[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 94 (Monday, June 3, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3920-S3921]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Trump Trial Verdict
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, a Presidential campaign and a
political party misreported payments to lawyers as legal expenses and,
thus, violated the law.
Now, am I referring to Donald Trump and his trial? No. I am referring
to the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
In the 2016 Presidential election cycle, they improperly reported
money used to fund the Steele dossier as legal expense, and in doing
so, they hid its true purpose, which was opposition research against
Trump.
Now, the Federal Election Commission held, 6 years later, that it
found probable cause that the Democratic National Committee and the
Clinton campaign violated Federal law. They were fined over $100,000.
Were they criminally prosecuted? Of course not.
The now-debunked Steele dossier threw our country into crisis and did
it for years. In 2020, Senator Johnson of Wisconsin and I were able to
get once-classified information declassified.
That declassified information showed that Christopher Steele's
sources were, one, connected to the Russian Government; two, supported
Hillary Clinton; and, three, that Russian intelligence
[[Page S3921]]
was aware of Steele's anti-Trump work even before the FBI started their
investigation.
This is information that the Justice Department failed to tell the
FISA Court. The Justice Department failed to even apprise the FISA
Court that the FBI had a counterintelligence case on one of Steele's
key sources. The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee
colluded with the Russians.
They used a former British spy, Fusion GPS, and a law firm to create
a fake dossier and then tried to cover it up by misreporting it under
the Federal election rules.
This case is referred to as ``Crossfire Hurricane.'' It is a textbook
example of government weaponization. It was to get Trump at all costs
as they could.
And now that weaponization has moved to the judicial system, our last
line of defense against partisan political cancer.
District Attorney Bragg manufactured a crime by reviving a time-
barred, State-based misdemeanor for alleging falsifying business
records. To revive the alleged crime and elevate it to a felony, he
alleged it was done in furtherance of another crime, and he also
alleged interference in the 2016 election by Donald Trump.
So what were these extra crimes? Violation of Federal election law,
tax law, and other business records. The judge allowed District
Attorney Bragg to essentially prosecute alleged Federal violations in
State court, but because it was a State court, Bragg couldn't actually
charge Trump for those further crimes, which were Federal in nature.
So what an absolute mess and scary precedent this partisan process
has created that is going to be a sore on public policy, statutory law,
and a precedent to be carried on by other prosecutors in the future.
This was a case that Bragg initially declined to prosecute, just as
his predecessor declined to prosecute. And that was a case that Federal
prosecutors in the Southern District of New York declined and so, too,
and as well did the Federal Election Commission.
Now, that prosecutor in Manhattan that failed to prosecute the same
things that Bragg prosecuted was well-respected Cyrus Vance, Jr.
Now, we have Bragg taking up what an outstanding prosecutor by the
name of Vance would not do. Even liberal legal analysts have noted that
this case wouldn't have been brought against anyone other than Donald
Trump.
A State prosecutor has no jurisdiction over a Federal crime, whereas
the Justice Department does. And here the Justice Department and the
Federal Election Commission have exclusive jurisdiction over these
kinds of matters.
The Biden Justice Department didn't do anything to assert its
jurisdictional hook as it routinely does when, for example, States file
lawsuits involving Federal immigration law.
Biden's No. 3 official at the Justice Department, Matthew Colangelo,
left that perch to work as a line prosecutor in the Bragg office for
this specific prosecution.
Eventually, the ``zombie'' case against Trump, as it has been
described by legal scholars, was revived just in time for the 2024
Presidential election cycle. In fact, the grand jury came out with a
verdict less than 2 months after Trump announced for the election.
Then, the judge allowed the jury to pick from not one but three
different secondary crimes that I mentioned earlier that Trump
allegedly committed to impact the 2016 election. This means that jurors
could disagree on the crime. Yet the judge would still consider the
verdict unanimous to convict.
As Andrew McCarthy said in his June 1, 2024, article, ``The jurors
were told that they needn't agree on what unlawful conduct Trump had
engaged in to conspire to corrupt the election (which remember was not
charged in the indictment.)''
This is a judge who repeatedly contributed to a group ``dedicated to
resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump's radical right-wing
legacy.''
And McCarthy wrote in his article, ``How can there be guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt if the jury doesn't agree on whether prosecutors have
proved a key element of the case?''
I could go on and on about the defects in this political persecution.
What concerns me most is the damage that is done to our American
institutions.
Federal law enforcement, the intelligence community, and now the
judicial branch have contorted themselves in ways unimaginable just to
try and, at the same time, destroy Trump. In the process, they have
broken faith with the laws, with the rules, with ethics, with the
truth, and with the American people.
The steel and concrete foundations of our law enforcement and the
judicial institutions are breaking apart, piece by piece, bit by bit.
It is not the American people who are doing it. It is those charged
with running those institutions who are responsible for their
shockingly quick decline.
That decline won't stop anytime soon so long as the left and their
allies in the media continue to use the judicial system to destroy
their enemies based upon make-believe cases.
The leftwing's lawfare crusade has given them what they wanted for a
decade now: Donald Trump's conviction on something, anything, just a
conviction.
But what the leftwing has failed to foresee is the aftermath of their
injecting partisan political cancer into our once storied institutions;
that is, they run the catastrophic risk of the American people not
caring anymore. Did the Justice Department indict someone on major
criminal charges? Well, many people may react with doubt about the
merits and the integrity of that indictment because of the Justice
Department's past political decisions.
Did the FBI arrest a major criminal? Well, many people may begin to
question whether the person arrested is now a part of a political
persecution based on made-up information like what happened with the
FISA Court and Crossfire Hurricane and everything involving Hillary
Clinton in the 2016 election.
A Democratic judge and prosecution team tried and convicted a
Republican in a district that is almost 90 percent Democratic voters.
They asked for going to someplace else where they might get a more fair
trial, and they got a quick no.
So I hope you get the picture. That is why millions of Americans
refuse to take this sham conviction very seriously. Trust is easy to
lose, and trust is hard to gain.
Andrew McCarthy stated in his excellent analysis:
What happened in Manhattan was monstrous. The fallout is
the antithesis of a constitutional republic that presumes
innocence, imposes the burden of proof on the state,
venerates its due-process rules, and guarantees equal
protection of the law. The antithesis is now the norm.
Regardless of what happens to Donald Trump, all of us will
live to regret it.
Ultimately, only ``We the People'' can solve the constitutional
crisis that politicians, law enforcement, and judicial officers have
disgracefully created.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island.