[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 100 (Tuesday, June 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4908-H4911]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ISSUES OF THE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rutherford). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Palmer) to finish his statement.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding and allowing me to complete my remarks on this Special Order
organized by Congressman Walker.
As I was saying, if you recall the 2014 debate over funding for the
Department of Homeland Security, the Obama administration made it clear
that they would contravene the will of Congress with regard to
President Obama's amnesty order and would fund his amnesty program
using fines and fees.
The Department of Homeland Security had over $400 million that the
Department could spend outside of what Congress appropriated. It is
unacceptable for agencies to ignore the will of Congress by funding
programs outside of the typical appropriations process.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau gets all of its funding
outside of Congress through transfers from the Federal Reserve and from
fines imposed on financial institutions. The CFPB does not get one dime
appropriated from Congress, meaning they are not subject to
congressional oversight. When it comes to the CFPB, Congress has no
power of the purse to ensure that that agency is accountable to
Congress.
One of the top priorities in the Republican Better Way agenda is our
commitment to reclaim our Article I authority. The Agency
Accountability Act would direct all fines, fees, and settlements to the
Treasury, making them subject to the normal appropriations process.
This would end the unconstitutional slush funds that allow programs to
operate independently and outside the purview of Congress. Most
importantly, it would allow for Congress to fully account for how much
money the government actually collects and where that money is coming
from. The House should take up the Agency Accountability Act and pass
it.
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my friend for pointing
out the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
One thing about that group, when I was a judge, or assistant DA, if
you needed somebody's banking records, then you would have to get sworn
evidence--normally in affidavit form--and take it to a judge, and there
had to be sufficient detail in the affidavit to establish--again, under
oath--that a crime had probably been committed and that the person
whose banking records we were seeking had probably committed the crime.
If that could be done, then the judge would sign the warrant. Like my
years as a judge handling felony cases, there were some warrants I
turned down. There is just not enough particularity here. There is not
probable cause that this person committed the crime, or I don't see
probable cause that a crime was committed. But, normally, law
enforcement was good about making sure that probable cause was there,
and the DA office would help them.
[[Page H4909]]
But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has come in and it has
basically begun to challenge the Internal Revenue Service for acting in
the most unconstitutional ways. It may be a toss up now which one uses
more unconstitutional authority than the other.
For the CFPB to gather people's financial records when there is no
evidence that they committed a crime, no evidence that any crime had
been committed--they just gather evidence, purportedly, to make sure
nobody is taking advantage of people--well, that is not the way our
Constitution works. It is supposed to be that if a bank or a lender
takes advantage of an individual, then the individual can complain;
then their banking records can be obtained.
But for a governmental entity to just gather people's financial
records, it is not just Orwellian; it is outrageous, and it needs to
stop. And as my colleague, Mr. Palmer, was pointing out, they have
gotten--it was set up back when the Democrats had the majority, and
they intentionally set up this governmental entity that would basically
be beyond control by the Congress. They intentionally set up a group
that could make a living hell for individuals or for banks, for others,
because it is the government and it is gathering people's records.
And then along comes--you had ObamaCare get passed. Well, in order to
help people, just like the CFPB--and for my liberal friends, that is
sarcasm--well, you are going to get everybody's healthcare records,
that way the government can help people better because they will have
all of their records.
Well, some people, some liberal left-leaning folks would say: Well,
we call that helping people. We gather all of their medical records and
we gather all of their financial records so we can help them. But those
who are Libertarian, Conservative, we don't consider that helping; we
consider that abusive, and we don't need it.
{time} 1800
One of the great honors and developments since I have been in
Congress has been the development of a friendship with just an
absolutely great patriotic American. He is a friend of mine, and he has
come twice to sit in my seat in the gallery, most recently to hear
President Trump deliver a State of the Union Address.
Here is a story by Sean Hannity. It is entitled, ``Pull the plug on
the Mueller-Comey witch hunt.''
It says: ``Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation is turning
into a witch hunt and it needs to be shut down immediately.
``Ex-FBI Director James Comey, who admitted sparking the probe by
leaking information to The New York Times, is nothing more than a
calculating, cunning partisan political hack at home in the D.C. swamp.
During last week's hearing, Comey admitted that he intentionally gave a
memo to his friend hoping it would lead to appointment of a special
counsel.
``'I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a
reporter,' Comey told lawmakers. `Didn't do it myself for a variety of
reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the
appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine
to do it.'
``What Comey is admitting to under oath cannot be overlooked here or
understated. His end goal was the appointment of the special counsel,
which just so happens to turn out to be his longtime friend, Robert
Mueller.
``By leaking information, Comey could be putting himself again in
serious legal trouble. If those memos were classified--and several
legal experts are arguing they are--Comey may have broken the law.
Comey created those memos on government computers in a government
truck, making it property of the U.S. Government, not James Comey. In
addition to that, there are nondisclosure agreements that the FBI rules
that exist that Comey also could have violated.
``Leaks aside, Comey's relationship with Mueller is a massive
conflict of interest. It is why it is time to now shut down this
political witch hunt that is really aimed at stopping the President,
delegitimizing him and hopefully, in the minds of some, making sure he
gets thrown out of office. It is that serious.
``We have a guy, Comey, who is beyond disgruntled and angry after
being fired by the President and now one of Comey's closest friends is
leading the investigation as the special counsel. I don't care if you
are left, right, Republican, Democrat, does that sound fair, honest,
objective to you? Of course not.
``Conflict of interest rules disqualify Mueller from being special
counsel in a case involving his pal. And if that is not bad enough,
four members of Mueller's team have donated to Democrats.
``Not to mention, why did James Comey wait until his hearing last
week to actually mention the fact that Loretta Lynch, the then-Attorney
General, tried to interfere with an FBI investigation? He testified
that she instructed him to soft-pedal his investigation by calling it a
`matter.' This on top of her infamous meeting on the tarmac with Bill
Clinton.
``The real collusion that Mueller is never going to probe is not with
President Trump and the Russians, it appears to be between the Clinton
campaign, the Obama administration, Loretta Lynch and James Comey.''
And I would add Mueller himself.
``Let's pull the plug on this witch hunt and go after the real
lawbreakers.''
So that is from FOX News.
Mr. Speaker, it is extraordinary what has come out. I already knew
before all of this started that Robert Mueller--a great patriot who
served this country in the Vietnam war, Bronze Star for courage and
bravery--but he got into government, and he apparently wanted nothing
but yes-men. He wanted yes-men and -women. He didn't want people who
had been around for a while that could point out when he had a
suggestion that was going to lead to trouble. He would rather have the
trouble than have anybody point out such things. So he created a policy
he called the 5-year, up-or-out program.
We have FBI offices all over the country and local law enforcement
that I have worked with so many times through so many years. And, as
people know, you will have bad apples in every crowd, but I would
submit that when you are talking about law enforcement, the percentage
of bad apples is dramatically lower than you find in the general
population at large. We are greatly blessed in that respect. But with
all of the massive number of employees with the Department of Justice,
Mueller has this 5-year, up-or-out policy.
So if you were in a supervisory position of any kind for 5 years
anywhere in the country, then at the end of the 5 years, you had to
uproot your wife and your children--your family--and you had to move to
Washington and be a minion among minions in the office here at the
Department of Justice; or, if you weren't willing to uproot your family
in the communities where they had gained so much credibility and were
considered such an important part of law enforcement in the area, then
you had to get out of the FBI. It is not that you weren't absolutely
priceless and invaluable to law enforcement, it is that Bob Mueller did
not want your experience where you might ever question him.
So as an article--I believe it was in The Wall Street Journal--years
ago pointed out, under his leadership, the FBI lost thousands upon
thousands of years of experience. So we keep having people get killed
around the country, and people wonder: How did the FBI not pick this
up? How did the FBI not recognize this?
Well, I recall when I got out of law school and I was an assistant
DA, I would see criminal defense attorneys. I would think in my head--I
would know in my head--I knew a whole lot more law than they did. Heck,
I had won moot court; won a trip to London, England; at Baylor Law
School, I won an award for best brief award--for that I had a partner.
I won an award for a Law Review article on torts that I did. Gee, I was
coming up against lawyers who hadn't won awards in law school like I
had. So I am going: gee, this ought to be pretty easy. They are not
near as smart as I am when it comes to the law.
What I learned rather quickly in courtroom work is that knowledge of
the law is extremely helpful, but experience is even more helpful:
getting a feel and an understanding of human nature, learning to pick
up different signs
[[Page H4910]]
from people, what they think about different things, when they are
holding something back; when you are cross-examining somebody, when to
know to keep going or when to know to stop. There are a lot of things
you pick up over questioning thousands of people.
Somebody right out of law school that knows every bit of the law is
going to have a hard time competing with somebody that has a tremendous
amount of experience in the courtroom with human nature.
That is true of law enforcement. I have known law enforcement that
just had an incredible knack for just knowing when people were lying.
It is amazing to see some of our great law enforcement at work, as I
have through my career.
But FBI Director Robert Mueller didn't want them around. After you
have been in a supervisory position for 5 years or more, you either
come to Washington and take up your little cubicle or get out. Again,
Robert Mueller did incalculable damage to the FBI, to its experience,
to its ability to root out and find criminals. That experience that he
ran off from the FBI was absolutely incalculable. It is just priceless.
He also spent millions on a software program. Many tried to tell him:
Wait, you have got us inputting stuff in a system that is not going to
work. It doesn't fit our needs.
I don't know if he had some relative there he got it from, why he was
so sold on this terrible program. People tried to tell him, but those
are the people he wanted out. He didn't want anybody questioning his
brilliant intellect.
As a result, they wasted a massive number of hours by FBI employees
and wasted the millions that were spent on the program trying to make
the program work. Later they had to scrap it. Why? Because he was
talked into a bad program, and he wouldn't listen to anybody that tried
to tell him about the problems.
We also know that one of the reasons we continue to have people who
were on the radar of the FBI--even questioned by the FBI--continue to
get away with murder, literally, or be able to commit murder in America
and commit terrorism involving murder, is because Robert Mueller tried
to make radical Islamists who hate America and who want to overthrow
our way of life feel better. So he brought in people to purge our
training material in the FBI so that we wouldn't offend radical
Islamists who want to kill us.
Michele Bachmann and I reviewed much of the material that was purged.
Lynn Westmoreland viewed some of it and he had to go, but it involved
hours going through.
Unfortunately--and obviously it was intentional--but the FBI, under
Mueller, classified the purged materials so I couldn't have a blowup
poster here to show something very important that FBI agents would need
in order to understand radical Islam. So they classified that so I
can't bring it down here and show people. Once again, the damage that
FBI Director Robert Mueller did to the FBI was basically incalculable.
I mentioned before, one of our intelligence guys said: We were blinded
of our ability to see our enemy.
We have Robert Mueller to thank, or CAIR, the Council on American-
Islamic Relations, that is always there to rush in and have a press
conference after violence and say: We don't support this kind of
violence.
Though, clearly, when the evidence is reviewed, the Council on
American-Islamic Relations--individuals involved in CAIR--ultimately
wants to see sharia law as the law of the land. There are principals
that should have been prosecuted as supporting terrorism.
{time} 1815
There were scores of people that were listed as co-conspirators in
supporting terrorism. Instead of pursuing those after the Holy Land
Foundation trial convicted the principals involved--I think it was over
100 counts of supporting terrorism--instead of being alerted and being
more on his guard, FBI Director Mueller bent over backwards more and
more to accommodate those who want to see Sharia law take over America
and be the law of the land, scrapping our Constitution.
At one time it was considered treason to want to scrap the
Constitution and replace it with anything, but in Bob Mueller's
America, people that wouldn't mind seeing the Constitution go away and
be replaced by Sharia law, you want to develop an outreach program for
those people.
So instead of going to the Boston mosque, where the Tsarnaevs surely
had to have indicated and shown signs of being radicalized, Robert
Mueller and his FBI went to the mosque as part of an outreach program
to make merry and play patty cake with people who could have
established, if they were honest, that the Tsarnaev brothers had indeed
been radicalized, the information from Russia was correct.
Yet because, under Bob Mueller's leadership, the training materials
were purged, FBI agents didn't know what they were looking for. They
didn't know what scriptures in the Koran were referred to, were quoted
by people who had been radicalized.
They had no idea what to look for in speaking to Kim Jensen, who
prepared over 700 pages of training materials so people in the FBI
could learn radical Islam. His training materials were banned. They
were supposed to have been destroyed, but after it became clear that
the FBI could not recognize radical Islamists, that Mueller had done so
much damage in regard to training FBI agents, it was finally decided
that we kind of need to get somebody back in here and get some
materials back in here so maybe we don't keep getting people killed in
the country after we are alerted to somebody who has been radicalized
as an Islamic terrorist and we let them go because we don't know they
are radicalized because FBI Director Robert Mueller prevented our FBI
from being trained to recognize radical Islam.
I know there are some people who--not because they are aware of his
virtues, but have heard other people say he is a great guy--just extoll
his virtue, not realizing the kind of damage that has been done.
As I mentioned last night, Mr. Speaker, you look at the damage that
James Comey and Robert Mueller--really tight friends--have done to the
country to an extent I didn't even realize until we started looking at
the article by Mollie Hemmingway in The Federalist, which is rather
breathtaking, and I had no idea until I read that.
According to the article, Comey talked a very fine man, John
Ashcroft, into recusing himself so he would not appoint a special
prosecutor to find out who leaked the fact that Valerie Plame was a CIA
agent. He commits to Ashcroft: Recuse yourself and I will find somebody
good.
Mr. Comey likes to talk about conflicts of interest, unless they
apply to himself.
So Ashcroft recuses himself, and Mr. Comey, who convinced him to do
so, looks high and low: Who could we possibly find to investigate and
prosecute whoever it was that leaked information about Valerie Plame?
Oh, how about my very dear friend, Patrick Fitzgerald, who happens also
to be the Godfather of my child?
So he likes to talk about conflict of interest and chummy
relationships, unless they are his chummy relationships, in which case
he just puts them in places which appear to be clear conflicts of
interest. Which is no surprise that he was supportive and even
manipulative in creating what appeared to be a need for a special
prosecutor, which actually there was not a need for a special
prosecutor at all. He just leaked information. There was a good chance
he probably violated the law. He certainly should have violated his FBI
employment agreement.
Memos that he prepares as part of his job regarding meetings he had
as part of his job, those should belong to the FBI under an employment
agreement. I am sure that he has seen Presidents for whom he has worked
take their own memos and take them back and use them to write books.
Perhaps that is what he is thinking: I will take my memos that I
personally prepared and I will be like a President and I will save my
memos and use them to write a book.
Of course, it turns out, with regard to this one memo that he wrote
about his conversation with President Trump, he consulted with other
members of the Justice Department, who all need to be fired, and
colluded with them to figure out what should be done.
There is no question these people are smart, or they wouldn't be
where they were. They knew that if there was an obstruction of justice
in which Trump
[[Page H4911]]
had engaged, then they would have to report it. Failing to report it
would be a crime. They didn't. So we know there was no crime. What we
know is they were conspiring and colluding to hurt the President of the
United States.
So we don't need a special prosecutor. We certainly don't need
Mueller. He has done enough damage. It is time to let the special
prosecutor go that Comey needlessly created.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________