The Daily - Why Peter Strzok Wanted to Testify

Episode Date: July 13, 2018

After his text messages about President Trump were made public, Peter Strzok, a high-ranking F.B.I. agent who played a pivotal role in the Russia investigation, became a punching bag for Republican lawmakers. So why did he offer to testify before them? Guest: Michael S. Schmidt, who covers national security and federal investigations for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, an FBI agent's text messages about President Trump have made him a punching bag for Republican lawmakers. So why did he ask to testify before them? So why did he ask to testify before them? It's Friday, July 13th. I remember exactly where I was when I found out about Pete Strzok's text messages.

Mike Schmidt covers national security for The Times. I won't say where it was or who I was talking to, but I was with this guy and I said to him, why did Pete Strzok, the top FBI counterintelligence agent who oversaw the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the investigation into Donald Trump's campaign's ties to Russia get moved off of the Mueller investigation. Why would that happen? Why would one of the most respected investigators in the bureau go off to work in HR? And he said, it's really a mess. said, it's really a mess. He said there are these text messages in which he expressed an anti-Trump bias that the inspector general has found out about. Have you been seen? Have you been watching what's been going on with the inspector general's report? What a scam this whole thing is? Okay. And I knew as soon as I heard that, that it was going to be a game changer for the president. How about that FBI agent? How about that guy?

You think he likes me? That it would fit directly into his narrative. You think there was just a little bias there? A little bias? That the FBI, the Justice Department, Bob Mueller, the deep state, Oh, did we catch them in the act? were out to get him. Yeah. And

These texts, sent right before the election last year, show extreme political bias. Since then, it has unleashed a torrent Have you had a chance to read this? of criticism. God, Hillary should win 100 million to one. God, Trump is a loathsome human being. Pete Strzok, Peter Strzok, Peter Strzok, FIH and Peter Strzok gets as much airtime on Fox News these days as anyone else. How is this guy with this bias ever allowed on Mueller's team?

Peter Strzok should have been fired a long time ago And others should have been fired. And has become the president's strongest argument about why this is a witch hunt. Good morning. Over a year after these text messages were discovered by the Justice Department, Pete Strzok finally had the chance on Thursday to defend himself. The committees on the judiciary and oversight and government reform will come to order and without objection the chairs. So at 10 a.m. this morning the house judiciary and oversight committees two committees hold a joint hearing to question Strzok. Mr. Strzok you may begin. Chairman Goodlatte and Gowdy, ranking members Nadler and Cummings, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committees again, this time in an open hearing. I testify today with significant regret, recognizing that my texts have created confusion and caused pain for people I love.

Certain private messages of mine have provided ammunition for misguided attacks against the FBI, an institution that I love deeply and have served proudly for over 20 years. Off the bat, Strzok addresses the text messages. Like many people, I had and expressed personal political opinions during an extraordinary presidential election. Many contained expressions of concern for the security of our country, opinions that were not always expressed in terms I'm proud of. He says, look, I, like many Americans, had political views about what was going on during this extraordinary election.

I said bad things about Donald Trump. I said bad things about Hillary Clinton. I said bad things about Bernie Sanders. I said bad things about Hillary Clinton. I said bad things about Bernie Sanders. At times, my criticism was blunt. But despite how it's been characterized, it was not limited to one person or to one party. The problem for Strzok is that the text messages are very, very damning. There's one that comes out during the election in which one of his co-workers says to him, Trump's never going to become president, right? And he says, no, no, he won't. We'll stop it. And for the top guy overseeing the Trump investigation, that's a pretty good example of bias. And the perception of that is

devastating to the FBI. But Strzok is adamant. Not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took. This is true for the Clinton email investigation, for the investigation into Russian interference, and for every other investigation I've worked on. It is not who I am, and it is not something I would ever do, period. And then he goes further. I understand we're living in a political era in which insults and insinuation often drown out honesty and integrity. But the honest truth is that Russian interference in our elections constitutes a grave attack on our democracy. Most disturbingly, it has been wildly successful, sowing discord in our nation

and shaking faith in our institutions. And he really hits the gas on defending himself. And he really hits the gas on defending himself. He says that this, what's going on in front of him, this hearing where Republicans are attacking him and by extension attacking the FBI and the Mueller investigation is, quote, Just another victory notch in Putin's belt and another milestone in our enemy's campaign to tear America apart. and our enemy's campaign to tear America apart. As someone who loves this country and cherishes its ideals, it is profoundly painful to watch and even worse to play a part in. Mr. Chairman, I welcome your questions. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. I'll begin by recognizing the Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Mr. Gowdy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Agents struck the FBI investigation into potential Russia collusion with the Trump campaign began on July 31, 2016. Right from the minute the Republicans have the chance to go after struck, they do. Between July 31st and August 8th, how many interviews did you conduct related to the alleged collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign? Leading the charge was Trey Gowdy, the outspoken South Carolina congressman who's the head of the oversight committee. By August the 8th, when you're talking about stopping him and how terrifying it would be for him to win and how you can protect the country and no interviews have been done before you're talking about impeachment of the president. No wonder Bob Mueller kicked you off of the investigation, Agent Strzok. My question is,

Agent Strzok, my question is, if you were kicked off when he read the text, shouldn't you have been kicked off when you wrote them? Not at all. Well, it wasn't the discovery of your text, Mr. Strzok. It was the existence of your bias that got you kicked off. No, Mr. Gowdy, it wasn't. I do not have bias. My personal opinions in no way have ever impacted... Well, then why did you get kicked off? Why'd you get kicked off? Mr. Gowdy, my understanding of why I was kicked off was that based on an understanding of those texts and the perception that they might create... Well, hang on a second, Agent Strzok. Hang on a second. And Strzok, who obviously had a lot of time to prepare, had an answer ready for them.

Sir, I think it's important when you look at those texts that you understand the context in which they were made and the things that were going on across America. He honed in on one of the more controversial things that happened in the campaign. President Trump's attack on a Gold Star family, a family that had lost their son in Iraq. You need to understand that 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. 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 and I take great disagreement to your assertion of what that was or wasn't.

Mike Strzok's argument seemed to basically be, in many moments of this testimony, that everybody had strong views about the people in this presidential campaign and that they went home and that they talked about them and he compares his behavior to anybody just talking about a campaign and having views on it. And he compares his behavior to anybody just talking about a campaign and having views on it. But he's not every other American. He is a senior FBI agent

involved in a highly sensitive investigation. Struck takes us back to 2016 before the election says, look, I had very damaging information on the president. I could have gotten that information out there. I could have leaked it and really undermined his campaign. And I did not do that. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took. Furthermore, this isn't just me sitting here telling you, you don't have to take my word for it. At every step, at every investigative decision, there are multiple layers of people above me. And then he says, even if I had these biases that got in the way of my work, there's so much oversight and the FBI is such a large institution that I would not have

been able to get away with it. That if he had tried to hit the gas too hard and go beyond what the facts were, the Bureau would have constrained him. And the suggestion that I in some dark chamber somewhere in the FBI would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards, and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. It simply couldn't happen. So basically, he seems to be saying, if you think it's easy to try to hurt a candidate

and to act on your bias, then you don't really understand how the FBI works. Correct. You don't understand the checks that are in the Bureau that would stop a rogue agent from acting on their political feelings or biases. And the proposition that that is going on, that it might occur anywhere in the FBI, deeply corrodes what the FBI is in American society, the effectiveness of their mission, and it is deeply destructive. the effectiveness of their mission, and it is deeply destructive. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion. I have a Rule 11 motion.

And what about the Democratic members of this committee? What are their questions for Strzok? And how are they thinking about this hearing? Mr. Strzok, you know, you are before this committee for one reason, to serve as a monumental distraction. They're trying to defend Mueller. They're trying to defend the FBI. They're trying to show that there is nothing to the messages. This investigation is a joke.

That Strzok's biases did not interfere. It is a three-wing circus. They see Strzok as their efforts to push back on the Republican criticism. That is their most important thing. It is not even meritorious of an investigation by Ace Ventura, pet detective, let alone 75 members of the United States Congress. Not only did they try and use Strzok to defend Mueller and to defend what they see as the sanctity of the Mueller investigation, they also. As you know, the counsel of the FBI, based on the special counsel's equities,

have directed me not to answer any questions about the ongoing investigation into Russian attempts to interfere. So the gentleman will suspend and the clock will suspend. Mr. Strzok, you are under subpoena and are required to answer the question. Are you objecting to the question? If so, please state your objection. Mr. Chairman, I object. The gentleman does not have standing to object. There is no point of order here.

The point of order. No point of order here. The point of order should be heard. Used parliamentary procedures and other measures to try and stop the Republicans from forcing Strzok to answer certain questions. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The question is directed to the witness. And I have a point of order before he answers the question. The point of order is not well taken until. You don't know what the point of order is. You can't say it's not well taken. The point of order, the witness will answer the question. Mr. Chairman, I raise my point of order and I insist on it. So they're using a lot of legislative tools, whatever they can, to try to keep Republicans from prying too deeply into Strzok. Correct. The problem is the Democrats are in the minority and the Republicans

may go ahead and hold Strzok in contempt for not answering those questions. We endured 15 minutes of badgering of the witness. Could he be allowed now to answer as you promised, Mr. Chairman? The gentleman will suspend. So it was a sort of ugly, if not childish. You said you were going to give him that opportunity at the end. I am giving him that opportunity. Back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans about whether Strzok had to answer certain things, whether he could consult his lawyer, whether he could consult an FBI lawyer,

who was doing what, and... Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Are you going to just pontificate for nonstop? The general lady from Michigan is recognized. At the end of the day, it was just a lot more noise from House committees that have not shown themselves to conduct sort of bipartisan investigations into what has gone on. So then why do you think that Strzok, knowing as he must have what this hearing was going to be like. Why do you think he wanted to do this? Why subject himself to this? Well, he's already had his credibility damaged severely by these text messages. And he hasn't had an opportunity to really defend himself. And this

was that first opportunity. I mean, he would have gone on Fox News a few months ago if his lawyer and the FBI had let him. I think most people would want to do that. If you were criticizing the press harshly for six months and your face was plastered on Fox News every night, you would want to go out there and say, hey, look, let me tell my side of the story. What was interesting to me was how forceful he was in pushing back. And I'm particularly proud of the work that I and many others did on the Clinton email investigation. Our charge was to investigate it competently, honestly, and independently, and that's exactly what happened. It turned into one of the more forceful defenses of the Bureau that we have seen in the past year.

I'm also proud of our work on the Russian interference investigation. This is an investigation into a direct attack by a foreign adversary. The thing is, is that in the course of all of this attacks from the president, the FBI has been a bit muted in their pushback. There hasn't really been a strong, forceful pushback who says, look, guys, this criticism is nonsense and you guys know this. In the summer of 2016, we had an urgent need to protect the integrity of an American presidential election from a hostile foreign power determined to weaken and divide the United States of America. This investigation is not politically motivated. It is not a witch hunt. It is not a hoax. Yet it's really interesting that this is the most forceful defense of the FBI

from somebody who seems so compromised, who wrote these seemingly biased texts that he wrote. It doesn't seem like an ideal figure to defend the agency right now. Well, that's the thing that the FBI has struggled with. They're coming out of the Comey era, where Comey got into trouble for speaking too much publicly. The other thing is, is that these folks work in the executive branch. The FBI director works for the president. The folks that run the Justice Department work for him, too. And I think they're reticent to really come out and push back on the president truly as aggressively as Strzok did. Do you think that FBI agents watching this would

have been heartened by what they saw? Was it a proud moment for the FBI? I think they have very conflicting views of Strzok. I think they look at those text messages and say, look at how stupid these are and how many problems they have created for the Bureau and how much they have hurt the Bureau's credibility. On the other hand, Strzok today was the best spokesman the FBI has had out there in months, certainly probably since Comey was the director. And so he's out there after causing all these problems for the Bureau. He's defending it in a way that we haven't seen saying, look, I have such pride in the work that I judgments and decisions led to the situation and to all of the skepticism of the FBI? They did. But at the same time, what they would say is that we do not understand how difficult a situation they were in and how bad the choices were that they had. And they want to explain why they took the actions they had. But I bet that Peter Strzok really wishes that he hadn't sent that text.

I'm sure he would give anything to be back as the top agent working for Bob Mueller right now. Mike, thank you very much. Thanks for having me. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Thursday, the Trump administration said it had technically complied with a federal judge's order to reunite separated migrant children under the age of five with their parents. migrant children under the age of five with their parents. So far, the administration has returned 57 out of the 103 young children and said that the remaining 46 are ineligible because of concerns

about their safety or because their parents have already been deported. Under the same judge's order, a far larger number of older migrant children, numbering in the thousands, must be reunited with their families by July 26th. And I believe in NATO. I think NATO is very important, probably the greatest ever done. But the United States was paying for anywhere from 70 to 90 percent of it, depending on the way you calculate. That's not fair to the United States. During a news conference at the end of the NATO summit in Brussels,

President Trump reaffirmed his support for the alliance. After days of scolding its members for failing to spend enough on their militaries and suggesting that the U.S. might leave the organization. We understand your message, but some people ask themselves, will you be tweeting differently once you board the Air Force One? Thank you. No, that's other people that do that. I don't. I'm very consistent. I'm a very stable genius. Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, go ahead. with editing help from Larissa Anderson. Lisa Tobin is our executive producer.

Samantha Hennig is our editorial director. Our technical manager is Brad Fisher. Our engineer is Chris Wood. And our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolmick, Michaela Bouchard, Lehman Gistu, and Stella Tan.

And we've just launched a new home for The Daily at nytimes.com slash thedaily, where you can find all our past episodes. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.