Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership; and, obviously, for the eloquent words of my colleagues from Florida and from Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in, really, addressing a serious matter…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for his leadership; and, obviously, for the eloquent words of my colleagues from Florida and from Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in, really, addressing a serious matter of transparency that has left the American people with questions that deserve honest answers.
You know, for the past year, as our government has been mired in a fruitless, aimless, and sometimes laborious investigation on accusations of collusion between the Russian Government and the 2016 Presidential campaign, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have insisted that Congress follow where the evidence leads in this investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you today that I agree wholeheartedly. Congress should follow the facts where they lead. However, they are leading in a very different direction than many of the mainstream media narratives might suggest.
You see, in the process of this investigation, we have learned a fact pattern surrounding the Clinton campaign and potentially the Obama administration's involvement in a targeted campaign using information from foreign intelligence officials against then-candidate Donald Trump.
Now, as we know from the recent New York Times report, the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid for research that was included in the now infamous Russian dossier that was made public in January of this year by Buzzfeed and reported on by CNN.
Now we know that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid an ex-British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, to compile this dossier with the research provided from Russian intelligence officials.
Now, much of this dossier contains claims that have either not been verified or have been directly refuted. So, Mr. Speaker, it is suspicious enough that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid intelligence officials in Russia for this type of material and false information on President Trump.
But we were also beginning to see evidence that raises questions about the very way that the Obama Justice Department may have inappropriately involved themselves into this project, both before and after the 2016 Presidential campaign.
Mr. Speaker, now, if you would, consider the timeline that we are working with here. In April of 2016, the Clinton campaign used the law firm of Perkins Coie to retain Fusion GPS, the firm behind the Russian dossier.
Now, that very same month, in April of 2016, President Obama's campaign began paying more than $900,000 to what law firm?
Perkins Coie, the very same firm used by the Clinton campaign in the creation of the dossier.
Now, we also know that in the weeks prior to the 2016 election, President Obama's FBI tried to reach an agreement with Christopher Steele to pay for the Russian dossier, and the FBI actually ended up reimbursing some of the dossier expenses.
Now, to be clear, the FBI attempted to pay, and then reimbursed, the costs of the Russian dossier that was being orchestrated by Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign. Now, the FBI has refused to answer questions and resisted any transparency on this issue.
So going a step further, we now know that on January 6, President Obama's intelligence officials, led by then-Director of the FBI, James Comey, briefed President-elect Trump on the contents of the dossier.
Now, following that January 6 briefing, there are reports that the Obama administration's intelligence officials leaked to CNN the fact that the President-elect was briefed on the dossier. Four days later, on January 10, the dossier ended up being published by Buzzfeed.
Now, keep in mind, several media outlets had the dossier in hand prior to January 10, but none of them had printed it since the claims could not be verified.
Now, this timeline leaves us with a myriad of extremely concerning questions, Mr. Speaker, but they can be boiled down into a few specifics: Why did President Obama's campaign begin paying almost $1 million to the very same firm that the Clinton campaign used to fund the dossier in the very same month that the Clinton campaign began paying for the dossier?
The second question: Why did President Obama's FBI attempt to pay Christopher Steele for the Russian dossier? Why was President Obama's FBI involved in paying for a project that the Clinton campaign started and was orchestrating?
Again, the FBI has refused to answer these questions and has resisted transparency on this issue.
And why brief the President at all on the dossier if much of the dossier could not be verified?
Or, I would suggest, if President Obama's intelligence officials had reason to treat the dossier seriously, then why did they wait 2 months after the election to disclose the information on January 6? Why wait?
And why was the President's meeting with President-elect Trump leaked to CNN 4 days after the briefing, if, again, the dossier could not be verified?
Mr. Speaker, the intention of all of this is not to spread theories or to speculate as to what might have happened. The point is to recognize that there are legitimate, unanswered questions about whether the Obama Justice Department involved themselves in a political project targeting then-candidate Donald Trump, a suggestion that has far more evidence behind it than the directionless investigation into the Trump- Russian collusion.
The American people deserve an answer to those questions. They demand answers to those questions, and it is our government's responsibility to find them.