Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) went off on anti-Trump FBI agent Peter Strzok during some intense testimony before Congress Thursday, slamming the FBI official over his political bias before and during the 2016 presidential election.
Gowdy was demanding answers from Strzok regarding his removal from Robert Mueller’s Russia probe when the exchange went off the rails; asking him “How long did you talk to him when he let you go?” Strzok denied accusations from Gowdy that he was thrown off the Mueller team over his bias in his text messages to his girlfriend (that his wife didn’t know about).
Strzok assured Gowdy that he doesn’t have bias, and that his personal opinions never enter into his professional conduct. Yeah, and I’m Chon Wang from the Shanghai Noon series.
If he didn’t have a bias then why did agent Strzok write Hillary Clinton’s exoneration letter before he ever interviewed her or any of the other witnesses in the case? There’s an incredible amount of bias right there.
Things got heated when Trey Gowdy grilled Peter Strzok on his text message correspondence with Lisa Paige pic.twitter.com/m4jEBvZQzM
— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 12, 2018
“My recollection it was a short meeting, somewhere between 15 to 30 minutes, probably around 15 minutes,” Strzok said.
“And your testimony is: Bob Mueller did not kick you off because of the content of your texts; he kicked out you off because of some appearance he was worried about,” Gowdy asked.
“If you want to represent what you said accurately I’m happy to answer that question, but I don’t appreciate what was originally said being changed,” shot back Strzok.
“I don’t give a damn what you appreciate Agent Strzok,” Gowdy said. “I don’t appreciate having an FBI agent with an unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016.”
Democrats participating in the hearing acted as Strzok’s defense attorney often shouting things like, “Asked and answered, Mr. Chairman,” whenever a followup question needed to be asked due to what seemed like Strzok being too vague in his replies.