Ratcliffe on FOX: Comey's Memos Hurt Mueller's Case

So let's bring in Republican Congressman John Radcliffe of the House Judiciary Committee. He is a former U.S. attorney. What do you make of that last point that, you know, lawmakers were begging for a very long time to take a look at these memos that he was freely sharing with a bunch of people that were outside government or tangentially related to it and then leak it? Well, Melissa, good to be with you. I thought the interview that Jim Comey gave last night was interesting in that he said that he's not concerned about any legal jeopardy for leaking or for lying. But at the same time, when you start adding lawyers to your legal team like he's been doing, I think that indicates otherwise. Right now, it's fair to say that we have more questions than answers. Why was Daniel Richman hired? When was he hired? What security clearances did he have? I do think that some of these answers, Melissa, can come from the impending inspector general report and Michael Horowitz has proven himself to be fair with respect to calling balls and strikes as evidenced by the fact that he made an unprecedented criminal referral of the former deputy director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe. Well, as a former U.S. attorney, I mean, looking at this through a legal eye, what you heard so far, is there law breaking in there? Well, I know the president certainly tweeted that today, and I understand the president's frustration. The former FBI director in one of their first meetings said, I don't do sneaky things and I don't leak. But then in a pretty sneaky way, went out to his car and created a memo that he later leaked. But so I understand why the president's unhappy about that. But his legal team really ought to be elated by some of the things that Jim Comey has said and done. I think it has a significant impact on the president's legal position as it pertains to any charges that Bob Mueller as the special counsel would pursue. Like what? I mean, what did you hear specifically and how would it impact the president's case? Well, remember, the special counsel has to prove any criminal allegations to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the special counsel wants to prove that the president was obstructing or colluding, the fact that the former FBI director, who has nothing good to say about this president in his own memo, in his own words on March 30th, 2017, admits that the president asked him to find out if anyone with his campaign was colluding with the Russians. That's the opposite of obstruction. That's the opposite of interfering. That in and of itself creates reasonable doubt. What about the idea that he said, can't you let the thing with Mike Flynn go? You know, other words to that effect. Those weren't the exact words, but you know what I'm talking about. First of all, you have to keep in mind that that that conversation, as it's related by Jim Comey, is now impacted by his own credibility. Just in the last week, we've seen Jim Comey contradicted by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. He's been contradicted by his former deputy director, Andrew McCabe, and he has contradicted himself in some of the things that he has said and done. But even setting that issue aside, there are real questions about whether or not the president would have any problem, even if that statement were true, as related by Jim Comey. Because the president has the ability to end a counterintelligence probe at any time for any reason. And prosecutorial discretion is vested in the president with regard to criminal matters. So it's a really difficult case to begin with. But when you layer on that Jim Comey's credibility and now the reasonable doubt from Jim Comey's memos, I think it's going to be really difficult for Bob Mueller to pursue any credible charges against the president. I listen. I will say this. I think that Bob Mueller can write the definitive narrative with regard to whether or not the how the Russians tried to interfere with our election. But I'm increasingly convinced, in part by what Jim Comey has said and done lately, that that narrative would not include anything regarding Donald Trump. In terms of Comey himself, you know, a lot of people have made the case. This is what goes on in government. There's a lot of leaking. The FBI has always done that. There are those who leak, you know, out of prosecutor's office in order to get a certain narrative out there. It's really not that big of a deal. You have a lot of experience in all these different fields. What do you think about what James Comey did? Is it OK or was it wrong in terms of the leaking of information? I think it's incredibly inappropriate and possibly illegal. And I think that's why the inspector general is looking at this. Listen, I handled countless classified matters. And my wife doesn't know about any of them, because as much as I love her, I don't look good in orange. And leaking classified information is a crime and should be treated as such. Did he cover his bases then by giving the information to someone with the clearance and then having that person leak it? I mean, that's what it's starting to look like, that he understood exactly what was legal and wasn't. And he basically got someone else to do it for him. Well, if that was the strategy, then it also raises the question about whether he testified truthfully to Congress, because he did not give full disclosure to Congress about the status of Daniel Richman. So half-truths to Congress can also raise questions. So I don't know if this was an intentional strategy by Jim Comey, but I think it's placed him in potential legal jeopardy. And at the same time, I think it goes a long way towards making it difficult for Bob Mueller to prove any of the obstruction or collusion-related charges as it pertains to Donald Trump. Congressman Ratcliffe, thanks for joining us. We appreciate your time today. You bet. Thanks, Melinda.