Senate Judiciary Chairman Demands Answers From FBI on ‘Vague’ Clinton Decision

Barbara Kinney / Hillary for America

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa is pressing FBI director James Comey for details on the agency’s decision not to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton in its email investigation.

Grassley is making it clear that he still intends to get to the bottom of what happened during the FBI’s multiple investigations.

“For months now, I’ve been urging the FBI to provide details regarding the scope of its investigation. The American people deserve to know whether the FBI sought to determine if Secretary Clinton and her aides deliberately maneuvered around federal open records laws or congressional investigations. Another vague announcement by the FBI has again failed to provide this context,” Grassley said Sunday.

Grassley was the first major lawmaker to hold Clinton aide Huma Abedin accountable on her work for Teneo Holdings, a global consulting firm, while she was also working for Clinton’s State Department.

The FBI’s second investigation focused on Huma Abedin, particularly records of classified emails flagged during the underage sexting investigation into Abedin’s husband Anthony Weiner. The FBI focused on Weiner despite the fact that it had the authority to re-open Hillary Clinton backup devices that were not opened during the first investigation.

The Republican National Committee, through chairman Reince Priebus, pointed out that the FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation for public corruption. Chuck Grassley is making it clear that James Comey is probably going to be back before his committee at some point in the near future.

“The growing number of unanswered questions demand explanations: Is the FBI continuing to review the newly-revealed emails? Did the FBI limit its review to email from when Clinton was Secretary of State, leaving out emails that could shed light on possible obstruction of Congress?” Grassley said.

“Did the Justice Department authorize an application for a search warrant for this latest review, and if so, was it the first time such a tool was used in this investigation? Did the FBI seek compulsory process earlier in its review, and if not, why not? Answers to these questions would provide greater context of the FBI’s investigation and greater assurance to the American people of its thoroughness,” Grassley said.


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.