[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 186 (Wednesday, November 20, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9116-H9119]
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, 2019, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I really haven't ever become friends with
General Michael Flynn. He doesn't object to being called Michael Flynn,
even though he earned the title of ``General,'' even though he has not
been treated fairly at all and has actually been treated unjustly.
There is an article today from Margot Cleveland in The Federalist. It
talks about Michael Flynn's case, and I am learning some things.
I think the world of Sidney Powell. She is an amazing attorney. She
is a friend. But there is a motion pending before Federal Judge Emmett
Sullivan on a motion to compel and motion for sanctions that attorney
Sidney Powell had filed.
``Powell's motion seeks to force Federal prosecutors to provide Flynn
an array of documents withheld from his attorneys and to sanction
government lawyers for their failure to provide relevant evidence to
the defense team in a timely manner.''
Now, as a former judge--and I have prosecuted, I have defended, and I
have been a chief justice, but nothing is more infuriating to me, when
it comes to our justice system, than prosecutors who are unjust, who
lie, who misrepresent. And it looks like all of that has been occurring
in Michael Flynn's case or with deference to, like Colonel Vindman,
General Michael Flynn.
This article points out: ``Then, mere days after the final briefing
came in,'' to Judge Sullivan, ``Federal prosecutors found themselves
forced to admit that, for nearly 3 years, they had wrongly identified
the authors of the handwritten notes taken by the FBI agents during
their January 24, 2017, interview of then-National Security Advisor
Flynn. Prosecutors had told defense counsel, and the court, that the
notes written by Peter Strozk had been compiled by FBI Agent Joe
Pietka, and those taken by Pietka had been written by Strozk.
``This embarrassing mea culpa surely added strength to Powell's plea
for access to other withheld evidence. After all, if Federal
prosecutors made such a basic blunder concerning key evidence, what
other mistakes lay buried in the undisclosed evidence?''
This goes on and points out that, at a minimum, things that are being
set out now ``would also support the withdrawal of Flynn's guilty
plea--something Powell does not appear to be considering at this time--
including''--and
[[Page H9117]]
here is the circumstance that is just phenomenal, that, in a Federal
district court we could have Justice Department attorneys who are this
flagrantly abusive of the process.
So, ``Flynn's original attorneys had a conflict of interest
preventing them from representing Flynn in the criminal case; Flynn did
not intentionally make false statements to the FBI agents; the FBI
agents entrapped Flynn; Flynn's purported misstatements were immaterial
to the investigation into supposed Russia collusion and, thus, no crime
occurred; the government engaged in selective prosecution and charged
Flynn solely because of his relationship to Trump; prosecutors used
threats to induce Flynn's plea; the prosecutors' failure to timely
disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence invalidates Flynn's plea;
and that egregious prosecutorial and government misconduct mandates
dismissal of all charges against Flynn.''
If you go down further, more revelations.
``The government had pushed Flynn's previous attorneys at Covington
and Burling LLP, in February 2017, to quickly file a registration
statement under the Foreign Agent Registration Act, FARA, for Flynn
Intel Group, FIG. Federal prosecutors later obtained indictments
against Flynn's FIG business partners for supposed Foreign Agent
Registration Act violations, and still later, the prosecutors branded
Flynn a co-conspirator in the FARA case. There was a clear conflict of
interest, which the government failed to mention to Judge Sullivan.
``Further, since Flynn last appeared before Sullivan, the
government's FARA case against his FIG partners has imploded. Following
a 6-day trial, a jury had convicted Flynn's former business partner,
Bijan Rafiekian, of acting as an unregistered agent of Turkey,
conspiring to act as an unregistered agent of Turkey. . . . `'
It says: ``But Federal Judge Anthony Trenga stepped in and tossed the
guilty verdict, concluding that no `rational jury could conclude that
Rafiekian conspired with Alptekin or anyone else.' Judge Trenga further
held that `there is no evidence of discussions or suggestions, let
alone any agreement express or implied, to either avoid filing under
FARA or to cause the filing of a false FARA registration statement.' ''
{time} 2000
``That the government's FARA case against Flynn's business partner
proved bogus should also trouble Sullivan because, according to
Powell's earlier court filings, the special counsel's office had
informed Flynn's `counsel in the summer of 2017 that it was going to
indict the FARA case then, had obtained authorization to target Michael
Flynn, Jr.--who had a newborn--and had seized all his electronic
devices.'
``The threat was clear: Plead guilty and cooperate or we will
prosecute your son. And given Judge Trenga's conclusion in the
Rafiekian case that there was no evidence of a FARA crime, there is an
added postscript: We will prosecute your son on bogus charges.''
Unbelievable. It also should be quite scary to someone situated as
Michael Flynn, General Flynn, that the Federal Government, the DOJ--
especially when they use unscrupulous and unethical means--they can
convict anybody, even when there is no evidence whatsoever as Judge
Trenga found, there was no evidence whatsoever.
I don't know these people, but I know the Federal judge said there
was no evidence whatsoever. And, yet, the jury came back--I am sure the
judge was just thinking: I will let the jury find there is no evidence
because there is none.
And when they came back and convicted, wow, the judge is going: I
have got to throw this out. This is totally bogus.
``The threat also wasn't a one off: After Powell took over
representation of Flynn, federal prosecutors attempted to force Flynn
to testify at Rafiekian's trial that Flynn had knowingly made false
statements in the FARA filings--something Flynn denies. When Flynn
refused to lie, federal prosecutors abruptly added Michael Flynn, Jr.
to the witness list for the Rafiekian trial, but then never called him
to testify.''
Total intimidation. Total effort to intimidate. Very unethical.
``The government, according to Powell, also had an FBI agent contact
Flynn, Jr. directly, even though the younger Flynn was represented by
counsel.'' Also quite unethical.
Boy, the unethical conduct in this Department of Justice hasn't gone
away. It hasn't stopped with Strzok and Page, being gone--Bruce Ohr,
all of these others that appeared to conspire to defeat a Presidential
candidate, and then to try the coup to take him out.
``The government, according to Powell, also had an FBI agent contact
Flynn, Jr. directly.
``These maneuvers corroborate the prosecutors earlier use of Flynn,
Jr. as a pawn to pressure his father to plead guilty.''
I mean, this stuff is just amazing. And if they can do this to
someone who spent over 30 years dedicated to the defense of his
country, all kinds of decorations for heroism, and powerful friends in
Washington, they can do this to him, it is difficult to think about the
terrible situation of someone without money, without friends.
If these people can be this unscrupulous to people with some power,
it just bodes very poorly for this little experiment in self-government
when the judicial branch, or I am sorry, the executive branch's
prosecutorial wing is this abusive. Absolutely incredible. A bit
frightening, actually.
So I would like to also touch on some of the testimony that has gone
on in yesterday's hearing, the part where we had Jennifer Williams and
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman.
He said, I think, that he has been in over 20 years. Didn't make
Colonel. And I have known people, you know, my 4 years in the Army, we
saw those folks. They were so self-righteous on the one hand, maybe
they didn't get a promotion they thought they deserved. Maybe it was
because they did something like Vindman did and was trashing the United
States to Russians when he was overheard by a superior that reprimanded
him for it.
Sometimes it is just because there is a mean superior that doesn't
want somebody promoted. But for whatever reason, he didn't become a
full Colonel. Here he is, harping after he had been called Lieutenant
Colonel over and over by my friend, Devin Nunes, he interrupts and
demands--and I notice he didn't always call people Congressman. That
didn't bother me, but it is just quite interesting that he has such a
double standard for himself and for others.
But when you look at the testimony, especially page 2, it is
interesting--and actually, this is from our friend Adam Schiff,
Congressman Adam Schiff--``Colonel Vindman, we have seen''--and I guess
it should have been Lieutenant Colonel Vindman--``we have seen far more
scurrilous attacks on your character, and watched as certain
personalities on Fox have questioned your loyalty. I note that you have
shed blood for America, and we owe you an immense debt of gratitude.''
So that is the case, we owe him a debt of gratitude for defending our
country.
I do love history and I point out down the hall when we are in the
rotunda to groups, we have got General Gates standing there accepting
surrender from the British, and he was not the real hero of the Battle
of Saratoga, and that was the biggest victory since December 24, 1776,
probably.
And it was a big one, but it wasn't Gates. I read another book on the
Revolution just months ago, and this book was saying Gates never got
out of his tent, whether it was cowardice or whatever, he never would
get out of his tent. But there was this great, brave, courageous, young
major that just knew they could defeat the British there at Saratoga if
they get on going and attack them. Gates wouldn't give the order, so
this major rallied folks, and they went down and they attacked the
British, and they defeated them.
So the real hero of Saratoga wasn't General Gates. It was this major,
a tough, strapping guy. He took them on, and he was wounded. And he
carried a limp with him probably the rest of his life. He was wounded.
He was hurt severely. But we owe that guy a debt of gratitude for his
defense of his country.
Of course, later on, he got upset that he had been slighted and
didn't get a promotion like Gates' immediate subordinates, and then
that caused him to
[[Page H9118]]
fall prey to the British talking him into helping them because they
would pay him, and they would appreciate him a whole lot more than
Washington and others. And, of course, then he ended up setting up
Washington to be kidnapped by the British.
But I am amazed how many people don't know that we owe a great debt
of gratitude to Major Benedict Arnold, because without him, there is no
victory at the Battle of Saratoga, and that was a huge victory, so very
important to our becoming an independent country.
So anyway, it is just interesting when you think about history and
people who demand to be given respect, and if they are not, they get
rather snippy.
And I don't know that I have ever met Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, but
to find out that he was trashing the United States to Russians, and it
was just intriguing to go through his testimony.
For example, he said this about the investigation into the 2016
elections, Bidens, Burisma.
``I stated to Ambassador Sondland that this was inappropriate and it
had nothing to do with national security. Dr. Hill also asserted his
comments weren't proper. Following the meeting, Dr. Hill and I agreed
to report the incident to the NSC's lead counsel.''
So it is interesting. Further, he was asked by Mr. Goldman: ``On
September 10, the Intelligence Committee requested the whistleblower
complaint from the Department of National Intelligence.''
He wasn't aware of that. But it is just, wow, so September 10, they
obviously knew all about the so-called whistleblower complaint.
But when you get over here to part of the questioning by Congressman
Nunes: ``Did you ask or encourage any individual to share the substance
of the July 25th phone call or any matter associated with the call with
any member of the press?''
``I did not.''
And he goes on like that. And then he said:
``Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, did you discuss the July 25th phone
call with anyone outside the White House on July 25th or the 26th, and
if so, with whom?''
And he said: ``Yes, I did. My core function is to coordinate U.S.
Government policy, interagency policy, and I spoke to two individuals
with regards to providing some sort of readout of the call.''
Nunes says: ``Two individuals that were not in the White House?''
Vindman: ``Not in the White House.'' And that is Lieutenant Colonel
Vindman. ``Not in the White House, cleared U.S. Government officials
with appropriate need to know.''
``And what agencies were these officials with?''
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said: ``Department of State, Deputy
Assistant Secretary George Kent, who is responsible for the portfolio,
Eastern Europe including Ukraine, and an individual from the office
of--an individual in the intelligence community.''
And that is where Nunes says: ``As you know, the intelligence
community has 17 different agencies. What agency was this individual
from?''
And that is when Chairman Schiff said: ``If I could interject. We
don't want to use these proceedings''--and then cross talk--``we need
to protect the whistleblower.''
And what is really interesting, of course, is when he calls out
Congressman Nunes. ``It's Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, please.'' So I
want to make sure that I don't slight him.
He says--and he is under oath--``I don't know who the whistleblower
is. That is correct.''
And yet, he gets down to there is two people. He identifies one, and
Chairman Schiff interrupts and doesn't want him to out the other
person, because that would be outing the whistleblower.
And, yet, Chairman Schiff and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman say they
don't know who the whistleblower is, but it must be that one that he
has been told not to answer because that would give away the
whistleblower's identity.
And yet, they say, we don't know who the whistleblower is, but we are
down to one person, but we don't know who it is. Even though if he
gives the name, it will out the whistleblower. It is just really
amazing when you look at this stuff.
And it is actually rather tragic. There was a question Mr. Castor
says: ``And are you aware, and George Kent testified a little bit about
this last week, that under the Obama administration, the U.S.
Government encouraged Ukraine to investigate whether Zlochevsky used
his government position to grant himself or Burisma exploration
licenses. Are you aware of that?''
And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman said: ``I would defer to George Kent.
He's a fount of knowledge on Ukraine, much deeper knowledge than I
have. If he attested to that, then I'd take his word for it.''
Well, isn't it interesting that Mr. Kent knew that the Obama
administration was trying to get to the bottom of corruption about
Burisma, and, yet, he freaks out, not Kent, but Lieutenant Colonel
Vindman, freaks out over Burisma being brought up, that that is some
kind of crime for an impeachable offense, basically, for President
Trump to bring up the corruption and including Burisma.
But isn't that interesting? He didn't bring up there is a problem
with the Obama administration bringing it up, just President Trump.
{time} 2015
But Ranking Member Nunes also brings up that, I asked Ms. Williams
about this, about, if she had ever accessed, without authorization,
colleagues' computers. She answered no. And he goes on through some of
that.
But you get down here and then it is turned over to Jim Jordan.
Congressman Jordan said, ``Mr. Morrison said this: `I had concerns
about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment. Among the discussions I
had with Dr. Hill--that is Fiona Hill--in the transition with our team,
its strength, its weaknesses, and Fiona and others had raised concern
about Alex's--he should have said Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's--
judgment'. When Mr. Morrison was asked by Mr. Castor, `Did anyone ever
bring concerns to you that they believe Colonel Vindman may have leaked
something,' Mr. Morrison replied, `yes.' ''
They thought he was a leaker well before this all happened.
So your boss had concerns about your judgment--your favored boss, Dr.
Hill--had concerns about your judgment, your colleagues had concerns
about your judgment, and your colleagues felt that there were times
when you leaked information. Any idea where they might have gotten
those impressions, Colonel Vindman?
He calls him ``Colonel.'' He gave him a promotion.
But Vindman says ``yes.'' And then he raised an OER that was somewhat
glowing, but actually the answer should have been ``no,'' if he was
being truthful, because he later says, ``I can't say why Mr. Morrison
questioned my judgment.''
But Congressman Jordan goes on: ``Colonel, it's interesting, we
deposed a lot of people in the bunker, in the basement of the Capitol,
over the last several weeks, but of all those depositions, only three
of the individuals we deposed were actually on the now-somewhat-famous
July 25 phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky.
There was you, the individual sitting beside you, Ms. Williams, and
then there, of course, was your boss, Mr. Morrison. . . .''
``When we asked Ms. Williams who she spoke to after the call, about
the call, she was willing to answer our questions, and Chairman Schiff
allowed her to answer the questions. When we asked Mr. Morrison who he
spoke to after the call, about the call, he was willing to answer our
question and Chairman Schiff allowed him to answer our question. But
when we asked you, you first told us three individuals at the NSC, your
brother and two lawyers. And then you said there was a group of other
people you communicated with, but you would only give us one individual
in that group, Secretary Kent. And the chairman would only allow you to
give us that name. When we asked you who else you communicated with,
you would not tell us. So what I want to know first, how many other
people are in that group of people you communicated with outside the
four individuals I just named?''
``Mr. Jordan, on a call readout''--this is Lieutenant Colonel
Vindman--
[[Page H9119]]
``on a call readout, certainly after the first call, there were
probably a half a dozen or more people that I read out. Those are
people with the proper clearance and the need to know. In this case,
because of the sensitivity of the call, Mr. Eisenberg told me not to
speak to anybody else. I only read out, outside of the NSC, two
individuals.''
So very interesting there. And it is interesting, too, that, you
know, the fact is if Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, say hypothetically he
leaked--as he had been suspected of in other case or cases--say he
leaked in this case to people that didn't have proper clearance, he
probably would try to assert: I was named as a whistleblower, and once
I had that status, you can't prosecute me. And then there would be a
motion to dismiss, this kind of thing.
And ultimately, the courts would say: Wait a minute. The
whistleblower statute does not protect the whistleblower, because to
protect a whistleblower, the person being complained about has to be
within the department or agency from the person complaining. The
President is not in the Intel agencies or department, and so it just
wouldn't work. And, of course, previously you had to have direct
knowledge.
And I would submit, if you look, treason is something the President
can be impeached for, but under the Constitution, that requires two
people with direct knowledge as direct witnesses, not hearsay--can't be
hearsay--direct witnesses to a crime. They have to testify. If you
don't have two, you can't prove treason under the Constitution. It is
out.
And I would submit, the Senate would do well--if this is sent down
there--to require the same thing of whatever bogus charge ends up
coming their way, because that is all we have seen so far, but require
two people with direct evidence. A bunch of people have been convicted
of treason. No President has ever been removed. So if we are going to
remove a President, it ought to require two direct witnesses as well.
And so it ought to be a short trial.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________