Rep. Brad Wenstrup says Rep. Adam Schiff’s focus is on going after President Trump
Ohio Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup says he can no longer trust House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff.
This is a rush transcript from "Your World," March 28, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: You are looking live at the White House, where the president is expected to depart any moment.
He will be heading to a big rally going on in the key state of Michigan, all of this on the heels of that key finding of no collusion.
But not everyone is even buying that, as the battle ensues.
Welcome, everybody. Happy to have you. I'm Neil Cavuto.
Well, Democrats are demanding that Attorney General Bill Barr release the entire report from special counsel Bob Mueller. What we are learning is that it's a pretty big report, about 300 pages in all, maybe more. So, they argue that they won't accept anything short of the full report's release.
What is Republican Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham saying about all of that? Well, he has been speaking with the attorney general and will soon be speaking with us. Stick around.
First to Kevin Corke in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where the crowds are gathering for the president's big speech, and Catherine Herridge in Washington, where the pressure is mounting for the big release.
We start with Kevin.
Hey, Kev.
KEVIN CORKE, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Hey, my friend.
You know, there are rallies, and then there are rallies. We are here in Grand Rapids, Michigan. You may remember the president wrapped up his 2016 campaign here in the Wolverine State. Well, today, he in Grand Rapids once again.
And, listen, you know what rallies are like. They are exciting for the fans. People get a chance to come and turn out. But this time, they are here on the first rally, Neil, after the Mueller report has been released, or at least the excerpt, the summary from the attorney general.
And he said there was no collusion. Let me share what the president said on Twitter ahead of his journey here. We are expecting him, by the way, to leave within the hour.
He said this before making his way up here to the state of Michigan. He said: "We will be heading to Grand Rapids, Michigan, tonight for a big rally. We will be talking about the many exciting things that are happening to our country, but also the car companies and others that are pouring back into Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North and South Carolina and all over."
This is, as I mentioned, the first rally since the Mueller report, according to the A.G., found no Russian collusion. So it's also, Neil, a good bet that will come up early and often. The rally is set for 7:00. I'm not alone, as you can tell.
I will be here for you -- back to you.
CAVUTO: All right, thank you, my friend.
In the meantime, new details emerging about that Mueller report, including the length of the darn thing.
Catherine Herridge in Washington with more on that, much more -- Catherine.
CATHERINE HERRIDGE, CHIEF INTELLIGENCE CORRESPONDENT: Thank you, Neil. And good afternoon.
A senior Justice Department official tells Fox News that the Mueller report is more than 300 pages' long, going well beyond what the regulations require. The official also confirmed that Attorney General William Barr told House Judiciary Democratic Chairman Jerrold Nadler about the length of the report during a short phone call on Wednesday.
Meantime, congressional Democrats continue to blast Barr's four-page summary as insufficient, urging the report's full release, as well as underlying evidence, by early next week.
A separate contact tells Fox News the Mueller report is jammed with grand jury materials that cannot be released, as well as evidence derived from sensitive sources and methods and that may explain why the release will take weeks and we remain in a holding pattern for a more firm timeline from the Justice Department.
Earlier today, during a really incendiary hearing on the House side, one Republican said the findings are not great for Mueller. They are very conclusive.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. WILL HURD, R-TX: It wasn't a suggestion of there wasn't enough evidence. He said there was no evidence. And so to refute the claim that there was evidence because there may be something in the other 300 pages, it is not going to be there.
This is the same innuendo that has been used for the last 22 months to suggest that there is something there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HERRIDGE: And, Neil, I just want to promise you, no more crazy faces at the top of your show, at least not for another month or so.
CAVUTO: No, I don't know it has to be a month.
(LAUGHTER)
CAVUTO: All right, thank you very, very much, Catherine.
HERRIDGE: You're welcome.
CAVUTO: Catherine Herridge following all of this.
Let's go to South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. of course, the senator is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Senator, welcome. Very good to have you.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Thank you.
CAVUTO: You know, it's interesting.
Nancy Pelosi was commenting on this Mueller investigation and said of the attorney general who presented it that: "We have to see the facts. I don't need your interpretation," said it was in fact condescending.
What did you think of that?
GRAHAM: Well, I think that was really beneath the speaker.
I mean, do you really believe that Bob Barr would give us a summary of the key findings and it not be supported by the report? Give me a break. I mean, this whole Oliver Stone approach to the Mueller report by Democrats is getting a bit old.
So the attorney general is going to take out grand jury testimony, because that's required by law. He is going to talk to prosecutors who have other cases to make sure they are not undermined, and he's going to go to the intelligence community and say, is there anything in this report you think would hurt our national security?
Once that's done, he is going to give it to the Congress, starting with the Senate, and he will come and testify sometime in April, I think.
CAVUTO: So, Senator, when you hear James Comey making the rounds saying that it doesn't make sense that Mueller didn't rule one way or the other on the obstruction of justice, what do you make of that?
GRAHAM: Yes, I'm not so sure I would follow his guide as to what makes sense.
The guy spent two-and-a-half years, $25 million, 40 FBI agents, hundreds of subpoenas, hundreds of witness interviews. And he says in a report apparently that there is -- he can't decide one way or the other about obstruction of justice.
When the underlying crime doesn't exist, it becomes virtually impossible to prove obstruction of justice. And from Barr's point of view, what is he supposed to say? If Mueller can't decide, after two-and-a-half years, what other outcome is there than to move forward?
So I'm not confused at all. I mean, we will have Comey come in and tell us about everything, about the FISA warrant, about the Bruce Ohr interview with Steele, about the counterintelligence operation. I promise you that Mr. Comey will come before the committee in a public setting, and he will be asked some questions about the dossier and everything else.
CAVUTO: So you have already put out a request to speak with him?
GRAHAM: No. I just know what's going to happen.
Once we put the Mueller report to bed, once Barr comes to the committee and takes questions about his findings and his actions, and we get to see the Mueller report, consistent with law, then we are going to turn to finding out how this got off the rails.
I know Attorney General Barr. It's not if he looks at what happened. It's how he does. Does he do it internally? Does he appoint a special counsel? Mr. Horowitz is looking at the FISA abuse allegations. I will be looking at the FISA abuse.
I will be looking at the counterintelligence operation. Why did they not tell Trump if it truly was a counterintelligence operation? There will be a lot of inquiry as to how this all happened.
CAVUTO: Indeed, the president is open to your idea, Senator, to call a special counsel to review the probe origins.
GRAHAM: Yes.
CAVUTO: Any update on that?
GRAHAM: No.
But the reason I have suggested that in 2017, Neil, is that this is a highly emotional event. Republicans believe that the FBI and DOJ, the top people took the law in their own hands because they wanted Clinton to win and Trump to lose.
You know, there is a lot of suspicion. There is a lot of direct evidence of -- I think, of bias. Let's have somebody like a Mueller to look at the other side of the story, so, when they issue their report, we will have confidence it's not a political, politically motivated document. I think a special counsel would serve the country well.
But I will leave that up to Mr. Barr. Attorney General Barr is a seasoned prosecutor. He has been attorney general before. I trust his judgment.
CAVUTO: The attorney general did say that there was no collusion. Obviously, he came out with his bullet points, the three or four pages that came out a few days ago, Senator.
GRAHAM: Right. Right.
CAVUTO: Some argue that he took a leap to comment the way he had about the obstruction of justice charge.
Now, he did say this report neither exonerated him or didn't. But it raised concerns. Now, what was he trying to say? Now, obviously, Mr. Mueller would have come out and corrected him if he said anything wrong, I would assume.
But it started this whole debate as to, you know, whether he was trying to reframe the report.
GRAHAM: Yes, well, let's assume for a moment that for some reason that Attorney General Barr went forward on an obstruction case, when Mueller said after two-and-a-half years, I can't say. The facts are one way. They are another way. The law is complicated. I can't decide.
If I'm a defense attorney, the first document I would want was Mueller's indecision. After two-and-a-half years and $25 million and 40 FBI agents, you can't decide. How the hell is Barr going to decide?
We're not talking about, you know, some academic exercise here. We're talking about proving a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If the underlying doubt never existed, and after two-and-a-half years Mueller cannot say one way or another if there was obstruction of justice, that should end the matter. For Barr to do anything else would have been very irresponsible.
CAVUTO: Do you believe, as Director Comey, that it surprised him that his very firing, Comey's firing, didn't warrant more attention as an obstruction of justice issue?
GRAHAM: Well, if you are going to fire people who believe -- if you're going to charge people with obstruction of justice for wanting Comey fired, you would have to charge half of the Democratic Party.
The day before Trump fired the guy, you know, Schumer and Bernie Sanders and many others said, I have lost confidence in this guy.
It was a well-known fact that Democrats were upset with Comey. They were calling for him to be dismissed. So, all I can say is that, when it comes to Director Comey's dismissal, the president, as the president of the United States, has almost unlimited discretion.
But the performance of Mr. Comey, in the eyes of Democrats, was substandard.
CAVUTO: Adam Schiff was getting an earful today from Republicans on his committee who...
GRAHAM: Yes, I saw that.
CAVUTO: ... to a man or woman, urged him to step down, that his continued charges of collusion, even in the face of this report, was a bridge too far.
It led to a lot of nastiness back and forth. What did you think of what they were recommending, that he step down? Nancy Pelosi stood by him, said he is doing a great job. Your thoughts?
GRAHAM: Yes.
Well, when one politician is calling on another to step down, most of the public kind of tunes it out. But here's what I would say, in all seriousness. Mueller was given the ability to complete his job without political interference. I stood behind Mueller. Almost every Democrat said he was the right guy.
And Congressman Schiff is really becoming Oliver Stone of the House. He is the Jim Garrison figure trying to look for somebody who actually shot President Kennedy. This is getting to be a bit ridiculous.
He told us time and time again he knows there is collusion, he has seen evidence of it. Well, Mr. Mueller undercut that narrative. So, Adam Schiff has got to make a decision about his political future. Does he want to be the guy that won't let it go, when the authority of the investigation, Mr. Mueller, has concluded there was no collusion?
CAVUTO: Rand Paul was here not too long ago urging that maybe it's time for former CIA Director John Brennan to testify. How do you feel about that?
GRAHAM: Well, you know, I don't know what role that Brennan played, but let's look at everybody.
I will talk to the Intelligence Committee. But, as Judiciary chairman, it's our job to watch those who watch us, the FBI, great organization. But, clearly, there was some misdeeds at the top, I think.
The question for the country really is, how could the system allow a dossier that was prepared by a foreign agent, paid for by the Democratic Party, that's unverified to this day, be used on four different occasions to get a warrant against an American citizen?
And the evidence is pretty clear to me. Without the dossier, the warrant wouldn't have been issued. That should bother every American that the system got so off the rails. And, finally, counterintelligence investigations are designed to protect the target of the foreign influence.
When they thought Dianne Feinstein had somebody in her office working for the Chinese, they told her about it and she fired him. Why didn't they go to Trump and say, hey, we are worried about some people in your campaign? That really is disturbing. So I want to get to the bottom of it.
CAVUTO: Well, that dossier that was making the rounds, the president charged that the late John McCain, your good friend, was shopping that around, did get that out, did get that to the authorities and even to the press.
GRAHAM: Yes.
CAVUTO: What did you think of that, when he said that?
GRAHAM: Well, I think the president is wrong.
Senator McCain was given the dossier. He informed me that he had it. And he said, I think I'm going to give this to FBI. And I said, that's exactly what you need to do. I don't know if this is a bunch of garbage from the Russians. That's the first thing I thought of.
CAVUTO: Would have you done the same thing, Senator?
GRAHAM: Oh, absolutely.
If somebody had given me the dossier, making these wild accusations, I would have turned it over to some law enforcement organization that had the ability to find out if it was true or not. I wouldn't have given it to the press.
But somebody -- the McCain Institute guy did. I think Mr. Kramer was his name. I can't remember his name. But somebody working for the McCain institute did shop it around. And they did the country...
CAVUTO: So, was that a fair criticism on the part of the president? I know you were...
(CROSSTALK)
GRAHAM: As to Senator McCain, no.
CAVUTO: You were a friend to John McCain. The president has really harangued on McCain.
GRAHAM: Right.
CAVUTO: What do you think of that, in retrospect?
GRAHAM: Well, I just don't think it serves the president well. I think John McCain is an American hero in my eyes and many others. It's OK to have a dispute with John McCain over policy.
But John McCain acted responsibly, in my view, because when I saw the dossier, I said, turn it over to the FBI.
CAVUTO: Did you tell that to the president? He obviously doesn't...
(CROSSTALK)
GRAHAM: Yes, I did. I did.
CAVUTO: And what did he say?
GRAHAM: Well, I hope he does -- I hope he understands the facts, because the facts are clear. John McCain didn't send it around to the press. Someone else did.
And when they did that, it was a great disservice to the country. The bottom line as to President Trump, I think he has done a really good job as president. I don't think it helping him to get in a fight with John McCain or any other person.
What I would like to do is look forward. He has every right to be mad at the system that tried to destroy its presidency. Did they try to use the 25th Amendment to get him out of office? Was there a bureaucratic coup here?
CAVUTO: All right.
GRAHAM: He has a lot to be concerned about. But I would recommend that we look forward. And that seems to me what he is doing.
CAVUTO: All right, Lindsey Graham, thank you, Senator.
Very good seeing you again.
GRAHAM: Thank you.
CAVUTO: All right, the fallout from what the senator just said and what maybe the president has to learn or already knows -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, Lindsey Graham may be in the Senate, but he just made very, very clear that he doesn't think much of Adam Schiff's attack on the Barr report and that its conclusions do not appear to be reliable, that collusion is alive and well.
Anyway, that back and forth has prompted some Republicans, in fact, all Republicans on Schiff's committee to say he should step down. Of course, he is not stepping down.
The read on this RealClearPolitics' A.B. Stoddard.
A.B., good to have you with us.
Where is this whole thing going?
A.B. STODDARD, REALCLEARPOLITICS: Well, obviously, people are going to continue to clamor for the entire findings of the Mueller report, not an additional summary from the attorney general, after his four-page one on Sunday, but the actual report.
I think the fact that Senator Graham is the current Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, but the former one, Senator Chuck Grassley, is among the many Republicans who has said it really has to come in its entirety to make sure the public has trust in what -- you know, what the investigation did and what the attorney general's summary and conclusions about that report -- you know, what his conclusion is.
And so if -- the longer that the administration hides this report, the more Democrats are going to fuel suspicion among voters that they're covering something up. And so that's the interesting debate now, is that everyone is blaming Adam Schiff for talking about collusion.
Senator Graham in your interview said that he -- the president was cleared by Barr in that letter of collusion. That's not true. He was cleared of enough evidence to meet the threshold for coordination and conspiracy.
Collusion is talking to Russians. Coordination and conspiracy is the legal definition of accepting the help and doing -- and committing a crime.
So, when Adam Schiff, like Judge Napolitano, says there was collusion, we know that Don Jr. accepted an e-mail that said that the Russian government was trying to help his father in his campaign.
CAVUTO: But there is no denying that -- and I think the report -- and obviously Barr had to have run this by Mueller to make sure his characterizations were accurate -- would have said, all right, there were enough curious meetings and the rest, but nothing that would show a reciprocal tit-for-tat.
That is, again, going to be in the report. We will get an idea here. But that makes me come to this next question with you about the report and its release. Each side is going to have something to pounce on.
And, now, the legalities of getting this out in weeks, not months, obviously, Nancy Pelosi wants like days or hours. That's not going to happen. So, what happens in the interim before this is released?
STODDARD: Well, that's a great question.
I mean, I think that the longer that it takes to be released, the longer the Democrats are going to, as I said, stoke suspicion on the part of people that they are, A, never going to see it, or, B, that there's something being covered up.
CAVUTO: But, A.B., a lot of these guys are lawyers. Right?
They know that there are names and redactions have to be made and all of that.
STODDARD: Absolutely.
CAVUTO: I'm not trying to excuse anything here. But the sheer weight for that, to get through that, 300 pages or whatever it is, that isn't going to be instantaneous. So, the administration almost can't win on this.
STODDARD: I think -- no, I think that the way to do it, if you were consulting a P.R. crisis expert, would -- a crisis P.R. expert -- I'm sorry, Neil -- would be to say, if you're -- have the DOJ come out and say, we will have everything released in its entirety, whatever we -- what we can release, by the second week in May or something.
I think that they need to say that it's -- definitely affirm that it's coming out. You can see people going wild on the Democratic side with the specter of it never coming out. That's the problem for Republicans.
CAVUTO: Yes, and the fallout politically is anyone's guess at this early stage.
A.B., thank you very much, A.B. Stoddard RealClearPolitics, a real straight shooter. She calls them as she sees them and offends everyone in the process, which is probably a good thing. Right?
Meanwhile, the 2020 Democratic presidential field just got a little more crowded, with a certain Florida (AUDIO GAP) a lot of very good buzz. He is here, what that candidacy is all about.
We are also expecting to hear from the president on his way out of the White House, going to Michigan tonight, what he's saying -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, there is another Democratic candidate for president. He is a mayor in Florida. And his city is on fire right now, the mayor of Miramar, Florida, the 13th largest city in Florida.
And, again, it is driving in business left and right. And with that background, he wants to make a stand on doing something the other candidates, at least in the race that he sees, he argues, cannot do.
Wayne Messam joins us right now, all of 44 years old, former football star, and now ready to maybe take a pounce at the presidency.
Mayor, very good to have you. Thanks for coming.
WAYNE MESSAM, D-MAYOR OF MIRAMAR, FLORIDA: Thanks for having me.
CAVUTO: Why are you doing this? You must have looked at the field and said, boy, that's a pretty crowded field. They have got some impressive names in there. Outside of your city and state, you are not nearly as well-known. What are you thinking?
MESSAM: Well, you know, as a candidate for the president of the United States, I think what we are doing in the city of Miramar in South Florida, which has more Fortune 500 companies than city of tri-county area, and, as a business owner myself, I think I bring a fresh and unique perspective in terms of being a mayor in a city, a mayor that has taken jobs and manufacturing away from China, while other cities are actually losing jobs and manufacturing to China.
So, I think we will be able to bring a unique perspective that is different and draws a contrast between the candidates that are running to restore the American dream for Americans across this country.
CAVUTO: Are you -- I know one of your big issues is college debt. It's a big drag on younger Americans, and you hope to address that.
Many who are running for the Democratic nomination, Mayor, have been saying maybe the federal government should step in and forgive that debt. How do you feel?
MESSAM: Well, I think I'm the only one who actually has come out to say that, because of the $1.5 trillion in debt that's owed, it's not just young people.
It's mothers, it's grandmothers, fathers, working professionals that have tens of thousands or even over $100,000 in outstanding student loan debt that is crippling our economy. It's stifling financial mobility for the average American.
CAVUTO: Would you forgive it, Mayor? Would you -- some of your colleagues have said, forgive it.
MESSAM: Yes, I would.
On Saturday, I would propose a plan that looks at forgiving and wiping out that outstanding debt.
CAVUTO: All right, but how would you pay for that?
MESSAM: Well, obviously, when you contemplate the recent tax cuts to corporations and the richest of Americans, that's -- you contemplate the nearly $2 trillion in that tax break, it not only is enough to cover that, but what it will do is spur the ability for Americans to be able to invest in homes and property, invest in businesses.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Do you think that, by raising business taxes, Mayor, that -- to pay off or address this college debt thing, that would spur investment?
MESSAM: Hey, listener, I'm an entrepreneur. I'm a business owner. And I like to make money. I like to make a profit.
But, yet, you know, I'm a mayor that passed a living wage in our city. We are all in the same boat. And I think when we all carry our weight and work together as a nation, we are stronger as a nation.
Look at our highway system. No one is saying that, yes, we have to invest in our infrastructure and our roadways. There are just certain things that we have to work together. And, as a business owner, I know what it means to struggle to start a business from scratch, to make payroll.
And these are the discussions and topics I look forward to debating about with my colleagues on the Democratic side.
But to Americans in general, you can be a responsible business and know that you can make profit, while understanding that we are still all in the same boat and we are stronger together as a nation. And I'm willing to be the champion to bring these issues to this debate.
CAVUTO: All right, just to be clear, though, on the tax thing there, then that you would take the corporate taxes, which were cut down to 21 percent from around 35 percent, you would raise them back to where they were?
MESSAM: I would look at repealing some of the tax that's giving back to the corporations and the richest of Americans, because what has been proven is that the thought process is that businesses will have these tax breaks and put it back into the hands of Americans.
When you look at that wages aren't increasing, average Americans don't have access to health care, it just living proof that we're not getting -- the money is...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Well, they are increasing. They're maybe not at the rate...
(CROSSTALK)
MESSAM: We're not investing in American people.
CAVUTO: But those wages are increasing a little bit more than they were, right?
Would you give the president any credit for the record low unemployment rates, the record high employment rates for African-Americans and Hispanics and women and what have you? Do you think anything he has done has made that possible?
MESSAM: What I will say is that the economy has been enjoying a rise since President Obama.
I think that, in terms of stability of our economy, I think, again, I will say that, when we are all working together as a nation, we can have responsible reform in taxes, while being able...
CAVUTO: But this recovery is on President Obama, it's not on President Trump?
MESSAM: While also being able to allow businesses to be profitable, to make investments where they need to make, as well as being able to make sure that dollars are going back to the American people, who are the engine that fuels this economy.
CAVUTO: OK.
So, real clearly, just to understand, you say this recovery that's going on and the surge of the market, what have you, that's a Barack Obama phenomena, that's not Donald Trump in the last couple years having anything to do with it?
MESSAM: Well, I think the premise of your question is not to give President Obama his credit. So I think that, when you look at the reforms...
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: No, far from it, far from it. I think I have routinely given him credit for the surge after 2009.
MESSAM: OK. OK.
CAVUTO: But you don't want to -- just to be clear, you don't see anything this president has done with the tax cuts, the lower regulations to account for the activity we are seeing?
MESSAM: What I'm saying is that the economy is not working for the American people.
When people do not -- have to work two and three jobs to make ends meet, the economy isn't working for Americans. When people have to make choices in regard to whether they pay their prescription medicine or to eat, it just shows that the system is broken.
And I'm saying, when we all work together and all realize that we are all in the same boat, that this country can thrive, and we can be the leaders that we have always been.
CAVUTO: OK, Mayor, thank you. You are one to watch. People are watching you. You got 86 percent of the vote in your last run. That's not too shabby.
We will keep an eye on you. Thank you, sir, for taking the time.
MESSAM: Thanks for having me.
CAVUTO: All right.
All right, we were just mentioning the president, he is speaking outside the White House now before his hop, skip and a jump out to Michigan.
More on that after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, we are waiting to hear from the president of the United States as he heads out to Grand Rapids Michigan.
He stopped to talk to reporters on a number of things, including that Mueller investigation. He says it's cleared him, and now what he wants to see happen next -- after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MICHAEL TURNER, R-OH: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking for your resignation today because I believe you are advancing Putin's work. In true McCarthy fashion, you act as though you are the only one who is capable of protecting this nation.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Instead of addressing the hearing, to simply attack me, consistent with the president's attacks, I do want to respond in this way.
You might think it's OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that's OK. I don't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: By the way, that was just some of the nice stuff.
Fireworks at this House Intelligence Committee hearing today, where Republican members, to a man and woman, said the chairman, Adam Schiff, should resign.
We will be speaking with a House Democrat, member of the House Intelligence Committee, Eric Swalwell, Saturday on "Cavuto Live."
Ahead of that, Ohio Republican, member of that committee Brad Wenstrup.
Congressman, good to have you.
REP. BRAD WENSTRUP, R-OH: Good to be with you.
CAVUTO: It got tense in there, huh?
WENSTRUP: It did a little bit.
Let me put it this way. This is a sad day in many, many ways. When I first got on the Intelligence Committee, it was before Donald Trump was elected. And it was very nonpartisan. And I trusted Adam Schiff, as I did most of the members on that committee, wholeheartedly.
But things have changed since Mr. Trump won, and we found out as a group that we no longer could really trust our leader, as the chairman of the committee, and we thought it was time that we make our case and give the reasons as to why.
He was ready to accept the Mueller report. Now he doesn't seem to be ready to accept it. We know all the comments that he has made over the last few years that he has evidence and has not brought it forward. And now he wants to continue this.
We have important work to do on the Intelligence Committee. And he seems more focused on going after the president in any way, shape, or form, rather than focusing on the security of our nation.
CAVUTO: Congressman, one of the issues he apparently had with the report is that it was Attorney General Barr's impression of that report.
And everyone knew well in advance that that's how it was going to be handled. I understand where you are coming from on that. But a number of Democrats, not only Mr. Schiff, have expressed alarm that this thing could be delayed getting out for weeks, and maybe longer.
Now, there are perfectly valid legal reasons for that. But do you think that, in this vacuum, this is the kind of thing that it breeds?
WENSTRUP: Well, there may be some things there that maybe none of us like that we find out about.
But I don't know that yet. But I also want to make the point that you just made that Attorney General Barr has a process that he has to go through legally. He can't just turn over the entire thing. We will see.
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: So you don't think he made any characterizations that were at odds with the report itself, as some Democrats have alleged?
WENSTRUP: Mr. Schiff?
CAVUTO: No, no, no, no, that Barr, the attorney general, took some leaps here that weren't in the report? That's essentially what some of them are saying.
WENSTRUP: Oh, well, you know, I guess that remains to be seen.
But you take a look at this, Mr. Mueller had access to everything for two years to put his report together, and that summary was put together by Attorney General Barr and Rod Rosenstein, who has been in the middle of this as well. And they all agreed to say there was no collusion.
And it wasn't that the bar wasn't met or this and that. They said there was no collusion. But that's all we have heard from Adam Schiff for two years: I have evidence of collusion.
And at the same time, refusing to look at the FISA abuses. He hasn't mentioned that. And since he has been chairman, there is no conversation whatsoever about that. There has never been a conversation about the fact that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Committee paid for the dossier. That was coordinated with Christopher Steele and Russians, by the way. If this is all about Russians...
CAVUTO: Well, by the way, on that very point, Congressman...
WENSTRUP: Yes.
CAVUTO: ... the president is open to Lindsey Graham's idea -- he was just with us a few minutes ago -- to call for a special counsel to review how this whole probe started. Are you open to that? Do you agree with that?
WENSTRUP: Absolutely. Absolutely.
The American people deserve to know this. Let's really take a look at how this whole thing got started. I mean, you know, I make the case about Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen, you lied to Congress. That's your fault.
But you wouldn't even have been in front of Congress if this whole fantasy story hadn't started with that dossier. And Mr. Putin must be very thrilled to know that the FBI and DOJ took it and ran with it and divided America even further. That must be a big day for Mr. Putin.
CAVUTO: Is it fair to say, though, it wasn't reciprocated, if we believe the report at face value, sir, that the Russians were trying to muck up our election? That's pretty clear, right?
WENSTRUP: Oh, that's very clear. I mean, this is something they have always tried to do. No one is in disagreement with that.
There's technologies today that make it even easier for them to do that and to divide us as a nation and we are discovering. That's where we should be focusing right now, how this whole thing got started and what we're going to do about it in the future.
CAVUTO: All right.
WENSTRUP: But let's make sure we bring forward all the guilty parties.
CAVUTO: OK. Congressman, thank you very, very much.
WENSTRUP: You bet.
CAVUTO: Now to the White House, the president wrapping up a discussion with reporters some moments ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Mr. President...
TRUMP: We're going to Michigan. We're opening up car plants in Michigan again for the first time in decades.
They're coming in -- really pouring in. Car companies are coming in. Toyota just announced $13.5 billion coming into our country. And Michigan is booming and Ohio is booming, and North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, a lot of places.
But we have a lot of car companies and we have a lot of companies coming back into our country. And this has been happening pretty much since I've been president. It's really amazing what's going on.
But, again, because I'm going to Michigan, I will tell you, we'll be speaking about it tonight.
We have companies coming back in, car companies. It's a great thing to see.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
TRUMP: Well, look, I've been going through that for almost two years.
But it's really much more than that, because, if you look back, you can probably look at the insurance policy area in terms of timing. It's a disgrace, what happened.
This was a terrible thing that was put onto our country. Nobody has seen anything like this. Probably never happened before. A beautiful conclusion. I haven't seen the report. Beautiful conclusion.
And there was no collusion at all. There never was. Everybody knew it. I wish it could have gone in one week, instead of taking almost two years. But the result was great, no obstruction, no collusion, no anything.
It was a great -- yes, it was a great thing. But it took a long time.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
TRUMP: Well, I can't tell you whether or not it had an impact on other countries, including China.
I can say this, that countries are reacting very well. We're doing very well with our trade talks with China and our trade talks and other talks with other countries. Our country is doing great.
If you look at -- if you look at other countries, if you look at what's happening, the economies of other countries, we're leading the world economically. We're leading the world as far as our economy is concerned. We have a strong dollar. We have -- I mean, things are going very well.
And one of the reasons I'm going out tonight to Michigan is, we've brought back so much industry, so many car companies to Michigan. So we're very happy.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
(CROSSTALK)
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
TRUMP: The Special Olympics will be funded. I just told my people, I want to fund the Special Olympics. And I just authorized a funding of the Special Olympics.
I've been to the Special Olympics. I think it's incredible. And I just authorized a funding. I heard about it this morning. I have overridden my people. We're funding the Special Olympics.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: Say it?
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Theresa May. Theresa May. (OFF-MIKE)
TRUMP: Well, she's a very nice lady. She's a friend of mine. I hope she does well. I hope the Brexit movement and everything happening there goes very well.
But Theresa May is a very good woman. And I will tell you what. She's strong. She's tough. And she's in there fighting.
QUESTION: QUESTION:
TRUMP: I like Boris Johnson a lot. He's a friend of mine.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) TRUMP: I've taken better care of Puerto Rico than any man ever.
We have $91 billion going to Puerto Rico. And we have $29 billion to Texas and $12 billion to Florida for the hurricanes. Puerto Rico has been taken care of better by Donald Trump than by any living human being. And I think the people of Puerto Rico understand it.
But you do have a mayor of San Juan that, frankly, doesn't know what she's doing. And the governor, they got to spend the money wisely. They don't know how to spend the money, and they're not spending it wisely.
But I'm giving them more money than they've ever got -- gotten. And, frankly, the people of Puerto Rico, I really have a great relationship with them. And I think, when it comes time, they really do appreciate it.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
TRUMP: Where? Where?
QUESTION: Mozambique. Mozambique.
TRUMP: We're going to look into that very much.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
TRUMP: So, Obamacare has been an absolute disaster.
I have asked John Barrasso, senator, Bill Cassidy, who's a terrific health care person, Rick Scott, and others to take a look, form a really great plan.
We're winning the lawsuit to terminate Obamacare in Texas. We are winning the Texas lawsuit. And, right now, we're on the winning side. Hopefully, we'll win at the appellate division and go to the Supreme Court to terminate Obamacare.
The cost of Obamacare to people is far too much. The deductibility is ridiculous. It averages more than $7,000, meaning it's unusable. So, Obamacare has been disaster. We will take care of preexisting conditions better than they're taken care of now.
And I've already gotten rid of the individual mandate, which was the worst part of Obamacare, where you had to pay for the privilege of not getting bad insurance.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
TRUMP: So -- wait a minute.
So we are working very hard on that. John Barrasso, Rick Scott, we have some great people. You look, I mean, we've put together a group of four or five, and Bill Cassidy is a terrific health care person. And they are going to work together, come up with something that's really spectacular.
Maybe we'll even get support in the House from Democrats. But it's going to be far better than Obamacare.
If we win on Obamacare, it will be terminated in the court. And we'll see what happens.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) When will you have a plan?
TRUMP: Well, we're working on a plan now.
There's no very great rush, from the standpoint we're waiting for decisions in the court. But we've already won the case against -- for the termination of Obamacare -- against Obamacare. Now we'll go to the appellate division. We'll see what happens there. I think we'll win. It's in Texas.
QUESTION: question
TRUMP: Wait. Wait. And then it goes to the Supreme Court of the United States.
If the decisions are held up, if we win on the termination of Obamacare, we will have a plan that's far better than Obamacare, including, very importantly, preexisting conditions, which I've always been in favor of.
QUESTION: Mr. President, (OFF-MIKE) about Jussie Smollett?
TRUMP: Well, I think the Smollett -- I think the case in Chicago is an absolute embarrassment to our country.
And I have asked that it be -- that they look at it. I think that case is an absolute embarrassment to our country, and somebody has to at least take a very good, hard look at it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CAVUTO: All right, the president making a lot of news there.
One interesting item, the defunding that his education secretary, Betsy DeVos, had for the special Olympics, some $13 million, the president has overruled her, put it back in the budget, that funding. And funding for the Special Olympics is on.
Also, while the president was speaking there, we're just learning that Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan is stepping down, effective immediately, with all these scandals going on there. He is gone.
More after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: All right, the president on his way to Michigan on the right of your screen, Grand Rapids.
The crowds are already there in throngs right now waiting to hear from him.
Jim Trusty joins us right now, the former Department of Justice prosecutor.
Jim, on the Smollett case and the feds now getting involved, and the president encouraging them to get involved, what role would they play? Could they reverse the decision? How does that work?
JAMES TRUSTY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, it's a great question.
It's a limited role, Neil. They are not the super police. They are not there to second-guess or kind of recharge or take over cases from local police. They don't have that kind of jurisdiction, even if they wanted it.
So, I don't think they are looking for any sort of additional charges or federal charges. It would be a real stretch. But they may be looking to see if there was something about the process that is corrupt, that involves bribery, something that could lead to criminality on the behalf of the decision-makers, not Smollett himself.
CAVUTO: All right, so Smollett had all -- the 16 charges were lifted, removed, and disappeared. What's the risk now? Can there be federal charges brought against him, or does it end there, this is more an inquiry into how this was decided?
TRUSTY: I'm pretty sure it's the latter.
The reality is that this was not a federal case in the first place. It doesn't lend itself to a typical federal charge. There might be some stretch you can come up based on the colluding, the conspiracy with the two Nigerian brothers, where you try to gin up a wire fraud case.
But I wouldn't hold my breath. I don't think it's looking that way at all. I think it's more reviewing the decision-making process and leaving the unsatisfactory dropped charge where it lies.
CAVUTO: Jim, if I could skip over now to what's going on with the Mueller investigation, and it could take weeks, maybe not months, before obviously they have it.
There is concern right now that people like Adam Schiff have jumped to conclusions that weren't in the report. We don't know because we haven't seen the report. And a lack of trust of the attorney general and whether he accurately reviewed that report.
And I'm wondering, everyone was on the same page how this was going to be released and what the attorney general would do, so what's the issue here? And is it a worrisome one for, let's say, the White House?
TRUSTY: Well, the issue is, there's kind of a false narrative going on that somehow there's something wrong with withholding parts of the report from the public.
I think the reality is, there's a whole bunch of grounds for keeping some portions secret, whether it's grand jury materials, classified information, or just character assassination they are trying to avoid.
So, I don't think anybody really expects it's going to come out perfectly clean with every line. But I also think there's going to be enough present from the report that it would be a real ridiculous ploy by the attorney general to kind of mislead the public on what's in that report.
He knows it's coming, so I would -- very...
CAVUTO: Yes.
TRUSTY: I would find it very unlikely that he would mischaracterize what is in that report.
CAVUTO: Especially knowing that Mueller would catch him or say something if he did, right?
TRUSTY: Yes, true.
CAVUTO: All right, you are the best, Jim. Thank you. I threw a lot at you there. You handled it well, as always.
TRUSTY: Sure.
CAVUTO: Jim Trusty, the former DOJ prosecutor.
We will have a lot more right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CAVUTO: You ever use the ride-sharing company Lyft?
It's going to make a public debut tomorrow. And this one is off the charts. This could value the company at north of $20 billion. Over the last year, it's racked up about a million dollars in losses, but most investors don't seem to care.
We are covering that live as it happens and makes its debut on FOX Business noon Eastern time. We have got you covered. This could be one for the history books.
Here comes "The Five."
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