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.
“ISSUES OF THE DAY” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H4687-H4692 on June 13, 2019.
The Department is one of the oldest in the US, focused primarily on law enforcement and the federal prison system. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, detailed wasteful expenses such as $16 muffins at conferences and board meetings.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ISSUES OF THE DAY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3, 2019, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting process we have for appropriating money. Some people are wondering why there were so many requests for a recorded vote, because normally most will go by a voice vote. We don't have to gather everybody together to vote. I think it is important. I know Members are not supposed to mention this when they are asking for a recorded vote, but we have a crisis on our southern border.
Last month, there were over 144,000 individuals that came into the United States across our southern border illegally. That would seem to be a crisis. As I mentioned early this morning, around 9 o'clock, in my 1-minute speech, some of us had just returned from being at Normandy for the 75th anniversary of D-day.
What an incredible thing that is to contemplate. And, of course, for those who know history thoroughly, World War II, be aware that there was even a dress rehearsal for D-day. There were no live rounds that were utilized, and yet, the Allied forces lost hundreds of military members during that fiasco of a practice for D-Day, which some attributed as being partly the reason that General Eisenhower, as the Supreme Allied Commander, had written out a resignation letter and given it to his subordinate that tendered his resignation with instructions that if D-Day went poorly, to please submit his resignation to his superiors.
He didn't know how it was going to come out. They tried to prepare, but there are different estimates: 150,000, some up to 170,000, some 158,000 were involved in the D-Day landing at Normandy in France.
Those courageous individuals that came ashore--some tried to come ashore and didn't make it that were dropped off too far out. Some had landing crafts that were sunk, but they were trying to come ashore, and did come ashore, and there were thousands of casualties as a result.
Some of the stories bring tears to your eyes as a person contemplates what they went through. I had not been to Normandy before this weekend, and I am very grateful to Speaker Pelosi for inviting former members of the military to accompany her to Normandy. It was amazing.
I have never been to Pointe du Hoc, but having attended Texas A&M University, I knew all about, at that time, Colonel Earl Rudder's heroic actions as he took the first group of what were then called Rangers--and have been called Rangers since--who trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, for most of that training, where I spent 4 years.
He took them up the cliffs. Their goal, their job, their order was to take out the big cannons that were doing so much damage to the Allied forces. They fought their way up the cliffs, got to the top, and found out those big guns had been pulled back down the hill, so then they had to fight their way down the hill. But they did eventually take out those guns.
There were a lot of mistakes made, as there are in any conflict, but the determination was to try to soften the German forces before our troops came ashore there at Normandy. So planes were loaded with thousands of tons of munitions that were to be dropped on those outposts, those bunkers all along the beaches.
As they taught us in military science, you want to have good crossing fields of fire so that you can, unfortunately, kill more people with different lines of fire from different directions, and Rudder had directed those placements very carefully and did an extraordinary job.
That was one of the things the planes were going to soften up with their tons of munitions, but there was significant cloud cover that day, so they were to delay dropping the bombs, and at a given point, start counting up to three, four, five, and then drop their payload of bombs.
Unfortunately, so many of those bombs ended up 3 miles past the bunkers they needed to take out. So around 150,000 or so Allied forces, a big part of those being American troops, came ashore. They invaded a Nazis-controlled France. They fought valiantly, and as a result, France was able to go back to being France.
As a result of the ongoing actions, the rest of Europe, at least Western Europe, was able to go about being the countries they had been--even better once they built back up--largely, or at least with great help from the Marshall Plan.
It was amazing. I was not aware that so many of the French people still held what the Americans and the Allies did in such high regard.
So as our bus got near to--and this was actually on Sunday--there were going to be thousands of paratroopers reenacting their parachuting. Fortunately, nobody landed with their chute on a church spire and got killed as they hung there. That didn't happen.
{time} 1600
But the chutes were actually more modernized chutes, so they could control their descent more easily than those poor guys did back on June 6 and the succeeding days in 1944. But we got off the bus, the Members of Congress, and were proceeding to where we were going to be watching from in this little valley area. And there were thousands and thousands and thousands of people who were walking in the same direction, and most of them had something to indicate United States, whether it was a little American flag or scarves that indicated something to do with the Stars and Stripes.
At first, I thought: Wow, all of these thousands of Americans made it over here for the D-Day 75th anniversary? This is incredible.
But then I quickly realized the huge majority of those people were not Americans; they were French. Though many of them were children, young adults, adults with young families, they knew what America had done to help save their freedom and their country.
So it was a very moving experience, especially when you go down, like, to Omaha Beach and you think about those poor guys, Mr. Speaker, so dedicated to liberty and to ending the evil that the Nazis posed. And to think about them having friends on either side being killed, they were at risk, some were being shot, but still moving forward and making their way up through concertina wire. In some places they would blow holes through the wire, so they could start getting through and not be sitting ducks out on the beach. It is very moving to be there where so many, as Lincoln said, ``gave the last full measure of devotion.''
But we get back home, and we see the report from May that across our southern border we had at least a minimum of 144,000 individuals come across our southern border illegally. I don't know how you don't call that an invasion, Mr. Speaker. The huge majority didn't carry weapons, most did not at all. They just wanted to get into the country. But as we have seen repeatedly, there are gang members who come in.
In fact, an article came out June 7 by Samantha Lock, titled ``ISIS plotted to smuggle terrorists into the US over the Mexico border to launch terror attacks, captured jihadi reveals.''
This article tells us: ``A captured ISIS fighter has made a chilling confession detailing how the terrorist group planned on exploiting vulnerabilities in the U.S. border with Mexico to take advantage of smuggling routes and to target financial institutions.
``Abu Henricki, a Canadian with dual Trinidadian citizenship, said that he was sought out to attack the U.S. from a route starting in Central America.
``ISIS allegedly had plans to exploit vulnerabilities in the U.S. border with Mexico.
``The ISIS fighter was interviewed last month--together with over 160 ISIS defectors and returnees--by research group the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism.
``The study, published in Homeland Security Today, concluded: `We have learned . . . about multiple individuals who knew of, or were themselves offered, or pressured by the ISIS emni--intelligence--to return to Europe to mount attacks at home.
`` `We learned that, indeed, there was at least one ISIS plot for their cadres to travel from Syria to penetrate the U.S. southern border by infiltrating migration routes.'
``Henricki was detained by the SDF in Rojava, Syria, and spoke with researchers for more than an hour on May 12, giving his firsthand account of being attracted to, traveling, joining and serving in the Islamic State caliphate, first as a fighter and then later unable to fight due to chronic illness.
``In video footage of Henricki's confession, he opens up about a plot in which he says he and other Trinidadians were invited in late 2016 to attempt to penetrate the U.S. borders to mount financial attacks.
``He explains: `The emni--ISIS intelligence arm--was inviting us.
`` `They, what they will have, what they wanted to do, basically, is they wanted to do financial attacks. Financial attacks to cripple the U.S. economy.
`` `Apparently, they have the contacts or whatever papers they can get to a false ID, false passports to send me out for this kind of attack.
`` `They have their system of doing it. So that's maybe the way that I could have gone out with other individuals.'
``He adds: `It wasn't me alone. They were sending you to Puerto Rico and from Puerto Rico to Mexico.
`` `They were going to move me to the Mexican side of the U.S. southern border via Puerto Rico.
`` `This was masterminded by a guy in America. Where he is, I do not know.
`` `That information, the plan, came from someone from the New Jersey State from America.
`` `I was going to take a boat from Puerto Rico into Mexico. He was going to smuggle me in. I don't know where I'd end up.'
``Henricki detailed how he and his Canadian wife were imprisoned by ISIS.
``He recounts: `I was asked to leave ISIS to go to America because I'm from that area. `Cause they wanted and planned to do something, and I refused. I refused to do it. That is why also I'm put into ISIS prison and been tortured.
`` `They beat me a lot. I was suspended from the back, standing on my toes, given no food for a few days, waterboarded--while blindfolded, and they put a bag over your head.
`` `I knew I went to prison because I said no to their offer of an external attack mission.'
``Anne Speckhard, director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism, told FOX News: `ISIS has organized plots in Europe with returnees, so it seems entirely plausible that they wanted to send guys out to attack.
`` `The issue that makes a North American attack harder is the travel is more difficult from Syria.
```So the idea that they would instead use people who were not known to their own governments as having joined ISIS might make it possible for them to board airplanes.'
``However, Ms. Speckhard reasoned: `This plot is likely dead as those who were pressured to join it are, according to Abu Henricki, now all dead and ISIS is in retreat as we know.
`` `That doesn't mean we should disregard that it was a plot.' ''
Mr. Speaker, I would also state, when we have indications of ISIS plots to invade our country, have attacks on financial institutions to kill Americans, we should take them seriously. If they have made one plot, as we have seen around the country, there are bound to be many plots.
There is now a discredited FBI Director named Comey who at one time testified--it used to mean something when an FBI Director testified before Congress. Comey has hurt that a great deal because of so many falsehoods that have been spoken while under oath here on Capitol Hill. But he had indicated that we have ISIS investigations and ISIS cells in every State in the Union, at one time, basically to that affect. That would tell us that this plot recently discovered is not inconsistent with what a former FBI Director was concerned about some years back.
So it is important to control our borders and to know who is coming in because we know people want to take down the United States of America. People who have evil intentions know if you take down the United States of America as a power, then evil can prevail throughout the world.
I had mentioned to a few Australians here a year or so ago, one of the other Members of Congress said that it seems like we keep losing liberties here, free speech, they wanted to take away our Second Amendment rights. Well, if we lose our liberties, then we may just all need to go to Australia.
None of the three smiled or laughed at all. I thought they would find it amusing. One of them said, Do you not understand? If the United States loses its liberty, China will take over Australia before anybody could get there from the United States.
We simply need the United States to stay strong.
I heard that in Africa, from some Christians there--and they know a lot about being under assault as Boko Haram had got so powerful there. When I was there in Nigeria trying to help some folks there, I was told that the Obama administration had given them word, Look, we will help you and give you more help with Boko Haram, but first you have got to legalize abortion and same-sex marriage. Until you do that, we are not going to be able to be as much help as we could.
As one Catholic Bishop in Nigeria notably proclaimed:
The President of the United States should know our religious beliefs are not for sale to anyone, including the United States.
Other expressions from other African leaders who were Christians were similar.
So this information about ISIS having plots that include crossing our border and attacks on our country is not really new.
I became the brunt of Democratic scoffers. One comedian was making fun, and none of them bothered to mention that I was quoting the FBI Director in testimony from here on Capitol Hill. Like I say, back then, an FBI Director testifying under oath had more credibility than what an FBI Director under oath has now.
But it was the FBI Director who indicated that we know that there are people from the Middle East who have changed their names to sound Hispanic. They have come to Mexico and tried to blend in with Hispanics coming across our border.
I was belittled and made fun of, but it didn't change the facts of what had been testified to under oath by somebody who the Democrats used to love.
It is a threat, and we have been told year after year how the threat increases and all the different plots. There are very few people I am aware of on the other side of the aisle who haven't at some point in the last 10, 12 years talked about the need to secure our border.
Many of my Democratic friends have talked about the need for a wall or something to stop the flood of illegal immigration. Having done so much contemplation about the 150,000 or so who invaded Nazi-occupied France in 1944, heck, we had virtually that in 1 month. They didn't all come to shore with weapons, but it is an invasion when that many people are trying successfully to come into your country.
As we heard, again, through testimony this week, 90 to 95 percent of the people claiming asylum are not allowed if they are not legitimate claims, but, unfortunately, the big bulk of those who claim asylum are given hearing dates. Some during the Obama administration would be 4 years or so away, and 90 percent or so do not show up for those hearings.
That tells the world we are a broken country and that the rule of law that has meant so much in this country and that has given other countries hope that there is at least one place in the world where people are not above the law--nobody is--and where the law really matters. Sure, there are exceptions and there are mistakes, but they really do try to enforce the law across the board.
{time} 1615
I mean, the world has seen, with the huge invasion coming across our border--and, for this year, the estimates now are that certainly over a million people will flood in, invade the United States illegally.
And how tragic that any little children would ever be sent unaccompanied to our border, risking snakes, risking the elements, risking all kinds of things.
To a lesser extent, little boys, apparently, are being raped; but girls, we are told about 25 percent, will be raped on the way through Mexico into the United States.
How tragic that we lured them to America with hopes that we are going to continue to allow violation of our own laws unimpeded, that we are going to allow this country to be overwhelmed with people who have never been educated to what it means to keep and nourish a self-
governing country.
It is not natural in the world to have a people who effectively self-
govern. That is why we see the U.N. composed of so many countries that are ruled by dictators.
Even now, 230 years after our Constitution was ratified, we still have dictators all over the world. The Founders were hoping that, if we got this little experiment right, then it would become a new order of things. Novus ordo seclorum. That is why that is part of our great seal, the two-sided great seal. If we get this right, countries around the world will want to emulate what we have done so they can self-
govern.
But, as Ben Franklin said there in the Constitutional Convention:
``If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable an empire could rise without His concurring aid?''
We have been assured in the Sacred Scripture that, unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. He said: I firmly believe this. I also believe without His--God's--concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. We will be confounded by our local partial interests, and we, ourselves, shall become a byword down through the ages.
The reason he knew that was because this was a chance to go beyond anything the Greeks, the Athenians had done in the way of trying to self-govern. This was beyond anything anybody had ever done.
Sure, there was a senate in Rome. Sure, there was a parliament in England. But this was going to be true self-government through representation, chosen by the people.
And he knew, if we get it right, everybody is going to want to follow this example. But, if we get it wrong, people, for the rest of history, will look back and point and say: They had the best chance of ever making self-government work, and they blew it.
So, when the Convention was over and the lady there in Philadelphia asked Franklin, ``What have you given us?'' as most people hopefully know, ``A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.''
Because he knew, this is not something that is eternal. No government, no country, no form of government ever lasts forever. They are only temporary.
And thank God, literally, we have been allowed to self-govern for 230 years under our Constitution, 230 years this year.
But we are in real danger. In order to preserve this form of government under our Constitution--as John Adams said, this Constitution is intended for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
So, for too long, too many schools have been teaching there is no real right or wrong, so much is relative. The most important thing is that we are tolerant of everybody and everything.
But the fact is, if you are tolerant of everybody and everything, then there really are no criminal laws, and you quickly descend into anarchy.
You have to be intolerant of those who break the law. You have to be intolerant of those who hurt others. But most of us were taught, growing up: ``Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.'' Well, the truth is words do hurt. The Bible talks about the damage that a tongue can do.
But only in recent years have we degenerated from the time of the Revolution's great proclamation, usually quoting Voltaire, though there is some indication he may not have been the origination of the phrase: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Now, that has degenerated, basically, in today's society to: I disagree with what you say. I am going to get you fired. I want to make your family so miserable that they all want to die. I am going to try to keep your family from ever being employed. I am going to make you miserable living in your house. I am going to just create chaos. You are going to regret the day you ever disagreed with me.
Wow. What a degeneration from what spurred a revolution: I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Now we have come to a place in America where the only people who are allowed to be intolerant are those who say they are tolerant. But they are allowed to be intolerant toward Christians who truly follow the teachings of Moses, whose bust is up above the middle door in the gallery.
He had some absolute laws that he set down. And the reason that he is the most prominent lawgiver, according to the time that this House floor was built, was because it was thought his Ten Commandments were the greatest law gift ever in history.
Now, Hammurabi, his profile is up there. Even though the federally mandated test does not have significant history required anymore, those who have had some history may have learned about the Code of Hammurabi and the Justinian Code. His profile is next to Hammurabi.
And you come clear around to Napoleon. Yes, there is a Napoleonic Code, and it is still the basis for laws in Louisiana.
But laws used to mean something, and we could disagree and not be disagreeable. And, even to this day, there are Democrats I care very deeply about as individual human beings, and we can disagree and still like each other and we can find some common things to work on. But, for heaven's sake, we have got to get beyond this business of destroying people who just disagree with us, not letting them eat in a public restaurant, not letting them go out in public to games or to shows without trying to make their lives miserable.
The most intolerant people in the country these days are the ones who say, ``We are the tolerant ones,'' when they have become anti-Semitic, many have become anti-Christian.
Oh, they will say, ``We are Christian,'' but, as Jesus said: You will know them by their fruits, and their fruits are not particularly sweet.
But this is a crucial time, and there is an invasion going on, and we need to do something about it.
The President is doing all he can to try to secure our southern border. But, as we saw last week, we passed another bill through the House--at least the majority did--that was basically a flashing neon sign to those who want to come into the United States illegally: You better come on now because we just passed a bill in the House that will legalize people.
So the thought of some around the world who just want to come here and have a better way of life is: Gee, if I can get there, maybe I can claim that I was there before whatever the cutoff date is.
We have seen that happen before. And others like ISIS are thinking: Gee, thank goodness there are people in Congress who don't want the borders secure. They don't want President Trump to have a victory, so they are leaving it open so we can keep pouring in. Let's take advantage. Let's get over there and come through.
And then, as if it is not enough of a crisis with an invasion coming in every month through our southern border, coming illegally, we keep getting more and more information about the illegality, even criminality, within the Department of Justice, the FBI, and even, potentially, the intel community. More to follow in days ahead on the intel community.
But there is a release here from the Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Justice. This was dated May 29, 2019. It says:
The Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, initiated this investigation upon receipt of information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation alleging that a then-FBI Deputy Assistant Director had numerous contacts with members of the media in violation of FBI policy.
Now, that is a violation of policy, not necessarily a violation of the law. But the report goes on:
Additionally, it was alleged that the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI may have disclosed law enforcement or other sensitive information to the media without authorization. This matter is among the Office of Inspector General investigations referenced on page 430 of the OIG's
``Review of Allegations Regarding Various Actions by the Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Advance of the 2016 Election.''
The OIG investigation concluded that the Deputy Assistant Director engaged in misconduct when he: 1--and it could be she--disclosed to the media the existence of information that had been filed under seal in Federal court, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 401, Contempt of Court; 2, provided without authorization FBI law enforcement sensitive information to reporters on multiple occasions; and, 3, had dozens of official contacts with the media without authorization, in violation of FBI policy.
The OIG also found that the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI engaged in misconduct when the DAD accepted a ticket, valued at approximately $225, to attend a media-sponsored dinner, as a gift from a member of the media, in violation of Federal regulations and FBI policy.
Then, here is a single line, from a single paragraph:
Prosecution of the Deputy Assistant Director was declined.
{time} 1630
The OIG has completed this investigation and is providing support to the FBI for appropriate action.
Having questioned Inspector General Horowitz, I know that as inspector general of the DOJ, Michael Horowitz did a lot of work in compiling the report that he provided to Congress, to our Judiciary Committee. He had about 500 pages, most of which included evidence of outrageous bias, prejudice, hatred against candidate Donald Trump and then against elected President Donald Trump.
The bias and prejudice that were documented were astounding, especially for some of us who have had very good friends, Republican, Democrat, many of them I don't even know what party affiliation they are because they are about enforcing the law, right and wrong, and they do a great job. That includes people in the FBI, ATF, and the Department of Justice, specifically.
Because they are humans, there are always going to be some problems here and there, some people who are problems. It is always going to happen.
But to have top people in the FBI, the DOJ, who are so flagrantly using their power to go after and try to destroy a candidate's election, and then try to use their power as an insurance policy to take him out if he were to get elected, is absolutely astounding.
Ever since the first report came out, and we had 500 pages of horrific bias and prejudice, meanness, hatred toward Donald Trump and those who worked with him, the Democrat-appointed inspector general, Michael Horowitz, after accumulating all of that overwhelming evidence, comes to the mind-boggling conclusion that there is no indication it affected any investigation.
As I told him, you gathered the evidence, apparently did a good job, and you, as a Democrat appointee, with lots of Democrat friends, you realized that: Gee, this really looks bad for my friends, and I have thrown them no bone in this whole investigation. I will do that so they don't get too mad at me in my conclusion. So, ergo, I conclude there is no indication that bias affected any investigation.
Are you kidding me? With all the evidence he gathered, and you see how the investigation into Hillary Clinton's alleged violations--and now we know, actual violations of the law--how they were swept under the rug and disregarded, and you have the nerve to say the bias didn't affect that?
Having a conference between the Attorney General herself and the husband of the person being investigated on a tarmac that they thought nobody would ever find out about, but some reporter sees Clinton and realizes: Whoa, what have we got going on here?
He wasn't going to play golf in 100-plus degree weather in Arizona. They didn't meet out on the tarmac to talk about grandchildren. That is ridiculous.
Immediately after that is when Hillary Clinton made herself available. And what did the FBI do? Unlike anything they do in a regular investigation, they didn't have notes. They didn't record the statements.
They were basically spying on Flynn and had transcripts of his information before they asked him questions.
That is what you call a perjury trap. They don't tell you they have transcripts of your prior conversations, and they ask you what was said. When you don't remember exactly word for word specifically, or you don't remember something that may or may not have come up, then they have you. You just lied to the FBI.
They can prosecute you, which they did with Michael Flynn, even though the two investigating officers or agents of the FBI said: We do not believe that he intended any deception. He thought he was being honest.
Well, they prosecuted him anyway. That was their effort to get at Donald Trump. It didn't work.
They have done everything they possibly can. After 2 years of investigation, after basically trying to extort friends, family, anybody who had contact with Donald Trump, they got nothing.
It appeared pretty obvious. Cohen wanted to give them something if he could, but he didn't have anything legitimate. And he has lied too much under oath to be a significant witness.
We have seen what has happened with a weaponized FBI and Department of Justice.
I didn't know Christopher Wray when he took over as FBI Director, and I had hopes that he would clean up the FBI and help restore it back to being an agency that was known worldwide for its honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, whatever personal reasons he has, personally, I think he is just trying to sweep as much under the rug as he can, hoping that the FBI will get beyond all the lies and criminality involved at the top of the FBI, and then maybe it will get better, instead of just facing up to the facts.
One of the clear indications that he is not willing to do that is the fact that he continued, even in August of last year, to have reports come out from the FBI saying they have seen no evidence that Hillary Clinton's private server was ever hacked.
Well, that is true. They have not. The reason they have not is because they did not want to see the evidence that the intel community's inspector general found showing beyond any reasonable doubt, 100 percent certainty, that Hillary Clinton's private server was hacked.
I didn't want to use the country at the time I asked Peter Strzok about it, and he lied about that. But Frank Rucker, as the investigator for the intel community IG, went hurriedly to the FBI. He talked to the director of their counterintelligence, a guy named Peter Strzok, and their liaison at the FBI, Dean Chappell.
Frank Rucker had an attorney from the IG intel, Jeanette Mitchell, I believe. He said: Hey, I know you guys said you found no evidence that her private server was hacked, but we now know there is no question her private server was hacked. It was hacked by China.
There were embedded instructions in that private server from the Chinese intelligence. It directed every email coming in and out of her private server to go to this Chinese intelligence agency in the United States.
There was a glitch with four emails. But over 30,000 others, going in and out, they went straight to Chinese intelligence. We know that.
Frank Rucker was surprised that Peter Strzok and Dean Chappell didn't look surprised. They just said, basically: Okay, thank you.
He thought they would be blown away: Wow, really? Are you serious? Do you really have this evidence? Maybe we should see it.
No, they didn't ask to see the evidence. They didn't ask to review it. They didn't ask for a report. They shook his hand and sent him on his way. Well, he wasn't sure if they shook hands or not, but they sent him on his way.
For Christopher Wray to continue to come out and have statements come from the FBI saying they have never seen any evidence that Hillary Clinton's personal server was ever hacked continues a fraud being put out at the top of the FBI.
I don't know, I haven't talked to the President about Christopher Wray. But I believe we need a different FBI Director who is not going to continue frauds that were perpetrated by people like Peter Strzok.
I know there are a lot of Republicans that keep saying: Oh, yeah, but when Michael Horowitz comes out with his next report, it is going to be devastating.
Oh, yeah, well, we have already seen in the last couple of weeks that he gets information that somebody has committed crimes, and the FBI, the DOJ, haven't learned anything. They still have too many Obama administration and Sally Yates subordinates working over there with their own agenda. They are deciding: Let's don't prosecute people.
If history is any indication, and Horowitz does what did he before, he will come out with a report that has devastating information about crimes committed by FBI agents and people in the Department of Justice. Most of us will think it is horrific, and the conclusion will be: But it really didn't infect anything that the FBI or the DOJ was doing, so there is no reason to prosecute anybody.
If history is an indication of the future, that is what we can expect from Horowitz's next IG report: Sure, there was a lot of criminality, but nothing worth prosecuting. Nothing to see here, move along.
We have real trouble. But John Solomon wrote about this matter on June 13. ``Feds Gone Wild: DOJ's Stunning Inability to Prosecute Its Own Bad Actors.''
``One was caught red-handed engaged in nepotism. Another, a lawyer no less, admitted to shoplifting at a Marine barracks store. A third leaked sealed court information to the news media. And a fourth engaged in fraud by turning a government garage into a personal repair shop. Four cases, all solved in the last month, with suspects who cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and significant breaches of public trust.
``But these weren't your everyday perps. All were U.S. Department of Justice employees who are supposed to catch other criminals while working for the FBI, the DEA, and U.S. attorneys' offices. Instead, they broke the law or violated the rules. And all managed to escape prosecution, despite their proven transgressions.
``Recent Justice Department disciplinary files tell an undeniable story.''
On down, it said: ``DOJ is doing a poor job of punishing its own. In cases closed in the past month, more than a half dozen FBI, DEA, U.S. attorney and U.S. marshal officials were allowed to retire, do volunteer work, or keep their jobs as they escaped criminal charges that everyday Americans probably would not.
``In most instances, the decisions were made by Federal prosecutors who work with the very figures impacted by or committing the bad conduct. In local law enforcement, that go-easy phenomenon is known as the `thin blue line.' ''
I would differ with that. I don't believe that is what most of us think of as the thin blue line.
Nonetheless, it concludes: ``Even before the recent spate of closed IG investigations, questions surfaced about DOJ's willingness to punish its own. That is because fired FBI Director Andrew McCabe was recommended for prosecution more than 15 months ago for lying about news leaks and, so far, has faced no criminal charges.''
The article also points out that there was the FBI lawyer who got caught in an embarrassing criminal act at the Marine Corps barracks commissary at Quantico. ``The FBI attorney admitted to placing numerous cosmetic items, valued at $257.99 and belonging to the MCB Quantico Exchange, in her purse without the intention to pay for them and did not pay for them before leaving the store. The FBI attorney further admitted that between February 2016 and her arrest in February 2018, she had shoplifted at the MCB Quantico Exchange one to two additional times and at other private retailers in the area on two to three occasions.''
{time} 1645
``The investigation concluded her conduct violated Federal criminal law and FBI policy regarding unprofessional conduct. But here was the outcome: `Criminal prosecution was deferred pending the FBI attorney's completion of 125 hours of community service, after which all charges were dismissed.' ''
A few weeks community service, she was still at her job at the time the IG issued the report.
I mean, this is serious stuff.
The article also goes on: ``One of the internal affairs that stunned Members of Congress this month directly grew out of the interwoven Hillary Clinton email and Russia collusion investigations in 2016, during then-FBI Director James Comey's tenure.
``The IG concluded that an FBI Deputy Assistant Director engaged in multiple improper news media leaks while those investigations were ongoing, including one that violated a sealed court order, and accepted an improper gratuity from the news media. But prosecution was declined, yet again. FBI officials say they are considering discipline against the supervisor.''
The author, John Solomon, says: ``Records I reviewed indicate that more misconduct eerily similar to that already uncovered is being investigated. For example, the IG fraud unit opened a case in March and began interviewing whistleblowers about a new contract fraud matter inside the DEA, emails show.
``It used to be that those who were entrusted to enforce the law were held to the highest standards.
``Today, however, there is a troubling pattern of officers being held to a lower standard inside a Department where critics fear there is a dual system of justice.''
So this is a dangerous time in our history. We know that no country lasts forever, no form of government lasts forever. We have had 230 years since 1789, when George Washington was sworn in as President, John Adams as Vice President, and the Congress was sworn in there at Federal Hall in New York City, after which, a couple minutes of speeches, they walked down Wall Street to St. Peters Chapel and they had a prayer service to pray for this new country.
When was the last time every elected Member of Congress, the President of the United States, and the Vice President of the United States, regardless of political beliefs, came together in one accord and prayed in consecrating our country to God Almighty?
We do have a Presidential Prayer Breakfast every year, but wouldn't it be nice if we could do something like get us started off on a foot that eventually led to the end of slavery, eventually led to true civil rights?
But now it has led to the kind of arrogance that leads to the end of the Republic that we may not keep much longer if we don't come back to the basics.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________
