FBI Director Christopher Wray testified that Peter Strzok would be afforded the normal disciplinary process the FBI typically follows. The Director of the office that handles FBI disciplinary measures, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), stated that special agent Peter Strzok should only be demoted coupled with a 60 day suspension. Both of those statements have now been upended with the firing of Peter Strzok from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which officially took place on Friday, August 10.
Peter Strzok was the lead investigator looking into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in 2016, he initially opened the counterintelligence investigation which led to the special counsel. Peter Strzok was also a member of Robert Mueller’s special counsel team before he was fired after the Inspector General discovered a trove of anti-Trump text messages between him and his paramour, FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
The firing of Peter Strzok comes just one month after his disgraceful testimony before the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees in which he displayed divisive arrogance and a strong commitment to his personal political beliefs. Strzok’s testimony made clear that he allowed his political bias to infect his work at the FBI, though House Democrats literally applauded his political bias and blatant animus towards President Trump during his testimony.
The official reason why Peter Strzok was terminated from the FBI has not yet been disclosed however, the statement from his attorney, Aitan Goelman, eludes to a possible explanation.
“The decision to fire Special Agent Strzok is not only a departure from typical bureau practice, but also contradicts Director Wray’s testimony to Congress and his assurances that the F.B.I. intended to follow its regular process in this and all personnel matters,” said Mr. Goelman, referring to F.B.I. Director Christopher Wray.
“This decision should be deeply troubling to all Americans,” said Strzok’s attorney. “A lengthy investigation and multiple rounds of congressional testimony failed to produce a shred of evidence that Special Agent Strzok’s personal views ever affected his work.”
Considering the language in the statement from Strzok’s attorney, it appears the Office of Personnel Management found enough circumstantial evidence to conclude that political bias did, in fact, affect Strzok’s work at the Bureau.
Peter Strzok’s attorney is woefully misinformed, as Mr. Strzok decided to use FBI property to transmit hateful and politically charged messages about the very person he was investigating. Though Peter Strzok did not admit to allowing his political bias to steer his work at the FBI, his actions certainly prove otherwise.
Peter Strzok’s was attempting to strike a balance between the Russia counterintelligence investigation and the Hillary Clinton e-mail probe in the early-fall of 2016. After discovering a trove of classified Clinton e-mails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, Strzok shelved that evidence in order to further the Russia counterintelligence investigation which was still in its infancy.
Strzok’s decision to shelve the newly discovered Clinton e-mails forced former FBI Director James Comey to re-open the Clinton e-mail probe and sent a letter to Congress announcing as much on October 28, 2016.
One would think addressing newly discovered evidence associated with a highly publicized case the FBI just closed, such as the Clinton e-mail probe, would take precedent over a counterintelligence investigation in which Peter Strzok stated, “my gut sense and concern is there’s no big there there.”
The Russia/Trump collusion aspect of the Russia probe has been an absolute disgrace from the outset and the fact that the vast majority of those who headed the probe have been disgraced themselves should speak volumes to its credulity.
The special counsel is a product of the incompetence cited in the firing of James Comey and the political bias that Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe were ultimately terminated for. James Comey is also displaying an immense amount of political bias while on his book tour. How on Earth is the special counsel going to come to a credible conclusion when every person responsible for initiating their investigation has been forced to leave the FBI in disgrace? The special counsel now represents one of the most stellar political examples of “fruit of the poisonous tree.”
Clearly, Rod Rosenstein must be weighing his considerations about publishing the report that Mueller hands off to him since any allegations made therein will now be close to impossible to prove given their witness list.
Please scroll down to submit your comments…