Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) recently appeared on Fox News with Tucker Carlson to talk about the mess at the DoJ and the FBI. During the conversation, Johnson pointedly asked the FBI what they “were hiding” and what they were trying to “cover up”?

It’s a good question and one that every American deserves an answer to.

Trending: Immigration: There’s a BIG Difference between Then and Now!

TUCKER CARLSON: The question is your office released today the draft of this Comey speech and it’s pretty clear that somebody changed it in Hillary’s favor. Any reasonable person can conclude that. The question is who? You’ve asked the FBI to explain who made these edits? Why won’t they respond?

take our poll - story continues below

Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?

  • Has Big Tech Gone Too Far Banning the President?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

SEN. RON JOHNSON: They don’t believe they need to or they have to. They’re not going to be compelled to, apparently. What’s really interesting about this is this new draft statement was done months before they completed the interviews. The FBI, again, this investigation into Clinton’s email really was not meant to uncover the truth leading to prosecution. From my standpoint it was meant to cover up the truth and exonerate Hillary Clinton. And the fact that the FBI Director basically writing a letter exonerating Hillary Clinton. But in that letter, in the earlier drafts, he was using the term gross negligence a number of times. He was talking with the sheer volume of material that would be classified which would be one of the standards in terms of why he would prosecute her and he talks about, not just the volume there. But he earlier had the sheer volume that would indicate this.

There’s so many things in the initial statement that would lead to people saying why didn’t you indict And I remember when he held that news conference. I had attorneys that were prosecutors and he was going through the evidence, people were going, man, he is going to indict her. And then he doesn’t indict her.

CARLSON: But it doesn’t make any sense. The letter you sent today lays out the timeline and it’s certainly interesting. So the draft was written in the beginning of May in 2016. Comey didn’t read it in public until two months later. When it was written, basically exonerating Hillary Clinton, they had not interview Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and about a dozen other people. So that just looks like a sham to me.

JOHNSON: Well then you take a look at the immunity agreements they gave to Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson. They basically blocked the FBI from looking at certain emails for certain time frames that would have proven potentially obstruction of justice. They allowed them to then destroy their computers. This is not an investigation serious of uncovering the truth.

CARLSON: So if I am looking at this at home and I don’t live in Washington why shouldn’t I conclude that the powerful get a pass? If I did this I’d be charged with a felony. If someone powerful like Hillary Clinton does it, she gets off.

JOHNSON: That’s the problem. We have seen now with this Lois Lerner in the IRS politicizing the more fearsome government agency from the standpoint from most Americans, used it as a political weapon. We’ve seen the politicization of the FBI. So we are losing confidence in these institutions that should be bedrocks of our democracy.

And again, I have no idea why the FBI doesn’t just come clean and provide this information to Congress. What are they trying to hide? What are they trying to cover up?

CARLSON: Have they explained this to you? How can you exonerate someone before interviewing that person or other key figures in the investigation? A really simple question. Have they answered that?

JOHNSON: No, absolutely not. Other than hiding behind the NDA, they are not telling us why they won’t release this information.

CARLSON: So you’re a co-equal branch of government, unlike every person at the FBI you were elected by voters. So a basic question of democracy hangs in the balance here: what can you do?

They are required by the Constitution to answer your questions.

JOHNSON: We have legitimate oversight and it is our Constitutional duty, responsibility and right. And so we can subpoena. But, again, we don’t really have the power to enforce those subpoenas, that resides in the executive branch in the Department of Justice and that’s where the problem lies.

CARLSON: So what can you do?

JOHNSON; Well, we’ll keep making these things public and hopefully public pressure will force the FBI to come clean if they really want to remove the suspicions surrounding not only what happened back under the Hillary Clinton email investigation but currently what’s happening under the Mueller investigation. The same cast of characters are involved in both.

CARLSON: Not as a partisan, not as an elected Republican, but as a citizen of America, do you find this a little scary?

JOHNSON: Yes, absolutely.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Matty Mattson


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Send this to a friend