[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 203 (Monday, December 11, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5887-S5888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Senate Judiciary Committee
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today, I want to address the ill-advised
and really unacceptable conduct at the November 30 Judiciary Committee
executive meeting. The majority there didn't allow a single Republican
amendment to the adoption of the subpoena authorization, and that was
breaking with precedent. Contrary to what Democrats allege, when I was
chairman, I followed the rules and let everyone speak who wanted to so
speak. I even allowed them to offer resolutions during a confirmation
process, which I could have ruled out of order. Simply put, this
subpoena authorization isn't based on oversight; it is based on
overreach. It is a political hit.
Over the past 6 months, the left's web of dark money interest groups
has tried to impugn the character and reputation of certain
conservative members of the Supreme Court. This Democratic
investigation into the Supreme Court totally ignores ethical questions
and dark money networks surrounding liberal Justices. This is all part
of a whirlwind effort to cast doubt on our country's highest Court and
call into question the legitimacy of its rulings. Conservative Justices
have been specifically targeted, harassed, and even threatened. The
left's influence-peddling scheme views these conservative Justices as
the greatest obstacle to jamming their radical agenda through our
courts because Congress won't do the same liberal bidding.
The left has outlined new rules for conservative Justices: Justices'
spouses must give up their independent law practices; Justices
shouldn't vacation with close personal friends; Justices shouldn't have
wealthy friends; and Justices shouldn't make any new friends after
donning the robe.
How unfair and how unrealistic. No such conflicts of interest ever
were raised during the Court's liberal years. These rules were not
invoked against the Court's liberal Justices. This persistent political
battering of the Judiciary is coming at a tremendous cost. The
conservative Justices have endured real threats to their safety and the
safety of their loved ones.
As I have said before, judicial decision-making must be based on law
and sound jurisprudence. It shouldn't be subject to the whims of public
opinion or clamor. It cannot be the result of threats and intimidation
of Supreme Court Justices. This political hit by the Democratic
majority of the committee will do lasting damage not only to the Court
but to the committee. Again, this effort isn't really oversight as I
like to do, and we do a good job of it; instead, it is about political
theater.
Let me give some examples of how an investigation should be
conducted.
During my time as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, starting in
2017, the committee investigated, in a bipartisan fashion, alleged
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Bipartisan
committee staff--I want to emphasize that--bipartisan committee staff
interviewed five individuals who participated in that meeting,
including President Trump's son, and collected documents from several
others involved. At the Democrats' request, the committee interviewed
an additional six individuals. I subpoenaed even Paul Manafort, with
then-Ranking Member Feinstein's agreement for him to appear at a
hearing and to provide testimony. With the exception of Democrats
refusing to subpoena Fusion GPS and related parties, then-Chairman
Graham's 2020 Crossfire Hurricane subpoena authorization was based on
years of bipartisan work.
[[Page S5888]]
As I have thought more about my Democratic colleagues' apparent laser
focus on government ethics, it is clear that they have totally ignored
the biggest, most obvious ethical fact pattern that requires
investigation, and that is of the Biden family.
Since August 2019, Senator Johnson and I have investigated the Biden
family's connections to foreign governments and questionable foreign
nationals. We issued two reports and gave three floor speeches that
made public hundreds of bank records. Our findings showed criminal
activity, to include potential money laundering, with respect to
members of the Biden family and their business associates and the use
of public office for private gain.
Well, with respect to the Hunter Biden-related accounts, some have
also been flagged for potential human trafficking. As Senator Johnson
and I noted in our September 23, 2020, Biden family report, Treasury
records show thousands of dollars in financial transactions involving
Hunter Biden and Ukrainian and Russian women. These Treasury records
link those women to Eastern European prostitution or human trafficking
rings.
At this Judiciary Committee executive meeting that I have been
speaking about, Democrats failed to consider my amendment to gather
more facts on this abuse against women. Senator Johnson and I made
public a bank record that showed Hunter Biden received $1 million from
a Chinese company that was an arm of the communist regime for
representing Patrick Ho. Patrick Ho was charged and convicted for
bribery and related Federal offenses. Now, guess what. Hunter Biden
called Patrick Ho the spy chief for China. Based on the known facts, it
appears that Hunter Biden was effectively a foreign agent of the
communist regime.
The Judiciary Committee maintained jurisdiction and still maintains
jurisdiction over the Foreign Agents Registration Act and the Justice
Department's enforcement of it. Yet, the Democrat-led committee has
ignored the law and the Biden family.
In July of this year, I obtained and publicly released what is now
called the Biden family 1023. This FBI-generated document is based on
information provided to a long-serving FBI confidential human source.
The FBI document shows a criminal bribery scheme. The criminal scheme
included Joe Biden and Hunter Biden each being paid $5 million for Joe
Biden to take a policy position in favor of a foreign national. That
policy position was ultimately taken. Joe Biden even bragged about it,
and you can see, fairly regularly, his voice and his face talking about
this--what he did to the Ukrainian Government to get somebody fired.
The 1023 used the phrase ``Big Guy'' to describe Joe Biden before the
``Big Guy'' description was publicly known months later. Different
people at different times in different parts of the world independently
used the same code name to describe Joe Biden.
Do my Democratic colleagues believe that it is just a coincidence?
The 1023 includes references to audio recordings with Joe Biden, text
messages, and records allegedly proving bribery criminal activity, and
that it was real.
What have my Democratic colleagues done to investigate that evidence?
What has the Biden Justice Department done?
The Tony Bobulinski interview noted that the Biden family would
receive a multimillion-dollar unsecured loan, intended to be
forgivable, from the energy company in China called CEFC. That would
serve as payments for actions Joe Biden took during his Vice
Presidency.
This financial strategy to illegally treat income as a loan is
consistent with the IRS whistleblower testimony that indicated Hunter
Biden attempted the same with respect to other income. These facts and
allegations indicate criminal activity, money laundering, bribery, tax
evasion, and significant ethical violations.
And, by the way, the Hunter Biden tax indictment mentioned financial
transactions that my and Senator Johnson's work exposed years ago.
Look at indictment paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 100. Compare
them with the other two reports from 2020 and three floor speeches last
year.
My Democratic colleagues have shown zero interest in knowing,
understanding, joining forces, or advancing this 4-year-old
investigation. Instead, they have shown willful blindness to protect
the President and family.
One of my Democratic colleagues said the right thing when we
considered then-Chairman Graham's subpoena authorization. Senator
Whitehouse brought up an amendment to ``reinforce his point made at the
last meeting about the selective enthusiasm of [the Judiciary]
Committee for getting to the bottom of things and what appears to be a
policy at the Department of Justice of refusing to answer Committee
members' letters and Committee members' questions for the record.''
The U.S. Congress has a constitutional mandate to conduct oversight
of Republican and Democratic administrations without any political bias
for either. We have a duty to ensure the Justice Department and the FBI
consistently enforce the law without regard to politics.
Judiciary Committee Democrats were eager to engage in the FBI's
Trump-Russia investigation before it was totally debunked. However,
they were very eager to falsely attack my and Senator Johnson's Biden
family investigation as Russian disinformation. Sadly, I haven't seen
the same enthusiasm from the other side now that a Democratic political
family is under the microscope.
If it is criminal and ethical questions my Democratic colleagues are
interested in, then the Judiciary Committee should, in a bipartisan
fashion, bring the family members for interviews and obtain records
from them. No, the Democrat majority wants to investigate Supreme Court
Justices and, of all nine of the Justices, only the conservative ones.
So I can only conclude the Democrats' brand of oversight is more about
politics than fact finding.