This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," October 6, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, ANCHOR: Good Sunday morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. I'm Maria Bartiromo.

Joining me exclusively straight ahead right here on "Sunday Morning Futures," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham on the Democrats' impeachment push, as the White House plans to send a letter to Speaker Pelosi tomorrow daring her to hold that vote on this matter.

House Intel and Judiciary Committee member John Ratcliffe is here. The congressman was in the room when former special envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker testified on Friday about the controversy now at the center of this impeachment inquiry -- also the congressman's reaction to a word of a second whistle-blower this morning, and he spoke to the intel community's inspector general.

Plus, former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos is here on the Attorney General William Barr's trip to Italy amid the Justice Department's review of the origins of the Russia probe. There is speculation that part of the trip concerned Joseph Mifsud, the man who Mr. Papadopoulos says told him that Russia had Hillary Clinton's e-mails as part entrapment.

Also, China expert Jonathan Ward is here on how Beijing is eying the impeachment inquiry, what impact it could have on the upcoming trade talks set to begin on October 10.

All that and a lot more right here, right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."

And the White House is preparing to send a letter to Nancy Pelosi tomorrow morning, refusing to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry until the speaker holds a floor vote on the matter, which is typical for any impeachment.

Here is President Trump on Friday.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Well, we will be issuing a letter.

As everybody knows, we have been treated very unfairly, very different from anybody else, if you go over, not only history. You go over any aspect of life, you will see how unfairly we have been treated.

Everything, to me, is about corruption. We want to find out what happened with 2016. And, as you know, there's a lot of work going on, on that.

I don't care about Biden's campaign, but I do care about corruption.


BARTIROMO: This as Pelosi defends her decision to launch the inquiry over a whistle-blower complaint on the president's dealings with Ukraine.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: Some people say, why are you doing this? He's not worth it to divide the country this way.

And I said, he may not be, but our Constitution is worth it. Our democracy is worth it.



BARTIROMO: And breaking news this morning, the attorney for the first whistle-blower is now confirming that his team represents what he's calling multiple whistle-blowers.

According to that attorney, at least one of them has firsthand knowledge of the president's July phone call with the president of Ukraine, this as we wait to find out when the first whistle-blower may testify behind closed doors.

Joining me right now is Republican Senator from South Carolina Lindsey Graham. He's the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also sits on the Senate Appropriations, Foreign Relations, and Budget committees.

Mr. Chairman, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thanks for joining me.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Thanks for having me.

BARTIROMO: So, I have got to get your reaction to this week. It was an incredible week, actually.


BARTIROMO: The president is going to send that letter to Nancy Pelosi tomorrow, basically saying, you need to hold a House floor vote for impeachment.

What's your reaction to all that's taken place so far?

GRAHAM: Well, Nancy Pelosi mentioned democracy and the Constitution.

One of the most democratic things you can do in a democracy is to have your elected representative vote on issues important to the country. So it's imperative that Democrats vote to open up articles of impeachment inquiry, not just talk about it. Don't hide behind Nancy Pelosi.

It's very important that the House vote on whether or not we should go forward on impeachment. That's the democratic way of doing business.

It's the most consequential two weeks of the 2020 election. What happened in the last two weeks? Joe Biden, who is leaking oil, his campaign has just completely imploded. I think he's probably done. He's the biggest victim of the whistle-blower complaint, because now we know that his son was receiving $50,000 a month from a Ukrainian gas company while Joe was in charge of the Ukrainian portfolio, and $1 billion-plus from a subsidiary of a China bank, based on what qualifications?

So I think this is a nightmare for the Biden campaign. Bernie Sanders has a heart attack. Nancy Pelosi is now trapped. She embarked on impeachment inquiry based on a transcript she hadn't read.

And here is what I would like FOX or somebody to do. Go to every Republican and ask the question, do you believe the transcript itself is an impeachable offense? What the president said on the transcript, is that is impeachable offense?

I think it's ridiculous to say that the president did something wrong based on the phone call. And I think everybody in the media should go to the Democrat and ask them, why aren't you voting to open up an impeachment inquiry?

It's been a hell of a couple of weeks. And the biggest beneficiary, quite frankly, has been Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump.

BARTIROMO: And so walk us through the timeline and sort of how this played out.

GRAHAM: Right.

BARTIROMO: Hypothetically speaking, let's say the House does vote to impeach President Trump. Where does the Senate fit in? And then what happens? Will -- the Senate then takes it up, right?

GRAHAM: Well, there's two votes. You need a vote to open up an impeachment inquiry.

In 1998, we voted to open up an impeachment inquiry against Bill Clinton a month before the election, with 31 Democrats joining us -- joining in. Pelosi is opening up an inquiry by herself.

Every Democratic member of the House needs to be on record: Do you agree with Nancy Pelosi that the transcript is enough to impeach President Trump? Remember when Pelosi said that the transcript would show a quid pro quo? It doesn't.

There's nothing wrong with this phone call. It is OK for the president and others to look into corruption in the Ukraine. Three Democratic senators wrote a letter to the Ukrainian government asking them to cooperate with Mueller, and, if you don't, you may lose your aid.

It's also OK to look into whether or not there was corruption in the Ukraine going the other way. There's a Politico article -- a Politico article January 2017, Maria...


GRAHAM: ... that suggests that the DNC was receiving help from the Ukraine.

We need a special counsel to look at whether or not the DNC was working with people inside the Ukraine. And somebody needs to look at the Bidens and whether or not they violated the law outside of politics.

BARTIROMO: Yes, I mean, is there any appetite for another special counsel here? We just came off of one with the Mueller probe.

GRAHAM: There needs to be.

BARTIROMO: And I want to ask you about that coming up.

But you say that there -- it is important to look at whether or not the DNC worked with Ukraine against the U.S.


Well, let's look at it this way. Everybody said Mueller would be an independent guy. And I think he was. And what happened? He cleared Trump. There was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

And why do we know that? Because Mueller spent two years and $25 million looking at it. Has anybody looked at the DNC-Ukraine connection? No, they have not.

And I love Rudy Giuliani. He's a good lawyer for the president. He's defending the president's interests. But the Mueller investigation is over. It's not Rudy's job to find out if the Bidens did something wrong.

I'd like somebody outside of politics to look at the Bidens like Mueller looked at the Trumps. Remember the Trump Tower deal with Russia?


GRAHAM: That was looked at by Mueller. Somebody needs to look at the Bidens regarding the Ukraine and China.

BARTIROMO: Yes, maybe, but that's not happening right now.

In fact, the president's skeptics are only ramping up. The president just tweeted this morning about -- or last night, rather, about this second whistle-blower.

And he writes this: "The first so-called secondhand information whistle- blower got my phone conversation almost completely wrong. Now word is, they are going to bench him, and another whistle-blower is coming in from the deep state also with secondhand. Meet with Shifty. Keep them coming."


BARTIROMO: What's your reaction to the idea that there could be another whistle-blower out there? And the lawyer says, no, it's not one. I'm representing many whistle-blowers?

Are these all whistle-blowers about one phone call that he had with the president of Ukraine, do you think?

GRAHAM: I don't know.

But remember Kavanaugh. Remember Kavanaugh. It started with one complaint that wound up being unverifiable, a complaint against Judge Kavanaugh about a party that took place in high school 30 years ago, without any notice of where it happened and when it happened, and everybody described to be there said it didn't happen.

And five more allegations came after that. What did we learn in Kavanaugh? That they were coaching witnesses and they were piling on to try to create an impression that Judge Kavanaugh was a flawed human being.


GRAHAM: This is Kavanaugh all over again.

It -- does this second whistle-blower, if there is one, are they within the intel community? And what is it about the intel community and Trump that is so off-base here?

And did Schiff do with the whistle-blower, the first one, what they did with Kavanaugh witnesses, coach them up?

BARTIROMO: Well, I think you make a lot of important points.

And I have got to go back to one or two right now, because, first of all, when you bring up Brett Kavanaugh, I actually thought a similar -- I had a similar thought last week when we learned that after Adam Schiff said he never spoken to the whistle-blower, then we learned that, no, actually, that wasn't true, that, in fact, the whistle-blower contacted his committee first.

And his staff or him did in fact meet. So, why that? I mean, was he coaching the whistle-blower, the way we learned later that the Intel Committee and Adam Schiff and the Democrats spent some 30 hours with Christine Blasey Ford, before she made her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh?

GRAHAM: Right.

Well, you had a witness in Denver that they spent 30 hours with. You had a lot of effort by Kavanaugh -- people who came forward against Kavanaugh, I think, were coached by lawyers who were out to get Trump.

Now, Schiff is a witness.

BARTIROMO: So, is it possible that this whistle-blower was coached, is what I'm saying, Senator?


GRAHAM: I don't know. That's what I'm saying.


GRAHAM: You won't know until you ask Schiff.

Schiff made himself a witness. If he did, in fact, interview the whistle- blower before the complaint was filed, then he becomes a witness. I want to know what was said originally the bottom line.

The bottom line here, it does remind me a lot of Kavanaugh. The media is breathless, yet another accusation. There wound up being six. Two were out-and-out lies. People are being investigated for perjury.

One lady said she went to parties on nine or 10 occasions where women were being drugged and raped by -- with Kavanaugh there. I would think one party would probably be enough for most people.


GRAHAM: So this smells. This seems like a political setup. And it reminds me of Kavanaugh all over again.

BARTIROMO: Bottom line, you have subpoena power, chairman of Judiciary. Are you going to subpoena this whistle-blower?

GRAHAM: Well, here is what's going to happen.

If the whistle-blower's allegations are turned into an impeachment article, it's imperative that the whistle-blower be interviewed in public, under oath and cross-examined. Nobody in America goes to jail or has anything done to them without confronting their accuser.

So here is what I'm going to insist upon, that the whistle-blower, one or two, whatever, they come forward, under oath, testify, so the public can judge their credibility.

If that doesn't happen in the House, I will make sure it happens in the Senate.

BARTIROMO: OK, because that's one other thing being criticized about this whole process. They are doing this behind closed doors.

We are going to speak with John Ratcliffe in a minute.


BARTIROMO: And he was in the room when Kurt Volker testified. But the American people don't know what happened, even though there's a lot of commentary about it, how he completely shot down any issues that the president did something wrong in that meeting on Friday.

So you will put a spotlight on it? If you see that it is only being done behind closed doors, you will subpoena the whistle-blower, then?

GRAHAM: Yes, I will use Nancy Pelosi's words. This is about the Constitution and democracy.

The Sixth Amendment allows people to confront witnesses against them. There can be no valid inquiry unless Democrats vote. And once you vote, there can be no valid impeachment process unless the president can confront the witnesses against him.


GRAHAM: Who are these people? Where did they come from? Are they tied to Brennan at all? These are questions I'd like to know.

BARTIROMO: Yes, I have got to ask you that John Brennan, because he made comments this past week saying that he's concerned about a non- investigation that William Barr is conducting.


BARTIROMO: We will take a short break.

But when we come back, Senator, you made a promise on this program a long time ago, six or eight months ago, saying you're going to do a deep dive into what happened, the origins of the Russia probe.

I want to know where the subpoenas are at this point. We will take a break. And when we -- we will talk about that when we come back.

Also, Congressman John Ratcliffe is here, along with George Papadopoulos.

Follow me on Twitter @MariaBartiromo, @SundayFutures, and on Instagram.

Stay with us. We're looking ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."



JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I'm supposedly going to be interviewed by Mr. Durham as part of this non-investigation.

I remember William Barr, when he was testifying in front of Congress, he said he didn't understand the predication of the counterintelligence investigation that was launched into Russia's interference in the 2016 election.

I don't understand the predication of this worldwide effort to try to uncover dirt, either real or imagined, that would discredit that investigation in 2016 into the Russian interference.

Given that Barr is now accompanying Durham on these things, it really makes me think that the hand of politics and of Trump are now being used to massage what this ongoing review, quasi-investigation is. So, I am concerned.


BARTIROMO: Wow. That was John Brennan, the former CIA director.

We're back with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.


BARTIROMO: Senator, that was -- that was rich.


BARTIROMO: Your reaction to John Brennan right there?

GRAHAM: Yes, that was interesting, yes, and very rich.

Can I -- OK, I remember very well when Mueller was working with Rosenstein. He had to report back to the Department of Justice to look at all things Trump.

So, this non-investigation, Mr. Brennan, is around whether or not the FISA court was lied to by the Department of Justice and the FBI. Was the dossier credible enough to get a warrant against an American citizen?

Has it been verified to this day? Was the counterintelligence investigation opened up against the Trump campaign legitimate, or was it a way to get around the law to get into the Trump world?

Now, Horowitz, the inspector general...


GRAHAM: ... has been looking at this for months. He will report back to me.

I'm not going to do anything until he comes before the committee. He will tell us his view of the FISA warrant application, whether it was off the rails, the counterintelligence investigation, whether it was on up and up.

And what is Barr doing? Barr is being an attorney general, trying to find out how the investigation against the Trump campaign began. That is his job. He's doing exactly what he should be doing.

Horowitz is looking inside the system to see if it got off the rails.


GRAHAM: And my job is to make sure it never happens again.

BARTIROMO: Well, I understand.

But we're going to be speaking coming up with George Papadopoulos in a few minutes. And I want to show you. We have got this timeline that we're going to show on screen later. But I will show a little of it to you.

This is the entrapment timeline and all these international -- quote, unquote -- "diplomats" who reached out to George Papadopoulos.


GRAHAM: Right. Right.

BARTIROMO: People like someone from Rome, and somebody else from Australia, somebody else from Ukraine.

And so all of these internationals that have reached out to Papadopoulos in one year's time frame from 2016 to 2017, which is why your question a moment ago was quite apropos. Why is it always the intel agencies that are coming after Trump?

And is that something that the CIA would put together, gathering all of these international diplomats to reach out to Trump campaign people, which was the case in 2016?

GRAHAM: Well, stay tuned.

That's what Horowitz is going to tell us about. And I will build on what he tells us.

The dossier -- if you believe that foreign interference is wrong in our elections, then you should be upset by the fact that the Democratic National Committee hired a former British spy to investigate Trump by getting dirt on him from Russia.

The Steele dossier is a bunch of political garbage, unverified to this day. Why was it included in the intel assessment? Did Brennan have anything to do with that? Because it is salacious garbage.

So we're going to find out about all of this, and Barr should be going to Italy and the U.K. and Australia, trying to find out if their intelligence services were working with the CIA or the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign.

I'm glad he's doing that. He should be doing that.

BARTIROMO: So, no wonder the president brings this up to the leaders of these countries to try to find out, you know, how this information started...

GRAHAM: I would.


BARTIROMO: ... given that it was the first two-and-a-half years of his presidency that people were up in arms over collusion.

Very quickly, sir, my viewers are frustrated. They want some subpoenas. They want to see you do that deep dive into what took place.

When can we expect your subpoenaing people? And who are you going to get to come down and testify?

GRAHAM: Well, I'm going to tell your viewers I'm going to do it the way I think I need to do it.

I'm not going to get ahead of Horowitz. This man is independent of politics, was appointed by Obama. He did a good job in the past. I'm going to look at his report. Then I will build out on it.

And I'm not out to get anybody. I'm trying to find out what happened. So I'm not going to issue subpoenas because people are frustrated. I'm going to call Horowitz before the committee. He's going to tell us about FISA warrant application and the counterintelligence investigation. And I will go wherever the facts take us.

But I do want every Republican to be asked, would you impeach the president based on this transcript, the phone call between the president of the United States and the Ukrainian president? Because, if you would, I think that is just incredibly bad judgment.

I want Romney to be asked that.

As to having China look into this, I think that's a bad idea. I don't trust anything coming out of China against Biden, Trump, me or you. So the bottom line is, I want people to do this the right way. The right way is for Horowitz to come forward to my committee, under oath, and tell us what happened.

And I promise you, I will build out on it appropriately. Somebody needs to look at whether or not the DNC was involved with the Ukraine. Somebody needs to look into Bidens, whether or not they violated the law. They sure as hell looked at the Trumps.


GRAHAM: Somebody needs to look at the Bidens. I want this to be done outside of politics.

And I want Nancy Pelosi to have the courage to vote on impeachment, not just talk about it.

BARTIROMO: All right.

All right, we will be watching the developments, Senator.

It's good to see you, sir. Thanks so much.


GRAHAM: Yes, good.


GRAHAM: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Senator Lindsey Graham.

The former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine resigned after being named a whistle-blower in the complaint.

We will have John Ratcliffe when we come back. He was in the room behind closed doors on Capitol Hill for that testimony -- next up.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

House lawmakers heard closed-door testimony on Friday from two figures at the center of the Ukraine controversy.

Former special envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker testified on Friday, and intelligence community inspector general Michael Atkinson earlier in the week. He's the government watchdog who deemed the first whistle-blower complaint as credible.

This as the attorney for the first whistle-blower confirms that he is now representing multiple whistle-blowers.

Joining me right now is Republican Congressman from Texas John Ratcliffe. He sits on the House Judiciary, Intelligence and Homeland Security committees. He's a former federal prosecutor. And he was in the room behind the closed doors on Friday with Kurt Volker's testimony.

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

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TX: Good morning, Maria.

BARTIROMO: So, just...

RATCLIFFE: On Friday -- the testimony Friday, just so the record is clear, was Michael Atkinson, the ICIG.

And I was in the room. In fact, I led the questioning for the first 45 minutes for the Republicans. Special envoy Volker was Thursday.

BARTIROMO: Thank you for that. I appreciate that.

Can you tell us about the testimony that you heard on Friday? And tell us whatever you can behind -- what happened behind closed doors.

I'm looking at a Federalist article that says testimony from Ukraine enjoy Kurt Volker directly contradicts the Democrats' impeachment narrative.

What can you tell us?

RATCLIFFE: So, I would love to tell your viewers about everything about both of those interviews.

The reason that I can't is because the person in charge of this investigation, Adam Schiff, has made the decision that he doesn't want those transcripts to be out there publicly. He made that decision because those transcripts aren't good for the Democrats and for the narrative.

What I can tell you is that I promise you that the inspector general's testimony on Friday will shock you with respect to his investigation into the contacts between Adam Schiff and his staff on the Intelligence Committee and the whistle-blower.

And when you see the transcript, and you see what investigation was performed, I think any fair person is going to agree with me that Adam Schiff is a material witness. His staff are material witnesses. And the only way we can get good answers is to put them under oath about the type of contact, the extent of which they had with the whistle-blower.

The bottom line is, Adam Schiff is a material fact witness in the investigation. He shouldn't be running the investigation.

BARTIROMO: So, do we know that he met with the whistle-blower? Initially, he said, we haven't spoken to the whistle-blower, we want to speak to the whistle-blower.

But then we learned after that, in fact, his staff has met with him, and there are -- there's speculation this morning that in fact Adam Schiff met with the whistle-blower directly. Can you confirm that?

RATCLIFFE: Well, think about this, Maria.

The Washington Post, of all newspapers, had to give Adam Schiff four Pinocchios for when he said that they had not had any direct contact with the whistle-blower. That wasn't true.

So what I can tell you is that there was contact between the whistle-blower and either Adam Schiff and his team on the Intelligence Committee. And the details of that, we all -- I think the president who is -- they're attempting remove from office on the basis of this impeachment deserves to know what type of contact there was between Adam Schiff and his team and this whistle-blower.

And we shouldn't have to take Adam Schiff's words for it with a wordsmith press release or tweet that, there's not much and we don't really need to look at that. He needs to be put under oath. He needs to answer the questions.

And, again, that is the reason that he shouldn't be allowed to run the investigation where he and his team are central fact witnesses.

BARTIROMO: So, let's go through that, because House Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy responded to Pelosi's refusal to answer questions about more information about this impeachment.

And he's sending a letter -- he sent a letter to her last week basically saying, you need to get Adam Schiff out of that leadership position.

And you have talked to me about several reasons why you believe Adam Schiff cannot run this investigation. One of them is the fact that this is being done in the Intel Committee, as opposed to the Judiciary Committee.

Any impeachment process, the jurisdiction is Judiciary, right?

RATCLIFFE: In the 240-plus years of our history, those rare times where we have had impeachment process, it's always gone through the House Judiciary Committee, because the House Judiciary Committee is the committee of jurisdiction over the Constitution and over impeachment.

It's not the Intelligence Committee. So, for the first time ever...

BARTIROMO: So, why would she go to the Intelligence Committee, then? Then why would she go to the Intel Committee that Adam Schiff runs?

RATCLIFFE: So, she -- well, I think two reasons.

One, I think Nancy Pelosi has so little confidence, apparently, in Jerry Nadler to run this the way that she wants it. The other reason is, by moving it to the Intelligence Committee, she can accomplish what they did this week.

Adam Schiff can say, gosh, this all has to be done behind closed doors. Unlike any other impeachment in our country, which is public, he's conducting this behind closed doors, making up the rules as it goes, as he wants them, as it suits his purpose.

And so you have a jurisdictional problem. You have a problem with transparency. And then, worst of all, the guy who is in charge of running the investigation is a central witness in the investigation, something that we don't allow anywhere in this country and never have.

I mean, Third World countries are shocked at the kangaroo court, banana republic, make-it-up-as-you-go impeachment inquiry that the Democrats are running in this country.

BARTIROMO: Which is why Kim Strassel from The Wall Street Journal this past week did an op-ed in The Journal, titling it: "What did the House Intel committee chairman know and when did he know it?"

Because, as I just spoke with Lindsey Graham about, if he did in fact meet this whistle-blower and helped the whistle-blower craft the complaint, the way we understand he did with Christine Blasey Ford, there will be a lot of pushback on this.

Congressman, stay with us. We want to take a short break.


BARTIROMO: I have got to ask you where this is headed.

Stay with us. More with John Ratcliffe coming up.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

I'm back with Republican Congressman from Texas John Ratcliffe.

And, Congressman, I want to go back to something you were just saying about Adam Schiff. You want him to recuse himself, step down from running this impeachment investigation.

And you said, number one, it's because it's not in the right committee. The jurisdiction is in Judiciary, not Intel. And, number two, you say they are being -- it's being done behind closed doors, in secret?


Those are unprecedented with respect to any impeachment process. Again, the extraordinary set of talking about removing a president from office, and we're doing it in a way that's never been done before, in a committee that's never been done before, with rules that are being made up as he decides them.

We literally found out on Friday, asked the chairman, Chairman Schiff, what the rules were with respect to the interview of the inspector general, and he had just made up his mind that morning on what they were going to be.

We should be following the established rules in how this is. And, again, the most important point though, Maria, is that he is a fact witness.

I mean, big picture on this.


RATCLIFFE: The Democrats have decided it's not impeachment by collusion, it's not impeachment by conspiracy, it's not impeachment by obstruction of justice. That all fell apart the minute Bob Mueller said, I never heard of Fusion GPS.

So their white whale of impeachment, they have decided it's got to be this whistle-blower and this call that the president has. And now what are we finding out? That the person in charge of running this investigation lied to everyone about his contact with the whistle-blower and helped start the process.


RATCLIFFE: This is as unfair as you can possibly imagine.


RATCLIFFE: It's worse than the Russia collusion hoax.

And Adam Schiff and anyone on his team that had contact with the whistle- blower needs to be put under oath.


All right, and we know that Adam Schiff for two years told us that there is direct evidence in plain sight of collusion between Donald Trump and the Russians, which, of course, was completely debunked.

RATCLIFFE: Still waiting on that.

BARTIROMO: I'm going to speak with George Papadopoulos in a few minutes.

And we have got this timeline that I wanted to ask you about. This is the timeline that we're calling entrapment timeline, where a number, I mean several, international -- quote, unquote -- "diplomats" reached out to George Papadopoulos, some from Australia, others from Britain, others from the U.S., Italy.

And I want to ask you about this one that he -- he was invited to London by Stefan Halper. And Stefan Halper introduced him to his -- quote, unquote - - "assistant," Azra Turk.

And at that meeting in September of 2016, they had a conversation. And, of course, now we know that Stefan Halper was a spy, so the whole conversation was recorded. He was wearing a wire.

That conversation was Halper saying to Papadopoulos, it's great that Russia has these e-mails on Hillary Clinton. You must be really happy. Trump has to be happy. And George Papadopoulos answers and says -- and this is told to me by George Papadopoulos -- he answers and says: "That's crazy. I would never do something like that. That's treason."

And we know that that conversation was recorded. Is that the transcript that you and Trey Gowdy and others have suggested is exculpatory evidence that was not given to the FISA court?

RATCLIFFE: Well, if there is a transcript, I think everyone would agree, based on what you just said, if there is a transcript of what you just related, that absolutely should have been provided to the FISA court.

And the good news is, we will get a definitive answer from the inspector general when this report gets issued in the next week or two about whether or not that was done.

I'm just telling you that I have staked my credibility on this, that I think that the information that should have been turned over to the FISA court wasn't, and that the FISA process wasn't followed, and that, when Jim Comey and Adam Schiff and others say that the FISA abuse idea is a bunch of nonsense, that they're wrong.

But we will find out.

But the other point that you have been talking about, Maria, and are going to talk about, I mean, why is it OK for the Obama administration to send people to -- FBI agents to Rome and to coordinate with Australia and Great Britain about foreign interference in our election, but when the Trump administration and Department of Justice and Bill Barr go to the exact same places to determine the exact same type of things, foreign interference in our election, it's all of a sudden political, and that we shouldn't be doing it?

And I will tell you what I think the answer is, because I think there are a lot of folks that are worried about finding out who really interfered more or tried to interfere more in the 2016 election, the Russians or the Obama administration.

BARTIROMO: Yes. I mean, do you think William Barr would put Adam Schiff under oath?

RATCLIFFE: Well, someone needs to put Adam Schiff under oath.

We can't remove a president in a whistle-blower process where there are legitimate questions...


RATCLIFFE: ... about the role that Adam Schiff and his team played in that.

And I'm promising you that, when you read the inspector general transcript from Friday, you will agree with me that those are questions that Adam Schiff and his team are going to have to answer.

BARTIROMO: All right.

RATCLIFFE: And there's no reason, Maria, that that transcript can't be released tomorrow.

BARTIROMO: All right.

RATCLIFFE: And it should be.

BARTIROMO: We will leave it there.

Congressman, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thanks very much.

RATCLIFFE: You bet. Thanks, Maria.

BARTIROMO: And an important note, that John Ratcliffe just said that the I.G. report, he's expecting that we will get it within two weeks. That is the FISA abuse report. It is now in the hands of William Barr.

We will see if we get that report. That will answer a lot of questions.

We are awaiting a report from the DOJ's inspector general on the origins of the Russia investigation. He just said it'll be out in two weeks.

We're also learning that Attorney General William Barr met with intelligence officials in Italy this past week to reportedly discuss one of the central figures of the Russia investigation. And that is Joseph Mifsud.

Former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos says he met with the mystery professor in 2016 after Mifsud offered Russian dirt about Hillary Clinton's hacked e-mails.

Joining me right now is the man himself, George Papadopoulos, former aide to the Trump campaign, author of the book "Deep State Target."

George, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thanks very much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: So, George, we have been looking at this timeline that we put together, based on our conversations with you and based on the documents that we have.

And in one year's time, you had all of this outreach by Israeli officials. You had Italian officials. You had diplomats from Britain, from the U.S. Mifsud, obviously, claimed that Russia had the e-mails back in 2016 of Hillary Clinton.

What were you thinking when all of these people were reaching out to you asking to go meet them at conferences?

PAPADOPOULOS: Yes, that's a really great point that you made.

So, essentially, within 48 hours of joining the Trump campaign, something that not even The Washington Post had reported at the time, I'm being invited to go to Rome, at the behest of a woman named Arvinder Sambei, who I used to work for in London, who I later found out actually had a working relationship with Bob Mueller after 9/11.

So that's very suspicious. And I'm invited to go to Rome at this university, where I'm introduced to Joseph Mifsud by none other than the former Italian foreign minister.

So this happened very quickly, within 48 hours of joining the campaign, before not even the American public knew I joined. So when I was being invited all of a sudden and wooed to all these cities and conferences, something wasn't adding up, quite frankly.

BARTIROMO: So, that first meeting, when Arvinder Sambei invited you to go to Rome and introduced you to Joseph Mifsud, let's just point out that, when you first joined or were considering leaving your other job, you went, and you got an outreach from somebody on LinkedIn to come work for the London Center of International Law Practice.

And Arvinder Sambei worked there. And then you found out that she was actually a close associate or friend with Bruce Ohr, who worked in the Department of Justice. Is that right?

PAPADOPOULOS: That's what our reports have subsequently explained about her, something, of course, I had no idea about in March or April of 2016.


So, she -- wow. So she's working at the London Center of International Law Practice. And she tells you -- she's friends with Bruce Ohr of the DOJ. She sends you to Rome to meet with Mifsud. Mifsud tells you that Russia has Hillary Clinton's e-mails.

George, we want to talk more about this, because there is more to come with this I.G. report out in two weeks.

Stay with us. We will take a short break and come right back.


BARTIROMO: And I'm back with former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos.

And, George, we have been showing this timeline of all of these internationalists who reached out to you between 2016 and 2017, when you were working for the Trump campaign.

I think it's really interesting that, just this week, we learned new information, that the former prime minister of Italy is threatening to sue you. This is ex-Italian Prime Minister Renzi threatening to sue George Papadopoulos.

What do you think this is all about, George?


PAPADOPOULOS: Well, I think, obviously, somebody's connecting dots, and these dots are directly leading to Rome. And Rome might actually be the epicenter of this entire conspiracy, even more so than London, which I initially thought.

Look, Attorney General Barr was recently in Italy, along with John Durham. They were obviously looking into Joseph Mifsud's extensive connections to both the Italian government, documented, and Italian intelligence services.

And they will probably be looking into this University Link campus and Vincenzo Scotti.


PAPADOPOULOS: And who was the prime minister while all this was going on? Matteo Renzi.

And now, all of a sudden, he had some sort of meltdown a couple days ago. He's threatening to sue me. And he went on a rant about the president. So, clearly, he's feeling the heat.

BARTIROMO: And it feels like the CIA is also among the agencies that will be questioned as a result of gathering all of these people together, which really makes it look like this incredible network of diplomats across the world working with the CIA or the FBI.

We will see. We're getting the I.G. report in the next two weeks.

Let me ask you about that $10,000. Also, as part of this network of internationals who were reaching out to you, one of them gave you $10,000. Tell me about that. And where is that money today?


So, there had been a lot of discussion with the FBI during my first interview with them about the Israelis and my connections to the Israelis, and what I was up to in the energy business over there, which was all legal.

And then, all of a sudden, as I'm cooperating with the FBI, this individual who describes himself as an Israeli-American businessman wants to talk to me about the energy business, in theory. And I go to Israel with him. And then, all of a sudden, he's dropping $10,000 in cash in my hands, and -- which something I had no idea of really what he wanted it for.

So I give it to my lawyers after I leave Israel. I thought there was something very suspicious about it. And as I'm flying to -- back to the United States, I'm basically, you know, grabbed by seven FBI agents looking for money.

So, clearly, when I was detained, I thought it was about this money. I thought it was a setup. And I'm -- hopefully, this money is going to be looked into very soon, because I think it might lead to directly to the Treasury.


So you think those bills are marked. The bills are still with your lawyer. And so you never accepted the $10,000, really, gave it to the lawyer, and that's where the money is right now?

PAPADOPOULOS: Yes, that's absolutely right.


George, it's good to have you on the program this morning. Thanks so much, an extraordinary story.

George Papadopoulos.

PAPADOPOULOS: Thank so much, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much. We will see you soon, George.

Meanwhile, China, how is it eying this impeachment inquiry here at home? The meeting between Chinese and U.S. officials, October 10.

We're going to talk with Jonathan Ward, an expert on China, next.


BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

President Trump asking China to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son over their business dealings in China, after Hunter Biden received $1.5 billion from the Chinese government.

How is Beijing eying all of these developments amid the Ukraine controversy and the impeachment inquiry?

Joining me right now is Jonathan Ward. He's the founder of the Atlas Organization, author of the book "China's Vision of Victory."

And, Jonathan, it's good to have you. Thanks so much for joining us.


BARTIROMO: What do we have, like a week-and-a-half before the important trade meeting happening between the U.S. and Chinese officials on October 10?

How do you think China is viewing all that's gone on this past week in the U.S. about impeachment around this president?

WARD: Sure.

I think there's no question that Beijing likes to see the United States struggling internally. I think it's incredibly critical that we maintain bipartisan unity on the China issue.

I think there is a bipartisan awakening happening in the U.S. government on China as a problem. And from both sides of the aisle, people are getting the picture. And we just have to stay focused on what this really means.

I mean, this is the biggest challenge for our country in this century for pretty much everybody alive today in the global arena. And I think we just have to make sure that we're still looking at it that way from both sides of the aisle.

BARTIROMO: This is a very serious situation.

The China threat is what you're referring to.

WARD: Sure.

BARTIROMO: And this week, of course, the Chinese are celebrating 70 years of communist rule.

And they have done so with military parades, massive weaponry. One missile has a range to reach the United States, anywhere in the U.S., another missile with range to reach the South China Sea.

What do you think this symbolizes?

WARD: Right.

So, on one hand, the military parade unveiled a whole bunch of new missile technology, the Dongfeng-20 -- Dongfeng-17s, 41s. The 41 is a MIRV technology that can hit the continental U.S.

The key thing is to understand how Beijing really thinks about America.

I wanted to read a brief passage from "China's Vision of Victory." This is not my words. This is their words. And this is in 2013, well before the trade war, before Donald Trump.

Here is what they say: "Because the Midwestern states of the United States are sparsely populated, in order to improve the killing effect, the nuclear killing of U.S. soft targets should concentrate on major cities on the West Coast, such as Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego."

BARTIROMO: Oh, my God.

WARD: "The Dongfeng 31-A" -- now, this is an earlier version -- "is launched over the North Pole. It can easily destroy a series of large cities on the East Coast and in New England, such as Ann Arbor, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Portland, Baltimore, and Norfolk."

BARTIROMO: Oh, my God.

And that Dongfeng, that weapon, is one of the weapons that they were highlighting on the military parade.

Real quick. As all of this is going on, you have got protesters in the street, for the 18th weekend in a row this weekend. Is that putting pressure on Xi Jinping?

Because we had Jimmy Lai on the program, a Chinese dissident. And he said, look, ever since Xi Jinping was put into place as dictator for life, Hong Kong changed.

WARD: Right.

BARTIROMO: These are live pictures in Hong Kong right now.

WARD: I mean, I think these young people in Hong Kong are really the bravest people in the world right now.

I mean, they are standing on the front lines of a rising totalitarian dictatorship that has global ambitions, that has ambitions to surpass the United States, ultimately defeat us in the sort of process that they see of becoming the dominant superpower.

BARTIROMO: Really important points from you, Jonathan.

Thanks so much, Jonathan Ward.

WARD: Thank you, Maria.

BARTIROMO: Have a great Sunday, everybody.

I will see you tomorrow on FOX Business.

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.