Thursday, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok provided testimony to the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees about Russia investigation and his text messages. Questioning by Representatives quickly devolved into "a chaotic shouting match."
UPDATE:
In a written statement offered before he testified before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday, Strzok pointedly noted that there was no effort on his part to keep Trump from winning the White House — and, further, that he was one of only a few people who could have potentially leaked details from the investigation in an effort to block Trump’s victory.
“In the summer of 2016,” Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”
(...)
Believing the investigation is biased against Trump because of Strzok’s involvement, though, means believing that Strzok saw the investigation as a way to stymie Trump and, more importantly, that Strzok was willing to use the investigation to do so. As he himself notes, at the moment when he could have most directly interfered with Trump’s political ambitions, he didn’t.
The fairest assumption, then, is that the probe’s origins were precisely what Strzok (and others) have suggested: An effort to determine whether Trump’s campaign intentionally aided the Russian effort at interference.
Peter Strzok just gave a hard-to-rebut defense of the objectivity of the Russia investigation’s origins (Washington Post)
CNN:
"Embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok on Thursday defended a controversial text he sent disparaging Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign by saying it was written in response to "then-candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero."
The text exchange at issue was detailed in a recently-released Justice Department internal watchdog report, which revealed that on August 8, 2016, now ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page wrote in a text, Trump is "not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" to which Strzok replied, "No. No he's not. We'll stop it."
Republicans have criticized the message and seized on the exchange to argue that it demonstrates evidence of anti-Trump bias at the FBI.
During a contentious congressional hearing on Thursday, Strzok attempted to explain why he sent the message in the first place.
"In terms of the texts that 'we will stop it,' you need to understand that was written late at night, off-the-cuff, and it was in response to a series of events that included then-candidate Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero, and my presumption, based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating that behavior to be President of the United States," Strzok said.
At the end of July 2016 --- just days before the August 8 text exchange -- Trump shot back at Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan, whose son US Army Capt. Humayun Khan was killed in 2004, after Khizr criticized Trump at the Democratic National Convention.
Trump responded by questioning why Ghazala, who stood at her husband's side during the DNC speech, didn't speak herself. "She probably, maybe she wasn't allowed to have anything to say. You tell me," Trump said during an interview with ABC News's George Stephanopoulos.
Strzok said on Thursday that his message, "was in no way, unequivocally, any suggestion that me, the FBI, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process, for any candidate," and later said that "at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took."
At the conclusion of his remarks, several Democratic members of the committees audibly cheered.
FBI agent Peter Strzok explains why he sent anti-Trump text (CNN)
Strzok, as he previewed in his opening statement, said he had been advised by the FBI's lawyers that he was not to address specifics of what is still an ongoing investigation. (The investigation was handed over to special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in mid-2017.) Republicans quickly objected and threatened to hold Strzok in contempt. Democrats noted that it was unusual that Strzok be asked to disclose such details in a public setting.
Strzok said he didn't have to answer the question because, despite being subpoenaed by the committee, he had previously said he would speak voluntarily.
“Mr. Chairman, I do not believe I am here under subpoena,” Strzok said. “I believe I am here voluntarily. … Based on that, I will not answer that question.”
(...)
One of the subplots here has been Democrats' push to release the transcript of Strzok's previous, closed-door testimony. They argue that it has been selectively leaked and described to impugn him.
So at one point early in the hearing, Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-R.I.) said he intended to release the transcript himself — and asked whether there was any reason he couldn't. Goodlatte stressed that it was the committee's practice and that there was an agreement to keep closed-door hearings private while an investigation is ongoing.
(...)
It's worth noting that Goodlatte's justification — that the committee's investigation is ongoing — was the same one Strzok offered for not answering questions about the special counsel's Russia probe. In the latter case, apparently, Republicans don't think it applies.
7 key moments from Peter Strzok’s wild hearing (Washington Post)
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) got into a heated exchange Thursday with Peter Strzok, an FBI counterintelligence agent Republicans have accused of exhibiting bias against President Trump.
Strzok refused to answer questions as Jordan repeatedly pressed him on his knowledge of the controversial dossier compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele containing unproven claims about Trump’s links to Russia.
During an hours-long congressional oversight hearing Thursday, Jordan grilled Strzok on an email he sent to other FBI officials, including former deputy director Andrew McCabe, referencing the dossier. He repeatedly asked Strzok the identities of “Corn and Simpson” referenced in the email.
The email appears to be a reference to Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, and David Corn, a Mother Jones reporter who first reported on the existence of the dossier in October 2016.
But Strzok would not confirm that on Thursday, spurring frustration from Jordan, who himself is embroiled in controversy over charges that he was aware of abuse allegations on the Ohio State University wrestling team over two decades ago.
Strzok would only confirm that he wrote the email and would not get into further details, indicating the FBI has advised him against commenting on ongoing investigative matters.
“To answer that question – and I would love to answer that question … and you know why I want to answer that question because you have this information – I cannot answer that question,” Strzok said.
“You wrote about it! It’s now public! Who is Corn? Who is Simpson?” Jordan doubled down.
“Based on direction by the FBI, sir, I am not able to answer questions about ongoing investigative matters,” Strzok said, apparently referencing the ongoing investigation into Russian interference in the election.
According to Jordan, the email was headlined, “Buzzfeed is about to publish the dossier.”
“Comparing now, the set is only identical to what McCain had,” Jordan quoted the email as saying. “It has differences from what was given to us by Corn and Simpson.”
Jordan’s line of questioning appeared to be aimed at determining whether the FBI had contact with Fusion GPS on the dossier. Simpson told lawmakers behind closed doors last year that the FBI had no communications with anyone at Fusion GPS.
“I never had contact with Fusion, with Mr. Simpson, with Mr. Corn,” Strzok said Thursday.
Jordan, Strzok engage in fiery exchange over Trump-Russia dossier (The Hill)
Republicans exploded at FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok on Thursday, berating his assertions that his anti-Donald Trump sentiment — captured in text messages exposed by an internal watchdog — never affected his work on the investigation of Russian contacts with the 2016 Trump campaign.
But a defiant Strzok hit back at GOP lawmakers, defending his professionalism and slamming the hearing as a "victory notch in Putin’s belt." And he got backup from Democrats who accused Republicans of harassing Strzok and running roughshod over the committees.
“Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath: not once in my 26 years of defending my nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took,” Strzok said in his opening statement to the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, his first public remarks on the matter.
Strzok instead cast his decision to help launch and lead the FBI investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election as an act of patriotism in defense of American democracy. And he took a swing at congressional Republicans for targeting him as the bad guy.
“I have the utmost respect for Congress’s oversight role, but I truly believe that today’s hearing is just another victory notch in Putin’s belt and another milestone in our enemies’ campaign to tear America apart,” he said.
Soon after, the hearing devolved into a partisan morass.
FBI agent Strzok defiant in face of Republican interrogation (Politico)