[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]]
____________________