PETER STRZOK'S TESTIMONY ON CAPITOL HILL
(House of Representatives - July 12, 2018)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 117 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[Pages H6166-H6168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                PETER STRZOK'S TESTIMONY ON CAPITOL HILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting day here on 
Capitol Hill. Madam Speaker, the hearing was still going on when I was 
just in the Cloakroom, where we had an FBI agent, one of the top 
supervisors, he had been in charge of foreign counterintelligence as 
well, and then after his outrageous bias and comments through text 
messages came to light, Robert Mueller relieved him from the Trump 
investigation and left the others who were just as biased. But it was 
an incredible day.
  For somebody who has not just shown bias, but outrageous animus, 
disgust, disdain, and deploring people who voted for Trump by their 
smell, he

[[Page H6167]]

tried to clean it up a little bit in his testimony today.
  Madam Speaker, I thought it might be helpful to some of our Members 
who know there is some rule here of the House that somehow you are not 
supposed to besmirch other Members. I am not sure how far it goes, but 
if they will check the rule, it is for those who are elected, be it 
House Member, Senate, Vice President, President, we are required to 
show decency and not call into question the intentions of such an 
elected person.
  When a witness comes before a hearing who is testifying 180 degrees 
opposite of what he put in writing thousands of times, for most of us, 
for a majority here in the House, it has no credibility. It makes the 
witness even look worse.
  To come in after we have seen so many of the texts he sent, we have 
got a good sense of where this man's heart, soul, and mind have been. 
It appeared abundantly clear that he had gotten very, very good at 
lying. It doesn't violate any House rule to say that.
  Now, when we were in our hearing, and one of my Democratic friends 
across the aisle yelled that I was off my meds, see, now, that was a 
violation of the rule. I thought about calling it out, having her words 
taken down, but we didn't need any further delays. But I thought it 
might be informative to my friends across the aisle who don't 
understand the rules of the House, but when somebody is lying through 
their teeth, sitting there smugly and smirking, and, frankly, when it 
hit me, that is probably the same smug little smirk you had on your 
face when you told your wife, no telling how many times, there is 
nothing going on between me and Lisa Page. He got really good at lying 
and showing no emotion whatsoever.

                              {time}  1815

  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

[[Page H6168]]

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.

                              {time}  1830

  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.

                          ____________________