Rudy Giuliani on McGahn's testimony, origins of Russia probe
Rudy Giuliani, attorney for President Trump, speaks out about the Russia investigation on 'Sunday Morning Futures.'
This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," August 19, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good Sunday morning. Thanks for joining us.
President Trump responding a short time ago, as The New York Times reports that a top White House lawyer cooperated extensively with the special counsel, Robert Mueller.
The former number four guy at the Justice Department in the spotlight, as the president threatens to yank his security clearance amid new questions about his ties to the firm behind the Steele dossier.
And the president weighs in on social media and what he calls the censorship of conservative voices.
Good morning, everyone. Thanks so much for joining me. I'm Maria Bartiromo, and this is "Sunday Morning Futures."
President Trump says he has nothing to hide when it comes to the Russia investigation, and that he actually allowed his White House counsel, Don McGahn, and others to freely talk to Robert Mueller.
The president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, will join me next.
DOJ official Bruce Ohr will be in the hot seat on Capitol Hill next week. Lawmakers are demanding to know about his and his wife's ties to the ex- British spy who authored the salacious, but unsubstantiated dossier funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
And congressman John Ratcliffe will lead the questioning in a week-and-a- half. We will join me now coming up.
Plus, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton is here talking about his fight to declassify key DOJ documents.
Also, are conservative voices being curtailed on social media? The president says yes, as does Congress. Our panel today, Candace Owens and Ed Rollins, will weigh in, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures" right now.
And this morning, President Trump comes out firing in the wake of a New York Times report yesterday, blasting it as another instance of fake news.
Mr. Trump insisting that he instructed his White House counsel to fully cooperate with the Mueller investigation because he has nothing to hide.
He tweeted this today: "The failing New York Times wrote a fake piece today implying that, because White House counsel Don McGahn was giving hours of testimony to the special counsel, he must be a John Dean-type rat. But I allowed him and all others to testify. I didn't have to. I have nothing to hide and have demanded transparency, so that this rigged and disgusting witch-hunt can come to a close."
"So many lives have been ruined," the president writes, "over nothing, and McCarthyism at its worst, yet Mueller and his gang of Dems refuse to look at the real crimes on the other side. Media is even worse."
My next guest this morning has said he's confident McGahn didn't provide any evidence that is remotely harmful to the president.
Joining me right now is Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's attorney.
Mr. Mayor, it's always a pleasure.
RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Very nice to see you, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Good to see you.
Give us a status check where the investigation with the special counsel stands today.
GIULIANI: Well, it should be over.
The one thing left is, they want to question the president. Right now, we're going back and forth with letters trying to set out ground rules. We wrote them a letter a week-and-a-half ago. They haven't responded yet, which tells me they're not in a rush.
And someone just asked me, well, are we delaying? Hardly, in comparison to the special counsel. I mean, we have been going since June.
And we respond in two, three days, four days. They respond in two weeks. And these are all important things to whether you can do an interview or not, particularly in light of the fact that they already have all the information they're going to ask us about, except they don't have it under oath from the president.
So then we get very nervous that they're trying to trap him into perjury, which is not supposed to be what they are doing. They shouldn't be trapping people into a crime. If there's a crime, there is a crime, which there isn't. The president says he did nothing wrong. We don't think they have any evidence that he did.
Come on. Write your report. Put it out. And we will write ours. And let's move on to the election without interference.
BARTIROMO: Even in this article in The New York Times, you have to get all the way to the end, but then, at the end, it says McGahn told -- McGahn told Robert Mueller the president has not done anything outside of the law.
GIULIANI: He said everything was legal.
BARTIROMO: Right.
GIULIANI: Of course it is.
McGahn would have had to resign if...
BARTIROMO: Right.
GIULIANI: If back in January he went into the grand jury and anywhere in those two-and-a-half days, he said the president committed a crime, he's going to sit there for the next six months working for the president who committed a crime?
It's absurd. And The New York Times uses very, very deftly the idea that he cooperated extensively. Well, sure he did. This is a complicated thing. And you know lawyers ask the questions five different ways.
BARTIROMO: Right.
GIULIANI: They don't ask it just one way, probably to trap you.
But we are confident that he said nothing wrong about the president. And we're confident because the man is a man of integrity, and he would have resigned if something like that had happened.
BARTIROMO: Do you have any sense of whether or not Robert Mueller is in fact looking at the actual collusion that did take place, whereas Hillary Clinton...
(LAUGHTER)
BARTIROMO: ... paid for the dossier, that they used the dossier to get this warrant to spy on an American citizen, just because they didn't like Donald Trump?
GIULIANI: Now, the interesting thing is, the crimes that are being revealed were all committed by them.
Here is a situation in which Hillary Clinton pays something about over a million dollars for this Steele dossier, which is as phony as a $3 bill. It's -- one of them has Cohen going to Europe at a certain time. He was with his son for a baseball tryout.
Another has something to do with ties for eight years. There's no evidence of any such ties. They're exchanging intelligence for five years. Well, that's ridiculous. Trump wasn't even going to run for president until two years before. So it's a completely phony document.
The guy who did it in the midst of it gets fired. And then Ohr, even after Steele has been discredited and disgraced, starts working with him. Now, why did Ohr work with him? Ohr wasn't involved in anything like this, because Ohr's wife worked for the company that hired Steele and made over...
BARTIROMO: So they were profiting from the dossier?
GIULIANI: How about made over a million dollars from it?
BARTIROMO: Right.
GIULIANI: And his wife was involved in this specific investigation with that company.
Ohr doesn't reveal that to anybody in the Justice Department. Worse than that, when they submit applications for warrants, for FISA wires, they don't say that it's based on paid-for oppo research. They make it sound like it's based on intelligence. And they never correct it, even when they find out.
BARTIROMO: Right. And...
GIULIANI: Now, these are all perjury.
BARTIROMO: And these are all really important parts to an overwhelming narrative that has been put out there.
And I wonder if the president is going to declassify the documents related to the Trump-Russia narrative.
GIULIANI: Well, that's up to him.
BARTIROMO: I mean, he -- isn't that the only way the American people are actually going to understand what took place here?
GIULIANI: Well, yes, certainly.
No, you could find it other ways, but it's pretty critical to it, and it would end the -- end the speculation quickly one way or the other.
I think the president has to make that decision with his counsel, in this case, with Emmet Flood, who for this -- for purposes of this investigation is the special -- is the White House counsel, not McGahn.
McGahn basically is recused from that because he was a witness, which is fine. And I think the president has to decide that. We -- you and I can have feelings about it, but he has to decide it.
But the fact is, we know enough about it now to know that crimes were committed, perjury. If there was any collusion with the Russians, they're the one who did it. And there's evidence of it.
BARTIROMO: Well, what about that? Does Robert Mueller need to see the DNC server? I mean, where is the server? How -- how is Robert Mueller going to get his hands on all of the information pertaining to the election in 2016?
GIULIANI: The Justice Department and the FBI never asked to see the server.
It's been given to them -- it's been given to them in bits and pieces on a report done by an outside agency that worked for them. So, I mean, that's a totally weird thing to do.
BARTIROMO: This really blows my mind, because let's say -- I was at the Democratic National Convention. And I remember what happened on that day of the convention, day one of the convention.
It was Debbie Wasserman Schultz's convention.
GIULIANI: Right.
BARTIROMO: And she gets hacked. All her e-mails are out showing an obvious sort of favoritism to Hillary Clinton and just blowing off Bernie Sanders. Everything is out, and now we know what happened.
GIULIANI: Right.
BARTIROMO: She's forced to resign.
And so there you have at the Democratic National Convention a complete turnaround. We were only talking about Debbie Wasserman Schultz e-mails for a few minutes, when all of a sudden the conversation changes to Trump, Russia, potential collusion.
GIULIANI: Well, that then gets to Peter Strzok and ultimately Brennan, because this whole investigation started as soon as they knew that the Hillary thing was going to fizzle out.
They probably didn't anticipate that -- that Comey was going to damn her with faint praise by saying, I'm not going to prosecute her, but she did all these things that amount to crimes. He just virtually admits in that report she committed all these crimes, destroyed all these e-mails, lied.
BARTIROMO: Right.
GIULIANI: Did this and did that. I'm not going to prosecute her, but I'm going to tell you what a crook she is.
BARTIROMO: But what I'm saying is, here, we understand that their -- their systems were hacked. Everything is out there.
You would think that you're the Democratic National Committee. You would think that, when your e-mails are hacked, and now it totally opens up, you want the strength and the might of the U.S. government behind you, and you want to find out who got -- who hacked me.
But that's not what they did. They didn't give the server to the FBI.
GIULIANI: They never did.
BARTIROMO: They hired a private technology company to look at the server.
GIULIANI: Well, it's very, very suspicious with regards to this investigation.
And it also says, what the heck else was on that server? How many other crimes did they commit in addition to this one? And it also -- I mean, what I didn't realize until all this evidence started to come in is, this was all being orchestrated by John Brennan, because he's the one ultimately, when the Steele dossier is worth nothing, when none of it proves to be true, when none of it is verified, as even Comey said none of it was verified, and they used it was a basis to get wiretaps, he peddles the report to -- to Harry Reid in a total setup.
He goes to Reid and says, here is the report. They all go through it.
If you read it, believe me, Maria, you will immediately come to the conclusion that it's way out crazy. It's almost like the -- it's almost written like the threat letters that you get.
And he gives it to Reid. And Reid then composes a letter to Comey and tells Comey he has to investigate,but doesn't really base it on the dossier. Of course, Comey knows the dossier is phony.
BARTIROMO: Right.
GIULIANI: And -- and so Comey starts the investigation, and then eventually Mueller takes over.
BARTIROMO: So, what are you going to do now if John Brennan sues you, sues the president?
(LAUGHTER)
BARTIROMO: That's what he said on "Meet the Press" this morning, that he's going to come up with a legal pushback for losing the security clearance. And he says he wants to make sure nobody else loses the security clearance.
GIULIANI: Well, then -- then we take his deposition right away.
As the plaintiff, he would have to go first. And I would do -- I mean, I would volunteer to do that case for the president. I would love to be -- have Brennan under oath for, I don't know how many days, two, three days? We will find out about Brennan.
And we will find out what a terrible job he did going back to being the head of mission at the -- when the Khobar Towers was bombed and our Marines were killed. Or we can -- we can see what he -- what he did or said about Benghazi, how many lies he told about that.
BARTIROMO: Or supporting communism.
GIULIANI: Well, I don't know if I will go back that far, to when he voted for Gus Hall, and I don't know. Anybody out there vote -- ever vote for a communist?
BARTIROMO: What are you going to do, Rudy? At the end of the day...
(CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: How do you become CIA director if, in the midst of the Cold War, you voted for a communist?
Only Obama would pick you. And he had a terrible time getting through the Senate, because, number one, he was in charge of -- he was in charge of a lot of water-boarding, and defended it. Then he changed his mind about it.
Then he was in charge of the drone strikes, where you picked out the terrorists you didn't like and you put bombs on them, instead of taking them and interviewing them. Plus, he claims to be a great lover of Islam, of the Islamic religion. He says the hajj was one of the most beautiful things he ever saw.
So, how does all this square up? Isn't this is a guy who is an opportunist and a political hack who goes whichever way the -- whichever way the winds are going?
BARTIROMO: How tough is this -- has this been for you in terms of pushing up against this resistance constantly?
I see all of the evidence. I got it. And I understand, I think, what took place in 2016. And yet it hasn't resonated with the broad public as much. It's incredible that they have thrown out their ideals, their values of all of the things we hold dear, our freedoms, wiretapping someone for no reason, because it's Donald Trump.
GIULIANI: Yes.
You know, number one, I'm really discouraged, as a former Justice Department official who gave 17 -- 17 years of his life to the Justice Department, to see a Justice Department under Sessions that will do nothing about this.
We can put the recusal thing aside with Jeff, who is a friend of mine. How he's not taking up these investigations just kills me. I mean, these are investigations that are crying out to be looked at and turned into crimes.
Meanwhile, they're -- they're fumbling around with this collusion thing. It's a laugher. There was no collusion and no conspiracy with the Russians involving Donald Trump.
However, we know that the affidavit is false. We have the person who signed it. Why aren't we investigating that person...
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: Is the president going to revoke any other security clearances?
GIULIANI: Well, if there are more like Brennan, he has every right to.
And Brennan accused him of treason. And just a few minutes ago, I did an interview. I listened to him. And he basically says he has no evidence that the president committed a crime. He says, well, there was collusion, for which there is no evidence, but I don't know if it was a conspiracy that would make it a crime.
But he says to the guy was involved in -- the president was involved in treason, which is punishable by death. So, this is an out-of-control political hack.
BARTIROMO: And for someone to be saying that, knowing that he has security clearance, you're sort of suggesting that you know something.
GIULIANI: Of course.
BARTIROMO: Because you have got access to this.
Let me ask you this. You mentioned Jeff Sessions. Should the president fire Jeff Sessions?
GIULIANI: The president should not fire anyone right now, because it would take focus off of how their case is falling apart.
BARTIROMO: But why isn't he doing his job, then? You just said it. Sessions.
GIULIANI: Why isn't Sessions doing the job?
BARTIROMO: Yes.
GIULIANI: You are going to have to ask him. I don't know.
These don't stand in the way of anything he's recused himself of.
BARTIROMO: Will he fire him after the midterms?
(CROSSTALK)
GIULIANI: I don't know.
But, I mean, the main thing is, let's get this investigation over with, and then the president can take whatever action he believes is necessary, which is up to him, not me, as his lawyer.
The only thing I would like him to give me is defense of that lawsuit that Brennan -- that Brennan is going to bring, because I think my payment for this investigation and my representation of the president is to get to depose John Brennan, one of the biggest, biggest frauds in this -- in this country.
BARTIROMO: Make your day.
(LAUGHTER)
BARTIROMO: Make your day.
Rudy Giuliani, it's good to see you.
GIULIANI: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Thank you so much, Rudolph Giuliani.
Coming up next, the man who will lead the questioning when Justice Department official Bruce Ohr testifies on Capitol Hill next week.
That's next, John Ratcliffe.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
New developments this morning on a story that we have covered closely here on "Sunday Morning Futures" all year regarding Justice Department official Bruce Ohr.
Newly-obtained documents show Ohr had contact with Christopher Steele, who is the author of the dossier, during the 2016 presidential election. As you know, Steele is the author of that salacious and unverified dossier, partly funded by the Democrats and the Clinton campaign.
In a week where President Trump had already yanked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan, he hinted that Ohr could be next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think Bruce Ohr is a disgrace. I suspect I will be taking it away very quickly.
I think that Bruce Ohr is a disgrace with his wife, Nellie.
For him to be in the Justice Department and to be doing what he did, that is a disgrace.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
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.
BARTIROMO: Congressman John Ratcliffe joining us.
Up next, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton is here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch is suing the Department of Justice for access to communications related to the unverified anti-Trump dossier, this as the group also uncovers new classified e-mails sent and received on Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server during her time as secretary of state.
Joining me right now is the president of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton.
Tom, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.
TOM FITTON, PRESIDENT, JUDICIAL WATCH: You're welcome. Thanks.
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: Tell us about the lawsuit.
FITTON: Well, the latest lawsuit...
BARTIROMO: What are you trying to get?
FITTON: Well, the latest lawsuit is about John Brennan.
According to some liberal reporters who wrote a book late last year or earlier this year, he talked to Harry Reid about the dossier shortly before the election. Harry Reid, the former leading Democrat in the Senate, came away with the distinct impression that Mr. Brennan wanted that dossier out in the public.
So Mr. Reid, being the partisan, he did, dutifully wrote a letter that became quickly public. And so the leak happened. And so we have asked about communications that the CIA and Brennan had with Reid about this dossier.
And, of course, we have gotten a stonewall. And we're in -- as usual, in federal court over it.
BARTIROMO: Well, you have also been able to unearth a lot of documents. Good for you, and congratulations on what you have been able to get, because so many of us wouldn't know half of what took place had you not been pushing.
Now, the president tweeted this, this morning. He says this: "No collusion, no obstruction, except by crooked Hillary and the Democrats. All of the resignations and corruption, yet heavily conflicted Bob Mueller refuses to even look in that direction. What about the Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok lies to Congress or crooked e-mails?"
Tom, let me ask you about this, because you're also -- you have unearthed documents that were on Hillary Clinton's server, which is -- what is -- why is that important?
FITTON: Well, the government or the State Department is giving out -- giving us records about every month from the Clinton e-mail system that was recovered by the FBI.
And these are e-mails that she tried to delete or otherwise hide from the American people. So this is new material. And it includes classified information, the latest batch. We have had previous batches of classified info. We have five new classified e-mails about Northern Ireland, the Middle East, Kurdistan.
And, to me, it demonstrates the corruption at the Justice Department currently that is going full-bore against President Trump, with really no evidence, while ignoring all of these in-your-face national security crimes that other crimes by Hillary Clinton and her colleagues.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
I mean, can Robert Mueller ignore this while he's doing an investigation with the mandate of looking for collusion?
FITTON: You know, the only person who got money directly from Russia, as far as I could tell, involved in -- who were running for office in 2016 was Hillary Clinton.
She and her husband -- her husband made a speech in Russia for $500,000 to a firm that was a front for the Russians in Uranium One. They reportedly received millions as part of an effort to get a good result in that Uranium One decision.
And, of course, she hires this cutout, Fusion GPS, who was using supposedly Russia intelligence sources to launder information into the FBI and DOJ.
Think about this, Maria. Peter Strzok, who is investigating Hillary Clinton's e-mail abuses, at the same time is working with Hillary Clinton's campaign apparatus to try to take out President Trump, or then candidate Trump.
Outrageous conflict. And Mueller is conflicted himself, because he's using all of this material created by Strzok, by Ohr, by Steele, by the Clinton- DNC dossier. The spy -- we haven't even gotten into the Spygate, where the FBI/CIA was going at -- sending informants targeting the Trump campaign to try to dig up dirt.
BARTIROMO: Right.
Yes, they were sending informants in well before the launch of the investigation, which was July 31 of 2016. But there were informants trying to taunt Trump campaign people way before that.
You know, I mean, we were just talking with John Ratcliffe. And there's no surprise or no coincidence that all of the top leadership, or a significant amount of the top leadership at the FBI and the DOJ has been fired.
Let's go through this. I mean, you have got Andrew McCabe fired for misconduct, criminally referred. You have got James Comey fired, under investigation, Sally Yates fired, Peter Strzok fired and now under investigation, Bruce Ohr demoted, under investigation.
FITTON: Right.
Three of the five people -- we received the FISA warrant applications through another FOIA lawsuit. Three of the five people who signed off on those applications have been fired for misconduct. Two of them remain, Rod Rosenstein, who signed on presumably for Mr. Mueller. He signed -- his warrant application that Rosenstein signed on for was in June of 2017.
So this is in the middle of the Mueller operation. So these compromised documents, these compromised investigative techniques, the FISA warrant, is benefiting the Mueller operation.
This is what I want to focus on, because we're talking about what went on during the Obama administration into the beginning of the Trump administration. But all of this is part of Mueller's ball of wax.
He needs to be held accountable. And I would like to see Mr. Mueller on the list of witnesses for Congress. Why isn't he being brought in and asked about...
BARTIROMO: Wow.
FITTON: ... how he was hired, the scope of his work, how he administers his office, why he can't find any Republicans to hire, what was he doing with Peter Strzok that he let him out and then hid that information about the purpose, the reason for kicking him off his team for four months?
BARTIROMO: Right, yes.
FITTON: Basic questions.
BARTIROMO: All really good questions, Tom.
I know you will be covering it. And we will be following your work.
Great to have you on the program today. Thanks so much, Tom.
FITTON: You're welcome, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Tom Fitton joining us there.
President Trump reacting to claims by conservatives that social media is censoring them.
Our panel is up next. Candace Owens and Ed Rollins will weigh in.
Plus, a check on the pulse of the midterms, less than 80 days away now. We're looking ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."
Back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
Growing concerns now about claims of censorship across social media platforms.
The president weighing in on this today, tweeting this, this weekend: "Social media is totally discriminating against Republicans, conservative voices speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump administration. We won't let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the right, while at the same time doing nothing to others."
Joining us right now to talk more about that is Candace Owens. She's director of urban engagement at Turning Point USA, along with Ed Rollins here in the studio, former White House adviser to President Reagan and Fox News contributor.
Great to see you both.
ED ROLLINS, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Thank you so much for joining us.
CANDACE OWENS, TURNING POINT USA: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: So, Candace, let me kick this off with you, because you have actually been a victim of this.
You were kicked off Facebook and Twitter.
OWENS: I was.
In the last two weeks, I have had suspensions from both of those platforms. And this is a really important issue. I can not stress this enough to everybody that is conservative and everybody that supports Trump, especially those that support Trump.
I think what they are starting to understand is, they are trying to assess how Trump won. And really he ran an aggressive social media campaign. And they see that people that were able to impact, they lost control, because so many voices popped up, and they no longer had to rely on just CNN, MSNBC or FOX.
There were all of these social media stars that were coming out speaking on behalf of him that had a major impact. And now those voices are getting silenced.
BARTIROMO: So, you think he won the social media war, then?
OWENS: That is exactly right. He won the social media war. And that's what they see as the biggest threat for them going into midterms and heading into the reelect in 2020.
So it's incredibly important that we speak out all the time. People have said, oh, it's Alex Jones. He's a conspiracy theorist.
That doesn't matter. The implication here is that Spotify, YouTube and Facebook on the very same day banned somebody off of their platforms. That means that they are working together.
BARTIROMO: One of the issues, Ed, is that I think the detractors of President Trump are going insane because he's having such good outcomes.
I mean, his economic policy has produced 4.1 percent economic growth. We have got the lowest unemployment that we have seen in decades, the lowest unemployment for the African-American community ever. And so they're out of their minds that the outcomes are so positive going into the midterm elections.
ROLLINS: Well, equally as important -- and a lot of people said the social media that he used, this tweeting and what have you, was detrimental to him. It was not at all.
He's dominated the -- the last two-and-a-half years. No president, no candidate has ever dominated the media, both the cable news, the social media, what have you. He understands it well. His people understand it well.
And I think to a certain extent, they see it as a threat. Every day, people are sitting there waiting for his tweet to respond one way or the other. And if all of a sudden, it's a one-sided game in which you stop the people who are supportive of him, then it's not -- it's not fair and it's certainly a violation of those people's rights.
BARTIROMO: Yes, but, Candace, you have got a lot of shaming going on.
The left, their main strategy is just to shame you, name-call, so that you just go away and stop talking positively about Trump's policies.
OWENS: That's correct.
But, look, that's actually hurting them. That's actually detrimental to them. It's nonsensical at this point. Think about the fact they call me a white supremacist. I'm African-American, and I speak vocally in support of Trump, and they say that I'm a white supremacist.
It's hurting them because it's starting to look like they are completely -- they have nothing left. And they have called everybody everything.
Listen, there's nothing much more that they could stick on Trump, and he rose above it each and every time. So the name-calling is desperate, an effort that won't work for them.
BARTIROMO: Well, it's interesting, because Rasmussen says that black voter support for the president nearly doubled.
OWENS: That makes me smile so, yes.
So that means that, despite the fact that they have called everything and everyone racist and every single term, the black community is no longer listening. Do you want to know why? Because the results are in. He is helping us. We're on the rise, we are getting jobs.
He's attacking the illegal immigration issue, which negatively impacts the black community. So, at the end of the day, results speak louder than words.
BARTIROMO: Nobody knows the elections better than you.
What are you seeing in terms of the midterm elections, Ed Rollins? Go. And we have got 80 days left.
ROLLINS: Well, there's a lot that is going to happen in the next 80 days.
Historically, the last 21 midterm elections, the president's party has lost 30 -- 30 seats and four Senate seats. That's not going to happen. I will predict that right today.
BARTIROMO: Really?
ROLLINS: We may lose five. We may lose 10. You are going to lose some seats just because of the makeup of the Congress.
But it's not -- there's no blue wave out there. The Senate, which we had big opportunities, have not turned out to be quite so. There's probably five to eight Senate seats on both sides that are in play. I think we will hold the Senate, and I think we will hold the House.
Margins may be smaller in the House, but it's certainly going to hold it.
BARTIROMO: Wow. These are big predictions.
All right, let's take a short break.
ROLLINS: Sure.
BARTIROMO: We have got more time with Candace Owens and Ed Rollins.
And I want to get your take on what races in particular are most important going into November.
ROLLINS: Sure.
BARTIROMO: Stay with us.
The panel continues in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: We're back with our panel, Candace Owens and Ed Rollins, with a look at the midterms, the economy, and the GOP message.
Candace, with this focus now on conservatives possibly being censored, we're expecting people like Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, and others, Sheryl Sandberg, to testify in front of Congress in the fall. What would you expect from that? Do you think this changes?
OWENS: Here is what I will say.
I actually think that Twitter is a bit of an anomaly. I don't -- I don't see them working in cahoots with Facebook and the other platforms. And I know personally that Jack Dorsey has reached out and Twitter has to a lot of conservatives and had meetings behind closed doors in trying to at least begin talking about fixing this problem.
He actually has the biggest platform for conservatives in general. I myself have had conversations with Twitter. So I'm holding out a candle for Twitter. And I'm hopeful that they are trying to make some changes. Not as nervous for them.
But it is, as I said, the most important issue. Facebook is a problem. I think that they are trying to intentionally go against conservatives and silence voices. We saw this week with PragerU.
I mean, is there a safer conservative platform aside from their videos? They are straightforward, they are direct, they are nonconfrontational. And, somehow, they got banned and shadow banned from Facebook.
BARTIROMO: Right.
OWENS: That's extremely problematic, even though Facebook did issue an apology.
So that's really what's to watch is what happens here with Facebook, and, of course, YouTube, which is outright banning conservative platforms.
BARTIROMO: Whether it's the banning of conservative platforms, Ed Rollins, or this FBI, Department of Justice investigation by Congress of their behavior during the 2016 election, is that part of what changed going into the midterms?
(CROSSTALK)
ROLLINS: Oh, sure. There's no question about it.
First of all, Facebook was totally misused by the Russians. There's no question about that. That's what they ought to be cleaning up, not ordinary citizens that have a different point of view.
It's a powerful vehicle. And people now realize it's a powerful vehicle. These issues are complicated. And I think the country today basically sees real polarization. They like what Trump is doing on the economic issues and what have you.
The rest of it, there is a lot of background noise, and they don't understand who is right or who is wrong. But I think, at this point in time, he's managed to hold his base. And his base is going to be very important in these midterms.
BARTIROMO: So you think there won't be a blue wave?
ROLLINS: I predict, at this point in time -- and I have been doing this for 50 years -- I don't predict -- there's no blue wave.
There is -- there will be some seats that'll be lost, just as there is ordinarily is. But that's mainly about the retirements. We have too many retirements, and some of these open seats.
But you're not going to see -- and it's all over the country. It will be couple seats in California, a couple seats here, a couple seats there, in which you're not going to -- this is not a national election. This is a person-by-person election.
BARTIROMO: So you think they hold the majority?
ROLLINS: I think Republicans hold the majority in both the House and the Senate.
I think the missed opportunity is, we had plenty of chances to pick up Senate seats. We may pick up two or three. We should have picked up 10.
BARTIROMO: Candace, real quick on this FBI investigation, we're covering all the ins and outs. Now Bruce Ohr at the center of this, how does that play into all of this?
What's your take on what took place during the 2016 election?
OWENS: Look, everything that took place during the 2016 election is problematic, and it's something that needs to be addressed.
And as we're also watching this Paul Manafort trial play out, and seeing that they really had nothing, what Robert Mueller is banking on is absolutely nothing. They are just trying to take down Trump.
And this goes back to why midterms is so important for Republicans to present a united front, because we understand that the enemy is on the left, that they are doing everything that they can to disrupt this presidency.
And I have no doubt that, if they do win in the midterms, which I don't think they will, that they are going to be advocating for having this president removed.
BARTIROMO: Yes. Yes, the midterms could not be more important right now.
Real quickly.
ROLLINS: It's probably the most important in my lifetime.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
All right, Ed Rollins, Candace Owens, great to see you both.
ROLLINS: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Thank you so much. Great conversation. Great panel.
That'll do it for us on "Sunday Morning Futures." Thanks so much for joining me. I'm Maria Bartiromo.
I will be back tomorrow morning on the FOX Business Network on "Mornings With Maria" from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. Eastern. I hope you will join us. We have got a big show planned tomorrow morning. Join us on Fox Business.
First, though, Fox News continues with Howie Kurtz right after this short break.
Have a great Sunday, everybody.
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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox