Prepared Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing on “Oversight of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation”
May 3, 2017
Director
Comey, welcome and thank you for all the FBI does to keep Americans safe. There
has been a lot of controversy surrounding the FBI since the last time you were
here in 2015.
In March,
you publicly acknowledged that the FBI is investigating allegations of
coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere in
the 2016 election. Under President Obama’s order, former DNI Clapper had been
in charge of the Intelligence Community’s review of that interference. Mr.
Clapper testified that President Obama asked the intelligence community to
compile all available information. After he left office, Mr. Clapper said there
was no evidence of collusion whatsoever. The New York Times also reported that
American officials had found no proof of collusion. So, where is all this
speculation about collusion coming from?
In January,
Buzzfeed published a dossier spinning wild conspiracy theories about the Trump
campaign. Buzzfeed acknowledged that the claims were unverified, and some of
the details were clearly wrong. It has since been sued for publishing them.
Since then, much of the dossier has been proven wrong, and many of its
outlandish claims have failed to gain traction. For example, no one’s looking
for moles or Russian agents embedded in the DNC. Yet some continue to quote
parts of this document as if it were gospel. And according to press reports,
the FBI has relied on it to justify its current investigation. There have even
been reports that the FBI agreed to pay the author of the dossier—who paid his
sources, who also paid their “sub sources.” Where did the money come from and
what motivated the people writing the checks?
The company
that oversaw the dossier’s creation, Fusion GPS, won't say. Its founder, Glenn
Simpson, is refusing to cooperate with this Committee’s inquiry. His company is
also the subject of a complaint to the Justice Department. That complaint
alleges that Fusion worked as an unregistered foreign agent for Russian interests—and
with a former Russian intelligence agent—at the time it worked on the dossier.
It was filed with the Justice Department in July, long before the dossier came
out. The man who wrote the dossier admitted in court that it has unverified
claims. Does that sound like a reliable basis for law enforcement or
intelligence actions?
Unfortunately,
the FBI has provided me materially inconsistent information about these issues.
That is why we need to know more about it and how much the FBI relied on it. Once
you buy into its claims of collusion, then suddenly every interaction with a
Russian can be twisted to seem like confirmation of the conspiracy theory.
Now,
obviously I don’t know what the FBI will find. For the good of the country, I
hope that the FBI gets to the truth soon, whatever that may be. If there are
wrongdoers, they should be punished. And the innocent should have their names
cleared. In the meantime, this Committee is charged with oversight of the FBI,
and we can't wait until this is all over to ask the hard questions. Otherwise,
too many people will have no confidence in the FBI’s conclusions. The public
needs to know what role the dossier has played and where it came from. We need
to know whether there was anything improper going on between the Trump campaign
and the Russians, or if these allegations are just a partisan smear campaign
that manipulated our government into chasing conspiracy theories.
Now, before
the election and before we knew about this notorious dossier, Director Comey
publicly released his finding that Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless”
in handling highly classified information—and his recommendation that no one be
prosecuted. According to a recent New York Times article, he did it partly
because he knew the Russians had a hacked email from a Democrat operative that
might be released before the election. That email reportedly provided
assurances that Attorney General Lynch would protect Secretary Clinton and make
sure the FBI investigation “didn’t go too far.” Despite Attorney General
Lynch’s prior connections to the Clintons and her now-famous private
conversation with former President Clinton during the investigation, she failed
to recuse herself from it. And the Director’s announcement effectively gave her
cover to have it both ways. She could appear publicly uninvolved but remain in
control of the ultimate outcome.
Moreover, in
its haste to end a tough, politically charged investigation, the FBI failed to
follow up on credible evidence of intent to hide federal records from Congress
and the public. It is a federal crime to willfully and unlawfully conceal,
remove, or destroy a federal record. Director Comey said that “[t]he FBI also
discovered several thousand work-related emails” that Secretary Clinton did not
turn over to the State Department. He said Secretary Clinton’s lawyers “cleaned
their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery” of
additional emails.
The Justice
Department also entered into immunity agreements limiting the scope of the FBI
investigation. Some of those agreements prohibited the FBI from reviewing any
emails on the laptops of Clinton aides that were created outside of Secretary Clinton’s
tenure at State. But of course any emails relating to alienating records would
not have been created until after she left office, during the Congressional and
FBI reviews. And even though these records were subject to congressional
subpoena and preservation letters, the Justice Department agreed to destroy the
laptops.
So a cloud
of doubt hangs over the FBI’s objectivity. The Director says that the people at
the FBI don’t give a rip about politics. But, he installed as Deputy Director a
man whose wife ran for elected office and accepted almost a million dollars
from Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime friend and fundraiser for the Clintons
and the Democrat Party. Andrew McCabe also reportedly met in person with Gov.
McAuliffe about his wife’s political plans. But he did not recuse himself from
the Clinton investigation, or the Russia matter, despite the obvious appearance
of a conflict. The Inspector General is reviewing these issues, but once again,
the people deserve answers, and the FBI is not providing them.
We need the
FBI to be accountable, because we need the FBI to be effective. Its mission is
to protect us from the most dangerous threats facing our nation. And since the
Director was last here, the drumbeat of attacks on the United States from those
directed or inspired by ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorists has
continued.
For example,
in June 2016, a terrorist killed 49 and wounded another 53 at a nightclub in
Orlando, Florida frequented by the gay and lesbian community. It was the most
deadly terrorist attack on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001. Not long
afterward, in September, a terrorist stabbed 10 at a mall in Minnesota, and
another terrorist injured 31 after he detonated bombs in New Jersey and New
York City. And in November, a terrorist injured 13 after driving into students
and teachers at Ohio State University.
Our allies
haven’t been immune either. We all recall the tragedy in July 2016, when a
terrorist plowed a truck through a crowd in France, killing over 80 people. So
we in Congress need to make sure that the FBI has the tools it needs to prevent
and investigate terrorism, as well as other serious violent crimes. And these
tools must adapt to both evolving technology and threats, while preserving
civil liberties.
I hope we
can also hear from the Director about the FBI’s use of some of these tools that
may require Congress’s attention. Most obviously, the FISA Section 702
authority is up for reauthorization at the end of the year. This authority
provides the government the ability to collect the electronic communications of
foreigners outside the United States with the compelled assistance of American
companies. The Bush and Obama Administrations were strongly supportive of
Section 702, and now the Trump Administration is as well. From all accounts,
the law has proven to be highly effective in helping to protect the United
States and our allies.
The Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, and many other federal courts have found Section 702 constitutional and
consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Yet questions and concerns persist for
many about its effect on our civil liberties, specifically in the way the FBI
queries data collected under Section 702.
In addition,
the Director has spoken out often about how the use of encryption by terrorists
and criminals is eroding the effectiveness of one of the FBI’s core
investigative tools – a warrant based on probable cause. I look forward to an
update from the Director on the Going Dark problem.
I am also
waiting for answers about the FBI’s advance knowledge of an attempted terrorist
attack in 2015 in Garland, Texas. Fortunately, the attack was interrupted by a
local police officer, but not before a guard was shot. After the attack, the
Director claimed that the FBI did not have advance knowledge of it. But it was
recently revealed that an undercover FBI agent was in close communication with
one of the attackers in the weeks leading up to the attack. The undercover
agent was in a car directly behind the attackers when they started shooting and
fled the scene.
This
Committee needs clarity on what the FBI knew, whether there was a plan to
disrupt any attack, and whether it shared enough information with local law
enforcement.
Finally, as
you know, the FBI Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act became law in
December 2016. It clarified that FBI employees are protected when they disclose
wrongdoing to their supervisors. In April, we learned the FBI still has not
updated its policies or done much to educate employees on the new law. The
Inspector General gave the FBI updated training on this January. Employees who
know they are protected are more likely to come forward with evidence of waste,
fraud, and abuse. They should not have to wait many months to be trained on
such a significant change in their rights and protections.
These are
all important issues and I look forward to discussing them with Director Comey.
The public’s faith in the FBI, Congress, and our democratic process has been
tested lately. Oversight and transparency will help us restore that faith.
-30-