Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) took the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon to discuss reaction to the FBI FD-1023 form he released to the American people last week which detailed allegations that the former high-ranking Ukrainian government official and Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky had been compelled to pay bribes to Joe and Hunter Biden and, in return, Joe Biden orchestrated the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor conducting a corruption probe into Zlochevsky and Burisma.

Grassley’s entire remarks lasted about 15 minutes, and while every minute highlighted essential information and questions, the first minute – in which he alleged that the redactions the FBI placed on the FD-1023 shown to some Members of Congress in early June constituted “obstructive conduct by the United States.”

15 minutes of STRAIGHT FIRE from @ChuckGrassley, but don't miss the 1st minute where he says that the redactions the FBI put on the FD-1023 before showing it to Congress (but only the House) constitute OBSTRUCTION. @CSPAN https://t.co/pgygVtemuF

— Jennifer Van Laar (@jenvanlaar) July 25, 2023

He began:

Today I’d like to address the unclassified, FBI-generated 1023 form that I made public last week. This is the 1023 that Director Wray refused to admit existed until I and Chairman Comer told him that we had read the document. The FBI provided a highly-redacted version to the House Committee on Oversight, and in the process ignored the Senate access to that document. That version redacted references to the alleged audio recordings between then-VP Biden, Hunter Biden, and a foreign national. It also redacted references to text messages and financial records that allegedly existed to prove the criminal act was done. Those redactions are an obstructive conduct by the United States. Why? Because this was an unclassified document. It’s not even marked “law enforcement sensitive.” And, by the way, the Justice Department and FBI leaks exposed sources well before the 1023 became public.

So, after about a month of denying the form even existed, Wray grudgingly admitted that it existed and acted as if providing read-only access in a SCIF to an obstructively-edited, unclassified document – to the House only, and not to the Senate – was a gracious, unheard-of act. As Bonchie wrote last week, the redactions in the document were quite obviously placed there to protect the Bidens from having their shockingly egregious pattern of corrupt conduct revealed, not to protect any FBI sources and methods. In other words, to obstruct a Congressional investigation and to obstruct justice.

However, don’t get lost with the words “obstructive conduct.” In the second sentence Grassley states what some have long assumed/speculated: that he and Comer already possessed the 1023 during the time period in which they were requesting it from the FBI/Director Wray. So, they knew what was being redacted and were thus informed on how the FBI/DOJ was going to play this.

In addition, since we now know that potential witnesses in the Delaware investigation into Hunter Biden were tipped off before investigators approached them, and that the Biden transition team was tipped off before a search warrant was to be executed on a storage unit Hunter had moved business records into, who’s to say that this delay didn’t allow things like financial records related to the transaction or text messages to be deleted?

Grassley next addressed the MSM contentions that this FD-1023 was unverified, so it shouldn’t be reported on:

Now there’s been allegations in the media that this 1023 consists of unverified information. That didn’t stop the media’s breathless reporting for years about the unverified and very famous Steele Dossier. But the Justice Department and the FBI have not told us what they did to investigate the 1023 document. So then, since the FBI hasn’t told us anything about their investigation of the 1023, if they did any, so how does the media then know that it’s unverified?

Also, weren’t we alternately told by some Democrats in the House that everything in the form had already been investigated and dismissed? Or that it was part of some conspiracy theory made up by Rudy Giuliani and Russian disinformation? They really need to pick one alternate story, because they’re contradicting themselves.

Grassley continues with asking a rhetorical question, then outlining information from law enforcement sources that’s currently reported in the press.

From what I’ve seen, much of the media’s reporting has missed the essential question. That essential question is this: Did the Justice Department and the FBI follow normal investigative process and procedures to run the information down, or did they sweep this information under the rug?

Now, we’ve had several media outlets interviewing law enforcement sources with knowledge of the 1023 who start to answer that very question, so I’m going to refer to some of these reports from the media.

One law enforcement source reported that, quote, “This was a confidential human source that had a long relationship with the FBI, had given information that was used in multiple other investigations unrelated to Burisma or the Bidens.”

That law enforcement source said there was, quote, “Fight for a month,” to get the FBI handlers to re-interview the FBI source. That re-interview was necessary because a separate 1023 mentioned Hunter Biden, and that re-interview ultimately produced the 1023 that I made public last week.

When seeing that, my first question was, why the fight to interview the FBI’s source? That’s the fight that supposedly took a month that I previously referred to.

Then the law enforcement source said, quote, “We got that report back and we’re like, ‘Holy smokes. This is something.’”

Again, as to the MSM/mockingbird media assertions that the 1023 is somehow unverified and uncorroborated, Grassley lists various portions that have been corroborated “without compulsory process”:

The news reports also show that the Justice Department and FBI personnel were able to validate some claims in the 1023 report without compulsory process. For example, a news report quotes a law enforcement source, quote, “There were multiple meetings alleged overseas. Some of the confidential human source claims were corroborated against the confidential human source travel records and contemporary knowledge from the handler about him attending meetings with Zlochevsky and other people present.” The news report also notes that public records also validate some of the 1023 claims about Zlochevsky efforts to buy into the American energy market.

Exactly. And there are emails referencing some of the meetings spoken of that were published long before any whistleblower information on a FD-1023.

Next Grassley gets to a current, pertinent question. Did anyone ever investigate anything in the FD-1023?

A separate news report based upon a law enforcement source says that Weiss’ team was briefed on the validations. Which then begs the question, what did the investigators do to investigate?

Well, it’s been reported that a law enforcement source believed U.S. Attorney Weiss was reluctant to pursue leads because of political sensitivities. More precisely, was Weiss’ team concerned about investigating because it would involve then-Presidential candidate Biden? Well, that didn’t stop the Justice Department when Trump was a candidate the first or second time.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention a July 25, 2022, letter that I wrote to the Justice Department and the FBI. That letter talked about the FBI shutting down verified and verifiable investigative avenues into Hunter Biden separate from the ongoing U.S. Attorney Weiss’ investigation and the 1023.

So, it’s clear that even if information is verified the FBI has shut it down in the past as it relates to the Biden family.

As referenced above, among the current talking points from the Democrats are that the FD-1023 is “disinformation” and that it’s been investigated and dismissed. Not so, Grassley says; both Barr and Wray believe it to be credible, and Wray told Grassley and Comer that it’s “relevant to an ongoing investigative matter,” something RedState has reported both Wray and U.S. Attorney David Weiss currently stating.

Now, former Attorney General Bill Barr has said that the 1023 was credible enough to be passed on to Delaware for, quote, “further investigation.” He’s also said that a review was done to ensure the 1023 wasn’t disinformation before passing it on. Director Wray likewise informed me and Chairman Comer of its credibility, noting that it’s relevant to an ongoing investigative matter. This all took place in the phone call that we had – Comer and I had with Wray. So, Wray also didn’t say that it’s part of Giuliani’s information, and he didn’t tell me and Comer that it’s the product of any disinformation.

So if it’s not disinformation, and if an investigation hasn’t been completed, what’s happening? Grassley listed some questions he feels Congress and the American public must get answers to – one of which is whether or not Weiss was investigating bribery. If it wasn’t, then Hunter Biden’s plea deal doesn’t cover the conduct alleged in the FD-1023 (I’d argue that it doesn’t anyway) and a Special Counsel can be appointed to look into that matter.

Accordingly, I want to make clear what my oversight focus is and will be: holding the Justice Department and the FBI accountable to explain to the American people what they did to investigate and what they found. To do that, Congressional oversight must focus on the Justice Department and the FBI’s investigative process and whether the U.S. Attorney Weiss’ scope includes bribery.

Congress and the public must get answers to these questions:

• What did the Justice Department and FBI do to investigate the information contained in FD-1023?
• Did DOJ and FBI follow normal investigative process and procedures or try to sweep it all under the rug because of political bias?
• More precisely, did the FBI and DOJ seek to obtain the evidence referenced in the document?
• Did the DOJ and FBI seek to interview individuals relating to the 1023? If not, why not? If so, one way or the other, what did they find?

Here we are in July 2023, and we’re talking about a June 2020 document. The FBI can easily answer those questions. The fact that they haven’t indicates to me that the DOJ and FBI have not followed normal investigative protocol.

As Grassley wrote in a July 2022 letter to Wray (which he referenced earlier in Tuesday’s remarks), a whistleblower had informed him that back in July 2020 “the FBI developed information in 2020 about Hunter Biden’s criminal financial and related activity,” and as a result of that in August 2020 “FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten opened an assessment which was used…to improperly discredit negative Hunter Biden information as disinformation and caused investigative activity to cease.” The whistleblower also told Grassley that in September 2020 FBI HQ placed information about that assessment into a restricted access sub-file. According to Margot Cleveland at The Federalist, the wording of Grassley’s July 2022 letter seems to indicate that Auten’s “assessment” was not related to Hunter Biden, but to a confidential human source. It’s unclear yet whether that CHS is the same CHS in the FD-1023 at issue.

Which brings us to Grassley’s next point on Tuesday:

Congress must also find out the true extent to which the August 2020 assessment created by Brian Auten was used to shut down the Biden family investigative leads. For example, we know that the FBI had at one time over a dozen sources who provided potentially criminal information relating to Hunter Biden. Did the August 2020 assessment shut any of them down?

As Grassley concludes, if we were to rely upon our government agencies to be forthcoming and transparent, we’d still all be in the dark.

In conclusion, as we prepare to celebrate National Whistleblowers Day, let’s not forget, the only reason why Congress has been able to make this information public is because of brave and very patriotic whistleblowers who have approached my office.

And, Grassley says, so far, those in charge at the DOJ and the FBI have not disputed any of the whistleblowers’ allegations (though Merrick Garland arguably has), including the information relating to the 1023, and there is no reason for the MSM to continue to use the word “unverified” about whistleblower allegations or the information relating to the 1023.

Remember this: to date, the Justice Department and the FBI have not disputed any of their allegations.

Further, remember this – and that includes information relating to this 1023 that I made public, and some of this information goes back to October of last year. During that period of time the Department of Justice and the FBI haven’t disputed any of that information, and a perfect chance for Christopher Wray, Director of the FBI, to do that would have been in the telephone conversation that he had with Chairman Comer and me.

And so, giving you all of this information, that ought to tell you something about what the FBI is up to, what the DOJ is up to, and the information I’ve given you today ought to tell you that there’s plenty out there in the media, and the media should not be questioning whether or not the information in this 1023 has any validity. I’ll yield the floor.

To that point, if Democratic House members are so concerned that people might spout misinformation on the floor of the House, they should be prepared to be shut down when they veer off into claiming the FD-1023 is Russian disinformation or that it’s already been investigated and dismissed.

Many will say, “What now?” I believe that Grassley’s remarks were a shot across the bow, warning Wray and others that Congress might already have information that they’re concealing, and hinting that Wray and others might face some kind of obstruction charges for their conduct. Given that U.S. Attorney Weiss is scheduled to testify before Congress soon, and with the recent revelation that a very close Biden associate was working in his office while the investigation into Hunter Biden was in full effect, Grassley’s words should definitely cause Weiss to consider how he wants to play this.

In addition, knowing now that Grassley and Comer had already read the FD-1023 before Wray acknowledged its existence, it’s clear that Grassley gave Wray a bunch of rope to see if he would hang himself. It stands to reason that one part of Grassley’s strategy is to get all of these hacks on record with lies, so that they can all be purged. Whether or not that strategy can be fully executed is another matter.

Lastly, Grassley’s acknowledgement of having read the FD-1023 before the FBI provided it, and detailing the scope of the corruption and obstruction, sends a signal to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who’s made noises that an impeachment inquiry is being prepared but hasn’t fully committed, to get moving and hold people accountable.