Rep. Jeff Van Drew says his constituents are 'worn out' by the Mueller investigation

close

Video

Rep. Jeff Van Drew says his constituents are 'worn out' by the Mueller investigation

New Jersey Democrat Rep. Jeff Van Drew says it's time for Republicans and Democrats to work together on the issues and pass new legislation.

This is a rush transcript from "Sunday Morning Futures," March 31, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

MARIA BARTIROMO, ANCHOR: Good Sunday morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. I'm Maria Bartiromo.

Joining me exclusively this morning here on "Sunday Morning Futures," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham is here. He is proposing a deep dive into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe after the special counsel finds there was no collusion.

We will also get his reaction to the crisis on the southern border and the president's latest push on health care, all this as the senator launches his own reelection campaign with a special guest alongside him.

Then, New Jersey Congressman Jeff Van Drew is here, joining us exclusively with Democratic reaction to the Mueller report, plus his take on that Senate vote on the Green New Deal last week. He's a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. Can he and fellow Democrats find common ground with Republicans to get anything done the next two years?

And former Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy is here. As a lawmaker, he was one of the first to raise questions about the Russian collusion narrative. Now there are questions as to how far Republicans should go in investigating the investigators.

All that as we look ahead right now on "Sunday Morning Futures."

And we begin this morning with Attorney General William Barr telling lawmakers that he expects to deliver a redacted version of the Mueller report by mid-April, a few weeks later than the deadline set by House Democrats. The special counsel investigation, of course, found that the Trump campaign didn't collude with Russia to influence the 2016 election, but deferred to Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on the question of obstruction.

They concluded the evidence didn't support that either.

Today, "Sunday Morning Futures" marks its fifth-year anniversary on the air. We promise to continue following the facts wherever they lead, and keeping you, our much appreciated viewer, as well-informed as possible.

For more than a year-and-a-half, this program has done just that with the Mueller investigation by asking the tough questions about the circumstances that actually led to it. We have continually brought back the Republican lawmakers who learned of critical information early on, that cast doubt on the collusion narrative.

We have challenged Democrats to respond to that evidence. And we have talked to the person at the center of the investigation himself, President Trump.

Let's take a look back now as the investigation unfolded to get us to where we are today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: We have been hearing bits and pieces of this so-called Russia probe, so-called collusion between Trump and the Russians, with absolutely zero evidence. Is that the insurance policy?

Was Peter Strzok basically saying to his mistress, look, we're just going to keep investigating Donald Trump, should he win?

TREY GOWDY, CONTRIBUTOR: Boy, it surely -- surely reads that way.

But the only way we're going to know that is to interview Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.

BARTIROMO: What bothers people out there is, you have to be able to trust your FBI, your CIA, your IRS, because there is a thing called the rule of law.

And what we have learned from some of these text messages is that there was a whole lot of bias and corruption going on at the top. Tell us what you have learned.

REP. BOB GOODLATTE, R-VA: Yes, and it's important to emphasize there are tens of thousands of great men and women who every day keep us safe, prevent terrorist attacks, solve crimes at the FBI.

But they are being besmirched by several people in the leadership of the FBI that have a shocking contrast in the way they took -- the approach they took to the Clinton investigation and the one they have taken to the Trump investigation.

BARTIROMO: You joined us four weeks ago on this program. At that time, you said you wanted to get the electronic communication from the Department of Justice and the FBI. You wanted that electronic communications to understand exactly how the Trump investigation into collusion even began.

You have now since seen the electronic communication, yes?

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: That's correct.

So it took us a long time to actually get this, what's called the electronic communication. As we know now, for your viewers, what that is, is it's the original intelligence, the original reasons that the counterintelligence investigation was started.

Now, this is really important to us, because a counterintelligence investigation uses the tools of our intelligence services that are not supposed to be used on American citizens. So we have long wanted to know, well, what intelligence did you have that actually led to this investigation?

So what we found now, after the investigators have reviewed it, is that, in fact, there was no intelligence.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: If you ask the FBI today, how much of the dossier is verified, almost none. And the verification comes from open media sources.

This dossier was prepared by a foreign agent paid by the Democratic Party and used to get a FISA warrant. And the FBI -- former FBI director didn't know that it was a political document paid by a political party. To me, that is stunning.

BARTIROMO: Right.

GRAHAM: Not only was the Clinton e-mail investigation a joke. The dossier was used inappropriately.

BARTIROMO: So how do you call yourself someone who agrees with and follows the rule of law if, in fact, you used a piece of garbage as the reason to wiretap and listen in on an American citizen?

Any comments on Peter Strzok and these testimonies that we're seeing Rod Rosenstein, Christopher Wray? Why don't you just direct your subordinates to get those documents over to Congress? Are you going to do it?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: So, I have this country running like a top. Mike Pompeo is doing great. We really have a great group of people.

The one thing I want to stay uninvolved in, at least for now -- I may get involved.

BARTIROMO: OK.

TRUMP: But I have been told by so many people, don't get involved.

BARTIROMO: Congress wants those documents.

TRUMP: You know, other people got involved, and it's not good.

And you will get the documents. And it's getting -- and they're getting them and they're great people. I didn't like the scene the other day where everybody's screaming at each other. I don't like that, because it's bad for the country.

If Russia is in fact looking to sow discord or chaos, they have got to be saying, this is the greatest thing we have ever done. OK? Now, there's no collusion with me. There's no Russia with me. There's no nothing.

BARTIROMO: I know.

TRUMP: It's -- it's -- honestly, it's a disgrace.

BARTIROMO: I see all of the evidence. I got it. And I understand, I think, what took place in 2016. And yet it hasn't resonated with the broad public as much.

It's incredible that they have thrown out their ideals, their values of all of the things we hold dear, our freedoms, wiretapping someone for no reason, because it's Donald Trump.

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Yes.

Number one, I'm really discouraged, as a former Justice Department official who gave 17 years of his life to the Justice Department, to see a Justice Department under Sessions that will do nothing about this.

BARTIROMO: They had informants trying to lure Trump campaign officials to get them into meetings. They had a media leak strategy, apparently, all the while knowing that there was no collusion.

I mean, this is just extraordinary, Congressman.

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TX: More than 70 witnesses appeared before the House Intelligence Committee. All of them were asked the same question. What evidence do you have of Russian collusion with Donald Trump or the Trump campaign? What evidence do you have of conspiracy? What evidence do you have of coordination?

And they battled 1000 in their response. These are folks like Susan Rice and Samantha Power, senior DOJ and department officials and intelligence and law enforcement officials. And they all said, we don't have any.

BARTIROMO: We have covered this a lot for the last year-and-a-half. And we know that there was real FISA abuse, where the FBI didn't tell the FISA judge who paid for the dossier that it was a political document, et cetera.

Are you going to pursue that? Are you going to seek the truth there?

REP. JIM HIMES, D-CONN.: Maria, that's -- that's not accurate.

BARTIROMO: What is not accurate, sir?

HIMES: And I have looked at every single one of the FISA affidavits.

That the Justice Department in any way misled the judge. I understand that that's the Republican talking point, but that's simply not accurate.

(CROSSTALK)

BARTIROMO: No, no, no, no, I didn't say misled.

They didn't tell the judge that the Democrats paid for the dossier. That's a fact.

How are you going to get anything done with all of this?

TRUMP: This should never happen to another president, what happened to me. They came up with an excuse for losing an election. This should never happen to another president, because most presidents wouldn't be able to take it.

I know the politicians. I know the president. I know what we're dealing with. Most people wouldn't be able to take it. Let me tell you something, Maria. What happened to me should never happen to another president of the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: And that clip was just one day before the actual summary was released by the A.G.

Joining me right now is South Carolina's Senator Lindsey Graham, the Senate Judiciary chairman, who has promised a deep dive on FISA abuse. The senator also sits on the Appropriations, Foreign Relations and Budget Committees.

And, Senator, it's good to see you this morning. Thanks so much.

GRAHAM: Thank you. Happy fifth anniversary.

BARTIROMO: Thank you so much, Senator.

Look, this is good news on the fifth anniversary here, because we know that we have been seeking the truth for the last year-and-a-half.

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: Kudos to you and your colleagues for bringing that information to us over the last year-and-a-half.

What are you going to do in terms of next steps?

GRAHAM: Well, there's three things I'm going to look at, as Judiciary chairman, the Clinton e-mail investigation.

Why did Comey take over the investigation? I would like to talk to Lynch and Comey. I would like to find out whether or not they basically were in the tank for Clinton and gave her a pass. When it comes to the counterintelligence investigation, I want to find out why they never went to Trump to tell him he may have a problem with people in his campaign working with the Russians.

They told Feinstein she had somebody in her office working the Chinese. Why didn't they do that with Trump? And the last thing is the FISA warrant. How could this document, the dossier, be used to get a warning against an American citizen four times, and it's still unverified to this day?

BARTIROMO: Yes.

It's interesting, because we have covered the fact that there were two investigations going on at the same time, the so-called Trump collusion, and the Hillary Clinton investigation into her e-mails.

GRAHAM: Right.

BARTIROMO: But based on the Lisa Page testimony that was released a couple of weeks ago by Doug Collins over in the House, she said that they got word at the FBI that the DOJ wasn't going to press charges.

So even before an interview with Hillary Clinton, even before the exoneration letter that Jim Comey wrote, they were told, don't even go there in terms of gross negligence, right?

GRAHAM: Yes, so it seems to me that she was interviewed not under oath. She had a couple of her staff people with her.

People in her campaign were given immunity without anything in return. Nobody in the Clinton e-mail investigation went to jail for lying about the process, because there was no process. And I know Bill Barr pretty well. And he's pretty upset about the way all this was handled.

And I don't know if he's going to have a special prosecutor to look at the probability of criminal misbehavior. I'm going to look at what happened from an oversight role. But I hope there's a special counsel appointed to look at DOJ corruption and political bias, because Mueller did his job against Trump.

Nobody's really looked at the Clinton campaign, the FISA warrant abuse or the counterintelligence investigation, criminality yet. And somebody should.

BARTIROMO: So could an investigation into Hillary Clinton be reopened at this point then?

GRAHAM: I'm not so much worried about retrying her, but I want to make sure that the public understands that she got away with something they wouldn't get away with.

I think it's important to understand that political bias probably drove the Clinton outcome, not the facts. I really don't believe that Comey just took over the investigation from Lynch based on a tarmac meeting.

I just want the American public to know that the standard used against Clinton is an outlier. It's not the way business is done. And why did they choose that path? I think they had a political bias. They wanted Clinton to win, Trump to lose.

And here's the point. How could she win if the Department of Justice indicted her? I think that's what drove the decision not to indict. They wanted her to win.

BARTIROMO: Well, I mean, you would think that William Barr, as the new attorney general, wants America to trust that the FBI and the DOJ are not getting politics involved in their investigations, that it's actually based on the rule of law.

GRAHAM: Right.

BARTIROMO: Do you think, as a result of that, he will seek this truth?

GRAHAM: Right.

Yes, I know he will seek this truth. And this -- my job is to find out how the system got off track, to provide oversight. Do we need to rewrite the FISA laws to make sure this never happens again? Do we need to have congressional rules about counterintelligence investigations of presidential campaigns?

But somebody needs to look at the behavior and see if they violated the law, like Mueller looked at the Trump campaign extensively. Nobody's taken a look at the other side. And I hope Bill Barr will either appoint a special counsel to do that or do it himself, because it's important that he -- that both campaigns be looked at, not just one.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

I mean, you have already delivered a ton of testimony and evidence for the -- for the attorney general to look at. You have also told us in the last several weeks that you're going to be asking the people who signed the warrant to spy on Carter Page to testify.

(CROSSTALK)

BARTIROMO: When are you going to be announcing that?

GRAHAM: Well, May 1, Barr is going to bring the Mueller report over.

And to all these people who believe that somehow the summary given by Attorney General Barr is an accurate, that's ridiculous. Do you think Bill Barr would risk his entire life's reputation by putting out a summary of a 400-page report that didn't get it right?

The conclusions are, there was no collusion, there was no obstruction. And we will see the whole report redacted for classified information and grand jury testimony -- grand jury testimony May the 1st.

And after that, I'm going to turn into -- turn toward looking at the counterintelligence investigation, how the Clinton e-mail investigation was handled and FISA abuse.

BARTIROMO: So, what about the full report? Do you think he should release the whole -- the full report?

GRAHAM: Yes.

BARTIROMO: Because, the last time I checked, our judicial system wasn't such that we say, oh, we have investigated you for two years, and we're deciding no charges. But, by the way, what you did here looked really shady and what you did there got us stuck on a couple of things.

GRAHAM: Yes.

BARTIROMO: I mean, it's either indictment or no indictment, chargers are no charges. But what do you think about releasing the full report?

GRAHAM: Well, Comey violated that principle by saying, we didn't find evidence of -- she was extremely careless, but not criminally liable for the Clinton e-mail debacle.

So what I want to do, this has been two years, $25 million. I want to protect grand jury testimony, protect classified information.

BARTIROMO: Right.

GRAHAM: But I want the public to see the underlying document.

This has been a cloud over President Trump for two years.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: That cloud has been removed.

And I want people to see why Barr concluded what he did and why Mueller concluded what he did.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

Let's take a short break. I want to get your feelings on how Trump reacted. You were with him last week.

We will be right back, more with Senator Lindsey Graham.

GRAHAM: OK.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: And we are back with Senator Lindsey Graham.

And, Senator, you were actually with the president a week ago when the report had just been released to the Congress, the summary from the A.G.

What was the president's mood? Were you guys talking about it?

GRAHAM: Well, he was very pleased that everything he'd been saying for two years proved to be right.

If you know President Trump -- and I have gotten to know him pretty well -- there is no way he sat down with the Russians and came up with a plan and followed it. He doesn't come up with a -- he doesn't collude with his own government.

So this whole thing was a -- was ridiculous, if you know the president. And it's proven to be ridiculous. And I told him about 1,000 times there's one person that can clear you of this, and it's Mueller.

And I want people to understand that Mr. Mueller for two years looked at this very hard. It came out with a conclusion there was no collusion. And Jim Clyburn said, as a Democrat, we need to move on. Adam Schiff represents a wing of the Democratic Party, the Oliver Stone wing of the Democratic Party, that will never let this go.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: Because they can't accept Trump being president.

This whole investigation has been pushed by people who believes that the election really never happened, when it did.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

Well, I mean, just to wrap up here on this, you're not expecting jail time. You're not expecting criminality to come out in terms of accountability. I know Devin Nunes is coming out with his...

GRAHAM: I don't know.

BARTIROMO: ... criminal referrals this week.

Where will the accountability be, them?

GRAHAM: Well, you need a special -- I'm not a prosecutor. And Horowitz is not a prosecutor.

So what I want is a prosecutor to look at the Clinton e-mail investigation to find out if there was criminal wrongdoing in the way it was handled. I want a prosecutor to look at whether or not they misused the counterintelligence tools inappropriately.

Did they break the law when they spied on Trump's campaign? I want a prosecute her look at whether or not those who signed the affidavit certifying that the dossier was reliable to the FISA court, did they misrepresent to the court?

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: Did they commit a crime?

I want a prosecutor look at this, not a politician.

BARTIROMO: Yes, that's good point.

All right, let me switch gears, ask you about this really threatening, drastic action against Mexico.

(LAUGHTER)

GRAHAM: Yes.

BARTIROMO: The president declared he's likely to shut down the border, the southern border, next week, unless Mexican authorities immediately halt all illegal immigration.

We have got two caravans coming -- two caravans coming to the country right now. Your reaction to the president's threat?

GRAHAM: Well, I mean, what are we supposed to do?

You have the Mexican government allowing thousands of people to walk all across Mexico. They provide them buses. They drop them off at the border, and they say, here, United States, deal with this problem.

We have had 100,000 people cross the border illegally in March alone. We're on track to over a million this year if this keeps up. So Mexico could help more. They should help more. The Triangle countries, 70 percent of the people coming here legally come from three countries.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: We need those countries to help more.

So if the president feels like that the only way to control this problem is to move the people from the port of entry to the ungoverned spaces where we need a wall, I will support him.

I hope we don't have to do that.

BARTIROMO: All right.

GRAHAM: To my Democratic friends, let's sit down and change these laws that entice people to come here illegally.

BARTIROMO: It's pretty extraordinary.

I want to keep talking about this and your reelection campaign. Stay with us, Senator Lindsey Graham.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT: I got to tell you, when you look at -- when you look at what Senator Lindsey Graham has meant to this nation, to our national defense, what he has meant to a growing economy, the way he stood shoulder to shoulder with this president in seeing more conservatives appointed to our federal courts in the last two years than any administration in American history, and now you see him, South Carolina, as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

PENCE: I'm here to say, we need six more years of Senator Lindsey Graham!

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: And we are back with Senator Lindsey Graham, after an exciting night.

He's just kicked off his 2020 reelection campaign with a little help from the vice president, Mike Pence.

(LAUGHTER)

GRAHAM: Yes, a little help.

BARTIROMO: Congratulations on that, Senator.

GRAHAM: Thanks. Thank you, Mike and Karen, for coming down and making a hell of a case for me to get reelected.

And, yes, I'm looking forward to it. I'm sold. I'm ready to vote for me. Let's do it.

(LAUGHTER)

BARTIROMO: Well, you got a lot of fans out there.

Now, I know that health care is obviously one of the most important issues in terms of your reelection, in terms of the president's reelection.

GRAHAM: Yes. Yes.

BARTIROMO: And the president this week said that the Republican Party is going to become the party of health care.

I don't know if everybody agrees with that, because you got to have a plan. Do you think the Republicans have a plan?

GRAHAM: Yes.

Yes, I think we have got a lot of good ideas. And I'm going to run on health care. I'm going to challenge my Democratic colleague, any Republicans, libertarians, vegetarians, to replace Obamacare.

We started out with five plans in South Carolina. We're down to one. Premiums went up 31 percent last year. Obamacare has failed in South Carolina. It needs to be replaced with plans that require the preexisting conditions to be covered, but more flexibility, more choices.

So I'm going to run on health care. My idea is to take the money in Washington, send it back to South Carolina, cover sick people, but let my state come up with a plan that fits South Carolina, and get out from this Obamacare umbrella in Washington that is crushing us.

The Supreme Court, I believe, will strike Obamacare down. The only reason Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare was because the individual mandate was considered to be a tax, and the government can tax almost anything.

Now the individual mandate has been struck out of the law, I think it falls. So here's my plan, to take the money in Washington, block-grant it back to the states, give the people of South Carolina control of this money, not some bureaucrat in Washington, and we will do a better job than anybody in Washington could ever hope to do for South Carolina.

That is my plan.

BARTIROMO: And we will be following that. And, of course, national security has been also a major theme for you. You have been a stalwart in terms of being strong for the military, not just our troops around the world, but also when it comes to cyber.

GRAHAM: Yes.

BARTIROMO: China is an issue. That's something else that you have been dealing with a lot.

We got some new data overnight, the China manufacturing gauge, the purchasing managers, hit a six-month high. It was actually a positive for the Chinese economy. But the economy there has weakened because of trade.

GRAHAM: Right.

BARTIROMO: What are your expectations in terms of a deal between the U.S. and China? And how much should we focus on things like Huawei and the risks to the U.S. national security as a result of all the espionage going on, Senator?

GRAHAM: Because of President Trump, this is the best chance we have had to stop China from cheating in my lifetime.

China steals our intellectual property. If you do business in China, they're required to have a Chinese business partner. They steal everything you own. They have state-run enterprises, that no business in South Carolina can compete with the government of China.

So Trump has decided to take China on. Their economy has been crippled because of these tariffs. We will get a great deal or we will have no deal at all. Somebody needs to bring China to heel. Somebody needs to make them play fair. And I'm standing behind President Trump.

When it comes to China, you have got to experience some pain to make them stop cheating us. So, in terms of the 5G movement here, Huawei, to our European friends, if you go into a Chinese 5G network, you're going to have a hard time doing business with the American economy and the American national security infrastructure, because it will become a spy platform.

So President Trump's done two things. He has put the world on notice. Watch when you buy Chinese technology. We can't do business with you if you go Chinese 5G. And he's also told the Chinese, your days of cheating are over.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: And we need to stand behind our president. And I will.

BARTIROMO: Mike Pompeo came on the show and talked about how he's trying to make the case to Europe, because they're pushing back, because the Huawei infrastructure was cheaper.

GRAHAM: Right.

BARTIROMO: What about North Korea? What's your take on where that goes next? Why did the president leave early that meeting with Kim Jong-un?

GRAHAM: Because he felt like Kim Jong-un wasn't serious about getting a deal.

You have got to be willing to walk if you ever want to get a good outcome. Nobody's had North Korea in the spot we have today, because probably Trump got North Korea's attention because he pushed back hard. He told them in no uncertain terms, you're going to give up your nuclear weapons and your missiles that can hit America, but I'm willing to give you a great deal in return.

We're talking in North Korea from a position of strength. He walked away. And I would suggest to the North Koreans, to the Chinese and to the Japanese and South Koreans that you help President Trump find a way to end this. Make sure that North Korea gives up their nuclear weapons, their missile technology that can threaten the American homeland, in return provide security and prosperity to North Korea.

Everybody before Trump talked a lot and did nothing. For the first time, we finally got North Korea's attention. And China needs to help us.

BARTIROMO: All of these issues are front and center for you in your reelection campaign. What are your priorities beyond that?

It feels like you're up against the Democrat platform that, in many ways, is looking more and more socialist, whether it's Medicare for all, Green New Deal, big, big federal programs that are running people's lives.

GRAHAM: Yes.

Medicare for all means Medicare for nobody. Can you imagine finally getting on Medicare, after waiting all these years, and Bernie Sanders invites 80 million of his closest friends to join you? That will collapse Medicare as we know it. It will be inferior health care.

My goal is to run on the idea that we should take the Obamacare dollars, block-grant them back to the states, make sure that sick people are covered, and allow states that figure this out, have innovation at the state level, because nobody's ever going to figure anything out in Washington. When it comes to the tax code, keep taxes down, do not destroy the economy by trying to help the environment.

The Green New Deal will never protect the environment, because it destroys the economy. That will be the end of the American economy. My goal is to put as many conservatives judges on the court as possible. President Trump's greatest legacy will be reshaping the court.

My goal is to stand behind the president to rebuild the military, stand up to China.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: Bring -- put Iran in a box, destroy ISIS, and stand by our friends like Israel.

I have got a very specific agenda.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

GRAHAM: And it includes health care.

BARTIROMO: All right, it's a tall order. Senator, we will be watching. Thanks so much for joining us this morning.

GRAHAM: Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Senator Lindsey Graham.

Next up, Blue Dog Coalition member Democrat Congressman Jeff Van Drew.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back.

We just heard from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham. The South Carolina Republican said that sensitive material from the nearly 400- page-long Mueller report should be redacted before it is released sometime in April.

Some Democrats, though, are pushing for the full report with no redactions. And they want that by this Tuesday, their deadline.

Let's bring in New Jersey Congressman Jeff Van Drew, a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and problem Solvers Caucus.

Congressman, it's good to see you again this morning. Thanks so much for being here.

Your reaction to all of this, Mueller report, and this push from your colleagues wanting the report ASAP?

REP. JEFF VAN DREW, D-N.J.: Real quickly, before we get into that, I just want to congratulate you on five great years.

As I said to you before, your intellectual honesty, your hard work, your willingness to listen to another viewpoint, you're a special person. This is a special show. Congratulations.

BARTIROMO: Oh, my goodness. Congressman, thank you so much for that. I'm honored. I appreciate that.

VAN DREW: You're very welcome.

BARTIROMO: Thank you.

VAN DREW: Well, it's true. And as far as -- look, certain areas do have to be redacted, for the safety of the people that are involved, because of the law itself, because of the nature of this counsel. This is special counsel and it is a different situation.

And it certainly requires that we do this carefully and thoroughly. It's going to come out in a relatively very short period of time. Everybody's going to get to look at everything. Both sides of the aisle want to see it. And then, hopefully, we are done with it.

BARTIROMO: Yes, I mean, what do you think about your colleagues continuing to push this narrative? You got Adam Schiff saying, oh, yes, the collusion is in plain sight and Eric Swalwell saying, oh, yes, there's collusion, and we know it, and we want to subpoena the attorney general.

Meanwhile, here you are in the middle, Blue Dog Coalition, trying to do things and come up with ideas to actually move the needle on growth and impact people's lives. I'm going to get into your ideas on health care and on drilling off the coast and why you think that that's also gotten bipartisan support, by the way.

And yet your colleagues are all in on just trying to take Donald Trump down.

VAN DREW: I'm telling you -- and I have said this before -- I get out in the street a lot. I talk to people a lot. I campaign a lot. I like to mix with people a lot. I get back to my district just about every single week.

And people ask me about health care. And they ask me about public safety. And they ask me about what's going on, on the border. And they ask me about Veterans Affairs. And they ask me about health care and many, many other issues.

You know what they don't ask me about?

(LAUGHTER)

VAN DREW: They don't ask me about the investigation.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

VAN DREW: They're getting worn out. They're getting tired.

We have got to wrap this thing up on both sides. Let's stop calling for Trump's impeachment. We're going to have an election in a year-and-a-half. Let's stop doing so much with this investigation. We're going to get all the facts. And all the information is going to be revealed to us.

If folks want to look on the other side and see what sparked the whole thing to begin with, and really how it came about, fine, but let's not prolong that forever either.

I don't know why it's so unbelievably hard for us to come together on many, not all -- there's always going to be differences -- but on many of the major issues and get stuff done.

BARTIROMO: Yes. I agree with you.

VAN DREW: That is why we are elected.

BARTIROMO: Especially since most people...

VAN DREW: And that -- and if you go out into the street...

BARTIROMO: Yes, especially since most people in America are hanging out in the middle.

You might lean to the right on some things...

VAN DREW: They are hanging out in the middle.

BARTIROMO: ... and lean to the left on other things, but you just -- you want what everybody wants, safety, security, family. So, it's crazy.

Where are the areas that you can work with the -- with the Republicans on? I mentioned drilling off the coast.

VAN DREW: I...

BARTIROMO: This is important to you. Why? Tell us,.

VAN DREW: Well, the drilling off -- and that is an area where we actually have worked on bipartisan, as far as votes and everything else.

So we have two pieces of legislation that are important. One would prohibit the seismic testing, which is these very, very loud seismic sounds that are used to test where there could be oil underneath the ocean, very harmful to the whales, very harmful to fish and fish life, hurts the fishing industry and hurts the tourism industry, as well as drilling offshore.

And I'm not saying you can't do research other areas, but offshore our coasts, in our oceans, these are huge multibillion-dollar industries that affect people's way of life, affect their future. And we have broad bipartisan support. We had...

BARTIROMO: Right.

VAN DREW: And I have never seen this before. I almost fell down.

BARTIROMO: Yes. So, you want to...

VAN DREW: We had environmentalists, Chamber of Commerce, Republicans and Democrats.

BARTIROMO: Yes. You want to ban drilling off the coast, but you're OK with drilling in the deep -- in the deep water?

VAN DREW: If it's appropriate in certain areas.

BARTIROMO: I see.

VAN DREW: But certainly off the coast in the ocean, no.

BARTIROMO: Health care, the president said that the Republicans will become the party of health care.

This is obviously, over and over again, among the top or second most important issue for voters. How do you fix it?

VAN DREW: Because -- well, it's the top because it's so expensive. People can't afford it, number one.

And, number two, they obviously want to be healthy and be taken care of. So it really is a big issue, and where the Republicans, quite frankly -- and I call -- when I think Democrats make mistakes, I say it. When Republicans make mistakes, I say it.

They wanted to repeal Obamacare, but, absolutely, at least at that time, had no plan at all. So I want to see their plan. I want to see a substantive plan that is going to supply health care to our constituents at a lower cost, but is still going to be quality health care, still going to allow you to visit your doctor and have that relationship, and something that's going to work.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

VAN DREW: Now, I heard Senator Graham. It's an intriguing idea.

But I really want to know, is that going to supply -- it needs to be looked at more. The devil is in the details with this.

BARTIROMO: Well, we know all of that...

VAN DREW: How is the health care going be in New Jersey and every state?

BARTIROMO: What you just said is not Medicare for all. And that's Bernie Sanders' plan.

VAN DREW: No.

BARTIROMO: And that's what many of the hopeful...

VAN DREW: I do not support that.

BARTIROMO: Yes. One of the -- many of the hopefuls to 2020 have -- have endorsed that plan.

They're also endorsing the Green New Deal. But look what happened last week, when everybody had a chance to actually put their money where their mouth was. They were either present or no vote. They were not there.

It got a big thumbs down, something that you were early on in saying, this makes no sense.

VAN DREW: Early on. It doesn't make any sense, costs trillions of dollars.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

VAN DREW: We could never afford it. It would completely change our lifestyle.

Because of the very nature of -- and you can't even call it a plan -- of whatever it is. It's a number of amorphous ideas.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

VAN DREW: You can't keep the same form of capitalistic government that we even have to do.

And let me talk about -- same thing with Medicare. If our seniors are worried about Medicare, they really should worry if we have Medicare for all.

BARTIROMO: Yes. Well...

VAN DREW: We just have to make sure that we can supply the Medicare that we have for our seniors now and keep that commitment.

BARTIROMO: Yes. It's -- increasingly, it's looking like a race of capitalism vs. socialism. It really is.

Congressman, it's good to see you this morning. Thank you so much. We will be watching the developments. And we thank you for your time.

Trey Gowdy on the Mueller report is up next. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE CONAWAY, R-TX: Your willingness to continue to promote a demonstrably false narrative is alarming. The findings of the special counsel conclusively refute your past and present assertions and have exposed you as having abused your position to knowingly promote false information.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: You might think it's OK that the campaign chairman of a presidential campaign would offer information about that campaign to a Russian oligarch in exchange for money or debt forgiveness. You might think that's OK. I don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: Wow.

All nine Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee calling for Congressman Adam Schiff to resign as chairman of the committee in the wake of the Mueller report. They accuse the California Democrat of misleading the public by citing evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, even after the report cleared the president of such a charge.

Joining me right now is Fox News contributor Trey Gowdy. He is a former Republican congressman from South Carolina. And he is the former chairman of the House Oversight Committee. He is also a former federal prosecutor.

And, Congressman, it's always a pleasure to see you. Thanks so much for joining us.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Well, assess that. I mean, have you ever seen anything like that? Nine Republicans are asking the chairman to step down? What is your reaction to Adam Schiff's behavior?

GOWDY: Never seen that before. We had a lot of bad days the eight years I was in Congress, but we never voted to remove or ask a chairperson to step down.

Adam is a deeply partisan person. He did everything he could to make sure that Hillary Clinton became the next president. And he's done everything he could since he failed at that to keep a cloud over the Trump presidency.

So the folks on the House Intelligence Committee on the Republican side, Maria, are not members of the crazy caucus. They're not bomb throwers. It's Elise Stefanik. It's Will Hurd, who was a CIA employee. It's Johnny Ratcliffe, who was a terrorism prosecutor.

It's not part of the crazy caucus. These are reasonable Republicans, all of whom unanimously said, Adam, we have lost confidence in your ability to lead.

And I think the next thing that's going to happen is the different intelligence communities, the different intelligence entities are going to say, you know what, Chairman Schiff? If you don't believe the information we provide to you, if you prejudge the outcome of the investigations, if you have the president of the United States not just indicted, but in jail, and you continue to leak like a screen door on a submarine, we're going to quit giving you information.

That's when Pelosi will replace Adam Schiff with someone like Jim Himes, who's every bit as progressive. He's just a lot smarter and a lot more reasonable.

BARTIROMO: Right. You make a lot of good points, because here's a guy who's running around with his title and spewing out things that are actually coloring people's knowledge of what actually went down.

You questioned John Brennan, the same story here. He is a former director of the CIA. So when you hear that title, you see that resume, you stop and you listen.

And yet it was back in May of 2017 when you poked holes in his idea that the president had committed treason. He used that word on CNN many times. Here's that exchange between you and Brennan last year.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOWDY: It's a really simple question. Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts?

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals.

And it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals. I don't know whether or not such collusion -- and that's your term -- such collusion existed. I don't know.

But I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring and colluding with Russian officials.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BARTIROMO: Sufficient basis?

And let me correct myself. That was two years ago. Two years ago, you poked holes in this narrative. How did this happen, Congressman? So why did -- how do you launch a major investigation into a candidate who's running for president based on no predicate?

GOWDY: Well, let me first note, Maria, that was a Republican asking the question about collusion, because you would never know that if you read The Washington Post and The New York Times

They wanted you to believe that Republicans didn't care about collusion. That was a Republican on national television asking about collusion.

BARTIROMO: That's right.

GOWDY: It began because of a guy named Peter Strzok, with his historic animus towards Trump, in July of 2016 launching a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign.

This was about 10 days before he talked about an insurance policy. It was after he said Clinton should win 100 million to nothing. It was after he said Trump would be destabilizing for our country. It was just before he said he had no interest in being part of the special counsel, unless it led to impeachment.

That's the guy who started the counterintelligence investigation into President Trump. But that's the same investigation and a lot of my Republican colleagues now want you to read the report. It was a flawed ab initio, from its inception, investigation.

And now some of my Republican colleagues want you to read a report on a flawed ab initio investigation.

BARTIROMO: Right.

Yes, that's what I want to ask you next. Should the whole report be released? Don't answer yet.

We will take a short break. Trey Gowdy is with us this morning.

And we will be right back and taking a look at that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BARTIROMO: Welcome back. We are back with Trey Gowdy right now.

And, Trey, you said a minute ago this was based on a faulty investigation from the start. What about the A.G. releasing the full Mueller report? Where are you on that?

GOWDY: Maria, I bifurcated the investigation and therefore the report.

Part of it is, what did Russia do in 2016? I am all for my fellow citizens understanding what Russia tried to do to this country. I think it'll be unifying.

The other part of the equation is with whom, if anyone, did they do it? And Mueller -- Adam and Swalwell and Beto, they all talk about evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what it takes to convict. Mueller didn't even find the lowest level of evidence, that anyone in the Trump campaign did it with Russia.

There's not even probable cause. So, I realized the populist thing to do is say, release it all, which, by the way, is against the law. You can't release it all. Let's assume you could just release what you can that is not classified.

We are now in the uncharted territory of releasing reports on people for whom there is not even the lowest level of evidentiary standard, not even probable cause. And once you begin to go down that path, where you're going to issue reports and do press conferences on people who are not indicted, for whom there's -- there's no evidence they committed a crime, then we're in a brand-new day politically, when the department can do oppo research on a campaign, and then, under the guise of a report, release it, but never charge them.

I hope we never get to that point. And that's why I'm in a very small minority that doesn't think that part of the report should be made public. I realize I'm in the minority, but I'm not a populist.

BARTIROMO: Yes.

I noticed that John Ratcliffe took a little walk when the vote came, so he also agrees, don't release it, because it's not right, and for all the reasons you just mentioned.

Look, as I think about this, I feel like this whole thing started by the Clinton machine. Hillary Clinton wanted dirt on Donald Trump. She paid for the dossier. They protected her for her own investigation. It's just extraordinary where we are, as we look back.

Congressman, it is good to see you this morning. Thank you.

GOWDY: Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

BARTIROMO: Trey Gowdy joining us there.

And thank you all, our great audience, for five great years of "Sunday Morning Futures." Thanks for being there for us.

I will see you tomorrow morning on FOX Business from 6:00 to 9:00 a.m. Eastern for "Mornings With Maria."

And stay with Fox News right now, because "Media Buzz" with Howie Kurtz is up next after this short break.

Have a good Sunday.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.