Both links given below are from a Gary Gross post, online here. Gary is more accepting of things than Crabgrass, but things cut in favor of beliefs Gary holds, and he views possibilities from that perspective.
https://libertyprosperityblog.blogspot.com/2023/07/chuck-grassley-vs-fbi.html
Screen capture from Gary's post showing a source he values:
The underlying document is online here, (a pdf item posted from Grassley's senate.gov official site), and readers are urged to read it.
House Democrats previously released a transcript of separate private comments by Zlochevsky made to former Rudy Giuliani ally Lev Parnas that contradict the notion that he ever paid Joe Biden.
According to the transcript, which Parnas provided to Congress in January 2020, Zlochevsky stated that “no one from Burisma had any contacts with VP Biden or people working for him” while Hunter Biden was on the board. Zlochevskey also said Joe Biden and his staff had no involvement in the business dealings of his company.
In statements to CNN, Comer accused the Justice Department of “seeking to bury this record to protect the Bidens,” and Grassley thanked the “brave and heroic whistleblowers” for enabling him to publicly disclose the material.
CNN previously reported that the allegations in the 1023 surfaced years ago as Giuliani was sharing information with the Justice Department during the Trump administration. Then-Attorney General Bill Barr tapped former Pittsburgh US Attorney Scott Brady to oversee an FBI investigation into a variety of claims Giuliani provided the department.
White House says claims are ‘debunked’
Shortly after lawmakers viewed the FBI document in a classified setting last month, the FBI wrote Comer about their concerns that some members, by taking notes and discussing what they read publicly, were breaking the agreement that predicated their viewing of the document, according to a letter obtained by CNN.
“The conduct of some Committee Members during the June 8 review flagrantly disregarded our agreement and has the potential to cause grave harm,” the FBI wrote Comer on June 9.
Prior to viewing the document last month, all members viewed a statement from the FBI that read, “While not classified, these materials have significant law enforcement value and sensitivity, and should not be disclosed without authorization, as wider distribution could pose a risk of physical harm to FBI sources or others.”
White House spokesperson Ian Sams said in a statement to CNN, “It is remarkable that congressional Republicans, in their eagerness to go after President Biden regardless of the truth, continue to push claims that have been debunked for years and that they themselves have cautioned to take ‘with a grain of salt’ because they could be ‘made up.’”
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the House Oversight Committee’s top Democrat, said: “Releasing this document in isolation from explanatory context is another transparently desperate attempt by Committee Republicans to revive the aging and debunked Giuliani-framed conspiracy theories and to distract from their continuing failure to produce any actual evidence of wrongdoing by the President [...]
All I know is what I read on the Internet. With a mind to differentiate established proven fact from clear unbuttressed allegations.
Note that the entire FBI item clearly is hearsay with no claim the underlying declarant is unavailable, or somehow reliable, nor with the document author identified or shown to be unavailable to testify to the circumstances of the witness interrogation, and the interrogator's opinion at the time of witness credibility.
Potential evidence leads are suggested, not authenticated.
Naming within the document of others alleged to have knowledge is included, with no evidence posted by Grassley about what they might say if quizzed under oath. Nor is any credibility basis given as to such other named gentlemen.
BOTTOM LINE: Raising assertions. Far from best evidence validity considerations.
There are no co-released supporting items, written, audio or video.
Take it for what it says and for how you trust it and the processes involved. E.g., for how you trust Grassley's conduct and motives at this point in time, re a document having obvious infirmities while making politically charged assertions, not by the document author, but of a person giving the FBI item author a statement (with lying to a federal agent being a known crime). The item is not hearsay of hearsay. The underlying declarant alleges himself to have personal knowledge of things stated.
It is damned interesting.
__________UPDATE________
I am informed with no cause to not believe "CHS" as used in the released item stands for Confidential Human Source, and that this particular human source has been relied upon in the past by FBI personnel.
_______FURTHER UPDATE_______
With the link to the underlying doc Grassley released:
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf
a Crabgrass blind access of https://www.grassley.senate.gov/ failed to find any context posted by Grassley for the released news item.
Not that there is no statement accompanying the release. Just that Crabgrass briefly looked and found none.
Beyond following links posted elsewhere, Crabgrass did not attempt any web research on the history or circumstances of Grassley's action. Readers are urged to research any questions they may have.
__________FURTHER UPDATE_________
With Trump indicted and Biden arguably under a cloud, what of a possible Harris v. DeSantis 2024 contest?
It would be refreshing to see it turn out that way, another lesser evil yet again, where Dem. confidence would be less on Harris chops, and more on DeSantis limitations. That and expectation of a large Black vote turnout if Harris is the Dem candidate.
So far, nobody has called out either Harris or DeSantis as corrupt, but it could happen should things shift that way, politics being at the low stage of present times.
President Harris would prove interesting, more than four more of Biden with the question during that stint being one of a possible President Harris hinging on Joe's age and condition. The man is sharp. His handlers too. The mashing of the English language has been a hallmark from back when he started in the Senate.
Who he is. And if reelected, he'll serve a full second term. Don't bet against that.
_________FURTHER UPDATE________
AP on the doc release.
PBS.
Grassley Senate website. Linking to the underlying item he released.
Breitbart embeds a C-SPAN floor statement by Grassley.
It is as if Grassley had a "He who hesitates is lost" moment.
We await new developments accelerated by Grassley.
Aside from other questions, why did FBI operate as it did?
FURTHER: The released document is dated 6/30/20. Today is 7/21/23. WTF? MSM collectively asleep, uncaring, complacent? Complicit?
FURTHER: Keeping that document under a hat three years?
It must be because there is an ongoing investigation. Where, when, how, what did the FBI learn - any new things, three years running being time enough to have learned something?
Was the assertion of further evidence debunked, when/how?