[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 146 (Tuesday, September 4, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7820-H7822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ISSUES OF THE DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, I thank my friend and colleague, 
Congresswoman Mimi Walters, for her special order. It is a reminder 
again that Vietnam has not lived up to the agreement they made in Paris 
to end the Vietnam war.
  They promised they would turn over remains. They promised they would 
give lists of our POWs and MIAs. They lied. They didn't do that. They 
still have that information.
  In fact, there was one year I agreed with the national Chamber of 
Commerce's position on most everything, but I disagreed on a trade 
agreement with Vietnam because I could not vote to give some special 
deal to people who will not honor their agreements that lie about 
Americans dead and who were prisoners of war and missing in action and 
remains of which they know and have never disclosed.
  This is one more reminder that one thing we can do in this House is 
show courage and say we are not dealing with countries, no special 
deals at all, with countries that harm Americans. We need to protect 
our own.
  I am so glad that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are 
calling attention to that fact, led by Congresswoman Walters. It is 
important to remember.
  I hope and pray that we will do the right thing here in the House. I 
know the President has a heart for getting Americans back when they 
have been improperly detained, or, in some cases, when they have been 
properly detained, but especially if they are being mistreated. Vietnam 
needs to wake up. And this House, the Senate, and the President need to 
make abundantly clear to Vietnam that, economically, we are going to 
come after you. You better let our people go.
  I also want to address a matter tonight. Having been a former judge, 
when I hear courageous judges stand up for the Constitution, or I read 
opinions wherein courageous, intelligent judges have taken a stand for 
the Constitution, it warms my heart. It inspires and encourages me.
  I have heard many friends in the media who have given accolades to a 
Virginia Federal judge named T.S. Ellis--not T.S. Eliot, but T.S. 
Ellis--who is the judge who is handling the case involving Paul 
Manafort.
  This is from a May 4 article by Jeff Mordock. It says: ``A Virginia 
Federal judge Friday blasted prosecutors from the Office of Special 
Counsel Robert Mueller, demanding to know how decade-old bank and tax 
fraud allegations against former Trump campaign chairman Paul 
Manafort''--I think he was chair for about 100 days--``could relate to 
Russian election interference,'' which, of course, is 2016.
  ``'You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud,' District 
Judge T.S. Ellis said during a morning hearing. Judge Ellis said 
prosecutors were interested in pressuring Mr. Manafort because he could 
provide information that would lead to President Donald Trump's 
`prosecution or impeachment.'
  ``At times, Judge Ellis appeared frustrated and even lost his temper 
with attorneys from Mr. Mueller's team. He grilled them on how 
allegations against Mr. Manafort for activities''--the copy I have ends 
there, but it says: ``'How does bank fraud in 2005 or 2006 have 
anything to do with coordination with the Russian Government?' Judge 
Ellis said. `What is really going on, it seems to me, is that this 
indictment is to put pressure on Mr. Manafort, but in and of itself has 
nothing to do with your appointment.'''
  ``Judge Ellis appeared to agree with the defense, but did not issue 
an immediate decision. He repeatedly barraged prosecutors about their 
authority to pursue decade-old charges against Mr. Manafort. At one 
point, Judge Ellis asked how the Manafort case differed from the FBI 
raid on President Trump's attorney Michael Cohen. The Cohen matter was 
referred by Mueller's team to prosecutors with the Southern District of 
New York for investigation and possible prosecution. In contrast, the 
Manafort case is being handled directly by Mr. Mueller's officer.
  ``He then appeared to guess the prosecutor's answer, saying the Cohen 
investigation did not `further our core effort to get Trump.'
  ``Later, Judge Ellis summarized prosecutor Michael Dreeben's argument 
as, `We said what this investigation was about, but we are not bound by 
it, and we were lying.' He then looked at Mr. Dreeben and said, `C'mon 
man,' referencing a catchphrase from ESPN's NFL pregame show.''
  Further down: ``At issue in the memo is the definition of `arise.' 
The order gives the special counsel the authority to investigate any 
matters that `may arise directly from the investigation.' But 
prosecutors admitted Friday that the Manafort probe had been ongoing by 
the Department of Justice before Mr. Mueller was appointed special 
counsel. Mr. Dreeben said the charges against Mr. Manafort came because 
they had to `follow the money' to discover Mr. Manafort's financial 
records and ties to Russia through his lobbying work in the Ukraine. 
The comments provoked a sharp rebuke from Judge Ellis. `It didn't lead 
to that,' he said of the Manafort charges and Russia probe. `It was 
given to you by the Department of Justice.'''
  Well, that sounds like a courageous judge, Judge T.S. Ellis. It 
sounds like a judge who calls them as he sees them. But, as the saying 
goes, where the rubber meets the road, his courage, his constitutional 
conviction, took a back seat to convenience.
  So he got accolades for calling out the Mueller investigation for 
exactly

[[Page H7821]]

what it is. It is unconstitutional. Mueller has taken an investigation. 
He was not appointed by the President. He was not appointed by the 
Attorney General. He was picked by the same guy who was involved in the 
Russia investigation of Russia's effort to get uranium. He hired 
another lawyer named Weissmann who was involved in that investigation. 
They have all kinds of ties together. They have all kinds of reasons to 
cover for each other.
  But the fact that Rosenstein is Deputy Attorney General, the fact 
that he wrote a memo saying fire Comey and the President acts on that 
memo and fires Comey based on Rosenstein's recommendation, or with his 
recommendation, and then Rosenstein uses the President's action in 
accordance with Rosenstein's memo to say that probably was obstructing 
justice, we need a special counsel. Are you kidding me?
  There has been a failure of justice and of the justice system. 
Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis saw that, and he commented on it. 
When he had the chance to use the Constitution and say enough already, 
justice has run amok, and Paul Manafort, probably guilty of some of the 
things charged here, if not all of them, but you are not the one 
authorized to prosecute.
  The DOJ already had this investigation. It did not arise because of 
the special counsel. But the special counsel took it over, showing, 
again, his lack of integrity, as well as that of Mr. Weissmann. They 
had limitless, basically, authority given to them, which is 
unconstitutional.
  And Judge Ellis, in his opinion, where he ran away from his 
courageous words in May, said, in part, in his opinion, ``The intended 
purpose''--and he does a good account of the 1978 law creating special 
counsels.
  He said, ``The intended purpose of the 1978 act was to create a 
mechanism for the investigation and prosecution of high-ranking 
government officials.
  ``In 1988, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1978 
act despite substantial separation of powers challenges,'' which, by 
the way, just because one Supreme Court says one thing, they are not 
100 percent right all the time. That is why they reverse themselves 
frequently.
  But, as he pointed out, ``Congress reauthorized the 1978 act for the 
final time in 1994. It is important to note that despite the fact that 
Morrison''--the case that took this up--``was decided 7-1, Justice 
Scalia's dissent presented a compelling and powerful argument against 
the constitutionality of the 1978 act. Beginning with an eloquent 
description of the Founders' motivations in enshrining separation of 
powers principles in the Constitution, Justice Scalia's dissent went on 
to describe the ways in which the 1978 act infringed upon executive 
power.''
  And this is from that dissent from Justice Scalia, a great man, a 
funny guy, a great sense of humor, but brilliant intellect, and I miss 
him very much. Justice Scalia said the independent counsel's 
investigation was commenced, not necessarily because the President or 
his authorized subordinates believe it is in the interest of the United 
States, in the sense that it warrants the diversion of resources from 
other efforts and is worth the cost in money and in possible damage to 
other governmental interests, and not even, leaving aside those 
normally considered factors, because the President or his authorized 
subordinates necessarily believe that an investigation is likely to 
unearth a violation worth prosecuting, but only because the Attorney 
General cannot affirm, as Congress demands, that there are no 
reasonable grounds to believe that further investigation is warranted.

                              {time}  2115

  The decisions regarding the scope of that further investigation, its 
duration, and, finally, whether or not prosecution should ensue are, 
likewise, beyond the control of the President and his subordinates.
  But he goes on, quoting Justice Scalia: ``If to describe this case is 
not to decide it, the concept of a government of separate and 
coordinate powers no longer has meaning'' because ``it is ultimately 
irrelevant how much the statute reduces Presidential control.''
  Of course, any impingement on Presidential control over the executive 
branch was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia also noted significant 
appointments clause problems with the `78 act, arguing the independent 
counsel was not an inferior officer because neither the President nor 
the Attorney General could remove the independent counsel.
  Ultimately, however, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the other Justices 
involved in the case were not of the same mind as Justice Scalia. The 
Court ruled seven to one that the `78 act passed constitutional muster, 
even though I would submit, parenthetically, it really didn't, but 
including the appointments clause.
  In 1999, through a bipartisan consensus, Congress agreed to allow the 
`94 Reauthorization Act to expire. Lawmakers at that time concluded the 
`94 Reauthorization was seriously flawed in several important respects, 
as experience had shown.
  Both Republicans and Democrats had come to the conclusion that, in 
practice, the 1994 Reauthorization Act and its predecessors had become 
more often a political weapon to be unleashed in the ongoing--indeed, 
escalating--culture wars, than a tool for ferreting out and prosecuting 
crimes ostensibly committed by high-ranking government officials.
  Later, in `99, the DOJ, acting pursuant to distinct statutory 
authority, promulgated regulations ``to replace the procedures set out 
in the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994.''
  Thus, to provide a special counsel with a large budget and tell him 
or her to find crimes allows a special counsel to pursue his or her 
targets without the usual time and budget constraints facing ordinary 
prosecutors, encouraging substantial elements of the public to conclude 
that the special counsel is being deployed as a political weapon.
  Furthermore, although the regulations required the Attorney General 
to provide a special counsel with a factual statement of the matters to 
be investigated, notably missing from the regulation is any requirement 
the Attorney General specify any particular crime or statutes that are 
believed to have been violated.
  He goes on in his opinion, I think, 31 pages, but he also comments, 
given the investigation's focus--he is talking about Mueller's--on 
President Trump's campaign, even a blind person can see that the true 
target of the special counsel investigation was President Trump, not 
the defendant.
  Further, he says the wisdom of allowing all links between individuals 
associated with President Trump's campaign and the Russian Government 
to be subject to investigation, irrespective of how stale those 
connections might be, is seriously in doubt.
  Nevertheless, he says that the grant of investigatory authority is 
written broadly and does capture the connections at issue in this case, 
which Judge Ellison already talked about. It was too broad.
  When you look at the people Mueller has hired, not content to have 
hired what, 17 lawyers--two of them left recently, as I understand it--
he went looking for somebody else who hated Trump as much as he did and 
Weissmann did and was successful. Apparently, the two who left didn't 
hate the President as much as Mueller wanted them to, which is one of 
the flaws in having someone so unaccountable--unaccountable because 
they answer to a man who is in--well, it is an old word where I come 
from--cahoots with Mueller, Weissmann, and the original Russia 
investigation that let Russia end up with 20-plus percent of our 
uranium, knowing they were acquiring it illegally.
  The Obama council on foreign investments in the U.S. voted to let 
them go, well, sure, because Mueller, Rosenstein, and Weissmann made 
sure that their guy behind the scenes wasn't talking. They kept the 
information quiet about Russia's illegal actions, and, gee, that ended 
up leading to $145 million in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. 
A lot of money changed hands. Pay to play, some people call it.
  We know for certain that Hillary Clinton's private server was hacked, 
and the fact that the current FBI Director, Director Wray, would allow 
a statement to go out last week fraudulently deceptive says the FBI has 
not cleaned itself up yet. Yes, there have been some people fired, some 
people demoted, and some people moved over, but it is still 
fraudulently deceptive and dishonoring the hard, honest work

[[Page H7822]]

of thousands and thousands of FBI agents across this country.
  The intel community Inspector General and his investigators learned 
that Hillary Clinton's private server was, in fact, 100 percent 
certainty, hacked. It was reported by Richard Pollock.
  I know who hacked, I know where the information went, and I can't 
dispute what Richard Pollock wrote last week. He said that Chinese 
intel were getting every one of Hillary Clinton's messages, including 
some of our most sensitive classified information.
  Now, I didn't remember the story from November 6 of 2016, but I saw 
it recently, and it pointed out that Hillary Clinton was not only 
exposing our Nation's secrets and those who worked secretly for our 
Federal Government around the world; she was exposing people to extreme 
danger and potential loss of life through her unsecured, illegal, and, 
it turns out, criminal use of that server, not to mention the 
obstruction of justice when she got a subpoena and had the information 
sought destroyed.
  But the good thing for her was that her friends controlled the 
Justice Department. They hated Donald Trump, and they were going to do 
everything they could to help her get elected. That is why I knew Peter 
Strzok was lying when I asked him about the investigator of the intel 
community, IG Frank Rucker, coming to him and Dean Chapelle and telling 
them: We now know for certain China has hacked all of Hillary Clinton's 
emails coming in and going out and gave them specifics.

  We know Peter Strzok. We know from his texts from all he was doing, 
he was doing everything he could to protect Hillary Clinton from 
criminal prosecution and to help her defeat whoever the Republican 
would be, and especially Donald Trump. So it was certainly a lie when 
he says: Yeah, I remember Frank Rucker coming over and briefing; I 
don't remember what he briefed about.
  He does remember what he briefed about because, when he heard those 
searing words that Hillary Clinton's server has been, for certain, 
hacked, he knew there was a problem, and he covered it up.
  It takes courage to clean up a dirty justice system, especially when 
the dirt is at the very top. I was brokenhearted to read the words in 
Judge Ellis' opinion, a man who is clearly very intelligent, stays on 
top of the law, saw wrongdoing, saw impropriety, and I would compare 
him--I am tempted to compare him, but I won't compare him to Pontius 
Pilate because then some liberal would say: That means Gohmert is 
saying Manafort is Jesus, and I certainly am never going to say that.
  I know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. He is my savior, and I can 
promise you, Paul Manafort is no Jesus.
  But the action of a judge saying ``I see a problem with your 
prosecution here'' and then refusing to use the power within his 
control to right the wrongdoing of a justice system, and in this case 
the unconstitutionality, defies the judge's own words when he says:

       Let us hope the people in charge of this prosecution, 
     including the special counsel and the Assistant Attorney 
     General, are such people.

  Because just before, he had said:

       The case is a reminder, ultimately, that our system of 
     checks and balances and limitations on each branch's powers, 
     although exquisitely designed, ultimately works only if 
     people of virtue, sensitivity, courage, not affected by the 
     winds of public opinion, choose to work within the confines 
     of the law.

  Then he says:

       Let us hope the people in charge of the prosecution, 
     including the special counsel and the Assistant Attorney 
     General, are such people.

  I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, they are not.
  The judge says:

       Although this case shall continue.

  That is heartbreaking. The former judge and Chief Justice, you want 
people who are in judicial positions to have the courage to do the 
right thing. These people in charge of a runaway prosecution are 
attempting to commit a coup d'etat. They are engaged in a civil war to 
take down a President, the origins of which operation were fraudulent 
and were paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
  What has happened to the Department of Justice at the top and the FBI 
at the top is heartbreaking to people who have spent their lives 
dedicated to truth, justice, and our American constitution.
  It turns out Judge Ellis--brilliant, knowing--intentionally walked 
away from his responsibility and did not show himself to be a person of 
virtue, sensitivity, and courage not affected by the winds of public 
opinion. That is a tragedy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________