[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.

                          ____________________