Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, said Tuesday that former FBI lawyer Lisa Page has been more helpful than FBI agent Peter Strzok when it comes to answering their questions about how the FBI handled the Russia and Hillary Clinton investigations.
"She has given us more insights to who was involved in what," Gohmert told Fox News.
"She's a more contrite person," he added. "But make no mistake ... she's a Democrat. She wanted Hillary to win and she did not want Trump to win, and that's been obvious."
Gohmert said Page has not contradicted Strzok, with whom she had an affair that was discovered by the Justice Department's inspector general. The two texted each other anti-Trump messages, which led to GOP claims that the FBI was biased against President Trump and for Clinton.
But Gohmert said Page has generally been more cooperative, which he indicated has opened more doors in the House Republican probe.
Gohmert said, for example, that there are other FBI supervisors involved in the GOP investigation besides Strzok, although he didn't name them. He also indicated that former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper could be involved.
"When I hear Brennan or Clapper either saying the kind of things they've been saying recently, then it tells me, wow, we must be getting close to them," Gohmert said. "Those guilty dogs are barking pretty loud."
Gohmert said Page's closed-door testimony in the House on Friday and Monday was at times so frank that FBI lawyers tried to keep her from answering.
"There were times the FBI lawyers would be reaching for the button to mute her comment and she would answer before the thing could mute her comment," he said.
"I think she'll be a good witness," he added. "I don't know that we're going to have a public hearing with her. But the important thing is to continue to gather the evidence."Read More
Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, came out swinging at the House Judiciary hearing about censoring conservatives. He criticized Facebook’s eagerness to address Democrat questions about Russian use of the platform, but less so about GOP inquiries.
During the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, representatives from Google/Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter detailed the steps they had been taking to increase the general transparency, accessibility, and safety of their platforms. However, several of the Democratic representatives repeatedly switched the focus to what these companies were doing to combat Russian hacking during the election.
According to Gohmert, these social media representatives were almost too eager in their cooperation with the Democratic questioning.
Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., started his line of questioning by recalling the “abject humiliation” President Donald Trump brought upon himself during his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday. He then asked, “Now do each of you agree that Russian government exploited the social media platforms your companies provide to attack our democracy?”
All of the tech company representatives responded affirmatively. Monika Bickert, Head of Facebook’s Global Policy Management, stated, “We did find accounts run by the Russian Internet Research Agency, both before and after the 2016 election. And we did remove those accounts and report on them.” YouTube’s Global Head of Public Policy and Government Relations Juniper Downs claimed, "We did find limited activity on our services, limited because of the strong security controls we had in place leading up to the election.”
She also mentioned the shutdown of a couple Russian Internet Research Agency accounts, and several YouTube pages from Russian sources. Nick Pickles, Senior Strategist of Public Policy for Twitter, answered similarly, saying that they removed accounts “linked to the Internet Research Agency” and RT, formerly Russia Today.
However, when Gohmert took on a line of questioning that was critical to the Russian narrative, the social media spokespersons’ answers became a little muddy, to say the least.
He asked, “Did you ever find any indication of use of your platform, utilized by the Chinese, North Korea, or any other foreign country, intelligence or agency of that country?” Bickert began by giving a confusing statement, possibly alluding to the fact that Facebook hadn’t thought that information to be relevant.
Bickert: I would note, Congressman, that we are not in North Korea or China, in terms of whether we’ve seen attacks on our services. We are of course a big target. We do have a robust security team that, uh, wor...
Gohmert: Well, but that’s not my question. It’s just a very direct question: Have you found use? You don’t have to be in North Korea to be North Korean intelligence. We have foreign governments, intelligence agencies in this country.
Gohmert mentioned that he felt each of the spokespeople to be “a little bit vague” in their assessments of finding hundreds of fake or bot accounts, and that they weren’t coming up with an answer to his specific questions. Still, Bickert clung to her statement that she didn’t have “the details.”
Gohmert: I’m asking specifically, were any of those other countries, besides Russia, using your platform inappropriately? It should be a yes or no.
Bickert: I don’t have the details. I know we definitely work to detect and repel attacks...
Gohmert: I know that but were any of them foreign entities other than Russia?”
Bickert: I can certainly follow you up on that.
The Texas Representative continued to grill Bickert, asking whether she even knew the answer to his question. He then brought his point home, remarking, “You sure seemed anxious to answer the Democrats’ questions about Russia influence, and you don’t really know of all the groups that inappropriately used your platform?”
Bickert mentioned that she knew that there were other groups, but that she would have to give Gohmert the answer some time later. The congressman piled on, asking “So you came prepared to help the Democrats establish about Russia, but you can’t point out any other country?”
Google’s Juniper Downs showed a similar struggle to give a straight answer. She touted the ability of her platform to combat all hostile foreign bodies, and mentioned that they really didn’t have research outside the Russia investigation. And Twitter’s Nick Pickles all but dodged Gohmert’s question entirely.
After the Media Research Center released its censorship report, more than 30 conservative organizations united to form the coalition Conservatives Against Online Censorship. The Senate held a hearing where Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg gave testimony in early April. Later in April, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing of social media platforms. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., testified about her personal experience of censorship on Twitter, while personalities Diamond and Silk gave their own testimonies about their fears of censorship.Read More
A member of the House Committee on the Judiciary said during a hearing Thursday that a government watchdog found that nearly all of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails were sent to a foreign entity and that the FBI didn’t follow-up on that finding.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) found an “anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list,” Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas said during a hearing with FBI official Peter Strzok.
“It was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia,” he added.
Gohmert said the ICIG investigator, Frank Rucker, presented the findings to Strzok, but that the FBI official did not do anything with the information.
Strzok acknowledged meeting with Rucker, but said he did not recall the “specific content.”
“The forensic examination was done by the ICIG and they can document that,” Gohmert said, “but you were given that information and you did nothing with it.”
He also said that someone alerted the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz to the issue.
“Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call,” Gohmert said.
The ICIG previously caught problems regarding Clinton’s server that the FBI missed. The bureau didn’t notice that some emails were openly marked classified with a “(C)” when they were sent. (RELATED: FBI Missed Clinton Emails Openly MARKED Classified, Wanted To Conclude Probe Before IG Caught Mistake)
The ICIG spotted the oversight after the FBI missed it, texts between Strzok and his mistress, former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, show.
“Holy cow,” Strzok wrote, “if the FBI missed this, what else was missed? … Remind me to tell you to flag for Andy [redacted] emails we (actually ICIG) found that have portion marks (C) on a couple of paras. DoJ was Very Concerned about this.”
In late 2017, ICIG Chuck McCullough — who was appointed by former President Barack Obama — took the unusual step of coming forward publicly to say that he perceived pushback after he began raising the alarm about issues with Clinton’s servers to then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
He said he found it “maddening” that Democrats, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, were underselling the amount of classified information on the server.
McCullough said he “expected to be embraced and protected,” but was instead “chided” by someone on Capitol Hill for failing to consider the “political consequences” of his investigative findings, Fox News reported.
The ICIG has not publicly disclosed the findings Gohmert described in the meeting between Rucker and Strzok, but the congressman said the watchdog can document them.
Thursday’s exchange is below:
Gohmert: You said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile foreign power affecting the election. Do you recall the former Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary Clinton’s emails?
Let me refresh your memory. The Intelligence Community Inspector General Chuck McCullough sent his investigator Frank Rucker along with an IGIC attorney Janette McMillan to brief you and Dean Chapelle and two other FBI personnel who I won’t name at this time, about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton’s emails that were going to the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating?
Strzok: I remember meeting Mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions. I do not recall the specific content or discussions.
Gohmert: Mr. Rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there, in the presence of the ICIG attorney, that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton’s emails going through their private server, and when they had done the forensic analysis, they found that her emails, every single one except four, over 30,000, were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. It was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source. Do you recall that?
Strozk: Sir, I don’t.
Gohmert: He went on the explain it. And you didn’t say anything, you thanked him, you shook his hand. The problem is it was going to an unauthorized source that was a foreign entity unrelated to Russia and from what you’ve said here, you did nothing more than nod and shake the man’s hand when you didn’t seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton. So the forensic examination was done by the ICIG — and they can document that — but you were given that information and you did nothing with it. And one of the things I found most egregious with Mr. Horowitz’s testimony, and — by the way Mr. Horowitz got a call four times from someone wanting to brief him about this, and he never returned the call.
Congressman Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement today in support of Rep. Jim Jordan:
“Jim Jordan is a fine and decent person who has a lifetime history of being honorable and honest, unlike his accusers whose extremely troubled backgrounds and ongoing legal and financial troubles place the veracity of their allegations into the realm of ridiculous.
Unlike the Olympians who were minor children at the time they were abused, these former wrestlers were adults at the time they claim they were sexually abused by the Ohio State team doctor. Note that they do not claim they reported specific abuse to Jim Jordan or to anyone else. To the contrary, they specifically state they did not tell Jordan but instead say he should have known because there was talk around the locker room.
They waited over 20 years to make these allegations with the willing and very expensive assistance of Perkins Coie, a Washington, DC-based dirty tricks law firm. Perkins Coie boasts a client roster that includes the DNC, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and several Democrat Members of Congress. They were recently paid by Hillary Clinton and the DNC as a pass-through entity to hire Fusion GPS to concoct the salacious and unverified Russian dossier at the heart of the Clinton team’s attempted take-down of President Trump.
That doesn’t pass the smell test, but there’s even more. The doctor they are accusing of these acts committed suicide 13 years ago, so this isn’t even about prosecuting him. It is not about “preventing others from being abused” by this dead man.
This has every appearance of greed trying to gain twice from the same smear. First, trying to finally have a successful law suit against Ohio State University after failed previous claims. Second, whatever payments were received for trying to destroy President Trump may be available to destroy other high-achieving Republicans, like Jim Jordan. Given the inclusion of Perkins Coie in the mix, the likelihood increases that money has already changed hands to purchase a drive-by character assassination of beloved conservative Republican Congressman Jim Jordan. I personally vouch for the integrity of Jim Jordan. There seems to be an absence of people vouching for the upstanding character of his accusers.”
# # #Read More
The Democrats’ new rallying cry calling for the abolition of U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) ‘is a call for anarchy,” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) warned Tuesday.
“It’s the way countries end and a new dictatorship begins,” Gohmert explained in an interview on Fox Business Channel
“It’s a call for anarchy. And, it’s amazing that it has caught on and has been spreading even among what were thought to be mainstream Democrats. I mean, it’s insane. If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country.
“And, when you’re a welfare state, like the U.S. has become, it is just a giant sucking sound from all over the world.
“You can’t control it, and it means anarchy. It means might makes right and then that, ultimately, leads to a totalitarian dictatorcoming in and rounding up the military, taking over.
“It’s the way countries end and a new dictatorship begins. You call for anarchy, and then you get a dictator.”
Rep. Gohmert was incredulous that so many Americans are willing to “be such foolish servants of those who want a dictator, who want a totalitarian government,” since the only way to have socialism is through force:
“It’s unbelievable that people that are so ignorant, they’ll be such foolish servants of those who want a dictator, want a totalitarian government. And, that’s the only way you can have socialism. You have to force people – to take from those according to their ability and give to those according to their need – it takes a totalitarian government to make that work.”
“It depends on the circumstances,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified Thursday when asked if he reads every FISA application he signs authoring the government to spy on its citizens.
Rosenstein testified in a House hearing on potential abuses by the Justice Department (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding its investigation of President Donald Trump and potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
When former judge Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) asked Rosenstein about the FISA warrant he signed, Rosenstein looked to FBI Director Wray for the answer – a move that disturbed Gohmert.
Rosenstein eventually admitted that he signed the warrant to spy on Page. But, he told Gohmert that he doesn’t need to read every FISA warrant he signs, that he merely need to understand what’s in it.
Gohmert said that, if Rosenstein had signed a spy warrant and then appeared his court with it, the former judge would have never again trusted anything Rosenstein asked him to approve:
Rep. Gohmert: When you approve a FISA application, in your mind, does that mean you should read it and understand what’s part of it?
Rosenstein: “You should certainly understand what’s part of it, sir.”
Rep. Gohmert: “But, you’re parsing words. So, that doesn’t mean you need to read it, in your opinion – is that correct?”
Rosenstein: “It depends on the circumstances.”
Rep. Gohmert: “Well, telling you, being a former felony state judge, if I had somebody like you come before me and now it was revealed later that the guy that signed and approved an application for a warrant had not even read the application that would allow spying on somebody, I would look at everything he signed from then on with a jaundiced eye. And, I’m telling you, I was a little concerned.”
Congressman Louie Gohmert (TX-01) will continue to seek input from constituents to address questions and discuss the benefits of H.R. 5957 – The Caddo Lake National Heritage Are Act of 2018. He additionally released the following Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) concerning the legislation:
Q: Is a Heritage Area controlled by the Federal government? Will the creation of a Heritage area increase Federal Land or impose more burdensome Federal Regulations?
A: A National Heritage Area is the name for a partnership among the National Park Service, states, and local communities in which the service supports state and local initiatives through federal recognition, seed money, and technical assistance. Heritage Areas are not part of the National Park System, nor are they federally owned and managed. Rather, lands within National Heritage Areas remain in state, local, or private ownership (or a combination thereof). There are no comprehensive federal criteria for designating National Heritage Areas, and there are no strict federal standards for their funding and management. Rather, these standards are created individually for each National Heritage Area within in its enabling legislation in order to meet the specific needs of the designated area and the surrounding community.
Q: Does the designation of a National Heritage Area curtail private property rights?
A: No. The enabling legislation within the Caddo Lake National Heritage Area Act of 2018 contains the strictest private property protection language in any such enabling bill. Further, A GAO report in which a survey of every existing National Heritage Area was conducted, not a “single example of a heritage area directly affecting—positively or negatively—private property values or use” was found.
Q: Why will the Caddo Lake National Heritage Area be beneficial to our region?
A: The National Heritage Area will be able to leverage limited federal funds to commemorate, conserve, and promote areas that include important natural, scenic, historic, cultural, and recreational resources. Any federal funds must be matched; historically, matches have been at a rate of 2:1 and higher.
An example of the beneficial opportunities provided to National Heritage Areas can be found in North Carolina. The Blue Ridge National Heritage Area in North Carolina recently offered a grant, available to local schools, towns, and nonprofits, to fund projects that promote the region's “agricultural, craft, Cherokee, music, and natural heritage.” In another example, a local museum in Mississippi recently accepted a grant from the North Mississippi Hills National Heritage Area to add a more localized flavor to the museum’s digital format.
Q: Will the creation of a National Heritage Area lead to restrictions on recreational activities – like the ban on permanent duck blinds in 2015?
A: No, nothing in the Caddo Lake National Heritage Area Act will have any direct or indirect effect on state or local laws, nor will it impose any federal regulations on state, local, or private land. Currently, Caddo Lake is largely regulated at the state level as Caddo Lake State Park (designated in 1931) and as the Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area (purchased by Texas Parks and Wildlife in 1992). The 2015 ban on permanent duck blinds was made at the state level, and the creation of a National Heritage Area will not lead to additional regulations like that ban.
Q: I have additional questions and concerns – who do I talk to?
A: As the Caddo Lake National Heritage Area Act of 2018 is in the very beginning stages of the legislative process, and is by no means a finished product, we are actively seeking input from the community and stakeholders. Any questions, concerns, or comments can be directed to Andrew Keyes in my office at firstname.lastname@example.org.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban executive order in a 5-4 decision. Trump’s order would ban travel from eight countries to the United Staes based upon national security concerns.
Rep. Scott Perry, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, cheered the Supreme Court’s decision in an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, saying, “The primary duty of our government is to keep us safe. The Supreme Court’s decision today reinstates a common-sense policy that helps protect us and our American way of life. The Court once again reinforced the Constitutionality of the executive branch’s authority on this subject.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert, another member of the Freedom Caucus, said in a statement to Breitbart News, “It is encouraging to see the Supreme Court uphold President Trump’s thoughtful decision to deny entry to foreign nationals who may pose a significant threat to our nation. Whether the migrants come from an area that prevents us from ensuring they are not a threat to our country, or when there is an exceedingly grave risk that they themselves actually pose a threat to our nation – this decision will play an important part in safeguarding our national security interests.”
“Thankfully we have a Commander-in-Chief who fervently wants to protect the American people from foreign dangers and, fortunately, there is a majority on the Supreme Court who recognize and appreciate the Constitutionality of what the President has done,” Gohmert added. “The Supreme Court Order today, therefore, appropriately upheld President Trump’s actions.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) also said in a statement on Tuesday:
Congress has long delegated to the president the authority to regulate the entry of people into the United States, particularly from war-torn countries or well-known state sponsors of terrorism. The Court has rightly upheld this common-sense, longstanding practice, which I hope will end once and for all the tortured reasoning of liberal judges who make up new legal doctrines because they personally disapprove of the president.
Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) cheered the Supreme Court’s decision in a statement on Tuesday, saying:
Today’s decision recognizes the president’s constitutional authority to use the legal tools at their disposal to secure our borders and uphold our immigration system. The countries currently facing these travel restrictions are failed states, rogue regimes, and nations labeled terrorist havens by previous administrations, both Republican and Democrat alike. Those who oppose the actions President Trump is taking to keep American citizens safe are fighting against the man, not the policy.
We are a compassionate nation, one which has always offered a place for people seeking better lives. However, our enemies continuously seek to use our generosity against us, and the president has a duty to protect the American people first. I fully support President Trump’s actions to keep America safe as we work to implement a more thorough and efficient vetting system.
In a statement on Tuesday, Trump called the Supreme Court’s ruling a “vindication” over months of media and Democratic criticism over Trump’s travel ban.
“This ruling is also a moment of profound vindication following months of hysterical commentary from the media and Democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country,” the 45th president said.
Later on Tuesday, President Trump pressed Republican senators to increase funding for his promised border wall on America’s southern border.
Trump said, “We started the wall, we’re spending a lot of energy and a lot of time … we’re going to ask for an increase in wall spending so we can finish it quicker.”
President Trump turned his attention to the Democrat IT scandal on Twitter this morning, calling it "a key to much of the corruption we see today."
Our Justice Department must not let Awan & Debbie Wasserman Schultz off the hook. The Democrat I.T. scandal is a key to much of the corruption we see today. They want to make a “plea deal” to hide what is on their Server. Where is Server? Really bad!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2018
The president is getting frustrated because after an investigation that has dragged on for over a year, prosecutors have thus far failed to bring a myriad of charges against former Pakistani IT employees who worked for between 40 and 50 Democratic members of Congress.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) alleged on the House floor on Tuesday that the FBI has actually instructed witnesses to not bring documentary evidence to them about the Awan brothers' case so they can say there's no evidence for them to investigate.
Imran Awan and his family were barred from the House computer network on February 2, 2017, days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, and months after the House’s Office of Inspector General warned that members of the clan had “unauthorized access” to data during the 2016 election.
A House employee told The Daily Caller's Luke Rosiak that former DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz became “frantic, not normal,” “making the rounds” to House officials in an effort to kill the investigation.
Wasserman Schultz cornered House Chief Administrative Officer Phil Kiko and called him a “f*cking Islamophobe,” saying “you will not so much as take away their parking spots,” the two House employees said Kiko told them.
The OIG alleged in a September 30, 2016, presentation that "Imran Awan and his family members were logging into the servers of members who had previously fired him, funneling data off the network." The report further alleged that steps were "being taken to conceal their activity.”
The House inspector general, a distinguished cybersecurity expert, was taken off the case, and it was given to the Capitol Police instead. Months later, police banned the Awan group from the network. The Committee on House Administration put out a statement saying “House Officials became aware of suspicious activity and alleged theft committed by certain House IT support staff.” Since then, no official body has ever publicly provided any information about the case. But the IG report, obtained by TheDCNF, shows that theft was not the primary issue being warned about.
Capitol Police have not made any arrests, "despite numerous red flags," Rosiak reported. However, they did "inadvertently" give evidence to defense attorneys that was supposed to go to prosecutors.
"Unfortunately, the only thing they've indicted Mr. Awan for... is for basically making a false statement to get a loan," Gohmert complained in his speech on the House floor Tuesday. "But there are dozens and dozens of felonies in which he's implicated from his work here on Capitol Hill."
One of the allegations against Imran Awan is that he fraudulently purchased items like iPhones, iPads, etc. -- ostensibly for Congress -- as gifts or bribes to cronies in Pakistan, including Pakistani intelligence agents and police.
"There were clearly dozens of fraudulent purchase orders," Gohmert claimed.
He added, "The FBI has had opportunities to have those invoices presented to them, and each time they have instructed, 'don't bring any of those documents -- we don't want to see any of that -- we just want to talk to you.'"
The congressman claimed that the FBI as recently as this week continues to report that they've found no evidence of anything other than a false statement on a loan.
"Why? Because they've instructed -- 'we don't want to see the documents that prove those cases.' They're readily available for anybody -- any federal office who wants to see 'em. But they don't want to see 'em," Gohmert lamented. "So they can keep reporting to the new U.S. attorney that there's no evidence -- no evidence. Nah -- there's just nothing there. They can tell the attorney general, 'yeah, we've looked into it, there's nothing there.'"
Gohmert also noted that according to Luke Rosiak's reporting, between 70 and 80 percent of the witnesses who have information about the Awan brothers' crimes have never been interviewed by the FBI.
"The FBI has no interest whatsoever -- at least so far" in investigating what happened to the server on which Awan put data about 40+ members of Congress, Gohmert said. "This is really tragic."
"Taxpayers are paying for Imran Awan's lawyer 'cause he says he's destitute, yet he sent $100,000 or more over to Pakistan in one transaction and we know that he has property listed in his bankruptcy! We know that he was in business and took a loan from a guy in Pakistan who has known ties to Hezbollah. And they owed him money," he said.
"And we can't get the FBI interested in that. There are too many holdovers apparently from Mueller's day and Comey's day. We need to know what was compromised. And I don't care who the person works for, congressional computers should not be serviced from Pakistan."
Gohmert also said he understands the reluctance of Republican members of Congress to stand up to the FBI.
"Last guy [we] saw making charges, talking about FBI's lack of duty... he ended up being defeated by the FBI raid on his office -- his daughter's office -- two weeks before the election," he said. Gohmert was referring to the raid on former Rep. Curt Weldon's daughter and her close friend in October 2006 as part of an investigation into improper lobbying and consulting contracts. Weldon was never charged in the incident and, according to USA Today, the incident cost him his re-election.Read More
Congressman Louie Gohmert (TX-01) released the following statement remembering the patriots who stormed the beaches of Normandy 74 years ago today:
“Today marks the 74th anniversary of the D-Day landing in Normandy. Thousands of young Americans gave their last full measure of devotion on the battlefield that fateful day. When faced with perilous circumstances, these patriots stood firm and tall under the banner of the red, white and blue.”
"We remember those courageous patriots who lost their lives so that our freedoms could continue. We truly cannot thank these valiant soldiers and their surviving family members who loved them enough for the ultimate sacrifice they made that day. May we kneel today and thank God for those who were willing to serve and thank God for the sacrifice they made.”
# # #Read More
2243 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Serving his fifth term in the United States House of Representatives, Congressman Louie Gohmert was first sworn in January 4, 2005. He proudly represents the First District of Texas which encompasses over 12 counties stretching nearly 120 miles down the state’s eastern border.
During these trying economic times, Rep. Gohmert is developing innovative solutions to jumpstart our economy and offering practical alternatives to the government’s bailout frenzy. His “Federal Income Tax Holiday” gained widespread national support from the grassroots level to national leaders, allowing taxpayers to decide how best to spend their hard-earned money. Louie has repeatedly called for an end to the socialization of our economy and decried the notion that Washington Bureaucrats know better than American taxpayers.
Louie serves on numerous House committees and subcommittees. He was recently named Vice Chair of the Judiciary subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security due to his extensive knowledge stemming from years in the court room.
Prior to being elected to serve in Congress, Louie was elected to three terms as District Judge in Smith County, Texas. During his tenure on the bench, he gained national and international attention for some of his innovative rulings. He was later appointed by Texas Governor Rick Perry to complete a term as Chief Justice of the 12th Court of Appeals.
Louie received his undergraduate degree from Texas A&M University and later graduated from Baylor School of Law. He is also a veteran having served his country as Captain in the U.S. Army.
Today, he and his wife Kathy are the proud parents of three daughters. Their family attends Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, where Louie has served as a deacon and still teaches Sunday school.
Retweeted by replouiegohmert
Both the US government, Department of Justice, intel, as well as the Russians, as well as other countries, were try… https://t.co/gLZTUe5mYk
Retweeted by replouiegohmert