Congressman Matt Gaetz Demands FBI Director Explain “Special” Treatment of Hillary Clinton During Investigation at Judiciary Committee Hearing
Washington, D.C. — Congressman Matt Gaetz (FL-01) today attended the House Judiciary Committee Hearing on “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” where he questioned FBI Director Christopher Wray, and demanded answers to questions he has raised about the FBI’s treatment of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Donald Trump during the 2016 election cycle. Rep. Gaetz called for information about former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s statement that the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s misuse of a personal email server was “referred to as ‘special’” and that “the decision was made to investigate it at HQ with a small team.”
Earlier last week, Reps. Gaetz, Gohmert, and Biggs sent a letter to Director Wray, asking for an investigation to be launched into the FBI’s treatment of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during their e-mail investigation. The Congressmen’s questions have not yet been answered publicly by the FBI.
Yesterday, Congressman Matt Gaetz, alongside Congressmen Jim Jordan (OH-04), Mark Meadows (NC-11), Scott Perry (PA-04), Jody Hice (GA-10), and Andy Biggs (AZ-05) held a press conference calling for an investigation into the FBI’s “special” treatment of Hillary Clinton.
Following the press conference, Rep. Gaetz issued the following statement:
“The law demands equal treatment for all, not ‘special’ treatment for some. There is a clear and consistent pattern of treating the Clinton investigation differently than other investigations. At least some of this ‘special’ treatment seems to have been motivated by political bias. As America’s premier law enforcement agency, the FBI must rise above the fray of partisanship. Our judicial system depends on equal treatment under the law,” Rep. Gaetz said
Video and transcript of the exchange can be found HERE and below.
TRANSCRIPT
Rep. Gaetz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said your safe space was to follow the rules, were the rules followed in the Hillary Clinton investigation?
Director Wray: That's something that's being investigated right now by the outside Inspector General. I’m very much looking forward to seeing what he finds on that.
Rep. Gaetz: You and me both. Did she get special treatment?
Director Wray: Well, again, I think when you ask about special treatment, I interpret that but I may not be correctly interpreting your question, which I’m sure you'll tell me, but I take that to be whether or not the handling of the investigation was tainted in some way by improper political considerations and that's exactly what the Inspector General's going to tell us.
Rep. Gaetz: I sent you a letter asking you to tell us whether or not Hillary Clinton got special treatment and your office's answer was you would provide in a classified setting. Why don't the American people deserve to know whether or not Hillary Clinton got special treatment?
Director Wray: Well, I think the reference to classified information went to the other part of your letter, which has to do with the dossier issues. Let's talk about that -- but on the first part, on the question of special treatment, what I would tell you, I think this is one of the questions in your letter is that we do not have at the FBI, some double standard of special, not special, there's no formal term special…
Rep. Gaetz: So it's an informal term?
Director Wray: Yes, it’s an informal term.
Rep. Gaetz: You could see how informally designating something as special signifies a double standard, right?
Director Wray: I can see how term special could be misunderstood. I will tell you that…
Rep. Gaetz: Let me go on to another question, I have limited time. So on the dossier, did the FBI pay for a dossier on the President?
Director Wray: Questions about the dossier are something better taken up in separate settings.
Rep. Gaetz: Don't the American people deserve to know whether taxpayer money was used to buy a dossier that was curated by a political party to discredit the President of the United States before and after the election.
Director Wray: As I said, I understand the basis for the question, but I would tell you questions on that subject are something that we're having lots and lots of interaction with, multiple congressional committees and their staffs on in a classified setting.
Rep. Gaetz: Did bob Mueller recruit people to his probe that had a bias against the president?
Director Wray: I can't speak to how Director Mueller staffed or recruited for his team.
Rep. Gaetz: It seems like a hell of a coincidence. We've got Mr. Strzok who clearly had a bias, that's why he was reassigned. He’s at the center of a lot of the developing information. We got Mr. Wiesman who is praising people defying the President and then you have law firms that are overwhelmingly donating to the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign that serve up the humans that are in that investigation. So you can't say with certainty that bias against the president wasn't a factor that brought people into the Mueller probe, can you?
Director Wray: As I said, I’m not going to weigh-in on Director Mueller's staffing of his own team.
Rep. Gaetz: So we don't know whether Mr. Mueller recruited people as a consequence that are bias. We don't know whether Hillary Clinton was treated as special. We don't know whether the FBI used taxpayer money to go buy a dossier to discredit the president. What we do know is you said you were an ask questions first and act kind of guy, which I believe and appreciate. So you would never, as an ask questions first kind of guy, draft an exoneration statement before interviewing key witnesses in investigation, would you?
Director Wray: Well, I certainly wouldn't finalize one. I will say as I said, I think I can't remember if it was to Congressman Gowdy or one of your other colleagues. In my experience in an investigation, you do start to form a view, but keyword..
Rep. Gaetz: Drafting an exoneration statement before conducting witness interviews?
Director Wray: We sometimes would draft reports before the investigation was…
Rep. Gaetz: Exonerating someone?
Director Wray: exonerating or incriminating, but in all cases as Congressman Gowdy alluded to in his own comment, in my view you would not make any kind of final decision about anything, exoneration or otherwise until you'd had all the evidence.
Rep. Gaetz: So we've got an exoneration statement drafted before the interviews are done, you've got a meeting on the tarmac with the spouse of someone that is being investigated, you've got the former FBI director holding a press conference to make a determination about the outcome of an investigation, you've got James Clapper when he's confronted with information from an intelligence Inspector General saying he doesn't want anything to be a headache for the Clinton campaign, we don't know if these taxpayer funds were used for opposition research.
My question is what's it going to take? Why do we have to wait for an Inspector General? If I walk outside and it's raining, I don't need Inspector General to tell me to get an umbrella. With these highly aberrational circumstances, which almost anyone would acknowledge depart from the standards of the FBI, why wait for an Inspector General?
Why not do what we know to be right and institute reforms that bring transparency, oversight, and redundancy, so that in the future don't have some egomaniac, rogue FBI Director that departs from the normal procedures so that outcomes can be predetermined before the investigation?
Director Wray: As I said before and as Congressman Gowdy said in his question to me, I think it's appropriate that we wait in this instance until we have all the facts, until the last witness, as he said, has been interviewed. And then based on the facts that we have take appropriate action. I completely understand the reasons you're asking the question. I sympathize with them.
Rep. Gaetz: You see the double standard…
Chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired. The Director may answer the question.
Director Wray: Your concerns, which I completely sympathize with and understand go to the question of whether or not proper process investigative and otherwise were followed. And I think the best way to get to the bottom of that is not to bypass proper investigative process now into those things.
We should wait, let the fact finding finish, the Inspector General is somebody who's seen the Inspector General in action from the Justice Department side, as a line prosecutor, as a defense attorney, is not a rubber stamp. This is somebody who puts people through their paces. and I look forward to hearing what it is he finds. This is not the FBI investigating itself. It's an outside watchdog and I look forward to seeing what that report is. And then at that time, at that time, that’s when we should look at the appropriate steps should be taken in response.