This is not typical of Sen. Chuck Grassley. “That’s a bias that none of you should be proud of,” he told reporters at a Capitol Hill briefing after detailing how journalists only wanted to interview protestors in his office who were anti-Kavanaugh as opposed to the ones that supported him.
I think President Trump, though he takes it too far, has opened up the way to calling out the obvious bias of the mainstream media. When even old Chuck Grassley gets in the act, you know Trump is having an effect.
“It looks like a dead end,” Grassley said of the Russia collusion investigation. “Maybe Mueller would appreciate being fired so he would have an excuse for getting out of it and the Democrats would have a good issue in this upcoming election.”
A lot of Republicans would be unhappy if Trump fired Mueller. Remember, it was the loss of Republican support that convinced Richard Nixon to resign.
Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Chairman, also said firing Attorney General Sessions would be a major problem, if only because of how difficult it would be to replace him.
And Grassley interestingly suggested that a Supreme Court vacancy may be on the way in a few months
The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a bipartisan investigation into whether former Attorney General Loretta Lynch interfered politically in the criminal probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.
From a statement by Judiciary panel Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein, Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee Chairman Lindsey Graham and Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse sought information about alleged political interference by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch during the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. The bipartisan inquiry comes as the Judiciary Committee is examining the circumstances surrounding the removal of James Comey as FBI Director.
In April, The New York Times reported that the FBI came into possession of a batch of hacked documents, one of which was said to be authored by a “Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far.” Chairman Grassley then requested a copy of the document from the Justice Department, which has failed to respond. A month later, The Washington Post reported similar facts and provided further details about individuals involved in these communications. The Post reported that the email in question, sent by then-chair of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz to Leonard Benardo of the Open Society Foundations, indicated that Lynch had privately assured Clinton campaign staffer Amanda Renteria that the FBI’s investigation wouldn’t “go too far.”
Comey testified to Congress earlier this month that Lynch’s instructions to him about how to frame the probe caused him to lose confidence in Lynch’s independence, and that of DOJ.
“At one point, [Lynch] directed me not to call it an ‘investigation’ but instead to call it a ‘matter,’ which confused me and concerned me,” Mr. Comey said. “That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we are to close this case credibly.”
The Clinton campaign was terming the investigation, which was in fact an investigation, a “matter.”
Well, this got no coverage, pretty much, so I thought I’d give it a little bit.
While Democrats are busy pursuing the possibility that someone in the Trump camp maybe might have could have colluded with the Russians even though there’s nothing to suggest they did other than that they picked up a phone and called someone which is what you would expect them to do anyway, here is another example of the endless trails of evidence that that Secretary of State Clinton, Bill Clinton, and the Clinton Global Initiative were a giant shakedown and influence peddling operation designed to enrich the Clintons.
Who, after all, were broke when they left the White House. I mean a guy and a gal gotta make a buck.
From a June 1 statement by Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley about a letter he wrote to Secretary of State Tillerson:
Sen. Chuck Grassley today asked the State Department for information on whether then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staff sought help through official channels for a Bangladeshi businessman who also was a donor to the Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation. The allegations of special treatment include reports of a threatened IRS audit of the Bangladeshi prime minister’s son, living in the United States, if he did not help quash a Bangladeshi government investigation of the businessman and Clinton organization donor, Dr. Muhammad Yunus.
“Once again, Secretary Clinton’s actions have raised reasonable suspicions that she violated these rules and undermined the public’s confidence in the integrity of the State Department.”
Grassley wrote that emails show that State Department officials, including Clinton, and staff for the Clinton Foundation closely monitored an attempt to remove Yunus from his bank position in Bangladesh and that the U.S. Ambassador to Bangladesh sought meetings with the prime minister “to apply pressure in an attempt to end the investigation into Yunus.” The prime minister’s son said he was pressed multiple times by State Department officials to help end the investigation and that at one point, he was told “he may be audited by the IRS if he failed to use his influence to get his mother to drop the investigation into Yunus.”
I hope the Trump people aren’t afraid to respond to this. Hillary is doing everything she can to destroy Trump, and while payback is not how the government should operate, it at least shouldn’t hesitate to provide information about possible wrongdoing.
As probably you know, I wrote a book detailing all the scandals that supposedly never happened under Obama. I didn’t even know about this one.
The White House Thursday turned its vicious invective on one of Washington’s longest serving, most respected and most honorable senators, Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa, branding him as dishonest.
Here’s what supposedly failed the White House honesty test.
In September, Grassley said, “Rather than rush a nominee through the Senate in a lame duck session, I hope the President will take his time to nominate a qualified individual.”
Then Thursday, talking about Loretta Lynch’s lengthy confirmation process, Grassley said, “If you want to subtract November and December from that long time frame, you should do it. The Democrats were in control of the Congress and they decided not to bring her up.”
Earnest attacked, calling it “exhibit A in why it is very challenging to work with congressional Republicans.”
That, in my mind, is an astounding display of duplicity. And I know that it may be that you guys are looking at me — many of you have been in Washington longer than I have — and you’re thinking: That Josh really likes working at the White House, he’s so idealistic, he’s got stars in his eyes, he’s so naive about the way that Washington works; that this kind of dramatic reversal and going back on one’s word is just business as usual in Washington.
The sad part, I think, is that Senator Grassley — particularly in his home state of Iowa — has cultivated a reputation as somebody who is true to his word. And I think the only conclusion that I can draw from this astounding exchange is that it’s possible that Senator Grassley has been in Washington for too long.
Earnest needed a pretext for an attack on Republicans, but he could have at least chosen one that made sense. Grassley may not have wanted Lynch to be considered during the lame duck session. But it was still the Democrats’ choice not to bring her up. So she wasn’t considered then, and the period should be subtracted from the confirmation process, Grassley said. Where’s the duplicity?
What’s really going on, of course, is the deployment of repellent political tactics. As I noted yesterday, Saul Alinsky is still the prophet of choice for the Obama White House: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” Alinsky wrote.
The superb irony here, of course, is that while the White House was charging duplicity, it was revealing its own. From the president on down, the White House regularly protests that it wants only to work with Republicans and to cast the rancor and partisanship aside.
And then it goes and for no particular reason unleashes a nasty attack on an 81-year-old senator.
I really have to give the White House credit. They’ve turned disingenuousness into a work of art.
One reporter called Earnest on the inconsistency, prompting a sneer.
Question: You referred to Senator Chuck Grassley as “duplicitous.” Is that helpful –
MR. EARNEST: I referred to his comment as duplicitous. But, yes.
Is that helpful to the process of getting Loretta Lynch nominated? Is that helpful to building relations with the party that controls the U.S. Senate, do you think?
Question: Is that helpful to the process of getting Loretta Lynch nominated? Is that helpful to building relations with the party that controls the U.S. Senate, do you think?
MR. EARNEST: I’ll just observe, John, that being nice has gotten us a 160-day delay. (Laughter.) So maybe after they look up “duplicitous” in the dictionary we’ll get a different result.
Note Earnest tried to suggest that he was calling Grassley’s statement, and perhaps not the senator himself, “duplicitous.” But how exactly does one become duplicitous without saying something duplicitous? Uttering something duplicitous by definition makes one duplicitous.
Maybe Earnest doesn’t fully understand the meaning of word.
Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) thinks maybe the White House’s weekend investigation of its staffers’ activities in sunny Cartegena doesn’t quite cover it. At least, he wants some details on the inquiry, something the openness administration is unwilling so far to provide.
In a letter Monday to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, Grassley asked not only about how the White House conducted its investigation, but appeared to be conducting his own investigation, demanding to know things like, “How many of the White House staff had overnight guests.”
And he deadpanned: “I would appreciate your response by April 26, 2012, as it only took a weekend to conduct this review, it should not take long to respond to these questions.”
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said he had not seen the letter and offered no response.
Cartegena, you’ll remember, is the city where a group of Secret Service agents found out recently that prostitution is legal in Colombia but still frowned upon in much of the United States.