National Security Adviser requests strike options against Iran from the Pentagon: What options are the US considering?
Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn says she has voted twice on a piece of legislation to strengthen America’s presence in the Middle East.
This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," January 13, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
MARIA BARTIROMO, HOST: Good Sunday morning, everyone. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Maria Bartiromo.
Joining me exclusively today on "Sunday Morning Futures," Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn on the border wall battle at the center of the government shutdown, whether the president should declare a national emergency. Plus, the senator reacts to The Wall Street Journal reporting that National Security Adviser John Bolton asked the Pentagon for military strike options against Iran.
Also joining me this morning, Democratic Congressman Jim Himes and Republican Congressman Jim Jordan on the congressional oversight showdown on Capitol Hill.
Plus, coming up, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is here on the upcoming William Barr confirmation hearing happening this week.
Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman also here on his declaration that Congressman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not the future of the Democratic Party -- her response to that coming up.
All that and more right now, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."
President Trump last night saying he has no idea if he can reach an agreement with Democrats to end the partial government shutdown. The president also doubling down on his threat to declare a national emergency to fund the border wall.
But we will get into all of that in a moment, but we begin this morning with breaking news on the foreign policy front.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that, last September, National Security Adviser John Bolton asked the Pentagon to provide military options on striking Iran.
Joining me right now is Republican Senator from Tennessee Marsha Blackburn. She serves on the Armed Services and Commerce committees and is one of the first women to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senator, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much for being here.
SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN, R-TENN.: Good to be with you. Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Sure.
I want to get to the border wall funding and all of the issues around that, but let me begin with this breaking news, John Bolton requesting from Pentagon strike options against Iran. Your thoughts on that? Is that something that surprised you in terms of potentially striking Iran?
BLACKBURN: Maria, I think that what you are seeing with the national security team and those that are working to make certain that we are increasing our strength in the Middle East is viewing all options.
And, indeed, this past week, we have voted twice on a bill strengthening America's presence in the Middle East. And this includes legislation that is vitally important to Israel, our greatest ally. It is military and financial support for them.
It is provisions to help combat -- combat BDS and that movement, which is boycott, divestment. And we want to make certain that we shore Israel up, that we also provide provisions in this legislation for Jordan, who is a key regional ally, vitally important, as we look at the Middle East.
And what we have seen from the Democrats is just obstruction. They have voted against this twice. We're going to go with this again on Monday and see if we can again have another tool in the toolbox to deal with bad actors.
This legislation also has provisions that would hold Syria's brutal regime accountable for torture and murder of innocent civilians.
BARTIROMO: And we know Prime Minister Netanyahu confirmed on Friday that, in fact, Israel war plans did target Iran plans -- planes, rather.
But, here, we have got this evidence that the U.S. and Israel are in step with fighting harsh and plainly against Iran. And yet the president has announced he's withdrawing troops from Syria.
So do these two issues jibe together?
BLACKBURN: We have received a classified briefing on Syria. And, of course, you can appreciate that I'm not able to talk about much of what is in that briefing.
I will say the legislation that Senator Rubio has brought forward that the Democrats have voted against twice is vitally important for us, as we take it up again for a third vote. And I appreciate Leader McConnell's persistence in trying to move this forward.
BARTIROMO: Senator, the president announced that he's withdrawing troops from Syria, and yet Secretary of State Pompeo is on the ground in the Middle East, saying we are here, we will make sure that the troops on the ground that remain and our Kurdish partners in this are not harmed.
Has -- has the plans changed? Has the mission changed?
BLACKBURN: I -- I don't think it would be appropriate to say that the mission has changed. I think it is appropriate to say that the military is looking at a systematic, stable process of withdrawing troops from Syria, but also of the U.S. maintaining this leadership, moving toward stability in the Middle East.
And you will see that continue. Secretary Pompeo, you also have John Bolton who is working on these issues.
And, Maria, what we want to make certain is that, as our military moves forward, they have the tools, the training, the equipment that they need to do their job, that we are listening to the commanders that are on the ground there, and, whether it is the diplomatic or the military side, that we are working in a -- in a coordinated and cohesive way to make certain that we protect Americans.
BARTIROMO: Let me switch gears and talk a bit about the shutdown and border security.
We know that the majority of Americans are opposing the border wall, 54 percent, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll. But those numbers, this gap is actually lessening here. So it looks like the American people are recognizing that a border security is of the utmost importance.
Let me ask you, should the president declare a national emergency here?
BLACKBURN: My hope is that the Democrats will come to the table and we will be able to resolve this. Congress should be the ones to take the lead.
And you're right. More Americans are looking at this, and they are saying -- I hear it from Tennesseans every single day -- look, stop the drug traffickers, the human traffickers, the gangs from coming in this country, because, until that southern border is secure, you are going to have every state a border state and every town a border town.
And they want to get this issue resolved, securing that border. And, Maria, it's important to realize, walls work. Ask Israel. Walls work. Look at the Border Patrol. They say they need three things. And they tell us this regularly. They need a barrier. They need technology. And they need more border agents and officers that are there on the ground to help with this situation.
And trafficking has dropped in areas where there is a border wall. You have less illegal entry. And that is what they're saying that they need.
So I think that it is outrageous that they do not want to give the Border Patrol what they need to secure the border and to secure the sovereignty of this nation.
BARTIROMO: Well, it's interesting, because we're looking at a graphic right now of the current wall and fencing -- 30 percent of the border already has a wall.
And last week on this program, we spoke with one of your colleagues on the House side, Congressman Mac Thornberry on Foreign Affairs. And here's what he said about the current situation. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MAC THORNBERRY, R-TX: For years, way before President Obama was elected, the Border Patrol experts said you need a combination of things. You need physical barriers, you need people and you need technology, all three of them.
So I was struck this week when Speaker Pelosi said this is a moral issue. We already have some sort of barrier across 30 percent of the border. To go to 40 percent is a moral issue? It just tells me this is politics.
And the disappointing thing is, the country -- the best interests of the country do not seem to be the first consideration. It's all about political positioning.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BARTIROMO: And, Senator, we know that Nancy Pelosi has voted for border wall, border security twice before.
BLACKBURN: That's right.
BARTIROMO: Barack Obama has. Others have as well, Senator Schumer.
And yet now, when President Trump wants to do it, she says it's immoral, even though we already have the wall in 30 percent.
Your reaction to this? Because we know that 800,000 government employees have not been paid, and it feels like this is people playing politics, frankly.
BLACKBURN: Well, it does feel like people playing politics, because there is an offer that is there on the table.
And we all have concern about the portion of government that is in shutdown and the employees that are not being paid. And for the Democratic leadership to say, absolutely not, we will not negotiate, is unfair to them.
And I will tell you something else, Maria. If I were someone who had a dreamer in my family -- and I talked with someone yesterday who's helping a family. Two children are dreamers. Two were born here.
And you know what? They were expressing their frustration that the Democratic leadership is not coming to the table, when they know the president and Republicans have said, let's address the dreamer issue. Let's secure the southern border. Let's get government reopened.
And I think that more people are becoming frustrated. You were just talking about the polling and showing how more Americans are coming forward in favor of the wall.
BARTIROMO: Right.
BLACKBURN: They realize every town is a border town, every state is a border state, until you secure it and end illegal entry of drugs, human trafficking, sex trafficking and gangs.
BARTIROMO: Do you think we will get a resolution this week?
BLACKBURN: My hope is that we do.
BARTIROMO: Senator, stay with us.
We know that this upcoming week is also important for the upcoming A.G. General -- attorney general nominee William Barr heads to Capitol Hill on Tuesday morning for his first set of confirmation hearings.
We're going to talk about that, Senator Blackburn, when we come right back.
Follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, on Instagram @MariaBartiromo and @SundayFutures. Let us know what you would like to hear.
We have got a big program ahead. Stay with us, as we look ahead on "Sunday Morning Futures."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
We are back with Republican Senator from Tennessee Marsha Blackburn.
Senator, this upcoming week, we will begin the confirmation hearings for the president's nomination for attorney general, William Barr. Your expectations? You will be there asking some of the questions. What are you expecting to ask Mr. Barr?
BLACKBURN: I had the opportunity to visit with him last week and talked with him a little bit about his prior service as attorney general for the late President George Bush, and then also to talk -- touch about his work with Verizon, his service on the board of Time Warner, and the 25 years of expertise that he is bringing from the telecommunications industry.
Also, Maria, I -- I wanted to talk with him about running the agency, the leadership that he would bring to bear there, which I think is vitally important for the Department of Justice, to have leadership that is seasoned.
And he would be a steady hand. And I think that is what you will see. He's been in retirement for 10 years. Basically, he is coming out of retirement to serve President Trump.
And I was thinking back through some of the previous attorney generals. And I got to tell you, when you look at William Barr, I think you see somebody who's going to be a 180 or an exact opposite of what Eric Holder was.
And, of course, we expect that the Democrats are going to oppose Mr. Barr and his confirmation.
BARTIROMO: Why?
BLACKBURN: And -- because they have -- look at how they -- three of them participated in suing the president to block Matthew Whitaker from being the attack...
BARTIROMO: Right.
BLACKBURN: ... acting assistant attorney general.
And they are on this obstruct tangent, everything that they can do to get in the president's way.
BARTIROMO: Right.
BLACKBURN: And the Senate is there to provide advice and consent. That's should be our role.
BARTIROMO: Senator, there's an argument -- there's an argument being made that William Barr should recuse himself from the Mueller investigation.
Your reaction?
BLACKBURN: I think that Mr. Mueller should finish his investigation and deliver his report.
I will tell you this. Tennesseans, when I am out and about, they are not talking about that. They are not interested in the story of the day. They are interested in the story of their lives. They like the fact that we have seen 2.6 million jobs created...
BARTIROMO: Yes.
BLACKBURN: ... since we had the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed.
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: Will he have to recuse himself, Senator?
BLACKBURN: I...
BARTIROMO: Do you think he will have to recuse himself?
BLACKBURN: I think that that is something that should be up for discussion. And we will get through that as we get through the hearings.
BARTIROMO: It just -- it just seems to me that Jim Comey set up this special counsel very neatly. You have got a special counsel in place, which we still don't know where he's going, what he has in terms of this attack of collusion and obstruction.
And yet anything having to do with the FBI's behavior, that cabal of people who did try to stop Donald Trump like Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe and Bruce Ohr and Lisa Page, any questions regarding their behavior is, well, we can't answer that, we can't discuss it because there's an active investigation going on by the special counsel.
So, what is your sense in terms of when the Mueller investigation will provide this report? And who is going to check Robert Mueller, if not the attorney general?
BLACKBURN: Well, and you just listed the list of questions that people are asking that they want to have answers to. How in the world could this have happened?
How could they have or did they go after President Trump? Were they actively trying to go after him? How did the dossier play into all this? These are the answers that people want to have. And this is why I think William Barr is a good person for the Department of Justice. He will bring that seasoned leadership.
He has been in that position before. He has led the agency.
BARTIROMO: Unless he's forced to recuse himself. Unless he's forced to recuse himself.
BLACKBURN: Well, let's see what the discussion...
BARTIROMO: Then we don't have anybody following the truth or seeking actually what went on here, because they are covered by a special active investigation. Isn't that true?
(CROSSTALK)
BLACKBURN: That is correct. And people want to see leadership at the Department of Justice that is going to get this department back on track and that the American people will know exactly what happened.
BARTIROMO: OK.
We are talking about China as well.
BLACKBURN: Yes.
BARTIROMO: We want to get your take on where this goes, the next meeting at the end of January between Chinese and U.S. officials.
We know that China has been a bad actor, from stealing I.P., to being unwilling to open its markets to the rest of the world. Your reaction to what happens now?
BLACKBURN: You and I have talked about China and the bad actors like Huawei and ZTE for many, many times, the theft of intellectual property, reengineering, reverse-engineering much of our I.P.
My hope is that these intellectual property protections will be put in place and that we will continue to block bad actors like Huawei and ZTE from selling their technology. They embed that hardware with malware and spyware.
And, Maria, our critical infrastructure in this country, our U.S. military, U.S. government entities do not need to be doing business with companies like ZTE and Huawei. So, let's hope...
BARTIROMO: Well, we know that there's been a whole host of spying going on in inside America's companies by ZTE and by Huawei.
BLACKBURN: Yes, that's right.
BARTIROMO: And, of course, other countries are also reacting to this, not just the United States.
So what will be done about it? Will we actually get a resolution on the table between the U.S. and China, not just about trade, but about things like spying and I.P. theft?
BLACKBURN: Well, and this is why intellectual property protections need to be negotiated in those agreements...
BARTIROMO: Right.
BLACKBURN: ... to make certain that there is going to be a level playing field and that we are going to be able to protect American innovators...
BARTIROMO: Right.
BLACKBURN: ... and inventors and the value of those U.S. patents.
BARTIROMO: Senator, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much.
BLACKBURN: Good to be with you. Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Senator Marsha Blackburn.
An oversight showdown is shaping up on Capitol Hill. Democratic Congressman Jim Himes sits on the House Intel Committee. He will join me next.
We will also hear from House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
House Democrats, with their new oversight powers, preparing a number of investigations into President Trump, with articles of impeachment against the president even reintroduced -- reintroduced on the House floor.
Joining me right now is Connecticut Democratic Congressman Jim Himes. He sits on both the House Intel and Financial Services Committee. He is also chairman emeritus of the New Democratic Coalition.
So, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much for joining us.
REP. JIM HIMES, D-CONN.: Good morning, Maria.
BARTIROMO: What are your priorities in terms of oversight?
HIMES: Well, Maria, as you know, I mean, this is a -- this is a constitutional issue, right?
The Congress is there to provide oversight of the executive branch. And there's a lot out there. Donald Trump's administration has given us a lot to look at.
But I'll give you one example. I'll give you two examples. One is foreign. The president tweets that we will be out of Syria in 30 days, no questions asked, right? That's a lot of money. That's a very different way of operating in the Middle East.
But now his secretary of state and the national security adviser, John Bolton, are saying, no, we're going to be there until every last Iranian boot is out.
Those are two contradictory statements coming from the same administration. The representatives of the people and the people in this country who pay for those missions have a right to know what the truth is.
And then you have got Scott Pruitt at the EPA. There's -- who had to leave because of misbehavior. We will be looking into those kinds of things, as the Constitution would have us do.
BARTIROMO: Do you think that we should withdraw from Syria?
HIMES: You know, I will tell you, I'm not a fan of this president, but I have always liked the fact that he is instinctively skeptical of having our troops on the ground in the Middle East.
I don't think anybody wants a repeat of what happened in Iraq. I wouldn't have done it the way that President Trump did. I think we have got to protect our Kurdish allies. I do think we have got to be in a position to push back against the Iranians and the Russians.
But, look, over time, I think we should be trying to reduce the number of Americans on the ground in places like Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than increase those numbers.
BARTIROMO: OK, so that's exactly what the president is trying to do.
Let me move on to your role on the Intel Committee, sir, because we have covered this a lot for the last year-and-a-half. And we know that there was real FISA abuse, where the FBI didn't tell the FISA judge who paid for the dossier, that it was a political document, et cetera.
Are you going to pursue that? Are you going to seek the truth there?
HIMES: Maria, that's -- that's not accurate. And I have looked at every single one of the FISA affidavits.
BARTIROMO: What is not accurate, sir?
HIMES: That the Justice Department in any way misled the judge.
I understand that that's the Republican talking point, but that's simply not accurate. The FBI...
BARTIROMO: No, no, no, no, I didn't say -- I didn't say misled. They didn't tell the judge that the Democrats paid for the dossier. That's a fact.
HIMES: Yes, they did. They noted that this -- that the dossier had been done for political purposes to find adverse information on Donald Trump. So, again, that's just not accurate.
They complied with their own -- with their own procedures. And an inspector general report determined that there had been no misbehavior there.
But of course we're going to continue to look at this.
BARTIROMO: The judge said he did not know Hillary Clinton paid for the dossier, Congressman.
HIMES: So, when you make a FISA application, you don't name American citizens or American entities ever.
BARTIROMO: It was the other candidate in the election.
HIMES: This is why we have the president being referred to as...
BARTIROMO: It was his opponent in the election. You don't think that should have been pointed out, that it was Hillary Clinton who paid for the dossier, Congressman?
(CROSSTALK)
HIMES: Maria, no.
It is a violation of Department of Justice procedures to name Americans or American entities.
BARTIROMO: Even though his opponent paid for the dossier?
HIMES: Maria, let's take a big step back here.
What is the one thing that the FBI did prior to the election? Jim Comey of the FBI, while there were investigations of Hillary Clinton and of Donald Trump on, announced to the American people twice, not once, but twice, the investigation of Hillary Clinton.
This idea that, prior to the election, Jim Comey or the FBI or the Department of Justice was working against Donald Trump is exactly upside- down.
BARTIROMO: Actually, it was Peter Strzok. It was Peter Strzok.
HIMES: Jim Comey and the FBI probably...
BARTIROMO: I think you knew that.
HIMES: We had never even heard the name Peter Strzok. Jim Comey...
BARTIROMO: But it was Peter Strzok.
HIMES: ... announced to the American people...
BARTIROMO: But it was Peter Strzok who presented the dossier. Whether you -- whether the American people heard of the name before or not, that's the individual who presented it.
(CROSSTALK)
HIMES: Yes, but you know that nothing in the dossier has been disproven. Not a single thing in that dossier has been disproven.
You know that Jim Comey announced to the American people...
BARTIROMO: Jim Comey himself said that it wasn't accurate. Jim Comey himself said that later.
HIMES: No, no, no, he didn't. He said that it was raw intelligence, which is what it was.
But, again, we're losing the forest for the trees here. Jim Comey probably handed the presidential election to Donald Trump. So, this idea that the FBI and Jim Comey somehow were working hard against Donald Trump is just absurd on the face of it.
BARTIROMO: Let me ask you something, Congressman, because I have got these -- this report here that you and your colleagues have said that you have hard evidence of collusion between the president and the Russians.
Are you going to tell us what that hard evidence is?
HIMES: What report is that? I have not seen that report. And I don't believe that we do have hard evidence of collusion. I'm not sure what it is you're referring to.
BARTIROMO: You have said -- the committee has said you have more than circumstantial evidence of collusion, circumstantial evidence of collusion.
Where is that circumstantial evidence?
HIMES: Circumstantial? There's far better than circumstantial evidence.
We have the president's son inviting Russians to Trump Tower and asking them for help in the election. We have the president himself saying, Russia, please find these e-mails. We have four or five senior Trump administration and campaign officials who are going to jail for lying about their contacts with Russia.
And we learned in the last 48 hours, of course, that the FBI was concerned that the president might have actually been working, wittingly or unwittingly, for the Russians.
So, I don't know what your definition of circumstantial is, but that's...
BARTIROMO: Knowing the activity -- knowing the activity on the left, Congressman -- let's be honest here.
We know Tony Podesta, John Podesta's brother, worked actively to stop the administration, then the administration, from putting sanctions on Russia and Ukraine. We know that Hillary Clinton worked with Russians in terms of that dossier.
Are you going to pursue that circumstantial evidence, the way you have -- you say you have this circumstantial evidence?
I only bring this up, Congressman, because this has been a circus of this constant talk of collusion in the zeitgeist, and we still have yet to see any real evidence.
So, at some point, the American people need some honesty.
HIMES: Well, first of all, I don't think you can point to a single example of dishonesty out of the Mueller investigation.
I can point to lots of people who are going to jail.
BARTIROMO: No, but you said you have circumstantial evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians. I have not heard it yet. I would like to hear the facts.
Are you just saying that to put it out there in the zeitgeist, so everyone's sort of thinking, well, maybe, maybe not? But the truth is, there's nothing, and there hasn't been anything for a year-and-a-half, Congressman.
HIMES: Oh, OK, let me try one more time.
The president's son invited Russians to Trump Tower and asked them for help. The president asked Russia for help.
BARTIROMO: Actually, I believe the story is, is that they contacted Donald Trump Jr. He didn't contact them. They contacted him.
HIMES: So, you have now twice asked me the question. Do you want to hear me answer it, or...
BARTIROMO: Yes, please, go ahead.
HIMES: OK.
So, the Trump Tower meeting, Trump publicly asking, Trump firing Donald Trump, by his own admission, because it was lifting pressure from the Russia investigation.
Maria, how many of the president's people are now going to jail or under indictment for lying about contacts with Russians? Why do you lie about contacts with Russians if you have got no reason to?
BARTIROMO: The indictments -- the indictments have nothing to do with collusion. You know that.
When you look at Manafort and what -- what he's done, it's about tax evasion. It's about things that happened before this period. So you're mixing things up, and you know it.
HIMES: No.
(LAUGHTER)
HIMES: No, I'm not.
So, if Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort and three or four others are lying about their contacts with Russians, does that not raise certain questions in your mind?
BARTIROMO: I would just like you look at both sides, Congressman. You're not looking at both sides.
HIMES: Why would everybody be lying about contacts with the Russians?
BARTIROMO: I think the American people deserve that.
I hope you will come back soon to finish the conversation. Thank you, sir.
(LAUGHTER)
HIMES: OK.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
President Trump is slamming a New York Times report, claiming that the firing of James Comey prompted the FBI to investigate him, whether he was working on behalf of Russia.
The president calling it the most insulting article that he's ever seen and been written about him.
Joining me right now, in an exclusive interview, is Republican Congressman from Ohio Jim Jordan. He is the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. He serves also on the Judiciary Committee.
Good to see you, Congressman. Thanks very much for joining us.
REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: You bet. Good to be with you.
BARTIROMO: First off, reaction to my interview with Congressman Jim Himes.
JORDAN: Well, first of all, you were exactly right about the dossier. When the dossier was taken to the court, they didn't tell the court that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee had paid for it. They had some footnote with some convoluted candidate A, campaign B.
It was the most convoluted way you could ever try to describe anything. No one got it. The judge didn't get it. They didn't -- they were not clear with FISA court that one party's campaign had paid for this dossier, put this dossier together, opposition research. They dressed it up, make it look like legitimate intelligence, took it to a secret court to get a warrant to spy on the other campaign.
That wasn't clearing in the dossier. So that was the first thing that I think he was wrong on and you were right about.
BARTIROMO: It seems to me that this whole thing has been set up so neatly, where Jim Comey gets a special counsel in place. It's an active investigation. Robert Mueller is doing this investigation.
And you can't question anything about the behavior of that cabal of people at the top of the FBI in 2016 and their behavior, because it's all under the auspices of, oh, it's an active investigation.
JORDAN: Yes.
BARTIROMO: We can't talk about it.
JORDAN: Yes, they have used that time and time again.
We have had I don't know how many depositions where we have had key people in there, Jim Baker, Lisa Page and others, that we have deposed in our investigation in the Congress. And time and time again, we will ask the question. Oh, no, no, no, can't ask that, might interfere with the Mueller investigation.
And yet think about this. Their first big hearing, their first big hearing, they're bringing in a convicted felon who's the star witness in the Mueller investigation. And yet they're going to have him in an open -- open hearing environment answering questions, Michael Cohen, which I think is strange.
BARTIROMO: So where is the truth? I mean, will you seek the truth?
JORDAN: Yes.
BARTIROMO: And will there be accountability here?
JORDAN: Well, we hope so. We're going to keep -- we're going to keep pressing. But they're going to continue to do the things that they're doing.
I mean, think about it. Their first big hearing, they're bringing in a convicted felon. You know what one of the things Michael Cohen was convicted of? He's going to prison in two months. Lying to Congress.
And your first big hearing, you're bringing in a guy in front of Congress who's going to prison for lying to Congress. So that's where the Democrats are.
The other thing in the Himes interview is, this idea, the dossier was never verified. James Comey said salacious, unverified.
BARTIROMO: Right.
JORDAN: They didn't check this all out.
And yet they used it as the basis to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.
BARTIROMO: Let me ask you about this New York Times report.
JORDAN: Sure.
BARTIROMO: Of course, the FBI opened an inquiry into whether Trump was secretly working on behalf of Russia.
What prompted this? Your reaction.
JORDAN: Well, the firing of Comey is what prompted it.
Think about -- you got to remember who's involved here and when it happened. The who are Andy McCabe, deputy director of the FBI, who lied three times under oath and has been fired, Lisa Page, who was demoted at the FBI and then left, and Peter Strzok, the deputy head of counterintelligence, who was demoted and then fired from the FBI.
These are the people who were -- who are saying that they launched a counterintelligence investigation into the president. When did they do it? Right after their good buddy Jim Comey was fired.
So, this critical eight-day period between May 9, 2017, when Comey is fired, and May 17, 2017, when Robert Mueller is named special counsel, that's when all this was going on.
And, Maria, the other key thing that was going on this time, this is when Rod Rosenstein is alleged to have told subordinates at the Justice Department he was thinking about wearing a wire to record the president of the United States and contemplating -- these people were contemplating invoking the 25th Amendment and going after the president.
This is when all of this happened. So the who, all these people with a deep bias against the president. And the when, right after Comey is fired is when all this took place.
BARTIROMO: So where does this go now? Nothing came out of that investigation.
JORDAN: There's nothing new. Yes, there's nothing.
These are the same people, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. We know they had this bias. Here -- oh, here's the other interesting thing. On May 18, there's a text message that Peter Strzok sends to Lisa Page where he's contemplating whether he's going to go on the Mueller team, where he says, there's no there there.
So, even up to that point, they knew there was nothing there, because there's been no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. And there never was.
So he knew that. And when he sends that text message, that just underscores the fact that this is the same information and the same people with this deep animus, deep bias against the president.
BARTIROMO: So how is it possible then that we haven't seen anything from the Robert Mueller investigation? Can this go on limitless?
JORDAN: I mean, you would have to ask Robert Mueller.
All I know is, a year-and-a-half now, not one bit of evidence to show any type of coordination, collusion, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to impact the election.
BARTIROMO: Will William Barr be able to provide oversight over...
JORDAN: Let's hope so. Let's hope so.
BARTIROMO: ... Robert Mueller?
JORDAN: Yes, let's hope so.
And we know Rod Rosenstein is leaving. Here's the one thing we need to do. Rod Rosenstein has yet and it's been three-and-a-half months ago now that The New York Times reported that he's alleged to have said these things.
When we interviewed Jim Baker -- this is the other name that's important -- Jim Baker, former chief counsel at the FBI, before he was demoted and then left, former chief counsel -- he testified to us that he believes what was alleged that Mr. Rosenstein said, he believes it happened. He believes Rod Rosenstein was in fact talking about wearing a wire, was in fact talking about invoking the 25th Amendment.
And we have yet to have Rod Rosenstein in front of our committee to answer our questions, so that the American people can know exactly what was happening, happening at the highest levels of the Justice Department in that critical...
(CROSSTALK)
BARTIROMO: Why not?
JORDAN: I don't know why he won't come.
BARTIROMO: Well, you...
JORDAN: We're going to keep pushing.
BARTIROMO: Well, you got close at the end of last year.
JORDAN: Yes. Yes.
BARTIROMO: And then Paul Ryan didn't want to do it.
JORDAN: Yes, they didn't. And that's unfortunate. We will -- we will see if -- we will see what happens with the Democrats.
I hope they bring him in.
BARTIROMO: Will Barr be forced to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation?
JORDAN: I don't think he should. I mean, he's going to be the new attorney general. I think he's indicated to senators that he's going to allow the Mueller investigation to conclude.
We hope that happens soon, because, again, we haven't -- we haven't seen any type of coordination at all there yet. And I don't think we will, because I don't think there was any.
But I think -- I think he's -- he should be in charge. He's the attorney general. And I think he's told the senators that he will let the Mueller investigation wind down.
BARTIROMO: So, as the ranking member on Oversight, I mean, what is your priority here, knowing the onslaught of investigations coming, knowing the blocking of the president's nominations in terms of judicial nominations as well?
JORDAN: Yes, the -- the priority is always the same. It's the truth.
I mean, we have a constitutional duty to provide oversight, to make sure Americans' tax dollars are being used the way they're supposed to be in the executive branch of our federal government. Our job is the truth.
But I will tell you this. I'm going to defend the president every time I think he's getting a raw deal. And it sure looks like he's getting a raw deal on this whole FBI investigation and what -- what's played out, what the FBI did.
Never forget what happened at the top levels of the FBI, James Comey fired, Andy McCabe, deputy director, fired, James Baker, chief counsel, demoted, then left, Lisa Page, FBI counsel, demoted, then left, and Peter Strzok, deputy head of counterintelligence, demoted, then fired.
These are the top people. When have you ever any other federal agency where that's happened?
BARTIROMO: Right.
JORDAN: These are the people who ran the Clinton investigation, then launched and ran the Russia investigation. These are the same people The New York Times is writing about saying the things that they put together that critical week.
BARTIROMO: Of course, no coincidence there, of course.
JORDAN: Yes.
BARTIROMO: We have been covering it for a year. We understand.
JORDAN: Appreciate it.
BARTIROMO: Congressman, it's good to see you.
JORDAN: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Thanks very much.
Up next, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is here on the upcoming confirmation hearing of President Trump's A.G. pick, William Barr.
That's next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: A big week ahead for President Trump's pick for the next attorney general, William Barr meeting with lawmakers on Capitol Hill last week, ahead of his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee set to begin on Tuesday.
He faces some tough questioning on his views on the Mueller investigation.
Our next guest is the author of the book "True Faith and Allegiance."
Let's bring in Alberto Gonzales. He's former U.S. attorney general under President George W. Bush and a dean at the Belmont University College of Law.
Your Honor, good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks for being here.
ALBERTO GONZALES, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Delighted to be here, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Take us through the process. What are you expecting in these upcoming confirmation hearings next week for William Barr?
GONZALES: Well, I think it's an interesting process. Obviously, a lot of tough questions will be coming both from Republicans, because there are some tough issues, challenges for the attorney general, for the Department of Justice these days.
And, obviously, the Democrats will be very curious, most curious about Bill Barr's policies. I think, on criminal justice, he's known as a very tough law and order kind of person. And, obviously, with the passage of the new crime bill, perhaps there's a different -- there's a shift in thinking about criminal justice.
And, obviously, there will be a lot of questions about Bill Barr's view about the Mueller investigation, allowing the investigation go forward. As has been reported already, he's talked to -- he's reassured members, certain members of Congress, that he believes investigation should continue.
And so -- but there will still be a lot of questions about that and also about the scope of presidential power. Today, we're talking a lot about emergency power, the declaration -- the ability of a president to declare an emergency. And so I'm sure he's going to get a lot of questions about the scope of presidential power vis-a-vis the role of Congress in terms of oversight.
So these are the kinds of questions I think Bill Barr is going to be asked about.
BARTIROMO: Should there be oversight of Robert Mueller?
GONZALES: Should there -- well, typically, it's the Department of -- the head of the Department of Justice who provides oversight.
And, of course, Bob Mueller then provides a report that goes to the attorney general, provide it to the White House. And there will have to be a decision made as to whether or not that report is provided to Congress. And, if so, is it going to be redacted? Will there be a summary?
So these are the kinds of decisions that will happen. But, yes, there's -- there's an oversight -- there should be oversight on every executive branch official. As a practical matter and, ideally, that oversight is provided by the head of the Department of Justice.
BARTIROMO: So that would be -- that would be, you would expect, William Barr.
Will William Barr, do you think, be forced to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation for any way? I know that that has been an argument out there, certainly on the left.
GONZALES: Well, he obviously wrote this -- this memo to the department questioning the authority of the special counsel to investigate the president with respect to obstruction.
And so that creates a possible -- an appearance of possible bias and prejudice. And so, if I'm Bill Barr, I'm going to have a conversation with the career ethics officials at the Department of Justice and get their advice. And then he will have to make a decision as to whether or not to follow that advice.
I think, as a practical matter, you take a political hit sometimes if you do not follow the advice from career officials. But, again, every -- every attorney general is different. Every situation is different.
And that will be a decision that people will want -- will watch very carefully.
BARTIROMO: Because, if not, then there's no oversight of Bob Mueller.
GONZALES: Well, there will be an oversight by some Senate-confirmed individual.
There will be -- I suspect there will be a designation or they will follow the chain of command. So it would flow to the next in the line of command, which would be the deputy attorney general or the acting deputy attorney general.
It would then flow to the solicitor general. So someone would have oversight. It -- you cannot have an executive branch official operating without someone conducting oversight over that official.
BARTIROMO: Judge, it's great to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much.
GONZALES: Thanks for having me.
BARTIROMO: Alberto Gonzales.
Lots of new developments this morning with Iran. Former Senator Joe Lieberman is here. He's chairman of United Again Nuclear Iran. He will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BARTIROMO: Welcome back.
The White House said to have sought out military options to strike Iran. The Wall Street Journal is reporting this morning that the request came from National Security Adviser John Bolton last September, after a group of militants connected to Iran fired three mortars into Baghdad's diplomatic corridor, home to the U.S. Embassy.
Joining me right now for an exclusive interview is former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. He is the chairman of United Against Nuclear Iran.
It's good to see you, Senator.
JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, D-CONN., FORMER SENATOR: You too, Maria.
BARTIROMO: Thanks so much joining us.
LIEBERMAN: Thank you.
BARTIROMO: Your reaction to John Bolton asking the Pentagon for options to strike Iran?
LIEBERMAN: Well, to me, it was a very reasonable and rational thing for John Bolton to do.
Think about it. Iranian-backed militias, extremists fired mortars in the vicinity of our embassy in Baghdad and our consulate in Basra, Iraq. I mean, that's -- that's a sort of declaration of war.
But let's not go that far. It was a hostile act. And if you let a country like Iran get away with it, they will do it again. And next time, they will hit our embassy or our consulate.
So I think what John Bolton did, in asking for military options for the president, who always will make the decision in the end, was rational. It's just what I would guess the Obama administration did even in the midst of negotiating the nuclear deal, which I thought was terrible, that they had military fallbacks in case the negotiations didn't work, and Iran broke out and started to build a nuclear weapon.
BARTIROMO: And yet we're withdrawing troops from Syria.
LIEBERMAN: Well, I think that's a mistake.
I mean, I think the -- through all the controversy and clatter of the Trump administration, the Trump administration has made some very significant changes in our foreign policy.
And, to me, the most important is to take seriously...
BARTIROMO: Right.
LIEBERMAN: ... the most serious threat we face, which is from the radical Islamist regime in Tehran, Iran, and from the terrorists who are based in the Middle East.
BARTIROMO: And you have said that.
LIEBERMAN: But to pull our troops out of Syria is inconsistent with that policy. So, I hope they will slow-walk it or turn it around.
BARTIROMO: Senator, you have had a distinguished career. You served 24 years in the Senate.
You said you didn't think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was the future of the Democratic Party. And she came back at you and said: "Who dis?"
(LAUGHTER)
LIEBERMAN: Yes. Well, OK, kind of a silly reaction.
Here's my point. I have always believed -- we only have two major political...
BARTIROMO: You were sworn in when was she just getting -- being born, right?
LIEBERMAN: That's true.
BARTIROMO: Twenty-nine years ago.
LIEBERMAN: We only have two major political parties in America. They have to be big tents if they're going to succeed. So, OK, she got elected to Congress. She's -- she's inside the tent now.
But I just disagree. She just takes us back to a big-spending, big-taxing Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party is not going to succeed that way.
Also, the other point I wanted to make is, the more typical Democrat elected to the House for the first time this year was -- didn't share her point of view.
BARTIROMO: Yes.
LIEBERMAN: They were center-left.
BARTIROMO: Senator.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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