[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 87 (Thursday, May 21, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2432-S2433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MEDIA
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in the past several Congresses, my
investigative work has resulted in the public release of thousands of
pages of information once hidden from the public. Much of it is
evidence of political bias in law enforcement and intelligence
community investigations, and I will give you 10 examples of how this
information has been hidden and how our efforts have brought it to
light. They are Crossfire Hurricane, Arctic Frost, Plasmic Echo, Round
River, the Clinton Foundation, Rampart 12, the Biden Family
Investigation, the Clinton annex, Durham annex, and the 2017
Intelligence Community Assessment. But those 10 aren't the total; there
are many others I could mention.
I have made public record after record, and the partisan media
continues to turn its very negative sights on my and Senator Johnson's
work.
Most recently, The Hill published an article attacking our work on
Arctic Frost. Specifically, the article took offense for daring to make
public largely unredacted records that the Biden administration had
kept from the public--records by and large I obtained through protected
public whistleblower disclosures and not from government officials.
In doing so, The Hill also raised questions about the identities of
who provided legally protected whistleblower disclosures. For example,
when referring to my and Senator Johnson's making public Jack Smith's
subpoenas, The Hill said it raises ``questions about the identities of
the whistleblowers who shared them with Grassley.''
It sounds like The Hill is trying to improperly identify
whistleblowers who stuck their necks out for the truth just like Jack
Smith's prosecutors have gone after them. For example, J.P. Cooney and
Molly Gaston reportedly filed a complaint with the Justice Department
inspector general. Cooney and Gaston asked for that Office to
investigate what they claim is the improper disclosure to Congress of
197 Jack Smith subpoenas. So Cooney and Gaston want the inspector
general to investigate whistleblowers who have exposed the bad conduct
by Jack Smith and his staff. That is obviously a conflict of interest.
By the way, Cooney and Gaston are the same Jack Smith prosecutors who
wanted to prosecute nuns present on January 6. More precisely, Cooney
said:
I would like to prosecute any nun who still wears [a] head
habit.
Instead of attacking patriotic whistleblowers, this partisan media
ought to do a deep report on how invasive Jack Smith's operation was
because Jack Smith sought communications of Republican groups and what
these Republican groups had to do with the legislative branch as well
as the media.
All this time, I thought the partisan media held the First Amendment
in very high regard. Evidently, they do not.
The Hill also failed to report on the emails that we publicly
released from Special Agent Thibault. Thibault's own emails show he
violated the FBI's no self-approval rule in opening up the Arctic Frost
investigation. Those
[[Page S2433]]
emails were made public in January of last year. Thibault's own words
paint the picture. And this is the same agent who violated the Hatch
Act for anti-Trump partisan conduct. Not only was that fact not
reported by The Hill, the outlet also couldn't be bothered to report on
those emails that we released.
By the way, we didn't get those records from the government either;
we got them from patriotic whistleblowers.
The Hill's reporting accuses our record production of playing a
significant role in FBI agents being fired. Now, The Hill knows this,
but they don't report it: The FBI makes personnel decisions, not we,
Members of Congress.
The Hill's reporting failed to take into account the Department of
Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation names that I have made
public which gave them credit for doing good work. For example, last
year, I issued a majority staff report on then-Secretary of State John
Kerry's interfering in the FBI arresting high-level Iranian nationals
and the targets that those nationals were. I also released FBI records
about agents attempting to investigate the Clinton Foundation. Credit
ought to be given to those government officials who did their job. I
have received no complaints about making their names public.
Yet The Hill focused on Arctic Frost, and in doing so, buried the
lede:
The documents released by Grassley include names of nearly
70 FBI agents and employees. That includes some figures
already known to the public, as well as other agents whose
case history the bureau is well aware of.
Now, I have five points.
First, it is common practice to make public the names of taxpayer-
funded government officials whose conduct is within the public
interest. That is especially the case when their names are already
public. Now, I call that and I hope everybody around here calls that
accountability.
Second, not all of the named individuals have been fired.
Third, The Hill article fails to explicitly note that three of the
FBI agents who sued over their termination had their names public
before we released them. In fact, one name was public as early as 2016.
Fourth, our document production made those three names public on
January 30, 2025, during Kash Patel's nomination hearing to be FBI
Director. Clearly, he and then-FBI leadership didn't give us those
records. Who gave us those records? Well, where we get most of our
records--patriotic whistleblowers did that.
The fifth and last point, Patel fired those three agents
approximately 10 months after we made their names public on January 30.
But, again, their names were public years before our release.
Now, the point I am trying to make is that The Hill is not doing its
job. They failed to mention all those critical facts.
Next, The Hill takes a shot at the FBI 1023 document that Chairman
Comer and I made public in the last Congress. That is the one about the
Biden bribery allegations. Also, The Hill failed to mention that
Senator Johnson and I made public two additional FBI 1023 documents
last year. Both of those documents provided additional information from
FBI informants about Biden family criminality.
So there are at least three different FBI confidential human
sources. Each provided information about the Biden family criminality
on three separate occasions. And the sources provided that information
to three different FBI agents.
Question: Did DOJ and FBI prosecute those other two FBI sources? No.
So, last year, I asked Director Patel about the initial FBI 1023
document that Director Wray was supposed to investigate. I asked
whether an investigation was carried out into the alleged records.
Patel answered this way:
Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman.
I am not saying the allegations are true. I just want to know if the
investigation has been carried out. The Hill failed to mention any of
that very important context.
The Hill also failed to take into account some of my whistleblowers.
They failed to take into account that some of my whistleblowers have
faced years of retaliation and face serious abuse by officials who have
since been fired.
Wrongdoing should be punished. It is called accountability. And I
have also said lower-level personnel who appropriately follow
directives without violating procedures ought to have that taken into
consideration.
Now, The Hill should endeavor to report on the heroic and brave
efforts that whistleblowers have undertaken to expose government abuse,
instead of providing a forum for government agents to smear them.
To my patriotic whistleblowers, I want them to know that this
Senator's work will continue in full force.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________