[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.