U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
November 9, 2017

Congressman Matt Gaetz Ramps Up Pressure, Calls for Mueller’s Recusal from Special Counsel

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressmen Matt Gaetz (R-FL) this week took to the House floor to ramp up the pressure in his call for the resignation of Robert Mueller, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from his position as Special Counsel. Rep. Gaetz introduced his call as a resolution last week, alongside Congressmen Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).
In July 2017, Rep. Gaetz offered an amendment in the House Judiciary Committee, as well as a stand-alone resolution, calling for a special counsel to investigate former FBI Director JamesComey’s collusion with Robert Mueller, the FBI’s mishandling of the Hillary Clinton investigation, and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s infamous “tarmac conversation” with former President Bill Clinton. To view Rep. Gaetz’s amendment, and his stand-alone resolution, click HERE and HERE. To watch Rep. Gaetz offering his amendment, click HERE.
The text of the resolution Rep. Gaetz introduced last week can be found HERE, and the video and transcript of this week's floor speech can be found below.

We are at risk of a coup d’état in this country if we allow an unaccountable person with no oversight to undermine the duly elected President of the United States. And I would offer that is precisely what is happening now with the indisputable conflicts of interest that are present with Mr. Mueller and others at the Department of Justice. I join my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona, in calling for Mr. Mueller’s resignation or his firing.
Moreover, we absolutely have to see the Department of Justice appoint a special counsel to look into the Clinton Foundation, the Uranium One deal and Fusion GPS dossier that I will now have the opportunity to discuss. I really don’t know who’s investigating the Uranium One deal right now.
I know that in July the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, along with 20 members of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Sessions, asking who would be looking into these critical questions, demanding that a special counsel be appointed to conduct a thorough review.
And it is extremely disappointing that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and my fellow members have received no response from the Department of Justice as to that letter. I don’t know whether the Attorney General’s recusal on matters related to Russia impacts, influences or in any way covers the Fusion GPS challenge, and the incredible threat to national security raised by the Uranium One deal.
I do know that there’s no world in which Mr. Mueller could potentially investigate these matters. It is federal law that even the appearance of a conflict of interest means that someone cannot engage in prosecutorial duties regarding allegations and investigations. That conflict of interest is absolutely present. As early as 2009, the FBI knew that we had informants alleging corruption into United States’ uranium assets.
There were allegations of bribery, kickbacks, extortion; even in 2010, Members of Congress were raising these questions and asking the Obama administration to provide answers that were never given. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that at the same time we were hearing from sources that there was bribery to influence our uranium assets, you had former President Bill Clinton getting paid $500,000 by a bunch of Russians to go give a speech.
Must have been one hell of a speech, but it’s deeply troubling to me that these circumstances seem to be ripe for corruption, and seem to demonstrate an ecosystem of corruption that must be thoroughly investigated. Now, why can’t Mr. Mueller and Mr. Rosenstein conduct this investigation?
First of all, Mr. Mueller was the head of the FBI in 2009. He potentially had a role to play in these questions. At the very least the fact that the FBI never prosecuted any case, never raised objections, never allowed Congress to be able to look into these matters — that would be an act of omission.
So at best there is an omission that creates a conflict for Mr. Mueller. At worst there might have been actual malfeasance or active negligence. In those circumstances, we need fresh eyes and clear eyes to give the American people confidence that our justice system is in fact working for them, but the not only the Uranium One deal that gives us a great deal to question.
We also have this Fusion GPS dossier, which we’ve now learned that the Democratic Party was paying for. The Democratic Party was out paying people to stir up this salacious and inaccurate dirt on President Trump both before and after he was elected.
In his own testimony before the Congress, Mr. Comey said that these allegations were “salacious” and could not be relied upon. So it begs the question, why was the Fusion GPS dossier relied upon? It was relied upon so that there would be FISA warrants issued to go and spy on the President and members of his team?
We don’t know. But until we have a special counsel, we’ll never get those answers because Mueller and Rosenstein are conflicted. And why did Congress never hear from these informants? Well, it’s no surprise to me that you actually have Mr. Rosenstein’s name on the signature block of the pleadings that sealed the information that could have shed light on this entire scandal.
But we didn’t have that opportunity. Now, look, it may very well be that these were simply acts of negligence, acts of omission or oversight. And if that’s the case, let’s get someone in who can give us the answers because certainly the people that are there now cannot give us answers and they have these tragic conflicts of interest.
The American people are well aware that the Clinton Foundation functioned largely as a money-laundering organization to influence the State Department, and to ensure that there were special people with special access and special relationships to the Clintons that got special treatment.
That is not an America that abides to the rule of law, and we as members of the Judiciary Committee, we have to see the rule of law held up and cherished. We’re a model for the world, but if we have circumstances where our President, who was elected, is undermined as a consequence of these things, if we do not replace Bob Mueller with someone who can come in — absent of association with the individuals who may be implicated — then I fear this great special place that we hold in the world may be diminished.
And so I have introduced legislation, I’m very pleased that my colleagues have joined me in sponsoring that legislation, calling for Mr. Mueller to resign. I’ve also called for a special counsel to be appointed.
And to my colleagues on the other side who say, well, hey, you know, there were a variety of agencies that were involved in approving the Uranium One deal, there were eight or nine groups that could have said no. Are members of Congress really taking the position that the Clintons don’t have their tentacles in just about every agency of government?
How ludicrous. You’re talking about the former President of the United States and at the time, the lady who was serving as our Secretary of State. The fact that this was a multiagency process only underscores the conflicts of interest that lie with Rosenstein and Mueller.
I am calling on the Attorney General to appoint a special counsel, to preserve the rule of law, and to help us save this great country from those who are trying to undermine us and undermine our President. I yield back to the gentleman from Arizona.


House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
December 13, 2017

Goodlatte Statement at Oversight Hearing with Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein

Washington, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) today delivered the following remarks during the House Judiciary Committee’s oversight hearing with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Chairman Goodlatte: Good morning.  Thank you, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, for appearing for the first time in front of this Committee.  There is much to discuss today, and we look forward to your testimony and answers to our questions.

As Chairman of the Committee with primary oversight of DOJ and the FBI, I have always supported DOJ and FBI in performing their valuable missions to keep our nation safe and to hold individuals accountable for criminal conduct.  Yet I and many on this Committee now find ourselves in the very difficult position of questioning the actions of both prior and current Department and FBI leadership.

You have a unique role at DOJ, in that you appointed Special Counsel Mueller and have a supervisory role over his investigation. It is therefore very appropriate for you to appear before this Committee to answer questions related to the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation, as well as its current efficacy in light of various events calling into question its impartiality.

Reports on the political predisposition, and potential bias, of certain career agents and Department lawyers on Special Counsel Mueller’s team are deeply troubling to all citizens who expect a system of blind and equal justice.  DOJ investigations must not be tainted by individuals imposing their own political prejudices.  We are now beginning to better understand the magnitude of this insider bias on Mr. Mueller’s team.

First, we have FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page exchanging communications showing extreme bias against President Trump, a fact that would be bad enough if it weren’t for the fact that these two individuals were employed as part of the Mueller “dream team” investigating the very person for whom they were showing disdain.  And calling it mere “disdain” is generous.  According to the documents produced last night to this Committee, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page referred to the President as “an utter idiot,” “a loathsome human,” and “awful,” while continually praising Hillary Clinton and the Obamas.  These text messages prove what we all suspected: high-ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election, and clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgment.  And this was only an “initial disclosure,” containing heavy redactions.

Second, former embattled FBI General Counsel and current Mueller prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann, expressed his “awe” of a former DOJ official for shunning the President and failing to faithfully execute the law.  However, we are the ones now in “awe” that someone like Mr. Weissmann remains on an investigative team that looks more and more partisan.

Third, we have learned that a top Mueller prosecutor, Jeannie Rhee, in addition to other actions that would normally justify recusal, served as an attorney for the Clinton Foundation.  Aren’t DOJ attorneys advised to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety?”  A former Clinton employee is now investigating President Trump.  This seems to be the very definition of “appearance of impropriety.”

Fourth, we just recently learned that another top DOJ official, Bruce Ohr, has been reassigned because of his and his wife’s connections with the infamous “dossier” and the company from whom the opposition research document originated.

We hope to hear your assessment of the foregoing conflicts, whether individuals are being held accountable, and whether you still have confidence in the judgement of the Special Counsel you named and supervise.

Regarding the Clinton email scandal, you, along with Attorney General Sessions, have to date declined to appoint a second special counsel to investigate the improprieties that continue to surface related to the handling of the Clinton email investigation and other events surrounding the 2016 election.  These are some of the important issues on which we will focus our energy and questions today. We want to understand your participation and the Department’s involvement in addressing both investigations.

Mr. Deputy Attorney General, DOJ’s reputation as an impartial arbiter of justice has been called into question.  This taint of politicization should concern all Americans who have pride in the fairness of our nation’s justice system.  While we continue to call on you to appoint a second special counsel, as you are aware, we have also opened our own joint investigation with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to review FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. I want to thank you and Attorney General Sessions for recently committing to provide us relevant documents to enable robust Congressional oversight of this matter.

I implore you to continue to work with us on these and other important matters facing our nation.

One of those matters involves a critical program for our national security – FISA Section 702.  This Committee passed, on an overwhelming, bipartisan basis, the USA Liberty Act, which maintains the integrity of the program while protecting cherished civil liberties.  This overwhelming vote occurred despite the Department’s lobbying efforts against our bill.  The USA Liberty Act was characterized as “bad for the program,” “highly problematic,” “unworkable,” and a proposal that would “effectively dismantle the Section 702 program.”

However, the reality is that this Committee’s legislation struck a balance that promotes national security and civil liberties. I hope to hear from you why DOJ felt it necessary to oppose a bill that would reauthorize 702 and instill confidence in the American people that their privacy and civil liberties are respected by a Government whose duty it is to protect them.

The Department of Justice must reacquire the trust of the American people, and I hope to hear from you today that you have an action plan to do so.

Thank you again, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, for appearing today. I now yield to Mr. Nadler for his comments.


Americans for Limited Goverment
December 14, 2017

At this point, it is easier to find someone on Mueller’s team that doesn’t have a conflict of interest

By Printus LeBlanc

Another day, another hearing and the America public learn more about the mountain of evidence pointing towards the entire Mueller special counsel team being filled with conflicts of interest. Rod Rosenstein said he would not fire Robert Mueller stating, “If there were good cause, I would act.” Well Mr. Deputy Attorney General, not counting the tens of thousands of dollars in political donations to Hillary Clinton, there is plenty of evidence to suggest a biased Special Counsel, if you would only open your eyes.

The Department of Justice supposedly has strict rules regarding conflicts of interests. The DOJ regulation regarding personal conflicts of interest states, “In addition to the impartiality regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 45.2 prohibits a DOJ employee, without written authorization, from participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.” Why does it seem like Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has never seen this regulation?

Peter Strzok is a top FBI counterintelligence agent that was one of the lead agents on the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation, or matter if your Loretta Lynch. Strzok was also one of the lead agents in the initial investigation into Russian interference, including interviewing Michal Flynn. Robert Mueller would pick Strzok to be on his special counsel team.

However, over the summer Strzok was removed from the team with little fanfare, and the reason did not come to light until recently. An ongoing Inspector General investigation found thousands of text messages to another an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page herself on the special counsel team for a time, Strzok was having an extramarital affair with, the relationship itself a severe security risk because of the potential for blackmail.

Apparently, the text messages were blatantly biased towards Hillary Clinton, the subject of one of his investigations, and extremely prejudicial of Donald Trump. The text messages were finally released on Tuesday, and it is worse than initially thought. There are several instances where Strzok makes disparaging remarks about Trump and glowing comments about Hillary Clinton.

One text suggests some sort of action against then-candidate Trump around the same time the Russia investigation started in 2016. He wrote to Page, “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk.”

One of the top FBI investigators is personally attacking and praising subjects of investigations admitting a preference for one over the other. That is the textbook definition of a personal conflict of interest. Nothing Strzok did on either investigation can be trusted because of his admitted animus towards a subject of investigation.

Robert Mueller’s “pit bull” is another walking talking conflict of interest. Andrew Weissmann is the lead prosecutor Mueller’s team and has a shady history with the law. Weissman was the deputy then director of the Enron Task Force. During the investigation, Weissmann destroyed the firm Arthur Anderson as a whole instead of going after the bad apples. His actions would close down the company, costing 85,000 people their jobs, only to have the Supreme Court reverse the decision unanimously several years later. A little late for the 85,000 people that lost their jobs.

Weissmann would further show his prosecutorial superpowers in being reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. He devastated the lives of four Merrill Lynch executives by concocting unprecedented charges based on business transactions.

Not only does Weissmann have a history of prosecutorial misconduct, recently released emails have shown his personal feelings towards the President. Shortly after Sally Yates declined to carry out a constitutionally lawful order by the Trump, Weissmann sent her a glowing email, praising her actions. Lauding the efforts of someone disobeying a legal order doesn’t sound very conflict-free.

Weissmann also has a Uranium One problem. Victoria Toensing is the lawyer for the informant the FBI had in the case. She has stated her client brought a civil suit to recover bribes the FBI authorized him to pay in the course of the investigation. The fraud section lawyers threatened to prosecute the informant if he did not drop his case, and Weissmann oversaw that office. When President Trump talks about getting to the bottom of Uranium One, that implicates any wrongdoing done by the legal teams that handled the investigation. It is in his interest that the Uranium One investigation goes away, and that can happen if he attacks the President and his staff.

Jeannie Rhee is another member of the Mueller team with a conflict of interest. Rhee represented Obama National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes during the Select Committee on Benghazi’s investigation into the 2012 attack. Because of Rhodes position in the Obama administration, he is likely to be a witness if a trial takes place. Rhodes would have been instrumental in the unmasking of individuals and a witness to Russian “interference.”

It doesn’t stop there for Rhee; she also represented the Clinton Foundation in a racketeering lawsuit. Thanks to President Trump winning the election, donations the foundation have dried up, possibly costing Rhee thousands in legal fees.

The special counsel himself has a conflict of interest problem. It was revealed today by Politico that Mueller was granted a conflict of interest waiver to take the job. The man that is supposed to ensure a fair investigation had to sign a waiver for his conflict of interest with the subjects of the investigation.

And let’s not forget the firing of James Comey, the single event that started the special counsel probe. Mueller and Comey were extremely close friends. They were so close; it has been reported they took family vacations together. Only in D.C. would this be acceptable.

Let this article be Rod Rosenstein’s wakeup call, that the Mueller investigation is one gigantic problem and conflict of interest and needs to be discontinued immediately since apparently, he has been ostrich-like in the hundreds of articles detailing Mueller’s abuses.

Printus LeBlanc is a contributing editor for Americans for Limited Government.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee
December 14, 2017

Texting on the job

By Mike Huckabee
Are you starting to suspect that the investigation of Russian collusion by the Trump campaign is cratering into a corrupt, money-squandering waste of time ($7 million and counting, and the only collusion it’s turned up so far is between Hillary’s campaign and Russia, and its own investigators colluding to defeat Trump)?  Well, never fear: Washington is a bottomless pit of endless, expensive investigations, which are a heck of a lot more fun than actually getting anything done.  Here’s the investigation news round-up so far this week (and it’s only Thursday):

Some of the texts exchanged between two FBI agents who were formerly on Robert Mueller’s investigation team have been released.  Peter Strzok and Lisa Page wrote them throughout the election and were allegedly having an affair (is that now called “colluding” in Washington?)  As expected, they prove both agents despised Trump and called him “idiot,” “loathsome” and other nasty names. Interesting twist for liberals: They also hated Bernie Sanders. Page was apparently such a Hillary Clinton partisan that she texted that she’d just seen her first “Bernie for President” bumper sticker and it “made me want to key the car.”  Strzok texted back that Bernie is an idiot, too.  You know, all this might lead a cynic to suspect that they were biased and perhaps didn’t belong on an impartial investigation of a political figure they openly despised. 

Investigating the special investigator

By Mike Huckabee
Along with all the previous revelations of bias, leaks and cover-ups by Mueller’s team, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow is calling for a special counsel to investigate the special counsel.  When I predicted that very thing a while back, it was sort of a joke, but this shows how difficult it is to make a joke these days that won’t immediately become a real news item.  Sticklers argue that a DOJ inspector general is the official who investigates a special counsel.  Fine, but don’t be surprised when there’s a special counsel to investigate the inspector general who’s investigating the special counsel (I give that joke six weeks before it comes true.)

New line of attack

By Mike Huckabee
Next, as if to tacitly signal that the “Russia collusion” hunters have got nuthin’, Brave New Films, a “documentary” film company associated with Media Matters and George Soros, is promoting three women who accused Donald Trump of sexual harassment during the campaign.  They are repeating their charges and demanding that he resign.  More than 50 female Congress members immediately demanded an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct by Trump, all of which he has denied.