Fox News "Sunday Morning Futures" - Transcript: Interview with Rep. John Ratcliffe

Interview

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

BARTIROMO: Now, Ohr will go before Congress nine days from now for a closed-door interview.

My next guest is the lawmaker who will lead the questioning.

Joining me right now is Congressman John Ratcliffe. He's a member of the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees. He's also a former federal prosecutor.

Congressman, it's a pleasure to have you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R), TEXAS: Always good to see you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Let's talk about Bruce Ohr, why he is at the center of this situation now and in your target. You're going to be leading the questioning. What do you want to hear from Bruce Ohr?

RATCLIFFE: So, remember, Maria, how bad it was when we all found out there was this unverified dossier that was used as the basis to gain a warrant to surveil someone associated with the Trump campaign, Carter Page.

And it got worse when we found out that that dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC. But little did we know that some of that money that Hillary Clinton and the DNC used to pay for the dossier ultimately ended up in the account of the number four person at the Department of Justice, Bruce Ohr, and his wife, Nellie Ohr, who was retained and paid by Fusion GPS to work with Christopher Steele to help create that dossier.

So, next week, I'm going to sit down with some of my colleagues with Mr.
Ohr and give him an opportunity to explain exactly how that came to pass and, more importantly, who at the Department of Justice authorized it.

BARTIROMO: Yes, I -- it's pretty extraordinary, everything that's coming out.

And after the president fired James Comey, there was this very auspicious text from Christopher Steele to Bruce Ohr that we want to show you. He says: "We're very concerned about Comey's firing. Afraid they will be exposed."

What does this text mean? We're very concerned about former FBI Director James Comey's firing. Afraid they will be exposed.

RATCLIFFE: Well, that's one of the first questions that I will ask Bruce Ohr.

I would like to tell you that's the worst of the text messages that we have seen, Maria, but there are other ones that are equally troubling that relate to the firing of Sally Yates and the impact that that may have.

And that leads to some questions. Bruce Ohr was the deputy to the deputy attorney general. So for part of the relevant time period, that was Rod Rosenstein. Rod Rosenstein has testified unequivocally under oath that he had no knowledge that Bruce Ohr was in any way involved with the Russia investigation and in no way authorized it.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: So it begs the question whether or not Sally Yates, who held that position before Rod Rosenstein, was aware of that fact, because, as...

BARTIROMO: I want to ask you about that, because Sally Yates signed off on the warrants.

Hold on. Hold that thought, John Ratcliffe.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

We're back with my guest, Congressman John Ratcliffe.

And, Congressman, you were talking about Sally Yates before we went to the break. And this is a really important point. I want you to make it. She signed off on the first two warrants to wiretap Carter Page, correct?

RATCLIFFE: She did, in October of 2016 and in January of 2017.

BARTIROMO: So, tell me why she's important here, because Bruce Ohr was profiting from the dossier, and he was reporting to Sally Yates.

RATCLIFFE: Right.

So he was the deputy to the deputy attorney general during that period of time. So the real question that we need to find out from Mr. Ohr was, was he just a rogue employee acting improperly on his own, or did he have some authority within the Department of Justice? And was Sally Yates aware of what he was doing?

Remember, when she was certifying those applications to the FISA court, she was verifying the dossier itself. And so if she knew, in fact, of Bruce Ohr and Nellie Ohr's involvement with the dossier and forgot to say, oh, by the way, my deputy's wife helped prepare the dossier, and they were paid for it, well, then under the rules of the game, how does that go?

Do not pass go, do not collect $200, what comes next? Yes, she would have some explaining to do.

BARTIROMO: So will you be requesting to speak with Sally Yates as well, then, Congressman?

RATCLIFFE: Yes, I think that, after we work through current Department of Justice employees like Bruce Ohr, we will get to those folks like Sally Yates and Jim Comey and Loretta Lynch that are no longer at the Department of Justice or the FBI, and we will be requesting that they appear either voluntarily or involuntarily, by subpoena, if necessary, because there's been a lot of documents and testimony that has come out since the last time they testified under oath before Congress that calls into question some of that prior testimony.

BARTIROMO: So, just to be clear, you will request or you are requesting that James Comey and Loretta Lynch come back to Congress to testify?

RATCLIFFE: Yes, that would done through Chairman Gowdy and Chairman Goodlatte. But I know that those conversations are taking place.

I know those requests have been made. And, again, whether or not they decide to appear voluntarily or are compelled to appear involuntarily, I don't know the answer to that. We can compel them to appear. We can't compel them to testify, because, unlike any other witness, they would have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, should they choose to exercise that.

BARTIROMO: So, how far up the chain do you believe this goes? Was this directed by Loretta Lynch, by Barack Obama, in terms of coming up with a Trump narrative, that he had something to do with Russia?

RATCLIFFE: Well, those are the questions that we're asking. Those are the answers that we're still trying to find out.

And, Maria, you know, you don't have to hit rewind and go back very far to remember when the Democrats were saying, how dare Republicans criticize folks like Bruce Ohr and Andy McCabe and Peter Strzok, who are outstanding career officials who have done nothing wrong?

And now, investigations and firings and in one case criminal referrals later, we're hearing crickets from the Democrats.

BARTIROMO: Well, you make a really good point.

RATCLIFFE: Because we're finding out, unfortunately...

BARTIROMO: Yes, let's look at that, because you have got Andrew McCabe fired for misconduct, criminally referred, Jim Comey fired, under investigation, Sally Yates fired, Peter Strzok fired, under investigation, Bruce Ohr demoted, under investigation.

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: It's no coincidence that all of these people have been fired at the Department of Justice and the FBI. And this is just the top level. There are many, many more.

RATCLIFFE: Yes, unfortunately, a lot of my Republican colleagues know that, as a former U.S. attorney, they think that I'm the last person on Capitol Hill to believe that the FBI and the Department of Justice aren't doing the right things for the right reasons.

But with respect to these Department of Justice and FBI officials during the Obama administration, color me convinced that there was misconduct here, and it's been reflected in those firings and demotions and criminal referrals that you just referenced, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Should the president be revoking more security clearance?

Of course, John Brennan is out this morning trashing the president again, saying he's going to sue and he doesn't want anybody else's security clearance to be revoked. Your thoughts on John Brennan losing his security clearance?

RATCLIFFE: Well, I don't think you take a blanket approach to this policy.

I like the policy of extending clearances to former intelligence and law enforcement officials for the purpose of being able to provide advice and counsel to their successors, successive administrations, including the president.

But in John Brennan's case, he clearly wasn't advising and counseling. He was leveling accusations, as Rudy Giuliani just said, accusations of treason. He said Donald that Trump was a despicable demagogue who belongs in the dustbin of history.

So I agree with the privilege. I also agree with revoking the privilege when it's been abused. So, in John Brennan's case, I think it's appropriate.

And with respect to some of the other people under consideration, I will tell you, Maria, I think it's entirely appropriate, when someone at the Department of Justice or the FBI or in our intelligence community is under investigation or has been criminally referred or has been fired or demoted because of misconduct, that you revoke their security clearances.

Why would you give them access to national security information under those circumstances? So, I'm in agreement.

BARTIROMO: So, would you expect -- would you expect others then to see their security clearance go away, like a Sally Yates?

RATCLIFFE: I would.

I would expect them to work carefully, again, not only as a blanket approach. But the argument on the other side is that somehow, by John Brennan and others, that this is an effort to stifle free speech.

That's absolutely absurd, Maria. John Brennan has just as much free speech without security clearances as he had with security clearances. He's going to continue to say terrible things about the president, and so will anyone else that wants to that doesn't have security clearances. So they're mixing apples and oranges here.

BARTIROMO: Well, it's interesting, because what was the effort in July of 2016 to stop Donald Trump from becoming president?

I mean, so they just completely forget what has just taken place in terms of the FBI, the DOJ, the DNC, the Clinton camp colluding together to try to stop who America voted for.

RATCLIFFE: Right.

Well, I think this goes back to a point that you made earlier, Maria. It's just because it's about Donald Trump, and the ends justifies the means.

And in the Obama Justice Department and at the FBI, at the end of the day, I think that was the policy that dictated a lot of these decisions and why they were willing to violate or suspend FBI and department policies to get to a place that they wanted to, to investigate Donald Trump, someone who they didn't think should be president, would be president, and once he became president, they didn't want him to continue in that role.

BARTIROMO: Right.

All right, we will leave it there.

Congressman, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thanks so much.

RATCLIFFE: You bet. Thanks, Maria.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source