As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Tag Archives: Peter Strzok

Strzok and Page’s Texts: The Mueller Coverup?

Special Counsel Robert Mueller fired two FBI lovers from his investigation because they were clearly biased against the subject of the probe, President Donald Trump. And yet, instead of retaining evidence of whatever “collusion” they may have been involved in together, he failed to preserve evidence of their contacts. Why?

That’s what Byron York wants to know in this piece in the Washington Examiner:

It’s a little complicated, but it appears the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, has uncovered a serious problem relating to the anti-Trump texts exchanged by two former top FBI investigators, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Here is what Horowitz lays out in a new report:

Shortly after being appointed in May 2017, Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller hired Strzok and Page. When he did so, he issued them work iPhones. A short time later, Horowitz, who was investigating the department’s Hillary Clinton probe, discovered that Strzok and Page, using their old FBI phones, had exchanged virulently anti-Trump text messages. Horowitz told Mueller, who thought the situation serious enough to remove Strzok and Page. Yet it appears the Mueller office stripped Page’s iPhone of all data without ever checking on its contents, and they stripped Strzok’s iPhone after a perfunctory check that may or may not have taken note of the content of its text messages. When Horowitz asked for and (belatedly) received the phones, he could recover nothing from them.

The iPhone affair leaves some real questions. How did Mueller not see the need to examine the Strzok and Page iPhones after Mueller learned of the anti-Trump texts they had sent with their FBI phones? If the texts were serious enough to fire Strzok and Page, were they not serious enough to warrant a search of the phones? How did Mueller not see the need to immediately hand the phones over to Horowitz, who originally informed Mueller about the Strzok-Page text issue? And what did the special counsel’s declaration of “no substantive texts” on Strzok’s phone mean, given that the Justice Department had earlier withheld many relevant Strzok-Page texts from congressional investigators? Finally, what does Mueller’s behavior in the text situation say about his willingness to submit to oversight, even by the Justice Department’s own inspector general?

FBI Reviewed Only 3,000 of Weiner’s 700,000 Emails; Strzok Supervised

According to RealClearIvestigations:

When then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was closing the Hillary Clinton email investigation for a second time just days before the 2016 election, he certified to Congress that his agency had “reviewed all of the communications” discovered on a personal laptop used by Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Weiner.

At the time, many wondered how investigators managed over the course of one week to read the “hundreds of thousands” of emails residing on the machine, which had been a focus of a sex-crimes investigation of Weiner, a former Congressman.

Comey later told Congress that “thanks to the wizardry of our technology,” the FBI was able to eliminate the vast majority of messages as “duplicates” of emails they’d previously seen. Tireless agents, he claimed, then worked “night after night after night” to scrutinize the remaining material.

But virtually none of his account was true, a growing body of evidence reveals.

In fact, a technical glitch prevented FBI technicians from accurately comparing the new emails with the old emails. Only 3,077 of the 694,000 emails were directly reviewed for classified or incriminating information. Three FBI officials completed that work in a single 12-hour spurt the day before Comey again cleared Clinton of criminal charges.

But don’t worry, everything was being handled by the agent in charge . . . Peter Strzok.

Although the FBI’s New York office first pointed headquarters to the large new volume of evidence on Sept. 28, 2016, supervising agent Peter Strzok, who was fired on Aug. 10 for sending anti-Trump texts and other misconduct, did not try to obtain a warrant to search the huge cache of emails until Oct. 30, 2016. Violating department policy, he edited the warrant affidavit on his home email account, bypassing the FBI system for recording such government business. He also began drafting a second exoneration statement before conducting the search.

As former House Oversgith Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz suggests in the video below, does this not indicate Comey committed perjury?

The FBI Finally Fires Peter Strzok

Gosh, for a while there, it seemed like Peter Strzok could go out on Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and still not get fired.

Anyway, the FBI for some reason had thought it should keep a senior policeman who vowed to stop Donald Trump from becoming president. Until today, at last.

Strzok’s hope to take the election into his own hands and save Gotham City from The Joker is worse than Deep State. It’s fascistic.

Of course, I never heard many in the press on the TV Shows saying bad things about Strzok or that he should be fired or that he represented a danger to the republic. I mean, Trump is the fascist, don’t you know?

This guy’s disdain for our system was on full display during his appearance last month before the House Oversight Committee, where he could barely conceal his contempt for our elected representatives and somehow insisted he put country before his personal beliefs, despite the clear documentary evidence that he did not.

Whether it’s Strozk or former FBI Director James Comey, who decided he should play attorney general and determine whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton, the sense of entitlement among our highest ranking police is perhaps the most frightening thing I’ve seen out of the Russia collusion investigation.

You know, while we wait for the special prosecutor to prove collusion, or at least that Trump isn’t paying his parking tickets.

Gohmert to Strzok: Did you Look so Innocent When You Lied to Your Wife?

Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, provoked a minor uproar in the House Judiciary Committee hearing room when he made a direct allusion to FBI Agent Peter Strzok’s unfaithfulness to his wife.

Strzok’s texts with his paramour Lisa Page are what demonstrated the anti-Trump bias he held as he investigated Hillary Clinton and then Donald Trump’s campaign.

Sure, Gohmert went too far. But I know he just couldn’t stand the bemused, contemptuous little look Strzok had on his face.

From the bits I’ve seen of the briefing, this Strzok is arrogant, unrepentant, and condescending. Personally, I can’t help but feel a guilty pleasure that his basic lack of integrity was brought up as he claims to have conducted honest investigations untainted by what was not just bias, but extraordinary anger and contempt toward Trump.