On September 27, 2017, Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles E. Grassley wrote Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The official committee PDF is the primary. Grassley said the letter responded to the department’s September 22, 2017, letter about interviews of Carl Ghattas, Executive Assistant Director of the National Security Branch, and James Rybicki, Chief of Staff and Senior Counsel to the FBI Director.
Grassley wrote that the committee first requested the witnesses on July 11, 2017; that the department refused to make them available voluntarily on August 25 and September 13; that the committee then “began drafting subpoenas to compel their testimony”; and that “[o]nly then did the Department finally agree to make them available voluntarily.”
The department’s offer, as Grassley lists the September 22 conditions: (1) a classified setting; (2) a scope limit to avoid questions about “matters directly relating to, or interfering with, Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation”; (3) a Justice Department representative present; (4) transcript access for the witnesses and the department.
Grassley said a portion could be classified, but the committee intended to begin unclassified. On scope, he wrote that the witnesses would be asked about events prior to Mueller’s appointment, including: (1) improper political influence or bias in DOJ or FBI activities during the previous or current administration; (2) the removal of James Comey; (3) DOJ and FBI activities related to Hillary Clinton; (4) DOJ and FBI activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates; and (5) DOJ and FBI activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. If the department refused those topics voluntarily, that “would likely be the scope of the Committee’s subpoena.”
The Associated Press, in a “Latest” item the same week, reported that DOJ had agreed to allow the interviews under conditions, including avoiding questions “directly relating to, or interfering with” Mueller’s investigation, and that Grassley asked for clarification and said he would still subpoena if they would not talk about certain topics. This page does not claim, from this pass, that a public transcript of those interviews was released. A conditioned offer is not a finding that the interviews happened, and not a finding of misconduct.