I have been doing oversight of the executive branch for a very long time. I've done it as ranking member, I've done it as chairman, I've done it when my party held the white house, and I've done it when the other party held the white house. Earlier this year I stood up for the rights of my democratic colleagues to do oversight of the trump administration even while they are in the minority. I did it because it was the right thing to do. Lots of people give lip service to the notion of bipartisan oversight, but very few actually practice it. It's tough. You have to be willing to work with colleagues in the other party to ask tough questions of your own political allies, and you can't just ask. If you actually want answers, you have to follow through. True bipartisan oversight is impossible unless it's a two-way street. If democrats are unwilling to ask hard questions and force answers from their own political allies, then there simply is no way to move forward together in good faith. Both sides need to be committed to getting the whole story, not just the half that they think helps their side. Regardless of whether my democratic colleagues join me or not, I'm interested in that whole story. There are two major controversies plaguing the credibility of the justice department and the f.B.I. Right now. On the one hand the trump russia investigation, and then on the other hand the handling of the clinton investigation. Any congressional oversight related to either one of these topics is not credible without also examining the other. Both cases were active during last year's campaign. Both cases have been linked to the firing of the f.B.I. Director. I have been trying to explain this to my democratic colleagues for months. The political reality is that half of the country thinks that our law enforcement establishment gave hillary clinton and her aides a pass. These questions go to the heart of the integrity of our federal law enforcement and justice system. They are not going to go away just because clinton lost the election. The independent inspector general at the justice department certainly isn't ignoring that issue. Democrats and republicans in congress have asked the inspector general to look into a host of issues involving the handling of the clinton investigation during the campaign. His hard work has already uncovered some pretty disturbing information. Over the past week the press has reported that an f.B.I. Agent was removed from the special counsel's team and demoted at the f.B.I. Due to what do you think? Political bias. The agent was at the very center of both of these high-profile investigations. High-ranking f.B.I. Agent peter struck reportedly used his work phone to send anti-trump and pro-clinton text imleadges to another f.B.I. Agent -- messages to another f.B.I. Agent with whom he was having an ill illicit and immoral relationship. This man was the assistant director for the f.B.I.'s counterintelligence decision. He worked on the investigation of former secretary of state hiferl clinton's use -- hillary clinton's use of a private sector to conduct, what do you think? Official business. According to news reports, and according to documents, it looks like he also helped draft comey's controversial public statement ending that case of hillary clinton and the e-mails. Specifically, he apparently edited out language that suggested legal jeopardy for lynn. -- for clinton. Press reports state that he opened the f.B.I.'s investigation of allegations of collusion between the trump campaign and the -- and russia. And it's been reported that he was one of the two f.B.I. Agents who interviewed former national security advisor michael flynn. Can you imagine if the shoe were on the other foot? What if a high-ranking f.B.I. Official got caught expressing pro-trump political bias on his work -- on his work phone while leading what is supposed to be a professional objective and nonpartisan search for the truth. Why, of course. If that were happening, democrats would go ballistic, and they would have every right to go ballistic. This man held a crucial position of public trust, charged with protecting this country from counterintelligence threats. He was a key part of director comey's clinton investigation and his russian investigation. I have been saying for months that these two cases are forever linked. You cannot separate them. The same people in the same agency handled both cases at the same time, and now a huge segment of the american people have no faith that these cases were treated as they should be impartially. And I don't blame the american people. It is interesting that before he was fired, f.B.I. Director comey lectured our judiciary committee and lectured the public about how the men and women of the f.B.I., quote, don't give a relationship about politics, end of quote. I believe that for most of the hardworking rank-and-file f.B.I. Agents, that is absolutely true. Their jobs normally don't involve controversial political questions, and their own political views aren't relevant. Because they are professionals. But no human is perfect, and no organization is immune from error. It does not good for the leaders of the f.B.I. To pretend that its senior management is above all reproach, that they would never show any improper political bias and would never make miss takes. The only way to protect against bias or misconduct is to recognize it exists and to confront it, not to hide it from congress and the american people. The law and the facts, whatever they are, should guide the work of the f.B.I. And the justice department. If politics infected the department's decisions during a hotly contested national political campaign, we would have to look at it. That is true whether it occurred in the clinton case or in the trump-russia case or if it included both. Anyone claiming to do bipartisan oversight of the executive branch has to examine both. Ignoring either half of this story simply won't be credible with the other half of the country. Everyone thought hillary clinton was going to be president, everyone. And the perception of a huge segment of the public is that the whole washington establishment worked overtime to get her name cleared before the democratic convention last summer. The f.B.I. Even called its case, quote-unquote, midyear exam. Director comey testified that the former attorney general refused to even name the f.B.I.'s work and investigation. That's how political it became. It was really the attorney general at that time insisting on calling it not an investigation but, quote-unquote, a matter, m-a-t-t-e-r, whatever that means. We have learned that director comey started drafting his exoneration statement long before the investigation was done. It looks like there was a rush to clear her. It looks like the fix was in. I know democrats don't want to hear that. They only want to talk about trump. There is a double standard here in the way that they desperately want to go after the president but ignore all other potential wrongdoing in the previous administration. It stinks to high heaven, but democrats have visions of impeachment dancing in their heads. Rather than reserve judgment and carefully examine the facts, all of the facts, they are jumping to all sorts of conclusions. The judiciary committee has an obligation to do both a deep dive into the firing of james comey and both of the two controversial political investigations that preceded it. Unfortunately, the democrats are be preventing any truly bipartisan path forward. They appear to be assuming the conclusion at the outset. They complain publicly and they complain privately that I'm not doing enough to investigate obstruction. But obstruction of justice is is a -- is a legal term of art. It is a conclusion not evidence. That is not how I conduct my investigations. I do not make my conclusions first and try to shoehorn the facts to fit my conclusions. I tried to get the facts and then go where those facts lead. Let's consider examples of where investigations have uncovered facts that point to, quote-unquote, obstruction. Bill clinton and richard nixon both lied to investigators. That is obstruction, and that behavior got one of them impeached and forced the other to resign. We also recently learned that hillary clinton's lawyers used a program called bleach bit to delete 33,000 emails under subpoena by the house of representatives. Now, those government records -- and they are government records -- can never be recovered. Those facts certainly look like obstruction, but we don't have all the facts here yet. So far, I have seen no credible evidence that president trump has told anyone to lie. I also have seen no credible evidence that he or his aides have destroyed records being sought by investigators. Many people firmly believe that the president fired the f.B.I. Director in order to improperly halt the investigation of lieutenant general flynn. Now, I'm not only willing, but I'm eager to delve deeply into all the circumstances surrounding director comey's removal. But to claim at the outset that his removal was obstruction of justice puts the cart before the horse. I'd like to place an article in the record at this point by the well-known liberal law professor alan dershowitz, mr. President.

Chuck grassley
Now, professor dershowitz is not a fan of donald trump, and he and I probably wouldn't agree on very many issues, generally speaking. The title of his article is, quote, senator dianne feinstein may be provoking a constitutional conflict, end of quote. Professor dershowitz strongly disagrees with the ranking member's statements on "Meet the press" this weekend that comey was fired. Quote, directly because he did not agree to lift the cloud of russian investigation, that's obstruction of justice, end of quote. This is how professor dershowitz replied, quote, no it isn't. Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, the president cannot be charged with a crime for merely exercising his authority under article 2 of the constitution. This authority includes firing the director of the f.B.I. For whatever reason or no reason, end of quote. That's not to pay that the president can engage in illegal conduct, but the professor's point, as I understand it, is that when a president takes an action that's within the scope of clear constitutional authority and discretion, it should be a political question not a criminal one. The judiciary committee still needs to investigate the circumstances surrounding comey's firing and the flynn investigation. Those facts could have -- may have nothing to do with the obstruction but could still provide important insight about the potential reforms to how the f.B.I. And the justice department operate. For example, he explains how president trump could have halted any investigation on flynn if he really wanted to, and this is what the professor says. Trump would have been within his constitutional authority to pardon flynn as flynn hoped he would do that would have kept him from cooperating with the special counsel and becoming a government witness. Had the president done that, he would have acted entirely lawful as president h.W. Bush -- george h.W. Bush did when he pardoned caspar weinberger in order to stop the iran-contra investigation. Although special prosecutor lawrence walsh complained bitterly that the bush presentation pardon had the intent and effect of completely closing down his investigation, no one suggested that bush had committed the crime of obstruction of justice. Then finally, professor dershowitz explains what real obstruction looks like, how it is different than a president merely exercising his constitutional authority, so I once again quote the professor. Both presidents richard nixon and bill clinton were accused of obstruction of justice, but in both cases, they were accused of going well beyond the mere exercise of their constitutional authority. Nixon was accused of telling subordinates to lie to the f.B.I., paying hush money to potential witnesses and destroying evidence. Clinton was accused of trying to get witnesses such as monica lewinsky to lie. These charges constituted acts, independent crimes that go well beyond a presentation authority. President trump has not accused -- been accused of any facts that would independently constitute crimes. The entire case against him is out-- as outlined by feinstein consists of constitutionally authorized acts that were well within the president's authority under article 2. That is an enormous and consequential difference under our system of separation of powers, end of quote. But our constitutional system of checks and balances is too important to throw it aside when it is -- when it isn't politically convenient. You don't have to be a trump fan to worry about the consequences of taking short cuts and getting after your political opponents. That's why bipartisan investigations are so very valuable. When it works, a bipartisan inquiry can provide comfort that all angles have been explored and explored thoroughly. But it takes two to tangle, as they say. Earlier this year, ranking member feinstein expressed concerns about reports that former attorney general flynn asked director comey to down play the f.B.I.'s investigations as merely a matter instead of using the term investigation during the campaign. Yet since then, the ranking member has told me plainly she won't join any investigation of the oversight of the clinton e-mail investigations. Even on trump-russia oversight where we have been able to cooperate a great deal, there have been similar problems. First, all year I have wanted to learn more about the origins of the dossier that largely kick started the f.B.I.'s investigation of the trump campaign. In july, the ranking member joined me in a bipartisan letter seeking voluntary cooperation from the firm that produced the dossier. The dossier was based largely on russian sources within russia and was put together by a former british spy. It made salacious and unverified claims about trump. The company responsible for producing it, fusion g.P.S., was uncorporative. In real estate sponse to our bipartisan -- in response to our bipartisan request, it dutched on the committee -- it dumped on the committee about 32,000 pages of press clippings and 8,000 pages that were entirely blank. Since then, it has provided zero additional documents. The founder of fusion g.P.S. Initially indicated he would rely on his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination rather than testify at the committee hearing in july. He later agreed to a private staff interview but refused to answer dozens of key questions. I would like to compel him to answer questions and compel him to provide the documents that senator feinstein and I both asked him had july to provide voluntarily, but under our committee rules, I don't have the authority to do that on my own. Now, why would democrats not want to follow up and get the documents from fusion g.P.S. That we already asked for together; in other words, in a by the way? -- in a bipartisan way? So do they not want to know more about how this company put together its anti-trump dossier from russian government sources? Well, in light of recent news, the resistance from democrats to this line of trump-russia inquiry is now a little more understandable. It turns out the clinton campaign and the democratic national committee are the ones who paid fusion g.P.S. For the information it gathered from russian government sources. I don't know whether the ranking member or her staff knew the facts earlier this year when I was trying to persuade her to do bipartisan follow-up work with fusion g.P.S. But I do know that unless both sides are willing to ask tough questions, no matter where the facts lead, there can be no bipartisan oversight. So we have learned that the democratic national committee paid for an anti-trump dossier based on information from russian government sources. Second, we have learned that the inspector general uncovered evidence of partisan bias by a senior f.B.I. Official at the center of both clinton and the trump russia investigations which led to his dismissal from the mueller team. Before that news broke back in october this year, I wrote to the f.B.I. Official requesting voluntary cooperation and private transcribed interviews with the committee. The ranking member did not sign that letter. The committee has received no letter in real estate ply. We're -- in reply. We're still waiting for documents from the f.B.I. About his and other officials' participation in the draft comey statement. The f.B.I. Should comply voluntarily, but if they don't, I would issue a subpoena to require that the documents be provided and that the witness sit for a deposition. However, under our committee rules, I don't have the authority to do that without support from the ranking member. Finally, I have long had concerns that the scope of the f.B.I. Clinton investigation was artificially narrowed. Recent revelations about these text messages showing political bias only heighten these concerns. In recent federal court rulings, the f.B.I. Said that the scope of the investigation was limited in two ways. First, it was limited to two issues dealing only with the handling of classified information. Second, the scope of the f.B.I. Review was limited to the time when former secretary clinton was at the state department. But what if there was evidence of crime not related to the mishandling of classified information? What if the facts showed some obstruction, such as intentional destruction of documents after she was secretary of state? Why exclude those topics from the scope of the inquiry? Who made those decisions? Why were those decisions made? Was there any political bias in those decisions? Certain areas shouldn't be declared off-limits beforehand in an investigation, and an investigation should go common sense, where the facts take it. In multiple letters to the f.B.I. Last year, I raised concerns about the scope of the f.B.I. Investigation. I asked director comey back in may 2016 whether the justice department had improperly narrowed the scope of the investigation to look at mishandling of classified information and ignore other important legal issues. So I want to quote from that letter. If federal records on the private server were hidden or destroyed, then there may have been a violation of 18u.S.C. Paragraph 2071 which prohibits concealing or destroying such federal record. If any of the deleted e-mails were responsive to congressional inquiries or to agency inquiries such as ones from the state department inspector general, then there may have been violations of 18 u.S.C. Paragraphs 51505 and 1519, end of quote. All right later in my election I specifically asked whether the justice department limited the f.B.I.'s investigation in any way. Then director comey eventually responded months later. He claimed the f.B.I. Did investigate whether the unlawful instruction of federal records occurred, but an f.B.I. Agent said under penalty of perjury that the f.B.I. Investigation did not include destructions of federal records. So which is it? Who is taling the truth? -- who's telling the truth? The f.B.I. Agent who signed the affidavit, or is mr. Comey right? Did the f.B.I. Really examine whether secretary clinton or her associates uses the server -- used the server, avoid federal record retention requirements? Or did mr. Comey simply pay lip service to that concern and focus only on classification issues? Understanding what really happened is incredibly important. And let me tell you why. During the course of the f.B.I.'s investigation, it recovered thousands of work-related e-mails that were not turned over to the state department by secretary clinton. The f.B.I. Also recovered work-related e-mails that secretary clinton and her associates apparently deleted. All of this is clear evidence of alien nation of federal -- alienation of federal records. Indeed, even the f.B.I. Now public investigative files show that the f.B.I. Had knowledge that federal records were deleted. The f.B.I.'s interview summary of secretary clinton said that she was asked about a p.R.N. Work ticket which referenced a conference call about p.R.N., kendall and mills, on march 31, 20156789-- 2015. I am going to say quote again and repeat that. She was asked about, quorum calls a p.R.N. -- she wassed about asked about, quote, a p.R.N. Work ticket which reference add conference call about p.R.N., kendall and mills, on march 31, 2015. End of quote. P.R.N. Stands for platte river network, the company that administered secretary cline continue's nongovernment servers. Kendall is david kendall, her lawyer. And mills is sheryl mills, her former chief of staff at the state department. Paul cornbata, the administrator of her servers, was also on a conference call and was interviewed multiple times by the f.B.I. He admitted that he lied to the f.B.I. In his initial interviews and got immunity from the f.B.I. In exchange for agreeing to tell them the truth. According to the sum riff that interview -- according to the summary of that interview, mr. Mr. Combata deleted secretary clinton's e-mail archives on march 31, 2015. So you have a conference call with secretary clinton's attorneys on march 31, 2015. And on that very same day, her e-mails are deleted by someone who was at the -- on that conference call using special bleach software. The e-mails were state department records under subpoena by congress. What did the f.B.I. Do to investigate this apparent obstruction? According to affidavits filed in federal court, absolutely nothing. The f.B.I. Focused only on the handling of classified information. Maybe now we know why. Recently released f.B.I. Records show that by may 2, 2016, mr. Comey sent around a draft of his statement exonerating secretary clinton. The f.B.I. Interview with mr. Combata hadn't even happened yet. The exoneration statement was already in progress before the key witness had coughed up the truth about deleting federal records under subpoena by congress. Did the f.B.I. Look at obstruction in the clinton case? Mr. Comey said the f.B.I. Looked very hard at obstruction. But that is hard to believe. Director comey began drafting an exoneration statement in april, early may of 2016. That's months before he publicly announced that he would not recommend charges on july the 5th, 2016. According to testimony of senior f.B.I. Officials, comey began drafting his statement early because the f.B.I. Knew where the investigation was headed. That's according to testimony of senior f.B.I. Officials. But at that point the f.B.I. Had not yet interviewed 17 witnesses witnesses. So that ought to be understood. They hadn't yet interviewed 17 witnesses, and one of those witnesses -- can you believe it? -- was secretary clinton. Others included her closest a.I.D. Aides and a-- others included her closest aides and aassociates. How can you possibly then know where an investigation is headed without interviewing the main witnesses and the subject of the investigation? Maybe none of this raises any concerns for democrats, but it should. The american people deserve to have the whole story. Congress and the public have a right to understand whether the fix was in from the very beginning. If so, then it must take steps to make sure it never happens again. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.