Senator Chuck Grassley Confronts FBI and Justice Department – Asks Full Senate To Review Criminal Referral For Christopher Steele…

Wow. Massive amounts of confirmation for the ongoing strategy we outlined was underway. [Remember the batting order: Nunes, Grassley, Goodlatte, Horowitz] As expected Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, steps to the plate following Devin Nunes.

We previously outlined how Senator Chuck Grassley was directly calling the bluff of the FBI when he sent a criminal referral to the justice department for Christopher Steele. Much of the referral itself was redacted and withheld from public view because it was classified.

Today, in a move with strong parallels to Chairman Nunes (House Intel Committee Memo), Senator Grassley is asking all of his senate colleagues to review the referral, and all the attached classified documents he and Senator Graham submitted to the Justice Department. Senator Grassley then went on the floor of the Senate to deliver remarks. WATCH:


[Notes and Transcript from Grassley] I wanted to come to the floor today to talk about the Judiciary Committee’s important oversight and investigations work over the past year. There are a lot of issues that need more sunlight and scrutiny.

One of my key concerns is the loss of faith in the ability of the Justice Department and the FBI to do their jobs free from partisan political bias. The American people are rightly skeptical because of how the Department and the FBI have handled the following subjects:

1. Hillary Clinton and
2. Donald Trump and his associates.

Hiding from tough questions about these controversial cases is no way to reassure the public. If the Department is afraid of independent oversight, that just reinforces people’s suspicions and skepticism. The only real way to reassure people is to let the sun shine in and let the chips fall where they may.

In each of these cases, the government should obviously find out what happened and hold people accountable if there was any wrongdoing. But, it also has to play by the rules, and be held accountable for its actions, too. We need to shine the light of day on all of it.

As part of our investigation we have requested documents and other information from the Department of Justice and FBI. Much of that information is classified. The Department has provided very limited access to those classified materials. It has limited the Judiciary Committee’s review to the Chair and Ranking of the full committee and the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism. The government has also tried to severely limit the number of appropriately cleared staff who can review documents and take notes.

We have reviewed some information related to whether the FBI used the so-called Trump dossier and the extent of its relationship with its author, Christopher Steele. As we know now, Mr. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS to research Mr. Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. His work was funded by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Remember, it took a subpoena and a court battle with the House Intelligence committee to force that fact out into the open.

Lawyers for the DNC and Clinton Campaign officials denied it to the press for months. They lied. The founder of Fusion GPS denied that his firm was “Democrat-linked.” That was untrue. When the news finally broke, New York Times reporters actually complained that people who knew better had flat out lied to them about who funded Mr. Steele’s dossier.

But, back before the 2016 election, it is unclear who knew that Steele was gathering dirt on Trump for the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Many of his sources for claims about the Trump campaign are Russian government officials. So, Steele, who was working for Fusion GPS, who was working for the DNC and the Clinton campaign, was working with the Russians. So, who was actually colluding with Russians? It’s becoming more clear.

Mr. Steele shared his, at least partially, Russian-based allegations far and wide. He shared them with the FBI. He shared them with the media. And, according to public reports, he shared them with high ranking officials in the Justice Department and the State Department.

Well, in the course of our review, Senator Graham and I came across some information that just does not add up. We saw Mr. Steele swearing one thing in a public libel suit against him in London. Then we saw contradictory things in documents that I am not going to talk about in an open setting. And from everything we’ve learned so far, we believe these discrepancies are significant. So, we sent a referral of Christopher Steele to the Justice Department and the FBI for potential violations of 18 USC 1001.

Now, I guess people are going to say whatever they want to say about it, no matter what the facts are. But it doesn’t contribute anything meaningful to the public debate to ignore those facts or to speculate—wrongly—about Senator Graham’s motivations, or mine.

First, despite all the hubbub, this is not all that unusual. Anyone can ask for a criminal investigation. I have done it in the past when I’ve come across potential crimes in the course of my oversight work. And I have done so publicly. This situation is no different.
Second, as the Special Counsel has reminded us all recently, lying to a federal official is a crime. It doesn’t matter who is doing the lying. Politics should have nothing to do with it.

I’ve said repeatedly that I support Mr. Mueller’s work and that I respect his role. I still do. Nothing has changed. Let me say it again in case anyone missed it.

The Special Counsel should be free to complete his work, and to follow the facts wherever they lead.

But that doesn’t mean I can ignore what look like false statements. If an individual sees what might be evidence of a crime, he or she should report that to law enforcement so it can be fully investigated. That is exactly what Senator Graham and I did.

That does not mean we have made up our minds about what happened. It is possible Mr. Steele told the truth and the other, contradictory statements that we saw were wrong. But, just like any court would do, we start by assuming that government documents are true until we see evidence to the contrary. If those documents are not true, and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele, then we have another problem—an arguably more serious one.

Of course, even aside from these inconsistencies, public reports about the way the FBI may have used the dossier should give everyone in this chamber pause. Director Comey testified in 2017 that it was “salacious and unverified.” If it was unverified in 2017, then it had to be unverified in 2016, too.

So, it was a collection of unverified opposition research funded by a political opponent in an election year. Would it be proper for the Obama administration—or any administration—to use something like that to authorize further investigation that intrudes on the privacy of people associated with its political opponents?

That should bother civil libertarians of any political stripe.

Now, I wish I could talk more openly about the basis for our referral and other concerns, but right now that information is largely classified. It is controlled by the Justice Department. As I said, the Department has permitted only the Chair and Ranking of the full Committee and the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, and limited numbers of their cleared staff, to see the underlying documents.

I have been pushing for the Department to provide the same access to other Judiciary Committee Members and their appropriately cleared staffs. But the Department refuses to provide that access or even to brief the other Members on the underlying information.

Fortunately, the Department has agreed that it has no business objecting to our Members reviewing our own work. So I have encouraged our Committee members and their appropriately cleared staff to do that. Look at the memo that Senator Graham and I sent to the Deputy Attorney General and the FBI Director. Members can then make up their own minds about it. I have also encouraged them to review the Committee’s transcripts and other unclassified materials that have been available to them and their staffs for many months. Finally, I’ve encouraged them to let me know if they believe that any of that information should be made public. I believe in transparency. We may agree that certain information should be released at the appropriate time with care to preserve classified information and the integrity of the investigation.

I have already been pushing the Department to review the classified referral memorandum to confirm the memo’s classification markings so that we can release the unclassified portions as soon as possible. But now the Department has deferred to the FBI, and the FBI is falsely claiming that three of our unclassified paragraphs each contain the same, single classified fact.

Now, that surprised me, because those particular paragraphs are based on non-government sources and do not claim to repeat or confirm any information from any government document. Even if those portions of our referral did reference the allegedly classified fact at issue, it is hard to understand why that fact should be classified.

First, the Deputy Attorney General has discussed the fact at issue with me more than once in unsecure space and on an unsecure phone line. Second, the FBI is not acting as if this information would harm national security if released. FBI never notified the entities copied on the memo’s transmittal, for example, including the Inspector General and the Intelligence Committees, to ensure that fact was protected as classified.

If FBI really believed this fact was classified, then the FBI and the Department should take better care to act consistent with that belief. Unfortunately, I suspect something else is really going on here. It sure looks like a bureaucratic game of hide the ball, rather than a genuine concern about national security. I am pressing this issue with Director Wray, and I hope that we can provide this information to the public as soon as possible.

I also believe that the Department should carefully review the entire memorandum and begin an orderly process to declassify as much of that information as possible. The Intelligence Committee in the House of Representatives recently voted to allow all House Members to review a short memo summarizing what it has learned. Senators are not allowed to see it. However, House Members who have seen it have been calling for a vote to release the memo.

Here in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee has access to the same information that the House Intelligence Committee saw before drafting its summary memo. Our committee does not have the same authority to release classified information. We have to rely on the agency to review and potentially declassify our memo.

Based on what I know, I agree that as much of this information should made be public as soon as possible, through the appropriate process. And, I don’t just mean the summary memos. The government should release the underlying documents referenced in those memos, after deleting any national security information that truly needs to be protected. But most of this story can be told, and should be told. The American people deserve the truth.

Stale, recycled media spin from journalists and pundits who do not have all the facts is not enough. The country is filled with frenzy and speculation, but hungry for facts. However, I cannot release this information on my own, and neither should anyone else. Classified information is controlled by the Executive Branch. We should work together to achieve the greater transparency while still protecting legitimately sensitive national security information.  (END TRANSCRIPT)

Here’s the Reposted Back Story on The Referral [January 4th, 2018]:

Yup, the walls are closing in.

In a brilliant move of strategery, Senate Judiciary Chairman, Chuck Grassley, and Senate Judiciary member, Lindsey Graham, send a criminal referral of Christopher Steele to the DOJ for investigation.   But things are not what they seem…

Today Senators Grassley and Graham sent a letter of criminal referral to the Department of Justice, based on information -provided by the FBI- their investigation has uncovered.

However, the actual motive for the criminal referral is not exactly what it appears.

Highlighting two pertinent passages (emphasis mine) from the New York Times article will explain what’s really going on:

[…] Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a senior committee member, told the Justice Department they had reason to believe that a former British spy, Christopher Steele, lied to federal authorities about his contacts with reporters regarding information in the dossier, and they urged the department to investigate. The committee is running one of three congressional investigations into Russian election meddling, and its inquiry has come to focus, in part, on Mr. Steele’s explosive dossier that purported to detail Russia’s interference and the Trump campaign’s complicity.

[…] The criminal referral appears to make no assessment of the veracity of the dossier’s contents, much of which remains unsubstantiated nearly a year after it became public.

[…]  Mr. Grassley’s decision to recommend criminal charges appeared likely to be based on reports of Mr. Steele’s meetings with the F.B.I., which were provided to the committee by the Justice Department in recent weeks.

It was not clear why, if a crime is apparent in the F.B.I. reports that were reviewed by the Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department had not moved to charge Mr. Steele already.

The circumstances under which Mr. Steele is alleged to have lied were unclear, as much of the referral was classified.  (full article)

Can you see what is really going on here?

The criminal referral is based on FBI reports of meetings the FBI has given to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the FBI meetings with Christopher Steele.

Within those FBI reports (presented to the committee) are conflicting statements and accounts that do not align with known evidence.

The FBI is attributing claims to the meetings with Christopher Steele that do not match known evidence about the Steele Dossier and use therein.

Remember what Senator Graham said recently about his review of the evidence surrounding the Steele Dossier and how it was used, by the FBI in gaining the FISA warrant?  –Refresh Memory Here

What Grassley and Graham are now doing is forcing the DOJ to reconcile the conflicts between the FBI presentations to the judiciary committee -about the origin of, and their use of, the Steele Dossier-  against known evidence.

Someone is lying.

Graham and Grassley know the motive to lie about the Steele Dossier does not necessarily belong to Christopher Steele.  The motive is within the corrupt FBI.

In order to accurately prove ownership of the the falsehoods Grassley and Graham are saying: ‘If what the FBI says is true then Chris Steele is lying, because the evidence doesn’t support what the FBI previously said to us, and attributed to Christopher Steele’…

Grassley and Graham are calling the bluff of the FBI.

“Based on the information contained therein, we are respectfully referring Mr. Steele to you for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, for statements the Committee has reason to believe Mr. Steele made regarding his distribution of information contained.”  (link)

The “information contained therein” is the FBI presentation of statements and evidence the FBI is attributing to Christopher Steele.

By referring a criminal complaint to the DOJ the Senators are, in essence, forcing the DOJ to outline that material presentations by the FBI, to the committee, were false…. OR, that Christopher Steele is lying.  The former is likely, the latter not-so-much.

Additionally, by asking Rod Rosenstein (DOJ) and Christopher Wray (FBI) to investigate the conflicting evidence and FBI statements Grassley and Graham are also providing political cover for Rosenstein and Wray to showcase the corruption within both the DOJ and the FBI.


The walls are closing in.

WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) referred the author of the “Trump Dossier,” Christopher Steele, to the Justice Department for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for false statements investigators have reason to believe Steele made about the distribution of claims contained in the dossier.

“I don’t take lightly making a referral for criminal investigation. But, as I would with any credible evidence of a crime unearthed in the course of our investigations, I feel obliged to pass that information along to the Justice Department for appropriate review,” Grassley said. “Everyone needs to follow the law and be truthful in their interactions with the FBI. If the same actions have different outcomes, and those differences seem to correspond to partisan political interests, then the public will naturally suspect that law enforcement decisions are not on the up-and-up. Maybe there is some innocent explanation for the inconsistencies we have seen, but it seems unlikely. In any event, it’s up to the Justice Department to figure that out.”

“After reviewing how Mr. Steele conducted himself in distributing information contained in the dossier and how many stop signs the DOJ ignored in its use of the dossier, I believe that a special counsel needs to review this matter. The rule of Law depends on the government and all who work on its behalf playing by the rules themselves. I hope the Department of Justice will carefully review our letter and take appropriate action,” Graham said.

Yesterday evening, Grassley and Graham delivered to Senate Security a letter and classified memorandum for delivery to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray containing information that forms the basis of the referral.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, individuals are prohibited from making false statements to the federal authorities of the United States. Grassley and Graham are referring Steele for making potentially false statements about the distribution of claims from the dossier. (LINK)

This entry was posted in AG Jeff Sessions, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Death Threats, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Election 2016, FBI, Jeff Sessions, media bias, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

571 Responses to Senator Chuck Grassley Confronts FBI and Justice Department – Asks Full Senate To Review Criminal Referral For Christopher Steele…

  1. Pam says:


  2. President Trump’s commitment to interrogation under oath sets the precedent to do the same to AG Loretta Lynch, AG Eric Holder, CIA Director Brennan, DNI Clapper, VP Joe Biden and X-President Obama!


  3. Pam says:


  4. brenrod says:

    Trump is smart and working on the big picture… the midterm elections…. all this cant come out too early or the dems will have opportunity to recover… It must all be timed to create a total massacre… that means it must unfold slowly over some months.

    Liked by 6 people

  5. Pam says:

    Liked by 4 people

    • Sassy says:

      These guys keep talking as if the focus is to prevent this from happening again. To reform to prevent a repeat. That’s good and necessary, but it’s not enough. We must see some frog-marching. This is about as bad as you can get–overthrowing a duly elected government by abuse of power and secret conspiracy.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Apollo says:

        Right–the only way to REALLY work towards preventing it from happening again is real legal consequences for those who perpetrated it the first time! (Or really, the first several times, by now. It’s been done over and over, from the IRS to the NSA to the FBI–trampling on our civil liberties for pure politics.)


  6. Pam says:

    Liked by 2 people

    • Eric L says:

      Yeah, that’s what all the hidden stuff is going to show. Mueller is done when that stuff comes out, this corruption didn’t just magically begin in 2016.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Donna in Oregon says:

    Every time I read about the DOJ/FBI I never feel elated. I feel dread every time. This absolute horror of injustice.

    Praying for swift justice, like a bandaid…just rip them off the scale fast, and be done with it.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Sunshine says:

    I hope all the corruption comes out soon. I do not trust Rod Rosenstein. I cannot make the connection because he’s the one that appointed special counsel Mueller. Can somebody please explain?


  9. jeans2nd says:

    One might posit that Horowitz is batting cleanup at the bottom of the First Inning.

    Top of the order, second inning – Peter King.
    Remember that Uranium 1 investigation announced 24 Oct 2017?

    As Chair of the House Subcommmittee on Emerging Threats under Nunes Intel Cmte, a member of the House Intel Cmte, and Chair of Homeland Security Cmte, King appears to be walking point on the Uranium 1 investigation right now, while the First Inning in still being played.

    Rep King was involved in 2010 with the CFIUS approval of the sale to Uranium 1, writing a letter to CFIUS head TreasSec Timothy Geitner questioning policy decisions being made regarding Uranium 1.

    While the First Inning is still being played, Rep King maintains radio silence.

    Sen Grassley has just raised the bar . Rep King had best up his game and play well.
    Well done, Sen Grassley, thank you.

    This year is becoming funner and funner. And it is still January.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jeans2nd says:

      Forgot – there have been several informants for the Uranium 1 investigation in addition to the FBI informant under NDA, as outlined in the vid clip. The investigation continues, while waiting for the FBI informant to testify.


    • Kim Kelly says:

      Wasn’t Mueller the one who signed off on that U1deal? and isn’t the statue of limitations coming up soon. Wonder if instead of Trump showing up for his meeting with Mueller , its Sessions serving him with an indictment….wouldn’t that be grand. No wonder the POTUS isn’t worried about his meeting with Mueller.


  10. Denise says:

    Used different email address still get ” waiting for moderation”!!!!!!!


  11. AH_C says:

    Wham! Bam! Thank you ma’am.

    Sundance, you pegged it with regards to the 4 Jan letter.

    Grassley’s speech is going to leave many sleepless. Pretty slick that he also took aim at Mueller. Grassley basically told Lurch Jr that if he misbehaves with his investigation, he too will be referred for criminal investigation and prosecution.

    Now that Grassley made his move, Goodlatte is next. I’m betting before the week’s up.

    Would it be too deplorable to start the dead pool? Who’s the first to get the Arkancide passage? Over under on this weekend? What about runners? Who’s likely to try and flee?

    Interesting times watching desperate rats going for broke.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Jennie P. says:

    What a great time to be alive. However, I. Need. Sleep. Lol!


  13. jello333 says:

    “just like any court would do, we start by assuming that government documents are true until we see evidence to the contrary. If those documents are not true, and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele, then we have another problem—an arguably more serious one.”

    Rut roh!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Kim Kelly says:

    The Letter from Stephen Boyd was a deliberate attempt to validate the “Memo” that chairman Nunes has… once Schiff announced his own memo…Notice that he did not receive the same letter. Thus not giving his memo any credibility of facts.

    Sessions is deliberately appearing to stay out of this….the smartest of foxes often play dumb on purpose. You catch a lot more chickens that way. They know exactly what they are doing. Every thing they do is a calculated move.


  15. Garrett says:

    Troubling to hear Grassley mouthing ANYTHING in Monster Müller’s favor.
    Should be LOUDLY demanding Second Independent Counsel to investigate the POS.


  16. ChrisL says:

    Does anyone besides me wonder why SSCI Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) has been totally passive and silent re the “investigation”, the revelations re the DOJ/FBI and FISA abuses? Is he compromised, or just too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time?

    Liked by 1 person

  17. iwitness02 says:

    I need patience right now in a big hurry. The slow pace is frustrating. On the bright side, at least there seems to be steady progress uncovering the greatest show on earth. Truth and justice is so precious when it has been stolen and there is none.
    Praying for truth and justice to help heal our land.
    Praying for the lying liers to be fully punished as though they were simply citizens, instead of the mighty untouchables to big to jail. The arrogance is unbearable..


  18. G. Combs says:

    All Too Much says:
    “Trials in the US are public.
    A jury decides.”


    YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!! The Uniparty and Supreme Court got RID of Trial by jury…

    “Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”

    The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….

    ….As Thomas Jefferson put it to Tom Paine in a 1789 letter, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ….

    Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial:

    The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …

    The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.

    In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).!/amendments/7/essays/159/right-to-jury-in-civil-cases

    The result is a relentless concentration of power into the hands of ruling elites….


  19. Ronnie says:

    One of my biggest fears are Statute of Limitations on all of this. Aren’t we approaching limitations on when HRC can be prosecuted? If this “Investigation” and “Politicing” continues at the current pace, this would take forever.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s