If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll have started wondering by now just what exactly the FBI investigation into possible (Democrats would say probable) collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government operatives has morphed into. Because with lead investigator Bob Mueller pronouncing former (and fired) National Security Adviser Michael Flynn a liar, the state’s star witness has lost any credibility to “testify” against his former employers.
But there’s something even weirder going on, and it involves an agent on Mueller’s investigation team with a proven partisan favoritism toward Hillary Clinton (a quality he shared with both his wife AND his mistress — who also worked for Mueller), who was still tasked with interviewing Hillary in the secret-server email investigation, subsequently changed the language in former FBI Director Comey’s report to something decidedly less litigious regarding Lady Clinton’s culpability in that investigation, and was a major player in the Russian collusion investigation until he was fired by Mueller for sending highly partisan texts and emails celebrating Hillary to his lawyer mistress (the exact contents of which have yet to be revealed).
His name is Peter Strzok. And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) — and everyone else who has been paying attention — wants to know just who the heck this guy is and why he was given the tasks he was given in light of his anti-Trump personal political position. Grassley called Wednesday for all documents related to Strzok, which the FBI has been reluctant to turn over.
“To date, the FBI has failed to comply with previous, broader Committee requests that called for records relating to the communications of Stzrok and others regarding Director Comey’s controversial public statement during last year’s Presidential election,” Grassley wrote in a press release Wednesday.
But here’s maybe the weirdest part, and it’s a question originally posed by Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller and reiterated in a hearing Thursday wherein current FBI Director Christopher Wray tried to explain the behavior of the agency:
Strzok isn’t the only agent who was openly pro-Clinton, so why did Mueller eventually have him removed (and some say demoted) after his texts to his mistress were discovered? From the Daily Caller:
Another unanswered mystery in the text message scandal is why Strzok’s politically-biased comments would be so problematic for Mueller given that many of the lawyers working under him have showed their political leanings in other ways.
At least nine of Mueller’s prosecutors have donated to Democratic political candidates. And all of the legal actions taken so far in Mueller’s investigation have involved pro-Democrat prosecutors.
The lawyers working the money laundering case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate, Rick Gates, have donated to Obama’s presidential campaigns.
Andrew Weissmann, a veteran Justice Department prosecutor, gave $2,300 to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. He donated $2,000 to the DNC in 2006. Andrew Goldstein, who is working the case with Weissmann, contributed $3,300 to Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012.
And Ross lays out at least 4 more instances of agency bias. So, was there some other reason to let Peter Strzok go?
Grassley wants answers by next Wednesday. But I think it’s fair to say this is no longer an investigation into Trump campaign/Russia collusion.