-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I want to take the time of my colleagues to set the record straight, yet again, about an FBI investigative report that has been generated that goes by the number 1023, and I do this because the breathless media misreporting requires that I come to the floor to give a historical reorientation of the facts and the evidence.
As I have said all along on the Senate floor, I and Chairman Comer of the House, made the 1023 document public for this single purpose; that purpose is to force the FBI to do what the taxpayers pay the FBI to do, and that is investigate, in this case, the information contained in that document that goes by the number of 1023.
It is all pretty simple. I didn't promote or vouch for the allegations in 1023 as the truth, like some confused Democrats and the partisan media have falsely said. I pushed the FBI to do their job because that is my responsibility to the taxpayers and the people of Iowa.
Now some confused Democrats and partisan media have returned to their favorite line, falsely saying that our effort to get the FBI to do their job is somehow peddling Russian disinformation. It is kind of like a nervous tic to all of them.
For years, they falsely said the same thing about my and Senator Johnson's Biden family investigation, even though our investigation was based on Obama and Biden administration records and, really, on authentic bank records.
Some Democrats and the partisan media apparently don't care about observing and reading the facts. Well, this Senator does care about that. So let's discuss the facts of the matter that they either missed or, more likely, are choosing to ignore because it doesn't fit their narrative.
The whistleblowers within the Justice Department who came to me said the FBI had this document, the 1023, in their possession, now 3 years ago, June of 2020--3.5 years ago, in fact, because that document is dated June 30, 2020. Those whistleblowers that came to me were right.
Whistleblowers said that the FBI considered its confidential human source to be credible. That confidential human source--which I will simply describe today as the FBI's source--formed the basis of the 1023.
If you are following television, we now know the name of that FBI source. But until he was arrested, I did not know his name.
The FBI said the same to Congress and used the credibility of that source, the credibility assessment of that individual, to withhold the 1023 from Congress when we first asked for it. Even Ranking Member Raskin of the House Committee confirmed that the FBI told Congress that the FBI source was credible.
The FBI found their source so credible that the FBI gave their source the authority even to engage in illegal activity for the FBI's criminal investigation. And, yes, I want to make clear: The FBI said that he could do illegal things in his work for the FBI. The FBI told him that he may even have to testify in court based on the information he provided.
In fact, the FBI said that this source was so credible that the public release of the unclassified 1023 could put his life at risk, another excuse that they used.
Now let me be clear: The FBI consistently and publicly vouched for their source. Then the other week, the Biden Justice made this source's name public for the world to see. So if you watch television, you get his name off of television. Apparently, the FBI's excuse to withhold the document from Congress, as you can see, was pure smoke. Remember, the FBI said releasing the 1023 could put their confidential human source's life in danger.
The FBI's conduct is, of course, obviously absurd and a disservice to the American people--that means a disservice to the American people when the FBI doesn't do its job of following up on investigative reports, as they didn't in this case for 3 years.
So you can see those same whistleblowers were right about the FBI believing that their source was credible. Whistleblower said the FBI's source served as a source for many years, dating to the Obama administration. According to the Justice Department indictment, the FBI's source worked for the Federal Government and was paid by the Federal Government since 2010. So, again, those whistleblowers at the Justice Department were right.
Whistleblowers said the FBI failed to investigate the allegations in the document. So let me refresh this history by giving the timeline: According to the Justice Department indictment, the FBI finally interviewed the FBI source on September 27 last year. We made the 1023 public just a few months prior on July 20, 2023.
Clearly, the FBI finally acted because of our release of the document. In other words, we embarrassed them. And by that time, as I have said, by my timeline, the document was over 3 years old--3 years they didn't do their job that the FBI ought to have been following up on.
So the 1023 sat with the FBI collecting dust until we in Congress acted. My releasing the 1023 got the FBI to do its job that they should have been doing 3 years before. So I think it is legitimate in this political climate we are in this year, a presidential year, to ask the question: Would Special Counsel Jack Smith have waited years to act if the 1023 was about former President Trump?
Those whistleblowers were right about the FBI's failure to investigate. I started my oversight relating to the FBI's failure to investigate the 1023 on October 13, 2022. So I didn't have the document in my possession. I knew about it from the whistleblowers, but what information I got from the whistleblowers was without actually reading the document.
I sent a letter to Attorney General Garland, Director Wray, and U.S. Attorney Weiss to ask this very simple question:
What have the FBI and the Justice Department, to include U.S. Attorney Weiss, done to investigate?
I also asked for an array of documents, including travel documents that the Justice Department has used to indict the source, and I also asked, before I had read the document, for the same records. Again, this would have been after we released the document, so I correct myself. I asked for the same records again on October 24, 2023.
I said this on May 3, a year earlier:
What we don't know is what, if anything, the FBI has done to verify these claims or investigate further.
I asked on May 5, 2023, about the 1023:
I wish I could say I knew it was true or untrue.
On May 9, 2023, I said:
My focus right now is on the FBI and the Department of Justice. What have they done with this [1023] document?
On June 1, 2023, I said:
We're responsible for making sure the FBI does its job, and that's what we want to know.
I came to this floor of the Senate on June 12, 2023, to say to my colleagues this:
Here, with this 1023 document I've been referring to throughout my remarks, the Biden Justice Department and FBI must explain to Congress and the American people what, if anything, they have done with this information. And they need to show their work. We are not accepting their word anymore. We are seeking documentary proof of what they did to investigate the matter or their failure to do so.
Then, after Comer and I publicly released the document, I said this on July 25, 2023:
I want to make clear what my oversight focus is and will be: holding the Biden Justice Department and FBI accountable to explain to the American people what they did to investigate and what they found.
What did the Justice Department and FBI do to investigate the information contained in the 1023? Did the Justice Department and [the] FBI follow normal investigative process and procedure or try to sweep it all under the rug because of political bias? More precisely, did the FBI and DOJ seek to obtain the evidence referenced in the document?
Did [the Department of Justice] and FBI seek to interview individuals relating to the 1023? If not, why not? If so, one way or the other, what did they find?
And that is the end of the quote from what I said here on the floor of the Senate last year on this very subject.
Let me say that one line again so everyone hears me. ``One way or the other, what did they'' meaning the FBI, ``find?''
All of these partisan media outlets, if they had a shred of intellectual honesty and decency, would report these facts and hold the FBI accountable for their failures. And, of course, one congressional request after another went unanswered by the Justice Department and the FBI.
So, considering that deafening silence and the FBI's assertions that the source was credible, we made the 1023 public to force the FBI to do what they are paid to do--to do their job. They were supposed to be investigating this matter 3 years ago and doing it not for Chuck Grassley but for the American people.
If Congress didn't ask for transparency and accountability--in other words, we in the Congress doing our oversight work--we would break faith with the American people, just like the FBI that didn't do its job and broke faith with the American people.
And do you know what else? The Biden administration hasn't answered my and Senator Johnson's oversight requests. Let's not forget, there is a larger investigative picture here other than just 1023. Senator Johnson and I released two reports in 2020 as part of our Biden family investigation. We gave a series of floor speeches introducing bank records connecting the Biden family to communist China financial interests. Then, on October 26, 2022, we sent hundreds of pages of those bank records to U.S. Attorney Weiss.
So then this question is appropriate: To my Democratic colleagues and, more importantly, the partisan media that is not doing their job, are those authentic bank records that Johnson and I made public--is that Russian disinformation?
Now, Chairmen Comer, Jordan, and Smith have built and advanced upon the foundation created by Senator Johnson and this Senator.
So here is the question: Where is the Biden Justice Department regarding those bank records and potential money laundering?
Where is the Biden Justice Department regarding Biden family members registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?
Another question: The Biden Justice Department appears concerned about their FBI source's contact with foreign nationals; so where is that same concern regarding the Biden family's foreign connections? Are the Justice Department and FBI sitting on it just like they did with the 1023 for at least 3 years?
Here is another question to pose to the media and my colleagues: If we didn't make the 1023 public, would the FBI have interviewed the FBI source or would he remain on the taxpayers' payroll for another 10 years, continuing to misinform the FBI? And by misinforming, I presume that is the reason why he is sitting in jail right now in Los Angeles, awaiting trial or waiting on whatever they have to do to follow up on the arrest.
What will happen to the defendants if this source's information was used for a conviction or a plea deal?
This is really quite the mess for the Justice Department and the FBI, and it is one of their own making.
My oversight investigations are done without regard to power, party, or privilege, and I back that statement up with asking you to remember, I am the Senator who did a transcribed interview with Donald Trump, Jr., when Donald Trump was President of the United States. That is when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I also ordered my staff to interview other Republicans during my Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and you know what? If I had the gavel today, I would bring more Bidens to Congress to testify because the American people really deserve the kind of nonpartisan oversight that I have been conducting for years.
And remember this--and it is pretty simple--If the FBI came clean years ago about this document 1023, we wouldn't have had to release that very document. I wouldn't have had to rely on whistleblowers to make this public. So this guy still could be working for the FBI for another 10 years.
Instead, these people played games, withheld the document from Congress, and provided false and misleading information to Congress and the American people, not wanting to come clean on what they did with 1023.
We all know that transparency in government brings accountability. Now, folks are being held accountable because of my congressional oversight.
My oversight will continue.
The FBI has a lot of explaining to do for their continued shortcomings and actions in this case.
When will the media ask the FBI to explain?
I just explained it for the American people. I would like to see the media cover this instead of talking about Russian disinformation when this issue is discussed in print media and on television.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source