[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 153 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H8256-H8258]
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, our thoughts and prayers will continue for 
the folks who are in harm's way with the hurricane coming ashore. I am 
grateful for all of those who are serving, State, Federal, and local 
officials, trying to keep people safe. They will continue to be in our 
thoughts and prayers.
  I am very grateful that President Trump hasn't waited. They 
mobilized. They have got Federal folks on the ground ready to go.
  I am also glad it got downgraded to some extent, but it is still 
going to be a rough go for folks, their homes, and their goods. So we 
will continue to remember them. I am grateful for those first 
responders out there ready to serve.
  We just remembered 9/11 this week. Those of us who were old enough to 
know what happened that day will never forget what happened. We will 
never forget where we were.
  I will never forget the next day, September 12. In my hometown of 
Tyler, just like in hundreds of thousands of towns and cities around 
the country, people came together and we prayed together. We sang hymns 
together. We held hands and sang together. It was a powerful day.
  And I will always remember there were people from all different 
races, ages, both genders, people of all walks of life, but we gathered 
there in solidarity. What I noticed that day was that there were no 
hyphenated Americans. We were just Americans. That is what everybody 
said, and that is what everybody was.
  It was an incredible day that an act of sheer hatred, evil, wanting 
to destroy freedom and the freest country with the best founding 
document that would allow freedom, they wanted it all destroyed. But 
there was a lot of love that next day. It is unfortunate that, 17 years 
later, we don't see that kind of harmony.
  It used to be that, in this body, we would disagree, but, as the 
House rules require, we wouldn't call into question any other elected 
official's motivation, intentions. We would say we all want is what is 
best for the country. We all want to keep our oath to the Constitution.
  But it appears that some don't want to follow those rules anymore. In 
fact, some of the very people who have been in this room, in the 
Senate, here in Washington, in front of the press around the country, 
people who have demanded that the Federal Government get involved and 
stop bullying at all levels, including threatening, harassing little 
children in elementary school because the Federal Government felt like 
it had to intervene and prevent bullies even at such an early age, yet 
some of those same people who have been calling for Federal 
intervention to stop bullying have become the biggest bullies in the 
United States of America.

  It is unbelievable how people would be encouraged by elected 
officials to bully, harass people with whom they disagree. If you can 
find them in public anywhere, intimidate, scream at them, run them out. 
Don't let them eat. Don't let them do anything. Don't let them shop. 
Bully them until you drive them out and you intimidate them so much 
that they are afraid to express

[[Page H8257]]

their political opinion or to continue to work in a Republican 
administration or as a Republican in the House. It is just 
unbelievable. It has, clearly, incited people to go out and commit 
bullying and sometimes physical assaults.
  But you also look at some of the other things that have gone on: 
people who are completely disloyal to the President for whom they work 
will go to the extent of committing crimes because they don't like the 
President, even to the extent of, as a former judge, what I would call 
committing a fraud upon the FISA court. That is the way it appeared to 
me.
  The FISA judges granted four different warrants to surveil people in 
the Trump campaign and administration, one of whom, Rod Rosenstein, I 
have asked him if he even read the applications and affidavits. He 
never would answer the question, which, as we know from Watergate days, 
that is a nondenial denial. Clearly, when they would not admit that 
Rosenstein had read the application, he said: I didn't know how things 
work.
  Well, I know how they are supposed to work. If you come before a 
judge and you sign a document in an effort to get that judge to 
encroach on the constitutional rights of American citizens, you better 
know what you are doing. Rosenstein defrauded the court. But the reason 
they possibly did not defraud the court is if the court was engaged in 
fraud itself.
  The only reason I would raise that is because the FISA judges who 
were granting warrants based on false information, incomplete 
information, misleading information, it is possibly because they were 
okay with helping to use the color of the law to violate American 
citizens' rights.
  Maybe there is a 1983 civil rights action there against judges and 
those who participated. Who knows. I can't help but wonder about the 
integrity of judges who are not upset that lawyers came in from the 
Justice Department and manipulated them into signing a warrant four 
times when it should never have been signed once.
  Then we find out this guy, Halper, who is supposed to have identified 
Mike Flynn and the relationship with Russians, it turns out he had 
gotten contracts from the Defense Department--I think one was over 
$600,000, another over $400,000--and it was flagged by a very 
dedicated, devoted employee of the Defense Department whose job it was 
to analyze contracts to make sure they were legitimate and people were 
doing what they were supposed to. His name is Adam Lovinger.
  He saw those contracts and thought: This is very strange, two 
contracts worth over a million dollars to one person and there doesn't 
appear to be anything that he is getting.
  Well, he was being paid by the Federal Government to set up somebody 
in the Trump campaign as someone who had been dealing with Russians, 
who had been paying Russians to come speak at his conferences or 
seminars, who had an ongoing relationship with Russians, so he would 
later say: Gee, this guy from the Trump campaign was getting too cozy 
with the Russians, so I quit.
  You mean the guys that you had this ongoing relationship with and 
paid them to come and speak at your conferences, you were concerned 
about someone from the Trump administration or who worked with Trump in 
the campaign actually speaking to the people you have been hiring for a 
number of years?

                              {time}  1730

  It is just fraudulent what they were doing. Incredible. And I had 
hoped, when Christopher Wray took over at the FBI--well, I don't really 
know him--but maybe he'll help clean up the disaster that was created 
by the weaponization of the Department of Justice, and particularly the 
FBI, by Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, so many of those--Bruce Ohr--who 
were working at DOJ or FBI.
  But we got a solid piece of evidence that Christopher Wray is not the 
answer; he is part of the problem. And that came as was reported in 
this story Wednesday, August 29, 2018. As the headline from Newsmax 
says: ``FBI: No Evidence Clinton Server Hacked Despite Trump Tweet.''
  Well, Christopher Wray had to approve that, and either he is 
completely, objectively incompetent or he intended to slap the 
President with a fraud by omission and also to slap--figuratively 
speaking--our Intel community.
  It wasn't the FBI that found that Hillary Clinton's server had been 
hacked and that over 30,000 of her emails--all but 4, and the 4 really 
didn't amount to anything--all went to a foreign country's intelligence 
apparatus. They had hacked it, put instructions on there.
  So then, we know that because the Intel community has made--they knew 
with 100 percent certainty that that had happened. They found it. They 
found the anomaly. They found the embedded instruction that was placed 
when her server was hacked.
  And I know there have been allegations that perhaps Hillary Clinton's 
classified information that went through the unclassified private 
server may have gotten some of our undercover people killed in China. I 
don't know if that is what got them killed or not, but it certainly 
wouldn't have helped.
  Nonetheless, the Intel community inspector general, who back then was 
Chuck McCullough, and Investigator Frank Rucker are the ones who found 
that. And I haven't talked to Mr. Coats, but this was a slap at the 
Intel community, basically saying, Hey, we at the FBI didn't find any 
evidence her private server was hacked, so anybody who says they did is 
just totally wrong because, if the FBI doesn't find it, nobody in the 
Intel community of the United States is competent enough to find such a 
hacking.
  Well, Chris Wray and whoever fed him this statement to put out 
publicly were wrong. Our Intel community was good enough. They did find 
that her private server was hacked. And the emails did not go to Russia 
or any representatives or agency affiliated with Russia. Richard 
Pollock wrote that he had confirmed that it went to China. I didn't say 
that when I questioned Mr. Strzok, but that has been reported.
  If Mr. Wray is going to continue in his efforts to slap--
fraudulently, really--at the President and our Intel community, he 
really ought to just voluntarily step down.
  The FBI has had so many thousands and thousands of honest, ethical, 
upright FBI agents, because I have known many. And they need somebody 
who will help the FBI get its reputation back. When the current FBI 
director engages in this kind of fraud by omission, then he is not the 
answer; he is trying to salvage a great reputation that has been 
destroyed during the Obama administration, and he is not going to get 
it back by misrepresentations, by omissions.
  Hopefully he'll do the right thing and let us get somebody to replace 
him soon who will clean things up. In the meantime, that is a little 
scary.
  Now, I also had noted an article I had never noticed before and a 
friend pointed it out. I had never heard of this. I had to go back and 
look. A New York publication by Chris Smith, October 20 of 2003. The 
byline under it says: ``Mr. Comey goes to Washington.'' Byline says: 
``Just as his terrorism and corporate-corruption cases here are heating 
up''--apparently in New York--``United States Attorney James Comey is 
heading south to become John Ashcroft's deputy. What's a nice, 
nonpartisan prosecutor going to do in a Justice Department like that?''
  Well, it doesn't sound like they were big fans of John Ashcroft, who 
is really a fine, dedicated, upstanding individual. He must have been 
feeling a little bit giddy. He is going to be the deputy, Department of 
Justice. And so he said far more than was good for his reputation.
  It says, in the fourth paragraph: ``Comey has been savaged by William 
Safire and lauded by Chuck Schumer; just what kind of Republican is he, 
anyway? This sets Comey howling again.''
  Then the quote from Comey. He says: ``I must be doing something 
right. In college, I was left of center, and through a gradual process 
I found myself more comfortable with a lot of the ideas and approaches 
the Republicans were using.''
  The article says: He voted for Carter in 1980, but in 1984, Comey 
said: ``I voted for Reagan.'' These are Comey's words: ``I'd moved from 
Communist to whatever I am now. I'm not even sure,'' Comey says, ``how 
to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point I'll have to 
figure it out.''
  It says in the article: ``On the surface it's an odd pairing: Comey--
who cites

[[Page H8258]]

liberal theologian Reinhold Niebuhr as a formative influence,'' which 
is a little disturbing, ``and who can sing along with Good Charlotte 
pop-punk hits--and Ashcroft.''
  But anyway, that was interesting. I did not know that Comey had 
admitted to being a commie, but Comey the commie is no longer in charge 
of the FBI. And it still boggles the mind that Rod Rosenstein would do 
a memorandum telling the President: You need to fire Comey. He hasn't 
been intellectually honest. You need to fire him. Causes are all here.
  So the President relies on Rosenstein and fires Comey; and then, 
what, the next day Rosenstein turns around and says: Oh, well, there is 
cause to appoint a special counsel to investigate the President for 
supposedly obstruction of justice for firing Comey, because the 
President followed Rosenstein's recommendation.

  The mere fact that Rosenstein would appoint a special counsel to 
investigate the President for doing what Rosenstein said should have 
been enough to get him fired back then. What kind of manipulative 
little demon would say, ``Fire Comey,'' and then the advice is followed 
and then he appoints a prosecutor to try to disrupt him and remove him 
from office.
  I mean, it is like some kind of game: Oh, I know. I will set up the 
President. I will tell him to fire Comey, and then we can use that to 
investigate him for the rest of his time as President.
  Well, hopefully--and I have been hoping for a long time that 
Rosenstein's days are numbered. Of course, he was the U.S. attorney who 
was in charge of the investigation investigating Russia and their 
illegal efforts to obtain American uranium. He would also be the same 
person, along with FBI Director Mueller and a guy named Weissmann, who 
is currently working for Mueller, who made sure that their undercover 
guy who was gathering information to show how illegally Russia was 
acting, make sure he signs a nondisclosure agreement.
  They threaten him, we are told, that he either sign the nondisclosure 
or they would prosecute him. So he signs it. Because they did not want 
anybody talking about how illegally Russia was acting because, if they 
had, then the committee that had to approve foreign investments in the 
United States, CFIUS, they could not have voted to allow Russia to get 
a hold of 20 or so percent of American uranium. And if they were not 
allowed to get hold of that much uranium, then, of course, there would 
not have been the $145 million or so that went into the Clinton 
Foundation.
  Then we get this reporter from FOX News: ``John Kerry slammed for 
`shameful' shadow diplomacy after admitting to meetings with Iran.''
  Now, I think there is a word for it, but when someone goes and tries 
to undermine the United States President's administration from 
protecting the country, America, from the biggest supporter of 
terrorism in the world, I don't know what you would call that, but it 
seems like, if you have a President, in President Trump, trying to 
protect America from terrorist attacks that would be funded by the 
biggest supporter of terrorism in the world, Iran, and you have 
somebody else from America go over and try to save the deal that was 
going to help Iran be more of a threat to America--gee, that seems like 
people used to get prosecuted about things like that.
  Seemed like there was somebody named Rosenstein or Rosenberg back 
there that was not a help to the United States. I think back then they 
were hanging traitors. But, in any event, interesting.
  Also yesterday, committee chair Richard Burr from North Carolina, who 
has bent over backwards, done everything he can to get Justice and 
Intelligence to produce any kind of evidence whatsoever showing Trump 
or his administration colluded with the Russians, he comes out 
yesterday and says the panel has found ``no hard evidence of 
collusion'' between the Trump campaign and Russia.
  So it is just amazing. It sounds like we still need a housecleaning 
at the FBI at the very top.
  And this out today from the New York Post that Strzok and Page texts 
are a disaster and embarrassment to the FBI, DOJ.
  And it has this tweet from the President: ``More text messages 
between former FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are a disaster 
and embarrassment to the FBI and DOJ.
  ``This should never have happened, but we are learning more and more 
by the hour. `Others were leaking like mad' in order to get the 
President.''

                              {time}  1745

  ``In the lengthy exchange, the two ex-lovers talk about a leak 
operation for `political' purposes.
  `` `Oh, remind me to tell you tomorrow about the Times doing a story 
about the RNC hacks,' Page wrote to Strzok, who replied, `And more than 
they already did? I told you Quinn told me they pulling out all the 
stops on some story . . . '
  `` `Quinn' could be referring to Richard Quinn, chief of the Media 
and Investigative Publicity Section in the FBI's Office of Public 
Affairs. . . .
  ``Strzok then texted Page, `Think our sisters have begun leaking like 
mad. Scorned and worried, and political, they're kicking into 
overdrive.'
  ``It's unclear,'' the story says, ``whom he was referring to as 
`sisters,' but retired FBI Special Agent John Iannarelli told Fox it 
could be another government agency.
  ``Earlier this week, a report from Rep. Mark Meadows . . . a member 
of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said a new 
Strzok-Page text from April 2017 showed them discussing a `media leak 
strategy'.''
  So this is serious stuff. And, apparently, we don't have somebody at 
the top of the FBI who will get this cleaned up. There are plenty of 
FBI agents across the country that could get things cleaned up. We know 
there is at least one here in Washington, D.C., that is good at 
coverups, but most of the rank-and-file FBI agents are classy, 
honorable, decent, upright investigators who honor their oath every 
day, and, who, I keep hearing from different times, different places, 
are really upset with the damage that the people like Comey, Strzok, 
Page, Ohr, the damage they have done to their reputation for what used 
to be a sterling FBI.
  So it is time to clean house. Rosenstein has got to go. Chris Wray 
needs to be replaced by somebody that is not going to try to keep 
slapping the President when he is wrong about the FBI.
  Hopefully, we are going to see that come in the next few weeks. We 
will see.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________