Peter Strzok's Bias Exposed
Republicans repeatedly blast the arrogant FBI agent who had the audacity to claim he had no anti-Trump bias.
Thursday, embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok faced the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees over his handling of both the Hillary Clinton investigation and the Russian election interference investigation. Front and center was Strzok’s obviously biased anti-Donald Trump text messages exchanged between himself and his fellow FBI colleague and lover, Lisa Page.
From the outset, Strzok expressed an aggressively defiant and contemptuous attitude, in which he repeatedly and at times arrogantly maintained that he expressed no bias in his investigative work. But House Republicans were having none of it.
Here is a telling exchange that sets the tone for the entirety of the hearing, demonstrating Strzok’s defiant attitude:
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC): “Do you remember how long it took for you to start talking about impeachment after Bob Mueller was appointed?”
Strzok: “I don’t, sir.”
Gowdy: “One day,” (referring to the record of text messages.) “One day, and you were talking about impeachment. And for anyone who may have missed it the day after his appointment, agent Strzok, you did it again five days later.”
Later in that same exchange Gowdy points out that Strzok was removed from Robert Mueller’s investigation due to his blatant bias against Trump. Note Strzok’s denial.
Gowdy: “It wasn’t the discovery of your texts – it was the existence of your bias that got you kicked off.”
Strzok: “No, Mr. Gowdy, it wasn’t. I do not have bias.”
Gowdy: “Your testimony is: Bob Mueller did not kick you off because of the content of your texts; he kicked you off because of some appearance he was worried about.”
Strzok: “My testimony — what you asked and what I responded to — is that he kicked me off because of my bias. I’m stating to you it is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any bias – that it was done based on the appearance. If you want to represent what you said accurately I’m happy to answer that question, but I don’t appreciate what was originally said being changed.”
Gowdy: “I don’t give a damn what you appreciate. I don’t appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016.”
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) pointed out the obvious, stating, “Let me tell you, when you have text messages, Mr. Strzok, the way you do, saying the things you did, you would be better off coming in and saying ‘That was my bias.’ You have come in here and said ‘I have no bias.’ And you do it with a straight face. And I watched you in the private testimony you gave, and I told some of the other guys, ‘He is really good. He’s lying — he knows we know he’s lying and he could probably pass the polygraph.’” Then, after referencing Strzok’s affair with FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Gohmert adds, “Credibility of the witness is always an issue.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) asked Democrats to consider the legitimacy of Republicans’ concern regarding Strzok’s bias, stating, “To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, please replace President Trump’s name with your own name in a small sample of things Mr. Strzok has said. Envision how you would feel if you found out that the chief agent investigating you as a member of Congress was making these comments: ‘F—k Trump,’ ‘Trump is a disaster,’ ‘Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could smell the Trump support,’ or, perhaps most alarmingly and revealingly, ‘We’ll stop it’ — referring directly to Mr. Trump’s candidacy for president.”
Goodlatte made another important point early in the hearing, stating, “Mr. Strzok and others inside the FBI and [Justice Department] turned our system of justice on its head. And that’s why we are here and why it matters. We don’t want to read text message after text message dripping with bias against one of the two presidential candidates.”
No real new information was gleaned from this at times circus-like hearing (thanks in large part to the childish interruptions by Democrat committee members who were clearly intent on obstructing the proceeding). However, it was useful in exposing the degree of arrogant animus that Strzok has toward Congress and Republicans in particular. He is clearly a politically motivated individual who is either a liar or deluded or both. And unlike Strzok’s claims, the reason the American public’s confidence in the integrity of the FBI has eroded is because of the blatant displays of bald-faced hypocrisy from senior members within the agency.