Rosenstein admits: Mueller had no evidence of collusion early in probe

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 2, 2020 (screenshot)

Democrats complained Wednesday that the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing featuring former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was a distraction from the dual crises confronting the nation.

But Republican senators, while noting they can walk and chew gum at the same time, pointed out there was no bigger "distraction" from the business of government in the first three years of the Trump adminstration than the investigations of alleged Trump campaign collusion with Russia.

And Rosenstein's stark admission Wednesday should have been enough to make even the most baldly partisan Democrat sit up and take notice.

The former deputy AG admitted that by August 2017 -- within three months of his appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel -- there was no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Yet the probe went on for another year and a half.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the chairman of the committee, posed the question.

"The whole concept, that the campaign was colluding with the Russians, there was no 'there' there in August of 2017, do you agree or not?"

"I agree with the general statement," replied Rosenstein.

Graham was alluding to a May 2017 text from lead FBI counterintelligence investigator Peter Strzok telling his bureau lawyer paramour, Lisa Page, that he was reluctant to leave his senior post and join the Mueller probe because he feared "there's no big there, there."

McCabe 'not fully candid with me'

In the hearing Wednesday, amid sharp criticism of his handling of the investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the matter, Rosenstein pointed a finger at then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, saying he was "not fully candid with me."

Rosenstein also denied knowing that in January 2017 the FBI field office recommended that Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn be removed from the case.

Asked whether or not his awareness of that fact would have mattered, Flynn replied, "Yes."

FBI documents unsealed this month in court show Stzrok insisted on continuing the Flynn investigation despite the lack of evidence. Strzok and another agent then conducted the "ambush" interview in the White House that led to Flynn pleading guilty to lying. Flynn has since withdrawn the plea, pointing to evidence that he didn't lie and that FBI agents had plotted a "perjury trap." The DOJ has filed a motion to dismiss the case.

'How could this happen?'

Significantly, Rosenstein also told senators at the hearing Wednesday that he would not have signed the renewal of the FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page if he had been aware of information withheld from the court that would have exonerated the onetime Trump campaign adviser.

That included the fact that the primary evidence submitted, the Steele dossier, was unverified and funded by the Democratic Party.

Rosenstein initially said he read the renewal request but later conceded he had not read "every page."

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., pressed Rosenstein on why he approved the application and called it "above-average."

"How could you sign off on something with this number of mispresentations if the FISA court later said this destroys our trust in the FBI" You signed off on it personally," he said. "How could this happen?"

Rosenstein argued that four federal judges also signed off on it.

"They, like me, they believed that the information had been verified and accurate," he said.

"Did they have a duty to verify the information?" Hawley shot back.

"No, the agents had a duty," Rosenstein said.

"You did not have a duty to verify the information?" the senator asked.

The former deputy attorney general said he had "a duty to make sure it had been verified."

"Did you rubber stamp it?" Hawley asked.

After a back and forth, the senator noted Rosenstein previously admitted he didn't read the whole application.

"You know, senator," Rosenstein said, "I have to explain the process."

"Oh, I think we're familiar with the process," Hawley interjected. "The [Office of the Inspector General] gave us the process. By the time it got to you, you had 17 critical errors, falsehoods, omissions, leading a federal court to say they have never seen anything like this, and they can't trust anything else the FBI says. And you signed off on it."

See the hearing: