Strzok Slapped With Subpoena To Testify In Public After Getting Cold Feet

Embattled FBI agent Peter Strzok has been subpoenaed by two powerful House committees to testify in public at a joint hearing slated for 10 a.m. on July 10. 

It is unknown whether Strzok will comply with the order issued by the House Judiciary Committee and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, however it didn't look promising on Tuesday. His attorney, Aitan Goelman, said in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee that Strzok may decline their invitation to testify, despite previously expressing interest in doing so - over what Goelman said would be a trap.

As we reported on Tuesday, Strzok testified last Wednesday in a closed door session a week after declaring he would do so "without immunity" and without invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself during questioning over his anti-Trump / pro-Clinton bias while heading up investigations into both candidates. None of that mattered, however, as those present say "It was a waste after Strzok kept hiding behind a "classified information" excuse, while DOJ attorneys prevented Strzok from answering anything remotely entering productive territory. 

Now, Goelman says the committee has "sharpened their knives behind closed doors" and will spring a trap on Strzok by seizing "on any tiny inconsistencies" with last week's testimony "to 'prove' that he perjured himself or made false statements," Goelman wrote in a letter to the panel somehow obtained by CNN

Having sharpened their knives behind closed doors, the Committee would now like to drag back Special Agent Strzok and have him testify in public — a request that we originally made and the Committee denied,” Goelman wrote.

Sounding suspiciously like Rudy Giuliani, he continued: “What’s being asked of Special Agent Strzok is to participate in what anyone can recognize as a trap.”

In his email, Goelman wrote that it was “generous to characterize many of these inquiries as ‘questions’” — suggesting instead that the GOP’s closed-door queries had been “political theater and attempts to embarrass the witness” through various leaks.

Among the questions Goelman complained Republicans put to Strzok were one about whether he loved Lisa Page, the recipient of his anti-Trump texts with whom he was having an affair, and another asking “what DO Trump supporters SMELL like, Agent?” — a reference to an August 2016 text Strzok sent in which he told Page he could “SMELL the Trump support” at a Walmart in southern Virginia. -WaPo

Goelman also called for a transcript of last week's 11 hours of testimony, and while he didn't rule out testimony in front of other committees, it is unclear whether Strzok will accept the House Judiciary Committee's invitation to testify unless the transcript is released. 

Goelman anticipated that Strzok would be criticized for refusing to testify on July 10, writing that Strzok “is willing to testify again, and he is willing to testify publicly. Any suggestion that he is trying to avoid doing so is an outright lie.”

But Goelman suggested that he would not consider Strzok to be bound by the Judiciary Committee’s demands that he not speak to other congressional panels before their work was done — leaving an opening for other congressional panels to attempt to schedule interviews with Strzok. -WaPo

Perhaps Goelman realized how absurd it would look if Strzok kept de-facto pleading the fifth with the phrase: "On the advice of FBI counsel, I can't answer that question." 


Freeze These notfeelinthebern Tue, 07/03/2018 - 17:17 Permalink

Just do it Fox is running low on headlines, code red


Think for a second, GOP is in control correct? GOP could declassify the transcript of his closed door hearing, correct? Why wouldn’t  they unless it proved their conspiracy theories false? Cause they think you’re stupid and don’t wanna be disinvited from Hannity


all a move to discredit Mueller, whose firing will lead to civil war II

In reply to by notfeelinthebern

Ristretto X4 Freeze These Tue, 07/03/2018 - 18:25 Permalink

I know you think we all support the GOP and utilize Fox as our sole source of news. Fox and the GOP tried their best to eliminate Trump in the primaries to no avail. We are not so easily led.

Your bitchy comments here display both your hubris, and your 2nd grade grammar skills. Please keep posting; you prove my points over and over again!

In reply to by Freeze These

nmewn artichoke Tue, 07/03/2018 - 20:03 Permalink

                                The Decision to Omit “Gross Negligence”

"Comey again met with Rybicki, Bowdich, Steinbach, Priestap, Strzok, the Lead Analyst, Baker, Anderson, FBI Attorney 1, and Page to discuss the statement on May 31, 2016.

Notes from this meeting indicate that the discussion included “Lisa [Page]/[FBI Attorney 1] legal thinking.” According to Page, she raised concerns about the use of “grossly negligent” in the draft statement at one of the meetings with Comey (likely the May 31 meeting) before making edits to the statement.

Page told us: I believe that I raised with [Comey] the concern...with the use of gross negligence in particular because I was concerned that it would be confusing if we used a...term that has a legal definition...if we say she’s grossly negligent, that despite the fact that we, we and the Department had a good reason to not charge her with gross negligence, given the fact that they thought it was unconstitutionally vague, and it had never been done, and, you know, sort of all of the concomitant defenses that would also follow from, from her conduct, that it would just be overly confusing.

(My edit: The conduct WAS gross negligence and the attempt is to NOT use the words "gross negligence" because that IS the statutory term of the act Hillary commited. That is to say, she was grossly negligent.)

"Page further stated, “If the purpose of this is sort of clarity, and the purpose of this is to sort of try to explain to the American populace what happened and what we think about it, that to use a term that had an actual legal definition would be confusing.”

(My edit: Only confusing because you are creating a public statement, to be delivered by the Director of the Bureau of Matters, one James have even "interviewed" the target which is Hillary Rodham Clinton which would happen on July 2."

"She said that the team discussed the need to find some other way to characterize former Secretary Clinton’s conduct.

FBI Attorney 1 told the OIG that she remembered sitting down with Rybicki, Strzok, the Lead Analyst, and Page to discuss the language of the statute and whether to use “grossly negligent” wording in the draft statement.

Based on a meeting log prepared by FBI OGC, we determined that this meeting took place on June 6, 2016. Rybicki said that he did not recall the substance of discussions about removing “grossly negligent” from the draft, but that there was “a lot of discussion” among the FBI OGC lawyers about the statute.” He said he primarily input changes made by others and described his role in revising the statement as “scribe detail.” After this meeting, Strzok, the Lead Analyst, Page, and FBI Attorney 1 met to edit the statement. Page told the OIG that the four of them edited the document 192 together at Strzok’s computer. Metadata from a version of the statement indicates that Strzok modified the draft on June 6, 2016."

In reply to by artichoke

nmewn nmewn Tue, 07/03/2018 - 20:27 Permalink

This is in the OIG Report and it is the very definition of a coverup. 

The statutory language in question is:

"(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through >>>gross negligence<<< permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


If two or more persons >>>conspire to violate any<<< of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy."

Its cut & dry.

Hillary Rodham Clinton allowed through "gross negligence" classified documents and information to flow across her illegal server and did nothing to stop it, in fact, participated in it...over & over & over again. She also conspired (with others) to cover up her (and their) clearly illegal acts by deleting emails that were under Congressional subpoena and compounded that act by having her non-security cleared "lawyers" look through her emails to decide which ones to delete (read destroy, also in the statute). 

She would have the world believe these would be the wedding & yoga class emails (lol) but classified emails were found residing with Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary (and her "lawyers") deleted those on her end...clearly NOT yoga & wedding emails.

The bitch be guilty, like "with a cloth or something" ;-) 

In reply to by nmewn

onewayticket2 indygo55 Tue, 07/03/2018 - 17:22 Permalink

flashback:  HRC wiped her server/destroyed blackberries (like with a cloth) AFTER those emails were subpoenaed.  And she got off without even a slap on the wrist.  


for laughs.....

"The Clinton campaign previously had indicated that her personal emails were deleted before Clinton received a congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015. But the FBI said her emails were deleted “between March 25-31, 2015” — three weeks after the subpoena. The campaign now says it only learned when the emails were deleted from the FBI report."

In reply to by indygo55

BSHJ Tue, 07/03/2018 - 17:22 Permalink

He is not likely to say much IF he testifies at all......i am sure he will 'not recall' or simply take the Fifth....just another clown circus by congress (redundant)

DaBard51 Tue, 07/03/2018 - 17:24 Permalink

Send the House Sergeant-at-Arms backed by some Marines to escort Mr. Strozek and ensure his safety.



When nine hundred years old you become, look this good you will not.

A Lunatic Tue, 07/03/2018 - 17:28 Permalink

Any public servant/government employee choosing to plead the 5th should immediately lose their job, lose their pension, and be permanently barred from future service.....

MuffDiver69 SantaClaws Tue, 07/03/2018 - 17:37 Permalink

It’s coming to a head. This will be interesting here :

Doesn't look like Judge Sullivan was satisfied with Mueller's explanation for kicking the can down the road. Wants to see @GenFlynn in court on July 10 

This is big: in response to today's motion, the Court has, on its own, set the matter for a status hearing. 

>General Flynn will be in attendance.


July 10. Mark your calendars.


In reply to by SantaClaws

MuffDiver69 Tue, 07/03/2018 - 17:35 Permalink

The comedy of the number four in FBI and the idiot who was in charge of counter-intel pleading the fifth in front of Congress...Drag this scumbags ass up there no matter what and ridicule his stupid ass. I would have my staffers hold pictures of Lisa Page on one side and his family on the other...what a piece of shit.