Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on Thursday released an April 2022 Justice Department memo showing then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, then-Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, and then-FBI Director Christopher Wray personally approved an FBI investigation into alleged efforts by Trump campaign associates to obstruct Congress’ certification of the 2020 election.
Grassley posted the four-page memorandum on X, saying it proves top Biden administration officials “personally approved” the case — which he referred to as “Arctic Frost” — and that it “unleashed unchecked government power at the highest levels.”
The Iowa Republican added, “My oversight will continue.”
The April 2022 memo, signed by Garland, Monaco, and Wray, authorized the FBI’s Washington Field Office to open what the bureau designated a “Sensitive Investigative Matter.” The document details the FBI’s request to examine whether individuals connected to Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign conspired to obstruct Congress’ certification of the Electoral College on Jan. 6, 2021.
“Following the 2020 Presidential and Vice Presidential election, in an apparent effort to obstruct Congress’s certification of Electoral College, fraudulent certificates of electors’ votes were submitted to the Archivist of the United States, purporting to represent the actual elector votes from the states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin,” the executive summary reads. “Open source reporting and public statements made by individuals closely associated with Donald J. Trump, Inc. (Trump Campaign) present an articulable factual basis indicating the existence of a federal crime, and thus the FBI seeks to open a full investigation.
“Because this investigation involves a SIM as set forth in the Department of Justice memorandum dated February 5, 2020, entitled ‘Additional Requirements for Opening of Certain Sensitive Investigations’ (DOJ Memo), your authorization is required before WFO may initiate this full investigation,” the document continued.
Monaco wrote at the bottom of the document, “Merrick- I recommend you approve,” before initialing and dating it 4/5/22. Garland ultimately signed off on the investigation on the same day.
Sen. Chuck Grassley released a memo from former FBI Director Christopher Wray to former Attorney General Merrick Garland to open an investigation into the Trump Campaign in April 2022, for allegedly attempting to interfere with Congress’ certification of the 2020 election.(Samuel Corum-Pool, Anna Moneymaker and Anna Moneymaker via Getty Images)
The authorization came more than a year after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and months before now-former Special Counsel Jack Smith was appointed to oversee related investigations. The memo appears to document an early stage of the Justice Department’s examination of the so-called “fake electors” effort that became a focus of Smith’s probe.
In 2023, Smith subpoenaed phone records belonging to eight Republican senators and one House member, covering a four-day period — Jan. 4 to Jan. 7, 2021 — to examine call activity around the Capitol riot. The subpoenas did not seek call content but instead listed numbers, dates and durations.
The targeted senators included Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Jack Smith, U.S. special counsel, speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
In addition to the eight senators, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Tuesday that he recently discovered Smith also attempted to subpoena his toll records but that his phone company, AT&T, did not hand them over.
Smith said the records were narrowly tailored and “entirely proper,” adding they were meant to support his investigation into Trump’s alleged efforts to subvert the 2020 election results.
Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, speaks during a hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025(Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
His lawyers wrote to Grassley, saying the subpoenas complied with Justice Department policy and were routine.
Republicans have broadly claimed they were inappropriately spied on and compared Arctic Frost to the Watergate scandal. Smith’s lawyers emphasized the normalcy of seeking phone records and said public officials are not immune from investigation.
Smith’s attorneys also disputed accusations from FBI Director Kash Patel that the subpoenas were hidden, noting the requests were referenced in a footnote of Smith’s final report and shared with Trump’s defense team in discovery.
Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
Greg Wehner is a breaking news reporter for Fox News Digital.
Story tips and ideas can be sent to Greg.Wehner@Fox.com and on Twitter @GregWehner.
EXCLUSIVE: Former Special Counsel Jack Smith is requesting to testify in open, public hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, Fox News Digital has learned.
Fox News Digital exclusively obtained a letter Smith’s attorneys sent to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley Thursday afternoon, after both panels signaled interest in testimony from the former special counsel.
“Given the many mischaracterizations of Mr. Smith’s investigation into President Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents and role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Mr. Smith respectfully requests the opportunity to testify in open hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees,” Smith attorneys Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski wrote.
Jack Smith, then-U.S. special counsel, speaks during a news conference in Washington, Aug. 1, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“During the investigation of President Trump, Mr. Smith steadfastly adhered to established legal standards and Department of Justice guidelines, consistent with his approach throughout his career as a dedicated public servant,” they wrote.
“He is prepared to answer questions about the Special Counsel’s investigation and prosecution, but requires assurance from the Department of Justice that he will not be punished for doing so,” they continued. “To that end, Mr. Smith needs guidance from the Department of Justice regarding federal grand jury secrecy requirements and authorization on the matters he may speak to regarding, among other things, Volume II of the Final Report of the Special Counsel, which is not publicly available.”
Smith’s attorneys also noted that in order to provide “full and accurate answers to your questions, Mr. Smith requires access to the Special Counsel files, which he no longer has the ability to access.”
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee leaves the Republican caucus meeting at the Capitol in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 12, 2023. (Jose Luis Magana/The Associated Press )
“With the guidance and access described above, Mr. Smith is available to testify in an open hearing at your earliest convenience,” they wrote.
A source familiar told Fox News Digital that Smith’s attorneys are planning to officially seek guidance from the Department of Justice on the matter.
The letter from Smith’s attorneys comes after Jordan, R-Ohio, requested Smith appear for a closed-door transcribed interview and provide all records from his work related to President Donald Trump.
Senator Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, speaks during a hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2025(Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The letter also comes after Grassley, R-Iowa, and nearly two dozen Senate Republicans demanded that the Department of Justice and FBI release documents on Smith’s decision to subpoena telecommunications companies for phone records of a number of Senate Republicans during his probe into Jan. 6, 2021.
Fox News Digital exclusively reported earlier in October that Smith tracked the private communications and phone calls of GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama and GOP Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania as part of his “Arctic Frost” investigation.
An official said the records were collected in 2023 by Smith and his team after subpoenaing major telephone providers.
FBI Director Kash Patel shakes hands with Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa during a Senate Judiciary hearing on Sept. 16, 2025.(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
An FBI official told Fox News Digital that Smith and his team tracking the senators were able to see which phone numbers they called, the location the phone call originated and the location where it was received.
A source said the calls were likely in reference to the vote to certify the 2020 election.
Smith, though, called his decision to subpoena several Republican lawmakers’ phone records, calling the move “entirely proper” and consistent with Justice Department policy.
“As described by various Senators, the toll data collection was narrowly tailored and limited to the four days from January 4, 2021 to January 7, 2021, with a focus on telephonic activity during the period immediately surrounding the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol,” Smith’s lawyers wrote Tuesday to Grassley.
A split image featuring US Attorney General Merrick Garland, President Donald Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith(Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images | Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images | Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Smith was appointed special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022.
Smith, after months of investigating, charged President Donald Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request.
Smith’s case cost taxpayers more than $50 million.
Fox News’ Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
Brooke Singman is a political correspondent and reporter for Fox News Digital, Fox News Channel and FOX Business.
Former special counsel Jack Smith is standing by his 2023 decision to subpoena several Republican lawmakers’ phone records, calling the move “entirely proper” and consistent with Justice Department policy.
Smith said through his lawyers in a letter obtained by Fox News Digital that the subpoenaed data, known as toll records, belonging to eight senators and one House member were carefully targeted to support his investigation into President Donald Trump’s alleged subversion of the 2020 election.
“As described by various Senators, the toll data collection was narrowly tailored and limited to the four days from January 4, 2021 to January 7, 2021, with a focus on telephonic activity during the period immediately surrounding the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol,” Smith’s lawyers wrote Tuesday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
Former special counsel Jack Smith delivers remarks on an unsealed indictment including four felony counts against President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, in Washington. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Toll records do not reveal the contents of phone calls but instead reveal when calls were made and to whom.
Smith’s lawyers said that although Grassley, who brought the subpoenas to light, has not reached out to Smith, they felt compelled to write to the chairman to address claims from Republicans that Smith improperly spied on lawmakers.
Grassley responded to the letter, saying he would continue an unbiased probe into Arctic Frost, the name of the FBI investigation that led to Smith’s election-related prosecution of Trump.
“I’m conducting an objective assessment of the facts&law like he says he wants So far we exposed an anti-Trump FBI agent started the investigation/broke FBI rules &only REPUBLICANS were targeted SMELLS LIKE POLITICS,” Grassley wrote on X.
The targeted senators included Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
In addition to the eight senators, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told Fox News’ Sean Hannity Tuesday that he recently discovered Smith also attempted to subpoena his toll records but that his phone company, AT&T, did not hand them over.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.(Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
The Republicans have broadly claimed they were inappropriately spied on, and compared Arctic Frost to the Watergate scandal.
Smith’s lawyers emphasized the normalcy of seeking out phone records and said that public officials are not immune from investigation.
Smith brought four criminal charges against Trump alleging he illegally attempted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, but he dismissed the charges after Trump won the 2024 election, citing a DOJ policy that discourages prosecuting sitting presidents.
Former special counsel Robert K. Hur testifies before the House Judiciary Committee March 12, 2024, in Washington. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Former special counsel Robert Hur sought toll records during his investigation into former President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents. The DOJ subpoenaed phone records of former Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, who is serving prison time after he was convicted in 2024 of corruption charges.
The first Trump administration subpoenaed phone records of Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., and then-Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and dozens of congressional staffers from both parties as part of a leak investigation.
Former DOJ inspector general Michael Horowitz warned in a report about the leak probe that lawmakers’ records should only be subpoenaed in narrow circumstances because it “risks chilling Congress’s ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch.”
Smith’s lawyers also disputed FBI Director Kash Patel’s accusations that he attempted to hide the subpoenas “in a lockbox in a vault,” noting that the former special counsel mentioned subpoenaing senators’ records in a footnote of his final special counsel report.
“Moreover, the precise records at issue were produced in discovery to President Trump’s personal lawyers, some of whom now serve in senior positions within the Department of Justice,” Smith’s lawyers said.
Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.
The FBI analyzed the phone records of more than a half dozen Republican lawmakers as part of an investigation into efforts by President Trump and his allies to overturn the results of the 2020 election, according to information released Monday by GOP senators.
The records, which the FBI analyzed in 2023, enabled investigators to see basic information about the date and time of phone calls but not the content of the communications, the senators said. The data encompassed several days during the week of Jan. 6, 2021, when pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol in a failed bid to halt the certification of the election results.
A document dated Sept. 27, 2023, lists nine Republican lawmakers whose records were allegedly scrutinized: Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Dan Sullivan of Alaska, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, as well as Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania.
The disclosure adds new detail to the since-shuttered investigation by the FBI and former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith into the steps Mr. Trump took in the run-up to the Capitol riot to undo his election loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Mr. Trump was indicted in August 2023 with conspiring to overturn the results, but the case was abandoned after Mr. Trump’s win the following year because of a Justice Department legal opinion that states sitting presidents cannot face federal prosecution.
The subpoena for the phone records was disclosed by several Republican senators, including Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who chairs the Judiciary Committee that oversees the FBI. Grassley said the Sept. 27, 2023, document memorializing the “preliminary toll analysis” was found in response to his request. The investigative step was authorized by a grand jury, the senators said.
Grassley called it a “violation of personal property and people’s rights and the law and their constitutional rights.”
The document suggests the analysis was conducted by an FBI special agent whose name was redacted, and it was authorized by two supervisory agents. It does not say how or why those lawmakers were identified or whether any meaningful tips or leads emerged from that investigative work.
Some of the lawmakers were part of a group of Republicans who planned to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election. After the voting was disrupted by the rioters on Jan. 6, 2021, most of the lawmakers named in the FBI document voted to certify the results, while Sen. Lummis and Rep. Kelly objected to at least one state.
The special counsel’s investigation delved into phone calls between lawmakers and the president on the evening of Jan. 6, 2021, which Smith alleged were part of a last-ditch attempt to talk congressional Republicans into blocking the certification of Biden’s victory. The 2023 indictment against Mr. Trump lists several attempts by Mr. Trump and his alleged co-conspirators to reach senators and representatives by phone. It argued the president “attempted to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol by calling lawmakers to convince them, based on knowingly false claims of election fraud, to delay the certification.”
Last year, a final report penned by Smith — which argued the president would have been convicted if not for his 2024 election win — also pointed to phone calls placed by Mr. Trump and members of his circle. It cited toll records from two unindicted co-conspirators who are unnamed but are widely believed to be Rudy Giuliani and one other person.
The senators said they would not be conducting their own investigation because they expected FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino — both Trump loyalists — to review the matter. Grassley suggested that more people at the FBI would be fired over the investigation, saying, “If heads don’t roll in this town, nothing changes.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said on social media that he had “grave concerns” about the incident.
“I fully support Senate committees getting to the bottom of this outrageous abuse of power and weaponization of the government,” said Thune, a South Dakota Republican.
CBS News has reached out to theSenate Judicary Committee’s Democratic side and to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for comment.
Alina Habba is heaping more pressure on Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) to revoke the chamber’s blue slip tradition, which New Jersey’s two Democratic senators wielded to stop her from getting a floor vote for the post of U.S. attorney in the state.
Trump had nominated Habba, whom he tapped on an interim basis in March, for the full-time appointment. But Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim used blue slips — which empower home-state senators to block U.S. attorney and District Court judge nominees — to keep her from advancing in the chamber.
Meanwhile, Tillis, also a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he’d serve as a check against anyone opposed by a home-state senator even if Grassley rescinded the procedure.
“This tradition that Senator Grassley is upholding effectively prevents anybody in a blue state from going through into Senate to then be voted on,” Habba said on “Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo.” “Senator Booker and Senator Kim had absolutely every right to vote no for me for the U.S. Attorney position. But I had the right as the nominee to get if front of Senate and to be voted on, to be vetted. I never even got there.”
But there remains little appetite in the GOP-led Senate to scrap the tradition, which Republicans have used in the past to influence judicial appointments at home with Democrats in the White House.
Habba’s saga this year has been complicated. She was appointed acting U.S. attorney for the state, but, once the 120-day interim period expired, a panel of District Court judges declined to retain her, instead appointing Desiree Leigh Grace, her first assistant, to the interim position. Complaining about “rogue” judges, Attorney General Pam Bondi then fired Grace and Trump — who had previously nominated Habba to the post full-time — instead restored Habba’s interim status, a maneuver that was immediately challenged as invalid.
The result: Habba is currently holding her attorney post “not lawfully,” U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann said last week, leaving open the possibility that any of the actions she has taken on the job since July 1 “may be declared void.” Shortly after that ruling, a District Court judge postponed the sentencing of a CEO prosecuted by Habba’s office due to her involvement.
“The truth is it has nothing to do with the work that we’re doing, it has nothing to do with the crime that we’re stopping,” she told Bartiromo. “It has to do with trying to prevent President Trump from continuing his agenda, and it has to stop. So I would say to Senator Tillis and Senator Grassley, you are becoming part of the issue. You are becoming part of the antithesis of what we fought for four years.”
NEW YORK (AP) — OpenAI whistleblowers have filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission and asked the agency to investigate whether the ChatGPT maker illegally restricted workers from speaking out about the risks of its artificial intelligence technology.
A letter to SEC Chair Gary Gensler representing “one or more anonymous and confidential” whistleblowers asks the agency to swiftly and aggressively enforce its rules against non-disclosure agreements that discourage employees or investors from raising concerns with regulators.
The July 1 letter references a formal whistleblower complaint recently filed with the SEC. The Washington Post was the first to report on the letter.
U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s office shared a copy of the letter with The Associated Press, noting it was provided to his office by legally protected whistleblowers.
“OpenAI’s policies and practices appear to cast a chilling effect on whistleblowers’ right to speak up and receive due compensation for their protected disclosures,” said Grassley, an Iowa Republican, in a written statement. “In order for the federal government to stay one step ahead of artificial intelligence, OpenAI’s nondisclosure agreements must change.”
OpenAI said in a statement that its policies protect employees’ rights to make protected disclosures. The company also noted that it’s already made changes to remove “nondisparagement terms” that could punish departing employees if they criticize the company after they leave.
SEC didn’t respond to a request for comment Monday and doesn’t typically comment on whether or not it is opening an investigation.
On Saturday afternoon, with just over six weeks to go until the Iowa caucuses, Ron DeSantis told a story about how he once bravely stood up to the Special Olympics.
He was speaking atop a small platform in a partitioned-off section of a former roller rink in Newton, Iowa, dubbed “the Thunderdome.” The anecdote, like so many, had something to do with the tyranny of vaccine mandates. DeSantis said he had met a family at the Iowa State Fair, and that one of their children had wanted to participate in the Special Olympics, but wasn’t vaccinated. As it happened, the games were being held in Florida, where DeSantis serves as governor. “Well, we don’t have discrimination in Florida on that,” he said, meaning vaccination status. “So we were able to tell the Special Olympics, you let all the athletes compete!” People hooted.
This narrative followed a familiar arc: The Florida governor had confronted something he didn’t like, and, after a brief crusade, emerged victorious. DeSantis plays the part of a fearless maverick pursuing justice—even if that means picking a fight with a well-respected nonprofit. All year long on the campaign trail, self-awareness has seemed to elude him. “What you don’t want to do is repel people for no reason,” DeSantis told the room a little later.
Saturday’s speech marked the culmination of DeSantis’s 99-county tour of Iowa. The event may have been intended as a moment of triumph, but the crowd on this cold, dreary afternoon was, at approximately 400 attendees, not at capacity. Outside the venue, you could buy buttons that said RON ’24 HE’S KIND OF A BIG DEAL! with an illustration of DeSantis mashed up with Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy. Other merchandise leaned harder into DeSantis’s culture-warrior reputation: SOCIALISM SUCKS, ANNOY A LIBERAL WORK HARD BE HAPPY, CRITICAL RACE THEORY with a no-smoking slash through it, and DESANTISLAND with the Disney D.
Is this angle working? Despite his GOP fame and high-profile endorsements, his polling average is trending in the wrong direction. He has more or less staked his candidacy on winning Iowa. But now he’s almost tied with former U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley in the polls there, and elsewhere, for distant second place to former President Donald Trump. He may soon slip to third. His super PAC, Never Back Down, just fired its CEO, Kristin Davison, after nine days on the job. (She had taken over for the previous CEO, who had resigned around Thanksgiving, along with the group’s chair.) I asked Never Back Down what potential voters should make of all these changes. The group’s spokesperson sent a statement: “Never Back Down has the most organized, advanced caucus operation of anyone in the 2024 primary field, and we look forward to continuing that great work to help elect Gov. DeSantis the next President of the United States.”
One of Saturday’s warm-up speakers, Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, attempted to humanize DeSantis for her constituents. She gestured to the importance of DeSantis achieving the “full Grassley”—a nod to Iowa’s senior senator, Chuck Grassley, who visits all of the state’s 99 counties every year to meet voters. (DeSantis’s team temporarily rebranded the milestone as a “Full DeSantis,” with placards peppering the venue.) “Listen, Iowans want the opportunity to look you in the eye; they want the opportunity to size that candidate up just a little bit,” Reynolds told the room. “It’s also really important for the candidates—I’ve said it really helps them kind of do the retail politics.” She spoke of DeSantis and his wife taking in all of the state’s offerings over the past year—Albert the Bull, Casey’s breakfast pizza. “And I’m going to tell ya, I think they’re having some fun!” Reynolds said unconvincingly.
DeSantis did not appear to be fully enjoying himself in Newton. More than a few people have noted that his wife, Casey, is the more natural politician, and could herself be a stronger future candidate. As she introduced her husband on Saturday, he stood a few feet behind her, staring intensely into the back of her head. She was confident and effortless at the mic; Ron didn’t seem to know what to do with his eyes, or his mouth, or, especially, his hands. Clasp them loosely below his belly button? Put them on either side of his waist like Superman? He looked unsettled as he waited for her to finish.
When his turn to speak came, DeSantis began by trying to follow Reynolds’s lead. He recalled his visit to the Field of Dreams baseball field in Dubuque County. (“And our kids were there and everything like that.”) He fumbled the name of a famous bakery and was swiftly corrected by many members of the audience. He offered his affection for other Iowa staples: ice cream, cheese curds. “We brought a whole bunch of cheese curds back to the state of Florida, which was a lot of fun,” DeSantis proclaimed. No means of pandering was off limits. Iowa, he declared “will begin the revival of the United States of America.” He hinted that, as president, he’d even move the Department of Agriculture from Washington, D.C., to Iowa.
Watching DeSantis up close as he lumbers through these moments of his campaign is almost enough to elicit sympathy. One of Saturday’s attendees, Caleb Grossnickle, a 25-year-old cybersecurity analyst from Ames, told me that he found DeSantis endearing. “I mean, he does seem a little awkward at times. But I think, honestly, it just shows that he’s a normal human,” he said. “He’s just a normal guy who’s trying to run for president, trying to make change.” Grossnickle told me that he was also interested in Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is running as an independent.
One of DeSantis’s highest-profile Iowa surrogates, the evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats, was arguably the most captivating speaker on the bill. “Let me bathe this thing in prayer,” he said. He then launched into an invocation that ended with “Lord, when he does win the Iowa caucuses and when he does go through and win the early states, make people know that this is of you, by you, and for you, Lord.”
Vander Plaats pointed out that voting for DeSantis is not the same as voting “against Trump.” But he also preached the need for a candidate who “fears God,” adding that “the fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom.” That noble idea morphed into a jab. “We need somebody to know that they fear God; they don’t believe they are God.”
A 46-year-old attendee from Ottumwa, Iowa, named Jeremy had brought his daughter along to see DeSantis up close. He told me that he’d twice voted for Trump and would vote for him a third time if he gets the nomination, though he admitted he finds him “distasteful.” DeSantis, he added, is his favorite candidate, and “more of a classy person.”
Later in the afternoon, I approached Vander Plaats in the back of the room. I asked him about his line relating to the type of person who believes they are God. Vander Plaats said he was referring to “the left.” I also brought up how DeSantis seemed to lack interpersonal skills, and asked if he thought that was a fair criticism of the man he had endorsed. “I think it’s overhyped,” Vander Plaats said, but he didn’t outright dismiss the notion. “Right now, I think Americans want a real leader to get things done versus, you know, Hey, do I want to sit on the couch with them and watch a football game?”
Yet some people really do love him. In my conversations with attendees, many of them pointed to DeSantis’s follow-through as the core of his appeal. A 55-year-old supporter named Todd Lyons told me that he and his wife had driven four hours west from their home in Normal, Illinois, that morning to be there. They’d never seen DeSantis in the flesh. “He says he’ll do something and he does it,” Lyons said. “As opposed to with Trump, you see a tweet where he’s going to do something and talk about how amazing it’s going to be and then he wouldn’t follow through.” Even if DeSantis doesn’t get the nomination, Lyons told me he planned to write in the governor’s name on the ballot. Anne Wolford, a 74-year-old retiree from Grinnell, Iowa, told me that she had liked South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, but he had just recently dropped out, and now she was interested in DeSantis. “I think we’ve got to have somebody that’s got the gumption to go head-to-head with China, Russia, and North Korea. And I think with his military background, he can maybe achieve that.”
Two nights earlier, DeSantis exhibited his gumption in a TV debate with Governor Gavin Newsom of California. At one point, DeSantis brandished a “poop map” purportedly showing the places in San Francisco where human feces could be found on streets and sidewalks. (Practically the entire image was tinged brown.) In Iowa, DeSantis posited that Newsom was carrying out a shadow campaign for the presidency. “We cannot assume that they are actually gonna run [Joe] Biden,” he said. He seethed at the Democratic establishment. “We are not gonna be gaslit by people who think we’re dumb,” he said a little later.
During his stump speech, he spent a good deal of time talking about the pandemic. He promised that Anthony Fauci, now in retirement, would face a “reckoning” over all things COVID-19. But even the demonized Fauci serves as a symptom of a larger disease, in DeSantis’s worldview. The field of medicine, he warned, has been infected by a “woke ideology,” and Harvard Medical School doctors “basically take, like, a woke Hippocratic oath.” (DeSantis holds degrees from Harvard and Yale.) He also punched down, endorsing the idea of imposing fees on remittances that foreign workers send back to their home countries. He believes these are the ideas that will win him the presidency.
DeSantis attacks Trump more than most of his competitors (with the exception of Chris Christie), but he’s also assumed the role of Trump’s primary target. Nearly every day, the Trump campaign sends out press releases attacking DeSantis, with one recurring item that it calls the “kiss of death.” A sample from Friday mocked his stature: “KISS OF DEATH: Small Expectations, Smaller Candidate.” On Saturday morning, hours before DeSantis’s big achievement of stumping in every county, the Trump campaign sent out a preemptive press release: “Republican candidate for president Ryan Binkley, who is polling at 0%, outperformed Ron DeSantis by becoming the first person to visit all 99 counties in Iowa earlier this month.”
It’s hard to understand what DeSantis’s real plan is, as Trump is still so far ahead in the polls. In an emailed statement, DeSantis’s deputy campaign manager, David Polyansky, said, “The collective firepower of Team DeSantis remains unmatched” and that the campaign “will carry the support of the most robust turnout operation in modern Iowa history into success on January 15.” Even if DeSantis wins the Iowa caucuses or comes in second, though, that doesn’t necessarily predict a victory in the New Hampshire primary. That state’s motto—“Live free or die”—is out of sync with what DeSantis has done in Florida, using the government to impose book bans and a six-week abortion limit. If by some chance Trump were to lose New Hampshire, it would probably be to Haley, not to DeSantis—and such a victory would position Haley for more success in her home state of South Carolina.
In Newton, leaning against the rear wall was a 66-year-old man, in a Kangol-style hat and a University of Iowa pullover, named Vern Schnoebelen. He’s the lead singer and harmonica player of a band that had played the Thunderdome the night before. He told me that he and his friend had snuck into the VIP section, where the bar was, earlier that afternoon. He had come out on Saturday not because he loves DeSantis but simply because he lives nearby and this seemed like a big event. He told me that, come caucus time, if Trump is running away in the polls, he’ll intentionally support the candidate in third or fourth place to encourage them to stay active in the party. “I don’t want them to lose heart,” he said. “We never know what’s going to happen with Trump. Who knows what’s going to come out of the woodwork?”
He told me that he had voted for Trump twice, and would support whoever became the GOP nominee, Trump included. I asked whether anything about Trump’s various indictments bothered him. “No, I think it’s all a fallacy,” he said. “I think most of it’s made up.”
That’s what DeSantis is competing with. He’ll have to try not to lose heart.
While it’s common knowledge that citizens have very little influence on elected officials, The Onion asked U.S. politicians how their constituents feel about a ceasefire in Gaza, and this is what they said.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
“A cease what? I’ve never heard that word in my life.”
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
“My constituents routinely vote in favor of having blood on our hands.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
“Does AIPAC count as a constituent?”
Vice President Kamala Harris
Vice President Kamala Harris
“Am I a politician? Gee, that’s flattering.”
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
“One more word about a ceasefire, and I’m ordering Israel to bomb south Brooklyn.”
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT)
“Oh, while I’m at work the nanny is the one who looks after the constituents.”
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
“My constituents know I have been calling for a cease-ceasefire since day one.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
“Representatives are public servants. That means it’s my job to listen to what my constituents have to say, internalize it, and then do whatever I want.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
“I have genuinely not thought about another human being since 1998.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)
“When I got elected in 2014, my campaign pitch was ‘You wanna see a dead body?’”
Gov. Gavin Newsom Of California
Gov. Gavin Newsom Of California
“Constituents…constituents… Oh, you mean the blurred shapes I sometimes see before meetups with donors?”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
“Hmm… What is this ‘feel’?”
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)
“My Illinois colleague Dick Durbin, who called for a ceasefire, obviously has different constituents than I do.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
“I don’t know. I can’t hear frequencies coming out of the mouths of people who make below $400k.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
“They elected me to kill people, so that’s what I’m gonna do.”
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
“I have but one constituent, and their name is Lockheed Martin.”
Gov. Kathy Hochul Of New York
Gov. Kathy Hochul Of New York
“I know what they want. I just think they are stupid and don’t respect them. Make sense?”
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)
“A ceasefire is a sacred bond between one man and one woman. Anything else is a sin.”
Former President Barack Obama
Former President Barack Obama
“No constituents anymore, motherfuckers! You people can’t goddamn touch me! I can say whatever the hell I want. Fuck all of you!”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
“My term doesn’t expire until 2068.”
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO)
“Constituents? Oh, do you mean money? The money says to burn it to the ground.”
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH)
“I assume all my constituents were also given a full ride by the Federalist Society.”
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ)
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ)
“We often think about others so much that we forget to think about our own feelings. The question is, do I want a ceasefire?”
Gov. Greg Abbott Of Texas
Gov. Greg Abbott Of Texas
“Most of my constituents are guns, and they love firing. It’s the equivalent of orgasm to them.”
With the Palestinian death toll rapidly rising and conditions in Gaza deteriorating into a humanitarian crisis amid the Israeli invasion, The Onion asked politicians why they will not endorse a ceasefire, and this is what they said.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
“I haven’t gotten to experience a world war since my boyhood.”
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA)
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA)
“I lament even those momentary pauses in violence when IDF soldiers have to stop shooting to reload.”
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
“A ceasefire would send the message to Palestinians that we give a shit whether they live or die.”
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
“I have a perfect record when it comes to ethnic cleansing, and I’m not about to tarnish that now.”
Vice President Kamala Harris
Vice President Kamala Harris
“Well-behaved missiles seldom make history.”
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
“Last I checked, there were still some Palestinian civilians left.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
“An open-air prison actually sounds nice. What do I look like, some kind of abolitionist?”
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
“That would stop the genocidal momentum the IDF has built.”
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL)
“Because I’m making money off this. What don’t you understand?”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
“Shhh, keep your voice down. Saying that word in Texas is illegal.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
“The people of Gaza are free to start making campaign donations whenever they please.”
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA)
“Poked myself in the eye with a kebab skewer. Now all must pay.”
Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN)
Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN)
“Based on the last election, I figure my presidential campaign can only be helped by the absence of a strong stance on anything.”
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH)
“Ugh, just come back to bed. Can’t we go one night without getting into a screaming match?”
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA)
Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA)
“When you become a U.S. senator, they tell you that you’ll be legally castrated if you ever try to stop any wars.”
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL)
“I mean, if it were up to me, they’d be air-striking the shit out of the continental U.S. as well.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
“That’s actually a good idea. If we can trick the Palestinians into thinking we’re not going to fire anymore, they’ll be easier to shoot!”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would never allow the U.S. to finance the Israeli military if it wasn’t perfectly safe.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
“I don’t want to lose my widespread appeal among moderates.”
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ)
“I support firing both missiles and a message of love at Palestine.”
The GOP-led House committee on the alleged “weaponization” of the federal government kicks off Thursday with its first public hearing with a witness list that suggests Republicans on the committee will push a popular narrative among conservatives that has been disputed by federal officials.
The hearing will be split into two sessions, featuring a swath of current and former lawmakers, former FBI officials and legal experts. They plan to discuss allegations of how the government has been weaponized against Republicans, as well as the general belief among some conservatives that federal officials and mainstream media have been working to silence the right.
“We’re focused on the whole weaponization of government, and the idea that the government is not working for the American people,” subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan told CNN. “The government is supposed to protect the First Amendment, not have, as Mr. (Jonathan) Turley said, ‘censorship by surrogate,’” he said, referencing one of the witnesses slated for Thursday’s hearing who is a George Washington University Law Center professor.
The Ohio Republican continued, “I’m sure those will be some of the things that will come up in the course of the hearing,” he added, referencing a line from one of the witnesses GOP members have called.
Democrats on the panel, however, tell CNN they reject the premise of the weaponization subcommittee itself – and much of their time will be spent disputing GOP messaging.
“We have an overall strategy, which is to debunk the misrepresentations that are sure to be coming from it,” said Rep. Dan Goldman, a freshman Democrat from New York. “My understanding is that Sens. Grassley and Johnson are going to speak, and I’m glad they are. I hope they talk about how they used their Senate committees to weaponize Russian propaganda and disinformation in 2020.”
“I think our intention is to make sure that the American people are aware of the actual truth of the matter, and not whatever partisan misinformation that Republicans are going to peddle,” Goldman added.
Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, is being called as one of the Democrats’ witnesses. He told CNN that “one basic question is whether weaponization is the target of the committee or if weaponization is the purpose of the committee” – previewing a potential line of attack.
In a new memo released Thursday ahead of the subcommittee’s first hearing, the White House called the subpanel a “Fox News reboot of the House Un-American Activities Committee” and “a political stunt that weaponizes Congress to carry out the priorities of extreme MAGA Republicans in Congress.”
White House Oversight spokesman Ian Sams writes that the committee “plans to weaponize the MAGA agenda against their perceived political enemies” and is “choosing to make it their top priority to go down the rabbit hole of debunked conspiracy theories about a ‘deep state’ instead of taking a deep breath and deciding to work with the President and Democrats in Congress to improve Americans’ everyday lives.”
The first panel of witnesses to testify before the committee include GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, as well as former congresswoman from Hawaii and ex-Democrat Tulsi Gabbard.
The lawmakers are only slated to deliver opening statements and are not expected to answer any questions while testifying, sources familiar with the committee’s plans tell CNN.
Gabbard has regularly appeared on Fox News since leaving Congress and frequently uses the network to accuse the FBI and the Justice Department of targeting political opponents of the Biden administration.
Grassley and Johnson have both previously attacked the Justice Department for how it has handled its investigation into Hunter Biden and its approach to addressing threats against school administrators.
Grassley has also accused the Justice Department of seeking to criminalize the First Amendment right of parents to protest school policies. The Justice Department has denied doing so, pointing to a line in the memo acknowledging that “spirited debate about policy matters is protected under or Constitution.”
The witnesses’ previous comments regarding the politization of the Biden Justice Department suggest that the committee plans to push a narrative that is popular among the right, but has been publicly disputed by the FBI. There is little public evidence supporting such claims, which Jordan says are backed up by unnamed whistleblowers. Some allegations have been debunked by fact-checkers or news reports, and Jordan has falsely claimed for years that there is an anti-GOP “deep state” within the FBI.
Democrats, meanwhile, plan to showcase Raskin’s testimony, who is the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee – which is investigating a series of polarizing issues such as Hunter Biden and the former and current presidents’ possession of classified documents. Raskin, a former member of the House select committee on the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill insurrection, and a key fixture in both of former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trials, has been a crucial messenger for the left in pushing back against the GOP’s claims and controversial probes.
The second panel of witnesses will feature former FBI special agents Nicole Parker and Thomas Baker, as well as Turley and the Raben Group’s Elliot Williams.
Parker wrote an op-ed last month detailing how she left the bureau after over 10 years of service because she believed it became “politically weaponized.”
Baker, meanwhile, published a book in December 2022 titled, “The Fall of the FBI: How a Once Great Agency Became a Threat to Democracy.”
Turley was a prominent figure during Trump’s impeachment trials often referenced by the right.
Williams, a CNN analyst, is appearing on behalf of the Democrats. Williams previously served as deputy assistant attorney general for legislative affairs at the Department of Justice, where worked to secure Senate confirmation for both Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly, a Democratic member of the subcommittee, cast doubt on the effectiveness of Republicans’ strategy, telling CNN, “I fail to see what they think they’re going to accomplish by those kinds of witnesses. … I don’t know that that adds anything to their credibility or making their case. I’ll leave it at that.”
But Democrats are also cognizant of one potential disadvantage ahead of Thursday’s hearing – the fact they have not yet met as a group while the Republicans have. Connolly told CNN that, given they were just named as member of the panel last week, they have not yet had the opportunity to begin preparing for the onslaught of investigations GOP members have planned.
GOP subcommittee members told CNN the purpose of the first hearing is largely to outline the panel’s investigate plans in the months ahead, and set the stage for what viewers should anticipate from the weekly-hearings the committee is hoping to hold.
“Chairman Jordan wants to introduce people to what the committee hopes to accomplish, and the scope of the problem. Having these senators speak with authority helps set it. They won’t be questioned as witnesses, but they are testifying as to their observations,” GOP Rep. Darrell Issa said.
“I’m not sure we’re going to learn what we need to learn about what has happened inside government agencies in sufficient detail with these witnesses, but I think they can kind of cast the vision,” Republican subcommittee member Dan Bishop of North Carolina told CNN.
Bishop said he hopes the work of this panel will pave the way for legislation to address what he claimed were agencies “going off rogue.”
Jordan and House Judiciary Committee staff have met with series of whistleblowers behind closed doors this week for transcribed interviews regarding claims about the politicization of the Justice Department. The interviews will serve as the basis for much of the subcommittee’s probe, sources with direct knowledge of the interviews tell CNN.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress has failed so far to create a path to residency for Afghans who worked alongside U.S. soldiers in America’s longest war, pushing into limbo tens of thousands of refugees who fled Taliban control more than two years ago and now live in the United States.
Some lawmakers had hoped to resolve the Afghans’ immigration status as part of a year-end government funding package. But that effort failed, punting the issue into the new year, when Republicans will take power in the House. The result is grave uncertainty for refugees now facing an August deadline for action from Congress before their temporary parole status expires.
Nearly 76,000 Afghans who worked with American soldiers since 2001 as translators, interpreters and partners arrived in the U.S. on military planes after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. The government admitted the refugees on a temporary parole status as part of Operation Allies Welcome, the largest resettlement effort in the country in decades, with the promise of a path to a life in the U.S. for their service.
Mohammad Behzad Hakkak, 30, is among those Afghans waiting for resolution, unable to work or settle down in his new community in Fairfax, Virginia, under his parole status. Hakkak worked as a partner to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan as a human rights defender in the now-defunct Afghan government.
“We lost everything in Afghanistan” after the Taliban returned to power, he said. “And now, we don’t know about our future here.”
For the past year, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, backed by veterans organizations and former military officials, has pushed Congress to pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would prevent the Afghans from becoming stranded without legal residency status when their two years of humanitarian parole expire in August 2023. It would enable qualified Afghans to apply for U.S. citizenship, as was done for refugees in the past, including those from Cuba, Vietnam and Iraq.
Supporters of the proposal thought it might clear Congress after the November election because it enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support. But they said their efforts were thwarted by one man: Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees immigration issues.
“We’ve never seen support for a piece of legislation like this and it not pass,” said Shawn Van Diver, a Navy veteran and head of #AfghanEvac, a coalition supporting Afghan resettlement efforts. “It’s really frustrating to me that one guy from Iowa can block this.”
Grassley has argued for months that the bill as written goes too far by including evacuees beyond those “who were our partners over the last 20 years,” providing a road to residency without the proper screening required.
“First of all, people that help our country should absolutely have the promise that we made to them,” Grassley told The Associated Press. “There’s some disagreement on the vetting process. That’s been a problem and that hasn’t been worked out yet.”
Proponents of the legislation reject those concerns. More than 30 retired military officers, including three former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote Congress saying the bill not only “furthers the national security interests of the United States,” but is also ”a moral imperative.” The White House also has called for passage.
Biden’s press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre said, in mid-December that it is “important to take care of Afghan allies who took care of us.”
The proposal, if passed, would provide a streamlined, prioritized adjustment process for Afghan nationals who supported the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. The Homeland Security Department would adjust the status of eligible evacuees to provide them with lawful permanent resident status after they have had rigorous vetting and screening procedures. It also would improve and expand ways to protection for those left behind and at risk in Afghanistan.
“The Afghan refugees are a very high priority and had some good Republican support, but unfortunately, the Republican leadership blocked it,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., recently told reporters. “These are people who risked their lives for our soldiers and for our country, and we should be rewarding them as we have done in the past.”
Several congressional aides explained the holdup on the bill by pointing to a seven-page, single-spaced letter, obtained by The Associated Press, that Grassley’s office circulated to all 50 Republican senators in August. The memo outlined his issues with the proposal, resulting in months of back-and-forth negotiation as the sponsors of the bill tried to address them.
U.S. national security and military officials have outlined the stringent screening process that evacuees went through before arriving on American soil. Those security screenings, conducted in Europe and the Middle East, included background checks with both biographic information and biometric screenings using voiceprints, iris scans, palm prints and facial photos.
But Republicans say the vetting system is not fail-safe. They pointed to a September report from Homeland Security’s inspector general that said at least two people from Afghanistan who were paroled into the country “posed a risk to national security and the safety of local communities.”
As a result, mandatory in-person interviews for all Afghan applicants were written into the bill as well as requirements that relevant agencies brief Congress on proposed vetting procedures before putting them in place.
Despite strengthening the vetting process over months of negotiations, the bill never made it out of the Judiciary Committee and failed to win inclusion in the just-passed $1.7 trillion government funding bill.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., was one of the lead sponsors of the bill. “If this is what we do when they come to our country, and we don’t have their backs,’” she said, “what message are we sending to the rest of the world who stand with our soldiers, who protect them, who provide security for their families?”
But Klobuchar and the lead Republican co-sponsor, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, pledged to bring the bill back up again in the new session of Congress starting in January.
“This is the right thing to do,” Graham, an Air Force veteran, told the Senate recently. “There’s no other ending that would be acceptable to me.”
He added: “The people who were there with us in the fight, that are here in America, need to stay. This will be their new home.”
Most people in the United States appear to share that sentiment.
A survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research taken the month after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan found that 72% of respondents regarded giving the Afghans refuge from any Taliban retaliation as a duty and a necessary coda of the nearly 20-year war.
My father was a registered independent for most of my childhood because he resented having to choose. But choosing was not hard for my mother. She was an MSNBC devotee, a liberal Pennsylvania transplant who took her adopted role as an Iowa Democrat seriously. She wanted me to take politics seriously, too.
Which is why, on a freezing January night in 2000, Mom zipped up our coats, buckled 7-year-old me into our white Toyota Previa, and drove us along five miles of gravel to the nearest town: Danville, population 919. It would be my very first Iowa caucus, with New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley and Vice President Al Gore vying for the Democratic nomination. Mom thought Bradley had more personality, so she stood, with me at her side, in his corner of the Danville Elementary School gymnasium. When Bradley was considered not “viable,” per caucus rules, Mom walked us over to Gore’s group, and he was soon declared the winner. Mom recounted all of this recently; I remember little from that night, except the outlines of bulky puffer jackets and a general tingliness at being the only kid in a room full of adults doing something that seemed important.
Accuse me of harboring a pro-caucus bias and you’d be right; I love them and I always have. A caucus is like a primary, but not: There’s no secret ballot. You demonstrate your preference for a candidate by physically moving your body to a different chair or another corner of the gym. Only a few states do it this way, and “this way” looks different everywhere.
After that night in 2000, Mom took me with her at each opportunity. Every four or eight years, we held hands and navigated icy sidewalks after dark. We explored student-less school hallways and cozy church luncheon rooms. We stood under basketball hoops and listened to neighbors argue about candidates as though their opinions really mattered, because that night they actually did.
Over the past half century, Iowa’s prominence in politics became part of its identity—something the state was known for besides its acres of corn and millions of hogs. Iowa doesn’t have any major-league teams to root for, or the kind of glittering cities that draw visitors from all corners of the world. But the caucuses helped make Iowa special—and on the national political stage, they made it relevant.
Still, it’s possible to hold two truths in tension. The caucus is part of Iowa’s identity, and deeply rooted in my own, yet the process has never really been fair—not to many Iowans, and not to other Americans. So, even though I felt a sharp pang of sorrow earlier this month when President Joe Biden suggested that my home state should give up its spot on the early-voting roster, I wasn’t surprised. Most Iowans have seen this day coming. Some are more prepared than others.
Thanks to the caucus, I never thought it was strange that I’d met Barack Obama twice before I turned 20. Nothing seemed shocking about Newt Gingrich showing up to speak at the restaurant where my parents have happy hour on Fridays. I was only slightly unsettled to discover that my high-school friend was having a summertime fling with a political reporter I knew from D.C.
For 50 years, these meet-cutes and history-making appearances have been normal, tradition. Iowans heard Howard Dean make the animalistic roar that supposedly ended his campaign. They sheltered in place with Elizabeth Warren during a tornado. They watched Fred Thompson rolling around the state fair in style, and bore witness to John Delaney’s sad ride down the Giant Slide.
Iowa’s prominence in the process dates back to the 1970s, when the caucuses helped put George McGovern, and later Jimmy Carter, on the proverbial map. State law requires that Iowa holds its caucuses eight days before the first primary happens, hence the quadrennial Iowa–New Hampshire pairing. Most people know this by now; it’s the process they don’t get—the appeal of the thing. The magic.
That’s how many Iowans see the caucus: a messy, intimate project that represents politics in its most sublime form—a dose of pure democracy smack-dab in the middle of Iowa’s fields and farms. I’m not sure about all that. But the caucuses are intimate. You discuss electability with your legs wedged beneath a lunch table designed for children. You look your neighbor in the eye and tell him why he’s wrong. On a school night! During one of his first-ever caucuses, my father, sitting at Senator Bernie Sanders’s table, was approached by a neighbor from Hillary Clinton’s. “Didn’t you hear that Sanders was a conscientious objector?” the man asked. Dad replied that he didn’t realize it was a liability for a presidential candidate to have a conscience. I remember thinking that this was a good comeback.
As a sophomore in college, I viewed the caucus as a noble process, probably because I was reading a lot of Hannah Arendt for class. The German philosopher wrote often about the polis—from which politics is derived—and in The Human Condition she defined it as “the organization of the people as it arises out of acting and speaking together.” The caucus, I thought. How romantic. But at the time, I was unaware—being young and able-bodied and generally self-absorbed—that caucuses don’t allow all people to act and speak together.
Mailing in your candidate preferences has never been an option in the caucuses. And many Iowans are not free at seven on a weeknight in January or February. That includes people working shift jobs, people working late, people with little kids, people with relatives to take care of, people with disabilities, people who don’t drive at night, people who have important plans, people who are simply out of town. Over the summer, state Democratic officials, in a bid to keep their place, finally did propose an absentee option. The DNC was apparently unimpressed.
The other most common criticism of the caucus is that Iowa is too white to make a decision that sets the political tempo for the rest of the country. Iowans would counter that their state proved to be the launching pad for America’s first Black president, but the point is well taken. In 2020, Biden finished fourth in mostly white Iowa, and it took the Black voters of South Carolina to push him to the front of the pack.
Iowa’s critics were vindicated that year, when the caucus became synonymous with chaos. The actual process went relatively smoothly, but a faulty new app and jammed phone lines disrupted the reporting of the results. That year, I’d invited my boyfriend to come to my hometown while I covered the caucuses. I’d wanted him to be charmed by the quaint small-town-ness of it all; instead, I was embarrassed. The entire state was. That was the final straw. This summer, a Democratic National Committee panel required every state to make the case for going early in the primary season. Earlier this month, with Biden’s support, the committee passed a proposal that would reorder which states vote first: South Carolina would start, and Michigan and Georgia would be part of the first five. Iowa was not on the list.
Long-time party activists are suffering varying degrees of disappointment at the news. Some lean more toward acceptance. “We’ve taken our role seriously. I think that it was probably time to move on,”Kurt Meyer, a retiree who’s led caucuses for years in northeast Mitchell County, told me. “As an Iowan who cares about such things, I’m sorry to see it go … but it’s okay.” Then he chuckled: “It’s like an aging ball player saying, It was a good runandI enjoyed those World Series games, but now I’m ready to watch from the comfort of the den with a drink in my hand.”
Others are left with a bitter taste. They have some arguments in their favor, after all: Candidates with no money can travel across Iowa easily and purchase ads cheaply. The caucus process itself allows people to rank their preferences and enables coalition-building among supporters of different candidates. “I don’t think people understood the nuance that was there, and that might be the party’s biggest failure,” Sandy Dockendorff, a longtime caucus leader in the southeast, told me. The result, she said, is that people in flyover country will feel even more neglected than they already do.
“That’s telling a lot of rural folks—a lot of the breadbasket—that we don’t matter,” Dockendorff said. “That’ll be felt for generations.”
Three years ago, I wrote a story about the Iowa Democratic Party’s plan to offer “satellite” caucuses that would let some people with work commitments or disabilities participate remotely. I was critical of the proposal because it wouldn’t solve all of the caucus’s inclusivity problems. After my article ran, a well-known Iowa labor leader emailed me. “I can tell you really dislike Iowa!” he wrote. The note was short, and I was crushed. My chest hurt. Had I betrayed my state with a single, 1,300-word article? But I think I understand how he was feeling. I get it now.
Americans outside the Midwest may soon forget about the Butter Cow. Iowa will take an economic hit if the state doesn’t go first in the Democrats’ nominating process. The restaurants serving tenderloins and chicken lips to eager-to-please politicians won’t make as much; the hotels and bars frequented by the national press corps will suffer. But the real reason these changes will be hard for many Iowans to accept is that a whole lot of pride is tied up in this thing. I hear it when I’m talking on the phone with my parents, and when I’m listening to people like Dockendorff and Meyer reminisce. Caucus advocates claim that Iowans are perfectly suited for the part because they are a particularly discerning people. I don’t think that’s true. But Iowans do take the role seriously—at least the ones who participate.
Iowa Democrats have invested decades of effort into hosting bright-eyed, young campaign staffers from California and Massachusetts in their homes. They’ve given rookie candidates with few resources the space to make a case and a name for themselves. That all of this might soon be ripped away by a faceless group of people in D.C.—who seem to harbor, if not ill will, then at least a light disdain toward Iowa—is hard to swallow. Identity is a tricky thing.
No one is totally sure what happens next. The DNC will vote on the new order in February, and this summer, states will submit plans for the upcoming election. Iowa will have to decide how to play it. If state Democrats agree to move the caucus, in theory that breaks state law; the state attorney general could sue them. Some party leaders seem eager to say “Screw it!”and hold a first-in-the-nation caucus anyway, which could mean that Iowa’s delegates aren’t counted at the national convention. Candidates who campaign for such an unsanctioned event could face repercussions. But whatever happens, after committee members vote and state leaders draw their line in the sand, the Iowa caucus probably won’t look the same.
I don’t get to decide what the best outcome would be, for the state or for the process itself. But for all of my life and 20 years before that, Iowa has enjoyed a very particular feeling—a heady mix of relevance and attention—that has become enmeshed, irrevocably, into Iowans’ sense of their home and themselves. I learned to cherish that feeling as a 7-year-old. Maybe it’s time for other people, in some other state, to feel it, too. It will be hard to let go.
After running to the polls to “vote” and feel like they have power, all the little sheep went home to watch their little streaming shows, eat their fast food, and consume all manner of societal opiates, keeping the flock passive and ripe for slaughter.
The long-serving Senator Chuck Grassley is, for lack of a comparison closer to home, Iowa’s Queen Elizabeth II. This is partly a matter of sheer longevity. At 89, the senator is older than John Deere’s first self-propelled combine, which appeared in 1947. He was 26 when Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and the Big Bopper died in a plane crash in 1959. The year Kevin Costner filmed Field of Dreams in Dyersville, 1988, Grassley was 55.
Age aside, Grassley is simply a part of Iowa’s political furniture—many voters in the state have never known a time without him. When I was born, in 1993, he’d been the state’s senior senator for 12 years; he has held elected office—first in the state House, then in the U.S. House and Senate—since my father was 4 years old. For many Iowans, the day when Grassley would not be their senator has been scarcely imaginable.
Until now, maybe. Every six years, Iowa Democrats have inched closer to unseating the seven-term Republican senator. This time, they seem closer than ever: A recent poll showed Grassley leading 64-year-old Mike Franken only narrowly, suggesting that this will be Grassley’s toughest reelection fight in four decades.
Twelve years ago, he defeated Roxanne Conlin by 31 points. In 2016, he beat Patty Judge by 24. This year’s race against Franken didn’t seem particularly newsworthy until earlier this month, when Selzer & Company, Iowa’s most respected polling firm, released results from a survey showing that Grassley was leading Franken by a mere three percentage points. “It says to me that Franken is running a competent campaign and has a shot to defeat the seemingly invincible Chuck Grassley—previously perceived to be invincible,” J. Ann Selzer, the president of Selzer & Company, told the Des Moines Register.
The poll is only a snapshot in time, and it could certainly prove wrong. But it’s reasonable to assume, given other polling since then, that Franken is closer to unseating Grassley than any challenger before him. The most obvious reason for this is that Iowans may finally be noticing how old their senator is—a veritable crinoid in the creek bed of Iowa politics. Although Grassley seems healthy—he runs several miles each morning and kicks off campaign events by doing push-ups onstage—more than 60 percent of the Selzer poll’s respondents said his age was a real concern. “There are a lot of voters between 75 and 85 who think, I wouldn’t want to be in the United States Senate right now. I wouldn’t want to have that life; why does he?” Jeff Link, an Iowa Democratic strategist, told me.
For the first time in the history of this particular poll, more Iowan respondents disapprove of Grassley’s job performance than approve of it. Pair that dissatisfaction with the fact that Franken is a strong candidate. A retired Navy vice admiral from deep-red northwest Iowa, the Democrat could provide a nonthreatening alternative for the independents and Republicans who are reluctant to give Grassley another term. Franken “is energetic, very smart—almost loquacious—but he knows what he’s talking about,” David Oman, a state Republican strategist and a former co-chair of the Iowa GOP, told me. Despite that positive assessment, the recent emergence of an assault allegation from a former campaign manager might cool Democrats’ enthusiasm. (Franken has denied the allegation, and police have closed the case, calling it “unfounded.”)
Undergirding all of these factors is the plain reality that Iowa, like the rest of the country, is becoming more partisan and more polarized. For 30 years, Iowans sent both Grassley and a Democrat, Tom Harkin, who retired in 2014, to the Senate at every chance, no matter which party was in the White House or who was occupying the governor’s mansion. The consensus among Iowans was that such a balance was ideal. But the days of winning big by being part of that balance are over.
Grassley has changed, too. Back then, he was viewed as a kind of farmers-first independent, interested chiefly in restraining federal spending, whistleblower protections, and promoting free trade. Democrats liked him—and often voted for him. In 1991, Grassley was one of just two Republicans to vote against the Gulf War. “That made him seem above partisanship,” David Yepsen, a former reporter for the Des Moines Register, told me. Grassley’s image, among Iowans, was of a man who operated above the partisan fray.
That gloss began to wear off in 2009. At first, Grassley seemed a willing negotiating partner on President Barack Obama’s plans for health-care reform; he worked for months on a bipartisan bill. But he hadn’t bargained for how unpopular the Affordable Care Act would be with his party’s base. During a tour of central Iowa that summer, Grassley was mobbed by Republicans and Tea Partiers who rejected the plan. He buckled under the pressure, abandoned the talks, and ultimately voted against the final bill. “He’d never been treated that way by his own party. It changed him,” Yepsen said. “It made him mindful that there’s a new kind of conservative out there, a new generation coming on—the populists.” And he responded accordingly.
In the ensuing years, Grassley came to recognize that there were fewer and fewer points to be earned by working across the aisle. In 2016, as the chair of the Judiciary Committee, he was party to the Senate’s refusal to give Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland a hearing, and along with Republican leadership, he held open more than 100 seats on the federal bench during the final months of the Obama administration for Donald Trump to fill. “You can’t underestimate Democrats in Iowa watching his leadership in the Judiciary Committee putting all these conservatives on the Court, and seeing them now do their thing on the Dobbs decision,” Yepsen said. “Conservatives love it. But it makes him much more of a partisan.”
Whether Grassley would support the candidacy of Donald Trump was initially an open question. The womanizing, scandal-plagued Republican presidential nominee seemed, after all, to be the Iowa senator’s bizarro opposite. Yet Grassley, like most others in the GOP, fell in line. He has stuck by Trump through vulgar comments and allegations. In 2019, Grassley—an actual author of the 1989 Whistleblower Protection Act—defended Trump’s firing of the whistleblower and impeachment witness Alexander Vindman. Lately, Grassley has broken from his party only a handful of times, including to gently push back on some of Trump’s “America First” protectionist trade policies and to support the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill. The senator seems altogether untroubled by Trump’s effort to discredit the 2020 election, and continues to appear alongside him at rallies.
“The way that [Grassley] didn’t stand up for much of anything is emblematic of the Republican Party in the years of Trump,” Bill Kristol, the editor at large of The Bulwark, told me. “People you thought would be independent just ended up going along.”
Nowadays, the way Iowans view Grassley simply reflects their politics, not some old-timey desire for balance and comity. Democrats see him as an utter disappointment—a caricature of the man they may once have disagreed with but at least respected. Some Republicans are pleased with the careful line he’s walked, embracing Trump while hanging on to moderates. For other Republicans, Grassley is not nearly MAGA enough. This year, for the first time in his Senate career, Grassley faced a primary challenger. Jim Carlin, a state senator who has criticized Grassley for voting to certify the results of the 2020 election, earned 26 percent of the primary vote.
Given this transformation in how Iowans regard Grassley, defeat at the hands of a Democrat is more plausible than it’s ever been. More plausible, but still not likely. The Selzer poll may have given Franken a jolt of momentum, including a burst of Hail Mary fundraising, but the state is reddening and the gap in party registration is wide and growing: The Iowa GOP has roughly 88,000 more registered voters this year than the Iowa Democratic Party, according to the Iowa secretary of state’s office. In 2020, that advantage was only about 20,000. This gap, combined with the historical precedent of higher Republican turnout in off-year elections, seems likely to add up to a Grassley victory. The numbers are “hugely problematic,” Jeff Link, the Democratic strategist, said—even for a three-star admiral.
A world without Chuck Grassley in power is one in which most Iowans have never actually lived. That may be why “Faith in adversity” has recently become the unofficial motto of the state’s Democrats. This year, they even decided to put it on a sign. Orange placards dapple grassy lawns throughout Iowa, each bearing a message of hopeful conviction—We believe Michael Franken will defeat Chuck Grassley, the signs say—as though they can speak such a mammoth upset into existence.
A North-South rail superhighway may make Iowa “Roll-Over” Country
BNSF
A $31 billion merger between Canadian Pacific and the Kansas Southern Railways is roiling Iowa’s hotly contested U.S. Senate race, where just three percentage points separate Iowa Senate candidate Admiral Mike Franken from the long-time incumbent, Senator Chuck Grassley.
Franken, who worked on railroad issues while a military officer, is concerned that the merger risks making his oft-characterized “fly-over” state into a “roll-over” state. He is worried that, as the railways buy local acquiescence, dangling cash and minor rail improvements before Iowa’s hard-pressed riverside communities, the new railway superhighway will degrade Iowa’s quality of life.
The big merger, of course, is a national economic boon for Canada, creating the first direct, single-line railway between Canada and Mexico. But, in Iowa, voters are upset that the supersized railway will channel all the north-south rail traffic to a single-track-bed along much of the Mississippi River, subjecting Iowa’s reinvigorating riverside towns to an enormous amount of rail traffic as long trains roar through.
The problem goes beyond Iowa. Nationwide, the railroads are simply outgrowing their original tracks. Once a civic glue, tying small communities together, modern American railroads have aggregated into massive cross-country powerhouses, intent only on moving massive amounts of cargo across the country. “Roll-through” country gets left behind. Canadian Pacific and the Kansas Southern Railways merger will not do much to expand Iowa’s rail access, but will grow local rail traffic by up to four-fold.
To do this, the two railways expect to use Iowa’s old railbeds, appropriating tracks that still wind through Iowan town centers—Though towns with poorly controlled railway crossings and few railway overpasses. The increased train traffic, longer trains and bigger rolling-stock will wear down Iowa’s fragile and aging town infrastructure and increase the danger of accidents. And since tax advantages favor laying new tracks, towns will engage in a cat and mouse game with the railroads, as old rail lines subjected to intensive super-train use must have far more extensive inspections to assure Iowa voters that railway companies are keeping rails safe and aren’t just letting old rail lines decay for a small gain on Tax Day.
Until modern times, railways were always tightly integrated into Midwest towns. Iowan villages either sprung up around rail crossroads or lied, begged, and stole to get railways to lay a track through town. Back in the 1930s, back when Chuck Grassley, Iowa’s 89-year-old “Senior” Senator was born, railroads were commercial engines and community-building powerhouses. Little trains weaved through the center of every Iowan burg and village, knitting Iowans and Iowa businesses together.
Mike Franken worries about the civic cost of absorbing cross-country rail traffic
Jason Walsmith
Rail Superhighway, Meet Urban Village:
Iowa’s new railway superhighway risks degrading the quality of life for a significant number of Iowans. Over half a million Iowa voters—some 20% of the Iowan electorate—live in Mississippi River towns and hamlets. The list of historic communities impacted by the merger—Keokuk, Burlington, Fort Madison, Muscatine, Davenport, Dubuque, Bettendorf, Clinton, Bellevue, Guttenberg, Lansing, Harpers Ferry and others—comprise the future of Iowa.
Rather than modernize the railbed, sending trains down safer, high-speed tracks built outside Iowa cities and towns, the big train companies will keep using an old riverside rail bed that, very often, cuts river towns in two, severing their connection to the Mississippi.
The timing couldn’t be worse. America is rediscovering the Mississippi. Rail companies are laying claim to Iowa’s riverfront just as Viking River Cruises is set to begin regular river service, calling at three Iowa river cities. Soon, tourists, the second they depart from Viking’s modern riverboats, will need to contend with strings of big freight trains. Freight traffic will make efforts to add more passenger rail service to the Mississippi river basin untenable. Other efforts to build livable communities around the riverfront will suffer as the freight traffic generates more local noise and disruption than ever before.
While Franken acknowledges rail superhighways are efficient and do a great job of moving freight, he notes that they can be tremendously disruptive to the communities they pass through. And it is about to get worse. Right now, the average train length is about 1.2 miles, but, with new technology, the trains are set to grow—Union Pacific UNP even tested a 3.5-mile-long behemoth in 2010. And as train operators continue pressing for better margins, the longer, faster, and more frequent the train, the more money a railroad can make. But the rail profits come with a cost. Air and noise pollution are irritants to nearby homeowners, businesses, and environmentalists. Heavier train cars risk the foundations to the older buildings usually found along rail lines, as well.
It’s not just a matter for the folks abutting the rail line. Busy freight lines disrupt entire communities. The trains themselves can generate community-splitting traffic jams, stopping and starting at random. Without local ordinances to prevent abuse, super-sized trains can be left to sit, blocking town streets for hours. The stress leads to dangerous behaviors. In Iowa, train-racing is already commonplace, as locals rush to get across the tracks before a train arrives. That habit will only get worse.
The international rail chokepoints become regional security challenges as well. In times of tension, rival states, terrorists, and cyber criminals will relish opportunities to disrupt the Canada-to-Mexico rail line. Narco-traffickers and smugglers may jump at a chance to speed their wares into the upper Midwest, setting up shop where mid-sized communities, overwhelmed by the rail traffic, are unready to handle collateral challenges of customs enforcement and freight monitoring.
To address rail traffic and security problems, communities are often left to face down big rail companies on their own. By pressing for better security, speed limits, better crossing controls, horn use reduction and traffic changes, old railbeds can still safely support high traffic patterns, but Iowa towns aren’t well equipped to make these arguments. To big rail companies, anything that forces big trains to slow down becomes a problem, and there’s a significant risk that small municipalities may, in the future, see their rights to control local rail constrained by federal regulation.
The real solution is to build dedicated high-speed rail lines, appropriate for mega-train use. It would move the massive amount of through-traffic out of small, Midwest towns, speeding cross-country commerce. Let the older, more urban-integrated rail lines support local traffic, passenger trains, and other, more disaggregated freight.
The Lac Megantic derailment is an example of what can happen when trains and towns mix.
Copyright 2013 AP. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Safety And Security Is A Big Deal
Safety is another challenge for small Iowa river towns. Aside from the speed, railway cars are far larger than they once were. And with bigger freight cars, urban derailments become enormously scary things. At just a couple miles per hour, the inertia wrapped up in a simple grain car can rip apart a building.
A grain car derailment is the least of Iowa’s worries. The merger-driven pulse of speedy north-south traffic will carry a lot of petrochemical products from Canada’s shale sands. If things go bad on the tracks, toxic and flammable cargoes can destroy towns. It has happened before. In 2013, a train derailment leveled the small Canadian town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
And with much of the proposed north-south rail superhighway trundling on or over the Mississippi River, near state borders, the security and emergency response challenge becomes far more complex for the area’s underfunded and unready first responders.
Even worse, the U.S. government has yet to fully integrate local rail safety with river transit and river water levels. In 2021, south of Spechts Ferry, Iowa, a 1.5 mile-long coal train slammed into an encroaching barge that was sheltering along the river bank. While the rail company had done everything right, updating navigational charts of the nearby rail line, the integration effort still failed. Two locomotives and ten hopper cars went off the tracks, with six entering the river—which was, given the river’s water level at the time, less than ten feet from the rail line.
To keep the Midwest’s waterfront viable, America’s nascent north-south railway superhighway needs to be moved out of towns, into a modern, safe railbed. But moving a rail line is an expensive, long-term process. Instead, railway executives are buying out Iowa’s cash-strapped communities, gaining access for comparative peanuts. Rather than seek a unified, long-term and regional solution, Iowa communities that don’t know what they are agreeing to are acceding to a railway superhighway for a few million dollars, getting little more than some better signage and some modest track improvements.
The rail superhighway needs a federal solution. Franken has an advanced vision of regional economic collaboration as well as building wider awareness of Iowa’s contributions to the global economy. To him, this is an opportunity, but only if done right. “Cleaner fuels, additional electrification of locomotives, tech-enabled regulation enforcement, improved GPS traffic management, and better focus on minimizing the disruptive aspects of trains is the long-term goal for these big, commodity-oriented rail lines. But Dubuque, Davenport, and other communities most affected here in Iowa should united to demand rail bypasses to their communities. Large, long, and heavy freight and petroleum-ladened trains should then be routed to those newly constructed bypasses, so they can get to where they are going faster and with less risk” said Franken in a telephone interview.
In the interim, Franken, if elected, will seek funding to improve Eastern Iowa’s emergency response capabilities to cover potential contingencies, but “the long-term effort is to get more speedy trains linking the Midwest together,” said Franken.
Franken also wants to reform the Surface Transportation Board, a powerful independent federal board that has wide economic regulatory oversight over railroads in the United States.
In a discussion, Franken was clear that America needs better rail, but he saw no need for America’s new north-south supertrains to turn Iowa’s Mississippi waterfront into “roll-over” country as well. Though there’s little immediate relief in sight, Franken sees better, safer rail lines as a good thing for Iowa.
For Franken, it’s a simple solution. With a little help from Congress, America can both benefit from speedy, super-fast freight, while, at the same time, keep Iowa development going without hurting Iowa’s small towns. This may prove to be an optimistic interpretation of the Senate’s ability to make concrete improvements in American life, but it may also be why Franken, in the last stage of the race, is out-raising his opponent and surging at the polls.
Two top congressional Republicans are demanding internal FBI documents that an unnamed whistleblower claims will show then-Vice President Joe Biden was involved in a criminal scheme with a foreign national, according to a letter from the Republicans.
The unverified allegation is the most explosive claim House Oversight Chairman James Comer and Senate Budget Committee ranking Republican member Chuck Grassley have lobbed at the now-president after both men have devoted significant time to investigating the Biden family’s business dealings.
White House spokesman for investigations Ian Sams tweeted a link to a Fox News clip discussing the Comer and Grassley announcement, saying that Republicans “prefer trafficking in innuendo.”
“For going on 5 years now, Republicans in Congress have been lobbing unfounded politically-motivated attacks against @POTUS without offering evidence for their claims. Or evidence of decisions influenced by anything other than U.S. interests,” Sams tweeted. “They prefer trafficking in innuendo.”
Comer and Grassley alleged that a whistleblower claimed the Justice Department and FBI have an unclassified document “that describes an alleged criminal scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national relating to the exchange of money for policy decisions. It has been alleged that the document includes a precise description of how the alleged criminal scheme was employed as well as its purpose,” according to a letter to both FBI Director Christopher Wray and Attorney General Merrick Garland.
“I guess basically we’ve got to wait to see what the document exactly says,” Grassley said in a Fox News interview. “The FBI needs to explain whether it’s accurate or not.”
Comer fired off a corresponding subpoena to the FBI calling for “all FD-1023 forms, including within any open, closed, or restricted access case files, created or modified in June 2020, containing the term ‘Biden,’ including all accompanying attachments and documents to those FD-1023 forms.”
The form in question, an FD-1023, is a document the FBI uses to memorialize meetings or information gathered from confidential sources. The document typically would include allegations from the source, including information not verified by the FBI.
“We believe the FBI possesses an unclassified internal document that includes very serious and detailed allegations implicating the current President of the United States. What we don’t know is what, if anything, the FBI has done to verify these claims or investigate further,” Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said in a news release, adding that the situation calls for congressional oversight.
The Department of Justice declined to comment. The FBI said it received the letter and subpoena and declined further comment.
This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.
Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa claimed on the Senate floor earlier this week that the foreign national who allegedly bribed then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter has 17 audio recordings of their conversations but questioned whether those tapes even existed in an interview with CNN days later.
“I don’t even know where they are. I just know they exist, because of what the report says. Now, maybe they don’t exist. But how will I know until the FBI tells us, are they showing us their work?” Grassley said Thursday.
And Grassley is not the only Republican questioning the validity of the supposed tapes.
House Oversight Chairman James Comer of Kentucky, who is overseeing the GOP investigation into the Biden family business dealings and has been quick to make the alleged bribery scheme a focus of his work, admitted to not knowing whether the tapes were legitimate.
“We don’t know if they’re legit or not, but we know that the foreign national claims he has them,” Comer said of the alleged recordings during a Tuesday interview on Newsmax.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, who also serves on the Oversight panel and has made the Department of Justice and FBI a target of his investigative efforts, told CNN of the tapes, “I have no reason to doubt anything Senator Grassley says, but I don’t know if they exist or not.”
And Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, who led his own investigation into the Biden family in 2020 and has long peddled the notion of wrongdoing, said in a separate Newsmax interview, “I’m not even aware that we verified those recordings exist.”
The tapes are the latest unverified allegations Republicans have raised as they’ve launched investigations into the Biden family’s business dealings as well as the work of the FBI. While Republicans have used their subpoena power to go after the Biden family’s foreign business dealings, they have still not established a direct link to President Biden.
Grassley first raised the existence of audio recordings after the FBI document that memorializes these allegations redacted them in the version shown to House Oversight Committee members.
Prior to the full committee viewing the redacted document, Comer and the top Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, had viewed a version of the document that included mention of the recordings, according to two sources familiar with their briefing.
In a statement to CNN the chairman said, “The FBI’s Biden bribery record contains several investigative leads, but it is unclear what, if anything, the FBI has done to verify these allegations.”
The FBI document at the heart of this debate, known as an FD-1023, summarizes multiple conversations a trusted FBI informant had with a foreign national alleging that an executive with the Ukrainian energy company Burisma offered both Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden bribes of $5 million.
Former Attorney General Bill Barr, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump to serve during his administration, said when these bribery allegations came to light he tapped Pittsburgh US Attorney Scott Brady to look into the 1023 form and other claims. Barr has described this effort as a “screening, clearing house function” and said once the information was checked out the allegations were passed on to Delaware US Attorney David Weiss, who is overseeing an ongoing criminal investigation into Hunter Biden. Investigators were unable to corroborate the claims in the 1023.
“That information was checked out, and it was determined that it was not likely to have been disinformation. It doesn’t say whether it’s true or not, but there was no sign there was disinformation. And so it was provided to the ongoing investigation in Delaware to follow up on and check out,” Barr said on Fox last week.
Acting assistant director for the FBI’s office of congressional affairs Christopher Dunham has explained in previous correspondence with Congress that an FD-1023 form is “used by FBI agents to record unverified reporting from a confidential human source,” and noted that there are strict Justice Department guidelines about when that information can be provided outside of the FBI.
Comer subpoenaed the document last month, and House Republicans have railed against the FBI for continuing to keep an unclassified document under close hold.
“Congress still lacks a full and complete picture with respect to what that document really says. That’s why it’s important that the document be made public without unnecessary redactions for the American people to see,” Grassley said on the floor earlier this week.
House Republicans were poised to hold FBI Director Christopher Wray in contempt of Congress earlier this month for his refusal to turn over the document, but a last-minute deal between Comer and Wray that included allowing the full committee to view the form halted the contempt proceedings. They are still publicly clamoring for the FBI to provide more detail about what steps were taken to investigate the claims in the document.
Democrats meanwhile continue to dismiss the allegations. The White House continues to frame Republicans’ investigative efforts as politically motivated. White House spokesman Ian Sams said in a statement to CNN, “Everything in their so-called investigation seems to be mysteriously missing: informants, audio tapes, and most importantly of all – any credible evidence.”
Raskin, who has painted the allegations as secondhand, told CNN, “It was thoroughly checked out by the Trump Justice Department, and they couldn’t find anything there. And if anybody would have an incentive to find something there it would have been the Trump Justice Department.”
Another Democrat on the panel, Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida, accused Republicans of having alternative motives for surfacing the allegations in the first place.
“What they’re trying to do is they’re trying to muddy the water because Trump is in so much trouble. They got to distract from that and pretend like, you know Joe Biden, which they say he’s sleepy and boring, is now somehow Tony Soprano,” he said.
But Republicans who viewed the version of the FD-1023 form that redacted mention of the audio recordings are continuing to raise questions.
One of those members, GOP Rep. Russell Fry of South Carolina, told CNN, “My assumption was that if they were going to redact things in that document that it would have been names and places and not actual corroborating evidence. So I think it’s unfortunate that the FBI decided to do that. And I look forward to seeing hopefully an unredacted copy of that 1023.”