[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 118 (Friday, June 26, 2020)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E581-E582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          JUDGING FBI CONDUCT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JOE WILSON

                           of south carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 26, 2020

  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, with the newest 
relevations in the current situation regarding General Michael Flynn, 
Americans need to be alerted by the following revised article from 
yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

                          Judging FBI Conduct

                       (By Kimberley A. Strassel)

       House Judiciary Committee Democrats were back at their 
     ``politicized Justice Department'' theme this week, calling a 
     disgruntled former lieutenant of special counsel Robert 
     Mueller to accuse the department of giving special treatment 
     to President Trump's allies. Too bad the testimony came on 
     the very day a federal court confirmed that Mr. Mueller's 
     team and the Federal Bureau of Investigation engaged in 
     misconduct.
       A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
     District of Columbia Circuit did so via an order requiring 
     Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss charges against former 
     national security adviser Mike Flynn. Most of the focus has 
     been on the legal merits of the ruling. Judge Neomi Rao's 
     compelling opinion rebuked Judge Sullivan for ignoring the 
     department's call to drop the case and instead setting 
     himself up as both prosecutor and jury. This was a win for 
     the separation of powers, even as it was a step toward 
     justice for Mr. Flynn.

[[Page E582]]

       Largely overlooked was the decision's rebuke of the FBI and 
     the Mueller team. The D.C. Circuit became the first federal 
     court to acknowledge the misconduct that Attorney General 
     William Barr is trying to bring to light. Most of the courts 
     that oversaw Mr. Mueller's prosecutions were asked to do no 
     more than rubber-stamp a plea deal or sign off on a jury 
     verdict. But Mr. Flynn, backed by tenacious lawyer Sidney 
     Powell, fought the charges--forcing the Justice Department to 
     review its actions, acknowledge its bad acts, and move to 
     dismiss its case. Democrats and the press cast this outcome 
     as evidence of Mr. Barr's ``politicization.'' The circuit 
     court begs to differ.
       The Justice Department's credibility was at stake here. 
     Judge Sullivan bought into the same Democratic conspiracy 
     theories, which is why he refused Justice's motion to dismiss 
     and appointed retired judge John Gleeson to act as shadow 
     prosecutor. He argued the Justice Department wasn't entitled 
     to the usual ``presumption of regularity.'' And if the 
     circuit judges thought there was anything to claims that Mr. 
     Barr was playing political favorites, it could have allowed 
     the process to continue.
       Instead they bluntly noted that there was no ``legitimate 
     basis'' to question the department's behavior. They even 
     slapped Mr. Gleeson for relying on ``news stories, tweets and 
     other facts outside the record.'' By contrast, Judge Rao's 
     opinion notes: ``The government's motion includes an 
     extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting 
     Flynn's guilt into doubt.'' It points out that this includes 
     ``evidence of misconduct by the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation.'' It finishes by noting that each government 
     branch must be encouraged to ``self correct when it errs.''
       The court's conclusion is obvious. All it had to do was 
     look at the voluminous evidence the Justice Department 
     supplied. Its briefs proved the FBI had improperly pursued 
     Mr. Flynn, keeping open an investigation that produced no 
     evidence, ginning up a ``violation'' of the seldom-enforced 
     Logan Act, sandbagging Mr. Flynn with an interview that had 
     no ``legitimate investigative basis.'' It even provided new 
     FBI notes this week suggesting that then-President Obama and 
     Vice President Joe Biden were improperly engaged in the 
     investigation. The department's filings showed that the 
     Mueller team had consistently denied defense attorneys 
     exculpatory information. And it explained the straightforward 
     process by which it had reached its decision to withdraw: Mr. 
     Barr in February appointed veteran U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen 
     to review the case, and in May Mr. Jensen concluded dismissal 
     was ``the proper and just course.''
       What matters, however, is that the public gets the truth 
     from credible sources. It's been coming, from congressional 
     inquiries, from the nonpartisan Justice Department inspector 
     general, from internal Justice and FBI reviews. And now from 
     a court.

                          ____________________