Federalist editor says Mueller probe's full origins still require look

Mollie Hemingway, senior editor at The Federalist, says that though many think it’s important to move on from the Mueller report following Thursday’s expected release, one aspect that calls for further exploration is how it all began.

“People talk about moving on. That's important because there are serious policy issues that fixing our border and other things Congress needs to work on -- but how did the investigation ever start?” Hemingway said on “Special Report with Bret Baier” on Wednesday.


“It was used, not just during the campaign but in the interim, before he [Trump] became president and for the first two years of his administration, to undermine him," she said. "It affected foreign policy and his ability to get things done.”

Hemingway emphasized that answers were needed in order to avoid a recurrence of the circumstances behind the inquiry.

“People need to make sure the report is put into context. It is not just there was a legitimate reason to look into Russia collusion and there were no indictments ... for Russia collusion or obstruction, but a story about how people weaponized information and used it to go after political opponents,” Hemingway told Baier.

“That absolutely must be looked into. We absolutely need to get answers so that it doesn't happen again and the people who did it are held accountable.”

Barr will release a redacted version of Mueller's full investigative report on Thursday morning.

Democrats are expected to file subpoenas to see what's behind the redactions.

Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley said Democrats will continue to second-guess the report, but its findings will stand.

“Clearly the Democrats are very upset by this finding. I think what we are going to see is them combing through this report second-guessing Mueller's findings on no collusion, second-guessing the Justice Department decision that there was no obstruction of justice because there was no underlying crime, and you will see Trump's team push back and say pick it apart all you want,” Riley said.

“Doesn't change the central conclusions, no collusion and no obstruction.”


Amy Walter, national editor of the Cook Political Report, added that no matter what the report says Thursday, it will have no bearing on how the public views President Trump. “His approval ratings, disapproval ratings haven't moved much given the many things that have happened over the last two years.”