Rep. Goodlatte on what he wants to ask Peter Strzok, next steps for immigration

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," June 24, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good Sunday morning. Thanks for joining us.

A breaking news exclusive right now.

The Department of Justice response to a document deadline, while the Judiciary Committee gets ready to grill Peter Strzok and possibly Rod Rosenstein in the coming days.

Also, President Trump urging the GOP to hold off on immigration until after the midterm elections, as the House is scheduled to vote on the matter this upcoming week.

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. I'm Maria Bartiromo. This is "Sunday Morning Futures."

Anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok has some explaining to do after he's called out in a Justice Department watchdog report. Did his bias impact the launch of the Russia probe?

The man who just subpoenaed Strzok, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, joins "Sunday Morning Futures" exclusively, along with committee member John Ratcliffe, coming out up this morning.

We will also ask both these lawmakers if they could find Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and get him before their committee next week, after his agency hands over some new classified documents on the Russia probe. It still, however, falls short of the full deadline request.

And we have right now the Intel Committee's response and Devin Nunes' letter back to the DOJ.

As the Trump administration works to reunite migrant families separated at the southern border, the president tells Republicans to stop wasting time on immigration reform until after the midterm elections. Could this strategy pay off?

Congressman Peter King and our panel will weigh in, as we look ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."

And the House Judiciary Committee chairman issuing a subpoena for Peter Strzok to appear before his panel in a closed-door session this coming Wednesday.

The embattled FBI agent coming under fire for anti-Trump texts he exchanged with his former lover and FBI colleague Lisa Page. The Justice Department's internal watchdog releasing a scathing report saying such displays of political bias hurts the FBI's image, but didn't impact the outcome of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation or the current investigation being conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller.

However, the inspector general is still reviewing whether Strzok's anti- Trump bias affected the initial launch of the FBI's Russia probe.

Strzok's attorney says his client is willing to testify before Congress anyway. This subpoena now nails down the specific date, which is this coming Wednesday.

Joining me right now exclusively on "Sunday Morning Futures" is House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. He issued that subpoena against Strzok and will be one of the first people to question him behind closed doors on Wednesday.

Mr. Chairman, it's good to see this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.

REP. BOB GOODLATTE, R-VIRGINIA: It's great to be with you, Maria, and your viewers.

BARTIROMO: And I have this breaking news letter right here from Devin Nunes to Rod Rosenstein, which I'm going to get to and ask you about, because, of course, the DOJ has responded to the Intel Committee's documents demands. And now Devin Nunes is responding there.

But I want to get into first your committee and what you're working on, because you subpoenaed Peter Strzok. What are you looking to ask him on Wednesday, Mr. Chairman?

GOODLATTE: Well, Peter Strzok is a key figure in both the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mails and other investigations regarding the former secretary of state and presidential candidate and a lead instigator and the leader of the investigation for quite some time into the so-called Trump-Russia collusion matter.

And his text messages between himself and Lisa Page have been very enlightening, but they raise as many questions as they answer. And, therefore, we have a lot of questions for Mr. Strzok about his involvement in both of these investigations and the apparent bias that those text messages reflect.

And so we indicated we wanted him to come. We have been working for quite a few weeks to have this happen. His attorney recently said, well, he will come voluntarily. But then, when we had everything set, it became apparent that he wasn't committing to the time and place that we had thought we had agreed upon.

So I issued the subpoena last Friday. And he is commanded to appear on Wednesday.

BARTIROMO: So, at this point, we have seen these texts, and we know about the anti-Trump bias. But what it did in terms of dictating how these FBI agents and the Department of Justice behaved in these two investigations is really what we're all talking about.

And one of the most compelling texts is this text about, "We will stop him."

What I find really compelling is that Peter Strzok took over the Trump- Russia probe on July 31, 2016, and just eight days later, on August 8, he answers his girlfriend who asks him, will Trump become president? He won't become president, right?

And he says, "No, we will stop him."

GOODLATTE: But...

BARTIROMO: This text exchange suggests that, in fact, he was using his position of power to stop Donald Trump.

GOODLATTE: Well, it's very disturbing, because the implication here is not, oh, I'm just expressing my private opinion about an individual, but it says, I have got a plan to stop him.

And then, of course, we have other texts between them talking about conversations with someone called Andy. Many assume that is Andy McCabe, the former deputy FBI director.

And, also, we have discussions about an insurance policy to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't get elected president of the states. These are things that are not just an indication of someone's opinion. It's an indication that they are actively seeking and quite likely using their position to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't become president of the states.

That should never happen to any presidential candidate of any party. And we got to make absolutely sure that the FBI is totally reformed. These people are gone. And that's a good thing. But it needs to be totally reformed, so that, in 2020, any candidate for president has the assurance that the FBI is not going to be a tool for the opposing political campaign.

BARTIROMO: Do you trust that you're getting the accurate information from the Department of Justice on all of this? It baffles the mind that we are just getting this text from the I.G. report, "We will stop him," now, when that was August 8, 2016.

And the text which he sent four days later which was, we need an insurance policy, we have been -- we have had for several months. So there was a text of, "We will stop him" on August 8 which we just learned about from the I.G. report.

I guess my question is, has someone at the DOJ or the FBI been sitting on that text, unwilling to release it, that you had to get it from the I.G. report?

GOODLATTE: That's a great question, Maria, because, in fact, we did get it from the inspector general.

And, in fact, you will recall there were a whole bunch of Strzok-Page texts missing. And it was the inspector general and his folks, using technology that recovered those texts.

Now, he did explain during the hearing that he recovered the first part of that, and then recently found this second part.

But, obviously, there is a lot of question about the cooperation of the FBI and the Department of Justice because of the concern that there are people still there who do not want some of the information that we need to be provided.

And that's why I issued a subpoena three months ago. That resulted in dramatic changes in how they have responded, to which we now have an office down at the Department of Justice, a reading room, where nearly a million documents now reside. We can examine all of those documents un-redacted, identify the ones that we want to have produced.

And they are producing them. For a while, that was not keeping up to speed as well. But they have been scrambling because there's a lot of pressure on them from a lot of members of Congress who have been outspoken about the non-responsiveness.

We also have other things we have subpoenaed. And since the speaker of the House and I and Trey Gowdy and Devin Nunes met with the leaders of the FBI and the DOJ about this a little over a week ago, a lot more of that information has been forthcoming as well.

But they still have a ways to go. And as this investigation proceeds, there are going to be more things that we identify that we want. And they need to keep it up and need to keep supplying us with this information.

They're in an unusual situation. It is the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the nation's most important law enforcement organization that is being investigated. And their cooperation to restore their reputation and make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again is important.

I think the new director, Christopher Wray, gets that. He's been cleaning house there. He's agreed to a lot of the reforms suggested by the inspector general. And he is working diligently to do that.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

I mean, the reason that I ask is because there's so much back and forth between the oversight committees, your committee, the Intel Committee, and the Oversight Committee, that are supposed to be overseeing our law enforcement agencies, our intelligence agencies.

And yet there's this fight back and forth about getting documents. Last week on this program, Devin Nunes said, look, you're either part of the cleanup crew or you're part of the cover-up crow.

And I'm just -- I mean, it just -- it feels like you would think everybody is on the same page here, and yet it doesn't feel that way. You would think that even the DOJ and the FBI want to make sure that whatever tainting has happened, whatever reception the public has about what took place in 2016 is cleaned up.

But you're still not getting the texts that you need.

So I have got the response in my hands right now from Devin Nunes' Intel Committee to Rod Rosenstein. And, basically, what it's talking about is the time period before the Trump-Russia collusion investigation was launched.

There are suggestions that, in fact, there was possibly human contact, possibly informants going into the Trump campaign even before this Russia investigation was launched in July 31, 2016.

Your reaction?

GOODLATTE: Well, it's deeply concerning.

And we, of course, in our investigation are very disturbed by the connection between these two investigations, the same characters being involved, the disparate way they gave very special treatment to Hillary Clinton.

And, as you say, the questions have arisen about how they have looked into the Trump campaign, including possibly using informants. Lots of questions that are unanswered. The inspector general has launched a new investigation into that second matter.

That's going to take him a long time. We're not waiting. And we're conducting that investigation ourselves in the meantime.

BARTIROMO: Are you expecting Peter Strzok to ask for immunity, to take the Fifth? What are you expecting from Wednesday?

GOODLATTE: I'm expecting honest, forthright answers, because he said that he would be voluntarily appearing before Congress.

I think he wants to tell his story. We want to hear it. If he's trying to claim that he's a victim in this process somehow, we have a lot of questions for him about that too. But the fact of matter is, he is a central figure in both of these investigations. He has a lot of information that it's very important that he share with the American people.

BARTIROMO: This is not...

GOODLATTE: The first interview, however, on Wednesday...

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GOODLATTE: Is a closed deposition.

BARTIROMO: Right.

GOODLATTE: We do plan to have a public hearing in a short while after that.

BARTIROMO: So, I was just going to say, this is not a public hearings. It will be transcribed.

Will the public be able to understand what he says, some of his answers after this -- after this closed meeting?

GOODLATTE: We will have a public hearing in which he will be called to testify and answer questions in public.

This is a deposition. And, of course, there are both classified and unclassified materials involved in this. And this helps us to separate that out.

But the fact the matter is, we want to know what he has to say. We want to know it now. It furthers our investigation. And once we have finished those sorts of interviews, then we're going to have public hearings. And he certainly will be a central figure in those hearings as well.

BARTIROMO: Do any -- does any of this open up the questions of legitimacy of the special counsel's probe?

GOODLATTE: Well, I think that the special counsel was tasked with taking over an investigation that was being run by the FBI.

And the FBI, obviously, with all of these issues, have a lot of problems. There have been questions raised about the special counsel.

But I have always said that they should continue their work. We should conduct oversight. And so I have met with both Mr. Mueller and Mr. Rosenstein periodically during the course of these investigations.

I also think it's been going on an awful long time. Some of the things that Mr. Mueller has uncovered and has indicted people for have nothing to do with the collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

And I think those matters could easily be referred to the United States attorney in the jurisdiction where the crime took place.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GOODLATTE: However, I think that it is also important that, because this casts a shadow over the presidency, that Mr. Mueller be sensitive to that.

And unless he has evidence of that collusion -- and I haven't seen it yet -- that he move toward a conclusion of his investigation.

BARTIROMO: Are you expecting to question Rod Rosenstein, your committee, in the coming week or any time soon, public or private?

GOODLATTE: Yes.

We're working very hard to have both Mr. Wray, the new FBI director, and Mr. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who, as most people know, is responsible for the oversight of these investigations because the attorney general, Mr. Sessions, has recused himself.

BARTIROMO: All right, we're going to take a short break, Mr. Chairman.

I want to ask you about this letter to the House of Representatives, the response from the Intel Committee that we have here at Fox News.

As well, you have had such a week, Chairman Goodlatte. We need to understand your vision for the next steps on immigration reform, your bill defeated for now, as a vote on what many consider a more moderate bill gets delayed until later this week. We will have that we come right back.

All of this comes as President Trump urges Republicans to stop wasting time, he said, on the issue until after the midterm elections. Where do we go from here?

Follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures.

We have got more with Chairman Goodlatte when we come right back after this short break right here on "Sunday Morning Futures."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

More now with my exclusive interview with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

High stakes in the House. Lawmakers take on immigration again this week as well, voting on a moderate measure from GOP leadership, after the House rejected Congressman Goodlatte's conservative bill last week.

And, Mr. Chairman, we ended our last segment on Rod Rosenstein. You are trying to get him to testify in front of your committee in the coming week or in the coming days.

Let me ask you about Rod Rosenstein for a moment. He served last eight years in the Obama administration. He signed off on a FISA warrant to spy on Carter Page and listen to his e-mails and phones. He also -- he was the same guy who told President Trump to fire Jim Comey. Then he appointed the special counsel, Robert Mueller.

A lot of people are wondering. He's a witness. Should he be recusing himself from all of this?

GOODLATTE: Well, he certainly is responsible for the oversight of these investigations, the Mueller investigation, and everything that's gone on with regard to the production of documents for our investigation.

He is a witness. But he is also a key person. We need to bring him before the Judiciary Committee to question him regarding these matters. We're working very closely with him and with Director Wray to get that accomplished.

And it could happen as soon as this week. But we want to make sure that we get the answers to our questions about a whole host of things, from the discovery matters, to the questions about who it is in the Department of Justice and the FBI that may not be cooperating, and why the document production has been slow.

We have questions regarding his view of the inspector general's report, what changes are being made in the FBI to assure that these problems don't persist in the future, what personnel changes have been made and need to be made. Lots and lots of questions. And we're looking forward to talking to him very soon.

BARTIROMO: The Department of Justice apparently got back to the Intel Committee and Chairman Devin Nunes last night at 11:00 at night.

He's writing a note now back to them, basically saying, look, you haven't given us everything. You have a new deadline of Monday at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow night.

And they say, did the FBI use informants against members or associates of the Trump campaign? And, if so, how many informants were used? How much money was spent on their activities? And who, you, Rod Rosenstein, or Director Wray, is responsible for compliance with the committee's subpoenas and requests that have been issued to the DOJ, including the FBI?

They want those answers by tomorrow night.

Have you heard back from the DOJ from your requests?

GOODLATTE: Yes.

We have been -- well, first of all, we have had an ongoing relationship. This document room that I described to you earlier is very, very important, and has yielded a tremendous amount of information, thousands of documents produced at our request.

We have seen them all unredacted before we get them. So that's very important. We had additional specific requests. They were slow with some of those. And, in fact, one of those is still promised to us by 5:00 tomorrow.

So we're looking forward to seeing that. But we're also looking forward to making sure that they understand this is an ongoing investigation, and this production has to continue, because we're going to identify new documents. We would prefer to have them produced voluntarily, rather than use more subpoenas, but we will do whatever it takes to get the information that leads us to the truth.

BARTIROMO: All right, we have got to move on to immigration.

I'm going to take a short break and then come back, ask you what is next after your bill failed last week, Mr. Chairman.

Stay with us. Back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: More now of our exclusive interview with House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte.

And, Mr. Chairman, let's talk immigration for a moment.

Your bill obviously failed last week. Where do we go from here?

GOODLATTE: Well, actually, last week, we made a lot of progress.

That was the first of two bills scheduled to be voted on. And it was not expected to do nearly as well as it did. It got 193 votes, about 20 votes short of what was needed.

And so that actually caused a lot of members in a conference we held shortly after that vote to say, hey, if we took some from that bill and added them to the new bill, maybe we would have something that we can get 218 votes for and pass.

So, my staff and I and other members from all across our conference and staff worked over the weekend to come up with some new ideas, which we are in the process now of vetting. And it's my hope that these will lead us to take up that second bill with an amendment that will add some important provisions.

And then we will have the opportunity to pass it. It is very important that we address this, the crisis at our border, not -- and I'm talking, of course, about children separated from their parents. But there's far, far, far more than just that.

And this bill does address allowing children to remain with their parents in detention. But there are many, many other things, the number of people surging at our borders, the highest it's been during the Trump administration. It's back to levels that we saw in the Obama administration, which had a much more permissive policy.

So people are figuring out the loopholes. We have got to close those. We now have a 600,000-person backlog for asylum applications. That's an abuse of a process that's important and historically gave 5,000 to 10,000 green cards to people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the great Soviet dissident.

Important program being abused by the coyotes, the human smugglers, and the lawyers advising people, oh, if you get stopped, just ask for political asylum. They will have to put you out into the countryside, because -- and into the interior of our country, because they don't have the space to hold all these people.

It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed now.

BARTIROMO: Yes, a very serious problem.

Mr. Chairman, it's good to see you this morning. Thanks very much for joining me.

GOODLATTE: Thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We will be watching the developments next week.

And, of course, the sanctuary city part of this is also critical.

Joining me right now to talk more about is a New York Republican who opposed Goodlatte's bill. Congressman Peter King sits on the House Homeland Security and Intelligence Committees, also on the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence.

So, Mr. -- Congressman, it's good to see, sir. Thank you so much for joining us this morning.

REP. PETER KING, R-NEW YORK: Maria, thank you.

BARTIROMO: You opposed the Bob Goodlatte bill. You voted against it. Why?

KING: The main reason was because, listen, I am totally opposed to sanctuary cities, but, under Bob Goodlatte's bill, it would have cut off funding to the police in those cities that were sanctuary cities.

So that is making a bad situation worse. It would have put my constituents at risk.

And I just thought it was -- it made no sense to be saying that sanctuary cities are dangerous, which they are, and we're remedy that by cutting off funding to the police.

And it actually would have been the Eddie Byrne Grants that would have been cut. These are very important to stopping crime.

BARTIROMO: Right.

KING: And I said they had to find another place to cut the funding. And that was the main reason.

BARTIROMO: So, you -- so, this bill next week includes the $25 billion for the wall.

KING: Right.

BARTIROMO: There is also a trigger in it that, if the funding for the wall is not appropriated, that cuts off some relief for the DACA recipients.

Will you vote yes for the bill next week, if you get a chance to vote for it?

KING: Yes, I am. Yes, I am -- I'm strongly supporting it. And I said I would all along.

And, in many ways, this bill is tougher than the original Goodlatte bill. And, by the way, Bob Goodlatte is on both bills. He's the sponsor of both bills.

BARTIROMO: Right. I know that.

KING: It's Goodlatte one and Goodlatte two.

BARTIROMO: Right.

KING: It's not like we're going against Bob Goodlatte here. He's doing a great job on this.

Also, as...

BARTIROMO: Yes, thanks for that clarification. That's exactly right.

(CROSSTALK)

BARTIROMO: Yes.

KING: Yes.

And on the second bill, also, this will address the issue of the families being united, where the presidents can still enforce the law, but the families won't be torn apart.

So, again, it addresses that issue, and, as you said, the trigger mechanism is also very important.

BARTIROMO: But, Congressman, at the end today, you're not going to get any support from your Democratic colleagues, right? So this goes nowhere.

Is the president right? Forget this issue until after the midterms?

KING: Yes, I would disagree with the president on that.

I think it's important for us to lay out our position, to get it there, get it past the House, get it over to the Senate. Then it becomes part of the debate between now and November and possibly, again, if we can get the 60 votes in the Senate, which is -- again, it is possible. It's going to be tough.

BARTIROMO: Right.

KING: But I think it's important to be out there and to set the debate and set the tone the way the way we wanted to.

BARTIROMO: Congressman, let me move on to the letter from your committee, the Intel Committee.

That is, Devin Nunes is basically telling -- telling the DOJ you have another deadline now, and you need to tell us if in fact the FBI used informants against the Trump campaign even before the actual investigation was launched on July 31.

Your reaction to what we heard from the Department of Justice in answering the documents demands?

First, let's hear Devin Nunes on this program last week talking about just this issue.

KING: Right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIFORNIA: So, what that shows is, it shows clear intent to run a very biased investigation.

And look, I don't believe for a second that Mr. Strzok was just happenly (ph) put in charge of this just a week before. Strzok and Page and the rest of them all knew about this months in advance, they were well aware of what they were doing, they had opened this investigation -- maybe not officially, but they were doing lots and lots of bad things that they have not shown Congress before that July -- late July date.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: What does your committee want now, Congressman?

KING: First of all, as we continue in bad faith here, for the FBI and the Department of Justice. This was delayed and delayed. And literally, at the eleventh hour Friday night we got this response. The response is inadequate. For instance, they do not answer the question about whether or not were informants or human sources used.

They imply they were, but they say they they'd refer that question to the director of national intelligence, who had nothing to do with this. In fact, I remember James Clapper saying he wasn't even aware there was an investigation going on when he was the director of National Intelligence. They're ducking this. They have to let us know, first of all, were human sources used, were they informants, were they being paid and when do they become used by the FBI and/or the DOJ.

When did this investigation start? If they actually used sources before the official start of the investigation, that raises the most serious questions. Also, there's the issue -- you know, this subpoena was given to the FBI and the Department of Justice, not to the director of national intelligence. Who was responsible? Is the -- the FBI Director Wray responsible? Is the DOJ director right now, Rosenstein, is he responsible?

They keep ducking it. It reminds me back when you practiced in law and you're trying to run out the clock, that (ph) you're trying to delay or -- and in fact, you're a criminal defense attorney --

BARTIROMO: Yes.

KING: -- and you're trying to give obscure, obtuse answers. That's what this is. This -- we are a article one -- we have the absolute right under the constitution to seek these documents and they obstructing it. And (ph) people have complained for years that Congress doesn't do an adequate job of oversight. Well we are doing it now and we're investigating the Trump administration. These guys won't comply. It's really shameful.

BARTIROMO: Yes. Yes, which is -- which is why Devin Nunes writes we want these answers whether or not you did have activity before the launch by tomorrow night.

KING: Right.

BARTIROMO: Congressman, good to see you, sir. Thank you. One of the first lawmakers to question the DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is John Ratcliffe. House Judiciary Committee Member Ratcliffe will be next, right here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back, more breaking news. The Justice Department and the FBI only partly meeting the deadline set in this subpoena from House republicans to hand over classified documents on the Russia investigation.

After lawmakers threatened to hold officials in contempt of Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan's office said it finds the request for additional time on the remaining documents reasonable.

But House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes firing off a -- a new letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, demanding answers by tomorrow night. Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe sits on both -- one of the panels that questions and requested the documents, the House Judiciary Committee.

He also serves on the House Homeland Security Committee and is a former U.S. attorney. Congressman, it's good to see you this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TEXAS: You bet.

BARTIROMO: I want to start off with your test -- your Congress -- congressional testimony last week where you were questioning Michael Horowitz, and you -- you were talking about all of the bias between the FBI and the DOJ against Donald Trump. Here's a clip from that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RATCLIFFE: You revealed the astonishing level, the outrageous level of bias and prejudice, and when you did, Special Council Mueller removed Peter Strzok from the case. But you and I are former prosecutors, and you and I both know that it is impossible to remove bias and prejudice from all of the actions taken, all of the decisions made, all of the investigative plans implemented, all of the evidence gathered by Peter Strzok and at least two other Trump hating FBI agents and lawyers who were assigned to the investigation.

That's pretty hard to do, isn't it?

MICHAEL HOROWITZ, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Well that is precisely the question, as you know, we're looking at.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Precisely the question we're looking at, Congressman, but we know that Horowitz came out and said that all of this political bias did not change the outcome of the Hillary Clinton investigation.

And then we see this op-ed in the Journal yesterday, exactly what you said, entitling "Mueller's Fruit of the Poison Tree". So are -- it's basically says it makes no difference how honorable he is, this investigation is tainted by the bias that attended its origin in 2016.

That's basically the point you're making, isn't it?

RATCLIFFE: That's exactly right, Maria. What's remarkable about the testimony that we heard from the inspector general is it wasn't some partisan republican, this is the FBI's own independent referee who's saying that he's deeply troubled and concerned that it is Peter Strzok and other Trump hating agents and lawyers collecting evidence and making every decision for the first nine months of that investigation, that that is by definition prejudicial to the fair and impartial administration of justice.

And as that Wall Street Journal article talks about, it raises the legitimate legal question of fruit of the poisonous tree, that if your foundational evidence is so corrupted and tainted by how it's been collected, if it violates due process through -- through bias and prejudice, then everything that comes after that, every search warrant that's obtain, every confession that's obtained, even every plea agreement that's entered into is likewise tainted or poisoned.

And the Supreme Court has weighed in on that and had said specifically in cases like U.S. v. Russell and Blackledge v. Perry that the vindictiveness of prosecutors can be that poison fruit for which you throw out the entire case.

So if this were in a court of law, that's the case that Donald Trump's lawyers would be making right now.

BARTIROMO: So do you think the special council should -- should finish?

RATCLIFFE: Well Maria, I have been one of the few republicans who has really not questioned the integrity of Bob Mueller. I have tried not to do that. But this, again, is not a reflection on Bob Mueller, this is a reflection on the evidence that he was handed.

For nine months, you have the most biased, hateful, prejudice people making the decisions, collecting the evidence, implementing the investigative plan. Listen, I've heard what Hillary Clinton has said about Donald Trump and I've read every text message that Peter Strzok and these others have said about Donald Trump.

I think if Hillary Clinton had been in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation, the level of bias and prejudice wouldn't have been any higher. So, those are things that Bob Mueller ultimately is going to have to persuade the American people.

You know, maybe he's a lot better lawyer than I am, but I was never able to stand in front of a jury and explain away, yes, the person in charge here hated the defendant, was biased and prejudiced against him. But none of that impacted the actions that he took in collecting the information.

BARTIROMO: So...

RATCLIFFE: That's pretty tough to do.

BARTIROMO: We know that your colleagues have been asking for these documents from the Department of Justice, Congressman, and we have the latest letter from Devin Nunes, I have it in my hands, the chairman of the Intel Committee who was giving the DoJ and the FBI another deadline of tomorrow night, by 5:00.

And one of the questions that he asks is, did the FBI use informants against members or associates of the Trump campaign? And if so, how many informants were used and how much money was spent on their activities? And one of the issues that he's raising is, was there activity before the actual investigation launched in July of 2016?

Why is this such an important point? Why do you and your colleagues want to know if there was any activity in terms of spying on the Trump campaign before the actual launch of the investigation?

RATCLIFFE: Because we have been told hat there wasn't. Representations have been made to members of Congress and to the American people that this started in July -- on July 31st of 2016. That that's when all of this started. And so we made specific inquiry based on some reporting that has been out there that there were actually confidential human sources involved investigating the Trump campaign before the case was officially opened on July 31 st of 2016.

And so, you know, what we want are the documents that will establish that. What we want is a very clear answer from the FBI and the Department of Justice. And that's what we've gotten in the classified and unclassified responses that came in late on Friday night.

So Devin Nunes and other members are exactly right, that we deserve, as the elected representatives of the people with oversight of this, to get an answer to that question and to get it quickly.

Look, we don't want any drama. We want the documents and we want real clear answers from our own Justice officials. And so there's a lot of debate and discussion right now about if we don't get those, how quickly we move and what measures are taken, and against whom.

BARTIROMO: So, I want to see how high up the ladder this goes in the Obama administration, because I know that your committee has subpoenaed Peter Strzok and you're going to be questioning him next week, I'm going to get to that in a moment.

But let me take you back to a testimony by Michael Daniel, who was President Obama's cyber chief. And he was speaking before the Senate were he basically admitted that his boss told him to stand down on an investigation. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JIM RISCH, R-IDAHO, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: But as far as your cyber response, you were told to stand down, is that correct?

MICHAEL DANIEL, FORMER OBAMA CYBERSECURITY CHIEF: We were those actions were put-on the back-burner, yes. We were -- and that was not the focus of our activity during that time period.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: So Susan Rice told Michael Daniel not to worry about Russia meddling in an election, Congressman?

RATCLIFFE: Well, as the chairman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee on Homeland in the House, I've got to tell you I was so astonished to hear that testimony from Michael Daniel. Let me put it in context. On July 31st of 2016 you had the Obama administration initiating an aggressive investigation into the Trump campaign under the pretext or pretense that it's about national security and fear that the Trump campaign may be colluding with the Russians to interfere with our election.

A week later you have Obama administration officials telling our own cyber chief to stand down to any Russian efforts to respond to their efforts to interfere with our election. Those two positions are incongruous. And it raises a really fair question about whether the Trump investigation was really about national security or whether it was about a political agenda, especially when you layer on top of that who they assigned, Peter Strzok and a bunch of Trump-hating...

BARTIROMO: Peter Strzok.

RATCLIFFE: To investigate President Trump.

BARTIROMO: Keep it right there, Congressman.

RATCLIFFE: It's hard not to reach some dark conclusions.

BARTIROMO: Quick break, we'll be right back with more of this. Stay with us

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back. We are back with Texas Congressman, former U.S. Attorney John Ratcliffe. Congressman, you made some great points in terms of that last segment. You, John, I know I rushed you out of the segment. We were up against a hard break.

RATCLIFFE: No, the point I was just trying to make is that when you put those two decisions that you really can't reconcile together, it's hard not to reach some dark conclusions about what the Obama administration's motivations were regarding the Trump-Russia investigation.

BARTIROMO: I've got to ask you about Peter Strzok and what you want to ask him. But let me ask you about Rosenstein, because Rod Rosenstein spent eight years in the Obama administration. That we know. He also was the same person who told President Trump you should fire Jim Comey. Then he turned around and he appointed special counsel Robert Mueller.

Then he signs off -- or before that, he signs off on a FISA renewal so that they could wiretap Carter Page. Should Rosenstein -- Rod Rosenstein recuse himself? Is he a witness, sir?

RATCLIFFE: Well, he's certainly a witness to the point of both the Mueller investigation, if it were to result in claims that the president obstructed justice, and he's certainly a witness with respect to whether or not there were any FISA abuses as someone that signed off on the last FISA renewal.

And, three, you've encapsulated this perfectly. The real challenge for lawmakers and the real question is when Rod Rosenstein is central to all of this, it fairly raises the question, look, when we're not getting the documents that we need or not getting them in a timely manner, is that because he's just doing his job and trying to protect the turf of the Department of Justice or is it because some of those documents may reflect negatively on senior members at the Department of justice and the FBI possibly to include himself?

BARTIROMO: Yes, which is why I keep bringing up the point that why did he just learn about the "we will stop him" text three seconds ago in the IG report when we know that that text was sent in August of 2016? Was somebody sitting on that text?

You have got Peter Strzok in front of your committee next week, what are you going to ask him?

RATCLIFFE: Well, Maria, as much as I like you and your viewers, I'm not about to tip off Peter Strzok because to the exact question that I have for him. I will say this, though, the challenge that he is going to have is he can't -- he doesn't just have to explain away one or two bad text messages. There are hundreds of hateful text messages that can't be taken out of context.

And how he explains those may impact his legal jeopardy and it may also impact the legal jeopardy of others like Jim Comey and Andy McCabe and Loretta Lynch and even John Brennan and James Clapper to the extent that it conflicts with sworn testimony that they've also given to members of Congress.

So he's a very important witness. And I'm looking forward to Wednesday.

BARTIROMO: So you think that whatever he said is going to have an impact on possibly Lisa Page, on John Brennan, on Clapper, on all of these other actors, Andrew McCabe.

RATCLIFFE: It's hard to see how it wouldn't. He is the central figure in both of these cases, in both of these investigations, and was involved on both the law enforcement side and on the intelligence side. So, you know, we have taken a lot of testimony from a lot of folks, and if his is inconsistent with that, it's going to raise more questions.

BARTIROMO: Congressman, good to see you this morning. Thanks so much.

RATCLIFFE: Thanks for having me, Maria.

BARTIROMO: We'll be back with our panel.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back. Big show today. (INAUDIBLE). Immigration is at the forefront of the national debate. Should Republicans wait to address the issue until after the midterm elections, like the president has suggested?

Our panel is here. Ed Rollins is former White House adviser to President Reagan. Mary Kissel is editorial board member at The Wall Street Journal. Both are Fox News contributors.

Good to see you. Are you surprised at the president's tweet? Wait until after the -- don't waste time on this.

ED ROLLINS; FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I think he's realistic in the sense it's a waste of time, but I think it's important for House Republicans to vote for something to prove that they are active and they do have a plan. The problem is it won't go forward in the Senate.

What people don't understand is the Mexican-American border is the most -- more people cross, 350 million people a year cross that border, more than any border in the world.

BARTIROMO: Wow.

ROLLINS: I mean, most people don't realize that, it's 350 million people cross that border. There are 600,000, as Bob Goodlatte said, who have come across illegally and are now being held in asylum status. It will be 1,000 days before they get a hearing.

Meanwhile, they get to come in the country, they get to do all this sort of stuff that they do. The issue last week is there's about 420 families every night come across the border illegally. There are 337, legally, beds (ph), that the federal government has allocated.

So you take those kids away and put them in a prison system or do you put them in a judicial system or do you put them in a Health and Human Services system? And the problem is, it has become a very emotional issue today. You can't have an intellectual argument on an emotional issue.

BARTIROMO: It's going to be emotional in November, Mary.

MARY KISSEL, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It is. I mean, look, even setting aside whatever the compromise will ultimately be, Maria, let's just talk about the politics here. In the House, you've got 30 to 40 districts that are up for grabs, 23 of which Hillary Clinton won. In the Senate, Republicans only have a one-seat majority, but they really don't, because Rand Paul doesn't really vote with the Republicans.

So the president is saying, let's wait, I'm going to get a bigger majority after the midterm elections. But by taking a hard stand on immigration, he risks alienating those moderate voters in the key swing states that he needs to win.

You know, Ted Cruz's Senate race in Texas, Carlos Curbelo in Florida, I mean, you have got a race in Minnesota that's up for grabs. So, I mean, that is a really big gamble for the president. I think a much better player is to get a compromise that gives him something to talk about on top of tax reform and health reform, where he can go to voters and say, look, I've been in office for two years, this is what I've done for you, instead of doubling down on this immigration and protectionist rhetoric.

ROLLINS: The most sacred pledge he made was to build the wall. If any bill that get passed, Democrats will not build the wall. They will not basically -- they want amnesty. If the word amnesty gets tied around Trump or Republicans, they're going to have a very hard time getting their own vote.

And I disagree in the sense that I don't think they can bring Democrats --

(BROADCAST CUT OFF FOR COMMERICAL BREAK)

END

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.