Grassley reveals deep partisan split in Senate Judiciary Committee's Russia probe

Erin Kelly | USA TODAY

Show Caption Hide Caption Reports: Anti-Trump texts got an FBI agent pulled from Russia probe The news of the agent's reassignment was first reported in August, but details were unclear. Video provided by Newsy

WASHINGTON — Congress may be down to just one committee with any real hope of reaching bipartisan consensus in its investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley took to the Senate floor Wednesday night to blast Democrats on his panel for refusing to go after any potential misdeeds involving Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.

"True bipartisan oversight is impossible unless it is a two-way street," the Iowa Republican said. "If Democrats are unwilling to ask hard questions and force answers from their own political allies, then there simply is no way to move forward together in good faith."

Grassley's comments represent the second high-profile partisan split among the three congressional committees conducting Russia probes.

The House Intelligence Committee has been plagued with partisan sniping since last spring, leaving only the Senate Intelligence Committee without any serious friction between its Republican and Democratic members.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr, R-N.C., said Wednesday that the Republicans and Democrats on his committee and their staffs are still working well together.

"If you were interviewed by this staff, you couldn't pick out who was Republican and who was Democrat," Burr said during a public forum on Russia at the Council on Foreign Affairs. "I know that because I've had individuals who have been interviewed that came up to me and told me that."

In contrast, Grassley, in a long and blistering speech, said Wednesday that Democrats won't cooperate with his efforts to investigate the FBI's handling of the Hillary Clinton case involving her use of a private email server while she was secretary of State.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, had no response Thursday to Grassley's charges. But Feinstein has been sending letters on her own to potential witnesses in the Trump-Russia probe, seeking information. Grassley has not joined her in those letters, and she has not joined Grassley in some of the information requests he has sent.

Under Judiciary Committee rules, both the chairman and ranking Democrat must agree on any subpoenas that the panel sends to witnesses.

Former FBI director James Comey concluded last summer that Clinton had been "extremely careless" in her handling of classified emails, but he said her actions were not criminal. Most GOP lawmakers believe that Clinton got off too easy, while Democrats say that Comey's public pronouncements about Clinton's case helped cost her the election.

"There are two major controversies plaguing the credibility of the Justice Department and the FBI right now: the Trump/Russia investigation and the handling of the Clinton investigation," Grassley said. "Any Congressional oversight related to either one of these topics is not credible without also examining the other."

Grassley said he has been "trying to explain this to my Democrat colleagues for months."

"The political reality is that half the country thinks that our law enforcement establishment gave Hillary Clinton and her aides a pass," he said.

Conservatives' suspicions have only grown since last weekend, when it was revealed that former top FBI agent Peter Strzok was kicked off special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation after it was discovered the agent has sent anti-Trump texts to another FBI official. Strzok also was involved in the FBI's investigation of the Clinton email controversy, also reportedly had a hand in editing Comey's initial statement about the case.

If an agent had been found writing pro-Trump texts, "Democrats would go ballistic, and they would have every right to," Grassley said.

Grassley complained that Feinstein and other committee Democrats won't support his efforts to compel Fusion GPS to provide more documents and testimony to the committee about its role in hiring former British spy Christopher Steele to produce the infamous dossier alleging ties — some of them salacious — between Trump and the Russians. The company, which does opposition research, was hired first by Republican candidates opposing Trump, then by attorneys working for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Grassley suggested that Democrats weren't interested in delving deeper into the dossier after news reports revealed that it was funded by Clinton and the DNC.

"I don’t know whether the Ranking Member or her staff knew that fact earlier this year when I was trying to persuade her to do bipartisan follow-up with Fusion GPS," Grassley said, referring to Feinstein. "But, I do know that unless both sides are willing to ask tough questions, no matter where the facts lead, there can be no bipartisan oversight."

Typically, committees produce reports detailing their conclusions at the end of an investigation. The goal is to issue a bipartisan report, but committees have sometimes had to issue separate findings from Republicans and Democrats.

Grassley did not mention a report, but his speech underscores how difficult it will be for the panel to agree on conclusions to its investigation.

In the House, both Democrats and Republicans have expressed strong doubts about whether the House Intelligence Committee will be able to issue a bipartisan report.

That panel has been split since Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., stepped aside from the Russia investigation last spring after the House Ethics Committee began looking into whether he mishandled classified information. Democrats complain that Nunes is continuing to subpoena testimony and witnesses without consulting them.

"I don't think so," said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., in a recent interview when asked if the committee could reach consensus. "I don't want to be pessimistic, but I have little reason to be optimistic."

Meanwhile, Burr said he believes Republicans and Democrats on his panel will ultimately be able to agree on the basic facts of Russian interference in last year's election and on recommendations about how to prevent it from happening again. He said there still could be separate majority and minority opinions interpreting those facts and what they mean for the Trump administration.

"We may be, when we conclude, in a situation where we don't choose to have a committee vote on anything; where our intent is to lay the facts down," Burr said Wednesday. "And if there is a disagreement about how to interpret the facts, there may be majority/minority views...But what I have said from day one to the staff and all the members: there is no substitute to us verifying that what we're putting down are facts."

More: Democrats say House Intel Committee Republicans are trying to thwart Russia probe

More: Congress struggles to figure out which Russia investigation trumps the others

More: Top Democrat fears House Intelligence Committee may split on Russia probe findings