FOX NEWS Ratcliffe discusses Democrats FISA Memo

The House Intelligence Committee, of course, releasing a redacted memo yesterday by the Democrats after President Trump blocked its release two weeks ago over security concerns. There were methods and sources in there. In this memo, the committee's top Democrat, Adam Schiff, refutes claims in the Devin Nunes memo. He states that the FBI and the Justice Department did not abuse their surveillance powers when they sought a FISA warrant. But the rebuttal leaves out key facts about the FISA Russia investigation and how it came to the decision to investigate former Trump campaign officials. We want to bring in Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe right now, one of only three lawmakers who has seen the intel behind both memos. He sits on both the House Judiciary and the Homeland Security Committees, and he's a former federal prosecutor. Good to see you, Congressman. Thanks very much for joining us. Hi, Maria. Your most important takeaway from this Democratic memo. Most important takeaway is on page five of the Democratic memo, where they admit that although Hillary Clinton and the DNC were not disclosed to the FISA court, they argue that the court was provided with sufficient information from which to understand the political context of Steele's dossier. The problem with that is they're saying the court could have figured it out, and that's not the standard. The court, the FISA court, must be told. They must be told clearly, expressly, unequivocally and fully. And in this case, they clearly were not told about Hillary Clinton and the DNC, about Steele hating Trump and being desperate from keeping him to becoming president, or his relationship with Bruce Ohr and his wife at the Department of Justice, or the fact that Steele was the source of the Michael Isikoff Yahoo article. All of those things should have been disclosed expressly to the FISA court and weren't, and the Democratic memo acknowledges that. Yeah, so they're trying to— That's the primary takeaway. That's the primary takeaway, because they're trying to say, oh, it was in a footnote that maybe it was politically motivated, but you just stated it right out, as your colleague Devin Nunes did this weekend at CPAC. Here's what Congressman Nunes said on Saturday. One of the things in the Democratic memo that they're all hot to talk about is that in a footnote before the FISA court, they had put in a very convoluted, complicated answer for something that was—and it's buried at the end, OK, of the application, about that this was politically motivated. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier just to say, hey, Mr. Judge, we want to let you know that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party paid a lawyer who hired a firm who hired a foreign agent to go to the Russians and get dirt on Mr. Trump? So there you go. I mean, they investigated and wiretapped somebody because they could. They saw an opening. Isn't that right, Congressman? It is. And as Devin said, you know, it would have been easier. But what he didn't say was it was also required. Again, the FISA court is an ex parte proceeding where the other side is not represented. So the government has the duty for full disclosure. Maria, as federal prosecutors, we had that obligation in every criminal case to give to the other side, even when they're represented, the worst parts of the case, all of the exculpatory evidence. And that's where a party is represented. Imagine what the burden is when they're not represented. And that's where we get into what should have been expressly told to the court that very clearly wasn't. The other point I think that is worth emphasizing here is that Adam Schiff goes at length to talk about the fact that Republicans criticize FBI agent Peter Strzok and DOJ lawyer Bruce Orr and that they're unfairly maligned in this process. You know who doesn't think Orr instructed a good job? The FBI and the Department of Justice. Unless of course you believe that FBI agent Peter Strzok asked to go from counterintelligence agent to human resources clerk, or you believe that Bruce Orr asked to be demoted not once but twice in a two week period. The FBI knows and the Department of Justice know that they have a problem with the conduct of those individuals. And that's why we've seen, what, about 10 people either reassigned or fired from the Department of Justice or the FBI in the last six months. I mean, obviously just reassigning people for personal reasons doesn't tell the story. But there are people who seem to be losing their position as a result. But people want to know how will justice be served, Congressman. I mean, there's clearly nothing new here. And the Democrats have, well, they have done what they wanted to do, and that is muddy the water. So tell us, where's the justice? Well, I think that we're putting a spotlight and bringing attention on processes here that the public hasn't seen before. And I will say, in the long term, I think dueling memos from Republicans and Democrats about national security issues is not healthy for the national security debate. But Maria, we ought to be able to, as members of Congress, agree on what is an abuse of the FISA process. And one of the most troubling takeaways here is that you have members of the House Intelligence Committee that apparently, when presented with clear evidence of what is a FISA abuse, don't recognize it. And so that's one of the focuses and takeaways here that I think we need to continue to explore. Yeah, there are way too much politicization going on in these important agencies. We're going to get the Inspector General report in March. What are you expecting from that report? Because if it weren't for the IG, we would not have known about all of the incredible bias at the top of the FBI. I do expect that to be out in about a month. And what I expected to say is that when Adam Schiff says that the FBI and the Department of Justice did everything right in this process, that the Inspector General will disagree with that. I think that the Inspector General will find significant departures of policies and procedures and protocols and precedents at the FBI and the Department of Justice, and that they're significant. So, you know, we'll see. It'll be about a month before we get that. But that's what I fully expect because, again, as a former federal prosecutor, Maria, I see one unprecedented coincidence after another in these cases of things that I have never seen before in my time as a federal prosecutor dealing with national security issues. So you think people will be held accountable then? I do. And I think that that's part of having this discussion in the public view right now is ultimately healthy so we can make the reforms that are necessary to some of these processes. Congressman, thanks so much for joining us this morning. We appreciate it. You bet.