FOX NEWS: Ratcliffe discusses Nunes' push to hold Sessions in contempt

Welcome back. The Department of Justice is responding to Devin Nunes right now. We have breaking news. The Department of Justice is saying that they have responded to Devin Nunes. He was on Fox & Friends earlier saying that his latest classified letter to the DOJ was ignored. The letter from the DOJ, which they are sending, spells out the administration's written response, says the DOJ. Now, basically, Devin Nunes said that two weeks ago that he sent a letter to the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, a classified letter, per usual. This is from Devin Nunes. It was ignored, not acknowledged, completely ignored. Last week, we sent a subpoena. Then on Thursday, we discovered they are not going to comply with our subpoena. Nunes told Fox & Friends, this is information we need. We need to move quickly to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt. That is what I will press for this week. Also right now, we want to talk about what's happening with Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe. He sits on the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committee. He is also a former U.S. attorney. Good to see you, sir. Congressman, thanks very much for joining us. Hi, Maria. Your response to what the DOJ is saying this morning, it says it, in fact, sent a letter back to Devin Nunes and said, we are in receipt of your letter after careful evaluation and following consultations with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, the White House, and the Department. We are not in a position to provide information responsive to your request. Your take on all of this, Congressman? Well, Maria, I haven't seen the subpoena that Devin Nunes was talking about, so I don't know if it relates to the EC that started the counterintelligence or if it relates to something else. Bottom line, are you— Are you prepared to pursue contempt charges against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as Devin Nunes stated earlier? I think that all members of Congress are going to need more information about what the request was and what the response from the Justice Department is. We don't have that. The problem, Maria, as you know, is that when Congress issues a subpoena, the enforcement arm is the Department of Justice. The problem is, when the subpoena is directed to the Department of Justice and they won't comply with the subpoena, Congress is left with the decision of whether or not to hold officials in contempt and ultimately seek impeachment. So it's not a great system. But I think before we go to those very extraordinary measures, everyone ought to have a better sense of what both Chairman Nunes and the Department of Justice are arguing about. Well, what tools do you have? I mean, if you're asking for these documents and you're not getting them and you're seeing that things are being slow-walked and ignored, what's the next move that you can do in order to get justice here, as you continue an investigation into the FBI and the DOJ's handling of the 2016 election? And that's exactly the problem that we've had, Maria. And one of the things that I think members of Congress will look at in regards to the Department of Justice's response to Chairman Nunes is, we've seen a number of documents where there has been slow-walking or stonewalling for different reasons, for various privileges, for national security concerns. And the Department of Justice, where I served, a department that I love, its hand has been weakened by the fact that as those documents, as Congress has pressed and those documents have come out, we found that a lot of the information that's been redacted or kept from public view have really reflected more on the department or the FBI and its senior officials and to save them from embarrassment or from potential infractions or misconduct. So you know, I do think that it's fair to ask these questions. I know that all members of Congress, you know, hopefully will get that information. We all need to have that information before we would go to the extraordinary measure of holding an attorney general in contempt of Congress. I certainly need that information. What about this? The federal judge presiding over the Paul Manafort case, Congressman. He's demanding that Robert Mueller's team show him the scope of their investigation into the alleged Russian collusion. Judge T.S. Ellis, as I was just talking with Michael Mukasey about, with a harsh rebuke to the special counsel, suggesting that Mueller only cares about information Manafort may have on the president. This is all an exercise to take down President Trump. And Ellis says Mueller should not be given, quote, unfettered power. What do you think this tells us about the special counsel investigation? Maria, the fundamental premise of our criminal justice system is that we investigate crime or suspicious activity. We don't investigate people with the intent of uncovering criminality. And it has appeared to many that maybe that's what the special counsel was doing with respect to Rick Gates and Paul Manafort and potential bank fraud in 2005 to create cooperational leverage against this investigation into Donald Trump. That's exactly the question that this judge raised on Friday. And he's the first independent person, a jurist, to raise this issue. And he has said, hey, it appears that you're attempting to use what Paul Manafort did in 2005 to get to Donald Trump in 2018. And I want to see your authority for that. I want to see the jurisdiction, the jurisdictional basis that you have to even raise these charges. Interestingly, the special counsel's response was, judge, you're not entitled to that. And the judge not so politely said, I'll be the judge of what I'm entitled to and produce it in the next two weeks. So we'll see where that goes. Well, what about this Mueller probe? I mean, you and I have spoken in the past. You know, it started with collusion. Then it went to obstruction. Now we're talking about payments made to Stormy Daniels. This investigation has clearly gone much further afield than we thought with the initial mandate of Russia collusion. Yeah, I think that, you know, very clearly there was a scope for the special counsel to be looking at Russian collusion. And it has gotten far afield of that. I think the judge in this case, interestingly, is maybe exercising some oversight that the Department of Justice hasn't been. I think this can be effectively narrowed down. The special counsel shouldn't be looking at, for instance, obstruction of justice at this point in time. Even setting aside the question of whether or not a president can be charged for something that the Constitution authorizes him to do in firing an FBI director, even to the extent you want to look at that, Jim Comey, through his actions, his words, and his writing has effectively torpedoed any obstruction of justice charges. So the special counsel ought to move on away from that and really look at what the core basis of his appointment was, which was whether or not there was any collusion between or coordination with the Trump campaign and Russians. Congressman, real quick, what should we expect from the IG report? This report is forthcoming. We're expecting it sometime in the month of May. I would expect that what the inspector general is going to find is that former FBI director Jim Comey violated his employment agreement, made multiple unauthorized disclosures or leaks of information, perhaps classified, but at least FBI documents, and has made demonstrably false statements to Congress and perhaps to investigators for the IG. So I will say this. I think that Michael Horowitz has proven himself to be a fair umpire with respect to calling balls and strikes. He had the courage to make a criminal referral of the deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe. And so I think if it's warranted that there is any criminality that needs to be referred with respect to Jim Comey or anyone else at the Department of Justice or the FBI, that Michael Horowitz will do that. And Michael Horowitz was supposed to be speaking and testifying in front of Trey Gowdy's committee, the Oversight Committee, but they pushed that back. Yeah, and I think that's a reflection of the fact that the inspector general is getting more information into the Hillary Clinton email investigation and improprieties or perhaps misconduct in how that matter was handled. He wants to be thorough and fair. So you know, I'd rather wait a week or two to get more information, because the more information that the inspector general can provide to Congress, the more oversight that we can provide and hold folks accountable to the extent that they need to be. All right. We will be watching this. As Kimberly Strassel wrote in her op-ed in the Journal on Friday, this puts a real spotlight on the credibility of the House's oversight authority. So we will be watching that, Congressman. Good to see you, sir. Thanks so much. You bet.