Fox News "Sunday Morning Futures" - Transcript: Rep. Ratcliffe: Mueller report proves Donald Trump was telling the truth about collusion

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MARIA BARTIROMO, ANCHOR: Good Sunday morning, everyone. And happy Easter to all. I'm Maria Bartiromo. Thanks for joining us.

Straight ahead right here on "Sunday Morning Futures," Congressman and former federal prosecutor John Ratcliffe is here exclusively to react to Robert Mueller's findings and what happens now.

After the special counsel clearly states there was no collusion, how do Republicans plan to hold those at the Obama Justice Department accountable for the start of the Russia investigation in the first place?

Plus, exclusive Democratic reaction with Congressman Dan Kildee this morning, the political battle over the Mueller report now overshadowing a growing crisis at the southern border. FOX News obtaining exclusive video this morning from Border showing the massive groups of migrants illegally crossing into the country, right here.

Plus, Darrell Issa was one of the first lawmakers to spotlight FISA abuse in the Russia probe. He's here today. He is now the president's nominee to lead the U.S. Trade and Development Agency. He joins us exclusively to talk trade and China and how Congress should investigate the FISA process.

Plus, my exclusive interview with J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon -- his thoughts on the state of our economy and how the nation's largest bank is investing in cities across the country, plus his thoughts on testifying in front of Maxine Waters last week.

All that and a lot more, as we look ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."

And we begin with tragic news out of Asia this morning, where at least 200 people are dead, more than 400 others hurt in a series of coordinated bombs targeting churches in Sri Lanka. Eight explosions were reported in the nation's capital this morning, three happening in churches where worshipers were celebrating Easter mass. Three others took place at luxury hotels popular with foreigners.

President Trump tweeted about this, this morning. He tweeted condolences and said that the U.S. stands ready to help. We will keep following this story, bring you any developments as we get them this morning.

Want to kick it off here with the Mueller report now, the special counsel finding there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. However, the Democrats are making it clear they want more investigation into the president, issuing subpoenas for the unredacted report, and asking Robert Mueller to testify, all of this coming amid growing calls for Attorney General William Barr to prosecute top officials in the Obama Justice Department who were involved in the start of the Russia probe in the first place.

Let's bring in Congressman John Ratcliffe. He's a member of the House Judiciary, Intelligence and Homeland Security Committees. He will be among the first lawmakers to question Bill Barr when he testifies next month on May 2.

Good to see you, Congressman. Thanks very much for joining us.

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TEXAS: Happy Easter, Maria.

BARTIROMO: And to you.

I guess I want to start -- you are a former federal prosecutor, so you have seen the Mueller report, you have seen the redactions, you have also seen all of the redacted testimonies of the people who started this investigation to begin with.

What is your reaction to the Mueller report?

RATCLIFFE: Well, Maria, when you consider the most important charge, when you consider the charge that started this all, the charge that Donald Trump or his campaign was conspiring with or colluding with Russia, as I read the report, it struck me that the one person that was always being truthful about that was Donald Trump.

Donald Trump was being truthful about collusion, when Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell and Democrats weren't being truthful about having evidence of collusion that didn't exist.

Donald Trump was being truthful when Jim Clapper and John Brennan and members of the intelligence community were accusing him of treason for colluding with Russians.

Donald Trump was being truthful when Jim Comey and Andy McCabe and folks at our Justice Department weren't being truthful in verifying an unverified dossier as probable cause evidence of collusion.

And Donald Trump was being truthful when the media wasn't being truth full about the certainty that Bob Mueller was going to indict Donald Trump and members of his family for conspiracy and collusion with the Russian government.

So now all of those folks, Maria, that weren't being truthful all of a sudden want to gloss over collusion. They say, we don't give a damn about collusion, and we want to look at Bob Mueller's findings on possible obstruction by Donald Trump into an investigation of collusion that never should have taken place in the first place.

It's borderline absurd.

BARTIROMO: Yes. And I want to get your take on that, because we have got an op-ed that I want to point to, but first a word on the obstruction, because this is the new talking point on the left, that Robert Mueller said he didn't exonerate the president.

Your reaction to now this new talking point that they're out screaming about obstruction?

RATCLIFFE: Well, Maria, obstruction of justice into a collusion investigation where there is no collusion is obstruction of nothing.

As a prosecutor, most prosecutors bring obstruction charges against defendants who have tried to cover up their guilt for the underlying crime. Richard Nixon faced obstruction charges for covering up his guilt relating to Watergate. Bill Clinton faced obstruction charges for his actions in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

The idea that Donald Trump obstructed justice into a collusion investigation where he wasn't guilty of collusion doesn't make any sense.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: The bottom line is that Bob Mueller, a guy who charged anyone with everything along the way -- people were charged with everything short of spitting on the sidewalk -- where he could charge, he did charge.

In this case, Bob Mueller didn't charge because he could not charge. He could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was any criminal conduct, whether it was collusion-related or obstruction-related or anything related.

BARTIROMO: So, now, Congressman, the next move on the part of the Democrats is to muddy the waters further, so that the A.G. doesn't look into the fact that there was no predicate to launch an investigation into Donald Trump. They just wanted to spy on the political opponent because they wanted Hillary Clinton to win.

Now their next move is to take down Barr. So, this morning, this morning, Adam Schiff said this: "The attorney general chose to mislead the country with his own spin in handling the Mueller report."

He says: "I think that history will reflect that Bill Barr let the country down, when it needed an attorney general of substance" -- from Adam Schiff.

I think The Wall Street Journal got it right with this op-ed this weekend called "Targeting Bill Barr."

And the editorial board writes this: "The larger Democratic concern is that Mr. Barr is serious about looking into the origins of the FBI surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016. That could mean turning over such rocks as the FBI-Clinton media collaboration."

And this is the bottom line, this collaboration over the discredited Steele dossier or whether officials misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court in seeking a warrant to eavesdrop on Trump adviser Carter Page.

Your reaction?

RATCLIFFE: Well, Adam Schiff has for the last few weeks been demanding that Bill Barr violate the law, so I'm not surprised to hear him continue down that path.

Bill Barr is not going to commit any crimes for Adam Schiff or anyone else. And criticisms for Bill Barr doing his job, doing what Bob Mueller wouldn't do, which is -- the reason the Justice Department exists is to look at whether or not conduct rises to criminal conduct.

And with respect to the obstruction issue, Bill Barr made the determination that the Justice Department was supposed to make. I'm glad that he has focused on getting the Mueller report out in a redacted form that people can see. But now his focus needs to be answering his own question.

As he said, there was spying. The Obama Justice Department and intelligence community did spy on the Trump campaign. The question now that needs to be answered is, was there a predicate for that? Particularly when the predicate was supposedly there was collusion. Now we know there's no evidence of collusion.

Again, Bob Mueller didn't say if there was insufficient evidence of collusion. He said -- quote -- "no evidence."

BARTIROMO: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: He said -- quote -- "There isn't any evidence."

So if there wasn't any evidence of collusion, what was the probable cause, what was the predicate for the Obama Justice Department to go to the FISA court and represent that there was probable cause of a crime...

BARTIROMO: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: ... of a conspiracy with Russia?

BARTIROMO: And...

RATCLIFFE: And the folks that made those verifications, they got some 'splaining to do, Maria.

BARTIROMO: And we should point out that Carter Page was the one who got wiretapped. And that means they listened in on his phone calls, got all his e-mail communications. So that was a window into the Trump campaign, Carter Page was never charged with anything, was he?

RATCLIFFE: Not charged with anything and, Maria, isn't going to be charged with anything. Nor is any other American, because, as Bob Mueller said, there is no evidence of any American conspiring with Russia.

So, again, what was the predicate for this? This is why the focus needs to shift now to those folks in the intelligence community and at the Justice Department that made representations that there was probable cause, that there was evidence of collusion, when, in fact, the special counsel has found that there was none.

BARTIROMO: And shall we look at what's not mentioned in the Mueller report, Congressman? I didn't see anything about Fusion GPS. I didn't see anything about Christopher Steele. I didn't see anything about the dirty dossier in the Mueller report.

Why the glaring lack of what's really important, the things that they used to spy on American citizens, not represented in this report, Congressman?

RATCLIFFE: I think those will be a lot of questions that -- you mentioned, Maria, that Bill Barr is going to be coming up in two weeks to testify.

But Bob Mueller has been invited to testify too. And a lot of folks have questions about that. Did he look at any of that? Why did his report not mention Fusion GPS? Why did it not mention the Steele dossier, all of the things that go to the troubling origin here?

So, I know members of Congress are looking forward to asking questions of both Attorney General Barr and special counsel Mueller, because they will provide the clarity that the people need to see how all of this started, when it shouldn't have started in the first place.

BARTIROMO: And that is exactly where I want to focus.

Let's take a short break. You are going to be among those asking questions of William Barr. I want to continue asking you about what you're planning for May 2. And what about Bob Mueller testifying as well?

Stay with us, more of my exclusive interview with Congressman John Ratcliffe coming up.

Plus, exclusive video from the border showing hundreds of migrants crossing into the country illegally. Right after this video was shot, they were apprehended. Now many of them will get to stay here because of our current laws. Exclusive reaction ahead with Democratic Congressman Dan Kildee.

Follow me on Twitter at @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures on this beautiful Easter morning, on Instagram @SundayFutures. Let us know what you would like to hear from the rest of our guests this morning.

Stay with us, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

And I'm back with Congressman John Ratcliffe, former federal prosecutor.

Congressman, let me ask you about your upcoming hearing scheduled for May 2 with Attorney General Bill Barr. What are you expecting to ask him when you get that chance?

RATCLIFFE: Well, I do think we want to focus on the predicate.

Now that he has put the Mueller report out there in redacted form, what steps is he taking? What will he tell the American people to expect?

Again, Maria, remember that the Obama Justice Department didn't just go to the FISA court and represent there was probable cause of collusion that we now know didn't exist on a single occasion. They did so four times over a year.

And so how was that allowed to happen? And what steps is he taking, what investigations are under way, and what assurances can he give the American people that there will be accountability for folks who made false verifications about a dossier that was unverifiable, because it was entirely untrue?

BARTIROMO: Yes, and also paid for by the political opponent. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats paid for this opposition research that they used to obtain warrants against the Trump campaign.

Do you have a date in the calendar yet for Robert Mueller to speak to the Judiciary Committee as well?

RATCLIFFE: I don't have an official date. I know he's been invited to come May 22 or May 23.

And, frankly, I think those questions to Bob Mueller are going to be of more interest to the American people, I think, than Bill Barr's testimony.

BARTIROMO: I guess what I'm -- you know, this audience has seen and watched for the last two years you and your colleagues join us every Sunday to really lay out what took place in the 2016 election.

You have done such a good job, and Devin Nunes and a couple of others, Jim Jordan, to actually lay out exactly what took place, so that the American people can be educated in terms of how they tried to take Donald Trump down and stop a duly elected president from continuing.

The people want to see accountability. When do you expect William Barr to stop placating the left with more transparency and more information, even we know there was no collusion, and actually start handing out indictments to the people who actually started this fraud?

RATCLIFFE: Well, in defense of Attorney General Barr, he's been trying to meet some unreasonable demands from defendants for the -- or from Democrats for the last few weeks.

I think it was entirely appropriate for him to focus on getting the Mueller report out. But I also, again, think that, now that it is -- it is appropriate for him to look at his own question, the issue of a predicate.

I -- as you know, Maria, I have had the opportunity to see the underlying documents, to see the FISA applications in unredacted form. As a former federal prosecutor, I had concerns that there may not be probable cause there, and that some of the evidence that would be exculpatory to the Trump campaign wasn't presented.

Those concerns have not gone away. I would expect that Bill Barr has those same concerns. And I would expect him to take appropriate action. Again, these are questions that Bill Barr can answer, hopefully will answer in two weeks when he's on Capitol Hill.

BARTIROMO: All right, Congressman, let me switch gears before you go and ask you about the border crisis, because you're from a border state, Texas.

And we have exclusive video. This video was taken one day last week, April 16, and it's from Border Patrol. They sent it to us exclusively. And here is what it is. It was before 5:00 a.m. Mountain time that Border Patrol agents apprehended more than 980 individuals.

You see them there on this video. They illegally crossed the border in three large groups. The groups were mostly comprised of so-called family units from Central America. They were apprehended in the El Paso and Tucson sectors.

And you can clearly see one group of 400 people, another group of another 400 people getting off of the van, and crossing from Mexico into El Paso and into Tucson, and then being apprehended short after -- shortly after.

The target is that we're going to be apprehending one million people this year. There are laws on the books, Congressman, as you know, that have the U.S.' hands tied. Like, for example, if you look like a family, we can only detain you for 20 days because you're with children.

If you come from this Triangle of countries, 70 percent of the people are coming from there. We can't send you back. So, when are you going to -- or when does Congress expect to change these laws?

RATCLIFFE: Well, first of all, talking about being truthful, Donald Trump said there was a crisis at the border.

And, as you know, Maria, some, not all, but some Democrats mocked him for that, said there was no crisis. Very clearly, that video shows that there is a crisis at the border. And you're right. There are loopholes in the laws that need to be closed.

Folks like Lindsey Graham and others have or are offering solutions to close those loopholes. But if I were advising the president, I would tell him, don't count on Congress, because something can get through the Senate, where Republicans control the Senate, but to become a law, to change the law, its got to be passed through the House.

And Democrats control the House. And some Democrats -- again, not all -- like the problem more than they like the solutions. Some Democrats like to go on TV and accuse President Trump for political reasons of ripping families apart, of separating children from their families, when they know that the law actually requires that.

You either have to separate the children or let the whole family go. So the good news for the president is, there's two solutions to this problem that don't require any assistance from Congress. One, the president can put political and economic pressure on Mexico to enter into what's called a safe third agreement.

BARTIROMO: Right.

RATCLIFFE: A safe third country agreement.

We have one of those with Canada. We need one with Mexico.

BARTIROMO: OK.

RATCLIFFE: And what that says, Maria, is that, if someone is seeking asylum, they have to seek it in the first country where they set foot.

(CROSSTALK)

BARTIROMO: Which would be Mexico.

RATCLIFFE: In this case, it would be Mexico.

BARTIROMO: Right.

RATCLIFFE: The other thing that needs to happen is, the homeland security secretary needs to finalize a regulation that undoes the Flores settlement...

BARTIROMO: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: ... to change that law that says we can only hold children for 20 days. We need to revise that...

BARTIROMO: Right.

RATCLIFFE: ... so that families can be held together until the asylum process goes through. That can be done through the regulatory process at Homeland Security.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: Those are two solutions to the problem that don't need Congress' help.

BARTIROMO: And Lindsey Graham told us last weekend he's going to work on that and bring a package as soon as he gets back, presumptuously, next week.

Congressman, it's good to see you this morning. Thank you so much.

We appreciate it.

RATCLIFFE: You bet. Thanks, Maria.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source