Remarks by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
On the Democrats' Slanted Public Comments about
Their Trump Investigation
Monday, August 9,
week, Judiciary staff interviewed Jeffrey Rosen, the former Acting Attorney
General, and Rich Donoghue, Rosen’s Deputy at the Justice Department.
interviews were done as part of the Democrats’ never-ending series of
investigations into former President Trump.
obsession with him is consistent, I’ll give them that. So, too, are their
public comments that grossly mischaracterize – at least for now – the state of
country has had to deal with the Democrats’ obsession with destroying Trump for
much too long. In the process, I fear my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have done and will do lasting damage to our country.
example, in May of 2017, then-Ranking Member Feinstein and I met with
then-Director Comey about Crossfire Hurricane.
that classified meeting Comey said Trump was not under investigation.
that didn’t stop the Democrats from publicly saying that he was.
because Comey kept the answer classified, we couldn’t rebut it. But, Democrats
knew it was lie. And, they kept on saying it until Trump fired Comey because he
wouldn’t make the fact public.
the Democrats’ big lie eventually got them what they wanted. Because Comey then
helped orchestrate an investigation over his firing.
after day, year after year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle misled
this country about the true facts relating to Crossfire Hurricane.
doing so, they undermined their credibility. But, they kept the investigations
going, along with an all-too-supplicant press.
staff have participated in these staff-led interviews and I’ve been briefed on
the matters at hand. I was also at the Rosen interview.
hours of Saturday’s Rosen interview, the Democrats were already on television
and in the papers talking about the substance of the interviews.
their public comments, they provided politically slanted mischaracterizations
about where this investigation currently stands.
I’d like to specifically note that Senator Durbin said, in part, to CNN on Sunday
about the Rosen interview that, “the
Justice Department had set it up for us and said we’re waiving any privilege.
He can speak to any issue. We’re not holding back.”
At the Donoghue interview on Friday, the
Justice Department objected to my staff’s questions on several occasions and
prevented Donoghue from answering.
The same happened at least once in the Rosen
And, I believe the Justice Department made an
objection to a Democrat-led question in the Donoghue interview.
So when the Democrats say these witnesses “can
speak to any issue”, well, apparently that’s not the case.
The Biden administration and its Justice
Department have waived executive privilege for these witnesses to speak about
close and intimate conversations that the President had with his advisors.
If you get even a little bit away from Trump,
well, then the Justice Department doesn’t want Congress to know the facts.
Mind you, the Justice Department and other
executive agencies consistently refuse to produce records to Congress claiming
“deliberative process.” When it comes to Trump, usual order doesn’t apply.
Given the new executive privilege position that
the Biden administration has created here, it’s entirely possible that at some
point in the future we could all be talking to President Biden’s closest
advisors about their internal deliberative process.
I have to laugh a little bit at that
possibility, knowing how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
complain about how such a decision is political in nature.
With respect to Trump and what was said at
these high-level meetings, those are the types of meetings where all kinds of
things are discussed. That’s the whole point.
The president has every right to discuss ideas
and strategy with his closest advisors. The president, whether a Democrat or a
Republican, should feel unrestrained to bring ideas to his closest staff for
Eventually the facts will come out and Trump
will have to address them – good or bad depending on the facts at hand.
However, the essential question that should be
asked is: what was the final decision?
And that is my major concern about the recent
public comments relating to this new Trump investigation.
Unlike my Democratic colleagues, I won’t
discuss the evidence publicly at this point in time.
But, let me remind the American public with a
couple already-public points.
Did Trump fire the Acting Attorney General, Jeffrey
Did Trump fire Rich Donoghue, Rosen’s deputy?
Also, an August 7, 2021, CNN article states,
“the men testified that in their interactions with Trump, he didn’t order them
to do anything illegal and eventually accepted their advice that the Justice
Department couldn’t take actions to claim fraud when it had no evidence of it.”
Incredibly, one of the same committee democrats
who spread the Trump lie, today said criminal prosecutions could come out of
If the facts eventually fit the Democratic
narrative that they so badly want to be true, then they fit. It is what it is. But,
I haven’t seen anything backing up their misleading conclusions.
Until then, the Democrats should quit trying to
fit a square peg into a round hole. And, they need to stop violating committee
rules and protocols.
Why would any witness want to testify now, at
the risk of their words being leaked and twisted to satisfy a partisan agenda?
Facts and evidence matter, not speculative
partisan cheap shots.