FOX NEWS Ratcliffe discusses the Democrat FISA memo

Our Republican Congressman John Ratcliffe, who is a former U.S. attorney and member of the House Judiciary Committee. He's also one of the few people to have reviewed the application that the FBI submitted to the FISA court to obtain a warrant and to do surveillance on that former informal Trump campaign official, Carter Page, who's at the center of all this. All right, so that's a long introduction of you, but I want everybody to know what a key player you are in all of what's happening now. My first question for you, when the president has these five business days, what is the process compared to what it went through for the GOP memo, and do you think that the outcome will be similar? Well, Harris, good to be with you. The process should be exactly the same. I would hope that the minorities memo goes through the same FBI and Department of Justice review for sources and methods. I've reviewed the Democratic memo. It's 10 pages long, and I'm of the opinion that there are sources and methods, considerable sources and methods, that need to be heavily redacted or edited, and I would hope that that would take place before it's declassified and made public. But at the end of the day, I'm for, and every Republican was for, the disclosure of the Democratic memo, just like the Republicans, so the American people can make up their minds about these issues themselves. So when you hear Democrats say, no, those changes or redactions will be made along political lines and not so much about sources and methods, what do you say? I can only tell you, Harris, that I've looked at it, and when the Democratic memo talks about intelligence assets that are well-placed and give details to which I can figure out where that person works or where they're located in a certain country, I think that country could figure it out as well. And so those are the things that I think need to be edited out. That's what we talk about when we talk about sources and methods. Yeah. You know, as I hear this, Judge Napolitano was on with us a little while ago. He said that he felt that there was a short phrase in the GOP memo, long-time FBI asset, as it was talking about a person in that memo. Is there a danger that with putting all this out in the public's eye, that it changes the relationship that House Intel Committee has with the FISA court? Well, I think that there is always good to have tension between the branches when it comes to these issues. Congress has an oversight role with respect to the Department of Justice and the FBI, and we're exercising that. So I think it's good for the people to see that sometimes we're not always working together, but we're working against to the extent that we're trying to highlight potential abuses and bring those into public view so that there is accountability. You know, I want to boil this down to the takeaway for the American public, and that is will these memos be so different that there will be a judgment that has to happen on the facts? Because I always say the facts are not fungible. They are just simply what they are. So are you in agreement on what the facts are? Well, I think that if the Democratic memo, the 10-page memo is declassified, I will tell you what it does not say. It does not say that the FISA court was ever told that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for the dossier that was used to gain a warrant against a Trump associate. That is the most important fact with regard to what was before the FISA court. Was there a legitimate legal basis to obtain a warrant on an American citizen? And the Democratic memo takes a tortured process over 10 pages to relate how the court could have figured it out and how certain terms could have been interpreted, but they never say that. And more importantly, Harris, I've reviewed the underlying documents, and those presented to the court don't say that either. Oh, that's interesting. So you're one of the few lawmakers that we know of that have been able to see what I call that supporting evidence, what the rest of us can't see, why you come to the conclusions that you did. What can you share in terms of that process that is important for us to know? Well, just like Trey Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor like myself, and having experience with making submissions to courts, I can just tell you that without getting into the details of the information, there were representations that were made to the FISA court and FISA judge that I wouldn't have been willing to sign off on. I think that there were jumps in logic that were made, sources weren't corroborated. And so I think that some of the representations that were made, I would not have been comfortable as someone with FISA experience making those representations to a FISA judge. As I understand it, Congressman, and this would actually be very troubling, is the Democratic memo, then the rebuttal part of it, trying to defend the fact that the FISA court was not told that this specific political party was paying for an anti-Trump dossier? Well, the Democratic memo is trying to defend a lot of things. It's trying to defend folks like Bruce Ohr and Peter Strzok, folks whose actions have been rightly called into question here and now are in plain view of the American people. When you read the Democratic memo, they canonize those individuals and they do everything to say that their efforts are to preserve the FBI and the Department of Justice. But I'm more proud, Harris, of my association with the Department of Justice than I am my association with Congress as an institution. And what we're trying to do in this process is to restore people's faith and trust in those institutions so that they don't suffer the same kind of public approval ratings that Congress has. Congressman, before I let you go, because you're talking about the Justice Department there, the Democratic memo has also, without the request, I would imagine, of the DOJ, been given this memo. It was just a short time ago that the DOJ stepped in and said, with a warning letter to the House Intel Committee and Republican members, hold off until we've seen it. Why the difference in the process there? Or am I wrong about that? If there is a difference, Harris, there shouldn't be. The process should be exactly the same. Remember, the Democrats said that everything in the Republican memo threatened the integrity of the Department of Justice and that we were putting sources and methods out there. And then when it came out, they said, oh, it was a dud. There was nothing to it. So, you know, I think the hypocrisy is pretty clear with respect to the arguments that the minority party is making because they want to become the majority party. Congressman Ratcliffe, we appreciate your time. We know there's a lot going on right now with all of this and a potential shutdown deadline as well. So thank you very much for stepping up and talking with us this hour. You bet. Thanks, Harris.