April 8, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 60 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S2289-S2291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Mueller Report

  Mr. President, now for the main purpose of my coming to the floor: 
After years of hearing Democrats falsely proclaim that the Trump 
campaign colluded with Russia, Special Counsel Mueller found no 
collusion existed.
  The fact that there was no collusion is a very positive development, 
not just for this administration, but for the entire country. However, 
it does seem that the real collusion occurred with Democrats, and I 
will explain.
  It was the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee that 
hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research against Candidate Trump. 
Fusion GPS then hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence 
officer, to compile the Steele dossier that reportedly used Russian 
Government sources for information.
  You see, it was the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National 
Committee that funded the document that largely created the collusion 
narrative, a narrative that has been deemed false, and of course, that 
is the irony here.
  The Democrats paid for a document created by a foreign national with 
reported Russian Government sources, not Trump. President Trump did not 
do that. The Democrats did. But apparently, it is not over yet, or so 
the Democrats tell us every day. Their next step is to subpoena the 
entire Mueller report.
  Well, I agree that Congress and the public should see that 
information, and it sounds to me like President Trump agrees as well. 
The Attorney General has already said, on multiple occasions, that he 
is going to release as much information as the law allows and as soon 
as he can, and it looks like Congress--and likely the public--will get 
the Mueller report this month of April sometime.
  But Democrats have requested more than just the report. They have 
asked the Justice Department to also produce the Mueller report's 
underlying evidence, including all intelligence-related information.
  I agree with the need to see as much information as possible. In 
fact, I have cosponsored a bipartisan bill that would do just that, but 
the Democrats' fury over Mueller's findings and their inconsistent 
positions makes me think all of this is more about politics than 
principle.
  After all, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee opposed the 
release of this type of information in the 1990s. To guard against that 
political gamesmanship, there is only one legitimate way to do this: 
Let's see all the documents.
  But by all--I don't mean just those related to the Mueller 
investigation--we should see every piece of evidence, including 
evidence connected to how the Russia investigation started.
  Now that should be a very easy ask, and do you know why? I have 
already requested that information. For example, I have asked documents 
related to Steele, his dossier, and campaign-related FISA applications.
  These documents relate to actions taken by James Comey, Peter Strzok, 
and Bruce Ohr and are critical to Congress fully understanding the 
creation of the Russia investigation. If Congress is going to review 
the Mueller report and all underlying information, it should be able to 
review information relating to how the Russia investigation started.
  So will the Democrats join me in that effort and support my request?
  Further, to be consistent, we shouldn't stop at the Russia 
investigation. The Democrats want all the Mueller information, but seem 
to be turning a blind eye to other investigations where Congress and 
the public have yet to see every bit of information that is out there.
  Again, that leads me to believe their request for Mueller-related 
documents is a political ploy. Take, for example, the Clinton 
investigation. Will Democrats ask the Justice Department for all the 
underlying information relating to the Hillary Clinton investigation?
  As I have written about publicly before, the Justice Department 
inspector general produced to Congress a highly classified document 
relating to the Clinton investigation. That document makes clear the 
Justice Department and the FBI still ought to produce information to 
Congress and answer more questions.
  For example, the unclassified version of the inspector general's 
report provides important context about the classified report, and I 
have a long quote here:

       The FBI had considered obtaining permission from the 
     Department to review certain classified materials that may 
     have included information potentially relevant to the Midyear 
     investigation. Although the Midyear team drafted a memorandum 
     to the Deputy Attorney General in late May 2016 stating that 
     review of the highly classified material

[[Page S2290]]

     was necessary to complete the investigation and requesting 
     permission to access them, the FBI never sent this request to 
     the Department.

  So the inspector general found four important things, according to 
the unclassified report. No. 1, the FBI apparently had highly 
classified information potentially relevant to the Clinton 
investigation in its possession. Two, the FBI drafted a memo to get 
access to the information. Three, that memo said review of the 
information was necessary to complete the investigation. And then, 
four, ironically, that memo was never sent.
  Years later, when the inspector general interviewed the FBI agents, 
they said they didn't seek access to the information because they 
didn't think it would materially impact the conclusion. Now, how could 
they conclude that point if they never got access to the information?
  In May of 2016, the memo was necessary to complete the investigation, 
and then years later, somehow, it wasn't. That is materially 
inconsistent and obviously makes no sense. Moreover, look at the month 
the memo was drafted: May 2016.
  That is the same month that James Comey began writing his statement 
exonerating Hillary Clinton, which was months before the FBI 
interviewed her. Did Comey's actions have a trickle-down effect on his 
subordinates, causing him to kill the memo and pull their punches? It 
seems to me that we ought to find out.
  To my colleagues, it sounds like the FBI left a potential mountain of 
evidence unreviewed. How can you complete an investigation without 
reviewing all the evidence relative to the investigation? The American 
people have every right to question how this investigation was handled, 
and they deserve answers.
  Assuming President Trump has read the classified inspector general 
report, he would understand the importance of the Justice Department 
responding to my inquiries about it. I have written to the Justice 
Department and other agencies seeking those answers.
  I would like to know, since the Democrats want to investigate 
everything dealing with collusion and the Mueller report, would they 
join me in that request?
  I want to give you another example: Uranium One. I have been pushing 
for years for more answers about the transaction that allowed the 
Russian Government to acquire U.S. uranium assets.
  I have received classified and unclassified briefings about it from 
multiple Agencies, and I have identified some FBI intelligence reports 
that may shed more light on the transaction.
  Just last week, my staff were told that the Attorney General has 
refused to provide access to those documents. Well, if the Democrats 
demand intelligence-related information from the Justice Department 
regarding the Mueller report, there is no reason they shouldn't do the 
same for Uranium One. And if the Justice Department provides that 
information about the Mueller report, well, then, there is no reason 
they should hold the Uranium One material.
  It kind of gets down to this point: If the Democrats want to be 
consistent, they will have to treat Clinton, Uranium One, and Russia-
related investigations the same. Anything less than that reeks of 
political gamesmanship and sets a clear double standard, and that 
double standard also extends to the position the Democrats have taken 
with respect to obstruction.
  We know Mueller did not conclude that the President committed a 
crime, and neither did the Attorney General. Still, Democrats want to 
make the case that Trump obstructed justice, even though the Justice 
Department said otherwise.
  With no evidence, the Democrats have accused the Attorney General of 
bias, but Mr. Barr evaluated this matter in close consultation with 
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein--the person who appointed Mueller in 
the first place.
  The Democrats are looking for absolutely anything they can to make a 
case when there is no case. But these same Democrats and the Obama 
Justice Department didn't bat an eye when Clinton's associates deleted 
records subject to congressional subpoena and preservation orders.
  In March of 2015, Secretary Clinton's attorneys had a conference call 
with Paul Combetta, the man who helped manage Clinton's nongovernment 
server. After that call, he deleted Clinton's emails with BleachBit, a 
software program designed to prevent forensic recovery.
  I have seen no evidence that anyone has even speculated that the 
President ever did that or instructed anyone to go that far. What also 
troubles me about one aspect of the Clinton investigation is that the 
FBI agreed to limit the scope of review to her time as Secretary of 
State. That eliminated potentially highly relevant emails before and 
after her tenure that could have shed light on why she operated a 
nongovernment server. It also eliminated emails around the time of that 
conference call that could have shown exactly what was intended in 
deleting those emails.
  Why did the DOJ and FBI pull their punches? Mueller sure didn't pull 
his punches. He extended his scope of investigation well beyond 
allegations of collusion, which turned out to be false.
  Lastly, the FBI agreed to destroy records and laptops of Clinton's 
associates after reviewing them. That happens to be an astonishing 
agreement in light of the fact that those records could have been 
relevant to ongoing congressional inquiries that the FBI knew about.
  Where were the Democrats when all of that stuff happened? Where was 
their outrage at the potential obstruction of justice and obstruction 
of congressional oversight? It seems to me that if the Democrats want 
to be consistent, they will have to address what was done--and what was 
totally ignored--in the Clinton investigation.
  Let's also not forget about the prosecutorial double standard. 
Secretary Clinton and her associates mishandled highly classified 
information. The law makes ``grossly negligent'' mishandling of 
classified information a criminal offense. Comey did not recommend 
prosecution because it was not historically done under the law unless 
``intent'' was present. So not only did he and the Justice Department 
read ``intent'' into the statute, they made a judgment call based upon 
how many times someone had been charged under the law.
  The same thing could be said of the Foreign Agents Registration Act 
and lying to Congress. Each has had minimal prosecutions.
  Between 1966 and 2015, the Justice Department brought only seven 
criminal Foreign Agents Registration Act cases. One resulted in a 
conviction, two pled guilty, and the rest pled to other charges or they 
were dismissed. All of that changed with Mueller. So we have a double 
standard again.
  Unlike Comey, Mueller didn't seem to think historical precedent was 
all that important. Some have said that Mueller has made FARA a law to 
pay attention to--the same with 18 U.S.C. 1001, which covers lying to 
Federal agents and Congress.
  Recently, the Justice Department has said that it is transitioning 
``from treating FARA as an administrative obligation and regulatory 
obligation to one that is increasingly an enforcement priority.'' Well, 
it may be about time that the laws are enforced, and that is a very 
good and necessary shift.
  I have engaged in FARA oversight since April 2015. I also held a FARA 
oversight hearing in July 2017 and introduced the Disclosing Foreign 
Influence Act to shore up that law of the 1930s. I want to see FARA 
properly enforced, and I am glad that the Justice Department suddenly 
seems to care whether somebody lied to Congress. I want to see equal 
enforcement, not just with FARA but with all laws.
  I have said many times before that the law must be applied equally 
without regard to power, party, or privilege. That approach prevents 
inconsistent application and avoids double standards. So when the 
Democrats ask for material relating to the Russian investigation, I 
say: Fine, let's do it. However, that means they ought to be consistent 
with other investigations, and the Justice Department has to be as 
well. Anything less is a double standard.
  I will tell you right now, the Democrats' obsession with bringing 
Trump down is nothing but a double standard if they are going to ignore 
other investigations of national importance. If

[[Page S2291]]

you want to be taken seriously in this country, you have to be 
consistent.
  My attitude and my approach is straightforward and nonpartisan. Let's 
see it all: Clinton, Uranium One, Russia--all of it. Let it hang out. 
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
  To my colleagues in the Democratic Party: Are you afraid to be 
consistent? Are you afraid of what might be found? Let's work to make 
sure the American people have as much information as possible about all 
of these investigations. After all, the taxpayers are paying for the 
work. And don't forget that the American taxpayers ought to have some 
consideration when their money is spent to make sure that equality and 
enforcement of the law is the same for all.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  You may proceed.

                          ____________________