So, if you want to change the world, start off by making your bed.

RADDATZ: The speech became a YouTube sensation.

MCRAVEN: If you can't do the little things right, you'll never be able to do the big things right.

RADDATZ (on camera): Three million hits, did you ever imagine?


RADDATZ (voice-over): McRaven, while unfailingly humble, is often mentioned in the same breath as some of the greatest American military leaders, MacArthur and Eisenhower.

MCRAVEN: I was very fortunate as the understanding and appreciation for special operations became greater and greater at the national level that I kind of rode this wave to where I ended up. I certainly would not put myself in the league with those other great leaders.

RADDATZ: It was a movie that inspired a young McRaven to join the SEALs.

MCRAVEN: I watched the movie "The Green Beret" with John Wayne. It's a classic.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Take the platoon down and reinforce them!

RADDATZ: But he told us he has never watched the Hollywood blockbuster, "Zero Dark Thirty" that immortalized his accomplishments.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sir, the agency expert gave visual confirmation.

RADDATZ (on camera): You will forever be known as the man who planned the Osama bin Laden raid.

MCRAVEN: I'm proud and honored to have been a part of it. But as I have told other folks, you know, we had 11 other missions going on that night in Afghanistan. This is what we do.

RADDATZ (voice-over): In fact, McRaven never imagined he would have anything to do with bringing down bin Laden after a nearly fatal parachuting accident left him bedridden with a shattered pelvis during 9/11.

(on camera): For a Navy SEAL to be in bed and somewhat hobbled, that had to be tough.

MCRAVEN: It was because I thought at the time that my opportunity for commanding troops and being able to do something about the events of 9/11, I really thought my time was passed.

RADDATZ (voice-over): Instead, McRaven was summoned to the White House and on to lead those special operations forces.

Now, he is taking on his next leadership challenge, heading back to where he gave that commencement speech, as chancellor of the University of Texas system, overseeing some 214,000 students and another 90,000 faculty and staff, a small army in itself.

MCRAVEN: I've been careful about using the terms but I look at the students, they're kind of my troops. My responsibility is to them.

RADDATZ: He is a popular choice for chancellor, but McRaven has already made a political splash since arriving in Texas, taking unpopular stances on hot button campus issues.

(on camera): You oppose concealed carry on campus.

MCRAVEN: I'm a big second amendment guy. I've got nine weapons, six swords and two tomahawks, but my responsibility again is to ensure that I'm providing the safest environment in which students can learn.

RADDATZ (voice-over): Chancellor McRaven's new job is a complicated one, but he remains grounded in the simple truths he shared with his students.

MCRAVEN: Face down the bullies, lift up the downtrodden and never ever give up. If you do these things, the next generation and the generations that follow will live in a world far better than the one we have today.

In Texas nobody comes up to me and says, ah, you're the guy that led the bin Laden raid but they come up all the time and say, you know, you're the guy that gave the commencement speech. I'm happy to have that be my legacy.

RADDATZ (on camera): And forget the bin Laden.

MCRAVEN: And forget all the rest of it.


RADDATZ: Our thanks to Admiral McRaven. That's all for us today. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us.

Check out "WORLD NEWS TONIGHT." And to all the moms out there, happy Mother's Day.

ABC News Live

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events