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.
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E581-E582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUDGING FBI CONDUCT
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Friday, June 26, 2020
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, with the newest
relevations in the current situation regarding General Michael Flynn,
Americans need to be alerted by the following revised article from
yesterday's Wall Street Journal:
Judging FBI Conduct
(By Kimberley A. Strassel)
House Judiciary Committee Democrats were back at their
``politicized Justice Department'' theme this week, calling a
disgruntled former lieutenant of special counsel Robert
Mueller to accuse the department of giving special treatment
to President Trump's allies. Too bad the testimony came on
the very day a federal court confirmed that Mr. Mueller's
team and the Federal Bureau of Investigation engaged in
misconduct.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit did so via an order requiring
Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss charges against former
national security adviser Mike Flynn. Most of the focus has
been on the legal merits of the ruling. Judge Neomi Rao's
compelling opinion rebuked Judge Sullivan for ignoring the
department's call to drop the case and instead setting
himself up as both prosecutor and jury. This was a win for
the separation of powers, even as it was a step toward
justice for Mr. Flynn.
[[Page E582]]
Largely overlooked was the decision's rebuke of the FBI and
the Mueller team. The D.C. Circuit became the first federal
court to acknowledge the misconduct that Attorney General
William Barr is trying to bring to light. Most of the courts
that oversaw Mr. Mueller's prosecutions were asked to do no
more than rubber-stamp a plea deal or sign off on a jury
verdict. But Mr. Flynn, backed by tenacious lawyer Sidney
Powell, fought the charges--forcing the Justice Department to
review its actions, acknowledge its bad acts, and move to
dismiss its case. Democrats and the press cast this outcome
as evidence of Mr. Barr's ``politicization.'' The circuit
court begs to differ.
The Justice Department's credibility was at stake here.
Judge Sullivan bought into the same Democratic conspiracy
theories, which is why he refused Justice's motion to dismiss
and appointed retired judge John Gleeson to act as shadow
prosecutor. He argued the Justice Department wasn't entitled
to the usual ``presumption of regularity.'' And if the
circuit judges thought there was anything to claims that Mr.
Barr was playing political favorites, it could have allowed
the process to continue.
Instead they bluntly noted that there was no ``legitimate
basis'' to question the department's behavior. They even
slapped Mr. Gleeson for relying on ``news stories, tweets and
other facts outside the record.'' By contrast, Judge Rao's
opinion notes: ``The government's motion includes an
extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting
Flynn's guilt into doubt.'' It points out that this includes
``evidence of misconduct by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.'' It finishes by noting that each government
branch must be encouraged to ``self correct when it errs.''
The court's conclusion is obvious. All it had to do was
look at the voluminous evidence the Justice Department
supplied. Its briefs proved the FBI had improperly pursued
Mr. Flynn, keeping open an investigation that produced no
evidence, ginning up a ``violation'' of the seldom-enforced
Logan Act, sandbagging Mr. Flynn with an interview that had
no ``legitimate investigative basis.'' It even provided new
FBI notes this week suggesting that then-President Obama and
Vice President Joe Biden were improperly engaged in the
investigation. The department's filings showed that the
Mueller team had consistently denied defense attorneys
exculpatory information. And it explained the straightforward
process by which it had reached its decision to withdraw: Mr.
Barr in February appointed veteran U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen
to review the case, and in May Mr. Jensen concluded dismissal
was ``the proper and just course.''
What matters, however, is that the public gets the truth
from credible sources. It's been coming, from congressional
inquiries, from the nonpartisan Justice Department inspector
general, from internal Justice and FBI reviews. And now from
a court.
____________________