[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 149 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H7869-H7874]
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 4, 2021, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, these are the times that try men's souls.
  We have heard so much in recent days about the raid by the FBI in 
Mar-a-Lago. I have continued to hear from FBI agents and former FBI 
agents. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee have, as my friend   Jim 
Jordan has pointed out, received, I think, 14 complaints from people 
within the FBI about very serious problems. I have had several that I 
have received personally that were not included in those 14. I 
understand Senator Grassley has also gotten some.
  There is a systemic problem at the FBI. Christopher Wray was 
appointed to clean up the FBI. As I told President Trump later on: You 
have asked me about a few of your appointments; I wish you would have 
asked me about that one, because I could have told you a great deal, 
going back to the days of Mueller as director of the FBI. Director 
Christopher Wray learned some of those techniques.
  Director Mueller, even going back as far as Boston, tried to keep two 
people who were innocent of the murder of which they were convicted--
they were set up by FBI agents--and Director Mueller continued, even 
after it was clear they were innocent, to try to keep them from being 
released from prison.
  Then along came Comey. He has had serious issues with truthfulness 
and yet does a great job of trying to play the victim.
  I had one FBI agent, who had been around a long time, say: You 
remember back to the 1980s, 1990s, at the FBI? We were completely 
professional. If someone had a nonviolent background, we were just 
about doing our job. We would notify the--especially if we knew the 
person had a lawyer, we would notify the lawyer that your client needs 
to appear, is being indicted or has been indicted, needs to appear at 
this or that jail at a certain time. And, of course, if the person 
didn't arrive, they knew they would be picked up. But they were given a 
chance to voluntarily surrender. Normally, that went very well, quite 
professionally.
  But what we have seen arise with the Department of Justice and the 
FBI is absolutely disgusting. I mean, I was a law-and-order felony 
judge. I have sentenced people for felonies, everything from probation 
to the death penalty. I know what it is to wrestle over the issue, 
presentence reports, evidence at sentencing, and what appropriate 
sentences are.

[[Page H7870]]

  


                              {time}  1700

  We expected local, State, and Federal law enforcement that came 
before me to be professional, and they better not lie or there would be 
consequences and there were.
  But this FBI, this DOJ is so far out of control, and Christopher Wray 
took his appointment as Director--at a time we needed the FBI cleaned 
up--as a directive to sweep everything he could under the rug.
  FBI agents have told me, from different places in the country that I 
have talked to, you know: What Director Christopher Wray keeps telling 
us constantly is nothing about being honest. Be truthful about 
everything you say and do. But his big line, they tell me, is ``protect 
the FBI brand.''
  And they make clear, they say he makes clear, and they follow up by 
their actions making it clear, that if there is somebody in the FBI 
doing something wrong, you better not report it to anyone but your 
supervisor.
  I am not going to get into some of these because I haven't had an 
opportunity to properly go through them to exclude identifying 
information, but those that complained to their supervisors that I have 
seen the complaints, they are retaliated against.
  So it becomes very clear to honest, honorable law enforcement people 
working at the FBI, at least many of them, that when Christopher Wray 
says, ``protect the FBI brand,'' he means don't you dare report anybody 
anywhere except to your supervisor, and that way we can get rid of you, 
we can make your life miserable, we can get you out of the FBI, so it 
is only people who won't complain about lies, dishonesty, corruption, 
because the message seems pretty clear: We want people that will help 
us convict the people we want convicted, whether they are guilty or 
not.
  I am not going to get into all of the complaints that have been 
provided to me, the information; but I want to concentrate on one issue 
since Mar-a-Lago, the raid there by the FBI, again, they jumped the 
gun. Never, ever before has a former President had their residence 
raided. And it is very clear that with Director Christopher Wray and 
Attorney General Merrick Garland, here is the deal: If it is a 
supporter of President Trump, let's go after them, make their lives a 
living hell. Let's send the message out far and wide, you better back 
off supporting that guy, that former President Donald Trump or we will 
come after you. We will come after your friends.
  Instead of doing what was done with people working with Secretary of 
State Hillary Clinton, who were given immunity agreements that would 
even include stuff like, we just want to see your laptop, and here is 
the deal we will make with you. Instead of getting a search warrant, 
grabbing the laptop of Hillary Clinton's assistants, they made a deal. 
We just want to look at your laptop, and here is our deal: We will not 
use anything we find in the laptop against Secretary Clinton, against 
you, against anybody. We just need to see what is there. That is all we 
are going to do. We are not going to copy it or anything, and we 
promise we won't prosecute you.
  I have never, ever seen a deal like that. Who would make that kind of 
deal except corrupt people in the Department of Justice and the FBI?
  Because what you do if you are law enforcement, you get the warrant, 
you seize the laptop, and if there is evidence of crime on there, as 
you believe there is, then that can be used to prosecute the people 
instead of giving them an immunity agreement that you will not come 
after them at all.
  There were incredible deals made to protect Secretary Clinton and the 
people who worked for her and to make sure they had no reason to 
testify against their boss. Because typically law enforcement all over 
the country, all over the world, knows if you are going to make a case 
against somebody at the top, whether it is the mob, whether it is the 
State Department, wherever, you make a case against the people below, 
and you say: Okay. Here are 20 violations; you are looking at 5 years, 
you are looking at 100 years. But we will make a deal, we will only 
pursue this charge that carries a 2-year sentence if you will help us 
on the people above you. And you work your way up the food chain.
  That is the way great prosecutions have occurred against mob 
organizations, and it works the same way with any organization, except 
that the DOJ and the FBI chose to treat conservatives, chose to treat 
all of Donald Trump's friends, people that might have information 
against him, they were all treated very differently because there are 
two types of justice. Justice is no longer wearing a blindfold in 
Washington, D.C.
  From some of the complaints I have seen, I used to think the problem 
was here at the national headquarters, but apparently it is not just 
the field office or the headquarters here because there has been so 
much corruption, it spread all over the country.
  So there is all the indignation from the FBI and the DOJ about 
documents that were held in Mar-a-Lago. Now, I haven't talked to 
anybody with President Trump's team, with President Trump. It has been 
months. And the last time I talked to him, he was just calling, 
surprised that I was running for Attorney General in Texas, and it was 
a very short conversation. So we hadn't talked about any of this. But I 
understand his frustration because I have seen the way evidence was 
created to pursue two impeachments of Donald Trump.
  I have seen the evidence, at least some of it, of the way the FBI and 
the DOJ falsely convicted Senator Ted Stevens immediately before his 
election. I think they tried him 2 weeks before his election, and he 
lost just by very little. Then he was exonerated when one FBI agent who 
believed in truth signed an affidavit establishing that there was 
exonerating evidence, exculpatory evidence that they did not provide to 
Senator Stevens and that they forced a witness to say what he had made 
clear was not true, and they convicted him.
  That seems to be a pattern. These kinds of things appear to be going 
on in different places. Oh, yeah, they are convicting some guilty 
people, but it makes it very difficult to know which is which when you 
have an organization that plays fast and loose with the rules and plays 
fast and loose with the truth.

  So you have got people who have made complaints, and just like the 
FBI agent who had a conscience and reported the fraud in the 
prosecution of Ted Stevens by the Department of Justice and the FBI, he 
was run out of the FBI, and the one that was engaged in the fraud, 
according to the FBI, was reassigned and then promoted.
  How do you have a national law enforcement entity that keeps 
integrity when integrity is no longer the key word? Oh, yeah, I have 
heard Comey and others talk about integrity, that the FBI, the ``I'' 
stands for integrity. Not anymore.
  No. It is all about preserving the brand, which means you can't allow 
any information about corruption within the FBI to get outside, or we 
will use our ability to be corrupt to come after you for filing or 
making a complaint or reporting dishonesty.
  Every American has a constitutional right to communicate with his or 
her, or whatever your pronoun is, your Member of Congress. It is a 
right.
  And not only that, it is a constitutional right that those 
communications can be privileged and protected, which is why when 
William Jefferson, Congressman William Jefferson, who did have $90,000 
of cold, hard cash in his freezer--and I read the affidavit that was 
used to get a warrant to search his congressional office--and there 
were people that were on TV saying, gee, there are people like Gohmert 
that are saying they had no right to raid that office.
  Well, those individuals are just ignorant of the Constitution. But 
the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was not. And they made clear, look, 
even though the Department of Justice in that case--and I had no 
problem with him being convicted. It appeared to me from the affidavit, 
holy cow, if this is accurate, they didn't need to raid his office. In 
fact, by raiding the office and violating the privilege, they put their 
case that was rock solid in jeopardy.
  I remember being an assistant district attorney, right out of law 
school, ready to go pursue justice, and let's get the bad guys. And it 
always helps to have somebody that has been around a while, say wait a 
minute, think about this. What you are proposing to do to get evidence, 
it may violate the Constitution. It may not. But you have got

[[Page H7871]]

a rock solid case here. Why risk it being thrown out trying to make 
some point and get some little piece of evidence you don't need? You 
have got enough to convict. So don't create a possible error pursuing 
evidence you don't need. Just get the conviction. Don't get into the 
murky areas that may reverse your case. You will get the conviction, 
and you will keep the conviction. It won't be reversed on appeal.
  But they put that case at risk because all those years before--and I 
did happen to be in the room. It was the conference room of the 
Speaker. His legal team, House counsel, White House counsel came over, 
DOJ counsel came over, and there was a lot of fury because of what the 
FBI under Mueller did, raiding that office, because in the past if 
someone had a warrant, like to search a congressional office, well, the 
DOJ knew, FBI knew there is privileged material in there. In fact, I am 
sure I am not the only one who has had FBI agents provide information 
about wrongdoing within the FBI.

                              {time}  1715

  Well, when the Founders set up these three branches of government, as 
Justice Scalia once explained to some friends from my old town, the 
reason we have more freedom than any country ever in history--at least 
we used to have it--was because the Founders did not trust government. 
So they made it hard for any one of the three branches to abuse people 
and abuse their power. And the only way the Department of Justice--that 
was created and financed by Congress--the only way to keep them 
accountable--or the intel community--is to make sure Congress does 
proper oversight. And you can't do proper oversight unless you are 
allowed to have people come to you privately and say, Here is the 
problem, and know that they are not going to have reprisals.
  That is why we have the whistleblower laws that many are apparently 
using now. So the way it was done beforehand is you come to House 
counsel. We have a warrant. House counsel, who is familiar with the 
privilege of Congress to keep certain things private and other things 
not, would then go through everything that was specified, because you 
have to have in the warrant, you have to state with particularity the 
place to be searched, the things to be seized.
  They would go through those, and they would put aside anything that 
was privileged and then give the things that were not privileged that 
matched what was in the warrant, give that to DOJ. But Mueller wanted 
to send a message to everybody in Congress, Democrats and Republicans. 
I don't care about your constitutional rights or privileges. We are 
going to go heavy-handed, and I am going to send a message to every 
single Member of Congress: You don't mess with me, or I will come 
search your office. And I will send a message to every FBI agent: You 
better not complain to Members of Congress because I can go raid their 
office, and I can find out who you are, and I can destroy your lives as 
well.
  That was a message very clear. And the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 
said, Wait a minute. So the DOJ says, okay, we will take the stuff from 
the Congress Members' office, and we will have some people that won't 
be involved in the prosecution that work in our office. They will go 
through it and anything that is not privileged, they will go ahead and 
give that to the prosecutors.
  And the Circuit Court is going: You can't do that in the same office. 
Come on. That has to be somebody different that makes sure that it is 
secure.
  And we saw the FBI, all these years later from that, basically doing 
the same thing with Mar-a-Lago. You have Presidential executive 
privilege. You have attorney-client privilege. Apparently, that doesn't 
mean much anymore at the DOJ, but it still means something to those of 
us that care about the Constitution.
  And yet, they set up their own department to go through--we will 
decide what you can claim as privilege and what--no, you don't get that 
right.
  So what do they do? They hurry through it. So they have already been 
through everything before the Court could appoint a special master. And 
from what we saw in Ted Stevens' case and other cases, you can't be 
sure stuff won't disappear.
  Look at what we just found out. All these years later, going back 6 
years, that the FBI has covered up for 6 years that they employed the 
Russian. The FBI was colluding with Russia. The DNC, the Hillary 
Clinton campaign, they were all colluding with Russia to try to destroy 
Donald Trump. That is why the FBI hired Danchenko. That is why the DNC 
and the Clinton campaign hired Christopher Steele.
  And what we are hearing on the news the last day or two is that at 
the time they went before a judge and swore an oath to keep getting the 
warrant to spy on the Trump campaign and on President Trump, they knew 
their basis was a lie. They committed fraud upon the FISA court.
  And apparently, there are people in the DOJ that don't understand the 
F in FISA--that F word that is the first word in FISA is not what they 
apparently think it is. It stands for foreign. And they committed a 
fraud upon the Court and got a warrant for the first time in the 
history of the country.
  They helped their political campaign by spying on a political 
opponent. Even the DOD, the Department of Defense got involved. They 
hired the professor. And, in fact, we had someone who was a 
whistleblower. He went and said, Look, there are hundreds of thousands 
of dollars being paid to this professor in London, and we got nothing 
in return for it. This is a problem.
  So what happened? They fired him because he found where the DOD was 
helping go after, at that time, candidate Trump. They fired him. He is 
still trying to get his job back. He hasn't gotten justice yet.
  But how can people in America have any confidence in the Department 
of Justice when they think--when there are so many people, apparently, 
who think it is okay to go commit a fraud on the court even at the 
highest level of the DOJ and the FBI. It is not okay.
  Yes, every organization is composed of people who are human and make 
mistakes, but for goodness sakes, when you have top people who flaunt 
the law and think they are above the law, and that if they want to go 
after somebody, then they are Almighty God, and their judgment is 
tantamount. And if you ever report them, they are coming after you 
because they are God-like in their own minds.
  Look, the FISA court is being abused so badly, we know now--and I've 
mentioned before--but that Verizon order that was leaked, I couldn't 
believe it. A judge signed that. Had the judge not read the Fourth 
Amendment? You have to describe particularly the place to be searched 
and what's to be seized.
  And what the government, the FBI, the DOJ said is, you know what? 
FISA court, we need every bit of information this cell phone company 
has on everybody. American, foreign--we don't care. We need every bit 
of information they have on every single customer.
  And the judge looked at it and went, Oh, okay. They need every bit of 
information that Verizon has on every single customer. Sure, I will 
sign that. Where is the particularity? Where is the evidence that any 
of these people have committed a crime--or ``probably'' committed a 
crime? You have got to have probable cause. Where was that?

  And where is the indication that there was evidence in what was being 
seized to prosecute those people for committing--there wasn't any. No, 
they just wanted everything on everybody, and they used the FISA court 
to get it.
  When I saw that, I am going, oh, my gosh. I mean, I have signed so 
many warrants over the years as a judge--I have turned many down. Wait, 
you don't have probable cause in here. You can't just plead 
conclusions. You have to assert specific facts in your affidavit that 
supports the application for a warrant so that, as the judge, I can 
find there is probable cause a crime was committed and probable cause 
to believe there is evidence that I am going to specify they can be 
found at this specific location. Being abused like crazy.
  So here is a letter from--and this is from the attorney, Kurt 
Siuzdak. It is my understanding he is a former FBI agent. He sets out 
to Director Wray:

       Under 28 CFR Part 27, you are advised that an anonymous 
     employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is making a 
     protected disclosure to the United States Congress and House 
     of Representatives.

[[Page H7872]]

       The anonymous employee is reporting to you and Congress 
     that executives in the Federal Bureau of Investigation have 
     been violating FBI security protocols that have been 
     implemented to ensure the security of classified information. 
     Since you have been Director of the FBI, many Senior 
     Executive Service (SES) officials have been wearing their 
     cell phones into SCIFs.

  That is the secure compartmentalized facilities. It is like a room 
that they can ensure is totally free. It can't be bugged. It has not 
been bugged. There is nobody with any electronic devices that could be 
hacked so that people can listen.
  I asked one of our intelligence people one time about a show that I 
saw, a movie, where a cell phone company required everybody at meetings 
to take their battery out of the phone: Does that keep a phone from 
being compromised during a meeting? He said, no, because even if you 
take the battery out--which I don't know how you do that with an Apple 
phone--but even if you take the battery out, there is another residual 
power so that your information is there when you put it back in, that 
we could still get in and we can listen to you. We can access the 
camera. We can watch.
  That certainly didn't make me feel very secure about things as long 
as there are phones around. And he said other countries are really good 
at hacking. There are some that are great at it.
  So if somebody has a phone in a meeting, we can listen, we can watch. 
So that is why you have a SCIF. And we have a couple of SCIFs here on 
Capitol Hill. You can't go in there--you can't even get near being in 
the SCIF with a cell phone. No Member of Congress is allowed. They are 
very strict. No Member is allowed to have a cell phone, a smartwatch--
those kind of things.
  The letter goes on and points out that:

       These violations have occurred at the SCIFs (special 
     compartmentalized information facilities) in field offices 
     and at a facility known as LX.
       The anonymous employee worked at LX and several field 
     offices. The anonymous employee had visibility of 
     counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and field office 
     executives. Although all FBI personnel are prohibited from 
     bringing electronic devices into SCIFs, FBI Senior Executive 
     Service personnel openly and notoriously wore phones into 
     SCIFs in ways that have made it apparent they were 
     demonstrating their power and authority to subordinates.
       These executives would walk into and out of the SCIFs 
     multiple times wearing their cell phones on their belts and 
     never stop to secure the cell phone prior to entering the 
     SCIFs. When the phone rang, some executives would exit the 
     SCIF and answer the phone, but others would start talking on 
     the phone prior to exiting the SCIFs.
       Depending on a particular cell phone's settings, apps, and 
     vulnerabilities, eavesdropping using a cell phone's 
     microphones may be considered a trivial cyber hacking exploit 
     for advanced persistent threat or hostile nation-state 
     actors. Some executives wore multiple holders which would 
     indicate they were also wearing their personal cell phones in 
     the SCIFs.
       As a result, FBI executives have willfully compromised the 
     security of FBI SCIFs since your time you became Director and 
     potentially many years prior.
       Additionally, the anonymous individual is reporting that 
     FBI executives who are involved in preparing daily briefing 
     materials for you or participating in FBI headquarters daily 
     briefings have brought classified materials to their homes to 
     ensure that they are prepared to answer questions for the 
     next day's briefings.

                              {time}  1730

  Why, that is worse than what they are accusing President Trump of.

       Although certain executives may have courier cards that 
     allow them to transport classified materials, the classified 
     materials in question were certainly not properly packaged, 
     and the courier cards do not allow FBI executives to store 
     classified material in their homes.
       The anonymous employee advised that although the FBI is 
     investigating individuals not currently employed by the FBI 
     for mishandling of classified materials, the anonymous 
     employees cannot recall a single FBI Senior Executive Service 
     official who was even reprimanded for these violations unless 
     it involved incidents in which the classified material was 
     found in public. In contrast, DOJ has prosecuted non-SES FBI 
     employees for mishandling classified information.
       One reason for the failure to hold FBI executives 
     accountable is that field office security officers generally 
     report to the special agents in charge or assistant special 
     agents in charge in the office. FBI special agents and 
     employees do not stop these notorious security violations 
     because reporting the misconduct of these executives would 
     certainly result in retaliation and would be professional 
     suicide.
       Please note the DOJ OARM has determined that anonymous 
     reports of serious misconduct can be protected disclosures. 
     Although the Department of Justice Office of Attorney 
     Recruitment Management has in section 5, subsection C of its 
     procedures for FBI whistleblower reprisal claims brought 
     pursuant to 28 C.F.R. of part 27 stated that it is not bound 
     by any ``case law of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 
     the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and any 
     other Federal court of appeals deciding a whistleblower 
     appeal from the MSPB.''

  They have made clear they are above the courts and above Congress. 
They are above everything. They will do what they please.
  Wow. And they are in charge of justice.

       You should also be aware that one of your Office of General 
     Counsel attorneys advised me that she would not accept 28 
     C.F.R. part 27 disclosures because it wasn't part of her 
     current caseload. Under that standard, OGC has completely 
     insulated you from receiving protected disclosures from 
     outside attorneys and thwarted Federal whistleblower laws and 
     regulations.

  Well, that is apparently because he is head of the FBI, and as head 
of the FBI, he is above the courts, and he is above Congress. He can do 
what he pleases.
  We saw that Merrick Garland, our Attorney General, issued an order to 
the FBI that they are not to contact any Member of Congress. So much 
for the Constitution and your constitutional rights. I am the Attorney 
General, he is saying, and I can override the Constitution, the Supreme 
Court, court of appeals, and the President. I am God when it comes to 
you, is the message. We Americans have a serious problem with a 
Director and an AG who are acting like that.
  Because after that came out about saying there were phones especially 
in the Director's and Deputy Director's SCIF, the Director sent out 
their media person to say it is a lie, that there have not been any 
cell phones allowed in or around the SCIF. Then that triggered a number 
of complaints and people coming forward to set out that the Deputy 
Director's denial was a lie.
  Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 21 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOHMERT. I needed to know the time because I have to play by the 
rules. I can't act like I am the Attorney General or FBI Director and 
just ignore the rules and law.
  So here is this letter again:

       Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. part 27 and the FBI's Dodson rule, 
     you are advised that an anonymous individual from the FBI is 
     making a protected disclosure.

  It goes on. This individual was an executive who recently worked at 
FBI headquarters. The person had work-related reasons for being in the 
Director's and Deputy Director's office areas on the 7th floor of the 
Hoover Building.
  While working in the 7th floor SCIF areas, the individual observed 
numerous security violations involving the presence of personal 
electronic devices such as cell phones, smartwatches, and wireless 
sports bands. The individual recently read that the FBI publicly denied 
the security violations at FBI SCIFs and specific violations by Deputy 
Director Abbate.
  The individual is reporting this issue because the FBI's denial casts 
doubt upon the credibility of the FBI employees who made the initial 
disclosure related to Mr. Abbate. This individual advised that the 
SCIFed areas where Director Wray and Deputy Director Abbate currently 
worked had multiple people wearing or displaying electronics that are 
prohibited in the SCIF.
  In fact, the FBI has explicitly limited the smart bands and watches 
in non-SCIF areas because the devices pose such a serious security 
threat.
  There is a little more. But then there is another to Mr. Abbate:
  Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a ``categorical 
denial'' about your failure to follow proper SCIF protocols to protect 
national security.

       Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, these are the people who are 
     condemning former President Donald Trump because they weren't 
     sure the padlock they said they had to add on top of the 
     locks he had already was good enough.

  Frankly, if I were President Trump and I had seen and heard about 
wrongdoing at the top of the FBI, and I had seen the gestapo tactics 
they have used to go after nonviolent people who used to have their 
lawyer get a call saying

[[Page H7873]]

that he needs to report at a certain time in a certain place and they 
would do it, he had seen on the news how they would leak information 
whether it is CNN or some other liberal media so that people could be 
there when they knock down the door or drug people out of bed in their 
underwear and took them outside--the FBI didn't used to do that. Now, 
the gestapo used to do that. That is what they would do because they 
were about intimidation, threats, and torture if necessary.

  But when somebody is nonviolent, no criminal history, and they are 
obviously not a threat, you are going to bring a full SWAT team so you 
can drag them out of bed?
  One family reported that her 18-year-old daughter was grabbed by the 
hair and drug upstairs to show where something was.
  For heaven's sake, what happened to the professionalism at the FBI 
and the Department of Justice?
  Anyway, this letter says:

       You also seem to have decided that ``good of the Bureau'' 
     equates to the good of Paul Abbate. It does not. The FBI lied 
     to the American people to protect you, which is shameful.
       By issuing an absolute denial of your misconduct, you also 
     implicitly claimed that the two individuals who reported the 
     misconduct made false statements. This assertion is also 
     false. Thinking back, you are certainly aware that many of 
     your subordinates saw you wearing the phone in the SCIF. Now, 
     your subordinates are coming forward, and their reports are 
     far more damning to you and Mr. Wray.
       You, Mr. Wray, and the employees on the 7th floor violated 
     national security because you were all too lazy to secure the 
     devices.

  He put our most precious and most confidential secrets at risk 
because of his arrogance.

       When SSA Schoffstall--he is a special agent in charge out 
     West--emailed you requesting that you rescind the reprisals 
     by Salt Lake City's SAC Dennis Rice--special agent in charge. 
     Wray's and your replies to Schoffstall were ``deleted, not 
     read.''

  They didn't want to know about reprisals for doing his job and 
protecting the brand.

       This supervisor refused to allow his subordinates to be 
     pressured to lie, and you refused to help him.

  That was what he did wrong. His subordinates were being pressured to 
sign a lie under oath that they knew was a lie, and they wouldn't sign, 
which would be a crime to swear under oath to something you know is not 
true. They were being demanded to sign a lie under oath. They wouldn't 
do it. When their Special Agent in Charge Schoffstall defended them and 
said: No, you can't make my agents sign a statement that they are 
telling you is a lie. Sure, we understand you want those things in 
there because you need them to have probable cause, but we are telling 
you they are not true.
  So, the supervisor was punished for protecting the honesty and 
integrity of his field agents.
  What do Director Wray and Deputy Director Abbate do about it? We 
don't want to hear about it. We would delete it, and we didn't read it 
because we don't want to know about the pressure on agents in the field 
to lie on affidavits.
  Who is going to investigate that? Oh, the DOJ. The DOJ has a little 
group of lawyers. They will look into it.
  What a ridiculous system. They need oversight, and this Congress sure 
isn't going to have oversight because they want them to keep coming up 
with stuff to go after Donald Trump.
  The letter goes on:

       This supervisor refused to allow his subordinates to be 
     pressured to lie, and you refused to help. If you want to 
     understand how that feels, just ask the media representative 
     who issued the denials about your personal violations in the 
     SCIF.

  Because somebody told that media rep to go out and lie and deny 
everything.

       The employees of the FBI joined because they believe in its 
     core values. They are held to the standard that every 
     employee must be truthful and accountable. You have failed on 
     both counts. You have mistaken your employees' loyalty to the 
     FBI as some misguided loyalty to you.
       In the last week, many of your agents and employees have 
     advised me that I will be ``killed'' or, as one of your 
     employees said, the FBI would issue me a one-way travel 
     voucher off the 4th floor of a hotel balcony. How pathetic it 
     is that your employees have so little faith that you can do 
     the right thing that they would believe dissent against you 
     is a life-threatening proposition.
       Before you issue any claim to mock the statement, be 
     assured that the employees who suffered death threats from 
     within the FBI in 2020 have filed protected disclosures with 
     the U.S. Congress. They begged you for help, but you and Mr. 
     Wray ignored their pleas. Their SAC refused to notify the 
     insider threat unit of the issue. Instead, the SAC opened a 
     threat investigation at the field office level, but refused 
     to assign an investigator to conduct the investigation.
       Your employees have abandoned you because you abandoned 
     them. There is nothing more that you can do for the FBI, you 
     have demonstrated your lack of honesty and accountability. 
     Please find a job that does not require either of those 
     traits.

                              {time}  1755

  Another letter that came after the denial, according to these people 
is that is an outright lie from the top floor of the FBI.

       The individuals have advised that they were associated with 
     an FBI unit called Defensive Electronic Countermeasure Group, 
     which is responsible for conducting electronic countermeasure 
     sweeps in various FBI facilities. This individual or 
     individuals was/were involved in a sweep of the Director's 
     office and Deputy Director's office, including the conference 
     areas inside the Hoover Building's 7th floor SCIFs.

  It is their job to check for the security of these places.

       During the sweep, dozens of electronic signals, including 
     WiFi and Bluetooth signals, were emanating from within the 
     ``SCIFed'' area. FBI cell phones, personal cell phones, and 
     high-technology smartwatches were present in the FBI SCIFs.

  According to the people who officially surveyed the SCIFs.

       There were phones on desks. It did not even appear that the 
     director's office employees were trying to hide the devices. 
     The devices in the SCIF were the type that had cameras 
     included within them.

  Meaning, they can be hacked, and if people know what they are doing, 
they can take pictures, they can see what is going on through the phone 
that was left in the secured location. So much for protecting things. 
At least that wasn't the situation at Mar-a-Lago.

       The SCIFs on the 7th floor of the FBI Hoover Building in 
     Washington, D.C., are, for all intents and purposes, 
     compromised. This includes the whole Director's and Deputy 
     Director's areas.

  They are the ones that are going to protect us from situations like a 
former President having documents.

       These areas are where the most significant threats and most 
     important top secret information in the United States are 
     discussed. You and your executives have created one of the 
     critical security threats to the United States. Because 
     Director Wray and you work in this office area, there is no 
     doubt that you both are aware of the violations. Please do 
     not accuse your employees of lying because you cannot admit 
     the truth.
       It appears that you, the executives, and the staff of the 
     7th floor of the FBI building have formed a conspiracy to 
     violate security practices to protect national security 
     simply because you are not disciplined enough to properly 
     store your electronic devices.

  As time concludes, let me finish part of a disclosure regarding the 
Defensive Electronic Group that surveys these security SCIFs. This 
person said:

       I was responsible for Technical Surveillance 
     Countermeasures worldwide. Recently, I participated in an 
     exam of the J. Edgar Hoover Building, specifically the 
     conference room for the Deputy Director of the FBI. During 
     the exam I observed dozens of strong Bluetooth signals.

  That is in the SCIF that is protected from Bluetooth signals or any 
WiFi.

       As I began looking for possible sources, I observed cell 
     phones on desks and in use inside the SCIF. I had just begun 
     looking for them when the chief security officer responsible 
     for that area shut me down.

  He was doing his job. He/she--whatever the pronouns are--was doing 
the job they were hired to do. Yet, they were shut down for doing it so 
that the Director or the Deputy Director's area could remain completely 
unsecured because they didn't want him to be reported.

       He specifically directed me not to pursue it or take any 
     action. As you know, cell phones are not permitted inside a 
     SCIF. Based on the readings I observed, I believe every 
     employee there was violating the cell phone policy.

  That is at the top of the FBI. The DOJ doesn't appear to be concerned 
about security. If they were, they wouldn't have hired a Putin-lackey 
to provide false information so they could get a fraudulent warrant--
six of them--to pursue and spy on the Trump campaign.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H7874]]

  

                          ____________________