Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, raised some concerns regarding the investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden’s potential bribery charges. During his address on the Senate floor today, Grassley mentioned the FBI document with a FD-1023 title that was presented to the House Oversight Committee last Thursday, which he also had the privilege to review.
As per the FD-1023, it brings to light that the foreign national who may have bribed the Biden family, possess 17 audio recordings. The document states that this foreign national held 15 audio recordings of the phone conversations between him and Hunter Biden, and two of the recordings had the phone conversation between the foreign national and then-Vice President Joe Biden.
Grassley suggested that the foreign national must have had these recordings with him as an ‘insurance policy’.
Not only did the Senator mention the content of the document being shown to the House Committee, but he also raised an interesting point about the document’s redactions, as most of the sentences were blocked out while the committee was reviewing it.
It appeared to be the FBI had certain details on the document blocked out to reduce transparency on the case. Grassley raised a good question as to why Special Counsel Jack Smith needed a recording from the former President Trump, while what has been done about the audio recordings related to the Biden family?
Grassley made it a point to say that getting the entire, unredacted copy of the FD-1023 was essential.
It was necessary for the American people to get access to all the information and have the proper understanding of the document, concerning what was exactly being investigated in the Biden case. As he pressed that Congress needed to have oversight powers as well, and any concealment or abuse of power by the executive branch should be taken seriously.
Grassley believes it is important that the Justice Department and FBI have “laser-focus” on the Biden family and should bring out the redactions of the document in order to allow transparency in the case.