[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 102 (Tuesday, June 19, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5279-H5282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ferguson). 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, it is great to hear my friend Congressman 
Lewis. He does a great job explaining such matters.
  We had an interesting combined hearing today in the Judiciary 
Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. We heard 
from the inspector general of the Department of Justice, Mr. Horowitz. 
It was interesting testimony.
  But having reviewed the record, it is interesting, because he quoted 
prosecutor one, prosecutor two, agent one, agent two, agent three, 
these different people, different prosecutors, different agents that he 
was relying on; their comments, their opinions, their suggestions; the 
SSA, Supervisory Special Agent, recommendation and comments on things 
that should have been and should have not been; and things that were 
proper and improper. But we had no information who these people were.
  The whole reason for the inspector general investigation was because 
of the massive amount of clear bias that had been unearthed within the 
Department of Justice, including the FBI that is, of course, under the 
Department of Justice.
  So we are being asked to accept all this information from the 
inspector general when so much of it depends on the opinions and the 
comments and the assessments of people whose identity we didn't even 
know.
  So not only did we not know their identity, we don't know if they 
have texts and emails that are just as condemning of Donald Trump and 
laudatory of Hillary Rodham Clinton. We don't know what their positions 
are. And we found out from the inspector general that he didn't make 
any inquiry. He didn't check on them.
  But I know from my days trying cases as a prosecutor, or as a felony 
judge in Texas, the lawyers, when they are picking a jury, as to who 
will sit in judgment on their case, they have a

[[Page H5280]]

right to know the biases and prejudices, or potential biases and 
prejudices, of anyone who may be sitting in judgment on their case. So 
that is why voir dire, as we say in Texas, is allowed, questions of the 
potential jurors.
  Normally, how one votes is completely inappropriate to ask about. 
That is a secret ballot for a good reason. However, if one of the 
people on the ballot is the defendant in the case, is a civilian party 
in a civil case, then the attorneys are going to want to find out: Were 
you for or against this person? Did you have a bumper sticker for this 
person or against this person? Did you have a sign in your yard? Did 
you go around doing block walks trying to push for this candidate?
  And as a judge, I know defendants' attorneys. If it were a defendant 
who had been a candidate, they would be pushing to ask those questions, 
to find out those questions, and it could lead to challenges for cause 
in Texas courts--I think in Federal courts as well.

                              {time}  2030

  Even if it didn't, I have heard defense attorneys argue many times: 
We cannot adequately exercise our preemptory strikes if we don't know 
about potential biases. So we need to know: Did they support this 
candidate? Were they against this candidate?
  I know initially the response of one of my Democratic friends was: 
Gee, we never ask about how somebody voted.
  No, we don't. It is not appropriate--unless someone who is on the 
ballot is being judged in that court. The same should be true for a 
grand jury. The same should be true for anybody who is going to pass 
judgment, and that should also include the people who are charged with 
bringing forth justice, not the concept of ``just us'' we have 
experienced during the recent two terms, but the concept of true 
justice.
  Proverbs talks about the blessed nature of a government that doesn't 
judge because somebody is rich, doesn't judge because somebody is poor, 
doesn't give more favor to somebody who is rich, and isn't biased for 
somebody because they are poor, but does make just decisions based on 
the case, not on someone's social standing, be it rich or poor. Some 
are tempted to be biased for the poor, some biased for the rich. But 
real justice is just following the law regardless of someone's 
background.
  So it is a bit of an anathema, it seems, that you have got an 
inspector general report based on people who may have worse biases than 
the people whom they are judging. We don't even know. So I was a little 
surprised by that.
  We had a record of over 500 pages that was just full of some of the 
worst illustrations of biases ever imaginable. It was interesting. I 
didn't realize, but apparently back, I believe it was in 2012, there 
was a case that was lost that the Justice Department was prosecuting 
during the Eric Holder days. I had never seen this information until 
today and didn't see it until after the hearing, but apparently it was 
even one case where the jurors found somebody not guilty because 
information came in about the same kind of texting and emails that we 
were seeing regarding the hatred by some in the Justice Department and 
the FBI against Donald Trump and for Hillary Clinton.
  There was a time when the Federal Department of Justice and the FBI 
were considered the best law enforcement, the best at providing justice 
anywhere in the world. That time is not now. In fact, we know that 
under Eric Holder and Attorney General Lynch, the U.S. Department of 
Justice went after police departments, local law enforcement, and using 
the power and almost unlimited money of the Department of Justice, they 
could overwhelm and force a local law enforcement office into agreeing 
to a consent decree where the U.S. Department of Justice got to 
basically supervise whatever they did.
  Based on the kind of prejudice, bias, and outrageous actions within 
the United States Department of Justice and the FBI, it looks like some 
of those police departments that ended up agreeing to consent judgments 
might be better off suing the U.S. Department of Justice, exposing how 
biased and prejudiced they were during the period during which the 
Department of Justice came after them and was trying to supervise them, 
show how biased and prejudiced they were. So maybe the local police 
department should end up getting to tell the Department of Justice when 
they are acting appropriately and when they are not.
  For heaven's sake, it is just incredible how such a great justice 
organization has been not just compromised, but devastated like a 
cancerous prejudice and bias, incapable of rendering fair, blind 
decisions without regard for any bias in favor of or against a 
litigant.
  What a change. What a difference. President Obama is right. He did 
fundamentally transform America. I really would never have thought we 
would see the Justice Department after those 8 years end up like it is.
  It didn't come out in the hearing, but I was given to understand that 
after the shock subsided somewhat of Donald Trump winning November 2016 
that there was a massive effort just at a rapid pace to try to move 
people who had been politically appointed by the Obama administration 
in the Department of Justice and the Department of State, but 
especially DOJ, Homeland Security, political appointees, trying to get 
them into civil service jobs so that the Trump administration would not 
be easily able to get rid of them as every other administration does.
  When a new administration comes in, the political appointees tender 
their resignations. Most are accepted, some are not. But instead of 
doing something like that, what we were hearing was that the Obama 
administration was trying to put them into cubbyhole civil service 
jobs, so that basically they could still utilize the prejudices and 
biases that were built up during the Obama administration.
  It is just such a dangerous time. As I was sitting there for the 
hearing, it dawned on me that the kind of bias, just rabid prejudice 
and hatred not only for a candidate, but the disgust that was on parade 
in the texts, the email messages, just extraordinary, but that that 
kind of bias and prejudice may very well be the second biggest threat 
to Federal justice in America.
  It is a cancerous bias. It is probably a cancerous bias in stage IV 
where it just is eating its way through, creating big holes where there 
was once a solid Justice Department.
  What occurred to me was that that may be the second biggest threat to 
Federal justice in America, that cancerous bias. But perhaps the 
biggest threat to Federal justice in America is that I think for the 
first time in American history, you have one of two major political 
parties has about half of the country's support without anybody being 
horribly offended that this kind of bias and prejudice was driving a 
Justice Department.
  I keep going back to when President George W. Bush was in the White 
House, and when we found out about the abuses of the National Security 
Letters, FBI agents just sending them out willy-nilly, just sending 
them out on fishing expeditions. That was not authorized. That was not 
lawful. Somebody needed to pay a price.

  In retrospect, it is directly, as Robert Mueller said, that was his 
responsibility, his fault. Yes, it was. He should have been fired. He 
should never have been allowed to get close to anything attempting to 
pervert justice in America.
  Unfortunately, he wormed his way in through his joined-at-the-hip 
buddy, Comey, leaking information in order to get a second counsel, 
that second counsel being his joined-at-the-hip buddy, Mr. Mueller. He 
should never have allowed that to happen. If it was a fair and just 
Justice Department, Rosenstein would have recused himself, Mueller 
would have recused himself and said: I am not the proper person to do 
this special counsel job because of my strong friendship, maybe even 
mentorship--whatever you want to call it--with James Comey; and also 
the fact that I was FBI Director working with the U.S. Attorney named 
Rosenstein, and my go-to guy, Weissmann, and we were the ones who were 
investigating Russia's illegal efforts to obtain United States uranium.
  Of course, they helped quash information about that so that the 
Commission on Foreign Investment in the United States could approve the 
sale, that would open the way for beneficiaries of that sale to donate 
$145 million to the Clinton Foundation as well

[[Page H5281]]

as paying off Bill Clinton to make speeches for a short amount of time. 
There is just so much that stinks to high heaven here in Washington.
  We don't even know anything about the biases and prejudices of those 
people on whom Mr. Horowitz was relying to reach his conclusions. But 
it is worth looking at some of the things that were recommended.
  For example, you had a man named Pagliano--and this is according to 
the Horowitz report--Pagliano was a critical witness because he set up 
the server that Clinton used during her tenure.
  In other words, he set up the unsecured server which we now know was 
hacked. And I think my friend Andrew McCarthy makes a great point in an 
article today when he points out the mere setting up of that unsecured 
server out from under the government watch for the purpose, according 
to James Carville--he may have been trying to make a joke, but it 
actually was an indication of the mindset of the Clintons, when he 
said: Hillary didn't want Louie Gohmert rifling through her emails.
  She didn't want proper oversight, so she intentionally and knowingly 
had a server set up that was not secure, was out from under government 
protection and control, also knowing she might be able to get away with 
not turning in emails because they were not under government control.
  How there could be 500-plus pages of bias shown in this report, and 
then a conclusion that there is no evidence of any bias in the 
investigation? My gosh, that is a lay-down, slam-dunk prosecution right 
there. You could have indicted Mr. Pagliano, who was certainly far more 
responsible for potential crime than Mr. Manafort is, clearly.
  In the Horowitz report he says: The supervising special agent told us 
that the FBI did not consider Pagliano a subject or someone they would 
prosecute in connection with the midyear--talking about the Hillary 
Clinton investigation. The FBI believed his testimony was very 
important and providing immunity was an effective way to secure his 
testimony.
  So this guy sets up the unsecured server, and it carried we now know 
for certain classified information.

                              {time}  2045

  We knew there was going to be a good chance he would have had to have 
known that. But if that supervising special agent and the Horowitz team 
had not been so favorably inclined not to find any wrongdoing, then 
certainly they would have recognized that this is a guy who could and 
should have been indicted.
  Of course, I don't advocate that people be unfairly treated as Paul 
Manafort was, where you go busting down his door in the early morning 
hours when you know he is not a threat; there is no reason to bust down 
a door in those early morning hours, no reason to ransack a house, 
other than trying to intimidate.
  But nobody tried to do anything, not even indicting or bringing him 
before a grand jury to potentially pursue him, because the prosecutors, 
many of them have told me: Man, this is a real easy one, much easier 
than organized crime. All you have to do is go after Pagliano, go after 
a couple of these other people, and once they see they are looking at 
years in prison, yes, they will tell you exactly what Hillary Clinton 
told them and others told them. And then you go to the next one and 
make the case that that testimony gives you.
  None of that was done. It was all done in a way to protect Hillary 
Clinton, no question.
  That report talks about Combetta. It says Paul Combetta is the one 
that later wiped emails from that private server in March of 2015. The 
report says that the investigation's team members told the inspector 
general Combetta was an important witness for several reasons, 
including his involvement with the culling process and the deletion of 
emails and his interactions with several people who worked for Clinton.
  Several of the midyear--they call them midyear; it is the Clinton 
team members--stated that, after conducting two voluntary interviews of 
Combetta, they believe Combetta had not been forthcoming about, among 
other things, his role in deleting emails from the PRN server following 
the issues of a congressional preservation order.
  The witness further stated that Combetta's truthful testimony was 
essential for assessing criminal intent for Clinton and other 
individuals because he would be able to tell them whether Clinton's 
attorneys, Mills, Samuelson, or Kendall, had instructed him to delete 
the emails.
  So this is the way you work up through a prosecution. They didn't 
indict Combetta. This says the supervising special agent told us he 
believed Combetta should have been charged with false statements for 
lying multiple times. Well, if that had happened, then you go to him 
and you say: This is how many years you are looking at.
  I have seen incredibly professional FBI agents in the field do just 
that: Here is what you are looking at. You are going to talk to your 
lawyer. You are going to decide what to do. We want you to see the 
evidence we have.
  Then they would lay out the evidence: Here is evidence that might 
help. You might think it is exculpatory, but we here is the evidence 
that we have that we believe will overwhelm that. It is incriminating. 
We are not wanting you to make a statement now. You talk to your 
lawyer. See if you would like to assist us.
  Then when you realize that, wow, their evidence is overwhelming, I am 
dead meat, I am going to prison, then let's see what kind of deal we 
can make.
  Then you make a proffer: Here is what my client will say if you will 
give us this plea agreement or this agreement, maybe an immunity 
agreement, you work that out. That is how you go about proving a case.
  None of that was done. The FBI and the Department of Justice 
attorneys, people who absolutely loved and worshiped Hillary Clinton 
and absolutely despised and hated Donald Trump didn't do any of that. 
They protected the people who would have been critical witnesses.
  We get around to Mr. John Bentel. He worked at the State Department 
for 39 years. Here is what the IG report said:
  Both agents who interviewed Bentel told us that he was uncooperative 
and the interview was unproductive. However, they attributed these 
problems to nervousness and fear of being found culpable.
  Agent three--whoever that was, with whatever biases he had--told us 
that he did not believe that immunity was necessary and it did not help 
the investigation because Bentel was not forthcoming during his 
interview.
  That makes no sense. That is the kind of guy where you go ahead and 
you have got enough evidence, you indict him, and then he gets a little 
more cooperative through his lawyer. The guy helped commit crimes, 
apparently. Then you see about getting more cooperation when he is 
looking at being convicted and doing a long time in prison.
  But he did not have any of that done. There was not even a threat of 
prosecution. He wasn't prosecuted because bias affected the outcome of 
the Hillary Clinton email investigation. If he had been prosecuted, he 
would likely have been quite cooperative as a witness in establishing 
what really happened. But he knew he was guilty. He had a guilty 
conscience, which is obvious from what these people said in their 
statements.
  So what about Cheryl Mills? She was treated as if she were an 
attorney for Hillary Clinton. She was allowed to sit in on the 
interview of Hillary Clinton that was not recorded, and, basically, she 
was assured in advance that she would be given a pass.
  But Cheryl Mills is one who actually went through the Clinton emails. 
Because of her position, she was in a position to make sure they did 
not turn over any emails that would have incriminated Cheryl and 
Hillary Clinton. And instead of doing anything that would have brought 
that to light, they give her an immunity deal. They let her consult.
  There is a massive question here of conspiring to obstruct justice, 
yet they gave them a pass.
  Mr. Speaker, Mr. Horowitz really did appear as if he were trying to 
do something so that he could kind of say he was placating two 
different sides. On the one hand, over 500 pages absolutely documenting 
the horrendous bias and prejudice that permeated an actually cancerous 
kind of bias that was eating through the Department of Justice and FBI, 
then turns around and gave Democrats what they would hope to have:

[[Page H5282]]

Oh, no, there was no evidence that bias affected the investigation.

  Well, how about the fact that there is no attorney-client privilege 
if an attorney and a client are conspiring to obstruct justice or are 
absolutely obstructing justice?
  In such a case, you don't give immunity to the attorney, the 
counselor, potential codefendant, and say: Here, you go through the 
evidence and you tell us what you are going to let us have, and then 
you destroy anything at all that you think might not be helpful to you 
and Mrs. Clinton and give us what you think will be safe to give us.
  It is absolutely incredible. The very fact that that was done, that 
she was allowed to sit in on the interview, she was allowed to go 
through and screen the emails for her and her client that could have 
shown any possible crimes there is an outrage.
  We need a second special counsel, and we need it now.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________