On Thursday, the complete transcript of testimony by FBI agent Peter Strzok before the House Judiciary Committee was released to the public. Strzok, was involved in the Mueller investigation during its first few weeks, and also supervised one portion of the look at Hillary Clinton’s email, has been a frequent recipient of Republican attacks, and Trump tweets, when texts he made from an FBI phone revealed numerous … uncomplimentary statements about Trump. But, even though Republicans worked for hours to try and generate some kind of conspiracy out of Strzok’s statements, what the day revealed is that, in context, the statements were nothing of the sort.
The transcript covers a lengthy appearance by Strzok in which he was questioned by both representatives and congressional staffers. Lengthy as in the full text runs to 312 pages. Much of the initial questioning from committee staffers looks at Strzok’s role in the Clinton investigation—he wasn’t in charge of it, didn’t initiate it, and wasn’t aware how it began. He was working in the Washington field office and became involved after FBI headquarters requested more staff from that office. However, Strzok didn’t “lead” the investigation, wasn’t the supervisory agent in charge of the staff from the Washington office, and wasn’t even aware of how he was selected to be part of the investigation.
From there, the Republican-centric staff moves on to the critical issue of Strzok’s extramarital affair with FBI attorney Lisa Page and how it could be have been used to get him to cover up evidence or distort results. Which he denies saying “I absolutely would not have been vulnerable.”
And it starts a cycle that continues throughout the day—Republicans trying to show that Strzok’s comments show a bias that affected his work, and Strzok denying any such bias. The difference is that Republicans show that they are utterly unable to find a scrap of evidence to support their accusations, while Strzok shows that everyone else involved, including the inspector general who was critical of his texts, agreed that he hadn’t let any personal beliefs interfere in the investigations where he was involved.
Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe is the first to engage Strzok directly, asking him about his role in the Russia investigation. Despite Ratcliffe’s repeated attempts to get Strzok to say he was running the show, the agent says he was “part of the leadership structure” but not in charge. This exchange generates such Bureau-worthy statements as: “It was an area in which elements were under my subordinate supervisor’s supervision for the pendency of time at the Counterintelligence Division.” But mostly what emerges is that Strzok was not one of the initial members of Mueller’s team, and came on board some weeks after the investigation began—and left less than two months later. On that removal, Strzok made the reasons clear. Mueller “absolutely wanted to run an investigation that was not only independent, but also presented the appearance of independence.”
The only additional point of significance in this early questioning is that Strzok makes a distinction that when he says “we’ll stop that” and similar statements in his texts to Page, he was not referring to Trump’s election, but to the collusion with Russia. According to Strzok, there were some connected to the investigation who didn’t want to take action because “the polls are overwhelmingly in Clinton’s favor.” But he favored moving against those involved in collusion, even if it risked field assets. According to Strzok, this was the real intention behind many of the texts that have been presented as if there was a conspiracy to stop Trump’s election.
That includes the use of the “insurance policy” phrase that has been at the center of many Republican attacks and Trump tweets. Strzok wasn’t speaking of insuring that Trump wouldn’t be elected, but that he wouldn’t have the help of Russia.
Strzok: So my use of the term “insurance policy” was simply to say, while the polls or people might think it less likely that then-candidate Trump would be elected, that should not influence—that should not get in the way of us doing our jobs responsibly.
After a break, Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler takes over questioning. Nadler makes it clear that had Strzok actually wanted to stop Trump, he had the means—Strzok was aware that the FBI was investigating links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. He had both that broad knowledge and specific details that could have been leaked to the press or politicians. He did not do so. Other Democratic reps walk Strzok through a number of statements made by Trump and other Republicans, as Strzok denies there is any truth behind accusations of “lies” and “phony” investigations. The highlight here may be Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) carefully skating around the limits of what Strzok is allowed to say about the investigation to make it clear the Trump campaign was given at least two briefings on Russian attempts to interfere in the election by July of 2016. Those briefings included Trump, Michael Flynn, and Chris Christie. The Trump campaign was urged to contact the FBI if they had any knowledge or contact … but the Trump campaign did not.
In the afternoon, Trey Gowdy takes up the questioning for the Republicans, and the whole long exchange between Gowdy and Strzok is … spectacularly bad. Again and again. And again. And ... many, many agains, Gowdy tries to get Strzok to say something about the details of how the Russia investigation began and how the transition to the special counsel investigation was made; details that Strzok either does not have or cannot give without breaking the rules concerning an open investigation. It’s long. It’s fruitless. It’s occasionally hilarious.
Gowdy: The day the Russian probe began, the day it was initiated, the day you signed a document initiating it, this is what you said: “Damn this feels momentous.” What feels momentous?
Strzok: Sir. I am happy to discuss that in a classified setting.
Gowdy: No, no, no. The word “momentous” is not classified, Agent Strzok. What felt momentous?
Strzok: Sir, the word “momentous” in the text is not classified. The reference to that text and what it means is, and I am happy to …
Repeat incidents like this many times. With many interjections by attorneys for the DOJ.
Gowdy: What about this next sentence? “Because this matters.” What is “this?”
Strzok: Sir, again I am happy to answer that in a classified setting and answer all of your—
Gowdy: So “this” is classified? Momentous is classified? This is classified?
There is … a lot of this. There is also a long section which might be titled “Trey Gowdy pretends not to understand text acronyms” in which Gowdy forces Strzok to explain and read terms like OMG and WTF. The only value during this section where it’s easy to picture Trey Gowdy trying to pull his Plasticine hair, is that Strzok makes it clear again that many of the things he was warning against as “threats” or things he was vowing to stop were not Trump’s election, but the Russian scheme to interfere in the election. And that the concerns that Strzok often expressed were in pushing for an investigation into the actions of Russia, rather than standing aside because the polls indicated Clinton had it in the bag.
But most of Gowdy’s questioning is simply ridiculous. As in ridiculous even for Trey Gowdy. Such as the part where Gowdy tries to show that a tweet in which Strzok says Trump will loose “100 million to zero” means that he was conspiring to fix the election. At length. But even that isn’t the best, or worst, of this segment. That has to be the part where Gowdy takes a tweet in which Strzok says he can “smell the Trump support” and concludes from this that the agent believes that Republicans literally stink. No. Seriously. Gowdy goes on and on about this, even after both Strzok and his attorney have tried to get him to listen to reason, and that the point was just an allegory.
Gowdy: That’s not what you wrote. You wrote “I can smell the Trump support.” And my question to you is, what did it smell like?
And he kept coming back to this, even after a lengthy aside and questioning by another Republican.
Gowdy: You said you could smell the Trump support. Could you also smell the Clinton support?
Strzok: I haven’t ever tried. Again … this is an allegory.
It’s written normally on the transcript, but it’s easy to believe that Strzok said the word “allegory” very slowly for Gowdy’s benefit. If you think that Gowdy dropped his questioning about the smell of Trump supporters at this point … no, of course he did not. This goes on for pages. Pages.
Gowdy: I’m waiting on the answer. What did it smell like?
Strzok: And I’m telling you it didn’t smell like anything. My use of the word “smell” is an analogy.
This section does include Trey Gowdy reading tweets saying “Trump is a fucking idiot” into the congressional record. So, that’s good. And honestly, Trey Gowdy probably does have a very distinctive odor. Maybe someone has mentioned it to him. Maybe he’s sensitive about it.
When Democrats next got the chance to talk, they did something that Trey Gowdy refused to do—they actually entered all of the texts as submissions, including their dates. That allowed them to show that many of the “damning” texts had actually been sent during a couple of brief periods, including during a televised debate in which Trump didn’t just fumble questions but misname agencies and mangle numbers. Read in context, much of Strzok’s “anti-Trump rhetoric” was actually an ongoing commentary on the debate performance.
Finally Republican Chairman Bob Goodlatte had his chance to conduct an extended discussion with Strzok and immediately returned to the most important topic of the day. That’s right … he asked about how Trump supporters smell.
Goodlatte: You said you could smell.
Strzok: Oh, yes, sir. I did say that.
We all know he said that. We’ve very familiar.
Throughout the very long day, Strzok handles himself well, comes off as both blunt and professional, and does not shy away from answering questions even when they present the possibility of personal embarrassment. It’s a very solid performance.
It becomes clear throughout the day that, no matter how the texts he exchanged with Lisa Page sound when broken down into bits and sprayed out of context, most of them were in reaction to two events: Trump’s comments about the Kahn family during the Democratic convention and Trump’s performance during the first televised debate. As Strzok and Page watched these events, they texted each other back and forth, conducting a commentary in which they expressed opinions, and jokes, about Trump’s statements.
In context, Strzok’s texts have absolutely zero punch in terms of proving any kind of “conspiracy.” And efforts like those of Trey Gowdy to paint them as such become even more silly than they already appeared to be.