Here's the Congressional Record transcript of an exhaustive speech Representative Louis Gohmert (R-Tex) gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives about the penetration of Hillary Clinton's e-mail system.
"So, unfortunately, what I brought out in that hearing and he denied recalling should not be lost in the exchange about his lying. It is far more important.
But for the record, as a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a felony judge, a chief justice, and as a Member of Congress, I have asked thousands of witnesses questions. When you have somebody who has just gotten so good at lying that there is no indication in their eyes whatsoever that it bothers them to lie, somebody has got to call them out on it. It is just not good for the state of this Union.
It is also denying credibility to actually have the witness say he doesn't recall getting information about a foreign entity that is not Russia getting every–actually, it was over 30,000 emails, emails that were sent through to Hillary Clinton through the unauthorized server and unsecured server and every email she sent out. There were highly classified–beyond classified–top secret-type stuff that had gone through that server.
Out of the over 30,000 emails that went through that server, all but 4 of them–no explanation why those 4 didn't get the same instruction, but we have some very good intelligence people–when they were asked to look at Hillary Clinton's emails, they picked up an anomaly. As they did forensic research on the emails, they found that anomaly was actually an instruction embedded, compartmentalized data embedded in the email server telling the server to send a copy of every email that came to Hillary Clinton through that unauthorized server and every email that she sent out through that server, to send it to this foreign entity that is not Russia.
We know that efforts were made to get Inspector General Horowitz to receive that information. He would not return a call. Apparently, he didn't want that information because that would go against his saying that the bias did not affect the investigation.
Of course it affected the investigation. It couldn't help but affect the investigation. It denies logic and common sense to say somebody with that much animus, that much bias and prejudice would not have it affect their investigation.
Madam Speaker, I can tell you I know there are people in this House who don't care for me, but I can also tell you there is no one in this House on either side of this aisle who I would put up with being investigated and prosecuted by somebody with the hatred, the absolute nasty prejudice that Peter Strzok had for Donald Trump. I wouldn't put up with it. I would go to bat for any Democrat in this House, any Republican in this House, the ones who don't like me on either side. It wouldn't matter.
Nobody in the United States of America should have the full power of the Federal Government coming after them in the hands of somebody prejudiced, full of hate for that individual. But such is what we are dealing with here. That is why I laid the groundwork, gave the names of the people–some of them–that were there when Peter Strzok was informed about Hillary Clinton's emails for sure going to a foreign entity. This is serious stuff.
What came of our intelligence community providing that information to the FBI agent in charge, Peter Strzok? Nothing. Peter Strzok received the information that it wasn't speculation, that maybe Hillary Clinton's emails were capable of being hacked, but we have no evidence that they were hacked.
All this garbage that we have heard about from reports? No. When the FBI was told her emails were hacked and every email she received, every email she sent out–over 30,000, except for 4–over 30,000 were compromised and going to a foreign entity not Russia, and Mr. Strzok did nothing about it.
When I started laying the groundwork pointing out the people, I am told an attorney behind Mr. Strzok mouthed, “Oh, my gosh,'' something like that, as I was laying the groundwork. I don't know if she knew what I was talking about or not, but I thought I picked up just a fleeting note of detection in Peter Strzok's eyes that he knew what I was talking about.
But, again, for my friends who are not familiar with the true rules of the House, let me explain. In trial courts, for example, the felony court over which I was a judge, the rules of evidence are very strict, and we protect the jury from hearing things that don't have any basis for believability. That is why most hearsay cannot come in, but there are exceptions.
But one rule that you always find in any court, no matter how strict the rules are, the credibility of the witness is always in evidence, always relevant, always material. The witness' credibility is always material and relevant.
When it has been as open and everyone in our hearing room knew what has been going on for such a prolonged period and I saw that look, that is all I could think is: I wonder if that is the same look you gave your wife over and over when you lied to her about Lisa Page.
The credibility of a witness is always material and relevant. Mark it down.
Now, in our House hearings, the rules are not that strict. It is more in the nature of anything that we feel may be relevant to the subject at hand. But in a hearing like today, even things that have nothing to do–they are not germane, they are not relevant, they are not material to what we are doing, we still have people bring in posters about something that is not germane, not relevant, not material; and they can get away with doing it, in some cases, as they did today, even though the rules probably could have restricted keeping some of that out. We have very relaxed rules, so these kind of things happen.
Like I say, to yell out I am off my meds, yes, that violates the rule, but I am sure my Democratic friend didn't realize what a rule-breaker she was as she tried to claim I was breaking the rules, which I was not.
But what really came home, too, is, again, Inspector General Horowitz did a good job gathering the evidence, except he refused to get the evidence that was offered to him about Hillary Clinton's emails absolutely, unequivocally being hacked and everything over 30,000, except for 4, going to a foreign entity not Russia.
You get the picture. The bias made a lot of difference in the outcome of the case.
Horowitz is just wrong about that. He was obviously–as I said at the hearing: So you give us over 500 pages showing bias by the investigators on the Republican side, and since you don't want your Democratic friends mad at you, you conclude there is no indication all of this evidence showed any affect on the outcome.
Well, hello. When you show such hatred and animus in the mind of the lead
investigator and you show that everything that concluded from that investigation was 100 percent consistent with the bias and hatred, you don't have to have the witness agree: You are right; you caught me. All my bias affected the outcome of my investigation.
Just like a prosecutor who puts on evidence that a guy gets in a car, drives to a bank, pulls out a gun, holds it to the head of the teller, makes the teller give him money, and leaves in that car, you have to prove intent, that he intended to rob the bank, but you don't have to have evidence that the bank robber said, “Hey, I intend to rob this bank.'' No.
When the results–and there are a lot of results–all of them are consistent with the bias and the hatred, the disdain, the animus, then you have got at least a de facto case, certainly one that can get past a motion for summary judgment and get to the jury and put in the hands of the fact finder.
Again, when you have somebody who is as good at lying to folks over and over and over again with a straight face, gets a lot of practice, and he comes before Congress–the guy is good. He is really good.
As I told him–I think, obviously, he and his lawyer had a different opinion, but it seemed to me it would have been more credible to come in and do what Inspector General Horowitz did, and say: Yeah, there is a lot of bias here, no question, but I don't think it affected the outcome.
Of course, he wasn't 100 percent sure, it didn't sound like, that it didn't affect when Strzok decided to end the Hillary Clinton investigation and when he immediately decided to pick up the investigation against Trump.
As I heard my friend say over and over about how Comey, of course, just really harmed the Clinton campaign, they are ignoring something that appeared pretty clear, even without resorting to people who have provided information about what went on.
We know Hillary Clinton's emails that she claimed were missing were found on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Maybe it was Huma Abedin, Anthony Weiner, one of their laptops. They found those emails there.
Of course, Peter Strzok, helping the woman whom he thought ought to win 100 million to 0 for President, wow, that was not good news for people like him who wanted to help Hillary.
They couldn't help the fact that FBI agents, when investigating something else, find all these missing 30,000 or so emails on this laptop. And they have got the information at least for some weeks, maybe 2, maybe 3, maybe 4. We are not sure, but they had found this information.
So Comey was in a difficult situation. He wanted Hillary to win, no question. He did not want Donald Trump to win. He never did like Trump, never has, apparently, things he has said and done.
So what could he do that would cause the least amount of problems for Hillary Clinton?
There was a threat, apparently, that FBI agents were going to go public that they had found these missing emails and that Comey was blocking reopening the investigation now that we have all these emails. And if FBI agents, who are righteous, unlike Peter Strzok, really righteous people–and I know a lot of them around the country. They are good, decent, upstanding, honorable, give-their-life-for-their-country kind of people, not give their affair for themselves but give their lives for their country. Those people have gotten a big blemish on them because of Peter Strzok and others at the top of the Department of Justice in the last administration, as they held over. They would never do what Peter Strzok did. They would never do that.
So it gets a little like they erect a straw dog: You are condemning the thousands of great FBI agents around the country.
No, I am blaming you. We know they are good, but you are not.
And that is where we have been here. This country is in a lot of trouble. But it was very clear: Peter Strzok, intentionally and knowingly, with demonstrated prejudice, refused to pursue the disclosed fact to him, in his presence, that a foreign entity not Russia was getting every email that Hillary Clinton sent and received. There was classified material in there, and there was higher than just plain classified. There was extremely sensitive information in there."
What else did we know? Actually, if you dig what has been uncovered during the last 2 years, Hillary Clinton had the President's Daily Briefing going to her home. And there are times that the young man–I believe his name was Oscar Flores–who worked there, they may have tried to get him a clearance at one time, but, apparently, from what I could read, he didn't have any kind of clearance, yet he would print stuff off.
The President's Daily Briefing is some of the most sensitive information in the entire United States Government, extreme sensitivity, and she violated the law by making it accessible to people without the proper clearance and, certainly, her young man, or man, who was working there for her.
She violated the law. It wasn't necessary that she have intent; it was just necessary that she broke the law in that case.
I really would like to have intent be an element of most every crime that is in the Federal law. I think it would be a good idea. But right now it is not part of the laws she broke.
Yet people like Peter Strzok covered for her. They refused to pursue the things that would have made her guilty. They went after things to try to hurt Donald Trump.
When you look at that October press conference that Comey had, you realize, gee, what if he had not called that press conference and you had one or more FBI agents come out and say: “Hey, we found these emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop weeks ago, and Comey refused to reopen the investigation''; that would have doomed her election far worse than what happened.
So what, under the circumstances, was the best thing that Comey could do for his friend Hillary Clinton? It was to get out ahead of anybody disclosing that they had been sitting on the thought-to-be-lost emails and say: We have got them.
Then, as I had said back at the time, well, we will find out how serious Comey is. If he comes back within 2 or 3 days and says they have examined all 30,000 or so, whatever, of the emails, then we will know that this was just a charade to cover for Hillary Clinton, because they are not going to be able to adequately research all of those emails in just a matter of 2 or 3 days.
He came back very quickly, so that it would not affect the election coming up, and announced: No. Clean bill of health. We looked at all the new evidence. Nothing was there.
Except they still didn't bother to use the information provided by the intelligence community that was available. They didn't pick it up, didn't do anything with what was disclosed.
I am telling you, I am very grateful we have people working in this government who want to protect the United States and want to protect the United States' people. They don't get a lot of credit, usually don't get any credit, but they do a good job for this country; and my head and my heart and my salute go out to them as we deal with the mess that has been created by those with far more selfish motives.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Congressional record