A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, April 21, 2024 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive.

       JONATHAN KARL, ABC "THIS WEEK" CO-ANCHOR: I'm joined now by the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Michael McCaul.

       So, let me ask you, Congressman, at the end, the vote was overwhelming, particularly on Ukraine.

       REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL, FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIR & (R) TEXAS: Right.

       KARL: On all of these bills. Why did it have to be so difficult? Why would – why did it take months to happen?

       Recent Stories from ABC News

       1/1 Skip Ad Continue watching after the ad Visit Advertiser website GO TO PAGE

       PLAY Top Stories 00:36 Video Settings Full Screen About Connatix V471185 15 people suffer minor injuries in tram accident at Universal Studios theme park in Los Angeles

       MCCAUL: Well, I think, you know, the motion to vacate McCarthy, which is a rarely used tool – only twice in the history of Congress, right, and the threat of the motion to vacate kept this from coming to the floor in a timely basis.

       I have to say, watching your piece, I am so proud of the speaker, Mike Johnson. He went through a transformation. At the end of the day, a profile in courage is putting the nation above yourself. And that's when he did. He said at the end of the day I'm going to – I'm going to be on the right side of history irrespective of my job. And I think that was what I admired so much.

       KARL: It was a transformation. I mean he – he had initially said, no Ukraine funding until we take care of the border. He was with a lot of – you know, what – basically what the radicals are saying.

       What – how do you explain that transformation? What made Johnson become the steadfast guy on this? The – as you said, the profile in courage?

       MCCAUL: I think he tried to do what the, you know, say the Freedom Caucus wanted him to do. It wasn't going to work in the Senate or the White House. At the end of the day, we were running out of time. Ukraine's getting ready to fall. And I think the – I think the briefings that he got in the classified space, the advice he got from people like me and Mike Turner, House Intelligence, Armed Services, I think talking to world leaders, he became the man that went from a district in Louisiana to the speaker of the United States, to also someone who had to look at the entire world and had to carry the burden of that and make the right decision. And his son's going to Annapolis. He is smart. He knows what's at stake here if we surrender in Ukraine, like we did in Afghanistan. America will be weaker, not stronger.

       KARL: It's fascinating, he really was the one guy that could either make it happen or not happen. Is his job now in jeopardy?

       MCCAUL: I tell you what, he's got my support. And he has a lot of – I think he – his – the stock in Mike Johnson’s gone way up. I think the respect for him’s gone way up because he did the right thing irrespective of his job. That garnered a lot of respect. And also from the Democrat side.

       Now, that’s not what you normally want. But I do think that –

       KARL: What's not what you normally want?

       MCCAUL: Well –

       KARL: To rely on Democrats?

       MCCAUL: To have to do that, right?

       KARL: Yes.

       MCCAUL: It shows you that we're in a bipartisan era to some strange – in some strange way where Democrats will be able to back the speaker on the other side of the aisle and not have him vacated out of the chair. But I think that – I think – I think he's in good shape. I really do.

       KARL: I mean, you already have enough Republicans to force it -- it only takes one to force the vote and you already have enough to remove him if it were only Republicans.

       So it looks like he's going to need to rely on Democrats to remain speaker of the House. How does that change the dynamic? I mean --

       MCCAUL: Well, I think there are also --

       KARL: We now have a coalition government in the -- in the House effectively?

       MCCAUL: Well, I don’t know, maybe some people like that. I mean, there are --

       KARL: Yeah.

       MCCAUL: I mean, there are -- there are those in my party -- look, the motion to vacate has only been used in history. Once Joe Cannon used it against himself to keep his position, and then McCarthy.

       When the motion gets threatened every week in the Congress, that is being abused. And I think we need to fix that. That is a tool that's being abused by a minority when the majority of my conference don't agree with them.

       And they use that because they think that gives them power, and it does if they have a gun to the speaker's head every day. And so, I think that's something that we’ll -- we'll be looking at.

       KARL: I mean, when you look -- when you heard the way Johnson was talking about this moment in history, whether or not we support Ukraine, the warning that if we don't, if Putin succeeds there, he moves through Europe, potentially. It’s certainly what -- particularly the Eastern Europeans worry about. You've made that case.

       Why is it that a majority of Republicans in the House voted against supporting Ukraine?

       MCCAUL: I think they bought into this notion that it's an either/or proposition. You can't secure the border -- you can't support Ukraine without the border.

       We can do both. We're a great nation. Now we are stuck in a political issue here.

       But, you know, America's back, and we have our allies back now. And the people, you know, in Israel, and in Ukraine, and in Taiwan, and our NATO allies now know that America's back. That we're leading the free world like Ronald Reagan did -- and, you know, Reagan brought down the Soviet Union for God's sakes.

       The eyes of the world are watching and our adversaries are watching, and history is watching. And that's what I kept telling my colleagues, do you want to be a Chamberlain or a Churchill? Because that is the moment in time that we are at.

       KARL: Well, one of your colleagues who agrees with you on this, Dan Crenshaw, said that looking at his colleagues that don't support this, fellow Republicans, it's -- I’m guessing the reasoning is they want Russia to win so badly they're willing to oust the speaker over it.

       I mean, how is it that we have Republic -- the party of Reagan, or formerly the party of Reagan, acting as if they want Russia to succeed in Ukraine?

       MCCAUL: I grew up in the Cold War, and I see -- I see the whole thing differently.

       I think if we -- if we -- if we surrender on Ukraine like we did in Afghanistan, which was a debacle, is the United States of America going to be stronger or weaker? I would say weaker, and then Putin will invade Moldova. That’s not Article 5. Georgia, he'll threaten the Baltics.

       And the United States has already -- we can't shrink from this responsibility. You know, I quoted Chamber -- Churchill yesterday, the gathering storm. He talked about how it was unnecessary war.

       He saw the axis of evil and Hitler coming to power, but then he says, also, this is an unnecessary war that could have been stopped.

       My dad was in that war.

       Just think if we could have stopped Hitler at Poland, how much blood and treasure we could have prevented. I think we're at the same moment in history now.

       KARL: So where's Trump on this? I mean, we saw it when we met with Viktor Orban in Turkey, Orban came out and said, not a penny more for Ukraine. Where's -- where’s the leader (ph) of your party on this?

       MCCAUL: If you read through the tea leaves, he has not come out and condemned a vote for Ukraine. What he said --

       KARL: Not yet, yeah.

       MCCAUL: -- what he said, it wouldn’t happen if I’d been president.

       He likes the idea of the loan program. You're going to hear Lindsey Graham talk today on Sunday. We’ve been talking to him about this loan program, and Mike Johnson has, too.

       He likes the idea that it's not just a giveaway, but a loan program like the EU has for Ukraine.

       And so, I think what he wants is for a lifeline to be given to Ukraine so that when he gets into office, in his thinking, that he can then negotiate and save it.

       KARL: Well, it's a loan program that can be forgiven.

       Congressman McCaul, Chairman McCaul, thank you very much for joining us.

       MCCAUL: Thanks, Jon. Thanks for having me.

       KARL: Appreciate it.

       KARL: After a busy and dramatic day on Capitol Hill, I'm joined now by Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California.

       Congressman Khanna, does Speaker Johnson deserve credit for how this played out?

       REP. RO KHANNA, (D) ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE & (D) CALIFORNIA: He does. Look, we came into Congress together and he always cared about civility. He actually led the civility pledge.

       KARL: That's right. Yes.

       KHANNA: And he – we had one issue, which was give individual votes. Don't lump things together. And I give him credit for doing this. I would actually vote to table any motion to vacate him.

       You know, Congressman McCaul quoted Churchill. One of the things Churchill said is that America always exhausted every wrong option until doing the right thing.

       KARL: Yes.

       KHANNA: And this shows that American democracy still is very strong.

       Related Stories

       Man dies after setting himself on fire near court

       Apr 20, 9:00 PM

       Vehicle crashes into building leaving 2 dead

       Apr 21, 9:20 AM

       OJ Simpson dies at 76

       Apr 12, 6:32 AM

       KARL: OK, you just said something significant. You said you would oppose the tabled – the motion to vacate. In other words, you will protect Speaker Johnson's job if Marjorie Taylor Greene and the others go through with their threat to try to remove him?

       KHANNA: I would, though the end of the term. I expect Speaker Pelosi -- Speaker Jeffries will be there in 2025.

       KARL: Right – not – speaker, yes. Yes.

       KHANNA: But look, I'm a progressive Democrat and I think you would have a few progressive Democrats doing that. And I disagree with Speaker Johnson on many issues and have been very critical of him. But he did the right thing here and he deserves to keep his job until the end of his term.

       KARL: Now, would you and fellow Democrats that will protect him at this moment ask him anything in return? I mean do we effectively have – you heard me ask Congressman McCaul, a coalition government in the House?

       KHANNA: I'll leave the negotiations to Speaker Jeffries.

       KARL: Yes.

       KHANNA: But I don't think everything in politics needs to be transactional. I think here you have Speaker Johnson, who not only put this up for a vote, but he also separated the bills, which I thought was courageous. He let people vote their conscience on Taiwan, on the offensive aid to Israel, on – on Ukraine. And I give him credit for that.

       KARL: Now, you were one of the 37 who voted against the funding for Israel. Tell me – tell me more. Tell me why. I mean I – you know, why? And was that a high number or a low number in your – in your view?

       KHANNA: It was a high number. It was a hard vote. I mean, look, it – this was a stance against a blank check for Netanyahu and offensive weapons unconditionally while he's talking about going into Rafah with – when we know more women and children are going to die. And the reason that you had people like Jamie Raskin, Lloyd Doggett, myself, who have voted for Israel aid year after year and voted for Iron Dome, take this stand, is that we wanted to make it clear that there has to be a change in strategy and no more famine and suffering in Gaza.

       KARL: I'm sure you saw the report in "The Wall Street Journal" on Friday that the administration – the Biden administration is considering a billion-dollar arms deal with Israel. Are you concerned about how Biden is handling this?

       KHANNA: I am in terms of, I’m glad that he's moving in the rhetoric. But we can't be shipping offensive weapon when Netanyahu, on his own terms, is defying the president's State Department, defying the president's secretary of defense. And we know that thousands of people are going to die.

       And, by the way, Jon, we know that Israel is still using the 2022 authorization and appropriation for Iron Dome, which I voted for, and many of the 37 who voted no voted for that funding.

       The money yesterday is not going to be used for another two and a half years. So why are we giving this unconditionally to Netanyahu when the entire world is saying that there's famine there, that we need a new strategy, that we need release of the hostages and peace?

       KARL: So have you -- have you given this message to the White House?

       KHANNA: They know.

       (LAUGHTER)

       KHANNA: They -- they've heard from many -- many of us. But it's not just progressive Democrats. I mean -- and we need an architecture for peace in -- in the Middle East.

       I mean, look, Iran's attacks were totally unjustified. We -- I voted to condemn them. But the reality is, until we have a security cooperation effort, a diplomatic architecture in the Middle East, with Iran, with Saudi Arabia, with Israel, you're never going to get peace. And we're not going to be able to do what Lindsey Graham wants, which is blow Iran off the map.

       So what is the alternative? How are we going to get diplomacy and peace? That's where President Biden should be leading, as President Obama did.

       KARL: I mean, given the Iran attack, attempted attack on Israel, I mean, it was for the most part unsuccessful. But, I mean, how do you -- how do you not support Israel in terms of defense aid at a time when the Iranians, you know, have done something they have never done before, which is try to directly attack the -- the Israelis...

       KHANNA: You know, I...

       KARL: ... directly from Iran to Israel?

       KHANNA: You absolutely do, and I supported Iron Dome funding. I would have voted for a -- we tried -- Dan Kildee introduced an amendment saying let's just make this about Iron Dome and David's Sling and Arrow 3. That amendment wasn't ruled in order.

       Many of us have voted for all the defensive aid. I'd still support it, and I'd support the United States using the Interceptors to knock anything down against Iran. But what we need is to figure out how we de-escalate, not give them offensive weapons now going to Hezbollah to expand the war.

       And by the way, Jon, look, I'm for the Labor tradition, from Ben-Gurion to Golda Meir to Rabin to Peres to Barak. I'm not for Begin to Sharon to Netanyahu. And what you've done is given a far-right Israeli government a carte blanche right now.

       KARL: And before you go, there was also the vote on TikTok that was part of this. I know you have opposed efforts to force the sale of TikTok with the threat of a ban. But now it looks like, if TikTok is not sold within a year, this bill becomes law that ByteDance has to either, you know, if it doesn't sell, it's banned in the United States?

       KHANNA: I don't think it's going to pass first amendment scrutiny because I think there are less restrictive alternatives. We could have made it a crime to transfer Americans' data to an adversarial foreign nation or foreign state interference. But to just ban 170 million Americans who are engaged in speech and livelihood, the federal judge in Montana struck it down. The judges struck it down when Trump tried this. I doubt it survives scrutiny in the Supreme Court.

       KARL: All right. Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you for joining us here on "This Week."

       KHANNA: Thank you, Jon.

       JONATHAN KARL: That was President Biden and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, speaking following Breyer’s 2022 announcement that he was retiring. Justice Breyer is out with a new book titled Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism. And Justice Breyer joins me now right here in the studio. Thank you for joining us.

       STEPHEN BREYER: Well, thank you very much.

       KARL: So let me get right at the thesis of the book. You make the case in this fascinating book, sweeping history of the Supreme Court, that justices should consider the practical consequences of a decision such as how those affected by the decision will react. How do you, how does that work in practice?

       BREYER: In practice, you do your best to figure out what’s going to happen. When it’s most likely to play a major role is when you look at the words of the Constitution and they don’t tell you the answer. Look at the words of a statute. They don’t tell you the answer. And so people, forever, since Chief Justice Marshall in 18-whatever it was, and, Holmes and Brandeis, they say, look at, somebody wrote those words. They had a reason and you’re, you interpret them.

       KARL: Because, as you know, there’s, there’s an argument that you, that a Justice has to stay within the, the four corners of what’s written on that page. Let’s look at, for instance, in the, in the Dobbs decision, what Justice Alito wrote, “we do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision, overruling Roe v--Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we will have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.” Why is he wrong?

       BREYER: Really? Because, well, let me give you a very simple case. You may know that if you have a person who has a child who’s handicapped, the school board has to give that child a good education. And if the mother or father think not, they can bring a lawsuit. And if they win that lawsuit, the statute says they’re entitled to their costs. And that was the case. Costs. Does cost include the cost of an educational expert? $29,000? Or does it just mean legal costs? So I say here, why don’t you try this, Mister Textualist? Say it loud. Cost! Now do you know the answer? Say it twice. Cost, cost. Three times. Cost, cost, cost. doesn’t tell you. So the other things the judges have always looked to too. Who wrote those words and what did they have in mind? What was Congress trying to do? What are the consequences if you go one way rather than another way? How does it fit into a set of values that begins with the Constitution? Judges have always done that kind of thing, and it is part of the role of interpreting, a statute or the Constitution.

       KARL: So let me ask you, though, as a Justice, when you’re going through, a high profile controversial case, are you hearing the noise outside? I mean, I guess literally the protests outside the court, but more, more broadly, are you gauging and thinking about how the world is going to react, how the country is going to react to your decision?

       BREYER: Yes, I would say that’s in your mind.

       KARL: And how, how do you do that? Are you how–

       BREYER: And when you say, does that lead, does that lead to your deciding x rather than not x?

       KARL: Yeah.

       BREYER: Well I can never say never, but rarely. Paul Freund. Professor, great professor, constitutional law said of the role of politics in the courts, in any court. He says no judge. No judge should or will be moved by the temperature of the day, but every judge will be aware of the climate of the season.

       KARL: So what about our time now, which the political system seems hopelessly divided. The court seems to reflect that division.

       BREYER: Hard to say. It’s a different, it’s a very complex institution. And where I think the politics that I’ve seen, I’ve not seen politics in the court. And I’ve been a judge for 40 years. I have not seen-

       KARL: You have not seen politics in the Court.

       BREYER: Not politics in the sense in which I understood that word when I worked for Senator Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, when he was a senator.

       KARL: Yeah.

       BREYER: And I worked there for a few years. But, you get a phone call. Mayor of Worcester. Same time. Secretary of Defense. Which call will Senator Kennedy take first?

       KARL: Mayor of Worcester.

       BREYER: Of course. It’s politics. Of course. Of course. I mean, politics was “how popular is this? How unpopular is that? How are we going to get the Republicans to go long, possibly, or some Democrats too. How do we get all the people to the Senate meetings? Where do you want to stand when you’re running for election and and and and.” No, that isn’t there. That just isn’t there.

       KARL: So how important it was for the Supreme Court when they ruled in the Colorado case about whether or not Trump could be on the ballot, that that was a unanimous decision.

       BREYER: How important was it?

       KARL: Yeah.

       BREYER: Well, don’t talk about that case because you’ll know more about it than me because that’s after I left the court. But in general, that is a very interesting question for me because, it’s very tempting once you’ve written a dissent. Even from a denial of a refusal to hear a case. Yeah, you’ve written the dissent. Your real audience is the other judges but if you fail at that, now you’ve written it, why not let the country have the virtue of seeing your--no, said Holmes. No said, Taft. And Taft said it’s just ego. Keep it. You can, you can join the opinion even though you don’t agree with it. And they did a lot in the Taft court. So I always thought, well, it doesn’t hurt to publish these things. It puts out another point of view. It shows people which they would believe anyway, that not everybody’s in agreement. But there’s also something to be said to try to keep down the extent to which you publicly reveal the disagreement.

       KARL: Would the justices ever do the kind of horse trading we see in Congress? I mean, I don’t mean to be crass about this, but you have two cases.

       BREYER: No.

       KARL: For the court that could determine the presidential election. Decide one it looks better for Donald Trump, the ballot access issue. One, absolute immunity that doesn’t serve his purposes. And they both come out, send the country a message.

       BREYER: I mean, I mean, you look, it may be that you can find a compromise in the conference or a way of approaching things in the conference that will, in fact, solve a number of problems. And that could be one of the problems.

       KARL: It would be a very powerful message to the country to see. Two nine-o decisions that can’t be broken down into straight political lines.

       BREYER: No, the second--Sandra O’Connor, used to say this, the first unwritten rule is nobody speaks twice ‘til everyone speaks once. Second unwritten rule, tomorrow is another day. You and I were the greatest of allies on case one. Case two. We’re absolutely at loggerheads. So.

       KARL: But they are looking to how the country is going to, going to receive these decisions.

       BREYER: Be careful in saying that. I want to, say no, I want to say no, but I can’t say no, never. I mean, you’re up there in that. You’re up there in that building which I can see a picture of. And, and in that building, you are making decisions that will affect people. Of course, knowing that a lot of people are going to read a case leads me to write, if it’s my opinion to write, use certain language that is easy to understand and spend a lot of time trying to explain why.

       KARL: And you don’t want to contribute to the political divide in the country?

       BREYER: No, God of course not. But, you’re looking for, for an easy answer. When I’m not being coy and saying, no, there aren’t easy answers.