Rep. Biggs trashes Russia investigation as 'thoroughly discredited and debunked' after Mueller op-ed
House Judiciary member says ex-FBI director may not have much more to tell lawmakers.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}House Judiciary Committee member Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., told “America’s Newsroom” Monday that he believes former Special Counsel Robert Mueller felt compelled to defend his actions over the weekend because “his investigation has been thoroughly discredited and debunked.”
On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., announced that he will grant a request by Democrats to call Mueller to testify about the Russia investigation.
In a Washington Post op-ed, Mueller defended the prosecution and conviction of Roger Stone, which originated from his investigation, after President Trump commuted Stone's sentence. Mueller also defended the conduct of the investigation as a whole, writing that he felt "compelled to respond both to broad claims that our investigation was illegitimate and our motives were improper."
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}ROBERT MUELLER DEFENDS STONE CONVICTION, RUSSIA INVESTIGATION AFTER SHARP CRITICISM FROM WHITE HOUSE
“This Roger Stone thing, think about this, we know this was politically driven,” Biggs said on Monday. “All you have to do is take a look at the SWAT Team coming in to get the guy that you are arresting for process crimes and CNN being there live on the spot. You don't see that kind of thing happen anywhere else.”
Biggs claimed that "normally," Stone's attorney would be asked to have the longtime GOP operative turn himself in, but "that’s not what happened here."
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Trump tweeted Saturday that Stone "was targeted by an illegal Witch Hunt that never should have taken place."
When asked if he supported Graham's decision to have Mueller testify, Biggs said, “I don't know how much more they’re going to get from Mr. Mueller … since he testified so weakly in front of the House a year ago.”
In July 2019, Mueller testified before two House committees on the FBI's investigation into Russian interference during the 2016 election campaign.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}Biggs pointed out that Russia probe documents declassified by then-acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell showed “that all these folks, [former Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper and [former CIA director John] Brennan, [and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations] Samantha Power etc., they knew there was no collusion, they testified under oath privately and then publicly they tried to foment this insurrection based on it.”
“So I think for that purpose it might be very instructive and illuminating to get after Mr. Mueller again, but he’s not going to be very good if he's anything like he was a year ago,” Biggs continued.
“What is the biggest risk to you politically if Robert Mueller was to agree to testify?” asked host Sandra Smith.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“The biggest risk that I would see is that he comes in and gives an incredible performance, but it's just not going to happen because Mr. Mueller himself said … in that op-ed, he said there was no collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign,” Biggs said in response. “He said that under oath a year ago and so what he's basically saying, and he has to do this, he has to come out and defend his investigation.”
"The only risk," Biggs added, "is that you dredge this whole thing back up just a couple months before the election.”
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}"The reality is," the lawmaker continued, "Mr. Mueller is going to have a very tough time convincing the American public that his prosecution, his investigations were not politically driven when we have the transcripts saying they knew, and he admits they knew, that there was no collusion early on.”
Fox News’ Ronn Blitzer and Brooke Singman contributed to this report.