7 key moments from Peter Strzok’s wild hearing

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House 7 key moments from Peter Strzok’s wild hearing

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #88044
    zn
    Moderator

    7 key moments from Peter Strzok’s wild hearing

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/12/3-key-moments-from-peter-strzoks-wild-hearing/?utm_term=.da906986de95

    FBI agent Peter Strzok had his moment on an extremely hot seat Thursday morning in a contentious hearing that quickly devolved into angry yelling, interjections and parliamentary maneuvering.

    Appearing before a joint session of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, Strzok sought to explain his anti-Trump text messages at a time when he was the lead agent on the FBI’s then-nascent Russia investigation in 2016. He was removed from the investigation in 2017 after those text messages with fellow FBI employee Lisa Page, with whom he was having an affair, were discovered. Republicans including President Trump have seized upon Strzok’s texts — which included allusions to stopping Trump — as evidence of a biased and even corrupt law enforcement investigation.

    Here are the key moments from the hearing so far, and we’ll update this post as the hearing progresses.

    1. The contempt threat

    It didn’t take long for the hearing to explode. After the opening statements, House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) lodged his first question: How many people did Strok interview during the first eight days of the FBI’s Russia investigation, between July 31 and Aug. 8, 2016?

    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.”

    Democrats argued that a witness such as Strzok would not be expected to publicly disclose sensitive information like the blueprint for a hydrogen bomb. Another moved to adjourn the hearing less than an hour after it began.

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) finally said that Strzok would be recalled to the committee after the day’s hearing so that it could determine whether to hold him in contempt. But the tone was set.

    2. Strzok’s angry retort: ‘It is deeply destructive’

    After more than 20 minutes of maneuvering and posturing following the subpoena discussion, Gowdy ended his interrogation of Strzok and Strzok was given the floor to respond. In a minutes-long retort, he called Gowdy’s and his Republican allies’ allegations of bias and improper actions “deeply destructive.”

    He said that his text messages critical of Trump shortly after the investigation began were in response to Trump’s behavior on the campaign trail — and not a reflection of his investigative intent. He pointed in particular to Trump’s attacks on the Khans, a Gold Star family who spoke at the Democratic National Convention around that time.

    “My presumption [was] based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the American population would not elect somebody demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States,” he said. “It 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. So I take great offense . . . ”

    Strzok concluded the accusation against him and the line of questioning “deeply corrodes what the FBI is in American society, the effectiveness of their mission, and it is deeply destructive.” Some in the room applauded.

    3. A perjury accusation — and a very personal attack

    Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) seized upon Strzok’s contention that his texts didn’t demonstrate personal “bias” and said that argument amounted to him lying. When Democrats noted that Gohmert was basically accusing Strzok of perjury — given he made that claim under oath — Gohmert was unbowed.

    Then he got personal — very personal.

    “When I see you looking with a little smirk, I wonder how many times did you look so innocently into your wife’s eyes and lie to her about Lisa Page,” Gohmert began. The hearing room erupted, with someone shouting “insane asylum” and someone else asserting that Gohmert needed medication.

    In response, Strzok acknowledged “hurting” someone he described as a “family member.”

    “The fact that you would question whether or not that was the sort of look,” he told Gohmert, “goes more to a discussion about your character.”

    4. The transcript threat

    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.

    Cicilline’s response: “We intend to release this transcript unless someone presents some rule that prevents us from doing it, and we’ll give you till 5 this afternoon to present that,” he said. “Otherwise we intend to release the transcript.”

    Eventually Cicilline got some backup from GOP Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), who happens to be the head of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

    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.

    5. Making him read his own texts

    Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) took his five minutes to force Strzok to read some of his own texts — including ones that used vulgarities.

    While reading one in which he used the f-word while talking about Trump, Strzok paused and asked how he should handle it, then finished. Then Issa asked him to read it again.

    “Sir, was that not intelligible?” Strzok said. “You just want to hear — for me to repeat it.”

    “Please,” Issa said.

    “Okay, sir. Sure,” Strzok shot back snidely. “Happy to indulge you.”

    6. A Democrat says Strzok should get a Purple Heart

    The difference between the lines of questioning between Republicans and Democrats was, as usual, stark. While Republicans badgered Strzok and tried to catch him off-guard, Democrats mostly used their time to argue for the importance of the Mueller investigation.

    But some Democrats decided to go further than that and to make Strzok a martyr — or even a hero. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) went the furthest.

    “Mr. Strzok, if I could give you a Purple Heart, I would,” Cohen said when he began his questioning.

    To recap, Strzok was removed from the Mueller investigation and harshly criticized by an inspector general. It is generally agreed that his text messages were problematic, regardless of if you think this reflects corruption and bias in all law enforcement or the Mueller probe.

    7. ‘This is not Benghazi’

    Democratic patience with the GOP’s treatment of Strzok quickly wore thin. Gowdy, in his role as head of the Oversight Committee, repeatedly afforded himself the chance to try and get under Strzok’s skin.

    And toward the end of the hearing, the whole thing boiled over. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) yelled at Gowdy during one interrogation of Strzok, telling him to “leave it alone.”

    “This is not Benghazi,” she said, referring to the years-long investigation Gowdy led into the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, which Democrats contend that probe devolved into a witch hunt against Hillary Clinton.

    #88048
    wv
    Participant

    Texts, emails, facebook messages etc — how many times have they come back to bite people in the butt.

    No matter how many times it happens — people keep doin it.

    w
    v

    #88066
    zn
    Moderator

    Texts, emails, facebook messages etc — how many times have they come back to bite people in the butt.

    ==

    Strzok hearing Democrat brutally trolls GOP by reading into the record comments they made ripping Trump

    link: https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/strzok-hearing-democrat-brutally-trolls-gop-reading-record-comments-made-ripping-trump/

    p. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) made a mockery of the House hearing on the disparaging comments FBI agent Peter Strzok made about now-President Donald Trump before the election by reading into the record statements made by members of Congress who expressed similar worries about Trump as a candidate.

    Following an interrogation by House Rep. Darrell Issa (CA) who asked Strzok to read some of the comments he made about Trump — including calling the president a “douche” — Connolly compared the hearing to a “Russian political assault trial.”

    “It’s got all the trappings,” Connolly continued. “Character assassination, demagoguery, connecting dots, generalizing from an isolated incident, cherry-picking facts, sometimes fabricating facts. It’s astounding and a new low in the United States Congress.”

    Noting that Strzok is under attack specifically for the comments, Connolly read off a series of quotes, after which he asked the FBI agent if they were his words. In every case they were the words of a Republican.

    “‘My wife Julia and I, we have a 15-year-old daughter. Do you think I can look her in the eye and tell her I endorsed Donald Trump when he acts like this and his apology? That was no apology. That was an apology for getting caught. I can’t tell the good people in my state that I endorse add person that acts like this,’” read Connolly. “Was that you, Mr. Strzok?”

    “No it was not,”the FBI man replied.

    “It was Republican, [retired Congressman] Jason Chaffetz,” Connolly shot back.

    “Did you write the following. ‘For the good of the country and to give the Republicans a chance after defeating Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump should step aside. His defeat seems almost certain. Four years of Hillary Clinton is not what is best for this country.’ That’s you, right?” he was asked.

    “No,” he recalled.

    “No it was the congressman from Colorado [Rep. Mike Coffman (R)],” Connolly explained.

    And it went on like that for the rest of his question period.

    ===

    #88077
    Billy_T
    Participant

    I don’t really know why I put myself through it, but I watched a good deal of the hearings too.

    Key takeaways for me:

    1. The Republicans hounded Strzok for nine hours, repeatedly going back to the same exact aspects of the case, with the barest of deviations in language. I suppose they were trying to get him on a “gotcha” moment of inconsistency, but it was deeply frustrating to watch.

    2. I didn’t realize this was fair game, but Republicans often handed off their allotted time to their more aggressive and determined peers, which generally meant the same two or three designated attack dogs. I didn’t see the Dems do this, though I didn’t watch the entire nine hours.

    3. I don’t think there is any way around this fact, but it never fazed the Republicans, and the Dems appeared not to bring it up, at least while I was watching:

    If the FBI can be accused of taking any actions to influence the election, it was all to the benefit of Trump and against Clinton. If Strzok had wanted to hurt Trump, he would have leaked that Trump was under federal investigation, but he didn’t. Comey did tell the country, twice before election, that Clinton was being investigated, but would not say that Trump was too. And we also know that FBI agents in the New York office leaked info regarding Clinton to Giuliani, which he promptly spilled on Fox News. That office was called “Trumpland” for its “bias.”

    This follows a more general pattern for the GOP in their endless hearings about supposed “bias” against “conservatives” and now Trump. Don’t mention, don’t investigate the fact that government departments are filled with a wide array of differing political views, or that the Law Enforcement sphere has always been dominated by the right. Whether it’s the IRS or intel or DOJ, make sure not to look at “bias” in favor of Republicans, or bias against their opponents, etc. Just narrow the frame to work solely in their favor.

    Wikileaks, of course, helped tremendously here, concentrating solely on the Dems.

    4. It’s amazing to me that Congress chooses to have hearings on private texts between two adults, which included perhaps “mean things” about a president that both Republicans and Dems despised at the time . . . but won’t hold hearings on the Trump administration’s kidnapping of babies at the border, endless corruption within the Trump executive, the destruction of the environment, the selling off of millions of acres of formerly protected wilderness, and our endless wars — for starters.

    Our politics have never been much to brag about, but I think they’ve reached new lows. This hearing was an example.

    #88079
    wv
    Participant

    I don’t really know why I put myself through it, but I watched a good deal of the hearings too.

    Key takeaways for me:

    1. The Republicans hounded Strzok for nine hours, repeatedly going back to the same exact aspects of the case, with the barest of deviations in language. I suppose they were trying to get him on a “gotcha” moment of inconsistency, but it was deeply frustrating to watch.

    2. I didn’t realize this was fair game, but Republicans often handed off their allotted time to their more aggressive and determined peers, which generally meant the same two or three designated attack dogs. I didn’t see the Dems do this, though I didn’t watch the entire nine hours.

    3. I don’t think there is any way around this fact, but it never fazed the Republicans, and the Dems appeared not to bring it up, at least while I was watching:

    If the FBI can be accused of taking any actions to influence the election, it was all to the benefit of Trump and against Clinton. If Strzok had wanted to hurt Trump, he would have leaked that Trump was under federal investigation, but he didn’t. Comey did tell the country, twice before election, that Clinton was being investigated, but would not say that Trump was too. And we also know that FBI agents in the New York office leaked info regarding Clinton to Giuliani, which he promptly spilled on Fox News. That office was called “Trumpland” for its “bias.”

    This follows a more general pattern for the GOP in their endless hearings about supposed “bias” against “conservatives” and now Trump. Don’t mention, don’t investigate the fact that government departments are filled with a wide array of differing political views, or that the Law Enforcement sphere has always been dominated by the right. Whether it’s the IRS or intel or DOJ, make sure not to look at “bias” in favor of Republicans, or bias against their opponents, etc. Just narrow the frame to work solely in their favor.

    Wikileaks, of course, helped tremendously here, concentrating solely on the Dems.

    4. It’s amazing to me that Congress chooses to have hearings on private texts between two adults, which included perhaps “mean things” about a president that both Republicans and Dems despised at the time . . . but won’t hold hearings on the Trump administration’s kidnapping of babies at the border, endless corruption within the Trump executive, the destruction of the environment, the selling off of millions of acres of formerly protected wilderness, and our endless wars — for starters.

    Our politics have never been much to brag about, but I think they’ve reached new lows. This hearing was an example.

    ==================

    Well I’m not disagreeing with your big-picture-points, Billy, but the FBI Agent handed them this stuff on a platter. Very unprofessional. You canNOT be texting private-negative things about someone you are investigating. Any lawyer would impeach a cop if he did that to a defendant.

    Again, I’m not addressing the big-picture stuff. It just irks me that the agent was that stupid. Cuz…it…was…stupid. I’d have fired him just to send a message. Its a big big mistake. Not a little one.

    w
    v

    #88082
    Billy_T
    Participant

    Well I’m not disagreeing with your big-picture-points, Billy, but the FBI Agent handed them this stuff on a platter. Very unprofessional. You canNOT be texting private-negative things about someone you are investigating. Any lawyer would impeach a cop if he did that to a defendant.

    Again, I’m not addressing the big-picture stuff. It just irks me that the agent was that stupid. Cuz…it…was…stupid. I’d have fired him just to send a message. Its a big big mistake. Not a little one.

    w
    v

    I agree that it was stupid. Seriously stupid. He never should have done this on government equipment. But, to me, the hypocrisy levels are off the charts, because Republicans were saying far worse things about Trump at the time, and many from his own administration have as well. It appears that the norm is to call him a moron and worse, especially if you work for him.

    If saying “mean things” about Trump were a firing offense, it would have cleared out half of DC back then — for good or ill.

    I’m also not a fan of private communications between consenting adults being selectively leaked/the subject of a hearing, unless there’s probable cause before their disclosure of crimes being committed by said consenting adults.

    There weren’t any.

    As in, why no concern for Strzok/Lisa Page’s civil rights and civil liberties? The Republicans held hearings concerning Carter Page’s and FISA warrants, which were re-upped four times by four Republican judges. Of course, they never even mentioned the possible abuses of that system against anyone but Carter Page — not the truly powerless who get caught up in the net of government surveillance, etc. etc.

    Oh, and to put a cherry on top, the day before that hearing they reauthorized the FISA program.

    Only in America.

    #88083
    wv
    Participant

    But, to me, the hypocrisy levels are off the charts…

    Only in America.

    ———————–

    Well we are talking about Replicants here. The hypocrisy levels are virtually always off the charts.

    At least Dark Lord Sauron wasn’t a hypocrite. I’ll give him that. I mean he was all “I’m going to destroy the world, fuck you all.” Ya know.

    w
    v

    #88085
    joemad
    Participant

    Texts, emails, facebook messages etc — how many times have they come back to bite people in the butt.

    No matter how many times it happens — people keep doin it.

    w
    v

    Don’t write anything you can phone. Don’t phone anything you can talk. Don’t talk anything you can whisper. Don’t whisper anything you can smile. Don’t smile anything you can nod. Don’t nod anything you can wink.

    ” Earl Long”

    luckily we learned at the dawn of internet communication, during the Tony Banks era on Rams Talk….. posting shit always comes back to bite you in the ass….

    Sometimes i’m just flabbergasted at the texts or the posts I see on social media…

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by joemad.
    #88087
    Billy_T
    Participant

    But, to me, the hypocrisy levels are off the charts…

    Only in America.

    ———————–

    Well we are talking about Replicants here. The hypocrisy levels are virtually always off the charts.

    At least Dark Lord Sauron wasn’t a hypocrite. I’ll give him that. I mean he was all “I’m going to destroy the world, fuck you all.” Ya know.

    w
    v

    True.

    There’s something to be said about being true to one’s evil. I think Baudelaire probably wrote something close to that in his Fleurs Du Mal, but I haven’t reread him in some time.

    ;>)

    So, WV, what is to be done? I keep wavering about this. Give up on politics entirely, and in the limited time left me, listen to good music, spend time with friends and family, eat well, travel when I can . . . Or stay in the game to the extent possible. I do know the first option is the “healthy” one, and the second one is its opposite.

    #88089
    wv
    Participant

    So, WV, what is to be done? I keep wavering about this. Give up on politics entirely, and in the limited time left me, listen to good music, spend time with friends and family, eat well, travel when I can . . . Or stay in the game to the extent possible. I do know the first option is the “healthy” one, and the second one is its opposite.

    ——————–

    Yeah. “What is to be done?”

    We bin livin out that damn question since the day we were born.
    Or since the big bang.

    I dunno.

    w
    v

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.