The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“APPOINTMENT OF SECOND SPECIAL COUNSEL NEEDED” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H3332-H3338 on April 16, 2018.
The State Department is responsibly for international relations with a budget of more than $50 billion. Tenure at the State Dept. is increasingly tenuous and it's seen as an extension of the President's will, ambitions and flaws.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
APPOINTMENT OF SECOND SPECIAL COUNSEL NEEDED
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2017, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
General Leave
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to speak out on the urgent need for the appointment of a second special counsel in light of evidence that raises serious concerns about decisions, activities, and inherent bias displayed at the highest levels of the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation with regard to FISA abuse, how and why the Hillary Clinton email probe ended, and how and why the Donald Trump Russia probe began.
The concerns of the American public are serious, and the issues requiring an immediate, unbiased, independent, and thorough investigation are broad.
Mr. Speaker, the DOJ and FBI cannot be expected to investigate themselves. I acknowledge, with immense gratitude, that nearly every single man and woman in the DOJ and FBI conducts themselves daily with integrity, independence, patriotism, objectivity, and commitment to the rule of law. A special counsel is of the utmost importance to ensure that these historic, legendary, and necessary agencies move forward more respected and effective than ever before.
Tonight I am joined by my colleagues from across this country, and we will hear from each and every one of them. Following these speakers, I will be going into much greater detail on the many specifics on why the Attorney General must immediately appoint a second special counsel to conduct a thorough and independent investigation of our significant concerns.
Without any further ado, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) who has been a leader in this cause to fight for justice and equality under the law.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding, and also for leading on the great question of whether or not we should have a second special counsel to evaluate the misconduct of the FBI and the Department of Justice in pursuing unfounded and inappropriate warrants to spy on a member of the Trump transition team without due process and without proper protocol.
One of the reasons I join the gentleman from New York in this call is that, currently, the person making critical decisions regarding Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and this narrative regarding Russia is Rod Rosenstein; and I believe Mr. Rosenstein has a series of conflicts of interest, each of which would independently disqualify him from overseeing this review; and yet, he continues. That is troubling to me, and it is one of the reasons why we need to have a second special counsel.
In fact, it was Mr. Rosenstein who signed a FISA warrant renewal to spy on Carter Page. He did this, even though the FBI and Department of Justice knew that Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier that was the principal basis for that warrant had been deemed uncredible and had said things that were not true to the FBI.
Mr. Rosenstein also signed pleadings seeking to silence a witness who may have had information regarding the sale of uranium to Russians. Mr. Rosenstein took no real action against Bruce Ohr, a senior official at the Department of Justice, even though Mr. Ohr failed to report the facts that his wife was moonlighting as a researcher to dig up dirt on Donald Trump and then commingle that dirt with lies told by Russians and folks from Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC.
Mr. Rosenstein allowed Bob Mueller to pick a biased team, people who had gone to Hillary Clinton's election night party, people who had represented the Clinton Foundation when they had been accused of not producing public documents. Mr. Rosenstein could have stepped in. He could have demanded a higher standard in the assembly of that team, but he didn't.
Mr. Rosenstein wrote a secret memo to expand the scope of the Russia investigation. He approved the raid on Mr. Trump's personal lawyer. He took no action on criminal referrals well laid out by Senators Grassley and Graham, Mr. DeSantis and others, indicating that Christopher Steele and Glenn Simpson had lied to the FBI and potentially had failed to register as agents of a foreign government as they were seeking to lobby for changes to the Magnitsky Act.
But when Mr. Rosenstein's own action was questioned, when his own propriety, when his own integrity was called to bear as a consequence of his participation in the illegal spying by our government on American citizens, well, he didn't go seek the same special counsel remedy that he sought to go after Mr. Trump. He went and picked his own employees to investigate himself.
I agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), that that is a standard that erodes our trust in the rule of law. When you have got one set of rules for the Clintons and the FBI and the deep state and another set of rules for anyone that has had anything to do with Mr. Trump, we deprive ourselves of the ability to find the facts, and to ensure that people who have truly broken the law are held accountable.
I support Mr. Zeldin's call for a second special counsel. I would note that this is an organic call from the membership of this body. It began with several members of the Judiciary Committee in July. Under Mr. Zeldin's leadership, we have had a number of Republican colleagues sign on, including the majority leader of the House and the whip of the House. So we invite and encourage our leadership to continue to support these efforts so that we can restore the rule of law in this country.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida, as he pointed out, and our next speaker signed as well at the end of February, February 28, a letter signed by over a dozen of our colleagues to AG Sessions calling for the appointment of a second special counsel.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin) for hosting tonight's really important Special Order.
I might just add, as a side note, that Mr. Zeldin and I are very aware of corruption firsthand; I, as a former member of the Assembly, and him as a former member of the New York State Senate. Today is actually the day of former speaker Sheldon Silver's second trial. He is being tried for corruption in New York, so we know what it is like to fight the good fight on that.
But I want to just highlight why it is so important and why I agreed to sign on to Mr. Zeldin's letter appointing a second special counsel. Recent evidence has emerged raising serious concerns about decisions and activities at the Department of Justice, the DOJ, and the FBI regarding FISA abuse.
I keep saying FISA, but for everyone, so they should know, it is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it is why the Clinton probe ended and why the Trump Russia probe began. It appears that, for political gain, key Federal employees at the FBI and the Department of Justice deliberately misled our FISA courts and pursued a partisan political agenda.
The FISA memo detailing these abuses of power stated: ``Top Obama administration officials knowingly used unverified information paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign, some of which came from Russian intelligence, in a secret court document to justify a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 Presidential election. This corrupt process was later the basis for a campaign to sabotage the incoming Trump administration and to fuel a witch hunt against the President.''
The American people deserve to know if our government is misusing powerful surveillance methods to exact political revenge, especially if it is before a FISA court. This behavior by those entrusted to impartially serve the public threatens to the core the integrity and vibrancy of our constitutional republic.
The American people are starting to get it. A recent Harvard CAPS-
Harris Poll survey concluded that 67 percent of Americans support a second special counsel; 75 percent of those are Republicans, 60 percent are Democrats, and 69 percent are independents. This is a significant majority of Americans ranging from all sides of the political spectrum.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I stand alongside my distinguished colleagues to encourage Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a second special counsel. Simply appointing Attorney John Huber to lead an internal Justice Department review of Special Counsel Robert Mueller is a step in the right direction, but I don't believe it is far enough.
The American people deserve nothing less than full transparency. Working alongside congressional leaders, I will continue to fight to ensure these serious matters are investigated, and encourage investigations where necessary to restore the public trust.
We must demand accountability across the board. It is the only way we are going to restore public trust in our institutions of government and to restore the rule of law and order in our communities.
I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue as a member of the Financial Services Committee, but also, importantly, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and also serving honorably as a distinguished member of our Armed Forces in the Army.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Blue Star Mom Claudia Tenney for being here and for her leadership on this important cause as well.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my distinguished colleagues who we have heard from, and additional colleagues who will be out here shortly. We are laying out the very important case here tonight why a second special counsel is needed with regard to misconduct at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI related to FISA abuse; how and why the Hillary Clinton email probe ended; how and why the Trump Russia probe began.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect the DOJ and FBI to fully investigate themselves. I have a great amount of respect for everyone at the Justice Department who has served and continues to serve for all of the right reasons, as I mentioned earlier, integrity, independence, patriotism, objectivity, and commitment to the rule of law.
A special counsel can ensure transparency and accountability so that these historic, legendary, and necessary agencies can move forward with their important mission better than ever before.
The list of concerns that warrant an immediate and independent investigation is long and growing by the day. First, tonight I will discuss the misconduct with regard to how and why the Hillary Clinton email probe ended. Next, we will cover FISA abuse. And finally, we will discuss the manner in which the Trump-Russia probe began, was extended, continued, and became a special counsel probe.
But before discussing each of these topics individually, it is important to address the political bias that has existed among individuals at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI. First, there was FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who was the chief of the FBI's counter-
espionage section.
Additionally, there was Agent Strzok's mistress, FBI counsel Lisa Page. Aside from the fact that they were in love, it is important to note that these two individuals exchanged many texts detailing their personal biases, overcoming their better judgment in performance of their duties.
Text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page during the period of August 16, 2015, to May 17, 2017, show substantial evidence of politicizing Federal law enforcement and improperly handling investigations within the agency. The texts contain egregious evidence of bias against President Trump, before and after the November 2016 election.
Page would write: ``Trump should go F--- himself.'' Strzok would text: ``F--- Trump.'' Now, that is barely even starting to scratch the surface with those two.
It is also worth noting that their texts, for some reason, were not stored within the FBI archives system, an egregious oversight blamed on a technical glitch. And even after these messages were partially recovered by the agency's inspector general in 2018, many unanswered questions remain regarding impropriety and bias.
Then there was DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr, fourth in command at the agency. While the DOJ and FBI were improperly submitting FISA applications based on Fusion GPS' work on behalf of the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign, it was never disclosed that Bruce Ohr's wife worked at Fusion GPS, and that he served as the middleman between Christopher Steele and the Justice Department.
Then there was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, was running for Virginia State Senate, and received
$675,000 in donations from the Virginia Democratic Party and Common Good VA, the leadership PAC controlled by Democratic Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a long-time Clinton associate.
These are just a few of the many highlights of partisan bias at the highest levels of DOJ and FBI. That list, and the evidence, runs much, much deeper.
{time} 1945
The Hillary Clinton email probe:
While these various rogue agents were busy trying to obstruct Donald Trump from day one, they were failing to properly complete their investigation into the Hillary Clinton email controversy.
During her tenure as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton violated Federal law and State Department rules, regulations, and protocol by using a private email server in her Chappaqua, New York, home. She would transmit emails that contained sensitive information or classified material on this unsecured server. This use of a private server was meant to blatantly get around FOIA and to avoid having to turn over incriminating emails in the case of a subpoena.
Her plan proved to be partially successful when various sensitive emails subject to grand jury and congressional subpoenas were destroyed through bleach biting and the destruction of hardware before they could be obtained by investigators.
The FBI, led by then-Director James Comey, began an incomplete investigation into this serious issue. And according to transcripts obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Comey was prepared to exonerate Secretary Clinton as early as April or May of 2016 when he began to draft a statement announcing the end of his investigation before up to 17 key witnesses, including former Secretary Clinton herself and several of her closest aides, were even interviewed.
Cheryl Mills, who served as counselor and chief of staff to Hillary Clinton during her whole tenure as United States Secretary of State, was offered immunity from prosecution by the FBI during its investigation in exchange for access to her laptop that contained many of the questionable emails.
Why?
And after watching President Trump's personal attorney last week get a no-knock raid of his home and office, that is especially troubling how the scales of justice are just not equal under the law. That is a big problem.
Back to Comey, now he contradicted those transcripts I mentioned when he stated during sworn testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on September 28 of 2016 that he made the decision not to recommend criminal charges for Hillary Clinton after she was interviewed by the FBI on July 2, 2016. That was a flat-out lie under oath.
Former Director Comey, in the final draft of his statement, allowed Peter Strzok to replace ``grossly negligent,'' which is legally punishable under Federal law, with ``extremely careless,'' which is not legally punishable under Federal law.
Federal law states that gross negligence in handling our Nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time and/or fines.
And then there was the infamous tarmac meeting on June 27, 2016, just days before Hillary Clinton would end up being exonerated. Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a covert meeting with Hillary Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, aboard AG Lynch's plane on the tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona. The likelihood of this conversation being just small talk was zero.
And let's not forget that it was AG Lynch who insisted that the Hillary Clinton email probe not even be called an investigation. Instead, she insisted it be called a matter, as if the Clinton campaign were driving the bus of the investigation and calling the shots.
Soon after, Comey violated DOJ rules and unilaterally exonerated then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in a public statement to the media. One day later, on July 6, 2016, an announcement followed from AG Lynch that the DOJ investigation into then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would be formally closed, with no criminal charges.
This seemingly endless trail of crimes and misconduct relating to Hillary Clinton's emails did not end there. In September 2016, the FBI, during an examination of the personal laptop of former Congressman Anthony Weiner, as part of an unrelated investigation into him sending sexually explicit messages to a teenage girl, discovered previously unexamined State Department classified emails belonging to his spouse, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The man within the FBI tasked with examining these additional emails was--guess who--FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife was then in the midst of a Virginia State senate campaign generously supported by Clinton operatives and Clinton-allied money.
It then took until October 28 of 2016 for Comey to announce, via a letter to the chairmen of the relevant congressional committees, that he was reopening the investigation, an additional egregious delay after McCabe failed to even examine the illicit emails for at least 3 weeks after the FBI discovered them on Anthony Weiner's computer.
The DOJ's inspector general is still conducting an investigation into whether then-FBI Deputy Director McCabe and other FBI officials sought to purposely delay the release of these illicit emails for politically motivated purposes.
Hillary Clinton's privileged status her whole career, and especially during the Obama administration, as above the law doesn't end with her legal misuse of classified emails.
Throughout the Obama administration, while she was serving as Secretary of State, and later as she was running for President, the Department of Justice also failed to fully investigate serious concerns surrounding the connection between her, her husband, and the Clinton Foundation to Russian-controlled company Uranium One, which received State Department approval to purchase American uranium mines in 2010.
Also in 2010, while Russian state interests were working to both acquire a majority stake in Uranium One and to purchase American mines, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Kremlin-
linked Russian investment bank that was underwriting Uranium One stock.
Nothing to see here, right?
The Obama DOJ ignored an FBI probe on the matter. A confidential informant who worked with the FBI to uncover bribery and other corruption related to the Uranium One matter was threatened with reprisal by the Justice Department under AG Lynch when he tried to come forward in 2016.
The Senate Judiciary Committee launched a probe in October of 2017 to investigate the Uranium One issue, including whether Federal agencies such as the State Department knew the FBI was looking into possible corruption before the deal was approved.
Mr. Speaker, this again brings home the urgent need for an independent and fair investigation.
Collusion with corrupt Russian actors is, indeed, a very serious concern and a threat to U.S. national security, especially when critical resources that impact national and global security, such as uranium, are up for grabs to questionable companies that were not properly scrutinized due to their connections with an influential family.
FISA abuse:
Mr. Speaker, there are also very serious concerns that, in October 2016, the FBI and DOJ used politically biased, unverified sources to improperly obtain a FISA warrant to spy on an American citizen. This warrant granted U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies sweeping power to collect bulk information and conduct ``about collection,'' which results in surveillance of a broad array of private communications from the past, present, and future, including those of U.S. citizens not specifically targeted in a FISA-authorized warrant.
To obtain these warrants, FBI and DOJ officials submitted an unverified dossier prepared by Christopher Steele to the FISA court, failing to disclose that Christopher Steele was hired by the firm Fusion GPS, which was hired by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign to prepare this dossier, and that the source was unreliable and soon thereafter was going to be terminated as an asset.
The FISA court was not informed that Christopher Steele was actively opposed to the election of Donald Trump, that he was the unnamed source cited in the media reports that the FBI used to corroborate his dossier, and that Fusion GPS had been hired to perform previous anti-
Trump research efforts in 2015.
The Woods Procedures, which are the FBI's mandatory vetting process required for all FISA warrant applications, instituted to ensure that all facts contained in an application are accurate and verified to clearly support probable cause for the warrant, was clearly not followed.
Former-Director Comey then admitted in sworn testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 8, 2017, that material contained in the Steele dossier was known to be both salacious and unverified.
Since FISA applications are rarely turned down and almost never subject to appeal, are presented in closed court with no public record where the government is not challenged by any defense, it is imperative that the government take extra care to validate the information being utilized to build their case before they take the extraordinary step of waiving rights of a U.S. citizen without his or her knowledge or the opportunity to defend themselves.
These are secret documents submitted to a secret court to spy on an American citizen. The government has a responsibility not only to provide the best evidence they have in support of their case, but to also provide the best evidence that they have against their case.
These deeply flawed and questionable FISA warrant applications utilizing illicit sources and politically biased intelligence were approved by DOJ and FBI officials at the highest levels before being submitted to the FISA court.
It was further not disclosed to the FISA court, as I referenced earlier, that the wife of the fourth ranking DOJ official, Bruce Ohr, was an employee of Fusion GPS, and Christopher Steele directly transmitted the dossier and other information through Bruce Ohr for submission to the FISA court.
Let's talk about how and why the Trump-Russia probe began.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, the Trump-Russia probe was launched because Donald Trump won the GOP nomination for President of the United States.
It is clear why DOJ and FBI didn't want to turn over the memo opening the investigation. They didn't come up with a sufficient alternative justification to start the probe. The Trump-Russia probe was then continued because Trump became very close to possibly being elected President of the United States.
It is clear why DOJ and FBI didn't want the Nunes memo released: they broke the rules and misled a FISA court to improperly secure a warrant to spy on a U.S. citizen.
The Trump-Russia probe then became a special counsel probe because Donald Trump subsequently won the election, and the FBI Director then illegally leaked classified info to the media to trigger a special counsel appointment.
Director Comey had prepared a series of seven memos containing classified information, including notes on his conversations with President Trump. He then admitted in sworn testimony to the Senate Committee on Intelligence in June 2017 that he had leaked this classified content to a personal friend and encouraged that friend to share the material with the press.
That is a blatant violation of Federal law meant to protect sensitive information from falling into the wrong hands.
An investigation conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee later revealed that the personal friend of Director Comey was Professor Daniel Richman of Columbia Law School, and that Mr. Comey provided him with four of the seven memoranda, all containing classified information.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, with all of this grievous misconduct at the highest levels of the DOJ and FBI, the blatant violations of the Constitution and law, and so many serious unanswered questions, this matter must be investigated by someone who can act independently from outside the Justice Department.
The nearly 2\1/2\ years that the Trump-Russia probe has continued on with zero accountability still appears to be without any evidence that President Trump colluded with the Russians. These have been some of the most tumultuous years in the history of the FBI and DOJ, but with transparency and accountability, these awesome agencies can get everything back on track.
In March 2018, former FBI Director McCabe was fired by AG Jeff Sessions, who noted that Deputy Director McCabe ``lacked candor--
including under oath--on multiple occasions'' and had partaken in
``unauthorized disclosure to the news media.'' This is among other violations noted in a report issued by the FBI Office of Inspector General after a wide-reaching investigation into McCabe's conduct.
A myriad of other DOJ and FBI personnel have been fired, demoted, or resigned during these past few years: Former FBI Director Comey; chief of staff to the Director, James Rybicki; FBI General Counsel James Baker; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; FBI Special Agent Josh Campbell; DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr; FBI Assistant Director Michael Kortan; and Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik.
The DOJ Inspector General's Office has undoubtedly done great work to uncover misconduct and expose bias, but the mission of the OIG is limited only to ``detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in DOJ programs and personnel, and to promote economy and efficiency in those programs.''
A fully independent special counsel has greater autonomy than an IG or other Federal prosecutors to run a nonbiased investigation and, if necessary, bring forth criminal charges.
With so much at risk, including the integrity of our Federal law enforcement agencies, which are tasked with protecting our Nation and upholding the rule of law, the need is more urgent than ever.
This is not about politics but about the principles that bind together our Nation and our constitutional system of government.
Equality under the law and impartiality of justice is what brings all of us to the House floor tonight, urging the Attorney General of the United States to take immediate action through the appointment of a second special counsel. Too many questions remain unanswered, and too much is at stake.
Mr. Speaker, I say to Mr. Sessions: It is very important to take this action and appoint a second special counsel.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I yield to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Brat), one of the signers of our late February letter to AG Sessions, a great leader in this cause.
{time} 2000
Mr. BRAT. Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of the double standard shown to the Clintons, and the issue does not just stop narrowly with all of the issues which were just laid out so well by my colleague.
There is sufficient evidence that Democratic opposition research was submitted as evidence to a FISA court so that our intelligence community could begin spying on the Trump campaign and American citizens. Justice has not been done here, as elsewhere, and Americans know full well what is going on up here.
Mr. Speaker, the script has flipped, and it seems clear it was the Democrats, not Republicans, who abused their power to try to get Clinton elected. Unique in world history, America is the first Nation that was founded on the premise and the promise that all people are created equal under the law.
That means no matter how well-connected, no matter how wealthy you are, no matter how many foreign leaders you have under your thumb, no matter how popular, no matter how elite, no matter how educated, no matter how many lawyers you have, no one in this country stands above the law of the land, and we have to ensure that that remains the case.
The system is rigged. Bernie Sanders ran for the people without power, and the system and a party rigged his election. I ran to protect people from the corruption in D.C. Now, what was going on in D.C. last week, we have monopolies run amuck, Facebook, Google, Amazon, big banks, big insurance, big everything, the exact opposite of the logic of the Founders.
Adam Smith, the founder of free market economics, wanted a country where small businesses competed against each other--no monopolies, no oligopolies. James Madison, the author of the Constitution, wanted a country with a large number of factors that duked it out among themselves. No power centered--especially in the Federal Government up in D.C.--all power returned to the States and to the people.
But today, that is all, unfortunately, upside down up in the swamp. I know it sounds like fiction that the FBI used a piece of opposition research paid for by the Clintons and the Democrats to file a warrant to spy on American citizens and the Trump campaign.
Comey, McCabe, Rybicki, Jim Baker, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, all of these are top personnel, political appointees in the FBI who are wrapped up in this story. They are not going to investigate themselves. We need a fair and independent special counsel looking into this to see if there is anything wrong and any wrongdoing.
Mr. Speaker, a second special counsel really is the only way to have the flexibility to fully investigate the matter of political bias in regards to ruling of the FISA court and see if anyone has broken the law of the land.
Only after we fully investigate this matter will we have the full confidence that no one has escaped justice. The American people want that closure, and so do I.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Brat) for being here and for all of his efforts.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is a great pleasure to yield to Congressman Louie Gohmert from Texas. Oftentimes, for those who are at home who may be watching C-SPAN late on a weeknight like tonight, I will encourage them that all other nights when we are here, there is a pretty good chance that if they turn on C-SPAN late at night, Louie Gohmert will be standing where he is about to speak from, this wise man, educating us on his thoughts and reflections of our great country.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, coming from my friend, a wise man from New York, I appreciate that very much. And I appreciate the effort in securing the whole hour for all of us to talk about this issue.
It really is a matter of wide-eyed justice. The blindfold was removed, and real justice in America is hanging in the balance.
People in America have seen what happened; and I think because they have seen the way justice has been abused for a number of years now, it is what helped Donald J. Trump get elected President. People were ready for significant changes so that we could get back to a country where the rule of law mattered regardless of who was the President.
When we look back at Chuck Colson, he did a year and a half in prison basically for having one FBI file in the White House. The Clintons had nearly 1,000 in the White House. Nobody did a day. We saw that kind of injustice come in and played out before us during the 8 years of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch in the Justice Department.
And now Americans who have seen--not all of them. Some are still blinded by the very thick paint that is provided by the mainstream media--but when you break through that, you brush that off, you get down to the bare facts. What you have now is Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein who was the U.S. attorney when Russia's illegal effort to obtain U.S. uranium was going down. He and his dear friend, Robert Mueller, as head of the FBI, were investigating what they knew. They had the facts. They had the evidence. They had the person working behind the scenes providing information, and they knew Russia was illegally trying to corner the market on U.S. uranium.
They knew that bribes were taking place. They knew there were all kinds of crimes taking place. Yet we don't know how it was with such a powerfully important investigation going on, an investigation that has led up to a time now where the head of Russia--whether you want to call him czar, president, Vladimir, whatever you want to call him, he is the head guy--and he has made clear that in Russia they have rockets now that can deliver atomic weapons, nuclear weapons, that the United States cannot stop.
And we know that while Rosenstein and Mueller were involved in investigating the efforts of the President's friend, Vladimir, for whom he had much flexibility after the second election, we know he is making noise, rattling his sabre, as an existential threat to the United States' very existence.
So the evidence was there. What we can't find out, because we can't get a proper investigation, is who was it? What was it that caused Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Mueller to squelch the investigation into Russia's effort to get our uranium? Because if it was going full board, and if it had not been squelched by Mr. Rosenstein and Mr. Mueller, Russia would never have ended up with 20 percent of U.S. uranium.
And since we now know Hillary Clinton will not be President, the Clinton Foundation has gone away. But when it looked like everybody thought she was going to be the next President--and she had been Secretary of State. She had all of this power as Secretary of State. She was one of the key critical people that had to approve this sale that would end up putting uranium from the United States in Russia's possession. They squelched the investigation.
The sale went through with Hillary Clinton and her friends' support. The Clinton Foundation ends up with $145 million from those who had invested in the effort to get Russia U.S. uranium. Bill Clinton got
$500,000 for a 20-minute speech that, from what we understand, wasn't very good; but it wasn't about a good speech, it was about rewarding the Clintons for Russia getting U.S. uranium.
There is no way, this side of heaven, that you could have a fair investigation of former FBI Director Mueller and the former U.S. attorney on the role they played in helping Russia--along with Hillary Clinton, helping Russia get U.S. uranium, all to the detriment of the United States.
I mean, we had prior Soviet spies, Communist spies, who were put to death for providing designs for advanced weaponry. But in this case, you have Hillary Clinton, Rod Rosenstein, and Bob Mueller not just helping design. Here is what you need to create atomic weapons to destroy the United States. They didn't care. We know on one hand money, a great deal of money, was involved and changed hands, but there is no way the FBI and the Justice Department, that we have seen has so many close friends of Mueller and Rosenstein--there is no way they are going to be able to investigate that matter.
Since the day Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel, I have been begging that we get a second counsel to investigate Mueller. He ought to be fired, but that, politically, cannot happen without some of our weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate deciding they need to remove the President. That should not happen for what the Democrats did. So it is critical.
If we have a second counsel--and by the way, let me just say, a great patriot, ethical, honest, upright man named Jeff Sessions is seeing to a number of critical things that we need investigated, seeing to them being investigated. And I applaud his efforts to apply the rule of law across the board.
But when it comes to investigating Rosenstein, Mueller, and Comey--
who has already admitted leaking things that should be a crime--that is going to take a second counsel.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend Congressman Zeldin arranging for this time to talk about it. I appreciate the effort my colleagues have put into researching this. We have got to have a second counsel, or our Justice Department is done.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership.
Our next speaker is oftentimes at the very tip of the spear of the issues that matter most all throughout America. He certainly has met the tip of the spear here, bringing accountability and transparency to the maximum degree he knows possible.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to Congressman Jim Jordan.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is good to be with my good friend from New York and other Members of Congress here tonight to talk about why we need a second special counsel.
Nobody likes him. I don't like him, but I don't know of any other remedy. Is the FBI really going to be able to investigate themselves? Is the Department of Justice really going to be able to investigate themselves? And I understand Mr. Horowitz, the inspector general, is going to do good work, and he has done good work, but it is not the same. It is not the same.
{time} 2015
The only way to get to the truth, I think, is to have a second special counsel look at all of this; all the Clinton investigation, all the Russia investigation, look at it all.
Understand a few things we have learned over the past few months and, frankly, the past few days with the very top people at the FBI.
James Comey misled the American people on both investigations.
Now, think about this. Mr. Comey, at the urging of then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, calls the Clinton investigation a matter, not an investigation, and misleads the American people.
We all know it was an investigation. As some of my colleagues have said, the last time I checked, he was not running the Federal Bureau of Matters; it is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It was an investigation, but in an attempt to play it down, he misleads the American people and calls it a matter and not an investigation.
Then, when it came to our President, he allows the perception to exist with the American people that President Trump is under investigation when, in fact, he wasn't and had been told by James Comey, himself, that he wasn't under investigation.
Then, of course, there is the number two guy at the FBI, Andrew McCabe, who we have learned in the last few days actually misled the Office of Professional Responsibility, misled his boss, and misled the inspector general on two different occasions--four times, total. As they say, he lacked candor. He didn't tell the truth.
So we need a special counsel to look into all this and a host of other things. It was those guys, Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe, who were involved at the FBI when the whole dossier thing unfolded where they took an opposition research document, dressed it all up, made it look like it was legitimate intelligence, and took it to the secret court to get a warrant to spy on a fellow American associated with the Trump campaign.
They didn't tell the court two important things. They didn't tell the court who paid for the document, namely, the Clinton campaign and the DNC; and they didn't tell the court that the author of that salacious and unverified document, Christopher Steele, had had his relationship with the FBI terminated because Mr. Steele broke a cardinal rule: he went and told the press he was working for the FBI.
Now, if you and I go to court, we have got to tell the truth. We have got to tell the whole truth. But they didn't. They didn't.
Now, recently, there have been two appointments made at the Department of Justice by the current Attorney General: Mr. Huber and Mr. Lausch. Mr. Lausch has been named to help get the documents to Congress that we are entitled as a separate and equal branch of government to receive. Mr. Huber has been tasked with overseeing this whole Russia investigation.
While these individuals appear to be fine individuals, again, it is not the same because whom does Mr. Huber and Mr. Lausch answer to? They answer to Rod Rosenstein, who was involved in all this throughout all the Clinton investigation and throughout the Russia investigation. They answer to Rod Rosenstein.
Now, how do employees investigate their boss? Someone tell me how that works.
I have two final points.
When you think about probably the classic definition of the swamp, think about this: Rod Rosenstein writes the memo for firing James Comey. James Comey leaks a government document to The New York Times to create momentum for a special counsel, Bob Mueller, whom Rod Rosenstein appoints as the special counsel and oversees; and one of the elements they are looking at is whether there was obstruction of justice in the firing of James Comey.
You can't make this stuff up. You talk about the biggest roundabout I have ever seen.
We need a special counsel. Think about this as well: the Attorney General has said only in extraordinary circumstances do you name special counsel.
It is pretty extraordinary when James Comey, the Director of the FBI, has been fired; Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI, has been fired; Jim Baker, the former general counsel, has been demoted and reassigned; Peter Strzok, the deputy head of counterintelligence has been demoted and reassigned; and Lisa Page, FBI counsel, has been demoted and reassigned. Those are some of the top people at the FBI. Now, if that is not extraordinary, then I don't what the heck is.
If it is not a little unusual when the new Deputy Attorney General writes the memo to fire James Comey and then names Bob Mueller as special counsel, and one of the things they are looking at is whether there was obstruction of justice in the firing of James Comey, if those aren't extraordinary and strange circumstances warranting a second special counsel, then, again, I don't know what is.
So let's just do the right thing. Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein should just do the right thing. The American people want this. If we get a second special counsel, then we limit the amount of time that they can look at this. We pick someone outside the swamp somewhere in the middle of the country. Let him or her run this investigation, say: Here is your time; go figure it out.
I believe, when they reach their conclusions, there is a much better chance the American people will accept that result and accept their findings. But if it is just the same old thing that we have been seeing, I think that is much tougher.
So this is what is needed. No one likes it; no one really wants these things to happen; but I see no other approach that will get the answers and hopefully provide the closure that the country needs to move on.
So I would just say to Mr. Sessions and Mr. Rosenstein: Do what everyone else in this country knows needs to happen. Name the second special counsel. Let's get the facts for the American people, and let's get moving.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Jordan for all of his remarks and his leadership on this issue.
It is a great pleasure to introduce General Scott Perry of Pennsylvania--otherwise known as Congressman General Scott Perry of Pennsylvania--tonight to participate in our Special Order.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for bringing this issue to light.
As you can see, I am serving in this uniform. We are all citizens here tonight. No one outranks another. As a matter of fact, we all serve at the pleasure of our constituents, and we ask to earn their votes.
With that, I want to join my colleagues in this call for a second special counsel to investigate the abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.
Knowing what we know now, this warrant was based off of a bogus news report which was based off of a bogus document that was commissioned much like, Mr. Speaker, someone commissions an artist for a painting and said: Well, we want this information to make the other guy look bad, so we are going to pay you. You go get the information, put it together in a nice format for us, and then we are going to act like it is real.
I say that because, right now, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that says that any of it is real, no evidence after over a year of investigation.
So they commissioned this dossier, which is just a fancy name for a file, to go get the other guy, and they use that to get a FISA warrant and investigate him using the power of the Federal Government, the highest power, to investigate a private citizen.
Now, this begs the question, Mr. Speaker: Did these partisans intentionally mislead the FISA court? That is the question.
The reason that we are asking for a second special counsel acknowledges that these things can be problematic, they can run far afield, and we want them to be focused only on what they are focused on and not looking at everything and anything.
But the reason there has to be a second special counsel, Mr. Speaker, is because that is the only one who can answer this question. Because the people who potentially stand accused--and we don't know exactly who they are--are a limited group of people, because I can't get a FISA court to investigate somebody--you can't get a FISA court to investigate, and the American people can't get the FISA court to investigate somebody where they think something wrong has happened. Only the Department of Justice and the FBI folks can get this FISA warrant.
If they are the only people who can get it, then they can't be investigating themselves. Nowhere else do we ask the accused to investigate himself and come up with the right answer, only in this crazy world that we live in right here. So that is why we must have the second special counsel. The standard for accountability simply must be higher.
And if you don't understand, when you go to the FISA court, it is not like any other court where you say: ``Here is the prosecution's case, and here is the defense's case.'' It doesn't work like that. It is only the prosecution's case because it is secret, Mr. Speaker. The defense doesn't get to defend themselves until after the fact.
That is why there has to be a higher standard and a higher level of accountability, because it is only supposed to be in the rarest of circumstances that this is used.
I have said over and over again: Do I live in a free America or do I live in a place where there is a secret police like the KGB where, instead of investigating crimes, we investigate people, and we keep investigating and investigating until we find a crime?
That is not what we plan for in America. Nowhere is it said that people in high positions are allowed to weaponize the instruments of Federal power to get back at their political rivals or their political enemies. American citizens deserve strict constitutional protections regardless of what court they are in and, most specifically and most especially, if they are in the FISA Court.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Fourth Amendment to enshrine and ensure that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, their houses, their papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. But, Mr. Speaker, they have been violated. The Founding Fathers wrote that long before the internet was available and long before cameras and microphones were ubiquitous in our society. The time is now long overdue to reaffirm that right.
I have always opposed warrantless surveillance and searches of American citizens because they violate the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, you may say: Why should I care? I am not being investigated by the FISA court. It is not happening to me.
But think about that. If it can happen to the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful person in our country if not the free world, then do you think it can't happen to you?
Do you think it is fair? Is it right to have one standard of justice, or is it okay to have two: one for all of us people out here and then one for the politically connected?
That is why you should care, because there is a true danger in the unchecked power and authority of a faceless government bureaucrat.
The American people have a right to know who is watching the watchmen, and it is our job in Congress to do that watching. That is why we are calling for this second special counsel. Mr. Speaker, it is long overdue and it is long past time. These abuses cannot continue.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for the time and for bringing this issue to light.
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Perry and all of our speakers tonight: Congressman Gaetz, Congresswoman Tenney, Congressmen Brat, Gohmert, Jordan, Perry, and everyone who has been part of this cause.
Just to recap, we, over the course of this hour, outlined all the main reasons why it is imperative for AG Sessions to appoint a second special counsel to look into FISA abuse, how and why the Hillary Clinton case ended, and how and why the Trump-Russia probe began.
As Congressman Perry was just talking about the scales of justice, I remember when Hillary Clinton was publicly being exonerated just days after a tarmac meeting where her husband was able to meet with AG Lynch on her plane on the tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona.
I was thinking of the people who had to go into court that day as defendants. Maybe they got caught making a right on red, and they are a defendant going before a judge. They are pleading, and they are being punished. And yet here you have all this evidence with the Hillary Clinton case and there would be zero accountability, that actually the decision would be made to exonerate Hillary Clinton before even interviewing her and well over a dozen others.
There should be equal treatment under the law. The scales of justice should not be tilted based off of your last name. Cheryl Mills gets immunity; Michael Cohen gets his offices and home raided. If there was equal justice under the law, then there might be more understanding and a greater mandate for actions being taken.
But President Trump is being investigated because he won the GOP nomination. That is why the investigation got started. The reason why the DOJ and FBI didn't want to release the memo is because they really didn't have much of a better reason. They were reaching, and they really didn't want to have to tell Congress why they started, because the real reason was because he won the Republican nomination, and they wanted to continue the investigation because he actually had a shot at winning.
So they go to a secret court with secret documents to spy on a United States citizen desperate to try to find information loaded with bias, clear-as-day bias, an anti-Trump and pro-Hillary bias where their political bias is overcoming their better objective, and then expanding the probe and creating a special counsel because the President is elected.
That is not how we do things in this country where you get investigated because you win an election, where you identify a person, and then you empower someone with authority to go out and try to find a crime anywhere.
So with regard to FISA abuse--the end of the Hillary Clinton probe and the beginning of the Trump-Russia probe--it is imperative for AG Sessions to appoint a second special counsel.
I appreciate everyone for tuning in during this hour. We look forward to continuing the effort until we get this done and over the top.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hollingsworth). The Chair would remind Members that remarks in debate may not engage in personalities toward the President, including by repeating remarks made elsewhere that would be improper if spoken in the Member's own words.
____________________
